ORDER NO. 98-060

ENTERED FEB 19 1998

This is an electronic copy.

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

AR 330/AR 331

DISPOSITION: RULES ADOPTED

On July 8, 1997, the Public Utility Commission (Commission) initiated two rulemakings. AR 330 was opened to consider amending rules using the term "telecommunications utility" in order to clarify the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction over telephone cooperatives and to explicitly declare that cooperatives providing through services are subject to certain Oregon statutes and administrative rules. AR 331 was opened to consider adoption of a rule defining "through service" for purposes of ORS 759.220 and 759.225.

A public hearing in AR 330 was held on October 16, 1997, in Salem, Oregon, before Ruth Crowley, Administrative Law Judge. Written comments were filed by Staff, Beaver Creek Cooperative Telephone Company/Stayton Telephone Cooperative Company (Beaver Creek), and Oregon Telecommunications Association (OTA). A public hearing in AR 331 was held in Salem, Oregon, before Allen Scott, Administrative Law Judge. Written comments were filed by Staff, Beaver Creek, OTA, and GTE Northwest Incorporated (GTE). The Commission considered these matters at its public meeting on February 17, 1998, and decided to adopt the proposed rules set out in Appendix A (AR 330) and Appendix B (AR 331) to this order and incorporated herein by reference.

APPLICABLE LAW

ORS 759.220 provides as follows, in relevant part:

(1) A telecommunications utility may establish reasonable through service and joint rates and classifications with other telecommunications utilities. Telecommunications utilities establishing joint rates shall establish just and reasonable regulations and practices in connection therewith and just, reasonable and equitable divisions thereof, as between the public utilities participating therein which shall not unduly prefer or prejudice any of the participating telecommunications utilities and every unjust and unreasonable rate, classification, regulation, practice and division is prohibited.

The commission may, and shall, wherever deemed by the commission to be necessary or desirable in the public interest, after full hearing upon complaint, or upon the commission’s own initiative without complaint, establish through service, classifications and joint rates, the divisions of such rates and the terms and conditions under which such through service shall be rendered.

ORS 759.225 applies 759.220 to cooperatives:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, ORS 759.220 applies to any unincorporated association or cooperative corporation providing intrastate telecommunications service.

OPINION

Issues Common to Both Dockets

Beaver Creek and OTA make several arguments in both dockets. Rather than deal with them twice, we discuss them and reach a disposition at the outset.

The major argument that parties opposing the proposed rule make is a challenge to Commission jurisdiction. All participants agree that the Commission has less than plenary jurisdiction over cooperative corporations. All agree that the Commission may regulate cooperatives when they are involved in setting joint rates. Other than that, however, the extent of the Commission’s jurisdiction is in dispute.

Joint rates/through services. OTA and Beaver Creek assert that the proposed rule amendments exceed the Commission’s jurisdiction. Specifically, they argue that, under ORS 759.220, through services and joint rates are independent concepts and that the Commission has jurisdiction over a cooperative’s rates only where there are joint rates (that is, a common rate charged by two or more telecommunications utilities or cooperatives for a single service, the revenues from which are pooled and divided among the participants on some equitable basis), not where there are merely through services. According to these participants, the Commission’s jurisdiction over through services is limited to the terms and conditions of that service, which does not include rates. According to these parties, the Commission’s rate jurisdiction over through services involving cooperatives thus extends only to situations in which a cooperative takes a share of pooled revenues.

As a consequence, even if an EAS route is a through service because it involves two companies, one of which is a cooperative, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the rate the cooperative charges its own customers, since it is not a joint rate which is divided between the participating companies.

Public interest. These participants also contend that ORS 759.220 gives the Commission no authority over cooperatives unless the agency first determines that it is in the public interest to approve joint rates or through services. As a consequence, they argue that the Commission cannot inquire about a cooperative’s finances or require the filing proposed under OAR 860-027-0070 where the cooperative does not charge a joint rate.

Dispute resolution. These participants argue in addition that ORS 759.220 is merely a dispute resolution statute. They maintain that subsection (1) provides initial authority to the companies to work out the rates and terms between themselves. If they are unable to do so, subsection (2) gives the Commission authority to resolve the disputes. ORS 759.225 was enacted, according to these participants, to allow cooperatives to use this dispute resolution forum instead of the courts when disputes arise between cooperatives and other providers.

Expanded jurisdiction. Finally, because of the way in which they interpret the statutes, OTA and Beaver Creek argue that the proposed rules are attempts to expand Commission jurisdiction.

Commission Disposition. Joint rates/ through services. The opponents of the proposed rules argue that the Commission does not have rate regulation over cooperatives as to through services unless the rates are joint rates. We note that the rules say nothing about rates. This argument is actually addressed to the statutes involved. We believe that the plain wording of ORS 759.220 and 759.225 provides the Commission with the authority to regulate rates for through services involving cooperatives. ORS 759.220 and ORS 759.225 give the Commission regulatory authority over cooperatives with respect to through services, including the authority to ensure that rates for through services are "just and reasonable." Absent rate regulation we could not fulfill that legislative mandate. We also have power to regulate the terms and conditions of through services. One of those terms and conditions of service is the rate for the service. We read the statute to establish a specific jurisdiction over joint rates and a more general jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over rates, for through services.

Valid policy considerations support our reading of the statute to include regulation of rates for through services. Staff posits several consequences if the Commission does not exercise regulatory control over cooperatives’ EAS services and rates. First, EAS expansion into exchanges served by cooperatives would be reduced because the Commission could not act on petitions from cooperatives or their customers. Second, action on EAS petitions from telecommunications utilities or their customers involving exchanges served by cooperatives might be delayed while the utility negotiated an agreement with the cooperative.

Third, antitrust concerns might prevent cooperatives from entering into EAS agreements with one another, while concerns about unlawful discrimination might forestall a cooperative from establishing EAS between certain of its own exchanges. Fourth, bill and keep compensation might give way to other compensation arrangements, such as an access charge, that could raise costs for cooperatives originating more EAS traffic than they terminate. Fifth, EAS rates for customers in cooperatives could be raised to excessive levels without the customers having any recourse to the Commission. Finally, cooperatives might impose unreasonable access charges on connecting utilities in an EAS arrangement, thereby forcing the utility’s customers to pay too much for EAS service. We find these possible consequences matters of genuine concern.

We reject the opponents’ argument that we have differing jurisdiction over joint rates and through services. We find that we have jurisdiction over rates for through services as well as over joint rates.

Public interest test. The "public interest" provision in subsection (2) of ORS 759.220 is not, as the opponents of the proposed rules appear to believe, a threshold for Commission involvement in through service and joint rate matters. The first clause of that subsection states that the Commission may establish through service and joint rates. That provision gives the Commission both authority and discretion to undertake such involvement. The next clause, "and shall [establish through service and joint rates] whenever deemed by the Commission to be necessary or desirable in the public interest" (emphasis added) must be read as a separate legislative directive creating a duty to establish through service and joint rates in a subset of cases involving the public interest. In other words, the Commission need not make a public interest determination to review through services and joint rates under this statute. Accordingly, the opponents’ argument that the rates and operations of cooperatives do not present public interest considerations is not relevant. We add, however, that as Staff has demonstrated with respect to EAS, the rates and practices of cooperatives in connections with through services do impact the public interest.

Dispute resolution provision. We are not persuaded by the argument that ORS 759.220 is really a "dispute resolution" provision. It is clear that subsection (2) gives the Commission authority to initiate proceedings to establish through service, classifications, and joint rates, as well as "other terms and conditions under which such through service shall be rendered." The Commission does not need to find that a dispute exists or need the impetus of a complaint before undertaking its examination.

Expanding jurisdiction. We note that the proposed rules are not an attempt to expand our jurisdiction over cooperatives. Our jurisdiction is established by statute. We cannot expand it by administrative rule. The function of the proposed rules is to inform those affected by the statute of our understanding of its meaning and application.

DISCUSSION: AR 330

The rule amendments proposed by Staff:

Add the language "and unincorporated associations and cooperative corporations who are subject to ORS 759.225" to OAR 860-027-0070(2) (requiring annual Form O and Form I reports from these entities as well as from telecommunications utilities);

Add the language "except OAR 860-027-0070 and 860-032-0100" to OAR 860-032-0005(10) (specifying which of the Commission rules cooperative corporations are subject to);

Add to OAR 860-032-0100(1) the following language: "and unincorporated associations and cooperative corporations who are subject to ORS 759.225" (adding the named entities to entities who may become members of the Oregon Exchange Carrier Association, OECA); and

Add to OAR 860-032-0100(2) the term "Association" in two places, to clarify that the requirement of filing tariffs with the Commission is limited to OECA tariffs.

Positions of the Participants

OTA and Beaver Creek argue that the Commission has no jurisdiction to require filing of the reports mandated by the proposed rule requiring Form O and Form I reports from cooperatives. OTA argues that there is, moreover, no reason for the Commission to regulate rates that do not affect the rates of the public.

OTA notes that the rule requires even those coops who participate in the OECA tariff to file annual reports, including Form O and Form I. According to OTA, the OECA receives sufficient cost and financial information to fulfill its obligation to fashion a just rate and an equitable division of revenues among the participants. If Staff has a concern about a particular coop charging a joint rate, Staff may be entitled to request information from that coop on a case-by-case basis, but there is no need to require cooperatives to bear the burden of filing annual reports.

Commission Disposition

The Commission adopts the proposed rules. We find that we have jurisdiction to require the Form O and Form I reports from cooperatives as part of our rate jurisdiction over through services. We also find that exercise of this jurisdiction in the manner proposed by the rule is sound. Staff has demonstrated possible consequences of lack of rate regulation in the case of EAS (see discussion above). While OTA reasonably asserts that Staff could operate on a case-by-case basis in terms of requiring financial information, it may not always be apparent that a cooperative’s financial dealings require oversight. Filing the forms required by the proposed rule allows the Commission to protect the public in the case of through services.

DISCUSSION: AR 331

The rule proposed by Staff is as follows:

"Through service" means an Oregon intrastate telecommunications service the provision of which involves the facilities, equipment or services of two or more telecommunications utilities and/or cooperatives. Examples of "through services" may include, but are not limited to, intrastate toll/access service, extended area service, and E 9-1-1 service. Whether a service is a "through service" is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Staff Position

Staff argues that ORS 759.220 and ORS 759.225 give the Commission regulatory authority over cooperatives with respect to through services, including the authority to ensure that rates for through services are "just and reasonable." The Commission may accordingly promulgate rules applicable to cooperatives to administer the statutes. The proposed rule provides a necessary definition of "through services." Staff asks that the rule be placed in two chapters in OAR 860: Division 022 (RATES) and Division 034 (SMALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITIES).

The proposed rule defines "through service" as a telecommunications service the provision of which involves the facilities, equipment, or services of two or more telecommunications service providers. Staff argues that this definition is consistent with historical usage. The rule sets out three illustrative, nonexclusive examples of services that may be through services: intrastate toll/access service, extended area service (EAS), and E 9-1-1 service. The rule also provides, however, that the determination as to whether a specific service is a through service is to be made on a case-by-case basis. Staff’s comments analyze why intrastate toll/access and EAS may be through services and argues that significant adverse consequences will occur if the Commission does not exercise rate authority over cooperatives with respect to these services.

Intrastate toll/access service. Under Staff’s definition, intrastate toll/access service is a through service when it involves a local telephone provider (which may be a cooperative) and a toll service provider. In Staff’s view, the Commission’s exercise of rate authority over cooperatives with respect to these services is necessary to avoid several regulatory problems. For example, if the Commission does not exercise rate authority, including oversight of pooled costs, it would be unable to assure that joint rates established through the Oregon Customer Access Fund (OCAF) are just and reasonable. Second, absent Commission oversight, antitrust laws would prevent cooperatives from pooling their costs and setting joint rates in a cooperatives-only pooling arrangement. Third, without PUC oversight, cooperatives’ intrastate access charge rates could include excessive costs or costs related to unregulated activities. Excessive access rates, in turn, might be passed on to intrastate toll users by long distance carriers. Because toll rates are averaged statewide, all long distance customers would pay for these costs. Moreover, excessive access charges for some toll routes would increase pressure for deaveraged toll rates, requests for abandonment of high cost toll routes, and loss of competitive choice for end user customers.

Extended Area Service. Under Staff’s definition, EAS is a through service if it involves the facilities, equipment, and services and two or more telecommunications service providers, including cooperatives, to route and transport the calls. The Commission relies on its authority over through services under ORS 759.220 and 759.225 to determine EAS routes and to ensure that the utilities and cooperatives involved increase their EAS and other local rates only enough to recover the additional EAS costs resulting from an EAS conversion. The Commission has used a "bill and keep" method for division of EAS revenues and costs between utilities and cooperatives under which the companies are allowed to recover their costs from their own customers and to keep the revenues for themselves.

Positions of the Other Participants

Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek challenges the inclusion in the proposed rule of "access service" as an example of through service. Access should be viewed, according to Beaver Creek, as the provision of a wholesale service to an interexchange carrier to allow it to provide toll service to its customers. Access is separate and distinct from toll service, and should not be lumped together with toll service as though they constitute a single service. If access rates are pooled, they are a joint rate subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. However, if a cooperative provides access service but does not participate in pooling those access rates, the cooperative is "neither participating in joint rates nor providing a through service." Based on these conclusions, Beaver Creek cautions that the definition of through service in the rules should not be written so as to expand Commission jurisdiction over cooperatives.

OTA. OTA requests that the rule note that through services are always retail services, and the Commission has "no jurisdiction over services offered on a wholesale basis." OTA asks the Commission to include no examples of through services in the rule, as all participants in the proceeding agreed that a determination of the status of each case must be based on the particular facts. It requests that the rule cite the statute involved and that the applicability of ORS 759.220 to "unincorporated associations" as well as cooperatives be clarified. OTA proposes the following alternative rule:

As used in ORS 759.220, "through service" is the provision of an Oregon intrastate telecommunications service to a retail customer by two or more telecommunications service utilities. Whether a particular service is a "through service" should be determined on a case-by-case basis. To the extent required by ORS 759.225, this rule applies to unincorporated associations and cooperative corporations as well as telecommunications utilities.

GTE. GTE argues that the term used in Staff’s original proposed rule, "joint and through" service, is archaic and inaccurate. The term was used in the past to describe situations where the service was provided on some type of partnership basis, with a sharing of risks and rewards. The types of service contemplated under Staff’s proposed rule involve payment by the provider primarily responsible for the service, such as a toll provider, to "subcontractors" who provide a portion of the service, such as a portion of the network. GTE suggests that the terminology of the rule be changed to "jointly provided" services.

Commission Disposition

The Commission adopts the proposed rule.

The statutes in question cannot be implemented or applied without a definition of the term "through services." The term is not defined in the statutes. Therefore, we must provide a sound definition in an administrative rule. We believe Staff’s understanding of the meaning of through service is consistent with past practice and industry usage and is appropriate. We prefer Staff’s wording to OTA’s less comprehensive proposed wording. OTA’s suggestion that we include the word "retail" in the rule is unnecessary. Staff’s revised proposed rule meets GTE’s stated concerns. We adopt Staff’s definition.

We believe that including examples in the rule will help those regulated by the rule. Staff acknowledges that not all arrangements for providing the three named services would create a through service; the examples are thus illustrative, not exhaustive. The word "may" and the assurance of a case-by-case determination guarantee that any affected party may show a particular service to be outside the scope of the statute and rule. However, we believe that Staff is correct: in most instances, the services in the examples will be through services.

CONCLUSION

The Commission concludes that the proposed rules are reasonable and should be adopted.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed amendments to rules OAR 860-027-0070(2), 860-032-0005(10), and 860-032-0100(1) and (2), set out in Appendix A, are adopted.

2. The proposed rules OAR 860-022-0003 and OAR 860-034-0295, set out in Appendix B, are adopted.

Made, entered, and effective .

A party may request rehearing or reconsideration of this order pursuant to ORS 756.561. A party may appeal this order to a court pursuant to applicable law.

AR 330

Note: New material is boldface; material to be deleted is lined through.

Annual Reports

860-027-0070

Electric, Telephone, Gas, and Steam Heat Utilities

(1) Annual Reports will be submitted by electric, gas, water, and steam heat utilities. The report shall be submitted on or before April 1, using the most current forms approved by the Commission.

(2) Annual Reports will be submitted by telecommunications utilities, unincorporated associations and cooperative corporations. The report Form O for the previous calendar year shall be submitted on or before April 1, using the most current forms approved by the Commission. The intrastate report Form I for the previous calendar year shall be submitted on or before October 31 using the most current forms approved by the Commission.

Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183, & 756, 757 & 759

Stat. Implemented: ORS 756.105, 757.120, 757.125 & 757.135 & 759.225

Hist.: PUC 164, f. 4-18-74, ef. 5-11-74 (Order No 74-307); PUC 9-1985, f. & ef. 6-25-85 (Order No. 85-574); PUC 4-1995, f. & ef. 6-19-95 (Order No. 95-516), PUC 13-1997, f. & ef. 11-12-97 (Order No. 97-434)

860-032-0005

Application for New or Amended Certificate of Authority

(1) No person shall provide telecommunications services within the State of Oregon except as authorized in a certificate of authority from the Commission.

(2) Any person intending to provide telecommunication services in Oregon shall file an application, on forms provided by the Commission, for a new or amended certificate of authority to provide telecommunications services. The application may include a petition to exempt services from regulation under OAR 860-032-0025, or to price list services under OAR 860-032-0035.

(3) An application shall contain:

(a) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant;

(b) A description of the service the applicant seeks to provide and the territory where the service is to be offered. An application to provide local exchange services shall include a map describing the local exchange service boundaries;

(c) The names and addresses of affiliates of the applicant, as defined in ORS 759.010, which are certified to provide or are actually providing telecommunications services in Oregon;

(d) A request for classification as a public utility or competitive provider. The request shall set forth the information required under OAR 860-032-0010 to classify the provider. Each applicant shall designate whether it is proposing to provide local exchange, shared or toll service.

(4) If an application, in any material respect, is incomplete, inaccurate, false or misleading, the Commission shall reject the application.

(5) Within 30 days of filing, the Commission shall serve notice of the application on all providers and all persons on the Commission’s telecommunications mailing list.

(6)(a) Within 20 days of the date of service under section (5) of this rule, any affected provider or other interested person may file a protest to an application. The protest shall set forth the grounds for the protest. Failure to protest within the time limit shall be deemed consent to the application. Except as provided in subsection (7)(b) of this rule, the Commission may require a person filing a protest to show that it is affected by the application or that its appearance and participation will not unreasonably broaden the issues or burden the record;

(b) The applicant shall serve protestants with copies of amendments and additional information submitted in the course of the application process. If an applicant intends to broaden the authority requested during the application process, it shall follow the procedures set forth in sections (2) through (6) of this rule. However, it may narrow its request by serving its amendment on each protestant.

(7)(a) Unless a hearing is held on the Commission’s own motion or under subsection (b) of this section, the Commission may consider the protests and grant or deny the application without hearing. If an application is denied in whole or in part, without hearing, the Commission shall set forth in writing the reasons for the denial. Within 30 days of the date of service of the denial, the applicant may, in writing, request a hearing;

(b) If the application is to provide local exchange service, other than shared services within the service territory of a public utility, and the utility protests the application, the Commission shall hold a hearing on the application.

(8) The Commission may find an application to provide local exchange service other than shared services is in the public interest, and may grant the application, if:

(a) The public utility in whose service territory the applicant seeks to provide local exchange service consents or does not protest; or

(b) After hearing, the Commission finds the public utility in whose service territory the applicant seeks to provide local exchange service is unable to provide local exchange service. Failure by the public utility to provide reasonable and adequate local exchange service after having been ordered to do so by the Commission shall constitute inability to provide service.

(9) A certificate to provide telecommunications services shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) The certificate holder shall provide only the telecommunications services authorized in the certificate;

(b) The certificate holder shall not abandon service except as authorized under the Commission’s rules;

(c) For public utilities, the records and books of the certificate holder are open to inspection by the Commission, and shall be maintained according to the Commission’s rules;

(d) For competitive providers, the books and records of the certificate holder shall be open to inspection by the Commission to the extent necessary to verify information required of the certificate holder by the Commission’s rules. The books and records shall be maintained according to generally accepted accounting principles and the applicable rules of the Commission;

(e) The certificate holder agrees to pay all access charges and subsidies imposed pursuant to the Commission’s rules;

(f) The certificate holder involved in the provision of an operator service shall:

(A) Notify all callers at the beginning of each call of the telecommunications provider’s name; however, a local exchange telephone company providing operator services for another local exchange telephone company may "brand" the call by identifying the other local exchange company.

(B) Disclose rate and service information to the caller when requested;

(C) Maintain a current list of emergency numbers for each service territory it serves;

(D) Transfer an emergency call to the appropriate emergency number when requested, free of charge;

(E) Transfer a call to, or instruct the caller how to reach, the originating local exchange company’s operator service upon request of the caller, free of charge;

(F) Not transfer a call to another operator service provider without the caller’s notification and consent;

(G) Not bill or collect for calls not completed to the caller’s destination;

(H) Not screen calls and prevent or "block" the completion of calls which would allow the caller to reach an operator service company different from the certificate holder. In addition, the certificate holder shall, through contract provisions with its call aggregator clients, prohibit the blocking of a caller’s access to his or her operator service company of choice. A certificate holder may apply for a waiver from the Commission if necessary to prevent fraudulent use of its services.

(g) Telecommunications providers who enter into operator service contract or arrangements with call aggregators shall include in those contracts or arrangements provisions for public notification as follows:

(A) A sticker or name plate identifying the name of the certificate holder shall be attached to each telephone available to the public;

(B) A brochure, pamphlet, or other notice shall be available in the immediate vicinity of the telephone giving the name of the operator service provider, stating that rate quotes are available upon request, listing a toll-free telephone number for customer inquiry, and giving instructions on how the caller may access other operator service providers.

(h) Competitive providers may contract with local telephone utilities for customer billing and collection under the following conditions:

(A) The telephone utility, in billing for the competitive provider, shall include on the bill the name of a company with the information and authority to provide information and resolve disputes about billing entries, a toll-free number to reach that company, and details of the services and charges billed;

(B) The telephone utility shall not deny telephone service to customers for failure to pay charges for competitive provider services or unregulated utility services.

(I) The certificate holder agrees to comply with the Commission’s rules applicable to the certificate holder; and

(j) A public utility shall meet the service standards for regulated services set forth in the Commission’s rules.

(10) Cooperative corporations organized under ORS Chapter 62 are not subject to ORS 759.015, et seq. or Division 32 of the Commission’s rules except OAR 860-027-0070 and 860-032-0100. Nothing in Division 32 shall have any effect on the integrity of a cooperative’s territorial allocation granted under ORS 758.400 et seq.

Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183, 756, 757, & 759 & 767

Stat. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 759.020, 759.025, 759.225 & 759.690

Hist.: PUC 27-1985(Temp), f. & ef. 12-19-85 (Order No. 85-1203); PUC 16-1986, f. & ef. 11-17-86 (Order No. 86-1159); PUC 10-1989(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 7-10-89 (Order No. 89-847); PUC 1-1990, f. & cert. ef. 2-6-90 (Order No. 90-96); PUC 23-1990, f. & cert. ef. 12-31-90 (Order No. 90-1918); PUC 9-1991, f. & ef. 7-16-91 (Order No. 91-854)

860-032-0100

Collective Consideration of Oregon Intrastate Rate, Tariff, or Service Proposals

(1) Local exchange telecommunications public utilities, unincorporated associations and cooperative corporations may become members of the Oregon Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. The Association’s rules of procedure shall be subject to approval by the Commission. The Association’s rules of procedure shall provide for joint or collective consideration of proposals for changes in intrastate rates, tariffs or conditions of service. The Association may file petitions and publish tariffs and may represent its members before the Commission. Membership in the Association by a local exchange public utility providing toll service shall be subject to approval by the Commission.

(2) All telecommunications rates, fares, charges, classifications and rules and regulations governing the practices and services of local exchange telecommunications public utilities, unincorporated associations and cooperative corporations shall be filed with the Commission. Changes in all tariffs shall be submitted to the Commission subject to all the procedural requirements and protections presently associated with utility filings before the Commission.

(3) The Association shall not discourage independent proposals of members to be filed directly with the Commission, nor oppose at hearings any independent proposal of a member or nonmember telecommunications service provider.

(4) The Commission has the authority to supervise the activities of the Association. However, such supervision and advice shall not compromise the independent evaluation of any proposal which must be submitted to the Commission for final approval.

(5) To the extent that the Association is involved in the collection and redistribution of funds pursuant to Commission orders authorizing certain revenue sharing arrangements under common tariff, it shall maintain and provide to the Commission, in a timely manner, monthly and annual financial reports. These reports shall include:

(a) Budgetary estimates and forecasts for the fund administrator and all fund collections and distributions to each member local exchange company and the basis upon which the collection and distribution is budgeted;

(b) Actual expenditures of the fund administrator;

(c) Actual fund collections and distributions to each member local exchange company and the basis upon which the collection and distribution is made; and

(d) Budget-to-actual tracking reports for the fund administrator and for fund collections and distributions for each member local exchange company.

(6) Activities taken pursuant to this rule are deemed to be an integral and necessary part of state regulation of telecommunications service in Oregon and are in the public interest.

(7) The Association shall adopt rules to provide for broad participation by its members, interested persons, and nonmember telecommunications service providers in its deliberations. The rules shall provide procedures for notifying members and other persons of Association meetings and for providing meeting agendas to such persons.

Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183, 756, 757 & 759

Stat. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 759.225

Hist.: PUC 19-1986(Temp), f. & ef. 12-15-86 (Order No. 86-1253); PUC 7-1987, f. & ef. 9-16-87 (Order No. 87-955)

[ED. NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not printed in the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be obtained from the adopting agency or the Secretary of State.]

AR 331

New material is bolded and underlined.

860-022-0003

Through Service

"Through service" means an Oregon intrastate telecommunications service the provision of which involves the facilities, equipment, or services of two or more telecommunications utilities and/or cooperatives. Examples of "through services" may include, but are not limited to, intrastate toll/access service, extended area service, and E 9-1-1 service. Whether a service is a "Through service" is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Stat. Authority: ORS Ch. 183 & 759

Stats Implemented: ORS 759.220

Hist.: NEW

860-034-0295

Through Service

"Through service" means an Oregon intrastate telecommunications service the provision of which involves the facilities, equipment, or services of two or more telecommunications utilities and/or cooperatives. Examples of "through services" may include, but are not limited to, intrastate toll/access service, extended area service, and E 9-1-1 service. Whether a service is a "Through service" is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Stat. Authority: ORS Ch. 183 & 759

Stats Implemented: ORS 759.220

Hist.: NEW