BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

ADVANCED TELCOM GROUP, INC.,  ) DOCKET NO. UT-993003
       ) 
   Petitioner,   ) 
       ) SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL 
 v.      ) ORDER; PREHEARING 
              ) CONFERENCE ORDER;
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,  ) FURTHER PROCEEDINGS           ) 
   Respondent.   ) 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  )


  PREHEARING CONFERENCE:  The Commission convened a prehearing conference in 
this matter on Wednesday, September 23, 1998, at Olympia, Washington, before 
Administrative Law Judge Lawrence J. Berg of the Washington Utilities and 
Transportation Commission (Commission). 

  APPEARANCES:  The following appearances were entered:  Lisa Anderl, attorney, 
for U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST); and Gregory Kopta, attorney, for 
Advanced Telcom Group, Inc. (ATG).

  FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:  Pursuant to WAC 480-09-530(4)(b), the presiding officer 
has determined that with regard to several issues raised by the parties, 
additional pleadings and submissions are necessary.  Those issues are:

 • What impact does the FCC’s Order in Global NAPS/BA-NJ, CC Docket No. 99-154, 
FCC 99-199, footnote 25, have on interconnection agreements previously approved 
by the Commission? 

 • Does the MFS/U S WEST agreement unambiguously establish a termination date?

 • Does the Commission’s section 252(i) Interpretive and Policy Statement apply 
to agreements previously approved by the Commission?

 • On what date was 47 C.F.R. 51.809 reinstated?

 • Is a State requirement that parties adopting agreements prior to 
reinstatement of FCC Rule 51.809 be entitled to request arrangements from 
previously approved agreements for a reasonable period of time not 
inconsistent, and if not, what would be a reasonable period of time? 

 • Is a State requirement that section 252(i) requests be submitted to the 
Commission for approval under section 261(c) not inconsistent with the Telecom 
Act or FCC regulations?

 • Is a State requirement that arrangements approved pursuant to section 252(i) 
be made available to other carriers not inconsistent with the Telecom Act or 
FCC regulations?

  SCHEDULE:  The following schedule is adopted for this proceeding:

 Request for More Time to File Briefs Cut-Off  December 14, 1999

 Briefs Due       December 17, 1999

 Request to File Reply Briefs Cut-Off   December 21, 1999

 Reply Brief Teleconference     December 22, 1999

  Counsel must be available to participate in a teleconference in the event 
that either party requests to file a reply brief.  If a request is received, 
the presiding officer shall consult with counsel to arrange a mutually 
convenient time to conduct the teleconference on the scheduled date.  During 
the teleconference the presiding officer will decide whether to grant the 
request and to establish a filing schedule.  After reviewing briefs, the 
presiding officer shall decide whether further proceedings are necessary and 
notify the parties. 
  
  FILING AND SERVING BRIEFS:  Briefs must be filed in accordance with the 
Commission’s First Supplemental Order in this proceeding.  The parties may file 
and serve their briefs by facsimile transmission, provided that a paper copy is 
delivered for filing and service the following business day.

  NOTICE TO PARTIES:  Any objection to the provisions of this order must be 
filed within ten days after its service date, pursuant to WAC 480-09-460(2).  
In the absence of objection, this prehearing conference order will control 
further proceedings in this matter, subject to Commission review and/or later 
change.


  DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective this 6th day of December, 1999.

  WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION




      LAWRENCE J. BERG
      Administrative Law Judge