II. Procedural Background
2-1-1 is the national abbreviated dialing code designated by the FCC to be used to access non-emergency community I&R providers. The FCC found that "[i]ndividuals facing serious threats to life, health, and mental well-being have urgent and critical human needs that are not addressed by dialing 911 for emergency assistance or 311 for non-emergency police assistance."1 Upon dialing 2-1-1, a caller is routed to a referral service and then to an agency that can provide information concerning social services such as housing assistance, programs to assist with utility bills, food assistance and other less urgent situations not currently addressed by either 911 or 311 services.
On August 30, 2001, the California Alliance of Information and Referral Services and the 2-1-1 Statewide Steering Committee (collectively known as "CAIRS") petitioned the Commission to implement 2-1-1 dialing in California. On January 23, 2002, the Commission responded to CAIRS' petition and instituted Rulemaking (R.) 02-01-025, thereby initiating the requested rulemaking into the implementation of 2-1-1 dialing in the State of California.
On February 22, 2002, consistent with the timetable proposed in R.02-01-025, parties to the proceeding filed Opening Comments.2 On March 29, the Commission received Reply Comments.3
On March 8, 2002, Commissioner Duque and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sullivan presided over a PHC in San Francisco to address the scope of issues in the proceeding, to clarify issues raised in the Opening Comments, and to determine a schedule for resolving them.
On April 9, 2002, CAIRS filed a "Motion [ ] to Include Preliminary Network Architecture Proposals in the Record" (Motion) with the proposals attached. On April 24, 2002, Pacific and Verizon responded to the Motion, stating that they did not oppose the Motion, but reserving the right to comment. We grant CAIRS' unopposed motion to include its materials in our record but note that the preliminary network proposals are reference materials, not evidentiary materials.
On April 30, 2002, Commissioner Duque and ALJ Sullivan issued a "Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge" (Scoping Memo) affirming the classification of the proceeding as quasi-legislative and the preliminary determination that hearings were not necessary.4 In addition, the Scoping Memo identified four major issues for resolution and adopted a procedural timetable for resolving the outstanding issues. Further, the Scoping Memo stated that CAIRS' reference technical filing on network architecture could form a basis for a constructive workshop.
On May 29 and 30, 2002, the Commission conducted a workshop on 2-1-1 dialing to address the technical changes telephone companies must make in order to introduce 2-1-1 in California. On August 20, 2002, the Commission's Telecommunications Division issued a "2-1-1 Dialing Workshop Report" (Workshop Report). Parties had an opportunity to file comments5 and replies6 on the Workshop Report.
Following Commissioner Duque's departure from office at the expiration of his term, this proceeding was reassigned to Commissioner Kennedy.
1 See Third Report and Order and Order for Reconsideration, FCC 00-256, In the Matter of the Petition by the United States Department of Transportation for Assignment of an Abbreviated dialing Code (N11) to Access Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Services Nationwide, NSD-L-24; In the Matter of the Request by the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems, United Way of America, United Way 2-1-1 (Atlanta, Georgia), United Way of Connecticut, Florida Alliance of Information and Referral Services, Inc. and Texas I&R Network for Assignment of 2-1-1 Dialing Code, NSD-L-98-80; and in the Matter of the Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, CC Docket 92-104, released July 31, 2000 ("N11 Third Report and Order"), ¶ 18. 2 The filing parties include: the Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific) and Verizon California, Inc. (Verizon) (filing jointly); AT&T Communications of California, Inc. (AT&T), WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) and XO California, Inc. (XO) (filing jointly); Calaveras Telephone Company, Cal-Ore Telephone Co., Ducor Telephone Company, Evans Telephone Company, Foresthill Telephone Co., Happy Valley Telephone Company, Hornitos Telephone Company, Kerman Telephone Co., Pinnacles Telephone Co., The Ponderosa Telephone Co., Sierra Telephone Company, Inc., The Siskiyou Telephone Company, The Volcano Telephone Company and Winterhaven Telephone Company (collectively the "Small LECs") (filing jointly); Roseville Telephone Company (Roseville); the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) (filing jointly); Cox California Telcom, L.L.C. (Cox); and CAIRS. 3 The responding parties include: Pacific and Verizon (filing jointly); AT&T, WorldCom, and XO (filing jointly); Roseville; ORA and TURN (filing jointly); Cox; and CAIRS. 4 The Scoping Memo and Ruling, however, declined to make a final determination that hearings were not necessary, and stated that a final determination required more information. 5 Those parties filing comments include: Pacific and Verizon (filing jointly); AT&T; WorldCom; the Small LECs; Roseville; Cox; CAIRS; Allegiance Telecom of California, Inc. (Allegiance); the California Payphone Association (CPA); and Nexcare Collaborative (Nexcare), whose comments also included a petition to intervene. 6 Those parties filing reply comments include: Pacific and Verizon (filing jointly); AT&T; Cox; and CAIRS.
