ORDER NO. 97-330

ENTERED AUG 25, 1997

This is an electronic copy

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

UT 129

DISPOSITION: APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED;

MOTION TO CLOSE DOCKET HELD IN ABEYANCE.

Introduction

The Commission Staff (Staff) seeks closure of docket UT 129, an investigation into interim number portability for GTE Northwest Incorporated (GTE). AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., (AT&T) and MCI Telecom-munications Corporation (MCI) oppose closure and seek reconsideration of GTE’s interim number portability tariff, Advice No. 592. We address both requests concurrently.

Procedural Background

On May 29, 1997, Staff filed a motion to close our investigation into interim number portability rates and costs for GTE, docket UT 129. Staff asserts that GTE’s recently approved tariff Advice No. 592 meets the criteria of competitive neutrality mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and that, therefore, no open issues remain in the investigation.

On June 30, 1997, AT&T/MCI filed a joint application for reconsideration of GTE tariff Advice No. 592. AT&T/MCI allege that GTE had not served copies of Advice No. 592 on all parties of record in UT 129 and that the tariff filing was not listed as a "new tariff filing" on the Commission’s weekly tariff filing report. Consequently, AT&T/MCI contend that they did not have the opportunity, prior to the public meeting discussion of the tariff, to review Advice No. 592 and determine whether it met the FCC’s criteria.

On July 11, 1997, AT&T/MCI subsequently filed a joint response to Staff’s motion to close docket UT 129. There, the parties assert that Advice No. 592 is not competitively neutral as required by the FCC’s Order No. 96-286. AT&T/MCI also contend that the interim number portability cost mechanism adopted in Docket UT 129 should be consistent with and determined in conjunction with the tariff adopted in docket UT 130, the investigation into interim number portability for U S WEST Communications, Inc. Accordingly, they state that Staff’s motion should be denied and request that the Commission implement a schedule allowing parties to file comments in UT 129 and UT 130 on the issues raised by the FCC’s Order No. 96-286.

On July 28, 1997, Staff filed a reply to AT&T/MCI’s joint response, addressing issues related to both the motion to close the docket and AT&T/MCI’s application for reconsideration. Staff states that it is not persuaded by AT&T/MCI’s argument that Advice No. 592 is inconsistent with the FCC’s order. Rather than seek additional comments on the approved tariff filing, Staff suggests that AT&T/MCI, or any other party, prepare and submit their own draft tariff that they believe better serves the policies stated in the FCC order. Staff also opposes the consolidation of docket UT 129 with docket UT 130.

Discussion

In their petition for reconsideration, AT&T and MCI challenge GTE’s Advice No. 592. The parties essentially argue that they did not receive sufficient notice of the filing prior to its discussion at the April 29, 1997, public meeting. It is unclear whether AT&T and MCI may challenge a current and effective tariff in an application for reconsideration. Regardless of that procedural issue, however, we conclude that AT&T and MCI had proper and sufficient notice of Advice No. 592 and deny their request for reconsideration.

GTE filed its Advice No. 592 on March 12, 1997. The filing first appeared on the Commission’s weekly tariff filing report on March 20, 1997. AT&T and MCI are correct that, due to the timing of the filing, it did not appear in the section titled "new tariff filings." Rather, it appeared under the section titled "Tariff Filings Previously Listed" in the March 20^th report, as well as subsequent reports mailed on March 26^th, April 3^rd, April 9^th, April 16^th, and April 24^th. The later two reports also stated that the filing would be addressed at the April 29^th public meeting.

In addition, GTE’s Advice No. 592 appeared on the Commission’s Public Meeting Agenda, which was mailed to interested persons on April 18, 1997. Notice of the filing also was posted on the Commission’s web-page on April 17, 1997. In light of these facts, we conclude that AT&T and MCI had ample notice of the filing to allow them the opportunity to analyze and comment on whether GTE’s Advice No. 592 complied with the applicable interim number portability requirements. Accordingly, the application for reconsideration is denied. Advice No. 592 shall remain in effect.

We further conclude, however, that docket UT 129 should not be closed at this time. In its Order No. 96-286, the FCC held that the rates charged by incumbent local exchange carriers for interim number portability must be competitively neutral. At Staff’s request, GTE filed Advice No. 592 to provide a tariff for interim number portability consistent with the FCC’s mandate. In its April 18, 1997, report, Staff indicated that GTE’s filing satisfied the competitive neutrality criterion. Based on that report, we allowed the tariff to go into effect. While we desire no additional discussion of Advice No. 592, we believe that docket UT 129 should remain open to allow AT&T and MCI, or any party, the opportunity to submit their own draft tariff that they believe better serves the policies stated in FCC Order No. 96-286. Any submittal should be accompanied by a full and complete explanation supporting the draft tariff.

We will not hold docket UT 129 open indefinitely, however. Any party to UT 129 shall have a period of 60 days from the date of this order to file a draft tariff with full supporting information for review. If no draft tariff is filed within that period, we will issue an order granting Staff’s request to close the docket.

Finally, we conclude that UT 129 should not be consolidated with docket UT 130. While both dockets relate to similar issues, we believe that the rates charged by GTE and USWC for interim number portability should continue to be addressed in separate dockets.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

The application for reconsideration, filed by AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., and MCI Telecommunications Corporation, is denied.

Staff’s motion to close docket UT 129 is held in abeyance. Any party may, within 60 days from the date of this order, file a draft interim number portability tariff, with full supporting information, for review. If no draft tariff is filed within that time period, the Commission will issue an order granting Staff’s request to close the docket.

Made, entered, and effective ________________________.

A party may appeal this order to a court pursuant to ORS 756.580.