STATE
OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
|
In the Matter of an Investigation Regarding Qwest’s Compliance with Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with Respect to the Provisions of InterLATA Services Originating in Minnesota
|
PUC Docket No.
P-421/CI-96-1114 |
|
In the Matter of a Commission Investigation into Qwest’s Compliance with Section 271(c)(2)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Checklist items 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12
|
PUC Docket No. P-421/CI-01-1370 OAH Docket No. 12-2500-14485-2 |
|
In the Matter of a Commission Investigation into Qwest’s Compliance with Section 271(c)(2)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Checklist items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, and 14
|
PUC Docket No. P-421/CI-01-1371 OAH Docket No. 7-2500-14486-2 |
|
In the Matter of a Commission Investigation into Qwest’s Compliance with Section 272 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996’s Separate Affiliate Requirement
|
PUC Docket No. P-421/CI-01-1372 OAH Docket No. 7-2500-14487-2
|
|
In the Matter of a Commission Investigation into Qwest’s Compliance with Section 271(d)(3)(C) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 That the Requested Authorization is Consistent with the Public Interest, Convenience and Necessity
|
PUC Docket No. P-421/CI-01-1373 OAH Docket No. 6-2500-14488-2 |
|
In the Matter of a Qwest’s Statement of Generally Available Terms (SGAT) Pursuant to Section 252(f) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
|
PUC Docket No. P-421/CI-01-1374 OAH Docket No. 12-2500-14489-2 |
|
In the Matter of the Commission’s Review and Investigation of Qwest’s Unbundled Network Element (UNE) Prices
|
PUC Docket No. P-421/CI-01-1375 OAH Docket No. 12-2500-14490-2 |
These matters came on for a motion hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steve M. Mihalchick on October 11, 2001, to consider the Department’s Motion to Suspend the Timeframes and other issues. The motion hearing was conducted by telephone conference.
The following persons noted their appearances:
Jason Topp and Robert E. Cattenach, for Qwest Corporation.
Tony Mendoza, Deputy Commissioner; Peter Marker, Ginny Zeller, Priti R. Patel, and Steve Alpert, Assistant Attorneys General; and Greg Doyle, Analyst; for the Department of Commerce.
Thomas Bailey, Assistant Attorney General, for the Office of the Attorney General, Residential Utility and Small Business Division.
Lesley Lehr for MCI WorldCom, Inc.
Rebecca Liethen, for Time-Warner Telecom of Minnesota, LLC.
Steven Weigler, Janet Brown, and Sandra Hofstetter for AT & T.
Megan J. Hertzler for the CLEC Coalition.
Megan Doberneck for Covad Communications Company.
Donald A. Low for Sprint Communications Co. L.P.
Karen L. Clauson for Eschelon Telecom, Inc.
Mark Oberlander, Analyst, for the Public Utilities Commission staff.
Based upon the record and argument of counsel, the undersigned Administrative Law Judges make the following:
1. The announced delay of a few weeks in the ROC OSS Final Report, and consequential delay of about a month in Qwest filing its 271 Application, allow for some additional time in the schedule. However, the serial release of draft portions of the report allows the parties to analyze and prepare comments on the report well before the Final Report is issued. The now-settled state employees’ strike made several analysts for the Department unavailable on October 1, 2001, just when Qwest’s initial filings were made, and for two weeks thereafter. Because of the importance of the Department’s analysis to the public interest, this also justifies some minor slippage of the schedule. Therefore, the schedule for these matters is revised as shown on the attached QWEST 271 APPLICATION, Schedule as of October 18, 2001.
2. The issue of whether Qwest has met the threshold requirements for following “Track A” under 47 USC § 271(c)(1)(A) shall be addressed in Docket 1373, the “Public Interest” docket. Dockets 1370 and 1371, the Checklist Items dockets, shall proceed under the assumption that the Track A requirements have been met. Docket 1373 is reassigned to Administrative Law Judge Allan W. Klein.
3. AT&T requested that a protective order be issued imposing stricter limitations than the terms of the Protective Agreement entered into in In the Matter of a Generic Investigation of U S West Communications, Inc.'s Cost of Providing Interconnection and Unbundled Network Elements, as modified by subsequent Orders Directing Production of Vendor Proprietary Information in that matter; PUC Docket Nos. P-442, 5231, 3167,466, 421/C1-96-1540; OAH Docket No. 12-2500-10956-2. The parties have been directed to confer on AT&T’s request and, if possible, submit a protective order with terms agreeable to the parties. If agreement can not be reached as to particular issues, the parties shall submit their own proposed language and argument by November 15, 2001.
Dated: October 18, 2001
/s/ Steve M. Mihalchick
STEVE M. MIHALCHICK
RICHARD C. LUIS
ALLAN W. KLEIN
Administrative Law Judges