II. Procedural Background

On July 16, 2004, Assigned Commissioner Loretta M. Lynch issued an Assigned Commissioner Ruling (ACR) providing parties an opportunity to comment on the development of carrier six-month inventory rules to be adopted by this Commission. Comments were filed on July 30, 2004 with reply comments on August 6, 2004. The South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), et al.⁵ support development of inventory rules in order to promote the better and more efficient utilization of telephone numbers to avoid burdening communities with unnecessary area code splits. Other parties commenting on the ACR were telecommunications carriers (SBC California, Inc. (SBC) and Verizon California, Inc.) or industry groups (the Joint Wireless Carriers⁶ and the California Cable & Telecommunications Association (CCTA)). Telecommunications carriers oppose establishment of any Commission-adopted inventory rules, arguing that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to adopt such rules because carrier inventory rules may only be addressed at the federal level.

A subsequent ACR issued on September 24, 2004, set forth proposed rules to be adopted by the Commission, which would set limits on permissible levels of individual carrier inventories. A workshop was held on October 4, 2004, where participants were offered the opportunity to provide input concerning the proposed rules in the ACR as well as to suggest alternatives or modifications. Carriers and other parties' technical experts were invited to attend this workshop to identify and address any applicable technical concerns at issue in establishing inventory rules. Participants were specifically invited to address issues such as: how inventory rules based on historical use will affect carrier supply needs; whether another basis should be used for setting inventory rules; which numbering categories should be used to define historical use; how many NRUF periods should be considered in defining rules, and whether - and, if so, how - growth rate should be incorporated into inventory rules. Parties were also to given the opportunity to address the role of marketing strategy in projecting six-month inventory rules. In addition, parties were provided the opportunity to file written comments on or before October 11, 2004, regarding the proposed rules. We have considered parties' objections to our inventory rules, but we remain persuaded that adoption of inventory rules is warranted. We address parties' objections below.