March 20, 2000

Ann E. Rendahl
Assistant Attorney General
1400 S. Evergreen Park Drive S.W.
P.O. Box 40128
Olympia, WA 98504-0128


RE: In the Matter of the Continued Costing and Pricing of Unbundled Network
 Elements, Transport, Termination, and Resale
 Docket No. UT-003013

Dear Ms. Rendahl:

Thank you for your letter of March 17, 2000 asking clarification of the 
administrative law judge’s prehearing conference order. 

You ask the intended filing date for Part A materials.  As you noted, May 21 is 
a Sunday.  The reference to May 21 is in error.  As you also note, the correct 
date of May 19 is stated elsewhere in the order. 

Please note that in setting aside time for hearings, the Commission does not 
intend that the hearings consume all the time reserved. 

You asked the intended hearing schedule for Part A.  As you note, September 25 
is in error.  The intended date is September 1.

You asked whether the intended schedule reservation for Part B hearings 
includes the periods of October 10-14 inclusive, October 24-28 inclusive, and 
October 31-November 4 inclusive.  The answer is yes.

You asked whether the briefing dates are alternatives or are intended to 
connote a schedule for original and answering briefs.  The latter is the case.  
Subject to change or confirmation at the appropriate point in the proceeding, 
we are contemplating simultaneous opening and answering briefs with no explicit 
provision for replies. 

You asked the nature of the inquiry into non-recurring charges in Part A and a 
citation for the judge’s opinion that parties appear to be ready to proceed 
with that inquiry.  Paragraph 482 of the Eighth Supplemental Order in Docket 
Nos. UT-960369, et al., says, "The cost findings in this Order do not reflect 
the transactional efficiencies that may be achieved through computer links 
between the ILECs' and CLECs' operational support systems.  When these systems 
are in operation, we expect the ILECs to fulfill their commitment to revise 
their studies to reflect the associated cost savings.  
U S WEST Brief at 91."

Concerns about NRCs were raised during the USF proceeding, UT-980300, and 
during Phase II, as well as in the Eighth Order.  GTE submitted a new study in 
phase II, which consequently may not need to be litigated in this docket.  
There is rather general agreement that the OSS issue appears ready to proceed 
relatively soon.  U S WEST has clearly indicated that it is prepared to proceed 
with OSS issues.  Because of the linkage that was made clear  in the Eighth 
Order, we anticipate that its cost presentation will address these issues or 
that it and the other parties will be ready to proceed apace.

Sincerely,



C. ROBERT WALLIS
Administrative Law Judge


cc:   All Parties of Record