IV. What Authority, if Any, Does the Commission Have to Implement 2-1-1 Dialing and Address Nonconforming Use of the 2-1-1 Abbreviated Dialing Code?
Since responsibility for the assignment of telephone numbers rests with the FCC, a central issue is whether the FCC has delegated sufficient authority to the states to implement such an abbreviated dialing code. Concerning this point, commenting parties provided detailed discussions tracing the sources of Commission authority to implement 2-1-1 dialing in California. Despite the detailed and diverse analyses, there was little dispute that the Commission has sufficient authority both to implement 2-1-1 dialing and to address nonconforming uses of the 2-1-1 dialing code in California.10
As is common on telecommunications issues, the Commission's authority to implement 2-1-1 dialing rests on federal authority delegated to states and on the Commission's own authority under state law.
The FCC delegated its authority within a broad policy framework of the public interest and with significant direction. The FCC assigned the 2-1-1 dialing code to I&R providers. The FCC first determined that this assignment of the 2-1-1 dialing code was in the public interest, stating:
a public need exists for an easy to use, easy to remember N11 code to efficiently bring community information and referral services to those who need them, providing a national safety network for persons to get access readily to assistance.11
The FCC further noted that the "designation of a uniform national code would simplify access to information . . . to new members of communities as well as existing local citizens."12
Concerning the role of the states, the FCC recognized the state efforts to implement 2-1-1 dialing,13 and encouraged states to implement 2-1-1 similar to the programs in Georgia and Connecticut.14 Furthermore, the FCC directed that "states will be allowed to continue to make local assignments that do not conflict with our national assignments."15
In summary, the FCC played the role that it traditionally does concerning abbreviated dialing arrangements - designating a use that promotes the public interest and recognizing and approving state commission actions directing telephone companies to assign and administer certain N11 codes.16 In particular, in its N11 Third Report and Order, the FCC declined to transfer N11 code assignments to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, but instead stated that it would continue to designate and assign N11 codes,17 even as it authorized state commissions to make local assignments of N11 codes that do not conflict with FCC national code assignments.18
There is, however, some uncertainty surrounding the lawfulness of the FCC's actions. The OIR noted that there are currently several petitions for modification or clarification before the FCC. Cox states that these petitions could invalidate the "FCC's delegation of its plenary authority to implement 2-1-1 dialing."19 Nevertheless, Cox admits that "[t]he proper conclusion to be drawn is that the petitions for reconsideration of the N11 Third Report and Order do not present any legal impediment to the Commission proceeding with 2-1-1 implementation."20 Cox urges that the Commission avoid ordering the expenditure of implementation costs by implementing 2-1-1 dialing at this time and recommends delaying any action "until the FCC has acted on the petitions for reconsideration."21
In addition to the authority delegated to the CPUC by the FCC, the CPUC has broad authority over all the carriers operating in California that will play any role in the implementation of 2-1-1 dialing in California. In particular, California Public Utilities Code § 701 provides that the Commission may do all things that are "necessary and convenient" in the supervision and regulation of public utilities. Pursuant to this broad state authority and the FCC's affirmation that the states will continue to perform number administration functions, including the local assignment of N11 codes, the California Commission possesses sufficient authority to implement 2-1-1 dialing.22
10 AT&T and XO, in Comments on the Draft Decision, state that they "do not agree that the FCC has delegated sufficient authority for the Commission to handle 211 implementation and non-conforming uses. (p. 3)." 11 N11 Third Report and Order, ¶ 19. 12 Id. 13 Id., ¶ 17, n. 48. 14 Id., ¶ 21. 15 Id., ¶ 43. 16 See Id. At ¶ 5, citing In The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, CC Docket 92-105, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97-51, 12 FCC Rcd 5572 (1997) ("N11 First Report and Order"). 17 N11 Third Report and Order, at ¶ 43. 18 Ibid. 19 Comments of Cox California Telecom, L.L.C. on the Implementation of 2-1-1 Dialing, February 22, 2002, p. 6. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 This analysis is consistent with the comments of many filing parties, including Pacific and Verizon, Comments, p. 2; Small LECs, Comments, pp. 2-3; CAIRS, Comments, pp. 1-7; ORA and TURN, Comments, II. D.; Roseville, Comments, pp. 1-2. This analysis of state authority is also consistent with that presented by Cox, Comments, pp. 3-5, but we further note that Cox argues that if the FCC modifies its order, implementation costs ordered by this Commission could become stranded (Cox, Comments, p. 6).
