BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion to Govern Open Access to Bottleneck Services and Establish a Framework for Network Architecture Development of Dominant Carrier Networks.	Rulemaking 93-04-003 (Filed April 7, 1993)
Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into Open Access and Network Architecture Development of Dominant Carrier Networks.	Investigation 93-04-002 (Filed April 7, 1993) (Line Sharing Phase)

ARBITRATOR'S RULING

The interim arbitration of the line sharing phase of this matter has been reassigned from Arbitrator Walwyn to me. Assuming requests for arbitration are filed, this ruling clarifies and elaborates upon the February 25, 2000 Ruling regarding rebuttal testimony, and a revised matrix of unresolved issues. It also sets the time and place for the initial arbitration meeting. Further, it directs that parties use a common outline for briefs, and sets a date for the filing and service of limited reply briefs. It also provides for the filing of statements by parties addressing whether the Commission should approve or reject the interim agreements, and discusses electronic service.

Parties are encouraged to negotiate agreements without the need for arbitration. Pursuant to the February 25, 2000 Ruling, parties should file signed negotiated agreements by March 27, 2000. This ruling clarifies implementation of negotiated agreements.

1. Rebuttal Testimony

Among other things, the schedule adopted in the February 25, 2000 Ruling provides for rebuttal testimony. (Ruling, page 10.) A response should accompany the rebuttal testimony. The response/rebuttal testimony should include the items stated in Rule 3.6 of Resolution ALJ-178 regarding responses. That is, along with anything else it might include, it should address each issue listed in the request for arbitration filed March 27, 2000; describe respondent's position on each issue; identify and present any additional issues for which respondent seeks resolution; and provide additional information and evidence necessary for the Commission's review. Further, building upon the agreement proposed by applicant, and using the form of agreement selected by applicant, respondent should include a single-text mark-up document containing the language upon which the parties agree. Where the parties disagree, respondent should include both applicant's proposed language (bolded or otherwise clearly identified), and respondent's proposed language (underscored or otherwise separately clearly identified). The response must contain the proposed rebuttal testimony which supports respondent's position on the underlying facts.