Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration

Federal Communications CommissionFCC 00-256

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

THIRD REPORT AND ORDER AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Adopted: July 21, 2000Released: July 31, 2000

By the Commission:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Number

1. Introduction...... 1
2. BACKGROUND...... 3

1. DIscussion...... 9

1. Petition for Assignment of an N11 Code for Access to Intelligent Transportation System Services

1. Background...... 9

2. Discussion...... 10

1. Petition for Assignment of an N11 Code for Access to Information and Referral Services

1. Background...... 17
2. Discussion...... 18

1. Petitions for Reconsideration or Clarification

1. International Association of Fire Chiefs and International Municipal Signal Association Petition for Reconsideration 22

2. BellSouth Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration...... 29

1. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Issues

1. Sale of N11 Codes...... 37

1. Background...... 37
2. Discussion...... 39

1. Administration of N11 Codes...... 40

1. Background...... 40

b. Discussion...... 43

1. Need for Comprehensive Rulemaking...... 44

1. Procedural Matters...... 45

1. Regulatory Flexibility Act...... 45

1. Ordering Clauses...... 48

Comments and Replies Filed in U.S. Department of Transportation Petition...... Appendix A

Comments and Replies Filed in Information and Referral Providers Petition...... Appendix B

Comments and Replies Filed in N11 First Report and Order and FNPRM...... Appendix C

I.introduction

1. N11 codes are abbreviated dialing arrangements that allow telephone users to connect with a particular pointnode in the network by dialing only three digits. There are only eight possible N11 codes,[1] making N11 codes arguablyamong the scarcest of numbering resources under our jurisdiction. Of the eight N11 codes available, we havethe Commission has already assigned two for nationwide use,[2] and havehas been directed by Congress to assign another.[3] In addition, three other N11 codes are widely used by carriers across the country, but have not been assigned by the Commission for such nationwide use.[4] Thus, at this time there remain only two N11 codes that can be assigned and deployed immediately.[5]
2. We have before us two petitions for assignment of N11 codes, as well as a number of other outstanding issues in our N11 docket.[5]the N11 proceeding.[6] In this Order, the Commission grants,we grant petitions filed by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),[7] and by Information and Referral providers[8] seeking nationwide assignment of abbreviated dialing codes for access to traveler information services, and for access to community information and referral services, respectively. We assign the abbreviated dialing code 511 to be used for access to traveler information services, and allocation assign the abbreviated dialing code 211 to be used for access to community information and referral services. We believe these two proposals meet the “public interest” standards for assignment of N11 codes established in the N11 First Report and Order, and this need is demonstrated by the wide support for the two petitions. Both petitioners propose to provide access to their services without an additional charge to callers, and each has demonstrated that its service provides a substantial public benefit. The Commission also resolvesWe also resolve petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification of issues raised in the N11 proceeding. Specifically, we deny petitions for reconsideration of the N11 First Report and Order filed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and International Municipal Signal Association (IAFC Petitioners) and BellSouth. We also resolve issues raised in the N11 FNPRM. We conclude that the sale or transfer of N11 codes through private transactions should not be allowed at this time, and that the Commission should continue to make assignments of N11 codes, rather than delegate this authority to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) or any other entity.

II.BackGround

1. Abbreviated dialing codes enable the caller to connect to a location in the network that otherwise would be accessible only via a seven or ten-digit telephone number. The network must be pre-programmed to translate the digits into thethree-digit code into the appropriate seven or ten-digit telephone number and route the call accordingly. Among abbreviated dialing arrangements, “N11” codes are three-digit codes of which the first digit can be any digit other than 1 or 0, and the last two digits are both 1.
2. Prior to the 1996 Act, incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), state commissions, Bellcore[9] and the Commission performed the functions relating to numbering administration, including administration of abbreviated dialing codes. Section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over numbering administration, and over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) that pertain to the United States.[10] This section also provides that the Commission may delegate all or part of its numbering administration authority to state commissions or other entities.[11] In 1992, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (N11 NPRM) proposing that incumbent local exchange carriers be required to provide abbreviated dialing arrangements.[12] Subsequent to the N11 NPRM, various parties asked the Commission to designate N11 codes to facilitate network access to Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) for individuals with hearing or speech disabilities, to federal government services, to state government services, and to non-emergency police services.[13]
3. In 1997, the Commission released the N11 First Report and Order and FNPRM in which it authorized the incumbent LECs, states, and Bellcore to continue to perform N11 code administrationadministrative functions that they performed atprior to the time of enactment of the 1996 Act.[14] In the N11 First Report and Order, the Commission assigned 311 on a nationwide basis for reaching non-emergency police services, but allowed existing non-compliant uses of 311 to continue until the local government in that area was prepared to activate a non-emergency police 311 service. In addition, at the discretion of local jurisdictions, the Commission allowed 311 to be used to access other government services, but declined to assign a separate N11 for this purpose. The Commission also granted the request for an N11 code to reach TRSTelecommunications Relay Services (TRS), assigning 711 nationwide for this use. Finally, the Commission declined to: (1) mandate that N11 numbers be made available for access to information services; (2) mandate that an N11 code be designated for access to federal government agencies; or (3) disturb the current uses of 911, 411, 611 and 811 for access to emergency services, directory assistance, and LEC repair and business offices, respectively.[15]
4. The Commission in the N11 First Report and Order and FNRPM alsorequested comment on a number of issues.[16] Specifically, the issues to be addressed related to implementingdeployment of TRS,[17] the sale or transfer of N11 codes,[18] and administration of N11 codes.[19] Subsequently, several parties filed requests for reconsideration and/or clarification of certain matters discussed in the N11 First Report and Order.[20] Specifically, the International Association of Fire Chiefs and International Municipal Signal Association (IAFC Petitioners) opposed any expanded use of N11 codes for non-emergency and commercial uses. BellSouth sought reconsideration and/or clarification regarding the status of non-conforming users of N11 service codes, including 311 and 711, the “six-month” implementation requirement for 311, and what requirementsplaced on CMRS providers with respect to handling 311 calls. It also sought clarification on regarding incumbent LECs’ obligations to provide 611 and 811 for access to repair and business offices.
5. The U.S. DOT and the Information and Referral Petitioners seek assignment of N11 codes to provide gateway access to travel information services and community service organizations, respectively. The U.S. DOT does not request a specific N11 dialing code, whereas the Information and Referral Petitioners seek assignment of 211, specifically, for their proposal. Both petitioners contend that the provision of services using toll-free numbers or local numbers is not only inefficient, but limits the widespread use and of travel information or community services information, and also limits the accessibility of to these services. resources. Both proposals enjoy widespread support from a variety of organizations, state and local governments, and other interested parties.
6. This Order resolves issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration that relate to the manner in which N11 codes are assigned, and grants the two petitions for assignment of N11 codes filed by the U.S. DOT and the Information and Referral Petitioners. Issues raised in the N11 First Report and Order regarding the implementation of 711 will beare being addressed in a separate Order.[21] Similarly, the Commission will address matters dealing with designation of 911 as the national emergency number throughout the United States in a separate order.[22]

III.Discussion

A.Petition for Assignment of N11 Code for Access to Intelligent Transportation Systems Services

1.Background

1. On March 8, 1999, the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) filed a petition for assignment of a nationwide N11 code for use by state and local governments to deliver travel-related information to the public.[23] The U.S. DOT stated that travel information, including the status of roadway construction, accident locations, and alternate routes, is currently provided by state and local governments across the country, primarily by telephone, often with each municipality and transportation agency having its own telephone number. The U.S. DOT explained that intelligent transportation systems, including advanced traveler information systems, are state-of-the-art information networks that provide real-time, route-specific information on all types of surface travel, which allows commuters and other travelers to make more efficient use of the nation’s transportation infrastructure. Despite existence of substantial funding for intelligent transportation systems, these resources are under-utilized because travelers have difficulty remembering the numerous telephone numbers to access the information, particularly as they travel across jurisdictions. The U.S. DOT Petition contends that the assignment of a single, nationwide, three-digit dialing code would enable more travelers to remember the number to access and use the travel-related information. The U.S. DOT further contends that widespread use of this information would reduce vehicular congestion and pollution, lower fuel consumption, provide superior traffic management, and enhance roadway safety.

2.Discussion

1. We conclude that the U.S. DOT has demonstrated that assignment of an N11 dialing code for nationwide access to travel information services is in the public interest, and we therefore assign 511 for this purpose. In the past, the Commission has assigned N11 codes upon a finding that the assignment serves the public interest. For example, in the N11 First Report and Order, the Commission found that assignment of 311 would reduce congestion on the national dialing code for emergency services, 911, thereby ensuring that 911 circuits were not overburdened with non-emergency calls. The U.S. DOT Petition meets the standard we have previously employed for assigning N11 codes by demonstrating that there are substantial public benefits in assigning 511 for nationwide access to travel information services. We believe that assignment of 511 will assist state and local governments in their efforts to improve local transportation conditions.
2. Driver frustrations with travel conditions are distilled in a commonly understood phrase – “road rage” – that reflects a national tragedy. The figures cited by the U.S. DOT in support of its proposal are staggering. Each year, nationwide, there are six million accidents, 42,000 deaths, and 5.2 million injuries, at an approximate cost of $200 billion annually.[24] To deal with these costs, state and local governments are spending vast sums of money to equip the nation’s roadways with intelligent transportation systems.[25] They seek to provide real-time information on the exact status of roadways, to allow better, safer traffic and travel management, and to provide the traveling public with more informed choices on how and when to travel.[26]
3. According to the U.S. DOT, increased state and local government investment in technology stems from the fact that roadways in major metropolitan areas are becoming increasingly congested, and building more roads to solve this dilemma may no longer be feasible for economic and other reasons. We believe that granting the U.S. DOT Petition will ensure more efficient use of existing roadways and reduce the need for expensive infrastructure investments. We have already seen the positive effects of providing real-time access to travel information services in certain jurisdictions. For example, after four years of use of advanced traveler information systems in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) found that, despite efforts to select a mnemonic seven-digit number and millions of dollars spent to promote it, the lack of awareness and inability to recall the seven-digit number were the biggest barriers to using the advanced traveler information system.[27] Despite this limitation, a survey revealed that 85 percent of users rated the system “8” or better on a scale of 1 to 10; 63 percent of users avoided traffic problems, and 59 percent of users saved time. Almost half the callers using the system indicated in a survey that the information they received influenced their travel decisions, with 14 percent changing their time of departure, and 12 percent taking another route.[28]
4. We reject GTE’s contention that we must deny the U.S. DOT Petition because it fails to show there are no “other ways currently available to achieve convenient dialing that do not drain scarce N11 resources.”[29] GTE argues that the U.S. DOT showing that callers have to dial different phone numbers in every geographic area is insufficient reason to grant the Petition.[30] According to the U.S. DOT, virtually each state, metropolitan area, and transit agency has a separate telephone number, often having different telephone numbers for traffic, transit and other related information in the same metropolitan area.[31] We agree with the U.S. DOT and other commenters that assignment of an abbreviated dialing code would stimulate the deployment and use of travel-related information by making access to such information more readily accessible.[32] We also believe that assignment of an abbreviated dialing code would maximize the benefits of such information,[33] which include decreasing traffic congestion, reducing air pollution and inefficient use of fossil fuels,[34] improving the nation’s productivity on and off the roadways, and improving traveler safety.[35]
5. We are persuaded by evidence of N11 trials in various localities that intelligent transportation systems are substantially more likely to succeed when they are accessible via an N11 code than if they are not and therefore that the public interest would be served by assigning an N11 code for this purpose. The most persuasive evidence comes from use of an N11 dialing code in the Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky area.[36] During a three-month period in 1997, when Kentucky residents dialed 211 to reach the traveler information service and Ohio residents dialed 333-3333 to reach the same traveler information, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet reports that 72 percent more calls were made to the abbreviated dialing code than to 333-3333.[37] We believe that these positive results can and will be duplicated nationwide,[38] based on the widespread support for the U.S. DOT proposal, from metropolitan area regional transit groups[39] to states with predominantly rural driving conditions.[40] Accordingly, we find that the assignment of an N11 code as requested by the U.S. DOT is in the public interest.
6. As with our allocations of 311 and 711, we conclude that a governmental entity may request 511 from both wireline and wireless providers to use for intelligent transportation systems or other transportation information. We encourage wireless carriers to negotiate roaming agreements with one another for the benefit of their customers, and we believe that competition among carriers will encourage them to do so, because it will be advantageous for customers to be able to reach the service as often as possible, even while roaming on another carrier’s network. We do not specify parameters for cost recovery and other technical issues, contrary to suggestions of some commenters.[41] Instead, we leave with federal, state, and local government transportation agencies the discretion to determine the deployment schedule and the type of transportation information that will be provided using 511, similar to how we handled this issue with respect to 311 in the N11 First Report and Order.[42] We conclude that setting parameters for these issues may in fact hinder governmental entities in deploying 511. We encourage federal, state, and local government transportation agencies to work cooperatively to ensure that the transportation information provided using 511 is appropriate to the national scope of our designation and the scarcity of the N11 public resource. In order to put the 511 code to the best use, callers should have access to information that transcends municipal boundaries and that is easily retrievable in a single call. State public utilities commissions may continue to exercise jurisdiction over N11 codes to the extent necessary to ensure that carriers comply with transportation agencies’ requests to deploy 511 expeditiously. We also note that governmental entities, working in conjunction with regional government transportation agencies, will need time to determine uniform standards for how travel information services should be provided to the public.[43] We further note the efforts some communities have made in transitioning to an N11 code for travel-related information, and we are confident that communities across the country will be able to transition to the 511 dialing code.[44] Finally, we encourage the U.S. DOT to facilitate ubiquitious deployment of 511 for access to travel information services across the country.
7. Because N11 dialing codes are such a scarce resource, however, we will examine and reassess our assignment of the 511 code for access to travel information systems five years after the effective date of this Order.