BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


In the Matter of the Pricing proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale
..........................................................................Y
In the Matter of the Pricing Proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale for U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, 
INC.
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY..
In the matter of the Pricing Proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale for GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)	PHASE II
		
		DOCKET NOS. UT-960369, UT-960370, 
		                           UT-960371
		
		
		U S WEST=S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR STAY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 85 OF 
THE NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
		
		AND 
		
		FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS


 U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) hereby files this emergency petition 
for a stay of effectiveness and reconsideration of paragraph 85 of the Ninth 
Supplemental Order, entered on June 5, 1998.  Paragraph 85 of the order 
requires U S WEST to refile its tariffs, including all terms and conditions for 
service, no later than five business days after June 5, 1998.  Thus, the 
refiled tariffs are due on June 12, 1998.  U S WEST requests a stay of 
effectiveness of the requirement to refile its tariffs until the Commission has 
had an opportunity to review and consider that requirement in light of the 
arguments to be set forth in this petition for reconsideration.
A Stay Should be Granted
 Under WAC 480-09-800, the Commission may stay the effectiveness of a final 
order on its own motion or on the petition of any party.  U S WEST believes 
that the requirement to refile its tariffs is a final order of the Commission, 
and that WAC 480-09-800 applies to permit the Commission to stay the 
effectiveness of that requirement.  Even if the Ninth Supplemental Order is not 
a final order of the Commission, U S WEST believes that the Commission has 
authority necessary to allow it to waive the requirement for a set period of 
time, or to extend the time for compliance.  Any of these solutions would 
address the problem created by this refiling requirement.
 U S WEST received the Ninth Supplemental Order on Friday, June 5, 1998.  Work 
began that weekend on the compliance filing ordered in paragraph 85.  However, 
the filing is fairly labor-intensive to compile on short notice, and U S WEST 
believes that the Commission may reconsider the requirement in light of the 
arguments presented herein.  The filing may not be necessary if reconsideration 
is granted.  Even if it is, the recent extension of the schedule in this docket 
would allow a later filing without prejudice to any party.  
 Further, although this requirement was contained in the order on 
clarification, the issue of whether U S WEST=s May 18 filing was in compliance 
with the April 16 order had not previously been raised by the Commission or by 
any party.  Thus, U S WEST was not on notice that this issue would even be 
addressed in the Ninth Supplemental Order, and was caught somewhat off-guard by 
this requirement.  This is especially true in light of the discussion to be 
presented below, which explains why U S WEST=s filing is in fact in strict 
compliance with the requirements earlier established in this case.
Reconsideration is Appropriate and Should be Granted
 On May 18, 1998, U S WEST filed a tariff containing only prices for resale and 
unbundled elements, indicating that the terms and conditions of the service 
offerings were contained in approved interconnection agreements.  U S WEST 
filed its tariffs in the good faith belief that these tariffs complied 
precisely with the stated purpose and desired outcome of this docket B a price 
list to be used in existing contracts and future arbitration proceedings. The 
refiling requirement imposed in paragraph 85 of the Ninth Supplemental Order is 
inconsistent with the Commission=s earlier statements regarding the purpose of 
these proceedings and the issues to be addressed.  The refiling requirement 
could potentially expand the scope of the consolidated dockets well beyond that 
contemplated when the dockets were opened and the hearing process commenced.  
 In October 1996, Sprint filed a petition to intervene in the then-pending 
arbitrations, and asked the Commission to consider cost and price issues in a 
separate proceeding from the arbitration dockets. Sprint=s petition was filed, 
at least in part, because of the shortened time frames imposed by the Act for 
resolution of the arbitrations and because of the complexity of the task of 
establishing costs and prices pursuant to Sections 251 and 252 of the Act.  On 
October 23, 1996, the Commission entered an order in each of the arbitration 
proceedings, holding that the prices established in the arbitrations would be 
interim, to be replaced with prices established in this proceeding. (Order on 
Sprint=s Petition to Intervene and to Establish Generic Pricing Proceeding, 
Docket Nos. UT-960307, UT-960309, UT-960310, UT-960323, UT-960326, UT-960332, 
October 23, 1996.)  
 This docket was opened on November 21, 1996.  The Commission=s November 21, 
1996 AOrder Instituting Investigations@ is attached hereto for ease of 
reference.  That order specifically establishes the issues in this case as 
follows:
ISSUES
  (1) Costing and Pricing.  The main purpose of these proceedings is to 
consider cost methodology and pricing for interconnection, unbundled network 
elements, transport and termination, and wholesale and retail discounts.  
Related issues for interim number portability and collocation costing and 
pricing also will be considered.
  
  (2) Terms and Conditions.  Terms and conditions for interconnection will 
continue to be addressed in the negotiation and arbitration process.  To the 
extent terms and conditions are integrally related to a particular cost or 
price issue in this proceeding, they may be addressed in one or more of the 
proceedings.
 
 The order goes on to state that the purpose of this proceeding is to Aderive 
an accepted cost methodology and to establish prices or price ranges for use in 
pending and future arbitrations, and in tariffs that are required pursuant to 
Commission orders in the consolidated interconnection proceedings [UT-941464, 
et al.] and USWC rate case proceedings. . . .  It is expected that those prices 
or price ranges will be applied in future arbitrations and that the parties 
will reform their contracts to adopt the Commission-approved prices.  It is 
also anticipated that the determinations made in these proceedings will apply 
to any relevant tariffs required to be filed pursuant to Commission Orders in 
the consolidated interconnection proceedings, Docket No. UT-941464, et al., and 
the USWC rate case proceeding, Docket No. UT-950200.@  
 Thus, U S WEST understood that tariffs might be required in other dockets, but 
not necessarily in this docket.  Nonetheless, a basic tariff containing prices, 
such as the one U S WEST filed, seemed to make sense as a way of establishing 
prices for use in pending and future arbitrations, and that is what U S WEST 
filed.
 The Commission has never determined that the terms and conditions of offering 
were interim.  Nor did the Commission ever order that the terms and conditions 
of the service offering were at issue in this docket.  In fact, the language 
from the Commission order cited above specifically relegates terms and 
conditions to the negotiation and arbitration process.  This intent was 
reflected in U S WEST=s May 18 tariff filing, which contained the following 
language:  AAll service arrangements will be provided under interconnection 
agreements approved by the Commission.  These agreements contain specific 
product descriptions, terms and conditions.@
 No party presented any testimony and evidence on the proper terms and 
conditions of offering, if services were to be generally available from a 
tariff.  However, the Commission is experienced with the disputes that can 
arise in connection with contract terms and conditions.  Terms and conditions 
can include the Abusiness processes@ which were at issue in the AT&T and MCI 
arbitrations.  These are highly complex issues, and often involve details which 
are specific to the carriers who are parties to the agreement.  U S WEST 
believes that these terms and conditions are most reasonably established 
through negotiation, and, failing resolution, through arbitration.
General terms and conditions will not contain the detail necessary for the 
technically and administratively complicated processes necessary for 
interconnection and access to unbundled elements. U S WEST acknowledges that 
the Commission did state that some terms and conditions, which were integrally 
related to a cost or price issue, might be addressed in these proceedings.  U S 
WEST believes that the parties= presentations were consistent with this 
requirement.  For example, the cost (to U S WEST) and  pricing of physical 
collocation will depend on whether or not U S WEST does all the work relative 
to space preparation.  Thus, whether a collocator may contract with a  third 
party for preparation of collocation is an issue related to the terms and 
conditions for physical collocation and is appropriately addressed in this 
proceeding, as the parties have done.  
 Thus, U S WEST had no reason to believe that the Eighth Supplemental Order 
resulted in any requirement other than to file tariffs with appropriate prices 
to substitute for the interim rates from the arbitrations.  U S WEST 
contemplated that these prices might be used by carriers who had not yet 
negotiated or arbitrated agreements, but that terms and conditions other than 
price would nonetheless be subject to individual agreements, to be filed with 
and approved by the Commission.  As described above, this is consistent with 
the Commission=s stated intent at the outset of this proceeding.
 Finally, U S WEST notes that the requirements of the Act contemplate 
individual agreements (sections 251(c)(1) and 252(a) and (b)).  The Act does 
not contemplate a Commission-ordered statement of generally available terms and 
conditions.  The only provision for a tariff-type filing would be a ATrack B@ 
filing for interLATA relief under Section 271.  Such a filing would be 
voluntary by the carrier, and not pursuant to a generic pricing proceeding.  U 
S WEST is unaware of any requirement under the Act to file tariffs pursuant to 
a generic pricing proceeding, and the Act clearly anticipates that UNEs, 
resale, and interconnection are available pursuant to agreements, not tariffs.
Conclusion
 U S WEST requests that the Commission enter an order granting a stay of 
effectiveness of paragraph 85 of the Ninth Supplemental Order, or extending the 
filing deadline until this petition for reconsideration is decided.  U S WEST 
further requests that the Commission reconsider the requirements of paragraph 
85 and reverse its decision that the tariffs be refiled.
 Respectfully submitted this ___ day of June, 1998.

      U S WEST Communications, Inc.



      By:_______________________________
       Lisa A. Anderl, WSBA No. 13236