********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the                 
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

                                )
                                )                      FCC 97-51
                                )
                                )
In the Matter of                )
The Use of N11 Codes and Other  )  CC Docket No. 92-105
Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements)
                                )
                                )
                                )
                                )       
                                )

                     FIRST REPORT AND ORDER
           AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING


   Adopted:   February 18, 1997         Released:  February 19, 1997


By the Commission:

Comment Date:            March 31, 1997
Reply Comment Date: April 30, 1997


                         TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                  Paragraph No.


I.   Introduction                                                1
     

II.  Background                                                  4

III. First Report and Order                                      13
     A.   Analysis                                          13
          1.   Jurisdiction/Numbering Authority                       13
               2.   Mandatory Assignment of N11 Codes                 14
               for Provision of Information Services                                 3.   National Assignment of Specific N11 Codes              22
               a.   Background                                   22
               b.   Emergency Services (911)                     23
               c.   Access to Government Services                24
               d.   Access to Repair Services (611)
                    and Business Office Uses (811)                    45
               e.   Directory Assistance (411)                        47
               f.   Access to Telecommunications Relay                                         Services                                49
          4.   Statutory Preemption                                   57
          5.   Other Issues                                      59
               a.   Alternate Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements        59
               b.   Recall Procedures                            63
          6.   Regulatory Flexibility Act                             65
     
IV.  Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking                            66
     A.   Introduction                                           66
     B.   Access to Telecommunications Relay Services                 67
     C.   Sale or Transfer of N11 Codes                          69
     D.   Administration of N11 Codes                            72
     E.   Procedural Matters                                     76
          1.   Ex Parte Presentations                            76
          2.   Regulatory Flexibility Act                             77
     F.   Comment Filing Procedures                                   78

V.   ORDERING CLAUSES                                       81

Appendix A:    Comments Filed on N11 NPRM
Appendix B:    Comments Filed on TRS Petition
Appendix C:    Comments Filed on GSA Petition
Appendix D:    Comments Filed on Department of Justice Request
Appendix E:    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Appendix F:    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis                    I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In 1992, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing
that incumbent local exchange carriers (incumbent LECs) be required to provide abbreviated
dialing arrangements.  "Abbreviated dialing arrangements" are telephone numbers of less than
the standard 7 or 10 digits.  Among abbreviated dialing arrangements, "N11 codes" are 3-digit
telephone numbers of which the first digit may be any digit other than 0 or 1, and the last two
digits are both 1.  Since the N11 NPRM was released, various parties have asked that the
Commission designate N11 codes for a variety of applications, including, for example, to
facilitate network access: (1)  for individuals with hearing or speech disabilities; (2) to
information services; (3) to federal and state government agencies; and (4) to non-emergency
police services.

     2.   Under the amendments to the Communications Act of 1934 (the Act) in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over "those
portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States."  The
Commission also has authority to delegate to "State commissions or other entities all or any
portion of such jurisdiction."  In this First Report and Order, we allow the incumbent LECs, in
addition to the states and Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), to continue to perform the
N11 code administration functions that they performed at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act
amendments to the 1934 Act, until further Commission action.  We also adopt several other
important measures regarding abbreviated dialing arrangements.  Specifically, we respond to a
request for an N11 code that could be dialed to reach non-emergency police services by assigning
311 on a nationwide basis for this purpose.  Wherever 311 is currently in use for other purposes,
however, we would allow that use to continue until the local government in that area was
prepared to activate a non-emergency 311 service.  In this First Report and Order we also
conclude that, as the incumbent LECs can do currently, all providers of telephone exchange
service must be able to have their customers call 611 and 811 to reach their repair and business
service offices.  We also conclude that a LEC may not itself offer enhanced services using a 411
code, or any other N11 code, unless that LEC offers access to the code on a reasonable,
nondiscriminatory basis to competing enhanced service providers in the local service area for
which it is using the code to facilitate distribution of their enhanced services.  Finally we respond
to a request for an N11 code that could be used throughout the nation to reach
telecommunications relay services (TRS) by directing Bellcore to assign 711 on a nationwide
basis for this use.  We decline, however, to:  (1) mandate that N11 numbers be made available for
access to information services;
(2) mandate that an N11 code be designated for access to government agencies; or (3) disturb the
current allocation of various N11 codes for access to emergency services, directory assistance,
and LEC repair and business offices.

     3.   In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) we ask for comment on
the technical feasibility of implementing 711 for TRS access.  We also ask parties:  (1) if it
would be possible to develop within a reasonable time an N11 "gateway" offering access to
multiple TRS providers; (2) whether, with such gateway access, TRS calls would still be
answered within our mandatory minimum standards for TRS answer times; (3) whether such a
gateway would be consistent with Section 255 of the Act; and (4) whether any other important
disability services could be accessed through the same gateway.  Regarding TRS, the FNPRMalso requests comment from interested parties, particularly TRS providers, about the possibility
of providing both voice and text TRS services through the same abbreviated N11 code.  Finally,
we ask for comment on the proprietary nature of N11 codes and on our proposal to transfer the
administration of  N11 codes at the local level from the incumbent LECs to the NANP
administrator.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     4.   Prior to enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act, Bellcore, the
states, the incumbent LECs, and the Commission each performed functions relating to the
administration of N11 codes.  Since the AT&T divestiture, Bellcore has served as the
administrator of the NANP.  Bellcore has assigned N11 codes for national use.  In addition, the
Commission may direct Bellcore to assign an N11 code for national use if the Commission
determines that such a national assignment is appropriate.  Bellcore, in its role as NANP
administrator, has issued specific guidelines addressing the use of N11 codes.  Bellcore has
stated that it has made no additional national assignments in the last few years, pending
resolution of the instant proceeding.  Bellcore guidelines recognize four N11 codes as assigned
for national use:  411 (local directory assistance); 611 (repair service); 811 (business office); and
911 (emergency services).  Bellcore also has stated that the remaining N11 codes, listed as
"unassigned," along with any assigned codes that are not used locally (611 and 811 in some
areas), would be kept available for future assignment by the NANP administrator.

     5.   Bellcore guidelines permit local use of N11 codes provided that such assignments
and use can be discontinued on short notice.  In states where N11 codes have been used locally,
state public utilities commissions have directed the LECs to assign and administer these codes. 
The specific procedures for assignment of N11 codes for local use vary from state to state.  Three
local N11 codes have been assigned for particular uses in at least some LEC service areas (411
for local directory assistance; 611 for LEC repair service; and 811 for LEC business office use).

     6.   The Commission, in the NANP Order, adopted a new model for administration
of the NANP by announcing its intent to establish the North American Numbering Council
(NANC) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  (The NANC held its first meeting on
October 1, 1996).  The NANP Order did not specifically consider the issue of service code
allocation.  In addition to holding that the NANP administrator's existing functions will be
transferred to an entity to be recommended by the NANC, the Commission in the NANP Orderalso held that central office (CO) code administration functions will be transferred from the
LECs to the new NANP administrator to be recommended by the NANC within 18 months after
completion of the transfer of the existing NANP administrative functions from the current NANP
administrator.  The NANC will advise the Commission on numbering issues and also is
charged with recommending and guiding a neutral NANP administrator.  Within the United
States, prior to enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act, twelve regional CO code
administrators handled CO code assignments.  Many LECs serving as CO code administrators
administered N11 codes for local use.

     7.   On March 6, 1992, BellSouth petitioned the Commission to declare that
mandatory assignment of N11 codes for access to information services would be consistent with
the Communications Act and Commission policies.  The petition was prompted by a request
from Cox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox), which had asked BellSouth to assign it an N11 code in Atlanta
for the purpose of offering information services.  On May 4, 1992, the Commission informed
BellSouth that "there appears to be no regulatory or legal impediment prohibiting BellSouth from
currently assigning N11 codes in a reasonable, non-discriminatory manner," which may include,
for example, assigning N11 codes on a first-come, first-service basis.

     8.   On the same day that the Commission issued its letter to BellSouth, the
Commission adopted the N11 NPRM tentatively concluding that:  (1) service codes 211, 311,
411, 511, 611, 711 and 811 should be available for abbreviated dialing (2) N11 codes should be
made available for abbreviated dialing until it is necessary to use the codes as area codes;  (3)
LECs should not be subject to any additional restrictions on how they allocate N11 codes; and 
(4) use of N11 service codes for information services would not result in customer confusion.

     9.   In light of these tentative conclusions, the Commission solicited comment on the
following broad issues:  (1) whether LECs should be able to use 411 for delivery of enhanced
services; (2) whether continued LEC use of 611 and 811 represented an efficient use of limited
numbering resources that served the public interest; (3) whether procedures for recalling N11
codes should be developed; (4) whether three digit dialing should be available for purposes other
than calling enhanced services; (5) whether sale or transfer of N11 codes should be permitted; (6)
whether restrictions should be placed on the manner in which LECs allocate N11 codes if
demand exceeds supply; (7) whether LECs should be permitted to grant a preference to parties
that "propose innovative ways of using the company's network;"
(8) what role state regulators should play in allocating N11 codes if demand exceeds supply; (9)
whether the use of N11 codes for information services results in customer confusion; and (10)
whether it is feasible to require other abbreviated dialing arrangements to be made quickly
available by LECs in lieu of or in addition to requiring them to make N11 codes available.  

     10.  In October 1993, the National Center for Law & Deafness and
Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (NCLD) petitioned the Commission to direct the
assignment or reservation of two uniform N11 numbers.  It requested 711 for access to TRS by
persons with speech and/or hearing disabilities and a second unspecified service code for TRS
access by voice and telephone users.  On October 14, 1993, the Commission released a public
notice describing the petition and requested comments. 

     11.  In March 1994, the General Services Administration (GSA) filed a petition
requesting that an N11 code be reserved to facilitate nationwide public telephone access to
federal executive agencies.  In a similar request, the National Association of State
Telecommunications Directors (NASTD), in an ex parte letter filed in this docket, requested that
a single N11 code be reserved to facilitate public access to state agencies.

     12.  In a letter dated August 26, 1996, the United States Department of Justice's Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services (Department of Justice) asked that an N11 code,
specifically 311, be reserved on a national basis for use by communities for non-emergency
police telephone calls.  The Department of Justice also suggested that the N11 code could be
used to give access to other government services, at the discretion of each jurisdiction.  In a
Public Notice dated September 10, 1996, the Commission sought comment on the Department of
Justice's request.

III.  FIRST REPORT AND ORDER

A.   Analysis

     1.   Jurisdiction/Numbering Authority

     13.   The Act states that, "[t]he Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States." 
Although the Act gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the NANP
that pertain to the United States, the Act also allows the Commission to delegate "to State
commissions or other entities all or any portion of such jurisdiction."  As stated above, prior to
enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act, Bellcore, the states, and the incumbent
LECs each performed functions relating to the administration of N11 codes.  In Implementation
of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No.
96-98, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 96-333 (rel. Aug 8,
1996).  (Local Competition Second Report and Order), the Commission stated:

     [w]e authorize Bellcore to continue to perform its functions as the North
     American Numbering Plan Administrator in the same manner it did at the time of
     enactment of the 1996 Act.  We also allow the incumbent LECs to continue to
     perform the CO code administration functions that they performed at the time of
     enactment of the 1996 Act.  Finally, we allow the states, if they performed any
     number administration functions prior to enactment of the 1996 Act, to continue
     to do so until such functions are transferred to the new NANP administrator.

As noted above, prior to enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act, many LECs
serving as CO code administrators managed N11 codes for local use.  In this First Report and
Order, we also allow the incumbent LECs, therefore, to continue to perform the N11 code
administration functions that they performed at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act
amendments to the 1934 Act.  This is consistent with the Commission's statement in the Local
Competition Second Report and Order that the "transfer of numbering administration functions
will be a complex task, one that cannot be accomplished immediately even on a transitional
basis."

          2.   Mandatory Assignment of N11 Codes for the
               Provision of Information Services

     14.  Background.  The N11 NPRM proposed to require LECs to
assign N11 codes to parties requesting them for information services unless and until it is
necessary to use the N11 numbers as area codes.  The Commission tentatively concluded that
LECs should be permitted to select any reasonable method to allocate N11 codes that would
ensure fair and efficient number allocation.

     15.  Comments.  Commenters are divided on whether LECs should be required to
assign N11 codes for access to information services.  Those supporting the proposal contend that
it would compel LECs to provide the public with convenient access to such services.  N11
access, they argue, would enable information service providers to provide the public with
information of significant local interest quickly and conveniently.  Such ease of access for
consumers, they say, would, in turn, enhance the viability of independent information service
providers, putting them closer to an equal footing with LECs and spurring competition.  Cox
asserts that enhancing competition in information services markets is a long-standing
Commission goal.  In an ex parte presentation, Cox emphasized that commercial uses of N11,
such as information services, which have received wide consumer acceptance, serve the public
interest and therefore necessitate the assignment of an N11 number.  The Alternative
Newspapers contend that N11 codes serve their needs far better than alternate dialing
arrangements, claiming that: (1) N11 provides customers an option that is "easier to remember,
easier to dial, and faster and quicker than seven or ten-digit alternatives;" (2) 900 services are too
expensive for the local information services offered by the alternative newspapers; and (3) the
pricing and terms and conditions of the new 960 service are not know to the alternative
newspapers.  Local government agencies involved in the provision of 911 emergency service
contend that N11 codes should not be available for assignment for commercial purposes, arguing
that such use would cause confusion regarding the use of 911 for emergency service by
increasing the misdials to 911 in nonemergency situations and misdials to other N11 codes in
emergency situations.

     16.   Among LECs filing comments, only BellSouth supports assignment of N11
codes for information services.  BellSouth argues that there is a need for abbreviated dialing for
information services that is not being met under the current NANP.  BellSouth suggests,
however, that permissive allocation of N11 codes would be preferable to mandatory allocation.  
 

     17.  Parties opposing mandatory assignment of N11 codes raise various concerns. 
Some argue that mandatory assignment of N11 codes could disrupt current use of an N11 code in
some geographic areas, while others argue that some LECs utilize older switching equipment
that might not be able technologically either to handle N11 codes or to bill accurately.  Some
parties believe that N11 codes should be reserved for non-commercial public service uses. 
Other objections raised include:  the strong likelihood that demand will exceed supply; the
likelihood of consumer confusion if services using N11 codes vary from area to area; the
difficulty of reclaiming such codes if the Commission later determines that the public interest
requires reclamation; the possible challenges to the Commission's  jurisdiction over codes used
locally; the use of N11 codes as prefixes, platforms, or gateways to reach a menu of service
providers rather than just a single provider; the availability of alternative dialing
arrangements; the likelihood of extensive litigation; the perceived problems caused by
multiple LECs providing N11 codes in a local dialing area; the potential for problems if
interexchange carriers obtain N11 codes; and the problems of implementing call blocking on
pay-per-call N11 numbers.  Some parties also argue that an abbreviated dialing arrangement
(such as an N11 code) is merely a convenience, and is not essential to making information
services available to consumers.

     18.  Many commenters claim that the scarcity of such codes and the many competing
uses for them require that all the remaining N11 codes be devoted to public service uses. 
Possible public service uses include multiple codes for emergency services, special number
services for persons with physical disabilities, and telephone access to federal and state
agencies.  Information service providers urge the Commission not to narrowly define public use
as encompassing only nonprofit entities.  They assert that commercial uses of N11 codes serve
the public interest by providing the public access to information which is difficult for the general
public to obtain. 

     19.  Discussion.  We decline to require LECs to make N11 codes available for
information services at this time.  We anticipate that because only three to five N11 codes will be
available in any given geographic area, demand for each N11 code is likely to exceed supply. 
We agree with Rochester's argument that open assignment of N11 codes is likely to invite
"endless litigation over the reasonableness of an exchange carrier's allocation plan."  According
to Rochester and others, this potentially could draw the Commission into numerous decisions as
to who should receive unassigned N11 codes and for what purpose.  As a result, we believe that
the burden should be on those who urge the Commission to require that LECs assign available
N11 codes to show that the benefits of such a requirement outweigh the costs.  On the record
before us, we are not satisfied that supporters of such a requirement have met this burden.

     20.  The parties offer only conjecture that, from a user's perspective, using N11 codes
significantly enhances the quality of access to information services.  First, although an N11
number for information services may be considered "novel," and might be convenient for some
users, it is by no means essential to making the service available.  Second, even assuming that
consumers do perceive a benefit from such abbreviated dialing arrangements, we find there are
other ways currently available to achieve convenient dialing that do not drain scarce N11
resources.   In New York, for example, information services are assigned a common central
office prefix such as 540 or 970.  As consumers associate these prefixes with information
services, they need remember only the last four digits of an information service provider's
telephone number.  Such dialing arrangements appear to offer the same results as N11 without
the competitive concern of having to decide to whom the codes should be assigned.

     21.  We recognize the concerns expressed by some information service providers that,
absent Commission order, some LECs may unjustly or unreasonably withhold N11 codes for
local information services.  As discussed in the FNPRM below, we propose that the LECs'
functions related to N11 administration be transferred to the neutral NANP administrator to be
recommended by the NANC.   With a neutral administrator, the concerns of the information
service providers should be mitigated.  We also note that when a LEC assigns N11 codes, it must
do so in a reasonable, non-discriminatory manner, such as on a first-come, first-served basis. 
Should, however, there be particular problems related to the availability of one or more N11
codes from a particular LEC serving as the administrator prior to the transfer of functions to a
new NANP administrator, parties can bring these unresolved disputes to our attention by filing a
complaint pursuant to Section 208.  We also are prepared to address specific problems even after
a transfer of N11 code administration to a new entity.  
          3.   National Assignment of Specific N11 Codes

               a.   Background

     22.  The N11 NPRM did not propose to disturb 911's existing designation as a national
code for emergency services nor did it propose to disturb the use of 411 for local directory
assistance.  Currently, 411 directory assistance services are classified as basic or adjunct to basic
services for purposes of the Commission's rules even if those numbers are not presently used in
some geographic areas for those purposes.  In addition, the Commission tentatively concluded: 
(1) that 211, 311, 511, and 711, which, at the time of the N11 NPRM were "apparently not used
at all," should be available for abbreviated dialing; and (2) that the 611 code now used by some
LECs for repair services and the 811 code now used for quick connection to LEC business
offices should also be available for abbreviated dialing. 

               b.   Emergency Services (911)

     23.  As stated above, AT&T designated 911 as a national code for reaching emergency
services.  Commenters generally agree that the current use of 911 for emergency services should
remain unchanged.  We find that use of a national uniform N11 code for this purpose clearly
serves the public interest because end users know that they can dial this code from virtually any
exchange in the country in order to obtain emergency assistance.  Moreover, 911's virtual
ubiquity and long-standing nationwide status as the phone number for quick and easy access to
emergency services along with the absence of equally useful numbers for this important public
purpose, supports its continuing use.  We, therefore, do not intend to alter 911's designation as a
national code.

               c.   Access to Government Services

     24.  Background.  GSA, in its petition, requests that the Commission assign an N11
number for access to federal government agencies.  GSA proposes that callers dialing the GSA
N11 code be connected to a menu of services, and select the federal agency or service desired by
responding to recorded prompts.  GSA also contends that such an N11 assignment would serve
the public interest by providing easy access to the federal government through a uniform
nationwide three-digit code.  NASTD seeks uniform nationwide assignment of an N11 code,
specifically 211, to facilitate public access to state agencies.  NASTD, in comments supporting
its request, argues that such a number would serve the public interest because:  (a) virtually
everyone needs the services of state agencies at one time or another;  (b) state government
institutions and programs would be made more readily available to state citizens; and (c) national
uniformity would enhance accessibility regardless of the state in which a person happens to be
located.  The Department of Justice, in its request, asks that the Commission reserve an N11
number, specifically 311, for use for non-emergency police telephone calls and suggests that the
number could be used to give access to other government services, at the discretion of each
jurisdiction.

     25.  Comments.  While many commenters agree that N11 codes should be assigned for
national public use, and acknowledge the benefit of quick and convenient public access to
government services, commenters are divided on the issue of whether these services warrant a
national N11 assignment.  Several commenters support assignment of a national N11 code for
access to government services.  For example, the City of Dallas (Dallas) "urge[s] the
Commission not only to assign a 3 digit number for national usage of Federal Government
offices, but also one for local government and one for state government use."  In noting that it
is seeking use of an N11 code (preferably 511) for access to its city's services, Dallas asserts that
"use of a simple to dial, easy to remember number will aid in our desire to be more responsive
and accountable to our citizens."  Dallas notes the N11 usage it seeks is similar to that proposed
by GSA.  The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) supports the Commission's proposal to
establish a national N11 code, arguing that such a code would provide greater awareness and
access to its services.  The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) claims that use of
a national N11 code will enable it to more effectively control their emergency preparedness
programs in times of natural disaster.  Further, USDA suggests that the use of an N11 code will
encourage public calls on a more timely basis, thereby increasing efficiency and its ability to
serve the public.  

     26.  Nevertheless, many argue that it would be premature to grant GSA's or NASTD's
request at this time.  MCI and Sprint, for example, argue that the Commission should first
establish a comprehensive policy governing assignment of available N11 codes, including codes
assigned to the government.  NENA expresses concerns about possible public confusion
between N11 codes for emergency and non-emergency government information programs.  As
noted above, in opposing assignment of N11 codes for commercial purposes, several agencies
also express concern about confusion with 911.  Several of these parties ask that the Commission
not allow any new N11 code assignments, or in the alternative, if the Commission decides to
allow new assignments, limit the new assignments to access to public service and governmental
entities.  The Caddo Parish Communications District Number One (Caddo Parish) cautions that
if the Commission grants the GSA and NASTD requests, close cooperation will be needed
between local governments operating 911 emergency systems and all Federal and State agencies
participating in the use of the N11 number.  There is also concern expressed that there are
numerous technical and cost issues that must be resolved before abbreviated codes can be
implemented.  For example, BellSouth notes that the N11 use contemplated by GSA has not yet
been tested.  GSA responds that alleged technical and other barriers are not insurmountable and
that, in any event, it does not envision a "flash cut" to ubiquitous nationwide access to its
proposed information services.  Finally, the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee
(Ad Hoc) argues that the GSA request, as well as the state requests, should be denied.  Ad Hoc
suggests that the Commission act expeditiously to ensure that N11 codes are allocated on a
uniform national basis and acknowledges that an N11 code may provide users with the benefits
of ease and recognition.  Ad Hoc argues, nonetheless, that GSA fails to demonstrate a
compelling need for the assignment.

     27.  Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. (Acadian), a privately-owned ambulance
service in Louisiana using 311 since August 1, 1994, supports the Commission's proposal in the
N11 NPRM that LECs be required to provide abbreviated dialing arrangements.  Acadian states
that customer confusion will not result from the use of abbreviated dialing arrangements, but
requests that the Commission provide grandfathering preferences for medical communications
systems "that are already saving lives on existing N11 service code authorizations."  Acadian
requests that the grandfathering include retaining existing medical and emergency services' use
of N11 codes as authorized by other governmental bodies, such as state public service
commissions, and requiring recall of N11 codes used for emergency services (after a minimum
one-year notice period) only after the recall of those used for other services.  According to
Acadian, these grandfathering preferences are warranted because of the life-saving services
provided by emergency communications systems such as Acadian's.  Several local government
agencies involved in the provision of 911 emergency service, while requesting that the
Commission not allow any new N11 code assignments, assert that if the Commission decides to
allow new assignments, the new assignments should be limited to access to public service and
governmental entities.

     28.  Many parties filing comments in response to the Department of Justice's request
for assignment of 311 for non-emergency police calls support that request.  For example,
asserting that their 911 systems have been overloaded by calls that may not be of an emergency
nature, various fire departments across the country filed comments supporting national
assignment of 311 as beneficial to their ability to deliver emergency services.  Asserting the
need to reduce the number of calls placed to 911, various police departments and
associations, as well as the National Sheriff's Association and the National Troopers
Coalition, support the Department of Justice's request.

     29.  The Maryland Public Service Commission (MDPSC) filed comments supporting
the request in which it asserts that 911 is overburdened in many jurisdictionsand provides
information about the two-year trial in Baltimore (Baltimore 311 Trial), which commenced on
October 2, 1996, and in which individuals in the City of Baltimore may dial 311 for access to
non-emergency police services.  The MDPSC asks that if the Commission does not grant the
request that we refrain from taking action that would compromise the Baltimore 311 Trial.

     30.  Several commenters, while supporting assignment of a non-emergency number,
express concern about issues related to implementation.  These concerns include issues such as
routing, translation programming, funding and technical compatibility with existing 911
systems.  For example, APCO argues that addition of this number may cause problems for
development of wireless location technology for 911 services.  CBT cautions that nationwide
implementation of 311 will necessitate translation programming in central offices so that 311
calls that are translated into a standard seven-digit number in the central office switches will ring
to the corresponding local law enforcement agency.  The County of Los Angeles expresses
concerns about expenditures, staffing and technical compatibility with 911 systems, such as
Automatic Location Identification (ALI) and Automatic Number Identification (ANI).  The
Los Angeles Police Department contends, for example, that: a national non-emergency N11
number should be supported by the same network selective routing system as E911/911 to ensure
appropriate routing of  non-emergency and emergency calls; the non-emergency calls should be
supported with full ANI and ALI, provided through the same database platform; and in the future
network, as with 911 calls, 311 calls should be routed using signalling system 7 over the public
switched telephone network instead of on dedicated trunking.   The Texas DIR supports the
request, with the stipulation that a local jurisdiction could provide access to other government
information and services, but asserts that the FCC must first consider such things as the
possibility of adverse impacts to 911 and that access to government information should include
all levels of government and both voice and data information.  The Texas DIR expresses
concern that the Justice Department proposal does not address funding, noting that for the
Baltimore 311 project, the Justice Department has provided $350,000 dollars to the City of
Baltimore for the two-year project and that AT&T has donated phone lines and invested over $1
million in the program.

     31.  Parties also raise concerns about the ability to analyze the results of the Baltimore
311 Trial prior to the Commission's making a determination in this proceeding.  Several other
parties suggest that it is premature to make a determination that 311 should be assigned for non-
emergency police calls, claiming, for example, that the issue should be referred to industry
fora, that the Commission should subject the issue to further scrutiny in the context of a
broader review of abbreviated dialing arrangements, and that alternative dialing arrangements
such as 800 and seven-digit or ten-digit numbers should be considered.  Several parties
opposing the Department of Justice's request also cite available 800, seven-digit and ten-digit
alternatives.

     32.  Parties opposing the Department of Justice's request include entities currently
assigned 311 for local use, several state 911 communications centers, the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA)/National Association of State Nine One One Administrators
(NASNA) (collectively, National 911 Commenters), and the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, Inc., and International Municipal Signal Association (collectively, International Fire
Chiefs/Municipal Signal).  Many parties opposing the Department of Justice's request cite
implementation concerns, suggest education efforts as an alternative, and caution that
implementation of a non-emergency number prior to ubiquitous 911 service would be
detrimental to efforts to make it so.

     33.  The National 911 Commenters oppose the Department of Justice request, arguing,
for example, that 911 networks in most of the country are not overloaded; time and speed
dialing are not important in non-emergency situations; N11 numbers, unlike seven-digit and ten-
digit numbers (such as 800 numbers) are scarce; implementation is costly; and there are wide
local variations of use of N11 numbers, which, in some cases are causing confusion for 911
callers.  The National 911 commenters ask whether national uniformity is superior to local
choice and also contend that the Commission must consider that there are  other pending requests
for N11 numbers.  The State of New York Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), while
supporting the concept of a national non-emergency police N11 number, opposes the use of 311
for this purpose because this code is used in New York state by individuals with hearing or
speech disabilities to access New York State Police emergency services.  NYNEX also
opposes the particular use of 311 for the same reason, but, unlike NYSDPS, opposes the use of
an N11 code for this purpose generally, on the grounds that it may be too easily confused with
911.  NYNEX suggests, as an alternative, an interchangeable numbering plan area (INPA)
three digit code such as 222, 333, 444, 777 or 933, and any conflicts between the INPA and an
NXX could be resolved through "interdigital dialing" by having switches programmed to
determine whether an NXX is dialed after the INPA.  Other opponents, like NYNEX, cite
possible confusion with 911 as a reason not to choose 311 as a non-emergency police number. 
The City of Fresno, California Chief of Police (Fresno Police Chief), while not objecting to a
national three digit number for non-emergency police calls, contends that the national number
should not have any of the numbers contained in 911, and suggests, for example, a number such
as 333.  The Fresno Police Chief also suggests that the national number should not be mandatory
and that if it is, "legislation be passed to fund the cost of establishing and maintain[ing] the non-
emergency telephone system."  Costs of upgrading the network and funding issues are raised
not only by opponents of the Department of Justice's request but also by its supporters who
express concern about implementation of 311.

     34.  Several other parties note current uses of 311.  Acadian Ambulance and AIR
MED Services of Louisiana (Acadian et. al.), while generally supporting the non-emergency
number effort, opposes the selection of 311, which it has been using since March 1994 to provide
rural ambulance service in Louisiana.  Acadian et al. requests that the Commission, if it chooses
311 as a national non-emergency number, direct the Louisiana PSC to award Acadian a
replacement number.  The Kentucky Department of Transportation (Kentucky DOT) and the
Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT), while both supporting the assignment of a
national non-emergency N11 number, object to the choice of 311 because each uses that number
in its state for traffic information.  The Ohio DOT cites its current cellular use of the number and
pending request for landline use for the Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management and
Information System (ARTIMIS), a traffic management system that according to the Ohio DOT
has been very successful.  The Kentucky DOT states that it views N11 as a scarce numbering
resource that should be assigned for public, rather than private projects, but contends that it has
spent much money, including a "business opportunity" fee of $45,000.00 per year to Cincinnati
Bell Telephone Company (CBT), for its use of 311.  The Kentucky DOT suggests 611 as an
appropriate number, contending that very few telephone customers actually know that this
number can be used for telephone company repair calls.  CBT, although expressing
implementation concerns and noting the Kentucky DOT's current use of 311, supports the
Department of Justice's request.  Morris Communications Corporation (Morris) of Augusta,
Georgia, opposes the request because the company uses 311 in three cities in Georgia and one in
Florida as a pay-per-call number providing updates on, for example, news, sports and
entertainment.  Morris requests that a different three digit code be used, suggesting that 811
might be better because it immediately precedes 911.  Finally, Morris states that it would
investigate whether its legal rights would be infringed by a "taking" of the 311 number.

     35.  Discussion.  We find assignment of a national number through which the public
could gain access quickly to non-emergency police and other government services to be in the
public interest.  After reviewing the record, we conclude that this number should be an N11 code,
specifically 311.  We direct Bellcore, as of the effective date of this First Report and Order, in its
capacity as NANP administrator, to assign 311 for this purpose.  When a provider of
telecommunications services receives a request from an entity (for example a local police chief
or local fire chief) to use 311 for access to non-emergency police and other government services
in a particular jurisdiction, it must ensure that, within six months of the request:  (1) entities that
were assigned 311 at the local level prior to the effective date of this First Report and Orderrelinquish non-compliant uses; and  (2) it takes any steps necessary (for example reprogramming
switch software) to complete 311 calls from its subscribers to a requesting 311 entity in its
service area.

     36.  We find that use of an N11 code for access to non-emergency police services
could alleviate congestion on 911 circuits, which could permit more effective operation of 911
emergency services.  By promoting the safety of life and property, ensuring the public prompt
access to emergency services is consistent with the purpose stated in Section 1 of the Act.  In
determining not to alter 911's designation as a national code for emergency services, we have
already noted that the use of 911 for this purpose "clearly serves the public interest because end
users know that they can dial this code from virtually any exchange in the country in order to
obtain emergency assistance."  Therefore, ensuring that 911 circuits are not overburdened with
non-emergency calls is also of utmost importance.  Eventually, the use of a single N11 code
nationwide for non-emergency calls will let callers know that they can dial this code from any
exchange (to obtain necessary governmental services) without hampering others' access to 911
for emergencies.  We also are confident that local education programs will help ensure that
members of communities become aware of:  (1) the new non-emergency number and its primary
purpose;  (2) the importance of continuing to dial 911 in real emergencies;  and (3) any
secondary uses for the new code in the particular jurisdiction.

     37.  We also leave with local jurisdictions in the first instance the discretion to
determine whether 311 should be used locally to reach other government services, as the
Department of Justice has suggested.  Local jurisdictions can better determine whether this
code could or should be used for access to services in addition to non-emergency police services. 
We find that state public utilities commissions, in conjunction with state and local governments,
can address any conflicting requests for use of 311 (for example situations in which city and
county law enforcement agencies both request 311 implementation in the same geographic area)
better than us.

     38.  The record indicates that 311 is being used in several jurisdictions.  Our decision
to allow other uses of the 311 code to continue for a reasonable period will ensure that there is no
unreasonably abrupt disruption of those uses.  We expect that, in ensuring relinquishment of non-
compliant uses of 311 as required above, providers of telecommunications services also ensure
that this occurs with the least disruption possible to the user's business.  We are particularly
concerned that there be no confusion for individuals with hearing or speech disabilities who
currently use 311 to access emergency services in the State of New York.  Our decision to allow
non-compliant uses to continue until six months after a request is made to use 311 for non-
emergency services in a particular jurisdiction will provide the State of New York additional
time: (1) to educate users with hearing and speech disabilities about the future unavailability of
311 for emergency services; and (2) to ensure that 911 and other emergency services are directly
accessible by users with disabilities, as required by regulations implementing the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

     39.  While we acknowledge that many commenters raise concerns about using 311 for
non-emergency police calls (citing the possibility of user confusion with 911, technical issues
related to implementation, costs, funding and the potential effects on the 911 system), we find,
nonetheless, that the benefits of a national N11 assignment for non-emergency calling in those
communities choosing to use 311 will outweigh the implementation concerns, which are most
appropriately addressed by local governments.  This national assignment is intended to reduce
the burden on 911 circuits, when needed, by providing an easy-to-remember number for such
use.  We realize, as the National 911 Commenters assert, that not all 911 circuits are congested. 
Local governments are best suited to determine the need for relief of their 911 systems from non-
emergency calling, and therefore, whether to avail themselves of the ability, made easier by this
national assignment, to request 311 implementation in their respective jurisdictions.  Several
parties suggest that prior to considering 311 for non-emergency calling, the Commission should
focus on making ubiquitous 911 emergency calling.  As noted above, thirty years ago, AT&T
designated 911 for access to emergency services, and this First Report and Order declines to alter
this designation for 911.  Decisions to implement 911 service continue to be made locally.  We
do not require local jurisdictions to implement 911 because they are best fit, as they are with 311,
to determine the need for it.

     40.  Some of the concerns that lead certain parties to suggest alternatives to a national
N11 number for non-emergency calls, such as a three digit number without "11" as the last two
digits (such as 222), an 800 number, or a seven-digit number, are the same reasons that have
led us to find an N11 number superior to those alternatives: namely, the similarity to 911.  While
it may be technically possible to implement the alternatives above, the similarity between an N11
number and 911 will make the non-emergency number both easy to remember and easy to use,
thus resulting in greater reduction of non-emergency calls on 911 emergency circuits.  We are
confident that, to lessen the possibility of confusion between 311 and 911, local education
programs in jurisdictions requesting 311 service, will focus on the importance of continuing to
dial 911 in real emergencies.  If a local government concludes that an alternative number is
working well for non-emergency calling, it may decide not to request 311 implementation.  Our
assignment leaves the choice to local governments.

     41.  We deny requests that current non-compliant uses of 311 at the local level be
grandfathered.  Grandfathering existing uses would make it impossible for a local government, in
a jurisdiction that may need to relieve overburdened 911 circuits and in which 311 is already
assigned for non-compliant uses to choose to use 311 to obtain that relief.  We note, however,
that uses of 311 for other purposes prior to the effective date of this First Report and Order may
continue until the local government in that area is prepared to activate a non-emergency 311
service.  Our actions here are consistent with existing Bellcore guidelines permitting local use of
N11 codes provided that such assignments and use can be discontinued on short notice.  The
need to provide relief, in a timely fashion, when 911 circuits become congested with non-
emergency calls makes it unreasonable for us to defer implementation issues to industry fora.

     42.  States and local governments may deploy 311 through their 911 centers or devise
alternative procedures for routing and answering 311 calls.  We acknowledge that a provider of
telecommunications services may incur certain costs (for example, in reprogramming switch
software) to enable implementation of 311.  Since 311 calls, like 911 calls, are typically
intrastate, states would regulate cost recovery in most instances.  Funding of 311 service also is
a local issue.

     43.  The wireless industry expresses concern about costs and other implementation
issues.  CTIA, while supporting nationwide reservation of 311 for non-emergency police
telephone calls, contends that the Commission must define the scope of 311 service so that
CMRS providers are technically capable of providing the service.  CTIA states that the
Commission should, therefore, address how calls would be routed and terminated.  CTIA
emphasizes that 311 non-emergency service is separate and distinct from 911 emergency service
and argues, therefore, that carriers should not be required to provide the same features or the
same terms for 311 service that they do for 911 emergency service (for example, carriers should
be able to provide 311 service for a fee).  We agree with CTIA that 311 should be used to
provide a non-emergency service that is distinct from 911 service.  For this reason, it is not our
intention by this First Report and Order to impose the same types of obligations on wireless
providers with regard to 311 service as we did with regard to 911 service.

     44.  We deny GSA's request to assign an N11 code specifically for access to federal
government services.  Even though they are not 911 emergency situations, we find an element of
urgency likely attaching to calls to police that is lacking when the public is seeking access to
other governmental services.  There are other easily remembered numbers available from toll free
dialing codes that could give the public prompt and easy access to services for which there is not
the urgency associated with calls to local police.  We note, however, that the discretion we give
local governments to use 311 for other government service access, in addition to non-emergency
police access, grants in part NASTD's request for national assignment of an N11 code to
facilitate public access to state agencies.               d.   Access to Repair Services (611)
                    and Business Office Uses (811)

     45.  Some LECs currently use 611 and 811 to facilitate repairs and other customer
services.  Use of these two codes, however, appears to be far less ubiquitous than use of 411 for
directory assistance and 911 for emergency services.  For example, unlike 911 emergency
service, LECs may use 611, 811, or other unassigned N11 codes for other local services.  Several
LECs that currently use 611, 811, or both for customer services and internal functions request
that they be allowed to continue to use these N11 codes.  Because the record does not support
reassignment of either of these N11 codes, we conclude that these two codes may continue to be
used for their present purposes until one or both of them is needed for other national purposes.

     46.  With multiple LECs in the local market, access to these codes for repair and
business office uses by only one facilities-based carrier serving that market would be
anticompetitive.  The possibility of anticompetitive effects is not an issue with respect to other
facilities-based carriers because 811 and 611 are only used within a carrier's own network. 
Therefore, a facilities-based LEC can use one or both of these codes even if it is already being
used by another LEC.  In an effort to ensure that no facilities-based LEC gains an unfair
advantage over its competitors, we conclude that: (1) all providers of telephone exchange service,
both incumbents and new market entrants, whether facilities or non facilities-based providers of
telephone exchange service, should be enabled to use the 611 and 811 codes for repair services
and business office uses as the incumbent LECs do now; and
(2) by dialing these N11 numbers, customers should be able to reach their own carriers' repair or
business services.  These conclusions are consistent with the Act's requirement that all LECs
permit competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service to have
nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers.               e.   Directory Assistance (411)     

     47.  Like 911 for access to emergency services, 411 has long been assigned for access
to local directory assistance services.  Because directory assistance queries are often made while
travelling away from one's regular residence or place of business, a short, easy-to-recall, uniform
nationwide code would be very useful for obtaining telephone numbers.  For these reasons, we
find continued use of 411 to call local directory assistance services justified by public
convenience and necessity.  Accordingly, as we proposed in the N11 NPRM, we do not alter the
assignment of the 411 code.  The number 555-1212, like 411, is a nationally-recognized number
for directory assistance.  U S WEST, in its comments, noted:

     The 555 central office code, or prefix, is generally used for access to LEC
     directory assistance services.  Typically, an end user dials 1+555-1212 to reach
     his/her LEC's 'local' directory assistance service.  For directory assistance for an
     area code different than the area code from which the call originates . . . the end
     user dials 1-[area code]-555-1212.

U S WEST suggests expanding the 555 prefix to information service providers.  U S WEST
suggests that "to avoid potential conflicts with existing directory assistance services, it might be
useful to reserve the 555-1XXX series of numbers for directory information and related
services."  The Commission, in the recent Local Competition Second Report and Order,
concluded that no Commission action was necessary "with respect to the ability of customers to
reach directory assistance services through 411 or 555-1212 arrangements" and decided not to
require any alternatives to these two codes for access to directory assistance.  By concluding here
that the assignment of 411 for such local services should continue, we do not intend to foreclose
the use of 555-XXXX or any other dialing arrangements for such services.

     48.  In view of reports that some LECs were planning to use 411 for new information
service offerings that would be classified as enhanced services under our rules, the N11 NPRMsought comment on whether LEC use of 411 should be restricted to the provision of traditional
directory assistance services.  Several commenters argue that we should link a decision to
allow a particular LEC to provide enhanced services through 411 with a decision to direct
assignment of N11 codes to information service providers competing with that LEC.  Others
argue that 411 should always be restricted to basic directory assistance.  While we encourage
LECs to expand the range of services they offer to the public, we recognize the possible
competitive advantage that LECs would be given if they were able to use N11 codes for their
enhanced services offerings.  We conclude, therefore, that a LEC may not itself offer enhanced
services using a 411 code, or any other N11 code, unless that LEC offers access to the code on a
reasonable, nondiscriminatory basis to competing enhanced service providers in the local service
area for which it is using the code to facilitate distribution of their enhanced services.  LECs
offering enhanced services through the use of an N11 code are subject to rules designed to
protect against discrimination and possibly other anticompetitive conduct.  Moreover, the Bell
Operating Companies (BOCs) are subject to additional safeguards pursuant to Computer III. 
For example, BOCs offering such services today must file and receive approval of comparably
efficient interconnection (CEI) plans.  Such measures will help ensure that competing
enhanced service providers will have access to basic transmission facilities on an unbundled and
functionally equivalent basis.  These conclusions are also consistent with the Act's
requirements that all LECs permit competing providers of telephone exchange service and
telephone toll service to have nondiscriminatory access to directory assistance and to telephone
numbers, and that BOCs, before they are permitted to offer in-region, interLATA services,
must show that the access or interconnection they offer to other telecommunications carriers
includes, among other things, nondiscriminatory access to directory assistance services.

               f.   Access to Telecommunications Relay Services

     49.  Background.  NCLD's petition requests that two N11 numbers be assigned or
reserved for TRS access.  It states that under the ADA, common carriers are required to
provide TRS, a telephone transmission service designed to provide persons with speech or
hearing disabilities functionally equivalent access to the telephone network.  NCLD argues that
assignment of N11 numbers will facilitate TRS access and thus further the goals of the ADA. 
NCLD states that variations among and within states in the TRS numbers assigned make access
to the relay service confusing and difficult.  NCLD also states that access can be especially
difficult for TTY users because they cannot directly call directory assistance, and thus cannot
easily determine the local relay number.  In addition, NCLD argues that an N11 number would
significantly reduce the number of digits that must be dialed when placing a relay call.  NCLD
explains that many relay centers have an eleven digit 800 number, and that as many as twenty-
one digits (eleven to reach the relay center, and ten to reach the final destination) may be needed
to complete a call.  Finally,  NCLD notes that while a majority of states use two numbers for
relay access, one for access by TTY users and one for access by voice users, approximately
seventeen states use only one number for both TTY and voice callers.  

     50.  Comments.  Most commenters support reservation or assignment of a nationwide
N11 code for TRS access.  Commenters agree that a uniform N11 code will reduce confusion,
provide quicker dialing and promote TRS use. 

     51.  States filing comments generally support assignment of nationwide N11 codes for
TRS access.  In particular, the Attorney General of  the State of Illinois (Illinois) supports the
allocation of both 711 and a second N11 number to access TRS on a nationwide basis.  Texas,
relying on the ADA, states that it believes that a nationwide assignment of N11 codes for TRS is
appropriate.  The Florida Public Service Commission (Florida), however, while noting that it
does not oppose the assignment of 711 and the use of another N11 code for access to TRS
systems, observes that its investigation of the use of N11 codes, in which it decided not to
reserve N11 codes for TRS access,  has revealed that "other numbers such as 555-XXXX or 1-
800-XXX-XXXX could be better suited and more easily converted to TRS access."  Florida
asserts that any Commission rulemaking should "address N11 access in comparison with other
potential access arrangements . . . ."

     52.  LECs generally favor reservation of a single N11 code for TRS access, but
question whether an N11 assignment is appropriate at this time.  Commenters supporting an
N11 reservation, rather than assignment, generally argue that a number of policy and technical
issues must be resolved before a nationwide N11 code for TRS can be implemented.  Bell
Atlantic states that a dialing arrangement that automatically routes all TRS callers to a single
TRS provider would place other TRS providers at a competitive disadvantage.  GTE warns
that a "flashcut" to N11 access, on either a nationwide or statewide basis, would require a heavy
commitment of resources, would be difficult to coordinate, and would create network problems
during implementation and testing.  GTE suggests that industry fora could resolve technical
issues and could establish a state by state schedule for implementation.

     53.  Noting that N11 codes are a scarce resource, several parties suggest alternative
solutions such as a uniform nationwide 800 number, 555-XXXX number, or 950-XXXX number
for TRS access.  Cox contends that technical and operational issues render N11 numbers
unsuitable for providing uniform access to relay service in the near future.  Cox, in its
December 12, 1995, ex parte presentation, reiterated its position that there should be no N11
numbers reserved for national use for access to TRS.  Cox presented three general reasons for
its position:  (1)  N11 cannot provide "ubiquity" in that it would not be possible to make the code
available to all subscribers, regardless of their location;  (2)  N11, because of the needed
modifications in switches around the country, is too expensive for such a non-commercial use;
and (3)  N11 is best suited for purely local services because, for example, current network
architectures support such use, and there are no comparable resources available for local services. 
Cox asserts that 800 service would and should be made available for TRS access.   Cox notes
that 800 service is designed for regional and nationwide coverage.  It asserts that,  especially with
800 number portability, a national 800 number for TRS access would be ubiquitous and much
less expensive than an N11 number.  U S WEST asserts that "it is clear that not all U S WEST
end offices have the capability to replace the current 800 numbers [through which it accesses
service arrangements to route TRS calls] with a 711 telephone number."  U S WEST suggests
that, until technical issues are resolved, "the industry should promote the deployment of a single
national 800 telephone number that can direct calls to the nearest TRS bureau."  It asserts that
with a national 800 number using geographic routing, each originating call would go to the
nearest TRS provider.  As noted above, Florida, while stating that it does not oppose the
assignment of 711 and the use of another N11 code for access to TRS systems, suggests the need
for a Commission investigation into alternatives to an N11 code, such as an 800 number. 

     54.  Other parties, however, assert that an 800 number, necessitating dialing many
digits, is not a viable alternative to an N11 number for TRS access.  Illinois, for example, states
that an 800 number necessitates dialing 17 digits, thus doubling the length of time to dial, and
adds that currently each state has one or more different telephone numbers to access TRS. 
Illinois asserts that the existence of multiple numbers may pose difficulties for those travelling to
various states:

     In Illinois, for example, voice users and TTY users of  the TRS must dial one of
     two 1-800 numbers to access TRS.  If a person who is severely hard of hearing,
     deaf, or has speech disabilities travels from another state to Illinois and attempts
     to make a telephone call using TRS, he/she must know the 1-800 number or know
     someone who knows the number or must have access to a current telephone book,
     because one can only reach directory assistance (411) through the relay service,
     not directly by TTY.  This is especially frustrating for those who travel to many
     different states.

The State of Wisconsin, Department of Health and Social Sciences (Wisconsin), in advocating
reservation of an N11 number for TRS, expresses concern that currently "deaf/hard of hearing
and speech impaired users of the relay [service] must dial a 11-digit (800) number to access the
service, then enter the 7 or 10-digit number they wish to call."  According to Wisconsin, this
necessity fails to provide "equal access in telecommunications."  The Triangle Association of the
Deaf (Triangle) notes a similar problem with the use of 1-800 numbers for access to TRS: "often
more than 17 numbers must be dialed before reaching the called party, which can double the
length of time on the line needed to dial for relay users."   NCLD, in its reply comments, refers
to the  Commission proceeding that resulted in its July 26, 1991 issuance of rules implementing
title IV of the ADA.  Those rules imposed minimum guidelines regarding TRS service:

     [i]ncluded within the reply comments of [over 70 organizations submitting
     comments to the FCC] was a request that access to relay services be made
     available through a single 800 nationwide telephone number set aside through the
     North American Numbering Plan.  The Commission responded that because 800
     numbers are assigned to particular carriers, it did not find it feasible to establish a
     single, nationwide relay number at that time.  Nevertheless, even then, the
     Commission recognized the benefits of a universal number: 'We encourage state
     systems and all other relay providers to use numbers that are easy for consumers
     to remember and would further the goal of nationwide access . . . .'

          55.  Discussion.  We conclude that an N11 code, specifically 711, should be assigned
for TRS use.  We agree with parties asserting that certain issues related to technical and
operational capability, cost, and competition, must be resolved before a nationwide N11 code for
TRS access can be implemented.  We address such issues in the FNPRM.  We tentatively
conclude that nationwide implementation of 711 for TRS access should occur within three years
of the effective date of this First Report and Order and we seek comment on this proposal.  Three
800-855-XXXX numbers have been allocated for TRS access by the Industry Carriers
Compatibility Forum (ICCF) of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions.  In
the FNPRM, we state that we do not anticipate any conflict between allowing activation of the
800-855-XXXX numbers and the later implementation of a 711 code for access by individuals
with hearing or speech disabilities to TTY.  The 711 code, unlike the 800 codes, will support
three digit access to TTY by people with hearing or speech disabilities.  We believe this offers
distinct advantages to such persons for whom, as commenters note, the time on the line before
reaching the called party would possibly be doubled due to the number of digits that access
through an 800 number would require.  A nationwide N11 code would also eliminate the current
need for TRS users travelling from state to state to remember different lengthy 800 numbers for
each state.

     56.  An N11 code may significantly facilitate TRS access, thus furthering the goals of
both the 1996 Act and the ADA.  In particular, a nationwide N11 code will significantly reduce
the number of digits that must be dialed when placing a relay call, and will eliminate the problem
of determining the appropriate local relay number.  We also note that most commenters agree
that assignment of an N11 code for TRS is in the public interest.  Because N11 codes are a scarce
resource, and because many states already provide TRS access for both TTY and voice users
through a single number, we conclude that only one N11 number should be used for TRS. 
Moreover, because Hawaii and Canada already use 711 for TRS access, and because uniformity
would facilitate access to TRS, we conclude that 711 is the most appropriate code to support
TRS access.  We, therefore, determine that 711 should be assigned as a national code for TRS
use, and we direct Bellcore, in its capacity as NANP administrator, to assign 711 for such use as
of the effective date of this First Report and Order.

          4.   Statutory Preemption

     57.  The Act gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over numbering in the
United States.  Because the Commission's jurisdiction is exclusive, the states have no authority
to permit the use of N11 codes in a manner inconsistent with the conclusions reached in this First
Report and Order.  As noted above, the release of the N11 NPRM and the filing of the comments
and replies all occurred prior to enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act.  Insofar
as they discuss the issue of preemption, therefore, they have become moot.

     58.  Moreover, we find that a nationwide, uniform system of numbering is essential to
the efficient delivery of interstate and international telecommunications.  Despite the fact that
most individual N11 calls are likely to be intrastate, N11 numbers, like 911, have significance
that go beyond state boundaries.  At times, an end user who is travelling can dial the same N11
code used at home to access the same service accessed at home.  In order to achieve the
maximum public benefit from the allocation of particular codes to certain services, those codes
must be allocated in a consistent manner on a nationwide basis.

          5.   Other Issues

               a.   Alternate Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements

     59.  Background.  In the N11 NPRM, the Commission stated that other abbreviated
dialing arrangements, such as "XX#" or "*XX", might accommodate many times the number of
providers that N11 service codes could serve.  We said that using these arrangements,
however, might require substantial time to implement and be expensive.  For example, if "#"
were required in an abbreviated dialing arrangement, dialing could not occur from millions of
rotary telephones still in service.  Moreover, "#" and "*" are used today to activate switch
capabilities, not for customer dialing.  It is noteworthy, however, that with CLASS services, if it
is not possible to use "*XX" dialing, for example with a rotary telephone, "11XX" is an
alternative abbreviated dialing arrangement.  The N11 NPRM invited comment on the
feasibility of requiring abbreviated dialing arrangements to be made quickly available in lieu of
or in addition to requiring exchange carriers to make N11 codes available.

     60.  Comments/Discussion.  The record shows that there is considerable interest in
alternative abbreviated dialing arrangements.  Some commenters seek abbreviated numbers in
only one local calling area, while others seek a uniform abbreviated number for an entire state,
a region, or the whole country.  Commenters suggest using numbers with two to four digits
plus a "*" or a "#", such as *XX or NXX#.  One commenter suggests codes with "**X."

     61.  We conclude that abbreviated dialing could clearly serve many useful purposes
and we urge industry fora to continue to explore the feasibility of their use.  When those entities
identify abbreviated dialing arrangements that would be practical, both economically and
technically, we encourage them to develop reasonable guidelines for the implementation and
allocation of the related numbers.  In addition, we ask the NANC to explore how rapidly
abbreviated dialing arrangements could be deployed and to report back to the Commission on
this issue.  On the record before us, however, we are unable to find that the public interest
supports national reservation at this time of any alternative dialing arrangements for any
particular purpose, except as previously described in this First Report and Order.

     62.  While we decline to make any national assignment or other reservation of
abbreviated dialing arrangements at this time, we reiterate that no federal policy bars the use of
such arrangements for intrastate service offerings.

               b.   Recall Procedures

     63.  Background/Comments.  In the N11 NPRM, the Commission solicited comment
on methods for recalling N11 service codes and any notice periods that should precede such
recalls.  Several commenters express concern that this Commission or state commissions will
be unable to recall on short notice those N11 codes that have been made available for local
uses.  They request establishment of specific time periods and other procedures for recall to
avoid any unreasonable delay if the public convenience and necessity requires that assigned N11
codes be used for other purposes.

     64.  Discussion.  We believe it unnecessary to adopt specific rules for future recall of
N11 codes at this time.  First, widely distributed industry numbering documents consistently and
unambiguously state that an N11 code assignment is not a permanent assignment and is subject
to termination on short notice.  Second, when state commissions have allowed N11 use, their
authorization orders, which, by the terms of the Commission's Local Competition Second Report
and Order remain in effect, consistently state that such use is subject to termination or other
modification on short notice, typically six months.  If an N11 assignee is unable or unwilling
to cooperate in a national recall of an N11 code, we would not hesitate to order termination of the
switching services necessary to the functioning of that N11 code or to take other action required
to make the N11 code available for other purposes.  In the event of a national recall, the
Commission will take such action as necessary to give interested parties sufficient notice of the
recall and an opportunity to be heard on how the recall should be enforced.  Moreover, as the
time needed for code relinquishment could vary depending on the use of codes in question,
parties will further be given an opportunity to address the network, customer, and administrative
concerns that affect recall.          6.   Regulatory Flexibility Act

     65.  See Appendix E, infra, for the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.


     IV.  FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
     
     A.   Introduction

     66.  The proposals below, and the comments we seek regarding them, are part of our
analysis of the Commission's role with respect to numbering administration.  The guiding
principal shaping these proposals is that a uniform numbering plan is an essential prerequisite to
an integrated public switched telephone network.  There must be a single, consistent set of
numbering principles allowing all switching equipment connected to the network to route every
call to its correct destination.  Concomitant with the need for one uniform numbering plan is the
imperative that any numbering plan be capable not only of serving incumbents, but also of
accommodating new market entrants.  For this reason, we have attempted, wherever possible, to
ensure that new telecommunications carriers have access to numbering resources on the same
basis as incumbents.

     B.   Access to Telecommunications Relay Services

     67.  While we believe that an N11 code to support nationwide TRS access is in the
public interest, it is not clear, as several commenters note, whether it is technically feasible to
implement such a code at this time.  We specifically request parties to address whether there
can be nationwide implementation of an N11 code and how to address less than nationwide
implementation, if network facilities of some telecommunications carriers preclude use of N11
for TRS access.  Parties should also address the following issues:
(1) how competition among relay providers would be maintained; (2) whether implementation is
technically feasible and, if so, the details of such implementation; (3) the projected costs of
implementation and how those costs should be recovered; and (4) what effect, if any, nationwide
implementation of an N11 code for TRS access will have on CMRS providers and their
networks.

     68.  We tentatively conclude that nationwide implementation of 711 for TRS access
should occur within three years of the effective date of the First Report and Order and we seek
comment on this proposal.  Sprint, we note, has projected this as a reasonable timeframe for
switched-based N11.  We understand switched-based N11 in the context of TRS to mean that
the N11 dialing information would be stored in the switch, and when TRS users in a calling area
dial the N11 code, the telecommunications carrier's end office switch would automatically route
the call to the relay center.  We understand from Sprint that such implementation may not permit
end users to select a preferred TRS provider.  We ask that interested parties comment on what
steps must be taken to ready the network for use of 711 as the TRS code and whether these steps
can be completed in the three year timeframe or perhaps even sooner.  We ask parties addressing
implementation issues to present a timeline for completion of steps they foresee as necessary to
introduce 711.  We also ask parties if it would be possible to develop within a reasonable time an
N11 "gateway" offering access to multiple TRS providers.  With such a gateway, a database
query would be launched, and parties would be able to select their TRS providers, or parties
would have their calls routed to a presubscribed TRS provider.  In addition, we request comment
on whether any other important disability services could be accessed through the same gateway
and whether such a gateway would be consistent with Section 255 of the Act.  We request
comment on whether, with such gateway access, TRS calls would still be answered within our
mandatory minimum standards for TRS answer times, which require 85% of calls to be answered
within 10 seconds.  Finally, we request comment from interested parties, particularly TRS
providers, about the possibility of providing both voice and text TRS services through the same
abbreviated N11 code.

     C.   Sale or Transfer of N11 Codes    
     
     69.  Background.  In the N11 NPRM, the Commission identified the extremely limited
number of service codes available in each geographic area.  The Commission stated that because
these codes may acquire some value, holders of these codes may wish to sell or transfer their
numbers to others. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on whether N11 codes
should be permitted to be sold or transferred. 

     70.  Comments.  Most commenters oppose the transfer or sale of N11 numbers. 
They argue that the assignment of a public resource, such as N11 codes, does not confer property
rights upon the assignee.  Some commenters support the transfer or sale of N11 codes, but urge
the Commission to develop and enforce rules regarding such transfers and that the transfer or sale
be limited to companies that merge or are acquired.  

     71.  Discussion.  The Commission has stated that carriers do not "own" codes or
numbers but rather administer their distribution for the efficient operation of the public switched
telephone network.  The Commission, also on several occasions, has further characterized
telephone numbers as a national public resource.  Based on our review of the record, we
tentatively conclude that N11 codes should not be transferred or sold through private transactions
at this time.  N11 codes are not only essential public resources that serve important national and
state goals, but are also much more scarce than other codes.  Parties are asked to comment on our
statutory authority to sell the right to use N11 codes.  We also ask parties to distinguish statutory
authority to sell the right to use N11 codes from the right to sell other abbreviated dialing
arrangements.

     D.   Administration of N11 Codes

     72.  As stated above, prior to enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act,
Bellcore, the states, the incumbent LECs, and the Commission each performed functions relating
to the administration of N11 codes.  Since the AT&T divestiture, Bellcore has served as the
administrator of the NANP.  Bellcore has assigned N11 codes at the national level.  In addition,
the Commission may direct Bellcore to assign an N11 code for national use if the Commission
determines that such a national assignment is in the public interest.

     73.  Bellcore, in its role as NANP administrator, has issued specific guidelines
addressing the use of N11 codes.  These guidelines permit local use of N11 if such
assignments and use can be discontinued on short notice.  In states where N11 codes have been
used locally, state public utilities commissions have directed the LECs to assign and administer
these codes.  The specific procedures for assignment of N11 codes for local use vary from state
to state.  Three local N11 codes have been assigned for particular uses in at least some LEC
service areas (411 for local directory assistance; 611 for LEC repair service; and 811 for LEC
business office use).

     74.  As part of our analysis of the Commission's role with respect to numbering
administration, we seek comments below on issues related to administration of N11 codes.  The
Commission had already embarked on an extensive analysis of its role with respect to numbering
prior to enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act.  The Commission, in adopting a
new model for administration of the NANP in the NANP Order,  decided not only that the
NANP administrator's existing functions will be transferred to a neutral entity to be
recommended by the NANC, but also that "the functions associated with CO code administration
shall be transferred from the LECs to the new NANP administrator no more than 18 months after
the transfer of the existing NANP administrative functions from Bellcore to the new
administrator has been completed."

     75.  We propose that the administration of N11 codes for local use, to the extent that
this administration was done by the incumbent LECs prior to enactment of the 1996 Act
amendments to the 1934 Act, and would otherwise continue under the terms of this First Report
and Order and the Commission's Local Competition Second Report and Order, should instead be
transferred from the incumbent LECs to the neutral NANP administrator to be recommended by
the NANC.  We propose that the transfer occur with the transfer of the functions associated with
CO Code administration.  We seek comment on our proposal.

     E.   Procedural Matters

          1.   Ex Parte Presentations

     76.  This is a non-restricted notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding.  Ex parte
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are
disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.  See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203,
1.1206.  Written submissions, however, will be limited as discussed below.

          2.   Regulatory Flexibility Act

     77.  See Appendix F, infra for the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

     F.   Comment Filing Procedures

     78.  General Requirements.  Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments on or before March 31, 1997, and reply comments on or before April 30, 1997.  To
file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and twelve copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments.  If you want each Commissioner to receive a
personal copy of your comments, you must file an original and 16 copies.  Comments and reply
comments should be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919
M Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C.  20554, with a copy to Janice Myles of the
Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 544, Washington, D.C.  20554.  Parties
should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140,
Washington, D.C.  20037.  Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Room 239, Washington, D.C.  20554.

     79.  Other requirements.  In order to facilitate review of comments and reply
comments, both by parties and by Commission staff, we require that comments be no longer than
seventy-five (75) pages and reply comments be no longer than thirty-five (35) pages, including
exhibits, appendices, and affidavits of expert witnesses.  Empirical economic studies and copies
of relevant state orders will not be counted against these page limits.  These page limits will not
be waived and will be strictly enforced.  Comments and reply comments must include a short and
concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading.  Comments and reply
comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the
Commissions rules.  We also direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party
and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments.  Comments and
reply comments also must clearly identify the specific portion of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive.  If a portion of a
party's comments does not fall under a particular topic listed in the outline of this Notice, such
comments must be included in a clearly labelled section at the beginning or end of the filing. 
Parties may not file more than a total of ten (10) pages of ex parte submissions, excluding cover
letters.  This 10 page limit does not include: (1) written ex parte filings made solely to disclose
an oral ex parte contact; (2) written material submitted at the time of an oral presentation to
Commission staff that provides a brief outline of the presentation; or (3) written material filed in
response to direct requests from Commission staff.  Ex parte filings in excess of this limit will
not be considered as part of the record in this proceeding.

     80.  Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on diskette.  Such
diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing
requirements addressed above.  Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to Gloria
Shambley of the Common Carrier Bureau, Network Services Division, 2000 M Street, N.W.,
Room 235, Washington, D.C.  20554.  Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette
formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software.  The
diskette should be submitted in "read only" mode.  The diskette should be clearly labelled with
the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments) and date of
submission.  The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter.

                       V.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     81.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 201-205 and
251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 201-205,
and 251(e)(1), that the First Report and Order is hereby ADOPTED.

     82.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Bellcore, as the NANP administrator, shall
assign 711 as a national code for TRS use as of the effective date of this First Report and Order,
as discussed in this First Report and Order.

     83.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Bellcore, as the NANP administrator, shall
assign 311 as a national code for access  to non-emergency police and other government services
as of the effective date of this First Report and Order, as discussed in this First Report and Order.

     84.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that when a provider of telecommunications
services receives a request from an entity to use 311 for access to non-emergency police and
other government services in a particular jurisdiction, it must ensure that, within six months of
the request:  (1) entities that were assigned 311 at the local level prior to the effective date of this
First Report and Order relinquish non-compliant uses; and  (2) it takes any steps necessary (for
example reprogramming switch software) to complete 311 calls from its subscribers to a
requesting 311 entity in its service area.

     85.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that (1) all providers of telephone exchange
service, both incumbents and new market entrants, whether facilities or non facilities-based
providers of telephone exchange service, should be enabled to use the 611 and 811 codes for
repair services and business office uses as the incumbent LECs do now; and (2) by dialing these
N11 numbers, customers should be able to reach their own carriers' repair or business services.

     86.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a LEC may not itself offer enhanced services
using a 411 code, or any other N11 code, unless that LEC offers access to the code on a
reasonable, nondiscriminatory basis to competing enhanced service providers  in the local service
area for which it is using the code to facilitate distribution of their enhanced services.

     87.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the North American Numbering Council will
explore how rapidly abbreviated dialing arrangements could be deployed and report back to the
Commission on this issue.

     88.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that GSA's request for a national N11 assignment is
DENIED and that NASTD's request for a national assignment is GRANTED IN PART as
discussed in this First Report and Order, and otherwise DENIED.
     
     89.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218
and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 151(j),
201-205,  218 and 251(e)(1), that the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby
ADOPTED.

          
               FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              William F. Caton

                              Acting Secretary                           Appendix A 
                    Comments Filed on N11 NPRM
                         CC Docket 92-105


Comments

1.   Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad Hoc)
2.   Alternate Weekly Newspapers, New Times, Inc., Sasquatch     
     Publishing, City Pages, and Tuscon Weekly  (Alternative Newspapers)
3.   American Public Communications Council (APCC)
4.   American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T)
5.   Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech)
6.   Anchorage Telephone Utility (ATU)
7.   Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic)
8.   Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore)
9.        BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth)
10.  BT North America (BONA)
11.  Canadian Steering Committee on Numbering (CSCN)
12.  Central Telephone Company (Centel)
13.  Cox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox)
14.  Datatrex
15.  Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC)
16.  GTE Service Corporation (GTE)
17.  Infocom International, Incorporated (Infocom)
18.  Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
19.  Information Industry Association (IIA)
20.  LO/AD Communications (LO/AD)
21.  MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI)
22.  Metropolitan Fiber Systems, Inc. (MFS)
23.  Mobile Connections, Inc. (Mobile)
24.  Mobile Telecommunications Technologies Corporation (Mtel)
25.  National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA)
26.  Newspaper Association of America (NAA)
27.  NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX)
28.  Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell (Pacific)
29.  Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC)
30.  Rochester Telephone Corporation (Rochester)
31.  Southern New England Telephone (SNET)
32.  Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT)
33.  Sprint Corporation (Sprint)
34.  Telesector Resources Group (Telesector)
35.  United States Telephone Association (USTA)
36.  U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST)

Reply Comments

1.   Advance Publications, Inc.  (Advance)
2.   AT&T
3.   Ameritech
4.   Bell Atlantic
5.   Bellcore
6.   BellSouth
7.   BONA
8.   Cox 
9.   Datatrex
10.  First Financial Management Corporation (FFMC)
11.  FPSC
12.  GTE
13.  Illinois Commerce Commission,  Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, Michigan 
     Public Service Commission, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Public Service
     Commission of  Wisconsin (Ameritech Regional Regulatory Committee, or
     ARRC)
14.  Information Industry Association (IIA)
15.  LO/AD 
16.  MCI
17.  Mtel
18.  National Center for Law and Deafness (NCLD)
19.  New York State Department of Public Service (NYPDS)
20.  Newsday
21.  NYNEX
22.  Organization for the Protection and Advancement
     of Small Telephone Companies (OPASTCO)
23.  Pacific 
24.  PBS/The Print Group
25.  Sprint
26.  SWBT
27.  United Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc. (UCPA)
28.  USTA
29.  U S WEST                             Appendix B
                  Comments Filed on TRS Petition

Comments

1.   Access Independence and Mobility
2.   Ad Hoc 
3.   ALDA California Style
4.   ALDA Sacramento
5.   Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Inc.
     American Council of the Blind
6.   American Society for Deaf Children
7.   American Speech-Language Hearing Association
8.   Ameritech
9.   Anderson, Herker
10.  AT&T
11.  Baltimore's Empowered Advocates for the
     Right's of Deaf and Hard of Hearing People
12.  Bell Atlantic 
13.  BellSouth 
14.  Bourne-Firl, Bridgetts
15.  Center for Media Education
16.  Chicago Hearing Society
17.  Commonwealth of Massachusetts
18.  Cox and Dallas Morning News
19.  Deafness Education Advocacy Foundation
20.  Eakes, Dorothy
21.  Eakes, Malcolm
22.  Fitts, Beth
23.  Gallaudet University Regional Center- Ohlone College
24.  Gallaudet University Regional Center- Kapiolani Community College
25.  General Communications, Inc.
26.  GTE 
27.  Hamilton Telephone Co. 
28.  Hawaii State Coordinating Council on Deafness
29.  Helen Keller National Center
30.  Illinois Commerce Commission, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 
     Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Public Service  Commission of Wisconsin
31.  Illinois, Attorney General
32.  Illinois Alliance for the Hearing Impaired
33.  Jacksonville Community Center for the Deaf
34.  Jacob, Philip
35.  Joint Commission Indiana Utility Reg. Comm., 
     Illinois Commerce Commission, PUC of Ohio and the PSC of Wisconsin
36.  Jones, Samuel
37.  Lake County Center for Independent Living
38.  Leigh, Irene
39.  Life After Deafness Magazine- Gayle McCullough
40.  Life After Deafness
41.  LING Inc.
42.  Mame Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Committee
43.  McBroom, Betty
44.  MCI
45.  Minnesota Telecommunications Access for Communication-Impaired Persons Board
46.  Missouri Commission for the Deaf
47.  National Technical Institute for the Deaf
48.  National Association of the Deaf
49.  New York Society for the Deaf
50.  North Carolina; Division of Services for the Deaf and Hard of   Hearing
51.  North Country Club of the Deaf
52.  Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Heard of  Hearing Persons
53.  NYNEX
54.  Oregon Public Utility Commission
55.  Oregon Association of the Deaf, Inc.
56.  Pacific 
57.  People Mutual Telephone Company, Inc.
58.  Public Utility Commission of Texas
59.  Relay Texas Advisory Committee
60.  Riker, David
61.  Rochester Institute of Technology
62.  Schaumberg Township Disabled Services
63.  Self Help for Hard of Hearing People
64.  South Carolina Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Committee
65.  South Carolina Budget and Control Board
66.  SWBT
67.  Springfield Center for Independent Living
68.  Sprint Corporation for Sprint Communications Co. LP 
     & The 69. United  and Centel Telephone Companies
70.  Still, G. Howard
71.  Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.
72.  Telecommunications Relay Services Advisory Council
73.  Texas Attorney General
74.  Texas, Public Utility Commission
75.  Triangle Association of the Deaf
76.  USTA
77.  United States Department of Agriculture
78.  USDA- Southwestern Region
79.  U S WEST Communications, Inc.
80.  Virginia Department for the Deaf and Heard of Hearing (VDDHH)
81.  Walker, Kristina Leitch
82.  Washington Post Company
83.  Wisconsin, Department of Health and Social Services
84.  WisTRS                      

Reply Comments
 
1.   Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf
2.   Association of Late Deafened Adults
3.   Bell Atlantic 
4.   BellSouth 
5.   Chicago Hearing Society
6.   Florida PSC
7.   General Communication, Inc.
8.   GTE 
9.   Illinois Alliance for the Hearing Impaired
10.  Joint Parties (Cox and Dallas Morning Times)
11.  Minnesota 
12.  National Association of the Deaf
13.  National Center for Law and Deafness
14.  National Fraternal Society of the Deaf
15.  Nevada Bell
16.  Newspaper Association of America
17.  Pacific Bell
18.  Pacific Telesis
19.  Saks, Andrea
20.  Self Help For Hard of Hearing People, Inc.
21.  SWBT
22.  Sprint Corporation, on Behalf of:
     Sprint Communications Company LP
     United & Central Telephone Companies
23.  Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.
24.  USTA
25.  Washington Post                            Appendix C
                  Comments Filed on GSA Petition
Comments
 
1.   Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc.
2.   Ad Hoc 
3.   American Public Telecommunications Council
4.   Ameritech
5.   Bell Atlantic 
6.   BellSouth 
7.   Caddo Parish Communications District No. One
8.   Citizen Tribune
9.   City of Dallas
10.  Claiborne Parish Communications District
11.  Consumer Product Safety Commission
12.  Cox, Advance, Gannett, Washington Post 
13.  Daily Republic
14.  Department of Agriculture
15.  Department of Health and Human Services
16.  The Department of Justice
17.  Department of Transportation
18.  Department of Veterans Affairs
19.  Environmental Protection Agency
20.  Federal Labor Relations Authority
21.  Florida PSC
22.  Goldsboro News-Argus
23.  GTE 
24.  Idaho Public Utilities Commission
25.  Information Industry Association
26.  Iowa Utilities Board
27.  Jackson Parish 9-1-1 Communication District
28.  Louisiana Public Service Commission
29.  MCI  
30.  Mulvany, Dana
31.  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
32.  National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
33.  National Association of State Telecommunications Directors
34.  National Center for Law and Deafness, Nat'l Association of the Deaf,
     Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, and 
     Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.
35.  National Newspaper Association
36.  Newspaper Association of America
37.  Office of Personnel Management
38.  Overseas Private Investment Corporation
39.  Relay Administration Board
40.  Southwestern Bell Corporation
41.  Sprint 
42.  St. Charles Parish Communications District
43.  St. Landry Parish Communications District
44.  Stein, Paul
45.  Tennessee Valley Authority
46.  Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communication
47.  West Carroll Parish Communication District
48.  Wilson Daily Times

Reply Comments

1.   Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc.
2.   Ad Hoc 
3.   American Public Telecommunications Council
4.   Bell Atlantic 
5.   BellSouth 
6.   Caddo Parish Communications District No. One
7.   Cox, Advance, Gannett, Washington Post Co.
8.   Francis Dummer Fisher
9.   General Services Administration
10.  MCI 
11.  National Emergency Number Association (NENA)
12.  National Newspaper Association
13.  Southwestern Bell Corporation
14.  Texas Department of Information                            Appendix D
         Comments Filed on Department of Justice Request

1.   311 Direct, Inc. 
2.   Ameritech
3.   AT&T 
4.   Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (CBT)
5.   The County of Los Angeles
6.   The Los Angeles Police Department
7.   The Texas Department of Information resources (Texas DIR)
8.   SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC)
9.   U S WEST
10.  Warren W. Owens
11.  The Riverside County Sheriff's Department
12.  The City of Austin
13.  The Attorney General for the State of California
14.  Dallas Police Department
15.  Dallas Fire Chief
16.  The Fort Worth Fire Chief
17.  The Fire Chief of the City of Pittsburgh, Department of Public Safety
18.  The Fire Chief of the Seattle Fire Department
19.  The Commissioner of the Philadelphia Fire Department
20.  The Fire Commissioner/Chief of the Boston Fire Department
21.  The City of Garland Texas
22.  Janice F. Hill
23.  The City of Houston
24.  The Maryland Chiefs of Police Association
25.  The Maryland Public Service Commission (MDPSC)
26.  The National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. (ANPO)
27.  The National Sheriff's Association
28.  The San Jose, California Police Department
29.  The San Bernadino, California Police Department
30.  The City of University Park, Texas
31.  The National Fraternal Order of Police
32.  The National Troopers Coalition
33.  Daniel Ginty
34.  The California Highway Patrol (CHP)
35.  The City of Sacramento, California Police Department (Sacramento)
36.  GTE
37.  BellSouth
38.  The Office of Information Resources of the Budget and Control Board of the State of 39.
     South Carolina (South Carolina OIR)
40.  Acadian Ambulance and AIR MED Services of Louisiana (Acadian)
41.  The Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT)
42.  The Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (Kentucky DOT)
43.  The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.   
     (APCO)
44.  The Arizona APCO Chapter
45.  Bismark Emergency Management & Combined Communications (Bismark)
46.  Cox Enterprises, Inc.
47.  The City of Fresno, California Chief of Police (Fresno Police Chief)
48.  The Greater Harris County 9-1-1 Emergency Network 
49.  The City of Mesa, Arizona, Police Department Communications (Mesa)
50.  Morris Communications Corporation (Morris)
51.  The State of New York Department of Public Service (NYSDPS)
52.  NYNEX
53.  Florence Cainoce, Staff Manager for NYNEX Consumer Affairs
54.  The Southern Idaho Regional Communications Center
55.  The Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications (TX-ACSEC)
56.  The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the National     
     Association of State Nine One Administrators (NASNA) (National 911    
     Commenters)
57.  Francis Dummer Fisher
58.  Dr. Bill Munn, PhD, First Vice President of NENA
59.  The Louisiana Public Service Commission
60.  The National Association of the Deaf (NAD)
61.  Bell Atlantic
62.  Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department, Fire Chief
63.  County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Chief
64.  City of Miami Fire Chief
65.  International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., and
     International Municipal Signal Association 311
66.  King County E-911 Program Manager (Seattle, Washington)
67.  Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
68.  City of Phoenix Fire Department.
69.  City and County of Denver Department of Safety, Chief of Police
70.  Kootenai County, Idaho 911 Director
71.  Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina Chief of Police        APPENDIX E: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

     1.   As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq., the
Commission considered regulatory flexibility issues in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in this proceeding, and certified that there was no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.  The Commission sought written public comments on the
proposals in the NPRM.  Although there were no comments filed in response to the certification,
on our own motion we have reconsidered our certification in the NPRM and decided to
undertake a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in conformity with the RFA, as
amended by the SBREFA.

     A.   Need for and Objectives of this First Report and Order

     2.   "Abbreviated dialing arrangements" are telephone numbers of less than the
standard 7 or 10 digits.  Among abbreviated dialing arrangements, "N11 codes" are 3-digit
telephone numbers of which the first digit may be any digit other than 0 or 1, and the last two
digits are both 1, e.g., 911.  This First Report and Order directs Bell Communications Research
(Bellcore) to assign 711 as a national number for access to telecommunications relay services for
the deaf (TRS) and 311 as a national number for access to non-emergency police services;
concludes that, as the incumbent LECs can do currently, all providers of telephone exchange
service must be able to have their customers call 611 and 811 to reach their repair and business
service offices and that a LEC may not itself offer enhanced services using a 411 code, or any
other N11 code, unless that LEC offers access to the code on a reasonable, nondiscriminatory
basis to competing enhanced service providers.

     B.   Analysis of Significant Issues Raised in Response to the Certification

     3.   As stated above, no comments were submitted in response to the Commission's
certification in the NPRM that the rules it proposed to adopt in this proceeding would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business  entities.  Nonetheless,
we have reconsidered our certification in the NPRM and have decided to undertake an FRFA. 
We do so because the requirements governing agency treatment of regulatory flexibility issues
have become more stringent while this docket has been open, and because even though a review
of the general comments for issues that might impact small businesses revealed that most
comments did not specifically address possible impacts on small entities, we realize that a
substantial number of small entities may be affected by this  First Report and Order.  In reaching
our determinations in this First Report and Order, we have considered all arguments raised by
parties.  

     C.   Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities
          Affected by this First Report and Order

     4.   The RFA defines "small entity" to include the definition of "small business
concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632.  Under the Small Business Act, a
"small business concern" is one that:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not
dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small
Business Administration (SBA).  The SBA has defined companies listed under Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (radiotelephone communications) and 4813
(telephone communications, except radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have 1500 or
fewer employees.  These standards also apply in determining whether an entity is a small
business for purposes of the RFA.

     5.   Because the small incumbent LECs that would be subject to these rules are either
dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, consistent
with our prior practice, they are excluded from the definition of "small entity" and "small
business concerns."  Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small businesses"
does not encompass small incumbent LECs.  Out of an abundance of caution, however, for
regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs within this
analysis and use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any incumbent LECs that arguably
might be defined by SBA as "small business concerns."

     6.   The decisions made by the Commission in this First Report and Order may apply
to a variety of entities listed below.

     7.   Local Exchange Carriers.  Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a
definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of local exchange services.  The
closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except
radiotelephone, SIC 4813, which defines a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees. 
The most reliable source of information regarding the number of LECs nationwide of which we
are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).  According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies
reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange service.  Although it seems
certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than
1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with any more certainty the number of
LECs that would qualify as small business concerns.  Consequently, we estimate that there are
fewer than 1,347 small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted
in this First Report and Order.

     8.   Interexchange Carriers.  Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a
definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services (IXCs). 
The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except
radiotelephone, SIC 4813.  The most reliable source of information regarding the number of
IXCs nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in
connection with TRS.  According to our most recent data, 130 companies reported that they were
engaged in the provision of interexchange services, and 30 companies reported they were
engaged in "other" toll services.   Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs that would qualify as small business
concerns under SBA's definition.  Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 130 small
entity IXCs and 30 "other" toll carriers that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in
this First Report and Order.

     9.   Wireless Service Providers.  Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a
definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of wireless services.  The closest
applicable definition is that under SBA rules for radiotelephone communications, SIC 4812,
which defines a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees.  The 1992 Census of
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, shows
that only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,176 such firms that operated during 1992 had
1,000 or more employees.  Therefore, even if all 12 of these large firms were radiotelephone
companies, all of the remainder were small businesses under the SBA's definition.  We assume
that, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in the FRFA, all of the current
radiotelephone licensees are small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.   
     10.  Cellular and Mobile Radio Telephone Service.   In an effort to further refine our
calculation of the number of radiotelephone companies affected by the rules adopted herein, we
consider the categories of radiotelephone carriers, Cellular Service Carriers and Mobile Service
Carriers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to Cellular Service Carriers and to Mobile Service Carriers.  The closest
applicable definition under SBA rules for both services is for telephone companies other than
radiotelephone (wireless) companies.  The most reliable source of information regarding the
number of  Cellular Service Carriers and Mobile Service Carriers nationwide of which we are
aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS.  According to
our most recent data, 792 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of cellular
services and 138 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of mobile services. 
Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated,
or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision
the number of Cellular Service Carriers and Mobile Service Carriers that would qualify as small
business concerns under SBA's definition.  Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than
792 small entity Cellular Service Carriers and fewer than 138 small entity Mobile Service
Carriers that might be affected by the actions and rules adopted in this First Report and Order.  
We assume that all of the current rural cellular and mobile licensees are small businesses.

     11.  Personal Communications Service.  The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into
six frequency blocks designated A through F and the Commission has held auctions for each
block.  The Commission defined "small entity'' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average
gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years.  For Block F, an
additional classification for "very small business" was added and is defined as an entity that,
together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the
preceding three calendar years.   These regulations defining "small entity'' in the context of
broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA.  No small businesses  within the SBA-
approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B.  There were 90 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions.  A total of 93 small and very
small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. 
However, licenses for blocks C through F have not been awarded fully, therefore there are few, if
any, small businesses currently providing PCS services.  Based on this information, we conclude
that the number of small broadband PCS licensees  will include the 90 winning C Block bidders
and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small PCS providers as
defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 

     12.  Paging and Radiotelephone Service, and Private Land Mobile Radio Services,
Paging Operations.  Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entity
specifically applicable to providers paging services.  The closest applicable definition is that
under SBA rules for radiotelephone communications, SIC 4812, which defines a small entity as
one with 1500 or fewer employees.  The Commission anticipates that a total of 15,531 non-
nationwide geographic area licenses will be granted or auctioned.  The geographic area licenses
will consist of 3,050 MTA licenses and 12,481 EA licenses.  In addition to the 47 Rand McNally
MTAs, the Commission is licensing Alaska as a separate MTA and adding three MTAs for the
U.S. territories, for a total of 51 MTAs.  No auctions of paging licenses have been held yet, and
there is no basis to determine the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities. 
Because nearly all radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000 employees, and no reliable
estimate of the number of prospective paging licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of
this FRFA, that all the 15,531 geographic area paging licenses will be awarded to small entities,
as that term is defined by the SBA.  We estimate that the approximately 600 current paging
carriers could partition or disaggregate a license or take the opportunity to obtain an additional
license through partitioning or disaggregation. We estimate that up to 48,393 licensees or
potential licensees could take the opportunity to partition or disaggregate a license or obtain a
license through partitioning or disaggregation.  This estimate is based on the total estimate of
paging carriers (approximately 600) and non-nationwide geographic area licenses to be awarded
(15,531) and our estimate that each license will probably not be partitioned or disaggregated
among more than three parties.  Because nearly all radiotelephone companies have fewer than
1,000 employees, and no reliable estimate of the number of future paging licensees can be made,
we assume for purposes of this FRFA that all of the licensees will be awarded to small
businesses.  We believe that it is possible that a significant number of the estimated 48,393
licensees or potential licensees who could take the opportunity to partition or disaggregate a
license or who could obtain a license through partitioning or disaggregation will be a small
business.

     13.  Competitive Access Providers.  Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed
a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of competitive access services
(CAPs).  The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications,
except radiotelephone, SIC 4813, which defines a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer
employees.  The most reliable source of information regarding the number of CAPs nationwide
of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. 
According to our most recent data 57 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision
of competitive access services.  Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision the number of CAPS that would qualify as small business
concerns under SBA's definition.  Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 57 small
entity CAPS that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First Report and
Order.

     14.  Operator Service Providers.  Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a
definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of operator services.  The closest
applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except
radiotelephone, SIC 4813.  The most reliable source of information regarding the number of
operator service providers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we
collect annually in connection with TRS.  According to our most recent data 25 companies
reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services.  Although it seems
certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than
1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
operator service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. 
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 25 small entity operator service providers
that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First Report and Order.

     15.  Pay Telephone Operators.  Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a
definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of pay telephone operator services. 
The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except
radiotelephone, SIC 4813.  The most reliable source of information regarding the number of pay
telephone operators nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect
annually in connection with TRS.  According to our most recent data, 271 companies reported
that they were engaged in the provision of pay telephone services. Although it seems certain
that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500
employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of pay
telephone operators that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. 
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 271 pay telephone operators that may be
affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First Report and Order.

     16.  Resellers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of
small entity specifically applicable to resellers.  The closest applicable definition is that under
SBA rules for all telephone communications companies, SIC 4812 and SIC 4813, combined,
both of which define a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees.  The most reliable
source of information regarding the number of resellers nationwide of which we are aware
appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS.  According to our most
recent data, 260 companies reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone services.
Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated,
or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision
the number of resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. 
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 260 small entity resellers that may be
affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First Report and Order.

     17.  Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers.  The SBA classifies
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment in two categories, one for wireless and another
for wireline.

     18.  Wireline Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers.  Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific definition of small entities applicable to
manufacturers of wireline telecommunications equipment.  Therefore, we will utilize the SBA
definition of manufacturers of Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus. According to the SBA's
regulations, a small entity must have 1000 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small
business concern.  Census Bureau data indicates that there are 479 U.S. firms that manufacture
telephone and telegraph equipment, and that 436 of these firms have fewer than 1000 employees
and would be classified as small entities.  The Census Bureau category is very broad, and
specific figures are not available as to how many of these firms are manufacturers of wireline
telecommunications equipment that would be subject to these rules or how many are
independently owned and operated.  Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 436
small manufacturers of wireline telecommunications equipment.

     19.  Wireless Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers.  Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific definition of small entities applicable to
manufacturers of wireless telecommunications equipment.  Therefore, we will utilize the SBA
definition of manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications
Equipment. According to the SBA's regulations, a small entity must have 750 or fewer 
employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.  Census Bureau data indicates that
there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications
equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified
as small entities.  The Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not
available as to how many of these firms are manufacturers of wireless telecommunications
equipment or how many are independently owned and operated.  Consequently, we estimate that
there are fewer than 778 small manufacturers of wireless telecommunications equipment.

     20.  Fire and Burglar Equipment Manufacturers.  The Commission has not developed
a definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers of fire and burglar alarm equipment. 
We will utilize the SBA classification of such manufacturers under Communications Equipment
Not Elsewhere Classified. This definition provides that a small entity is an alarm equipment
manufacturer employing 750 or less persons.  Census Bureau data indicates that there are 498
U.S. firms that manufacture alarm equipment, and that 469 of these firms have fewer than 750
employees and would be classified as small entities.  The Census Bureau category is very
broad, and includes manufacturers of other equipment such as traffic signalling and
intercommunications equipment.  Specific figures are not available as to how many of these
firms produce alarm equipment or how many are independently owned and operated.
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 469 small manufacturers of alarm equipment
that may be affected by the decision and rules  adopted in this First Report and Order.

     21.  Alarm Service Providers.  The SBA has developed a definition of alarm service
providers (SIC 7382) which are entities that are primarily engaged in the monitoring and
maintenance of security systems devices, such as burglar and fire alarms.  According to the
SBA, a small security system provider must have $9 million or less in annual receipts.  Census
Bureau data reports that there were 2,190 security system service providers with $7.499 million
or less in annual receipts and 2,200 with less than $9.999 million in annual receipts.  Therefore,
we tentatively conclude that there are approximately 2,190 small security system service
providers that may be affected by the decision and rules  adopted in this First Report and Order.

     D.   Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping 
          and Other Compliance Requirements of the Rules

     22.  The First Report and Order requires Bell Communications Research, as the 
NANP administrator, to assign, as of the effective date of this First Report and Order, to  assign
311 as a national code for access  to non-emergency police and other government services and to
assign 711 as a national code for TRS use.  The First Report and Order also requires that when a
provider of telecommunications services receives a request from an entity (for example a local
police chief or local fire chief) to use 311 for access to non-emergency police and other
government services in a particular jurisdiction, it must ensure that, within six months of the
request:  (1) entities that were assigned 311 at the local level prior to the effective date of this
First Report and Order relinquish non-compliant uses; and (2) it takes any steps necessary (for
example reprogramming switch software) to complete 311 calls from its subscribers to a
requesting 311 entity in its service area.  We recognize that some of these requirements may
require the use of professional engineering skills.

     E.   Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities
          and Consistent with Stated Objectives 

     23.  The Commission considers and implements alternatives in this First Report and
Order that seek to benefit competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll
service which may include small business entities.  As alternatives to the determination to require
Bellcore to assign 311 as a national number for access to non-emergency police services and 711
for national TRS access, we considered, for example, the possibility of using other numbering
resources such as 800 numbers.  See First Report and Order at paras. 40 and 55.  The
Commission's determination to allow local governments to determine whether they need to avail
themselves of the 311 non-emergency option should serve to lessen possible implementation
burdens (cost, time, etc.) on smaller telecommunications carriers in particular.   This
determination avoids not only unnecessary investments for  providers of telecommunications
services but also unnecessary relinquishment of the customers' (some of which may be small)
uses of 311 assignments made at the local level prior to the effective date of the First Report and
Order.  Furthermore, allowing six months from a request  for 311 service in a local jurisdiction to
prepare for 311 non-emergency service should lessen implementation burdens that may have
been more costly if implementation were required during a shorter period.  This six-month period
should prove beneficial also to customers that were assigned 311 at the local level prior to the
effective date of the First Report and Order.  See First Report and Order at paras. 35-43.

          F.   Report to Congress

     24.  The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
along with this First Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).  A copy of this FRFA
will also be published in the Federal Register.       APPENDIX F: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

     1.   As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq., the
Commission is incorporating an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected
impact on small entities of the policies and proposals in this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM).  Written public comments concerning the effect of the proposals in the
FNPRM, including the IRFA, on small businesses are requested.  Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for the submission of comments in
this proceeding.  The Secretary shall send a copy of this  FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph
603(a) of the RFA, amended by the SBREFA.

     A.   Reasons Why the Actions Are Being Considered and Need for
          and Objectives of this FNPRM

     2.   The FNPRM is initiated to obtain comment on the technical feasibility of
implementing 711 for TRS access.  The FNPRM also asks parties:  (1) if it would be possible to
develop within a reasonable time an N11 "gateway" offering access to multiple TRS providers;
(2) whether, with such gateway access, TRS calls would still be answered within our mandatory
minimum standards for TRS answer times; (3) whether such a gateway would be consistent with
Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; and (4) whether any other important disability services could
be accessed through the same gateway.  Regarding TRS, the FNPRM also requests comment
from interested parties, particularly TRS providers, about the possibility of providing both voice
and text TRS services through the same abbreviated N11 code.  Finally, the FNPRM asks for
comment on the proprietary nature of N11 codes and on our proposal to transfer the
administration of  N11 codes at the local level from the incumbent LECs to the NANP
administrator.  The objective of this FNPRM is to develop a record that addresses issues related
to the efficient use of scarce numbering resources and adheres to the imperative, concomitant
with the need for one uniform numbering plan, that any numbering plan be capable of serving all
telecommunications carriers, both incumbents and new market entrants.

     B.   Legal Basis

     3.   Authority for actions proposed in this FNPRM may be found in: Sections 1, 4(i)
and (j), 201-205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections
151, 154(i), 151(j), 201-205, 218 and 251(e)(1).

     C.   Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

     4.    No new recording, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements are proposed.

     D.   Federal Rules that Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With Proposed Rules

     5.   None.

     E.   Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To
          Which the Proposed Rules Would Apply

     6.   For entities to which the proposals in this FNPRM may apply, as well as for the
definition of small entity and discussion of small independent LECs, See Appendix E, supra,
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Heading C (Description and Estimates of the Number of
Small Entities Affected by this First Report and Order) (paras. 4-21).  In addition, as described
below, the proposed rules would apply to TRS providers.

     7.   TRS Providers.  Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of
small entity specifically applicable to providers of telecommunications relay services (TRS). 
The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except
radiotelephone, SIC 4813.  According to our most recent data, there are 12 interstate TRS
providers, which consist of interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, state entities, and
non-profit organizations.  Although it seems certain that some of these TRS providers are not
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision the number of TRS providers that would qualify as small
business concerns under SBA's definition.  Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than
12 small entity TRS providers that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM.

     F.   Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities
          and Consistent with Stated Objectives 

     8.   The proposals in the FNPRM, and the comments the Commission seeks regarding
them, are part of the Commission's analysis of its role with respect to numbering administration. 
The guiding principal shaping these proposals is that a uniform numbering plan is an essential
prerequisite to an integrated public switched telephone network.  There must be a single,
consistent set of numbering principles allowing all switching equipment connected to the
network to route every call to its correct destination.  Concomitant with the need for one uniform
numbering plan is the imperative that any numbering plan be capable not only of serving
incumbents, but also of accommodating new market entrants.  For this reason, we have
attempted, wherever possible, to ensure that new telecommunications carriers have access to
numbering resources on the same basis as incumbents.  These competing providers of telephone
exchange service and telephone toll service may include small business entities.  To gather
information from all interested parties about alternative timeframes for nationwide
implementation of 711 for TRS access, in addition to seeking comment on our tentative
conclusion that this implementation should occur within three years of the effective date of the
First Report and Order, we ask, among other things, that parties addressing implementation
issues present a timeline for completion of steps they foresee as necessary to introduce 711.  SeeFirst Report and Order at para. 68.  We tentatively conclude that our proposals in the FNPRMwould impose minimum burdens on small entities.  We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.