********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

                                )
In the Matter of Long-Term Telephone Number) CC  Docket No. 99-35
Portability Tariff Filings of Sprint )  Transmittal No. 76
Local Telephone Companies       )
                                )
                                 


RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO SUSPEND AND INVESTIGATE TARIFF FILINGS
              OF SPRINT LOCAL TELEPHONE COMPANIES


   Adopted:  March 8, 1999              Released:  March 8, 1999

By the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division:

                          I.  BACKGROUND

     1.  In this Reconsideration Order, we reconsider, on our own motion, our decision to suspend and
initiate an investigation into the tariff transmittals filed by Sprint Local Telephone Companies (Sprint) seeking
to establish rates, terms, and conditions for the long-term number portability query service and end-user
charges.  Sprint filed its tariff transmittals on January 22, 1999 and January 26, 1999, with a scheduled
effective date of February 6, 1999.  On January 29, 1999, AT&T filed a petition to suspend or investigate
Sprint's tariffs, and Sprint replied on February 4, 1999.  We suspended Sprint's tariff transmittals on
February 5, 1999.  On March 8, 1999, Sprint filed Transmittal No. 76, which modified its earlier long-term
number portability tariff transmittals.  

                         II.  DISCUSSION

     2. Pursuant to section 1.108 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, we reconsider on our own motion
our decision in the Sprint Suspension Order to suspend and initiate an investigation into Sprint's long-term
number portability tariffs.  In that order, we found that Sprint's long-term number portability tariff raised
substantial questions of lawfulness and warranted an investigation.  We specifically raised questions
concerning Sprint's method of identifying eligible Operations Support Systems (OSS), Sprint's calculation of
its overhead factors, Sprint's overall level of costs for long-term number portability, Sprint's method for
calculating its installation costs, and Sprint's costs of preparing for wireless number portability.  We also
found that AT&T's petition to suspend and investigate Sprint's long-term number portability tariff raised
questions of lawfulness similar to those we identified.

     3.  In its Transmittal No. 76, Sprint modifies several aspects of its previously-filed number portability
tariff transmittals.  Sprint revised its OSS worksheets to remove costs associated with billing and wireless
portability functions, conducted a special overhead study to compute the direct common overheads associated
with number portability, recalculated the tax implications for its number portability investment, employed a
net present value methodology that will more correctly reflect the timing of its expense flow, and modified its
forecasts for intraLATA tolls.  In addition, Sprint states that "it has not included recoverable local number
portability costs in intrastate rates during either 1997 or 1998" and that "going forward, it will maintain this
course, assigning all recoverable LNP costs to the interstate jurisdiction only."

     4.  We believe that Sprint has adequately responded to the issues raised in the Sprint Suspension
Order.  We find that Sprint has provided reasonable explanations for its cost recovery actions, and the
modifications described in Transmittal No. 76 adequately respond to the issues raised.   We therefore decline
to investigate these issues.

                      III.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     5.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 0.291 and 1.108 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, 1.108, we reconsider on our own motion our decision in the Sprint
Suspension Order, DA 99-298 (rel. Feb. 5, 1999) to suspend and investigate the rates, terms, and conditions
for long-term number portability query service and end-user charges in relation to Sprint Local Telephone
Companies.

                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                    Jane E. Jackson
                    Chief, Competitive Pricing Division
                    Common Carrier Bureau