********************************************************    
                                         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                   )
                              )
Telephone Number Portability       )
                              )
Petition for Extension of the Deployment     )
Schedule for Long-Term Database         )
Methods for Local Number Portability:   )
Phases I, III, and IV                   )
                              )
NEXTLINK Telephone Companies       )         NSD File No. L-98-89
                              )


                              ORDER

     Adopted: July 17, 1998                  Released: July 17, 1998

By the Deputy Chief, Network Services Division:

                        I. INTRODUCTION

     1.   This Order addresses a petition of NEXTLINK California, L.L.C., NEXTLINK
Utah, L.L.C., NEXTLINK Georgia, Inc., NEXTLINK Tennessee, L.L.C., and
Telecommunications of Nevada, L.L.C. (collectively, "NEXTLINK"), which requests an
extension of time to implement local number portability (LNP) in the Atlanta, San Francisco,
Orange County, Oakland, Nashville, Memphis, and Salt Lake City metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs).  NEXTLINK also petitions for a waiver of the requirement that a carrier file a request
to extend an LNP implementation deadline at least 60 days prior to the deadline.  We grant
NEXTLINK's petition for the reasons discussed below.

                          II. PETITION

     2.   In its petition, NEXTLINK requests a delay for implementing LNP in several
Phase III MSAs because it will not be able to complete intercarrier LNP testing with the
incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) prior to the Commission's June 30, 1998, Phase III
implementation deadline.  Similarly, NEXTLINK seeks a delay of the September 30, 1998, Phase
IV implementation deadline for the Memphis and Salt Lake City MSAs because the ILECs will
not complete intercarrier testing nor the LNP turn-up process until after the Phase IV
implementation deadline.  Finally, NEXTLINK seeks an extension of the Phase I implementation
deadline for the Atlanta metropolitan statistical area (MSA) because it cannot complete inter-
carrier testing until after it began providing service in Atlanta, which it states was to begin on July
4, 1998.

     3.   NEXTLINK proposes to provide LNP in its territories pursuant to the following
schedule:  Atlanta by August 31, 1998; Orange County, San Francisco, and Oakland (Pacific Bell
areas) by September 18, 1998; Orange County, San Francisco, and Oakland (GTE areas) by
November 1, 1998; Nashville by October 31, 1998; Memphis by November 30, 1998; and Salt
Lake City by October 10, 1998.

                        III. DISCUSSION

     4.   Under section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, waivers may be granted "if good
cause therefor is shown."  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
concluded that a waiver may be granted if "special circumstances warrant a deviation from the
general rule and such a deviation will serve the public interest."

     5.   As a threshold matter, we consider whether circumstances warrant a waiver of the
requirement contained in section 52.23(e) of the Commission's rules that petitions for LNP
implementation deadlines be filed at least 60 days prior to the deadline.  In the past, we have
granted waivers of the 60-day advance filing requirement in part because the petitions to do so
were filed shortly after the carriers learned of their obligation to seek an extension of an LNP
deadline.  NEXTLINK states that it did not learn that the Commission had granted ILECs'
petitions for extension of LNP in Phase III MSAs until fewer than 60 days remained before the
Phase III implementation deadline.  Although the Phase II Extension Order was released on May
15, 1998, even a moderately diligent effort to monitor the Commission's LNP proceedings should
have made it clear to NEXTLINK that it would be necessary to petition for a waiver of the
Commission's rules for Phase III MSAs as soon as possible.  NEXTLINK did not file a petition
until June 12, 1998.  Although NEXTLINK filed its petition only three weeks prior to the
deadline for implementing LNP in Phase III MSAs, because NEXTLINK seeks delays already
granted to the ILECs in its territories delays that we previously determined are
reasonable and raises no new issues associated with its provision of LNP, we find that the
public interest will be served by granting a waiver of the 60-day advance notice requirement.

     6.   In the First Report and Order in this proceeding the Commission specifically
contemplated that waivers of the number portability implementation deadlines may be needed,
delegating to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau the authority to waive or stay any of the
dates in the implementation schedule "as the Chief determines is necessary to ensure the efficient
development of number portability, for a period not to exceed 9 months."  The Commission's
rules set forth the showing that carriers seeking relief must make, and prescribe that the showing
must be supported by substantial, credible evidence.

     7.   NEXTLINK states that it has installed all of the systems necessary to provide LNP
in its Phase III MSAs in the Southeast and West Coast regions: Nashville, Orange County, San
Francisco, and Oakland.  Prior to implementing LNP capability, however, NEXTLINK states
that it must complete intercarrier testing in each MSA, which requires coordination from the
ILEC in each MSA.  According to NEXTLINK, because we have granted to the ILECs in these
MSAs extensions of time to implement LNP, the ILECs have rescheduled the requisite intercarrier
LNP testing until after June 30, 1998, the deadline for implementing LNP.  Therefore,
NEXTLINK requests an extension of the June 30, 1998, deadline for these MSAs.

     8.   NEXTLINK proposes to implement LNP in areas of Orange County, San
Francisco, and Oakland where GTE is the dominant carrier at a later time than those areas served
primarily by Pacific Bell.  GTE, as noted in the Phase III Extension Order, recently stated that it
could implement LNP concurrently with Pacific Bell, US West, and BellSouth.  Because GTE
has altered its schedule to match those of Pacific Bell, US West, and BellSouth, NEXTLINK's
stated need for additional time beyond the delay granted to Pacific Bell for those regions served
by GTE should be obviated.

     9.   NEXTLINK also requests an extension of time to implement LNP in two Phase IV
MSAs, Salt Lake City and Memphis.  NEXTLINK states that the ILECs in these MSAs will not
complete intercarrier testing nor turn up LNP until after the LNP deadline.  Therefore,
NEXTLINK requests an extension of the September 30, 1998, deadline.

     10.  In previous extension orders, we recognized that the failure of Perot Systems to
provide a stable NPAC/SMS platform is the principal reason for any delays in meeting the
Commission's phased LNP implementation deadlines.  We find that the special circumstances
created as a result of the change in LNP administrator from Perot Systems to Lockheed Martin
IMS warrant a deviation from the scheduled implementation dates for Phases III and IV. 
Extending the deadline for Phases III and IV in the Western and West Coast regions, as provided
herein, will serve the public interest in providing dates certain for LNP implementation in these
regions.
     
     11.  We also find that NEXTLINK has made the requisite showing under section
52.23(e) for its request for extension of LNP implementation deadlines.  NEXTLINK's petition
for extension of time (1) documents that the reason why NEXTLINK is unable to meet the Phase
III June 30, 1998, deadline and the Phase IV September 30, 1998, deadline is that it cannot
implement LNP without having first completed intercarrier testing; (2) explains that NEXTLINK's
systems are in place and it is fully prepared to implement LNP in its territories, but for completing
the required intercarrier testing; (3) identifies, in an attachment to its Petition, the switches for
which the extension is requested; (4) states that it will complete deployment of LNP in its
territories concurrently with, or within days of, the ILECs' implementation dates; and (5) proposes
new deadlines for completing implementation of LNP.

     12.  NEXTLINK also requests an extension of time to implement LNP in the Atlanta
MSA.  NEXTLINK states that it planned to begin offering local service in Atlanta on July 4,
1998.  It therefore did not request a waiver of the Phase I implementation deadline because it was
not operational in Atlanta prior to March 31, 1998.  In the Phase I Extension Order and
subsequent orders, we held that carriers that may not be operational in a particular Southeast
region MSA prior to an LNP implementation deadline may file requests to extend the deadline to
implement LNP consistent with the extension given BellSouth.  We therefore grant NEXTLINK
an extension until August 31, 1998, to implement LNP in the Atlanta MSA consistent with the
Phase I Extension Order and the extension granted to BellSouth.
     
                         IV. CONCLUSION

     13.  Having determined that NEXTLINK has met the section 52.23(e) standards, that
the circumstances presented warrant a deviation from the timetable set forth in the Appendix to
Part 52, and that the public interest will be served by granting NEXTLINK additional time to
complete implementation of local number portability in the Atlanta, San Francisco, Orange
County, Oakland, Nashville, Memphis, and Salt Lake City MSAs, we find that good cause exists
to extend the section 52.23 timetable as requested by the NEXTLINK.  The dates by which
NEXTLINK must implement LNP in the following MSAs are: Atlanta by August 31, 1998; San
Francisco, Orange County, and Oakland by September 18, 1998; Nashville by October 31, 1998;
Memphis by November 30, 1998; and Salt Lake City by October 10, 1998. On the facts
presented, we also find that good cause exists for waiver of the 60-day requirement contained in
section 52.23(e).

                      V. ORDERING CLAUSES

     14.  IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 52.23(e) of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3 and 52.23(e), and by authority delegated in sections 0.91
and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and 0.291, that NEXTLINK's Petition for
Waiver is GRANTED, thereby extending the dates for NEXTLINK's implementation of LNP as
described in this Order.

     15.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.3 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. 1.3, and by the authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and 0.291, that NEXTLINK's petition to waive the 60-day advance filing
requirement is GRANTED.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                         Anna M. Gomez
                         Deputy Chief, Network Services Division
                         Common Carrier Bureau