Robert S. Koppel 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
March 9, 2012 
Lukas Nace Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP 
8300 Greensboro Drive 
Suite 1200 
McLean, VA 22102 
Dear Mr. Koppel: 
Re: Ex Parte Notification 
WC Docket No. 10-90; WC Docket No.05-337; 
CC Docket No. 96-45; WT Docket No. 08-95 
This responds to your letter of February 23 , 2012
1 
which alleges that a series of ex 
parte notices filed by Verizon in the above-referenced dockets
2 
did not comply with the 
requirements of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)( 1). The notices in question report a meeting and 
telephone conversations involving representatives of Verizon, the General Counsel, and 
officials of the Wire line Competition Bureau. As you note, section 1.1206(b)(1) requires 
person making ex parte presentations in a permit-but-disc1ose proceeding, such as the 
above-referenced rulemakings, to file a summary of the substance of the ex parte 
presentations. The rule requires that the "[ s ]ummaries must be sufficiently detailed that 
they would inform a person who did not attend the presentation of the facts that were 
discussed, the arguments made, and the support offered for those arguments.,,3 You 
request that we require Verizon to file a summary that complies with section 
1.l206(b)(1).
4 
In response to your allegations that Verizon's ex parte notices failed to comply 
with the requirements of section 1.206(b)(1), Verizon made a supplemental filing 
I See Letter from David A. LaFuria and Robeli S. Koppel to Austin Schlick, General Counsel (Feb. 23, 
2012) (Complaint). 
2 See Letters from Tamara Preiss to Ms. Marlene H. Dotch, Secretary, (Jan. 24, 2012, Jan. 26 , 2012, Jan. 
31 , 2012, and Feb. 16, 2012). 
3 See Complaint at 2, citing Amendment of the Commission's Ex Parte Rules and Other Procedural Rules, 
26 FCC Rcd 4517, ~ 35 (2011). 
4 See Complaint at 2. 
Robert S. Koppel 
Page 2 
reporting additional information about its ex parte presentations.
5 
We have consulted 
with the FCC staff who participated in the meeting and telephone conversions with 
Verizon. They confirm that the supplemental filing adequately addresses the substance 
ofVerizon's ex parte presentations. Accordingly, we find no need to take further action 
in this matter. 
cc: 
Tamara Preiss 
V ice President 
Federal Regulatory Affairs 
Verizon 
1300 I Street, N.W. 
Suite 400 West 
Washington, D.C.2000S 
Austin Schlick 
Trent Harkrader 
Amy Bender 
Ted Burmeister 
Sincerely yours, 
~J11l~ 
Joel Kaufinan ~ 
Associate General Counsel, and 
Chief, Administrative Law Division 
Office of General Counsel 
5 See Letter from Tamara Preiss to Austin Schlick, General Counsel and Marlene DOltch, Secretary (Feb. 
14,2012).