Proposed Rule2025-03399
Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Act of 2018
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 4, 2025
Effective
April 3, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks targeted comment on potential privacy issues related to proposed rules that would require covered text providers to support georouting to ensure that the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (988 Lifeline or Lifeline) may route covered 988 text messages to appropriate local crisis centers.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 41 (Tuesday, March 4, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 4, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11142-11146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-03399]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[WC Docket No. 18-336; DA 25-148; FR ID 281931]
Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Act of 2018
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) of
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks
[[Page 11143]]
targeted comment on potential privacy issues related to proposed rules
that would require covered text providers to support georouting to
ensure that the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (988 Lifeline or
Lifeline) may route covered 988 text messages to appropriate local
crisis centers.
DATES: Comments are due on or before April 3, 2025, and reply comments
are due on or before April 18, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 18-336,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal Communications Commission's website: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4929797e1e4e094b2b7b7fab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b2d28285e5b5f2b0d0808450c041d">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: 202-418-
0530.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merry Wulff, Attorney Advisor,
Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c885adbabab1e69fbda4aeae88aeababe6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d30180f0f04532a08111b1b3d1b1e1e531a120b">[email protected]</span></a> or at (202) 418-1084.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public
Notice, document DA 25-148, released on February 19, 2025, in WC Docket
No. 18-336.
The full text of the document is available on the Commission's
website at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-148A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-148A1.pdf</a>.
Comment Filing Procedures
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments
should refer to WC Docket No. 18-336. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44222727717470042227276a232b32">[email protected]</a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules
The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act
of 2018, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third FNPRM), 89
FR 91636 (Nov. 20, 2024), included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential
impact on small entities of the Commission's proposals. The Bureau
invites parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of this request
for supplemental comments.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document does not contain proposed new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-13) beyond any already proposed in the Third FNPRM.
Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002
(Pub. L. 107-198) see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), beyond any already proposed
in the Third FNPRM.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act (Pub. L. 118-
9) requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post
online a brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The
required summary of the document is available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Synopsis
In document DA 25-148, the Bureau seeks additional, targeted
comment on potential privacy issues involved in georouting text-to-988
pursuant to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission)
Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Act of 2018, Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third FNPRM), 89 FR 91636 (Nov.
20, 2024). The comments that the Commission has received in response to
the Third FNPRM have raised privacy as an important factor, and we are
providing an opportunity for additional comment to obtain a more
comprehensive record.
[[Page 11144]]
The Commission has long recognized the importance of protecting the
privacy interests of Americans seeking help from the 988 Lifeline. In
recent years, the Commission has sought comment on privacy with respect
to georouting and has taken action to protect the privacy of voice
callers to 988. We continue this effort by seeking further comment on
georouting text-to-988 implications, potential risks, and proposed
safeguards to bolster the privacy and confidentiality of individuals
texting the 988 Lifeline.
Since the Commission designated 988 as the easy-to-remember, three
digit code for the 988 Lifeline, the Commission has engaged with
consumer advocacy groups, wireless providers, partner agencies, and
other industry stakeholders to balance privacy concerns while advancing
the accessibility and effectiveness of 988 Lifeline. We understand the
sensitive nature of individuals' contacts with the 988 Lifeline and
have worked to prevent the erosion of privacy protections or
expectations of confidentiality. In response to privacy concerns
surrounding the use of precise location information and the chilling
effect those concerns may have on potential 988 Lifeline users, the
Commission sought alternative solutions to enhance the 988 Lifeline
while protecting user privacy and confidence in the program. Commission
staff, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),
Vibrant Emotional Health (Vibrant or Lifeline Administrator),
nationwide wireless providers, and other industry stakeholders,
developed, tested, and implemented georouting solutions to direct 988
calls based on a geographic location for the origin of the call without
transmitting information about the caller's precise location. Based on
this collaborative effort and comments received in response to the
Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Act of 2018, Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 89 FR 46340 (May 29, 2024), the
Commission adopted the definition of ``georouting data'' to mean
``location data generated from cell-based location technology that is
aggregated to a level that will not identify the location of the cell
site or base station receiving the 988 call or otherwise identify the
precise location of the handset.'' This definition enables covered
entities to better route calls from 988 Lifeline users while mitigating
potential privacy risks, as it does not require the collection and
transmission of precise location data.
As for voice calls, the 988 Lifeline Administrator, mental health
advocates, providers, and other industry stakeholders continue to
actively engage in voluntary collaborative efforts to identify
technical solutions that leverage the ability to route 988 texts while
maintaining consumer privacy. The Commission continues to prioritize
consumer privacy and confidentiality while supporting industry
collaboration as it develops solutions to improve upon the 988
Lifeline. As such, we invite stakeholders to update the record after
reviewing the specific proposals, underlying analysis, and questions
contained in the Third FNPRM, as well as the existing record in this
proceeding.
Proposed Text-to-988 Georouting Solutions. Commenters put forward
several text-to-988 georouting solutions in response to the Third
FNPRM. We first seek comment on any potential privacy implications
raised by these solutions. CX360, for example, proposes a text-to-988
georouting solution modeled after voice-to-988 georouting solutions, in
which Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers incorporate
location data aggregated using Federal Information Processing Series
(FIPS) code boundaries into their data flows. The FIPS codes are
maintained and assigned by the Census Bureau to identify geographic
areas. The CMRS providers then transmit the text message to a Short
Message Service (SMS) aggregator, which routes the text to an SMS
Gateway ``via a secured communication channel.'' In contrast, Intrado
Life & Safety proposes a text-to-988 georouting solution based on text-
to-911 infrastructure that utilizes Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),
Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP), and HTTP-Enabled Location
Delivery (HELD) protocol, and relies on Text Control Centers (TCCs) to
act as intermediaries between covered text providers and the Lifeline
Administrator. SIP is a protocol that defines a method of establishing
multimedia sessions over the internet. MSRP is a standardized mechanism
for exchanging instant messages using SIP where a server relays
messages between user agents. HELD protocol can be used to acquire
location information within an access network from a Location
Information Server. A TCC is a controlling functional element specified
in a relevant standard for text-to-911. The TCC has the responsibility
to ``(1) convert various protocols and act as a gateway; (2) request
location that may be used for routing; (3) request routing
instructions; and (4) initiate a dialogue with the [Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP)] through the appropriate interworking function
of the TCC. When the TCC receives an initial text message, it obtains
location from the [location server]. It then uses that location to
obtain routing instructions from the [routing server]. Then, the TCC
converts the text message to an appropriate protocol and initiates a
dialogue with the PSAP (via the emergency services network) through the
appropriate interworking function of the TCC.''
We invite commenters to provide additional details on how each of
the proposed text-to-988 georouting solutions transmit location data
throughout the text routing process and to comment on any potential
privacy implications, protections, and considerations. Are there
specific privacy, security, or confidentiality considerations for text-
to-988 georouting solutions that differ from voice-to-988? If so, is
there a particular point in the text flow where such concerns arise?
For example, CX360 asserts that incorporating aggregated location data
early in the data flow will help prevent the transmission of sensitive
location data to downstream parties. The record would benefit to the
extent that commenters can depict points of potential concern in a text
flow in a diagram or other visual description. Should the Commission
consider additional requirements for text-to-988 georouting to protect
the privacy interests of help-seekers? Are the proposed text-to-988
georouting solutions more prone to errors than voice-to-988 georouting
solutions? If so, what privacy implications, if any, are raised by such
errors?
Current State of Text-to-988 Georouting Solutions. Commenters
responding to the Third FNPRM report that voluntary efforts to identify
and develop text-to-988 georouting solutions are ongoing and that a
pilot program or testing will occur in 2025. In response to this Public
Notice, we ask for updates on the status and progress of this work, as
well as additional data, documents, and other information that provide
details about the georouting solutions under development and any
privacy implications. For instance, to what extent do the text-to-988
georouting solutions under development align with or differ from the
georouting solutions proposed in the record? Do the text-to-988
georouting solutions under development contemplate different methods of
identifying a texter's location to generate georouting data, such as
application-level or network-based protocols? What is the current
viability of the georouting solutions in terms of cost and technical
feasibility,
[[Page 11145]]
particularly for small providers, and are there any additional privacy
protections in place that the Commission should consider?
Role of Third Parties. To effectively analyze any text-to-988
georouting solution, the Commission needs to understand the privacy
implications related to the role of CMRS providers, other covered text
providers, SMS aggregators, TCCs, the Lifeline Administrator, and any
other vendors or entities necessary for the solution. The record
developed in response to the Third FNPRM indicates that text-to-988
georouting solutions may require the involvement of more entities than
voice-to-988 georouting solutions. Thus, we ask that commenters
identify with specificity all entities necessary to implement any
proposed text-to-988 georouting solutions, including their roles
throughout the data flow.
We also seek additional comment on the extent to which location
data is shared between CMRS providers and other entities within the
routing process for any proposed text-to-988 georouting solutions. What
degree or resolution of location data must be shared with each specific
entity, for what purposes, and at what point in the data flow? As
discussed above, CX360 proposes a georouting solution that relies on an
SMS aggregator, whereas Intrado Life & Safety proposes to utilize TCCs.
We seek further comment on these proposals, including any potential
privacy implications. For instance, what, if anything, about the 988
texter could be inferred from data shared within the routing process?
How do SMS aggregators and TCCs use, protect, and disclose location
data? What security processes and requirements are in place, or should
be in place, to ensure that location data is secured to protect privacy
throughout the data flow? What entity operates and maintains
responsibility over any necessary communication channels?
Granularity of Georouting Data. We seek further comment on the
granularity of location data necessary for text-to-988 georouting
solutions. The Commission's voice-to-988 georouting rules require CMRS
providers to aggregate location data generated from cell-based
technology to a level that will not identify the location of the cell
site or base station receiving the 988 voice call or otherwise identify
the precise location of the caller's handset. As discussed above, in
adopting the definition of ``georouting data'' that contains these
requirements, the Commission balanced the importance of maintaining the
paramount privacy interests of 988 callers with the need to
expeditiously improve the routing of wireless calls to the Lifeline. In
the Third FNPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt the same definition
of ``georouting data'' for the text-to-988 georouting rules and sought
comment on whether a different definition was more appropriate.
Commenters responding to the Third FNPRM indicate that additional
development and evaluation may be necessary to determine the
appropriate level of granularity of location data for text-to-988
georouting solutions to align with privacy expectations. The Lifeline
Administrator also states that georouting solutions for 988 text
messages will likely rely on broader geographic data than 988 voice
calls. Given these additional details and the fact that approximately
77 crisis centers currently support 988 text messages, we seek further
comment on the necessary resolution of location data for text-to-988
georouting solutions. Are there different privacy considerations
related to the granularity of location data for text-to-988 georouting
solutions? For example, as discussed above, CX360 proposes a georouting
solution that incorporates county-level FIPS codes into text data
flows, either in a message header or by ``some other appropriate
means.'' Are county-level FIPS codes sufficiently generalized to
protect texters' privacy for text-to-988 georouting? Would less
granular geographic boundaries be sufficient to connect texters with
local resources? If so, what geographic boundary should the Commission
consider, and is there a level that would be too broad?
In the Third FNPRM, the Commission also sought comment on whether
the work performed by CMRS providers to deploy text-to-911 could be
leveraged for text-to-988 georouting solutions. Intrado Life & Safety
proposes a text-to-988 georouting solution that leverages text-to-911
infrastructure and identifies two potential methods of obscuring more
precise location data to protect the privacy of texters. The first
method, referred to as the ``dither option,'' involves ``stripping
digits'' from the latitude and longitude of a texter's location, while
the second method requires programming TCCs to convert latitude and
longitude to a FIPS code. We seek comment on this proposal. How
effective are these methods of obscuring location data, and do they
adequately protect the privacy of 988 texters? Can precise location
information still be inferred, and what mechanisms are or should be in
place to prevent more precise location data from being accessed,
disclosed, or misused throughout the data flow?
Privacy and Data Protection Protocols. We also seek additional
comment on any data handling protocols and policies that are in place
or should be in place to protect the privacy and confidentiality of 988
texters, including details regarding data storage, retention, and
access. Commenters responding to the Third FNPRM emphasize the
importance of maintaining texters' privacy to ensure trust in the 988
Lifeline. We invite commenters to provide further detail regarding
existing or proposed administrative, technical, and procedural
safeguards that help maintain texters' privacy throughout the routing
process. For instance, what measures, if any, are in place to encrypt,
anonymize, and secure location data, and how do any such measures help
maintain the privacy of 988 texters? How will CMRS providers, the
Lifeline Administrator, their vendors, and any other entities involved
in the text flow ensure that location data cannot be disclosed or used
for extraneous or unrelated commercial purposes? Do entities involved
in the text flow have safeguards against monetization practices or
unauthorized access by malicious actors, and if so, what are they?
We seek to ensure that our actions with respect to text-to-988
georouting maintain the confidence of individuals in crisis that their
information will remain confidential when communicating with crisis
counselors. Anything less may have a chilling effect on the lifesaving
crisis and suicide prevention services offered by 988 Lifeline. Are
there additional privacy measures we should consider to prevent
unintended chilling effects as the Commission continues to enhance 988
Lifeline through georouting capabilities? We seek comment on whether
georouting for text-to-988 may discourage individuals from seeking
assistance from the 988 Lifeline and if there are solutions that would
minimize any such effects. Specifically, we seek comment on the CPAC
Foundation's recommendation to establish an informed consent process
for 988 Lifeline users wherein the user could determine how much
information they would like to disclose. Could a consent mechanism be
developed as part of the georouting solutions described above? Could it
be incorporated into any text routing protocol? What mechanisms are in
place, or would need to be in place, to ensure meaningful consent or
understanding of georouting data use? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of establishing an
[[Page 11146]]
informed consent process? Is there a way to increase transparency about
what data, if any, is collected? Are there any other issues that the
Commission should consider in its efforts to ensure that the 988
Lifeline has the necessary information to connect help-seekers with
local crisis centers while maintaining 988 texters' privacy and
confidentiality?
Federal Communications Commission,
Trent Harkrader,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2025-03399 Filed 3-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 4, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.