Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

) CC Docket No. 99-35

Local Number Portability )

Tariff Filings of )

)

GTE Systems Telephone Companies ) Transmittal No. 275

)

GTE Telephone Operating Companies ) Transmittal No. 1196

)

# MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted: April 14, 1999 Released: April 14, 1999**

By the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division:

I. INTRODUCTION

1\. On February 24, 1999, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) released
the *Number Portability Designation Order,*[^1] specifying issues for
the investigation of GTE Systems Telephone Companies (GSTC) Transmittal
No. 271 and GTE Telephone Operating Companies (GTOC) Transmittal No.
1190. On February 25, 1999, GSTC filed Transmittal No. 275 and GTOC
filed Transmittal No. 1196 proposing new monthly rates for the local
number portability service provider and end-user charges.[^2] The rates
were effective March 4, 1999. On our own motion and pursuant to section
205 of the Commission's rules, we include GSTC

Transmittal No. 275 and GTOC Transmittal No. 1196 in the investigation
in CC Docket No. 99-35.[^3]

II. **TRANSMITTAL NOS. 275 AND 1196**

2\. The *Number Portability Designation Order* sets out the specific
issues for the Bureau's investigation of GSTC Transmittal No. 271 and
GTOC Transmittal No. 1190.[^4] We find that GSTC Transmittal No. 275 and
GTOC Transmittal No. 1196 raise the same issues that were set for
investigation in the *Number Portability Designation Order*. The Bureau,
therefore, designates for investigation with respect to GSTC Transmittal
No. 275 and GTOC Transmittal No. 1196 all issues set for investigation
in the *Number Portability Designation Order* for these companies.[^5]

**III. *EX PARTE* REQUIREMENTS**

3\. This tariff investigation is a "permit‑but‑disclose proceeding" and
subject to the "permit‑but‑disclose" requirements under section
1.1206(b) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b), as revised. Persons
making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must contain a summary of the substance of
the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.
More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments
presented is generally required.[^6] Other rules pertaining to oral and
written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206 (b), as well.

**IV. ORDERING CLAUSES**

4\. **ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to section 205 of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 205, and sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, Transmittal No. 275, filed
by GTE Systems Telephone Companies, and Transmittal No. 1196, filed by
GTE Telephone Operating Companies, **ARE SUBJECT** to the investigation
in CC Docket No. 99-35.

## FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Jane E. Jackson

Chief, Competitive Pricing Division

Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: Long-Term Number Portability Tariff Filings of Ameritech, et al.,
    *Order Designating Issues for Investigation,* CC Docket No. 99-35,
    DA 99-374 (Com. Car. Bur., rel. Feb. 4, 1999) (*Number Portability
    Designation Order*). The order also specified issues for the
    investigation of the local number portability tariff filings of
    Ameritech, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Pacific Bell.
    Those tariff filings are not at issue here.

[^2]: *See* GSTC Transmittal No. 275, filed February 25, 1999; GTOC
    Transmittal No. 1196, filed February 25, 1999.

[^3]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 205 and 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291.

[^4]: *See Number Portability Designation Order* at paras. 8-11, 34-35,
    and 51.

[^5]: We note that GTE's direct case, filed on April 5, 1999, addressed
    the issues raised in the *Number Portability Designation Order* with
    respect to its revised tariff filings. Accordingly, no extension of
    the pleading cycle is necessary.

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §1.1206 (b)(2), as revised.