II. Parties' Positions

Comments in response to the ALJ Ruling were filed by Pacific Bell, GTE California, Inc., the Cellular Carriers Association of California, Allegiance Telecom of California, Inc., RCN Telecom Services of California, Inc., and NeuStar, in its capacity as NANPA. Joint comments were also filed by MCI WorldCom, Inc., The California Cable Television Association, NEXTLINK of California, Inc., AT&T Communications of California, Time Warner Telecom of California, LP, Advanced TelCom Group, Inc., and the Competitive Telecommunications Association.

Parties filing comments contend that the Commission's criteria adopted for the 310 NPA in D.99-11-027 and D.00-03-054 are not consistent with the FCC's NRO Order issued March 31, 2000, and should not be extended to other NPAs. The parties argue that the NRO Order supersedes to a substantial degree the authority previously granted to the Commission on number conservation issues.

The parties argue that the Commission is thus precluded from extending the imminent exhaust criteria in D.99-11-027 to other NPAs because those criteria conflict with the FCC NRO.

Even aside from their arguments that the Commission is preempted by the FCC, various parties argue that the imminent exhaust criteria should not be extended on a statewide basis because the circumstances under which the imminent exhaust criteria was formulated and adopted for the 310 NPA were in response to a very unique situation. That is, carriers faced a critical shortage of numbers in the 310 NPA occasioned by the suspension of the 310/424 overlay relief plan after implementation had already begun. The industry recommended the use of the imminent exhaust criteria because it was the only way to ensure that at least some of the carriers with the greatest need could obtain numbers.

Cellular Carriers Association of California (CCAC) argues that good reasons exist for not extending the stringent criteria to any NPA, absent a showing that the demand for numbers far exceeds the existing supply in any particular NPA. Even then, CCAC argues, the criteria should be applied outside of the lottery process. If there are not enough numbers to satisfy the demands of all carriers meeting the imminent exhaust criteria, then it is clear that relief of the NPA will be necessary.

CCAC argues that the imminent exhaust criteria are not a desirable means of allocating numbers because carriers will constantly be nearing, if not reaching, exhaust in NPAs where numbers are allocated via the lottery. CCAC claims this system may force carriers to significantly curtail marketing or to turn away customers simply to avoid running out of numbers.

The parties also argue that the FCC's NRO Order precludes the Commission from extending the fill rate and sequential number requirements of D.00-03-054 to apply on a statewide basis.

The NRO Order seeks further comment on what specific utilization threshold should be required for carriers not participating in number pooling (e.g., non-LNP) in order to request growth numbering resources. The NRO Order tentatively concludes that a nationwide utilization threshold should be set at 50% and increase by 10% annually until it reaches 80%, applicable only to carriers that do not pool. A new utilization rule will likely go into effect on January 1, 2001. The parties argue that the Commission should not extend the 75% fill rate requirement for the 310 NPA to a statewide basis now, only to have to change it approximately six months later when federal rules take effect.

The NRO Order also requires state commissions to conform their existing sequential number assignment requirements by January 1, 2001. Specifically, any state commission's sequential numbering rules requires carriers to first assign all available telephone numbers within an opened thousand-block before opening another thousand-block unless the available numbers in the opened block are not sufficient to meet a customer request. In that event, a carrier can deviate from the sequential numbering requirement if the carrier demonstrates that (1) it has a genuine request from a customer detailing the specific need for telephone numbers⁶ and (2) it is unable to meet the specific numbers request from the surplus of numbers within the carrier's currently activated thousand-block. The sequential numbering rules adopted in D.00-03-054 do not provide for this exception.