WPC 2BJZ Courier3|jx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\G!MX@26 ZFv:3|jHP LaserJet 5Si RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSC\  P6Q\G!MP I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2pkRk(a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2&vtu a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2 X   ` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2 Q    a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2 Ka1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2GYa3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2y32e6a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:l>?$>@l@A$ATechnical 3Technical 3> Technical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ Technical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2(IB$fCCEDJFE GTechnical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#WP Heading 2WP Heading 2C44#6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#WP Heading 1WP Heading 1D44#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#toc 1toc 1E` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2QFZIGxKHMIOtoc 2toc 2F` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3G` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4H` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5I` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2XJRKv"TLTMVtoc 6toc 6J` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7K toc 8toc 8L` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9M` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2_NYO$[PB]Qv`_index 1index 1N` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2O` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingP` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionQ 28bRl`Srt`T`Ua_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionR endnote referenceendnote referenceS HeadingChapter HeadingTJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersU>a݅@  I.   X(# 2hfVjbWcXlcY}eSubheadingSubheadingV0\ E A.  head1 #W'd#2p}wC@ #footnote textfootnote textX` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#4 <DL!` hp x (#a1Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0FY$ 2hZf["g\g]Sha2Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0FZ/` ` ` a3Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F[:` ` `  a4Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F\E` ` `  a5Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F]P` ` ` hhh 2k^.i_i`jarkka6Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F^[ a7Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F_f a8Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F`q a2Agendaa2annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "hOaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "i2c(d2uj rk^sld tm7tpara numS3n6OMnumbered indented paragraphs 3H*_0F_8S\Ej/'0 1.#Xx{2 PQXP# 1.ҲFOOTNOTES9n6OMFootnote - Appearance8S 9H*_0F_8S\Ek78HIGHLIGHT 1n6OMItalics and Bold(_08S :H*_0F_8S\El9: DRAFT ONS;n6OMHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateH*_0F_8S\Em;< X 8#Xx6X@QX@#`X (#EDRAFTă `H(#@D3 1, 4D  2znuocvpcwqcOyDRAFT OFF?n6OMTurn Draft Style off8S ?H*_0F_8S\EnD=>    LETTER LANDn6OMLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 AH*_0F_8S\Eo AB '3   LEGAL LANDn6OMLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5S BH*_0F_8S\Ep CD 'A   LETTER PORTn6OMLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11S CH*_0F_8S\Eq EF 3'   2}rczsnG|t|ud6}LEGAL PORTn6OMLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14S DH*_0F_8S\Er GH A'   TITLESEn6OMTitle of a Document8S EH*_0F_8S\EsIJ* ăBLOCK QUOTEn6OMSmall, single-spaced, indentedH*_0F_8S\EtMN HIGHLIGHT 2n6OMLarge and Bold=(_08S IH*_0F_8S\EuQR 2vj}w6~xIyHIGHLIGHT 3n6OMLarge, Italicized and UnderscoredH*_0F_8S\Ev S TLETTERHEADn6OMLetterhead - date/marginsS KH*_0F_8S\Ew!U V X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   INVOICE FEEn6OMFee Amount for Math Invoice LH*_0F_8S\ExWX X, $0  MEMORANDUMn6OMMemo Page Format(_08S MH*_0F_8S\EyYZ  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy 2]z<E{<|H}XINVOICE EXPn6OMExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*_0F_8S\Ez[\ ,p, $0INVOICE TOTn6OMTotals Invoice for Math MacroOH*_0F_8S\E{]^ p,p, $0INVOICE HEADn6OMHeading Portion of Math InvoiceH*_0F_8S\E|v_`l   p,X 9H#Xx6X@QX@# XX  *$HHީH  ӧ   XX H#Xx6X@QX@# XX  *$HHީHNORMALSSn6OMReturn to Normal TypestyleS SH*_0F_8S\E}ab2~[[[E[SMALLSTn6OMSmall Typestyle=(_08S TH*_0F_8S\E~cdFINE8SUn6OMFine Typestyle=(_08S UH*_0F_8S\EefLARGESVn6OMLarge Typestyle=(_08S VH*_0F_8S\EghEXTRA LARGEn6OMExtra Large Typestyle8S WH*_0F_8S\Eij2$[-XtX̍VERY LARGEn6OMVery Large Typestyle8S XH*_0F_8S\EklENVELOPESYn6OMStandard Business Envelope with Header0F_8S\Emn V,  X  , 8N#Xx6X@QX@#   N `   MACNormal[n6OM Z/08=(_08S [H*_0F_8S\Eop2X_8S\n6OM Z/08=(_08S \H*_0F_8S\Eqr2=V( sʘStyle 14S]n6OMSwiss 8 Pt Without MarginsS ]H*_0F_8S\E's't#Co> PQP##)a [ PQXP#Style 12S`n6OMDutch Italics 11.508S `H*_0F_8S\E'u'v#)^ `> Xi QXX##)a [ P QXP#Style 11Sbn6OMInitial Codes for Advanced IIbH*_0F_8S\Ewx#)a [ P QXP# dn  #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi QXX#`e%%Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3Shn6OMDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*_0F_8S\Eyz#)a [ PQXP# n  ## b, oT9 !2œoStyle 4Sin6OMSwiss 8 Point with MarginsS iH*_0F_8S\EG{|#Co> PQP# dd  #  Style 1Sjn6OMDutch Roman 11.5 Font8S jH*_0F_8S\E7}~#)a [ PQXP# dn Style 2Skn6OMDutch Italic 11.5_08S kH*_0F_8S\E'#)^ `> XiQXX#Style 5Sln6OMDutch Bold 18 Point8S lH*_0F_8S\E''#T~> pQp##)a [ PQXP#2̰F @F Style 7Snn6OMSwiss 11.5Z/08=(_08S nH*_0F_8S\E''#)ao> PQXP##)a [ PQXP#Style 6Spn6OMDutch Roman 14 Point8S pH*_0F_8S\E''#w [ PQP##)a [ PQXP#Style 10Srn6OMInitial Codes for AdvancedS rH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ PQXP# dn   #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi QXX#`Ue%'Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P!QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi"QXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P#QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi$QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P%QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi&QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8Swn6OMInitial Codes for Beginning wH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P'QXP# dn  ## b, oT9  [ #)a [ P(QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi)QXX#`1e%&Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P*QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi+QXX#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P,QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi-QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P.QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi/QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2D U BpeStyle 9S|n6OMInitial Codes for IntermediateH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P0QXP# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [ #)a [ P1QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi2QXX#`ke%%Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P3QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi4QXX#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P5QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi6QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage  #)a [ P7QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi8QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateSn6OMInitial Codes for Update ModuleH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P9QXP# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P:QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi;QXX#`e%"Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ P<QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi=QXX#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ P>QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi?QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P@QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiAQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Default Paran6OMDefault Paragraph Font8S H*_0F_8S\E;;#Xx{2 PBQXP##Iz PCQP#3X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 2qexeB4X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  . 5X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  6X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  7X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E*   29pw 8X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 9X_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E8@   10_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EA@` `  ` ` ` 11_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0    21kr12_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJ` ` @  ` `  13_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\ES` `  @  14_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E\` `  @hh# hhh 15_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2;c+16_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\En` `  hh#(@- ( 17_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 18_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EF D*  ׃  19_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 2m#20_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 21_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E*    22_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E'   23_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   2 }24_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E4$     25_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 26_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 27_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E$ 2Rm 28_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E/` ` ` 29_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E:` ` `  30_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EE` ` `  31_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EP` ` ` hhh 2UY2#32_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E[ 33_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Ef 34_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Eq toa_8Sn6OMtoa Z/08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` hp x (#20U)q_Equation Can6OM_Equation Caption_08S H*_0F_8S\E;;#Xx{2 PGQXP##C\  PHQP#endnote refen6OMendnote reference_08S H*_0F_8S\E>>#Xx{2 PIQXP##C\  PJQP#footnote refn6OMfootnote reference08S H*_0F_8S\E>#Xx{2 PKQXP#35_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  . 2/ebe,p36_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  37_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  38_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E*   39_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 2a#40_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E8@   41_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EA@` `  ` ` ` 42_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0     43_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJ` ` @  ` `  2\44_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\ES` `  @  45_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E\` `  @hh# hhh 46_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ee  ` `  hh#@( hh# 47_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\En  ` `  hh#(@- ( 2%48_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ew ` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 49_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EF D*  ׃  50_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 51_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 2Qx 52_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E*    53_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E'   54_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   55_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E4$     2} 56_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 57_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   . 58_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E$!" 59_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E/#$` ` ` 2RW60_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E:%&` ` `  61_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EE'(` ` `  62_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EP)*` ` ` hhh 63_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E[+, 2C 64_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Ef-. 65_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Eq/0 66_8Sn6OMDefault Paragraph Font8S H*_0F_8S\EO1O2#PLP##PMP#67_8Sn6OM_Equation Caption_08S H*_0F_8S\EO3O4#PNP##POP#2+'[68_8Sn6OMendnote reference_08S H*_0F_8S\ER5R6#PPP##PQP#69_8Sn6OMfootnote reference08S H*_0F_8S\ER78#PRP#endnote textn6OMendnote text08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\ECDfootnote texn6OMfootnote text8=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EEF2GZdqp1, 2, 3,Sn6OMNumbers Z/08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EIJ1.A, B,Sn6OMUppercase Letters_08S H*_0F_8S\E KL.70_8Sn6OMfootnote text8=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EZMPN71_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EOP` ` ` 2GqyeeO72_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EQ R . 73_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E ST 74_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E UV 75_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E*WX   2py{76_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EYZ` ` ` 77_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E8[\@   78_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EA]^@` `  ` ` ` 79_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0_ `    2.80_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJab` ` @  ` `  81_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EScd` `  @  82_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E\ef` `  @hh# hhh 83_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Eegh` `  hh#@( hh# 2n(84_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Enij` `  hh#(@- ( 85_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ewkl` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 86_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EFmn D*  ׃  87_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&op  . 2)d88_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&qr  . 89_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E*st    90_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E'uv   91_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&wx   2[ }92_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E4y$z     93_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&{|  . 94_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&}~  . 95_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E$ 2& L  } 96_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E/` ` ` 97_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E:` ` `  98_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EE` ` `  99_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EP` ` ` hhh 2X K KW<100_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E[ "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;O7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XPN7nC:,8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""C yOK-ԍ GSA Petition at 3. > In a similar request, the National Association of State  X-Telecommunications Directors (NASTD), in an ex parte letter filed in this docket, requested  X-that a single N11 code be reserved to facilitate public access to state agencies.XC yO- xJԍ National Association of State Telecommunications Directors (NASTD), Ex Parte Presentation in CC Docket No. 92105, September 22, 1993.  Xv-x 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 nonemergency 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.  X - w III. FIRST REPORT AND ORDER * C yO- xԍ Although this First Report and Order adopts several measures regarding abbreviated dialing arrangements,  yO-it does not specifically adopt the rules proposed in the N11 NPRM. See N11 NPRM at Appendix A.*փ  X- A.xAnalysis  Xy-  Xb-x 1.` ` Jurisdiction/Numbering Authority  X4-x 13.` ` The Act states that, "[t]he Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction over  X-those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States." C yO- x<ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1). For this reason, the discussion of jurisdiction appearing in the N11 NPRM and  xcomments filed in response to that discussion are moot. The Act states that, "the term 'United States' means the  xseveral states and Territories, the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States, but does not include the Canal Zone." 47 U.S.C.  153(50). 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  X-State commissions or other entities all or any portion of such jurisdiction."=! C yOy"-ԍ See id.= As stated above, prior to enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act, Bellcore, the states, and the  X-incumbent LECs each performed functions relating to the administration of N11 codes. In  X-Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  X|-CC Docket No. 9698, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC  Xe-96333 (rel. Aug 8, 1996). (Local Competition Second Report and Order), the Commission"e !,N(N(ZZ" stated: Xx[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  X1-administrator.g"1C yO -ԍ Local Competition Second Report and Order at para. 329.g  As noted above, prior to enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act, many LECs  X -serving as CO code administrators managed N11 codes for local use. In this First Report and  X -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  X-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  Xb-transitional basis."A#bXC yOk-ԍ Id. at para. 330.A  X4-x ` ` 2.  Mandatory Assignment of N11 Codes for the  X-Provision of Information Services   X-x 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  X-necessary to use the N11 numbers as area codes.E$C yOZ-ԍ N11 NPRM at para. 13.E The Commission tentatively concluded that LECs should be permitted to select any reasonable method to allocate N11 codes that  X-would ensure fair and efficient number allocation.@%XxC yO- xwԍ Id. at para. 16. The Commission did not set out specific allocation methods because reasonable methods could  xvary with circumstances. For example, if supply exceeded demand, a firstcome firstserved allocation method might be reasonable.@  Xe-x15.` ` Comments. Commenters are divided on whether LECs should be required to assign N11 codes for access to information services. Those supporting the proposal contend"N %,N(N(ZZ"  X-that it would compel LECs to provide the public with convenient access to such services.Y&XC yOy- xKԍ See, e.g., Alternative Weekly Newspapers, New Times, Inc., Sasquatch Publishing, City Pages, and Tuscon  xWeekly (collectively, Alternative Newspapers) Comments at 4; Cox Comments at 2, Datatrex Comments at 1; Infocom Comments at 1; Advance Reply Comments at 1.Y N11 access, they argue, would enable information service providers to provide the public with  X-information of significant local interest quickly and conveniently.}'C yOk-ԍ See, e.g., NAA Comments at 23; Alternative Newspapers Comments at 23.} 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 longstanding  Xv-Commission goal.(vxC yO -ԍ See Cox Reply Comments at 5 (citing Computer III Proceedings). In an ex parte presentation, Cox emphasized that commercial uses of N11, such as information services, which have received wide consumer acceptance, serve the  XH-public interest and therefore necessitate the assignment of an N11 number.b)HC yO-ԍ Cox December 12, 1995 ex parte presentation.b 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 tendigit 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  X -to the alternative newspapers.Z* C yO-ԍ See Alternative Newspaper Comments at 35.Z 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  Xy-for emergency service+ y( C yOR- x,ԍ See, e.g., Shelby County, Tennessee Emergency Communications District (Shelby County) Comments at 12;  x,St. Charles Parish Communications District Comments at 1; St. Landry Parish Communications District Comments  xat 1; Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications (Texas Advisory Commission) Comments at 34. by increasing the misdials to 911 in nonemergency situations.,XyC yO:- x,ԍ See, e.g., Shelby County, Tennessee Emergency Communications District (Shelby County) Comments at 12;  xSt. Charles Parish Communications District Comments at 1; Claiborne Parish Communications District Comments at 2.. and  Xb-misdials to other N11 codes in emergency situations.-b0C yOC#- xԍ See, e.g., Shelby County, Tennessee Emergency Communications District (Shelby County) Comments at 2; West Carroll Parish Communications District Comments at 1.  X4-x16.` ` Among LECs filing comments, only BellSouth supports assignment of N11"4 -,N(N(ZZf"  X-codes for information services.L.C yOy-ԍ See BellSouth Comments at i.L 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  X-allocation./XC yO-ԍ See Reply of BellSouth at 5.  Accord Florida PSC Reply at 2.  X-x17.` ` 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  X_-code in some geographic areas,0_C yO - xwԍ See, e.g., APCC Comments at 3; ATU Comments at 1; Bellcore Comments at 5; OPASTCO Reply Comments at 2. while others argue that some LECs utilize older switching equipment that might not be able technologically either to handle N11 codes or to bill  X1-accurately.11@C yO"-ԍ See, e.g., GTE Comments at 4; USTA Comments at 17; U S WEST Comments at 16. Some parties believe that N11 codes should be reserved for noncommercial  X -public service uses.2 C yO- xzԍ See, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 5; CSCN Comments; U S WEST Comments at 6; NYNEX Reply Comments at 2; NCLD Reply Comments at 9. Other objections raised include: the strong likelihood that demand will  X -exceed supply;3 ( C yO- xKԍ See, e.g., Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad Hoc) Comments at 6; Ameritech Comments at 2; SNET Comments at 3; GTE Reply Comments at 5; Sprint Reply Comments at 3. the likelihood of consumer confusion if services using N11 codes vary from  X -area to area;4 C yO- xԍ See, e.g., Ad Hoc Comments at 3; AT&T Comments at 4; Ameritech Comments at 8; ARRC Reply Comments at 6; OPASTCO Reply Comments at 4. the difficulty of reclaiming such codes if the Commission later determines that  X -the public interest requires reclamation;5 C yO^-ԍ See, e.g., Bellcore Comments at 5; BONA Comments at 4; SWBT Comments at 9. the possible challenges to the Commission's  X -jurisdiction over codes used locally;6 hC yO- xԍ See, e.g., ATU Comments at 2; NTCA Comments at 5; Pacific Comments at 17; NYPDS Reply Comments at 1. the use of N11 codes as prefixes, platforms, or  X -gateways to reach a menu of service providers rather than just a single provider;7 C yO"- xԍ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 3; Bell Atlantic Comments at 2; IIA Comments at 1; SNET Comments at 5; ARRC Reply Comments at 7; Pacific Reply Comments at 3. the  X-availability of alternative dialing arrangements;8C yOY%- x,ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 6; NYNEX Comments at 4; USTA Comments at 9; U S WEST Comments at 10; NYPDS Reply Comments at 4; SWBT Reply Comments at 2. the likelihood of extensive litigation;9pC yO-ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 10; Rochester Comments at 3; GTE Reply Comments at 2. the" X9,N(N(ZZ<"  X-perceived problems caused by multiple LECs providing N11 codes in a local dialing area;:XC yO -ԍ See, e.g., GTE Comments at 5; MFS Comments at 5; and OPASTCO Reply Comments at 3.  X-the potential for problems if interexchange carriers obtain N11 codes;i;C yO-ԍ See, e.g., Pacific Comments 10; SWBT Comments at 7.i and the problems of  X-implementing call blocking on paypercall N11 numbers.G<xC yO-ԍ See PRTC Comments at 4.G Some parties also argue that an abbreviated dialing arrangement (such as an N11 code) is merely a convenience, and is not  X-essential to making information services available to consumers.q=C yO] -ԍ See, e.g., USTA Comments at 12; Sprint Reply Comments at 5.q  Xv-x18.` ` 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  XH-uses.>HC yO- xKԍ See, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 5; CSCN Comments at 4; NCLD Reply Comments at 4; NYNEX Reply Comments at 2; SWBT Reply Comments at 5. Possible public service uses include multiple codes for emergency services,?H C yO-ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 6; NYNEX Comments at 4; Pacific Comments at 3. special  X1-number services for persons with physical disabilities,{@1 C yOb-ԍ See, e.g., BellSouth Reply Comments at 10, NYNEX Reply Comments at 2.{ and telephone access to federal and  X -state agencies.AA C yO-ԍ See GSA Petition.A 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  X -for the general public to obtain.B C yO&- x-ԍ See Media Parties (collectively, Cox Enterprises, Inc., Advance Publications, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., The Hearst Corporation, The Washington Post Company) Reply Comments at 36.  X -x19.` ` 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  Xb-supply.L CbC yO $- xxԍ Generally for most of the 50 states, 911, 411, and 611 are deemed to be "special services," and are defined  xas services for which the caller either pays no charge or the charge is tariffed. This category also includes services  xthat require presubscription and provide access to customer services provided by the LEC, including access to LEC  yOc&- xrepair services. See generally, "Central Office Code Usage Report", Industrial Analysis Division, Common Carrier  xBureau, Federal Communications Commission, July,1993 (FCC Report); "The Use of N11 Codes and Other"+'B,N(N(b'"  xAbbreviated Dialing Arrangements State Survey", Sandy Ibaugh, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, November,  x1993 (NARUC Report). For a vast majority of the states, the codes 211, 311, 511, and 711 are reserved for various  yO -purposes but are not currently in use. See FCC Report at 3.   /xSome state regulatory commissions have granted assignments of N11 codes for commercial uses. By the  yOx- xterms of the Commission's Local Competition Second Report and Order and this First Report and Order, these  xgrants, some of which are described below, are left in place. The Florida Public Service Commission, for example,  yO- xwapproved "511" for an information service run by Cox Communications' Palm Beach Post as a two year experiment  xin 1993. State Telephone Regulation Report, Vol. 11, No. 16 (August 12, 1993). The State of Georgia has approved  x;the use of "211" code for Cox Communications' information service in Atlanta. NARUC Report at 9. The State of  xHawaii has reserved 711 for TRS access use. Some sections of Maryland use 711 for internal LEC use by telephone  yO( - xzcompany employees. See FCC Report at 25 and 49. According to a staff member of the New York State  xDepartment of Public Services, Teleport currently allows end users to dial 211 at its own payphones to permit callers  xxto access Port Authority Police for access to its emergency services. This use of 211 is in addition to the use of  x911 for access to emergency services at New York City PSAPS. While Teleport does not use 211 in this manner  xas a result of an NYSDPS requirement, according to the NYSDPS staff member, the NYSDPS does not prohibit  yO- xsuch use. See Email reply from Yog Varma, NYSDPS, to Elizabeth Nightingale, FCC, CCB, dated November 7, 1996.L We agree with Rochester's argument that open assignment of N11 codes is likely to"b C,N(N(ZZ"  X-invite "endless litigation over the reasonableness of an exchange carrier's allocation plan."BDC yOQ-ԍ Rochester Comments at 3.B According to Rochester and others, this potentially could draw the Commission into numerous  X-decisions as to who should receive unassigned N11 codes and for what purpose.E0C yO-ԍ See, e.g., Rochester Comments at 3; Ameritech Comments at 10; GTE Reply Comments at 2. 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.  XH-x20.` ` 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  X -common central office prefix such as 540 or 970.F  C yO"- xԍ New York Telephone states that the 540, 550 and 976 prefixes currently available to enhanced service  xproviders allow for 30,000 sevendigit numbers within a LATA. By contrast, up to only eight N11 codes would be  yO#- xLavailable for local information services in the New York Telephone service area. See New York Telephone Comments at 4. 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"b F,N(N(ZZ," be assigned.  X-x21.` ` We recognize the concerns expressed by some information service providers that, absent Commission order, some LECs may unjustly or unreasonably withhold N11 codes  X-for local information services. As discussed in the FNPRM below, we propose that the LECs'  X-functions related to N11 administrationzGXC yO- xԍ By the terms of the Commission's Local Competition Second Report and Order and this First Report and  yO- xOrder the incumbent LECs are permitted to continue performing functions related to N11 administration they performed prior to enactment of the 1996 Act amendments to the 1934 Act.z be transferred to the neutral NANP administrator to  Xv-be recommended by the NANC. THvC yO -ԍ See NANP Order at para. 6567.T 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, nondiscriminatory manner, such as on a firstcome,  X1-firstserved basis.gI1xC yOZ-ԍ See May 4 1992 FCC General Counsel Letter to BellSouth.g 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.  X -x ` ` 3. National Assignment of Specific N11 Codes  Xy-XxX` ` X a.XBackground   XK-x22. ` ` The N11 NPRM did not propose to disturb 911's existing designation as a  X4-national code for emergency servicesJ4C yO-ԍ See footnote 12, supra, regarding AT&T's designation of 911 as a national code.֓ 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  X-not presently used in some geographic areas for those purposes.K@C yO8- xԍ N11 NPRM at para. 11. A basic service is an offering of transmission capacity between two or more points  yO - xsuitable for a user's transmission needs, and subject only to the technical parameters of fidelity and distortion. See  xiNorth American Telecommunications Association, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Under Section 64.702 of the  xCommission's Rules Regarding the Integration of Centrex, Enhanced Services, and Customer Premises Equipment,  xx101 FCC 2d 349, 358 at para. 23 (1985) NATA Centrex Order), recon., 3 FCC Rcd 4385 (1988). An adjunct to  yO #- xbasic service is a service that might fall within a literal reading of our definition of enhanced service (see footnote  yO#- x8, supra) but which is clearly basic in purpose and use and which brings maximum benefits to the public through its provision in the network. In addition, the Commission tentatively concluded: (1) that 211, 311, 511, and 711, which, at the time of the"K,N(N(ZZ"  X-N11 NPRM were "apparently not used at all,"DLC yOy-ԍ N11 NPRM at para. 8.D 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  X-dialing.@MXC yO-ԍ Id. at para. 12.@  X- XxX` ` X b.XEmergency Services (911)   X_-x23.` ` 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  X1-services should remain unchanged.uN1C yO -ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 7; Sprint Reply Comments at 4.u 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 longstanding nationwide status as the phone number for quick and easy access to emergency services along with the absence of equally useful  X -numbers for this important public purpose, supports its continuing use.O  xC yO- xԍ The Minnesota Department of Administration 911 Program, based on a compilation of stateby state estimates  xX of population coverage as of late 1996, estimates that approximately 87 percent of the population in the United States  yOw- xis served by 911. See, facsimile transmission from Jim Beutelspacher, Minnesota 911 Program to Elizabeth Nightingale of the FCC Common Carrier Bureau dated November 22, 1996. We, therefore, do  X -not intend to alter 911's designation as a national code.P ` C yO- xYԍ In an Order released July 26, 1996, the Commission adopted rules regarding enhanced 911 (E911) emergency  yO- xservice for wireless providers. See In The Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility  xwith Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143 Report and Order and Further  yO- x=Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 96-264 (released July 26, 1996) (Wireless E911 Report and Order and  yO- xFNPRM). The Commission, also in CC Docket No. 94102, currently is considering establishing E911 rules in the  yO- xwireline context. See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency  yOh- xCalling Systems, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 6170 (1994). We also note that, under the Act, BOCs,  xbefore they are permitted to offer inregion, interLATA services, must show that the access or interconnection they  x;offer to other telecommunications carriers includes, among other things, "non discriminatory access to . . . 911 and  xE911 services." 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(I). We highlight this obligation here to emphasize the duty imposed by Congress on each BOC to provide competitors with nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 services.  Xy-XxX` ` X c.XAccess to Government Services   XK-x24.` ` 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"P,N(N(ZZ "  X-desired by responding to recorded prompts.>QC yOy-ԍ GSA Petition at 23.> 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 threedigit code. NASTD seeks uniform nationwide assignment  X-of an N11 code, specifically 211, to facilitate public access to state agencies.RXC yO- xZԍ See NASTD September 22, 1993 Letter to FCC Commissioner Quello. Comments filed in response to the GSA and NASTD requests will be referred to as Government Comments. 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  XH-which a person happens to be located.ISHC yO -ԍ NASTD Government Comments at 2.I The Department of Justice, in its request, asks that the Commission reserve an N11 number, specifically 311, for use for nonemergency police telephone calls and suggests that the number could be used to give access to other government services, at the discretion of each jurisdiction.  X -x25.` ` 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  Xy-access to government services.Ty@C yOj- xYԍ See, e.g., Overseas Private Investment Corporation Government Comments at 2; City of Dallas Government Comments at 2; Tennessee Valley Authority Government Comments at 2. 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  XK-offices, but also one for local government and one for state government use."JUKC yO-ԍ Dallas Government Comments at 2.J 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  X-more responsive and accountable to our citizens."9V( C yO-ԍ Id. at 1.9 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  X-provide greater awareness and access to its services.GW C yO*$-ԍ TVA Government Comments at 2.G The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) claims that use of a national N11 code will enable it to more effectively"H W,N(N(ZZ"  X-control their emergency preparedness programs in times of natural disaster.HXC yOy-ԍ USDA Government Comments at 1.H Further, USDA suggests that the use of an N11 code will encourage public calls on a more timely basis,  X-thereby increasing efficiency and its ability to serve the public.RYxXC yO- xԍ Several federal executive agencies take the same position with respect to increased efficiency and public  yO- xZresponsiveness. See, e.g., Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Government Comments at 2; The  xDepartment of Justice Government Comments at 2; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Government  x Comments at 2; Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Government Comments at 3; Environmental Protection Agency  x(EPA) Government Comments at 2; Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) Government Comments at  xK2; Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) Government Comments at 1; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Government Comments at 1.R  X-x26.` ` 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,  X_-including codes assigned to the government.zZ_C yO-ԍ See MCI Government Comments at 34; Sprint Government Comments at 3.z NENA expresses concerns about possible public confusion between N11 codes for emergency and nonemergency government  X1-information programs.P[1( C yO -ԍ NENA Government Reply Comments at 3. P 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  X -assignments to access to public service and governmental entities.\ C yO>- xԍ See, e.g., Texas Advisory Commission Government Comments at 45; Jackson Parish 911 Communication District Government Comments at 1. 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  Xy-of the N11 number.`]yC yO:-ԍ See Caddo Parish Government Reply Comments at 7.` 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,  XK-BellSouth notes that the N11 use contemplated by GSA has not yet been tested.O^KC yO"-ԍ BellSouth Government Comments at 67.O 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  X-information services.N_0C yO&-ԍ GSA Government Reply Comments 1314.N Finally, the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad Hoc)"_,N(N(ZZ(" 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  X-national basisJ`C yOK-ԍ Ad Hoc Government Comments at 4.J and acknowledges that an N11 code may provide users with the benefits of  X-ease and recognition.9aXC yO-ԍ Id. at 7.9 Ad Hoc argues, nonetheless, that GSA fails to demonstrate a  X-compelling need for the assignment.;bC yO= -ԍ Id. at 78.;  Xv-x27.` ` Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. (Acadian), a privatelyowned ambulance  X_-service in Louisiana using 311 since August 1, 1994,^c_xC yO -ԍ Acadian states that is serves 23 Louisiana parishes.^ supports the Commission's proposal in  XH-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  X -arrangements,@d C yO-ԍ Acadian Comments at 4.@ but requests that the Commission provide grandfathering preferences for medical communications systems "that are already saving lives on existing N11 service code  X -authorizations."3e C yO5-ԍ Id.3 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 oneyear notice period) only after the recall of those used for other  X-services.;f( C yOi-ԍ Id. at 45.; According to Acadian, these grandfathering preferences are warranted because of  Xy-the lifesaving services provided by emergency communications systems such as Acadian's.9gy C yO-ԍ Id. at 5.9 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  X-access to public service and governmental entities.hH C yO"- x;ԍ See, e.g., Texas Advisory Commission Government Comments at 45; Jackson Parish 911 Communication District Government Comments at 1.  X-x28.` ` Many parties filing commentsiC yO@&-ԍ The comments filed in response to the Department of Justice request are referred to as "311 Comments." in response to the Department of Justice's"0i,N(N(ZZE"  X-request for assignment of 311 for nonemergency police calls support that request.>jXC yOy- xԍ See, e.g., Ameritech 311 Comments at 23; AT&T 311 Comments at 23; National Association of Police  xOrganizations, Inc. (ANPO) 311 Comments; City of Austin Comments; Fire Commissioner/Chief of the Boston Fire Department 311 Comments.> 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  X-national assignment of 311 as beneficial to their ability to deliver emergency services.kC yOT- x-ԍ See, e.g., Dallas Fire Chief 311 Comments; Fort Worth Fire Chief 311 Comments; Fire Chief of the City  xof Pittsburgh, Department of Public Safety 311 Comments; Fire Chief of the Seattle Fire Department 311 Comments;  xxCommissioner of the Philadelphia Fire Department 311 Comments; Fire Commissioner/Chief of the Boston Fire  yO - xDepartment 311 Comments. Cf. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., and International Municipal Signal  xAssociation (collectively, International Fire Chiefs/Municipal Signal); Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department 311 Comments.  X-Asserting the need to reduce the number of calls placed to 911, various police departmentsnlX` C yO- xZԍ See, e.g., The Dallas Police Department 311 Comments; the San Jose, California 311 Comments; the San  xYBernadino, California Police Department 311 Comments; the Los Angeles Police Department 311 Comments; City and County of Denver Department of Safety, Chief of Police 311 Comments.n  X-and associations,m C yO- xԍ See, e.g., Maryland Chiefs of Police Association 311 Comments; National Association of Police Organizations 311 Comments; National Fraternal Order of Police 311 Comments. as well as the National Sheriff's Association_nC yO-ԍ See National Sheriff' Association 311 Comments._ and the National Troopers  Xv-Coalition,YovhC yO-ԍ See National Troopers Coalition Comments.Y support the Department of Justice's request.  XH-x29.` ` The Maryland Public Service Commission (MDPSC) filed comments supporting  X1-the request in which it asserts that 911 is overburdened in many jurisdictionsLp1C yO-ԍ See MDPSC 311 Comments at 3.Land provides information about the twoyear 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  X -nonemergency police services.q C yO% - xԍ On October 31, 1996, the MDPSC filed two responses to requests for supplemental information by  yO - xCommission staff. See Response of the Maryland Public Service Commission to Request for Supplemental  yO!- xInformation From the Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 92105, October 31, 1996; Response  xof the Maryland Public Service Commission to Request for Supplemental Information From the Federal  yOE#-Communications Commission November 6, 1996 (November 6, 1996 Supplemental Filing). 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.  X -x30.` ` Several commenters, while supporting assignment of a nonemergency number, express concern about issues related to implementation. These concerns include issues such as"8q,N(N(ZZ" routing, translation programming, funding and technical compatibility with existing 911  X-systems.IrC yOb- xԍ See, e.g., Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) comments; Ameritech 311 Comments  x at 23; The Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, Inc. (APCO) 311 Comments at 23;  yO- xCincinnati Bell Telephone Company (CBT) 311 Comments at 45; County of Los Angeles 311 Comments at 2; Los  x: Angeles Police Department 311 Comments; Texas Department of Information Resources (Texas DIR) 311 Comments at 23.I For example, APCO argues that addition of this number may cause problems for  X-development of wireless location technology for 911 services.AsxC yO-ԍ APCO 311 Comments at 2.A CBT cautions that nationwide implementation of 311 will necessitate translation programming in central offices so that 311 calls that are translated into a standard sevendigit number in the central office  X-switches will ring to the corresponding local law enforcement agency.JtC yOF -ԍ See CBT 311 Comments at 4.J 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  XH-Identification (ANI).&u HC yO- xԍ See County of Los Angeles 311 Comments at 2. Other commenters raise the issue of the use of ALI for  yOY- x311 nonemergency services. See, e.g., Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) 311 Comments  x(expressing concern about whether ALI would be required for 311); City of Houston 311 Comments (asserting that the 311 code will not require a dedicated telephone network because, unlike 911 ALI will not be needed).& The Los Angeles Police Department contends, for example, that: a national nonemergency N11 number should be supported by the same network selective routing system as E911/911 to ensure appropriate routing of nonemergency and emergency calls; the nonemergency 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  X -dedicated trunking.dv C yO-ԍ See Los Angeles Police Department 311 Comments at 2.d The Texas DIR supports the request, with the stipulation that a local  X -jurisdiction could provide access to other government information and services,Pw C yOh-ԍ See Texas DIR 311 Comments at 2.P 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  Xb-and data information.ExbC yO!-ԍ See Id. at 23.E 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 twoyear project  X-and that AT&T has donated phone lines and invested over $1 million in the program.9y0C yO%-ԍ Id. at 2.9 "y,N(N(ZZF"Ԍ X-x31.` ` Parties also raise concerns about the ability to analyze the results of the  X-Baltimore 311 Trial prior to the Commission's making a determination in this proceeding.zC yOb-ԍ See, e.g., California Highway Patrol 311 Comments; Cox 311 Comments at 12. Several other parties suggest that it is premature to make a determination that 311 should be  X-assigned for nonemergency police calls,{XC yO- xԍ See, e.g., GTE 311 Comments at 24; BellSouth 311 Comments at 3; The Office of Information Resources of the Budget and Control Board of the State of South Carolina (South Carolina OIR) 311 Comments. claiming, for example, that the issue should be  X-referred to industry fora,x|C yO -ԍ See, e.g., GTE 311 Comments at 24; BellSouth 311 Comments at 45.x that the Commission should subject the issue to further scrutiny in  X-the context of a broader review of abbreviated dialing arrangements,T}@C yO~ -ԍ See South Carolina OIR 311 Comments.T and that alternative  Xv-dialing arrangements such as 800 and sevendigit or tendigit numbers should be considered.L~vC yO-ԍ See GTE 311 Comments at 24.L Several parties opposing the Department of Justice's request also cite available 800, seven XH-digit and tendigit alternatives. H` C yOY- xԍ See, e.g., Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications (TXACSEC) 311 Comments  xat 2; Arizona APCO Chapter 311 Comments; Mesa 311 Comments at 12; King County E911 Program Manager  xComments at 12; International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., and International Municipal Signal Association 311 Comments at 911 (suggesting a 555 number alternative).  X -x32.` ` Parties opposing the Department of Justice's request include entities currently  X -assigned 311 for local use, several state 911 communications centers,.X H C yO- x[ԍ See, e.g., City of Mesa, Arizona, Police Department Communications (City of Mesa) 311 Comments;  xwSouthern Idaho Regional Communications Center 311 Comments; Greater Harris County 911 Emergency Network 311 Comments.. 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  X-Justice's request cite implementation concerns,hC yO - xԍ See, e.g., National 911 Commenters 311 Comments at 67; Arizona APCO Chapter 311 Comments; City of Mesa 311 Comments at 12; International Fire Chiefs/Municipal Signal 311 Comments at 79. suggest education efforts as an alternative,*C yO#- xԍ See, e.g., Bismark Emergency Management & Combined Communications (Bismark) 311 Comments; Cox  x,311 Comments at 4; Greater Harris County 911 Emergency Network 311 Comments at 1; Mesa Comments at 1;  x,Southern Idaho Regional Communications Center 311 Comments; Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department 311  xComments; King County E911 Program Manager 311 Comments at 1; International Fire Chiefs/Municipal Signal 311 Comments at 7.* and caution that implementation of a nonemergency number prior to ubiquitous 911 service"yp,N(N(ZZ"  X-would be detrimental to efforts to make it so.xC yOy-ԍ See, e.g., Mesa 311 Comments at 1; Arizona APCO 311 Comments at 1.x  X-x 33.` ` The National 911 Commenters oppose the Department of Justice request,  X-arguing, for example, that 911 networks in most of the country are not overloaded;TXC yO-ԍ National 911 Commenters 311 Comments at 4.T time and speed dialing are not important in nonemergency situations; N11 numbers, unlike sevendigit and tendigit 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  X_-confusion for 911 callers.;_C yO -ԍ Id. at 67.; The National 911 commenters ask whether national uniformity is superior to local choice and also contend that the Commission must consider that there are  X1-other pending requests for N11 numbers.91xC yOZ-ԍ Id. at 8.9 The State of New York Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), while supporting the concept of a national nonemergency 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  X -services.C C yO-ԍ NYSDPS 311 Comments at 1.C 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  X -may be too easily confused with 911.L C yO-ԍ See NYNEX 311 Comments at 2.L 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  XK-INPA.`XK( C yO$- xԍ See id. at 3. See also Florence Cainoce, Staff Manager for NYNEX Consumer Affairs 311 Comments at  x2, stating that she is a member of the Deaf community and she hopes 311 will continue to be used in New York for its current purpose until the year 2000.` Other opponents, like NYNEX, cite possible confusion with 911 as a reason not to  X4-choose 311 as a nonemergency police number.4H C yO-!- xԍ See, e.g. National 911 Commenters 311 Comments at 8; Cox 311 Comments at 56; International Fire Chiefs/Municipal Signal 311 Comments at 6. The City of Fresno, California Chief of Police (Fresno Police Chief), while not objecting to a national three digit number for nonemergency 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 nonemergency telephone",N(N(ZZ"  X-system."QC yOy-ԍ Fresno Police Chief 311 Comments.Q Costs of upgrading the network and funding issues are raised not only by  X-opponents of the Department of Justice's requestXC yO- x;ԍ See, e.g., City of Mesa 311 Comments at 2; Arizona APCO 311 Comments at 2; National 911 Commenters 311 Comments at 67; International Fire Chiefs/Municipal Signal 311 Comments at 8. but also by its supporters who express  X-concern about implementation of 311.C yO3-ԍ See, e.g., AT&T 311 Comments at 3; Los Angeles Police Department 311 Comments at 2;  X-x!34.` ` Several other parties note current uses of 311. Acadian Ambulance and AIR  X-MED Services of Louisiana (Acadian et. al.), @C yO~ - xKԍ Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. (Acadian) filed comments in response to the N11 NPRM. See para. 28,  yOF - xsupra. Acadian filed together with AIR MED Services of Louisiana (Acadian et. al.) in response to the Department  yO- xof Justice request. Acadian et. al. states that it serves 26 Louisiana parishes, three more than Acadian said it served in 1994. while generally supporting the nonemergency number effort, opposes the selection of 311, which it has been using since March 1994 to  X_-provide rural ambulance service in Louisiana. Acadian et al. requests that the Commission, if it chooses 311 as a national nonemergency number, direct the Louisiana PSC to award  X1-Acadian a replacement number.d1( C yO -ԍ See Acadian et. al 311 Comments at 24.d The Kentucky Department of Transportation (Kentucky DOT) and the Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT), while both supporting the assignment of a national nonemergency 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  X -system that according to the Ohio DOT has been very successful.Q C yO-ԍ See Ohio DOT 311 Comments at 12.Q 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  XK-use of 311.SKH C yOD -ԍ See Kentucky DOT 311 Comments at 2.S 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  X-company repair calls.3C yO#-ԍ Id.3 CBT, although expressing implementation concerns and noting the  X-Kentucky DOT's current use of 311, supports the Department of Justice's request.JhC yO&-ԍ See CBT 311 Comments at 2.J Morris Communications Corporation (Morris) of Augusta, Georgia, opposes the request because the",N(N(ZZE" company uses 311 in three cities in Georgia and one in Florida as a paypercall 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  X-precedes 911.MC yO4-ԍ See Morris 311 Comments at 1.M Finally, Morris states that it would investigate whether its legal rights would  X-be infringed by a "taking" of the 311 number.XC yO- xԍ Id. The Commission has stated that carriers do not own numbers and that numbers are a national public  yOu-resource. See para. 71, infra.  Xv-x"35.` ` Discussion. We find assignment of a national number through which the public  X_-could gain access quickly to nonemergency police and other government servicesX_C yO -ԍ See discussion at para. 37, infra.X to be in the public interest. After reviewing the record, we conclude that this number should be an  X1-N11 code, specifically 311. We direct Bellcore, as of the effective date of this First Report  X -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 nonemergency 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  X -First Report and Order relinquish noncompliant 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.  XK-x#36.` ` We find that use of an N11 code for access to nonemergency 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  X-access to emergency services is consistent with the purpose stated in Section 1 of the Act.G@C yO-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  151.G 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  X-country in order to obtain emergency assistance."JC yO+!-ԍ See para. 23, supra.J Therefore, ensuring that 911 circuits are not overburdened with nonemergency calls is also of utmost importance. Eventually, the use of a single N11 code nationwide for nonemergency 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 nonemergency number and its primary purpose; (2) the importance of continuing to dial 911 in" ` ,N(N(ZZ" real emergencies; and (3) any secondary uses for the new code in the particular jurisdiction.  X-x$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  X-Department of Justice has suggested.aC yO-ԍ See Department of Justice August 26, 1996 Letter.a Local jurisdictions can better determine whether this code could or should be used for access to services in addition to nonemergency 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.  X -x%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 noncompliant uses of 311 as required above, providers of telecommunications services also ensure that this occurs with the least disruption possible to  X-the user's business.JXC yO-ԍ See para. 35, supra.J 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 noncompliant uses to continue until six months after a request is made to use 311 for nonemergency 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  X-(ADA).C yOq- xKԍ See 28 C.F.R.  35.162, implementing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.  12131 - 12161.  X-x&39.` ` While we acknowledge that many commenters raise concerns about using 311 for nonemergency 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 nonemergency 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 easytoremember 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 nonemergency calling, and therefore, whetherto avail themselves of the ability, made easier by this national assignment, to request 311 implementation in their respective" @,N(N(ZZ" jurisdictions. Several parties suggest that prior to considering 311 for nonemergency calling, the Commission should focus on making ubiquitous 911 emergency calling. As noted  X-above,MC yOK-ԍ See footnote 12, supra.M thirty years ago, AT&T designated 911 for access to emergency services, and this  X-First Report and Order declines to alter this designation for 911.JXC yO-ԍ See para. 23, supra.J 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.  X_-x'40.` ` Some of the concerns that lead certain parties to suggest alternatives to a national N11 number for nonemergency calls, such as a three digit number without "11" as  X1-the last two digits (such as 222), an 800 number, or a sevendigit number," 1C yO - xԍ We note that parties have expressed interest in other abbreviated dialing arrangements generally as  yO- xalternatives to N11 codes. We discuss these alternatives at para. 5962, infra. We find that, on the record before  xus, we are unable to find that the public interest supports national reservation at this time of any alternative dialing  yO"-arrangements for any particular purpose. See para. 61, infra." 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 nonemergency number both easy to remember and easy to use, thus resulting in greater reduction of nonemergency 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 nonemergency calling, it may decide not to request 311 implementation. Our assignment leaves the choice to local governments.  X-x(41.` ` We deny requests that current noncompliant 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 noncompliant uses to choose to use 311 to obtain that relief. We note,  X-however, that uses of 311 for other purposes prior to the effective date of this First Report  X-and Order may continue until the local government in that area is prepared to activate a nonemergency 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  Xe-on short notice.zeC yO#-ԍ See Network Notes, "Numbering Plan and Dialing Procedures" at 3.4.1.z The need to provide relief, in a timely fashion, when 911 circuits become congested with nonemergency calls makes it unreasonable for us to defer implementation issues to industry fora. " ` ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-x)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  X- provider of telecommunications services may incur certain costs (for example, in reprogramming switch software) to enable implementation of 311. Since 311 calls, like 911  X-calls, are typically intrastate, states would regulate cost recovery in most instances.m@C yO- xԍ Cf. 47 U.S.C.  332(c)(3) (preempting state regulation of rates and entry for CMRS, but allowing the states  xto petition the Commission for authority to regulate rates in limited circumstances). Section 332 provides that CMRS  xproviders are to be treated as common carriers, but permits the Commission to forbear from applying certain sections  xof Title II. Specifically, the Commission may forbear from applying any section of Title II, except Sections 201,  yO= - x202, and 208. See 47 U.S.C.  332(c)(1)(A). In the CMRS Second Report and Order, the Commission determined  xthat it would be in the public interest to forbear from imposing most Title II requirements on CMRS providers,  yO - x.including tariffing requirements. See Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act,  yO -Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Service, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1463-93 (1994).m Funding of 311 service also is a local issue.  X_-x*43.` ` The wireless industry expresses concern about costs and other implementation  XH-issues. CTIA,FHC yO-ԍ See CTIA 311 Comments.F 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 nonemergency service that is distinct from 911 service. For this  Xy-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  XK-service.K` C yO\-ԍ See Wireless E911 Report and Order and FNPRM, cited at footnote 80, supra.ć  X-x+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 nonemergency police access, grants in part NASTD's request for national assignment of an N11 code to facilitate public access to state agencies."e ,N(N(ZZ"  X-XxX` ` X d.XAccess to Repair Services (611)  X-and Business Office Uses (811)   X-x,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  XH-request that they be allowed to continue to use these N11 codes.mHC yO -ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 4; SNET Comments at 2.m 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.  X -x-46.` ` With multiple LECs in the local market, access to these codes for repair and business office uses by only one facilitiesbased carrier serving that market would be anticompetitive. The possibility of anticompetitive effects is not an issue with respect to other facilitiesbased carriers because 811 and 611 are only used within a carrier's own network. Therefore, a facilitiesbased 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 facilitiesbased 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 facilitiesbased 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  X-have nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers.` XC yO- xԍ See 47 U.S.C.  251(b)(3). We note that the Commission, in Implementation of the Local Competition  yO{- xProvisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 9698, First Report and Order, FCC 96325 (rel.  yOC- xAug. 8, 1996) (First Interconnection Order), motion for stay of the FCC's rules pending judicial review denied,  yO - x: Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 9698,  yO- xJFCC 96378 (rel. Sep. 17, 1996), partial stay granted, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, No. 963321, 1996 WL 589204  yO- x(8th Cir. Oct. 15, 1996) (Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC) (Local Competition First Report and Order) found that CMRS  xZproviders (specifically cellular, broadband PCS and covered SMR), in addition to meeting the statutory definition  xJof telecommunications carriers, also provide telephone exchange service and exchange access as defined by the Act.  yO!- xJThis means that these CMRS providers would have nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers from LECs. See  yO"- x,Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 10121013. The Commission declined to treat CMRS providers  yO#- xas LECs at this time. See id. at para. 1004. Therefore, the requirements imposed on LECs in Section 251(b)(3) do not apply to CMRS providers." ,N(N(ZZ"  X-x` ` e.Directory Assistance (411)  X-x.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, easytorecall, 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  X_-justified by public convenience and necessity. Accordingly, as we proposed in the N11  XH-NPRM, we do not alter the assignment of the 411 code. The number 5551212, like 411, is a  X1-nationallyrecognized number for directory assistance.q1C yO -ԍ See Local Competition Second Report and Order at para. 149.q U S WEST, in its comments, noted: XxThe 555 central office code, or prefix, is generally used for access to LEC directory assistance services. Typically, an end user dials 1+5551212 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  X -end user dials 1[area code]5551212.B XC yO-ԍ U S WEST Comments at 13.B  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 5551XXX series of numbers for directory information and related  X4-services.":4C yO-ԍ Id. at 14.: 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  X-to reach directory assistance services through 411 or 5551212 arrangements";xC yO/-ԍ Id. at 151.; 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 555XXXX or any other dialing arrangements for such services.  X-x/48.` ` In view of reports that some LECs were planning to use 411 for new  X|-information service offerings that would be classified as enhanced services under our rules,{|C yO5"-ԍ See footnote 8, supra, for a definition of "enhanced services."{  Xe-the N11 NPRM sought comment on whether LEC use of 411 should be restricted to the  XN-provision of traditional directory assistance services.?X NC yO%- xԍ See N11 NPRM at para. 11. By "traditional" directory assistance services we refer to operator provision of  xlocal telephone numbers. The Commission has determined that traditional directory assistance services are "adjunct"  yO''- xto basic services and are regulated pursuant to Title II of the Communications Act. See Amendment of Section"'',N(N(J'"  yO- xi64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, 77 FCC 2d 384 at para. 421 (1980) (Computer II), modified  yOX- xon recon, 84 FCC 2d 50 (1980) (Computer II Reconsideration Order), modified on further recon., 88 FCC 2d 512  yO - x(1981) (Computer II Further Reconsideration Order), aff'd sub nom., Computer and Communications Industry Assoc.  yO-v. FCC, 693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. (1983).? Several commenters argue that we"N,N(N(ZZ" 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  X-with that LEC.C yO3-ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 3; Pacific Comments at 4; USTA Comments at 30. Others argue that 411 should always be restricted to basic directory  X-assistance.W@C yO -ԍ See, e.g., Mobile Comments at 2. W 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  X1-to facilitate distribution of their enhanced services.1C yO- xwԍ We note that the Commission has established its ancillary jurisdiction over enhanced services in its Computer  yOz-II decision. See Computer II at paras. 124125. LECs offering enhanced services through the use of an N11 code are subject to rules designed to protect against discrimination  X -and possibly other anticompetitive conduct.a ( C yO-ԍ See, e.g., Computer II at para. 231.a Moreover, the Bell Operating Companies  X -(BOCs) are subject to additional safeguards pursuant to Computer III. C yOU- xԍ See Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Computer III), CC Docket  yO- x<No. 85-229, Phase I, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986) (Phase I Order), recon., 2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987) (Phase I Recon.  yO- xOrder), further recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1135 (1988) (Phase I Further Recon. Order), second further recon., 4 FCC Rcd  yO- x5927 (1989) (Phase I Second Further Recon.), Phase I Order and Phase I Recon. Order vacated, California v. FCC,  yOu- x,905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.1990) (California I); Phase II, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 (1987) (Phase II Order), recon., 3 FCC Rcd  yO=- xZ1150 (1988) (Phase II Recon. Order), further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1988) (Phase II Further Recon. Order),  yO- xxPhase II Order, vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.1990); Computer III Remand Proceedings, 5  yO- xKFCC Rcd 7719 (1990) (ONA Remand Order), recon., 7 FCC Rcd 909 (1992), pets. for review denied, California  yO- xv. FCC, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir.1993) (California II); Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company  yO]- xSafeguards and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company Safeguards, 6 FCC Rcd 7571 (1991) (BOC Safeguards Order);  yO% -BOC Safeguards Order  vacated in part and remanded, California v. FCC, 39 F.3d 919 (1994) (California III). For example, BOCs offering such services today must file and receive approval of comparably efficient  X -interconnection (CEI) plans. C yO#- x<ԍ See, e.g., Bell Operating Companies Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II, 10 FCC Rcd 13758 (Com. Car. Bur. 1995). Such measures will help ensure that competing enhanced service providers will have access to basic transmission facilities on an unbundled and" p,N(N(ZZ "  X-functionally equivalent basis.UC yOy-ԍ See Phase I Order at para. 147.U 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  X-telephone numbers,XC yO- xԍ See 47 U.S.C.  251(b)(3). See footnote 164, supra, for a discussion of the application of this provision of the Act to CMRS providers. 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  Xv-services.OvC yO -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(II).O  XH-x` ` f.Access to Telecommunications Relay Services  X -x049.` ` Background. NCLD's petition requests that two N11 numbers be assigned or  X -reserved for TRS access.(@ @C yO- xԍ TRS allows people with hearing or speech disabilities to use the telephone. TRS facilities are equipped with  xspecialized equipment and staffed by communications assistants who relay conversation between people who use text  xtelephones and people who use traditional telephones. The Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking  yOL- xcomment on TRS issues in Telecommunications Relay Services, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and  yO- xxthe Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Inquiry, CC Docket No. 90571, FCC 977, ___ FCC Rcd. ___,  yO- x(Released January 14, 1997) (TRS NOI). This TRS NOI, states that it will not include consideration of assignment  xof N11 numbers to access TRS because that issue is pending before the Commission and will be addressed in this  yOl-proceeding. See id. at n. 6.( It states that under the ADA, common carriers are required to provide TRS, a telephone transmission service designed to provide persons with speech or  X -hearing disabilities functionally equivalent access to the telephone network.R H C yO-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  225(a)(3), (c).R 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  Xy-especially difficult for TTYyC yO - x0ԍ TTY is a teletypewriter, which is a device for communicating alphanumeric information over telecommunications networks. 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 twentyone 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"0,N(N(ZZ" callers.  X-x150.` ` Comments. Most commenters support reservation or assignment of a nationwide N11 code for TRS access. Commenters agree that a uniform N11 code will  X-reduce confusion, provide quicker dialing and promote TRS use.CXC yO- xԍ See, e.g., Louisiana Relay Comments at 1; Leigh Comments at 1; Life After Deafness/California Comments  xwat 1; Gallaudet/Kapi'olani Comments at 1. Comments and reply comments cited in paragraphs 3036 are responding to the NCLD petition.C  Xv-x251.` ` States filing comments generally support assignment of nationwide N11 codes  X_-for TRS access.X_C yO - xLԍ See, e.g., Oregon Public Utility Commission Comments at 1; Attorney General of the State of Illinois  xComments at 1; State of Texas Comments in response to Emergency Petition for Rulemaking by National Center for & Deafness and Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc (hereinafter NCLD/TDI petition) at 3. 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  X1-basis.A1C yO-ԍ Illinois Comments at 1.A Texas, relying on the ADA, states that it believes that a nationwide assignment of  X -N11 codes for TRS is appropriate._ C yOc-ԍ Texas Comments in response to NCLD/TDI petition at 3._ 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 555XXXX or 1800XXXXXXX could be better suited and more easily  X -converted to TRS access."F ( C yO-ԍ Florida Reply Comments at 3.F Florida asserts that any Commission rulemaking should "address  X-N11 access in comparison with other potential access arrangements . . . ."3 C yO-ԍ Id.3  Xb-x352.` ` LECs generally favor reservation of a single N11 code for TRS access, but  XK-question whether an N11 assignment is appropriate at this time.NKH C yOD -ԍ See U S WEST Comments at 34.N Commenters supporting an N11 reservation, rather than assignment, generally argue that a number of policy and technical  X-issues must be resolved before a nationwide N11 code for TRS can be implemented.pC yO#-ԍ See, e.g., SWBT Comments at 17; U S WEST Comments at 34.p Bell Atlantic states that a dialing arrangement that automatically routes all TRS callers to a single  X-TRS provider would place other TRS providers at a competitive disadvantage.FhC yO'-ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 4.F GTE warns" ,N(N(ZZ'" 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  X-problems during implementation and testing.BC yOK-ԍ GTE Reply Comments at 9.B GTE suggests that industry fora could resolve  X-technical issues and could establish a state by state schedule for implementation.<XC yO-ԍ GTE Comments at 9.<  X-x453.` ` Noting that N11 codes are a scarce resource, several parties suggest alternative solutions such as a uniform nationwide 800 number, 555XXXX number, or 950XXXX number for TRS access. Cox contends that technical and operational issues render N11  XH-numbers unsuitable for providing uniform access to relay service in the near future.EHC yO -ԍ Cox Reply Comments at 36. E Cox, in  X1-its December 12, 1995, ex parte presentation, reiterated its position that there should be no  X -N11 numbers reserved for national use for access to TRS.b xC yOC-ԍ Cox December 12, 1995 Ex parte Presentation.b 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 noncommercial 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  X-a 711 telephone number."AC yO-ԍ U S WEST Comments at 5.A 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  X-direct calls to the nearest TRS bureau."9C yO! -ԍ Id. at 7.9 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  X|-investigation into alternatives to an N11 code, such as an 800 number.F|( C yOU%-ԍ Florida Reply Comments at 3.F  XN-x554.` ` Other parties, however, assert that an 800 number, necessitating dialing many"N! ,N(N(ZZ0" 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: XxIn Illinois, for example, voice users and TTY users of the TRS must dial one of two 1800 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 1800 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  X -for those who travel to many different states.A C yON-ԍ Illinois Comments at 2.A  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 11digit (800) number to access  Xb-the service, then enter the 7 or 10digit number they wish to call."BbXC yOk-ԍ Wisconsin Comments at 1.B 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 1800 numbers for access to TRS: "often more than 17 numbers must be dialed before reaching the called party,  X-which can double the length of time on the line needed to dial for relay users."AC yO-ԍ Triangle Comments at 1.A 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: Xx[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""x,N(N(ZZ"  X-access . . . .'UXC yOy- xyԍ NCLD Comments at 8, note 6, quoting Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and  yOA- xSpeech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Report and Order and Request for Comments, CC Docket No. 90571 at para. 42.U   X- x655.` ` 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  X-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  X_-within three years of the effective date of this First Report and Order and we seek comment on this proposal. Three 800855XXXX numbers have been allocated for TRS access by the Industry Carriers Compatibility Forum (ICCF) of the Alliance for Telecommunications  X -Industry Solutions.< C yO- xԍ The entire 855 "NXX" code, within the 800 area code, has been reserved for disability access. NXX refers  x[to the first three digits of a North American local telephone number and identifies the local central office. N  xYrepresents any digit from 2 to 9 and X is any digit. Of the approximately ten thousand numbers associated with this  xjNXX code, three have been specifically reserved by the industry for access by persons with speech or hearing disabilities.< In the FNPRM, we state that we do not anticipate any conflict between allowing activation of the 800855XXXX 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.  X4-x756.` ` An N11 code may significantly facilitate TRS access, thus furthering the goals  X-of both the 1996 ActxC yOf- xԍ The Act requires that telecommunications services, telecommunications equipment, and customer premises  xYequipment be accessible to persons with disabilities, if readily achievable. The duty to ensure accessibility is imposed  xon: (1) telecommunications service providers regarding their services; and (2) equipment manufacturers regarding  yO- xtheir telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment. See 47 U.S.C.  255. The Commission  yO - xreleased a Notice of Inquiry on September 19, 1996, beginning the Commission's implementation of Section 255.  yON!- xSee In the Matter of Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Inquiry, WT  yO"-Docket No. 96198, FCC 96382, 61 Fed. Reg. 50465 (September 26, 1996) (Section 255 NOI). 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"#,N(N(ZZ4" 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  X-administrator, to assign 711 for such use as of the effective date of this First Report and  X-Order.  X_-x` ` 4. Statutory Preemption  X1-x857.` ` The Act gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over numbering in the  X -United States.L C yO -ԍ See 47 U.S.C  251(e)(1).L 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  X -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  X -have become moot. XC yO- xԍ Few commenters addressed the preemption issue directly. The State of Texas noted that the FCC does not  xhave general preemptive authority over the assignment of N11 codes used for "purely intrastate uses" but conceded  xthat Title IV of the ADA provides authority for the "FCC to require the uses of a particular N11 code for access to  yO- xKinterstate relay programs and to condition approval of state programs on the use of the same code." See Texas Comments in response to NCLD/TDI petition at 3, citing 47 U.S.C.  225(b)(2), (c)(2), (d).  Xy-x958.` ` Moreover, we find that a nationwide, uniform system of numbering is essential  Xb-to the efficient delivery of interstate and international telecommunications.tbC yO-ԍ See NANP Order at para. 26; Ameritech Order at para. 13.t 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.  X- x` ` 5. Other Issues  X-x` ` a.Alternate Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements  X|-  Xe-x: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"N$,N(N(ZZ"  X-of providers that N11 service codes could serve. C yOy- xԍ See N11 NPRM at para. 19. By "alternate dialing arrangements," we mean arrangements other than the  xconventional seven and ten digit sequences that facilitate recall and use by the general public. "Abbreviated dialing  xarrangements" are alternate dialing arrangements that involve less than seven and usually four or fewer dialing digits."xx#" is an example where "X" may be any number from 0 to 9. 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  Xv-alternative abbreviated dialing arrangement.vC yO - xԍ CLASS is a set of calling party number (CPN)based services, such as caller ID, auto call return, selective call forwarding and other services. 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.  X -x;60.` ` Comments/Discussion. The record shows that there is considerable interest in  X -alternative abbreviated dialing arrangements. C yO- xԍ See, e.g., Alternative Newspapers Comments at 4; Cox Comments at 4; Advance Reply Comments 2; Cox Reply Comments at 29. Some commenters seek abbreviated numbers  X -in only one local calling area,S ` C yO-ԍ See, e.g., Cox Comments at 4.S while others seek a uniform abbreviated number for an entire  X -state, a region, or the whole country.o C yOv-ԍ See, e.g., Mobile Comments at 3; MCI Reply Comments at 7.o Commenters suggest using numbers with two to four digits plus a "*" or a "#", such as *XX or NXX#. One commenter suggests codes with  X -"**X."? C yO-ԍ PBS/PG Comments at 3.?  Xy-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  X-particular purpose, except as previously described in this First Report and Order.  X-x=62.` ` While we decline to make any national assignment or other reservation of"%,N(N(ZZo" abbreviated dialing arrangements at this time, we reiterate that no federal policy bars the use of such arrangements for intrastate service offerings.  X-x` ` b.Recall Procedures  X-x>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  X_-recalls.E_C yO-ԍ N11 NPRM at para. 13.E 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  X1-local uses.W1XC yO: -ԍ See, e.g., SWBT Comments at 910.W 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.  X -x?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  X-assignment and is subject to termination on short notice.C yO)- x,ԍ See Network Notes. "Numbering Plan and Dialing Procedures" at 38. As stated above, Network Notes does not define short notice. Second, when state commissions have allowed N11 use, their authorization orders, which, by the terms of the Commission's  Xb-Local Competition Second Report and Order remain in effect,Jb@C yOS-ԍ See para. 13, supra.J consistently state that such  XK-use is subject to termination or other modification on short notice, typically six months. KC yO- xԍ See, e.g., Request for Approval of Tariff Filing to Introduce N11 Service, Order Regarding N11 Abbreviated  xDialing, Docket No. 920962TL, Florida Public Service Commission, Nov. 4, 1993 (noting that Southern Bell's tariff  xclearly states that any and all N11 codes could be recalled by the NANP at any time, and if so, must be relinquished within 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."& ,N(N(ZZQ"  X-x` ` 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act  X-x@65.` ` See Appendix E, infra, for the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  X-x IV.` ` FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING x` x  X_-x A.` ` Introduction  X1-xA66.` ` 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.  X4-x B.` ` Access to Telecommunications Relay Services  X-xB67.` ` 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  X-implement such a code at this time.KXC yOQ- xԍ For example, there are technical issues associated with the switch modifications necessary to route N11 calls  x,on a local basis. Configuring the dialing arrangements to enable relay service users to choose interexchange carriers is another technical issue. K 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.  X-xC68.` ` We tentatively conclude that nationwide implementation of 711 for TRS access  X-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" ',N(N(ZZ"  X-for switchedbased N11.C yOy- x.ԍ Switchedbased N11 is only one example of an architectural arrangement supporting the use of N11. Another example may be an arrangement using intelligent network capabilities. We understand switchedbased 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  X-implementation may not permit end users to select a preferred TRS provider.^ C yOu-ԍ Sprint Ex Parte presentation of July 24, 1995.^ 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  X -gateway would be consistent with Section 255 of the Act. C yO- xԍ This section of the Act requires that telecommunications services, telecommunications equipment, and  xcustomer premises equipment be accessible to persons with disabilities, if readily achievable. The duty to ensure  xKaccessibility is imposed on: (1) telecommunications service providers regarding their services; and (2) equipment  yOw- ximanufacturers regarding their telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment. See 47 U.S.C.   yO?-255. The Commission has begun implementing Section 255. See Section 255 NOI, cited at footnote 204, supra. 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  Xy-10 seconds.Py` C yO-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  64.604(b)(2).P 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.  X-x C.` ` Sale or Transfer of N11 Codes h x  X-xD69.` ` 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  X-transfer their numbers to others.E C yOK$-ԍ N11 NPRM at para. 15.E Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on whether  X-N11 codes should be permitted to be sold or transferred.3 C yO&-ԍ Id.3 "(,N(N(ZZQ"Ԍ X-ԙxE70.` ` Comments. Most commenters oppose the transfer or sale of N11 numbers.mC yOy-ԍ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 7; U S WEST comments at 21.m They argue that the assignment of a public resource, such as N11 codes, does not confer  X-property rights upon the assignee.xXC yO-ԍ See, e.g., Sprint Reply Comments at 7; USTA Comments at 1920, 31.x Some commenters support the transfer or sale of N11 codes, but urge the Commission to develop and enforce rules regarding such transfers and that  X-the transfer or sale be limited to companies that merge or are acquired.C yO= -ԍ See, e.g., Rochester Comments at 4; Mobile Comments at 4; Mtel Comments at 7;  Xv-xF71.` ` 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  XH-switched telephone network.HxC yOq- xԍ See The Need to Promote Competition and Efficient Use of Spectrum for Radio Common Carrier Services,  x=Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 Rad. Reg. (P&F)1275,1284 (1986). We note that Bellcore, as current  xZadministrator of the NANP, also has characterized numbers as a public resource and has specifically rejected that  yO- xthe assignment of a number implies ownership by either the assignor or assignee. See Personal Communications  yO-Services N00 NXX Code Assignment Guidelines, Para. 2.10 (April 8, 1995 Revision). The Commission, also on several occasions, has further  X1-characterized telephone numbers as a national public resource.X1( C yO - xԍ See, e.g., NANP Order at para. 4 (stating that telephone numbers are a public resource); The Need to  yO- xPromote Competition and Efficient Use of Spectrum for Radio Common Carrier Services, Declaratory Ruling, 2 FCC  yO-Rcd 2910, 2912 (1987), recon., 4 FCC Rcd 2369 (1989) (stating that NXX codes are a national 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.  Xy-x D.` ` Administration of N11 Codes  XK-xG72.` ` 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.  X-xH73.` ` Bellcore, in its role as NANP administrator, has issued specific guidelines")H ,N(N(ZZp"  X-addressing the use of N11 codes.pC yOy-ԍ See Network Notes "Numbering Plan and Dialing Procedures."p These guidelines permit local use of N11 if such  X-assignments and use can be discontinued on short notice.3XC yO-ԍ Id.3 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).  XH-xI74.` ` 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  X -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  Xy-Bellcore to the new administrator has been completed."HyC yO-ԍ NANP Order at para. 115.H  XK-xJ75.` ` 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  X-amendments to the 1934 Act, and would otherwise continue under the terms of this First  X-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  X-functions associated with CO Code administration.& xC yO- xԍ The Commission did not intend to limit the functions to be transferred to the new entity to those specifically  yO- xJlisted in the NANP Order. The Commission stated there that it seeks recommendations from the NANC on several  x<issues, one of which is "[w]hat number resources, beyond those currently administered by Bellcore, as the NANP  yOB -administrator, should the new NANP administrator administer?" Id. at para. 118.& We seek comment on our proposal.  X-x E.` ` Procedural Matters  Xe-x` ` 1. Ex Parte Presentations  X7-xK76.` ` This is a nonrestricted noticeandcomment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are" *` ,N(N(ZZ"  X-disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203,  X-1.1206. Written submissions, however, will be limited as discussed below.MC yOb-ԍ See paras. 7880, infra.M  X-XxX` ` 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act x`  X-xL77.` ` See Appendix F, infra for the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  X_- xF.` ` Comment Filing Procedures  X1-xM78.` ` 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  X -file comments on or before March 31, 1997 , and reply comments on or before April 30,  X -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.  X-xN79.` ` 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 seventyfive (75) pages and reply comments be no longer than thirtyfive (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  X -sections of the Commissions rules.  XC yO)!- xԍ See 47 C.F.R.  1.49. We require, however, that a summary be included with all comments and reply  xcomments, although a summary that does not exceed three pages will not count towards the 75 page limit for  xcomments or the 35 page limit for reply comments. The summary may be paginated separately from the rest of the  yO#-pleading (e.g., as "i, ii"). See 47 C.F.R.  1.49. 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" +@,N(N(ZZ" the outline of this Notice, such comments must be included in a clearly labelled section at the  X-beginning or end of the filing. Parties may not file more than a total of ten (10) pages of ex  X-parte submissions, excluding cover letters. This 10 page limit does not include: (1) written ex  X-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  Xv-staff. Ex parte filings in excess of this limit will not be considered as part of the record in this proceeding.  X1-xO80.` ` 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.  XK-6 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X-xP81.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 201205 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 201 X-205, and 251(e)(1), that the First Report and Order is hereby ADOPTED.  X-xQ82.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Bellcore, as the NANP administrator, shall  X-assign 711 as a national code for TRS use as of the effective date of this First Report and  X-Order, as discussed in this First Report and Order.  Xe-xR83.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Bellcore, as the NANP administrator, shall assign 311 as a national code for access to nonemergency police and other government  X7-services as of the effective date of this First Report and Order, as discussed in this First  X -Report and Order.  X-xS84.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that when a provider of telecommunications services receives a request from an entity to use 311 for access to nonemergency 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  X"-this First Report and Order relinquish noncompliant 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.  X:&-xT85.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that (1) all providers of telephone exchange service, both incumbents and new market entrants, whether facilities or non facilitiesbased"#',,N(N(ZZ%" 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.  X-xU86.` ` 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.  X -xV87.` ` 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.  X -xW88.` ` 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  X-discussed in this First Report and Order, and otherwise DENIED. x  Xb-xX89.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 151(j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1), that the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby ADOPTED. x` ` x` ` FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hh@William F. Caton x` ` hh@Acting Secretary"N-,N(N(ZZ^"  X- .Appendix A  X-|Comments Filed on N11 NPRMă  X- CC Docket 92105 ă  X- Comments  X_-1.xAd Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad Hoc)  XH-2.xAlternate Weekly Newspapers, New Times, Inc., Sasquatch  X1- xPublishing, City Pages, and Tuscon Weekly (Alternative Newspapers)  X -3.xAmerican Public Communications Council (APCC)  X -4.xAmerican Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T)  X -5.xAmeritech Operating Companies (Ameritech)  X -6.xAnchorage Telephone Utility (ATU)  X -7.xBell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic)  X -8.xBell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore)  X-9. xBellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth)  Xy-10.xBT North America (BONA)  Xb-11.xCanadian Steering Committee on Numbering (CSCN)  XK-12.xCentral Telephone Company (Centel)  X4-13.xCox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox)  X-14.xDatatrex  X-15.xFlorida Public Service Commission (FPSC)  X-16.xGTE Service Corporation (GTE)  X-17.xInfocom International, Incorporated (Infocom)  X-18.xInformation Technology Association of America (ITAA)  X-19.xInformation Industry Association (IIA)  X-20.xLO/AD Communications (LO/AD)  X|-21.xMCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI)  Xe-22.xMetropolitan Fiber Systems, Inc. (MFS)  XN-23.xMobile Connections, Inc. (Mobile)  X7-24.xMobile Telecommunications Technologies Corporation (Mtel)  X -25.xNational Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA)  X -26.xNewspaper Association of America (NAA)  X-27.xNYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX)  X-28.xPacific Bell and Nevada Bell (Pacific)  X -29.xPuerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC)  X!-30.xRochester Telephone Corporation (Rochester)  X"-31.xSouthern New England Telephone (SNET)  X#-32.xSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT)  Xh$-33.xSprint Corporation (Sprint)  XQ%-34.xTelesector Resources Group (Telesector)  X:&-35.xUnited States Telephone Association (USTA)  X#'-36.xU S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST)"#'.,N(N(ZZ%"Ԍ X-ԙ Reply Comments  X- 1.xAdvance Publications, Inc. (Advance)  X-2.xAT&T  X-3.xAmeritech  X-4.xBell Atlantic  Xv-5.xBellcore  X_-6.xBellSouth  XH-7.xBONA  X1-8.xCox  X -9.xDatatrex  X -10.xFirst Financial Management Corporation (FFMC)  X -11.xFPSC  X -12.xGTE  X -13.xIllinois Commerce Commission, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, Michigan XxPublic Service Commission, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Ameritech Regional Regulatory Committee, or ARRC)   Xb-14.xInformation Industry Association (IIA)  XK-15.xLO/AD  X4-16.xMCI  X-17.xMtel  X-18.xNational Center for Law and Deafness (NCLD)  X-19.xNew York State Department of Public Service (NYPDS)  X-20.xNewsday  X-21.xNYNEX  X-22.xOrganization for the Protection and Advancement Xxof Small Telephone Companies (OPASTCO)   X|-23.xPacific  Xe-24.xPBS/The Print Group  XN-25.xSprint  X7-26.xSWBT  X -27.xUnited Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc. (UCPA)  X -28.xUSTA  X-29.xU S WEST "/,N(N(ZZ"  X- 0Appendix B  X-BComments Filed on TRS Petitionă  X-Comments  X-  X-1.xAccess Independence and Mobility  Xv-2.xAd Hoc  X_-3.xALDA California Style  XH-4.xALDA Sacramento  X1-5.xAlexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Inc. xAmerican Council of the Blind  X -6.xAmerican Society for Deaf Children  X -7.xAmerican SpeechLanguage Hearing Association  X -8.xAmeritech  X -9.xAnderson, Herker  X -10.xAT&T  X-11.xBaltimore's Empowered Advocates for the XxRight's of Deaf and Hard of Hearing People   Xb-12.xBell Atlantic  XK-13.xBellSouth  X4-14.xBourneFirl, Bridgetts  X-15.xCenter for Media Education  X-16.xChicago Hearing Society  X-17.xCommonwealth of Massachusetts  X-18.xCox and Dallas Morning News  X-19.xDeafness Education Advocacy Foundation  X-20.xEakes, Dorothy  X-21.xEakes, Malcolm  X|-22.xFitts, Beth  Xe-23.xGallaudet University Regional Center Ohlone College  XN-24.xGallaudet University Regional Center Kapiolani Community College  X7-25.xGeneral Communications, Inc.  X -26.xGTE  X -27.xHamilton Telephone Co.  X-28.xHawaii State Coordinating Council on Deafness  X-29.xHelen Keller National Center  X -30.xIllinois Commerce Commission, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, XxPublic Utilities Commission of Ohio, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin   X"-31.xIllinois, Attorney General  X#-32.xIllinois Alliance for the Hearing Impaired  Xh$-33.xJacksonville Community Center for the Deaf  XQ%-34.xJacob, Philip  X:&-35.xJoint Commission Indiana Utility Reg. Comm., XxIllinois Commerce Commission, PUC of Ohio and the PSC of Wisconsin "#'0,N(N(ZZ%"Ԍ X-36.xJones, Samuel  X-37.xLake County Center for Independent Living  X-38.xLeigh, Irene  X-39.xLife After Deafness Magazine Gayle McCullough  X-40.xLife After Deafness  X-41.xLING Inc.  Xv-42.xMame Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Committee  X_-43.xMcBroom, Betty  XH-44.xMCI  X1-45.xMinnesota Telecommunications Access for CommunicationImpaired Persons Board  X -46.xMissouri Commission for the Deaf  X -47.xNational Technical Institute for the Deaf  X -48.xNational Association of the Deaf  X -49.xNew York Society for the Deaf  X -50.xNorth Carolina; Division of Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing  X -51.xNorth Country Club of the Deaf  X-52.xNorthern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Heard of Hearing Persons  Xy-53.xNYNEX  Xb-54.xOregon Public Utility Commission  XK-55.xOregon Association of the Deaf, Inc.  X4-56.xPacific  X-57.xPeople Mutual Telephone Company, Inc.  X-58.xPublic Utility Commission of Texas  X-59.xRelay Texas Advisory Committee  X-60.xRiker, David  X-61.xRochester Institute of Technology  X-62.xSchaumberg Township Disabled Services  X-63.xSelf Help for Hard of Hearing People  X|-64.xSouth Carolina Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Committee  Xe-65.xSouth Carolina Budget and Control Board  XN-66.xSWBT  X7-67.xSpringfield Center for Independent Living  X -68.xSprint Corporation for Sprint Communications Co. LP Xx& The 69. United and Centel Telephone Companies   X-70.xStill, G. Howard  X-71.xTelecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.  X -72.xTelecommunications Relay Services Advisory Council  X!-73.xTexas Attorney General  X"-74.xTexas, Public Utility Commission  X#-75.xTriangle Association of the Deaf  Xh$-76.xUSTA  XQ%-77.xUnited States Department of Agriculture  X:&-78.xUSDA Southwestern Region  X#'-79.xU S WEST Communications, Inc."#'1,N(N(ZZ%"Ԍ X-80.xVirginia Department for the Deaf and Heard of Hearing (VDDHH)  X-81.xWalker, Kristina Leitch  X-82.xWashington Post Company  X-83.xWisconsin, Department of Health and Social Services  X-84.xWisTRST  Xv- Reply Comments  XH-1.xAlexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf  X1-2.xAssociation of Late Deafened Adults  X -3.xBell Atlantic  X -4.xBellSouth  X -5.xChicago Hearing Society  X -6.xFlorida PSC  X -7.xGeneral Communication, Inc.  X -8.xGTE  X-9.xIllinois Alliance for the Hearing Impaired  Xy-10.xJoint Parties (Cox and Dallas Morning Times)  Xb-11.xMinnesota  XK-12.xNational Association of the Deaf  X4-13.xNational Center for Law and Deafness  X-14.xNational Fraternal Society of the Deaf  X-15.xNevada Bell  X-16.xNewspaper Association of America  X-17.xPacific Bell  X-18.xPacific Telesis  X-19.xSaks, Andrea  X-20.xSelf Help For Hard of Hearing People, Inc.  X|-21.xSWBT  Xe-22.xSprint Corporation, on Behalf of: xSprint Communications Company LP  X7- xUnited & Central Telephone Companies  X -23.xTelecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.  X -24.xUSTA  X-25.xWashington Post"2,N(N(ZZ"  X- 0 Appendix C  X-6Comments Filed on GSA Petitionă  X-Comments  X-1.xAcadian Ambulance Service, Inc.  X-2.xAd Hoc  Xv-3.xAmerican Public Telecommunications Council  X_-4.xAmeritech  XH-5.xBell Atlantic  X1-6.xBellSouth  X -7.xCaddo Parish Communications District No. One  X -8.xCitizen Tribune  X -9.xCity of Dallas  X -10.xClaiborne Parish Communications District  X -11.xConsumer Product Safety Commission  X -12.xCox, Advance, Gannett, Washington Post  X-13.xDaily Republic  Xy-14.xDepartment of Agriculture  Xb-15.xDepartment of Health and Human Services  XK-16.xThe Department of Justice  X4-17.xDepartment of Transportation  X-18.xDepartment of Veterans Affairs  X-19.xEnvironmental Protection Agency  X-20.xFederal Labor Relations Authority  X-21.xFlorida PSC  X-22.xGoldsboro NewsArgus  X-23.xGTE  X-24.xIdaho Public Utilities Commission  X|-25.xInformation Industry Association  Xe-26.xIowa Utilities Board  XN-27.xJackson Parish 911 Communication District  X7-28.xLouisiana Public Service Commission  X -29.xMCI  X -30.xMulvany, Dana  X-31.xNational Aeronautics and Space Administration  X-32.xNational Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners  X -33.xNational Association of State Telecommunications Directors  X!-34.xNational Center for Law and Deafness, Nat'l Association of the Deaf, XxSelf Help for Hard of Hearing People, and  XxTelecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.   Xh$-35.xNational Newspaper Association  XQ%-36.xNewspaper Association of America  X:&-37.xOffice of Personnel Management  X#'-38.xOverseas Private Investment Corporation"#'3,N(N(ZZ%"Ԍ X-39.xRelay Administration Board  X-40.xSouthwestern Bell Corporation  X-41.xSprint  X-42.xSt. Charles Parish Communications District  X-43.xSt. Landry Parish Communications District  X-44.xStein, Paul  Xv-45.xTennessee Valley Authority  X_-46.xTexas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communication  XH-47.xWest Carroll Parish Communication District  X1-48.xWilson Daily Times  X - Reply Comments  X -  X -1.xAcadian Ambulance Service, Inc.  X -2.xAd Hoc  X -3.xAmerican Public Telecommunications Council  X-4.xBell Atlantic  Xy-5.xBellSouth  Xb-6.xCaddo Parish Communications District No. One  XK-7.xCox, Advance, Gannett, Washington Post Co.  X4-8.xFrancis Dummer Fisher  X-9.xGeneral Services Administration  X-10.xMCI  X-11.xNational Emergency Number Association (NENA)  X-12.xNational Newspaper Association  X-13.xSouthwestern Bell Corporation  X-14.xTexas Department of Information"4,N(N(ZZ"  X- 0Appendix D  X- 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Y I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)9 Comments Filed on Department of Justice Requestă  X-  X-1.x311 Direct, Inc.  X-2.xAmeritech  X-3.xAT&T  Xv-4.xCincinnati Bell Telephone Company (CBT)  X_-5.xThe County of Los Angeles  XH-6.xThe Los Angeles Police Department  X1-7.xThe Texas Department of Information resources (Texas DIR)  X -8.xSBC Communications, Inc. (SBC)  X -9.xU S WEST  X -10.xWarren W. Owens  X -11.xThe Riverside County Sheriff's Department  X -12.xThe City of Austin  X -13.xThe Attorney General for the State of California  X-14.xDallas Police Department  Xy-15.xDallas Fire Chief  Xb-16.xThe Fort Worth Fire Chief  XK-17.xThe Fire Chief of the City of Pittsburgh, Department of Public Safety  X4-18.xThe Fire Chief of the Seattle Fire Department  X-19.xThe Commissioner of the Philadelphia Fire Department  X-20.xThe Fire Commissioner/Chief of the Boston Fire Department  X-21.xThe City of Garland Texas  X-22.xJanice F. Hill  X-23.xThe City of Houston  X-24.xThe Maryland Chiefs of Police Association  X-25.xThe Maryland Public Service Commission (MDPSC)  X|-26.xThe National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. (ANPO)  Xe-27.xThe National Sheriff's Association  XN-28.xThe San Jose, California Police Department  X7-29.xThe San Bernadino, California Police Department  X -30.xThe City of University Park, Texas  X -31.xThe National Fraternal Order of Police  X-32.xThe National Troopers Coalition  X-33.xDaniel Ginty  X -34.xThe California Highway Patrol (CHP)  X!-35.xThe City of Sacramento, California Police Department (Sacramento)  X"-36.xGTE  X#-37.xBellSouth  Xh$-38.xThe Office of Information Resources of the Budget and Control Board of the State of  XQ%-39.xSouth Carolina (South Carolina OIR)  X:&-40.xAcadian Ambulance and AIR MED Services of Louisiana (Acadian)  X#'-41.xThe Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT)"#'5,N(N(ZZ%"Ԍ X-42.xThe Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (Kentucky DOT)  X-43.xThe Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, Inc. (#(#Xx(APCO)  X-44.xThe Arizona APCO Chapter  X-45.xBismark Emergency Management & Combined Communications (Bismark)  X-46.xCox Enterprises, Inc.  Xv-47.xThe City of Fresno, California Chief of Police (Fresno Police Chief)  X_-48.xThe Greater Harris County 911 Emergency Network  XH-49.xThe City of Mesa, Arizona, Police Department Communications (Mesa)  X1-50.xMorris Communications Corporation (Morris)  X -51.xThe State of New York Department of Public Service (NYSDPS)  X -52.xNYNEX  X -53.xFlorence Cainoce, Staff Manager for NYNEX Consumer Affairs  X -54.xThe Southern Idaho Regional Communications Center  X -55.xThe Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications (TXACSEC)  X -56.XxThe National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the National 0 X-Association of State Nine One Administrators (NASNA) (National 911 xxCommenters)   Xb-57.xFrancis Dummer Fisher  XK-58.xDr. Bill Munn, PhD, First Vice President of NENA  X4-59.xThe Louisiana Public Service Commission  X-60.xThe National Association of the Deaf (NAD)  X-61.xBell Atlantic  X-62.xFairfax County Fire and Rescue Department, Fire Chief  X-63.xCounty of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Chief  X-64.xCity of Miami Fire Chief  X-65.xInternational Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., and xInternational Municipal Signal Association 311  X|-66.xKing County E911 Program Manager (Seattle, Washington)  Xe-67.xCellular Telecommunications Industry Association  XN-68.xCity of Phoenix Fire Department.  X7-69.xCity and County of Denver Department of Safety, Chief of Police  X -70.xKootenai County, Idaho 911 Director  X -71.xCharlotteMecklenburg, North Carolina Chief of Police" 6,N(N(ZZ"  X- [APPENDIX E: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)  X-x1.` ` 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  X-(NPRM) in this proceeding, and certified that there was no significant economic impact on a  X-substantial number of small entities. C yO- xYԍ See NPRM at para. 21 We note that the certification was issued prior to enactment of the amendments to the  xRFA in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA"), which was enacted as Title  xII of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), 5 U.S.C.  605(b), Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). The Commission sought written public comments on  Xv-the proposals in the NPRM. Although there were no comments filed in response to the  X_-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.  X -x A.` ` Need for and Objectives of this First Report and Order x`  X -x2.` ` "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  X-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 nonemergency 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.  X-x B.` ` Analysis of Significant Issues Raised in Response to the Certification  X-x3.` ` As stated above, no comments were submitted in response to the Commission's  X|-certification in the NPRM that the rules it proposed to adopt in this proceeding would not  Xe-have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.=eC yO -ԍ See id.=  XN-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"7@,N(N(ZZ"  X-entities,0C yOy- xԍ We note that the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies  xj(OPASTCO) (formerly known as the Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small Telephone  x;Companies), which represents more than 440 independently owned and operated telephone companies serving rural  xareas, opposes mandatory assignment of N11 codes because they could disrupt current use of an N11 code in some  yO- xgeographic areas (See OPASTCO Reply Comments at 23, expressing concern about 611 and 811) and also argues  yOa-that customer confusion could ensue if services using N11 codes vary from area to area (See id. at 4).0 we realize that a substantial number of small entities may be affected by this First  X-Report and Order. In reaching our determinations in this First Report and Order, we have considered all arguments raised by parties.  X-x C.` ` Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities  X-Affected by this First Report and Order x`  X_-x4.` ` The RFA defines "small entity" to include the definition of "small business  XH-concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632.H@C yO9- xԍ See 5 U.S.C.  601(6) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 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  X -Small Business Administration (SBA).M C yOL-ԍ See 15 U.S.C.  632(1)(a).M 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  X -1500 or fewer employees. ( C yO- xԍ See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 4812 and 4813 (SIC 4812 and SIC 4813, respectively). These standards also apply in determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the RFA.  Xy-x5.` ` 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  X4-"small business concerns."4 C yOe - x ԍ See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report  yO-!- x-and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (First Interconnection Order), motion for stay of the FCC's rules pending  yO!- xjudicial review denied, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  yO"- xOrder, 11 FCC Rcd 11754 (1996), partial stay granted, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, No. 963321, 1996 WL 589204  yO#-(8th Cir. Oct. 15, 1996) (Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC) at paras. 13281330 and 1342. Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small  X-businesses" does not encompass small incumbent LECs.L0C yO%-ԍ See id. at para. 1342.L Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs"8,N(N(ZZ " 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."  X-x6.` ` The decisions made by the Commission in this First Report and Order may apply to a variety of entities listed below.  Xv-x7.` ` 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  X -companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange service.f X C yON- x.ԍ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis Division, Telecommunications Industry  yO- xxRevenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Tbl. 1 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by Class of  yO-Carrier) (Dec.1996) (TRS Worksheet). f 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  Xb-affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First Report and Order.  X4-x8.` ` 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  X-they were engaged in "other" toll services.  C yO,- xԍ Id. Firms filing TRS Worksheets are asked to select a single category that best describes their operation. As a result, some carriers describes themselves as IXCs, some as resellers, some as OSPs, and some as "other."  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  X -the decision and rules adopted in this First Report and Order.  X-x9.` ` 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," 9@ ,N(N(ZZ" 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 12radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,176 such firms that operated during 1992  X-had 1,000 or more employees.; XC yO4- x;ԍ U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications,  x-and Utilities, UC92-S-1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms: 1992, SIC 4812 (issued May 1995).; 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.  XH- x 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  XK-are engaged in the provision of mobile services.H KC yO-ԍ See TRS Worksheet.H 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  X-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.  X|-x 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  X7-average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. X7xC yO`#- xKԍ See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and  yO($- xthe Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, FCC 96278, WT Docket No. 96253, paras.  yO$-57 60 (rel. June 24, 1996); See also 47 C.F.R.  24.720(b) . 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" : ,N(N(ZZ["  X-million for the preceding three calendar years. <XC yOy- xKԍ See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and  yOA- xthe Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, FCC 96278, WT Docket No. 96253, para. 60 (1996).< These regulations defining "small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBAapproved 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  X-Blocks D, E, and F.C yO& -ԍ FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Mimeo No. 71744 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997). 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  X1-total of 183 small PCS providers as defined by the SBAI1xC yOZ-ԍ See para. 9, supra.I and the Commission's auction rules.  X -x 12.` ` Paging and Radiotelephone Service, and Private Land Mobile Radio Services,  X -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 nonnationwide 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 nonnationwide 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";,N(N(ZZ" 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.  X-x 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  X -that they were engaged in the provision of competitive access services.H C yO| -ԍ See TRS Worksheet.H 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  X-affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First Report and Order.  Xb-x 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  X-reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services.3XC yO-ԍ Id.3 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  Xe-service providers that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First Report  XN-and Order.  X -x15.` ` 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""<,N(N(ZZ!"  X-services.3C yOy-ԍ Id.3 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  X-pay telephone operators that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First  X-Report and Order.  X_-x16.` ` 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  X -services.3 XC yO-ԍ Id.3 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  Xb-resellers that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First Report and Order.  X4-x17.` ` Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA classifies manufacturers of telecommunications equipment in two categories, one for wireless and another for wireline.  X-x18.` ` 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  Xe-business concern.KeC yO-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 3661.K 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  X7-1000 employees and would be classified as small entities.7xC yO`#- xԍ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC 3661. 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"=,N(N(ZZZ" are fewer than 436 small manufacturers of wireline telecommunications equipment.  X-x19.` ` 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  Xv-Equipment.vC yO- xԍ This category excludes establishments primarily engaged in the manufacturing of household audio and visual equipment which is categorized as SIC 3651. According to the SBA's regulations, a small entity must have 750 or fewer  X_-employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.K_ C yO0 -ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 3663.K 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  X -would be classified as small entities. C yO{- xԍ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC 3663. 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.  X-x20.` ` 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  X4-entity is an alarm equipment manufacturer employing 750 or less persons.K4C yO-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 3669.K Census Bureau data indicates that there are 498 U.S. firms that manufacture alarm equipment, and that 469 of  X-these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities.C yOO- xԍ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC 3669. 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  X-alarm equipment that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this First Report  X|-and Order.  XN-x21.` ` 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"7> ,N(N(ZZ"  X-maintenance of security systems devices, such as burglar and fire alarms.C yOy- x>ԍ Standard Industrial Classification Manual, (SIC) 7382, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (1987). According to the  X-SBA, a small security system provider must have $9 million or less in annual receipts.K C yO-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 7382.K 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  X-receipts.C yO - xKԍ 1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size Report, Table 2D, SIC 7382 (U.S. Bureau of the Census data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).  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  Xv-this First Report and Order.  XH-x D.` ` Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping x`  X1-x` ` and Other Compliance Requirements of the Rules  X -x22.` ` The First Report and Order requires Bell Communications Research, as the  X -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 nonemergency police and other government  X -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 nonemergency 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  XK-effective date of this First Report and Order relinquish noncompliant 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.  X-x E.` ` Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities  X-and Consistent with Stated Objectives x`  X-x23.` ` The Commission considers and implements alternatives in this First Report and  X|-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 nonemergency police services and 711 for national TRS access, we considered, for example, the possibility of using  X -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 nonemergency option should serve to lessen possible implementation burdens (cost, time, etc.) on smaller telecommunications carriers in particular. "?,N(N(ZZ" 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  X-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 nonemergency service should lessen implementation burdens that may have been more costly if implementation were required during a shorter period. This sixmonth period should prove beneficial also to customers that  X_-were assigned 311 at the local level prior to the effective date of the First Report and Order.  XH-See First Report and Order at paras. 3543.  X -x` ` F. Report to Congress   X - x24.` ` The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility  X -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." @,N(N(ZZ/ "  X- APPENDIX F: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x1.` ` 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  X-expected impact on small entities of the policies and proposals in this Further Notice of  X-Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). C yO- x;ԍ Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq. (1981), as amended. Amendments to the RFA were  xenacted in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA"), which was enacted as  xTitle II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). Written public comments concerning the effect of the  Xv-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  XH-submission of comments in this proceeding. The Secretary shall send a copy of this   X1-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.  X -x A.` ` Reasons Why the Actions Are Being Considered and Need  X -for and Objectives of this FNPRM x`  X -x2.` ` The FNPRM is initiated to obtain comment on the technical feasibility of  X-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  X-the Telecommunications Act of 1996;sC yO~-ԍ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).s and (4) whether any other important disability services  X-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,  X-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  X-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.  X -x B.` ` Legal Basis x`  X-x3.` ` Authority for actions proposed in this FNPRM may be found in: Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 151(j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1)." A@,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-ԙx C.` ` Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements  X-x4.` ` No new recording, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements are proposed.  X-x D.` ` Federal Rules that Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With Proposed Rules  X_-x5.` ` None.  X1- xE.` ` Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Would Applyx`  X -  X -x6.` ` For entities to which the proposals in this FNPRM may apply, as well as for  X -the definition of small entity and discussion of small independent LECs, See Appendix E,  X -supra, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Heading C (Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected by this First Report and Order) (paras. 421). In addition, as described below, the proposed rules would apply to TRS providers.  Xb-x7.` ` 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  X-are 12 interstate TRS providers, which consist of interexchange carriers,~C yO-ԍ See Appendix E, supra, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis at para. 8.~ local exchange  X-carriers,IXC yO-ԍ See id. at para. 7.I state entities, and nonprofit 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  X|-be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM.  XN-x F.` ` Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities  X7-and Consistent with Stated Objectives x`  X -x8.` ` 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""B,N(N(ZZ!" 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  XH-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  X -introduce 711. See First Report and Order at para. 68. We tentatively conclude that our  X -proposals in the FNPRM would impose minimum burdens on small entities. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.