TURN Comments/Commission Responses

1. Add a definition to proposed Rule 77.7(a) such that a "party" to an advice letter implementing a prior Commission decision would include any party to the proceeding in which the prior Commission decision was issued. (Opening Comments, pp. 1-2.)

Response: Reject. A party to the underlying proceeding can ensure that it will receive the draft resolution by indicating its position on the implementation advice letter (either filing a protest if the implementation proposal is faulty or a response if the proposal would correctly implement the Commission decision). Note that a response supportive of the advice letter may be useful to alert the Commission to interpretive issues and thus assist the Commission division responsible for preparing the draft resolution.

2. Publish draft resolutions and alternates on the Commission's Internet site. (Opening Comments, pp. 2-3.)

Response: Reject. See Response to Greenlining Comment #1.

3. Allow parties to serve by e-mail their comments on draft resolutions and alternates. (Opening Comments, p. 3.)

Response: Reject. This suggestion exceeds the scope of this rulemaking. Note, however, that the Commission already endorses e-mail service (see Rule 2.3(b)). The subject of utilization of the Internet for various purposes in connection with advice letters is under consideration in R.98-07-038.

4. The five-page limit on comments is adequate with respect to most Commission resolutions, but the Commission should expand the limit where appropriate (e.g., for unusually long resolutions). (Opening Comments, p. 3.)

[ORA supports.]

Response: Reject. Under proposed Rule 77.7(c), the Commission division that prepared the draft resolution may provide for longer comments, as needed.

5. Oppose GTE's proposal to waive public review and comment for all resolutions related to advice letters filed by telecommunications service providers. (Reply Comments, pp. 1-2.)

Response: Agree (no change necessary). See Response to GTE Comment #1.

6. Support comments by Greenlining, ORA. (See Reply Comments, p. 1.)

Response: See Responses to Greenlining Comments #1, 2; ORA Comments #1, 2, 3.

7. Oppose proposals by various utilities that for purposes of a draft resolution addressing an advice letter, "party" should be limited to the advice letter filer or someone who filed a "meritorious" protest. (Reply Comments, pp. 2-3.)

Response: Agree (no change necessary). See Response to GTE Comment #3.

8. While TURN does not necessarily agree with Roseville and Smaller Independent LECs that comments on draft resolutions should be filed with the Docket Office, the Commission should make clear what the filing rules are. (Reply Comments, p. 3.)

Response: Agree (no change necessary). The Commission expects that divisions issuing draft resolutions will continue to handle filings relating to those resolutions as the divisions have in the past. See also Response to Roseville Comment #3.

PART II: Response to Comments and Replies on Draft Decision of ALJ Kotz, Neeper Alternate, Bilas/Neeper Alternate, Duque Alternate, and D.99-11-052

In this part of Appendix B, we respond (with the exception noted below) to all comments received subsequent to the rounds of opening comments and replies solicited by the OIR itself. Where these later comments appear to repeat those received earlier, we refer back to our relevant response in Part I of Appendix B. We do not summarize or respond to comments (by TURN, the three energy utilities, and the City and County of San Francisco) regarding redlining since (1) the Commission did not propose a rule specific to redlining in the OIR, and (2) pursuant to D.99-11-052, the Commission is not taking up in this proceeding any rulemaking proposals on redlining.