III. Procedure to be Followed

It is our intention to solicit an initial round of opening and reply comments from a very broadly based group consistent with both the requirements of SB 1712 and our own desire to ensure that our examination of the definition of universal service is done with the greatest possible range of insight. This may be followed by additional requests for comment on explicit proposals as may be appropriate. Public participation hearings will likely be scheduled.

Parties are invited to submit opening and reply comments on the questions listed in Attachment C to this OIR. Those comments will also be the parties' opportunity, under Rule 6(c)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, to respond to the preliminary categorization, need for hearing, and preliminary scoping memo set forth in this OIR.

Initial opening comments will be filed and served on or before 60 days of the date this OIR/OII is issued. To allow service of comments, parties should indicate no later than 20 days from today's date by letter to the Commission's Process Office, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, whether they wish to be on the service list for this proceeding. Parties should reference this proceeding number. In addition to the party's name, the name of their representative (if any), their address, and telephone and facsimile numbers, an e-mail address should be provided by each party unless they state that they have no e-mail address. A service list will then be prepared and posted on the Commission's web site www.cpuc.ca.gov. Reply comments will be due 20 days after the due date for opening comments.

After a review has been undertaken of the comments and reply comments, a determination will be made as to whether additional comments will be required prior to the preparation of proposed changes to the definition of basic services, universal service components and costs or other matters. Any proposed changes will be subject to a comment process as designated by the assigned Commissioner. While there will likely be public participation hearings, we do not anticipate a need for evidentiary hearings. However, any party who believes evidentiary hearings are required shall identify the specific topics on which they believe hearings are required, the nature of any evidence they would propose to sponsor at such hearing and why this cannot be adequately addressed by the comment or public participation hearing process.