********************************************************    
                                         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       )    CC Docket No. 95-116
                              )
Petition for Extension of the Deployment     )
Schedule for Long-Term Database         )
Methods for Local Number Portability,   )
Phase I                       )
                              )
Sprint Local Telephone Companies   )    NSD File No. L-98-53
                              )


                              ORDER

     Adopted: April 16, 1998                 Released: April 16, 1998

By the Deputy Chief, Network Services Division:

                        I. INTRODUCTION

     1.   This Order addresses a petition of the Sprint Local Telephone Companies (Sprint),
which requests an extension of the Commission's Local Number Portability (LNP) Deployment
Schedule.  Sprint requests that it not be required to provide its LNP service until Southwestern
Bell (SBC) is ready to do so in the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).  For the
reasons discussed below, Sprint's petition is granted.  In addition, we waive the requirement that
Sprint file its petition 60 days prior to the March 31, 1998, LNP Phase I implementation deadline.

                          II. PETITION

     2.   In its Petition, Sprint states that its LNP functions depend on SBC's ability to
provide LNP.  More specifically, Sprint states that it relies on SBC for the provision of operator
and directory assistance services for its Houston customers which includes line information
database (LIDB) validation.  According to Sprint, SBC's inability to implement LNP in Houston
will result in its inability to provide LIDB validation services on ported calls into and out of
Sprint's exchanges.  Sprint claims that without this ability, it could be exposed to fraudulent
third-party and collect calls.

     3.   Accordingly, Sprint has requested an extension of time to implement LNP in the
Houston MSA until SBC is ready to do so.  SBC has stated that it expects to implement LNP in
the Houston MSA on May 26, 1998.  A brief discussion of number portability appears in the SBC
Waiver Order. 

                        III. DISCUSSION
                                
     4.   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.  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."  We find that the circumstances presented here satisfy the "good cause" requirement
and that waiver of the 60-day requirement is warranted.  Sprint did not learn of SBC's inability to
meet the LNP deadline until after the 60-day deadline for filing Phase I extensions, which was
January 29, 1998.  We believe Sprint acted reasonably in filing its petition shortly after it learned
of SBC's petition.  Further, we find that the public interest in ensuring the proper functioning of
Sprint's network will be served by granting a waiver of the 60-day advance notice requirement.

     5.   With respect to the petition for extension of time of the Phase I implementation
date, we note that 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.

     6.   We find that Sprint has made the requisite showing under section 52.23(e) for its
request for relief from an implementation deadline.  Sprint's petition for extension of time (1)
documents that the reason why Sprint is unable to meet the March 31, 1998, deadline is that it
cannot implement LNP without a risk of fraudulent activity absent SBC's successful
implementation of LNP; (2) explains that Sprint's systems are in place and it is fully prepared to
implement LNP in Houston, but for SBC's inability to do so until May 26, 1998; (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 the affected switches once SBC's technical problems are
cured; and (5) proposes a new deadline, May 26, 1998, for completing implementation of LNP in
Houston.
     
                         IV. CONCLUSION

     7.   Having determined that Sprint 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 Sprint additional time to complete
Phase I of the implementation of local number portability in the Houston MSA, we find that good
cause exists to extend the section 52.23 timetable as requested by the Sprint.  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 CLAUSE

     8.   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 Sprint's Petition for
Waiver is GRANTED, thereby extending the date for Sprint's Phase I implementation of LNP in
the Houston MSA to May 26, 1998.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                         Kent R. Nilsson
                         Deputy Chief, Network Services Division
                         Common Carrier Bureau