[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17790]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 91-346; DA 95-1512]


Intelligent Networks

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Rules; Extension of Time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This order provides an extension of time for parties to file 
comments and reply comments on the Intelligent Networks proceeding so 
that parties can file more substantive responses.

DATES: Comment dates: The dates for filing comments and reply comments 
are July 19, 1995 and August 2, 1995, respectively.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rose Crellin, Policy and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier 
Bureau (202) 418-1571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission proposed to adopt rules on 
intelligent networks in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket 
(58 FR 48623, September 17, 1993). In a subsequent public notice, 
released June 28, 1995, (not published in the Federal Register) the 
Commission sought comment on a filing by Bell Atlantic, GTE, Pacific 
Bell, Southwestern Bell, and five other local exchange carriers (LECs), 
which presented an industry-wide collaborative proposal for an 
intelligent network (IN) project (IN) project). In the IN project, the 
LECs propose to explore the service creation capabilities of IN 
platforms owned by LECs and third parties in connection with exchange 
and exchange access services. The LECs propose laboratory tests and 
field trials to obtain data regarding the requirements and issues 
concerning mediated access in the IN. The proposed IN project would be 
voluntary and may include LECs, interexchange carriers, enhanced 
service providers, and other telecommunications providers. At the 
completion of the 24-month IN project, the LECs propose to deliver a 
final report to the industry and the Commission. The LECs recommend 
that the Commission recognize the IN Project as the appropriate way to 
proceed in the IN proceeding.
    In addition, the public notice sought comment on a filing by 
Ameritech on June 26, 1995, in which Ameritech provided an IN 
competitive network report to the Common Carrier Bureau in which it 
states that there has been increased competition and consumer choice in 
access to and use of intelligent network capabilities.
    Thus, Ameritech contends, there is no longer a need for the 
Commission to mandate IN access as proposed in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.

Adopted: July 5, 1995
Released: July 5, 1995

    By the Chief, Policy and Program Planning Division, Common 
Carrier Bureau:

    1. On June 30, 1995, NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) requested an 
extension of time to file comments and reply comments in the 
Intelligent Networks (INs) proceeding. Comments are scheduled to be 
filed by July 12, 1995 and replies by July 19, 1995.\1\ NYNEX seeks an 
extension until July 26, 1995 for comments and August 9, 1995 for 
replies.

    \1\ Public Notice, Intelligent Networks Proceeding, CC Docket 
91-346, DA 95-1456, released June 28, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. NYNEX gives three reasons for its request. First, NYNEX argues 
that it has had difficulty in obtaining the two filings in the 
proceedings on which the Commission seeks comment. Second, NYNEX argues 
that the filings ``raise complex substantive matters'' that will 
require additional time for adequate review. Third, NYNEX asserts that 
additional time will enable more focused and thorough submissions.
    3. We do not routinely grant extensions of time.\2\ In this case, 
however, we are persuaded that because of the complexity of the issues 
presented by the two filings that additional time will enable 
commenting parties to develop more substantive responses. In the Public 
Notice, the Commission sought comment on the collaborative proposal for 
market trials and laboratory tests for intelligent network services 
filed by Bell Atlantic, GTE, Pacific Bell, Southwestern Bell and five 
other supporting local exchange carriers (LECs). The LECs presented the 
proposal as the method for the Commission to proceed on INs rather than 
the mediated access proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) in CC Docket No. 91-346 (58 FR 48623, September 17, 1993). The 
Public Notice also sought comment on the report filed by Ameritech 
regarding competitively provided INs. Ameritech contends that there has 
been increased competition and consumer choice in access to and use of 
IN capabilities since the release of the NPRM. Thus, Ameritech contends 
that the Commission should not mandate third party access.

    \2\ 47 C.F.R. 1.46(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Because of the complex technology and competitive issues 
presented by these filings, we conclude that parties should have 
additional time to develop their responses. Although it is important to 
provide parties sufficient time to more fully respond to the two 
filings, we decline to provide the full period requested by NYNEX 
because it would result in delays in the proceeding. We conclude that 
an additional week for the comment and reply periods will provide 
parties with sufficient time to prepare responses. Therefore, we grant 
all parties an extension of time for the filing of comments from July 
12, 1995 to July 19, 1995 and for the filing of reply comments from 
July 19, 1995 to August 2, 1995.
    4. Accordingly, it is ordered that the NYNEX Request for Extension 
of Time is granted to the extent provided herein, and otherwise is 
denied.\3\

    \3\ This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(j) and 5(c) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(j) 
and 155(c), and authority delegated thereunder pursuant to Sections 
0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91 and 0.291.

Federal Communications Commission.
James D. Schlichting,
Chief, Policy and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-17790 Filed 7-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M