Hobson.doc

Rebecca B. DeCook
AT&T Communications
1875 Lawrence Street, Ste 1575
Denver, CO 80202

July 21, 1999

Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP,
101 S Capitol Blvd, Ste. 1900
Boise, ID 83702-5958

Rebecca B. DeCook
AT&T Communications
1875 Lawrence Street, Ste 1575
Denver, CO 80202

Re: Case No. GNR-T-94-5

Dear Ms. Hobson and Ms. DeCook:

Following the issuance of Order No. 28072 by the Commission in Case No. GNR-T-94-5, I received correspondence from Ms. Hobson regarding a notice to customers with existing PIC freezes that the freeze would not be automatically extended to their intraLATA service. The letter states that because the notice “is being ordered by the Commission, U S WEST will collect and itemize the costs associated with this particular mailing for inclusion in the EANRC charge.” Thereafter, Ms. DeCook on behalf of AT&T filed a responsive correspondence objecting to the inclusion of the PIC freeze notice costs in the EANRC charge.

In Order No. 28702 the Commission approved a stipulation by the parties providing in part for U S WEST to apply the EANRC upon implementation of toll dialing parity. However, the Order also states that “the Commission is not making a determination in this Order that the EANRC as proposed by U S WEST is the correct amount to recover all costs during the three-year cost recovery period.” Order No. 28072 at p. 3. Instead, the Commission will determine the correct level of the EANRC in a cost recovery docket to be opened within the next year, after U S WEST provides its cost report to the Commission. Thus, although it may be appropriate for U S WEST to itemize the PIC freeze notice costs in its EARNC and subsequent cost report, the Commission ultimately will make a determination in the cost recovery docket whether it will allow recovery of the notice costs.
Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Weldon B. Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General

v

cc: Commissioners
All Parties

Hobson_ws3
Mary Hobson
Rebecca DeCook
July 21, 1999
Page 2

2