II. Background

On July 31, 2002, SBC California filed the above-entitled application (Application) seeking maximum pricing flexibility for its DA services as a "Category III" service. The Application stated that the market for local DA in California had become fully competitive, meeting the criteria for reduced

regulatory oversight. The Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) and TURN protested the application.

On April 22, 2003, the then-assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) published a proposed decision for comment that would have dismissed the Application without prejudice to permit the Commission to address higher priority proceedings. On August 1, 2003, Commissioner Susan P. Kennedy issued a proposed alternate decision that would have granted SBC California's request to pursue its Application. Prior to the Commission meeting on August 21, 2003, the Commission withdrew both proposed decisions from its meeting agenda. The Application has since proceeded as originally requested by SBC California. The Assigned Commissioner subsequently issued a scoping memo and ruling, identifying relevant issues on the basis of parties' written comments and the prehearing conference (PHC). The scoping memo scheduled evidentiary hearings and stated the Commission's intent to conduct public participation hearings (PPHs) in early 2004.

On November 14, 2003, SBC California tendered for filing a "Notice of Withdrawal of Application." Among other things, the pleading stated SBC California's view that "SBC California's application is not being and would not be evaluated solely based on the evidentiary record or Commission precedent." The pleading stated a general objection to elements of the scoping memo and the Commission's decision to hold PPHs.

On November 21, 2003, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling rejecting the filing of SBC California's November 14 pleading, finding the applicant does not have authority to withdraw its application and that the Commission has sole authority to dismiss or close a proceeding. The ruling suggested that SBC California could file a motion to withdraw the application. It directed SBC California to inform the Commission as to the status of notice to customers of the PPHs, notice of which has been previously required by the assigned ALJ.

On November 25, 2003, SBC California delivered a letter to the Commission explaining that it had not taken any steps to notify its customers of the PPHs because it had decided not to pursue its application. On December 3, 2003, SBC California filed a motion to withdraw its application. The motion is silent as to the reasons for the proposed withdrawal of the application. ORA and TURN subsequently filed a response to the motion.

On December 5, 2003, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling suspending the schedule and discovery in this proceeding, but otherwise directing parties to conduct themselves in a manner that recognizes the proceeding is open and active until and unless the Commission closes it.