Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact on the Existing Television Service

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 87-268; DA 97-23]

Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact on the Existing

Television Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of time.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is extending the time for filing reply comments

relating to the Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this

proceeding until January 24, 1997. This action will allow the

development of a complete record on the matter of channel allotments

for operation of digital TV service.

DATES: Reply comments are due on or before January 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Franca (202-418-2470), Alan

Stillwell (202-418-2470) or Robert Eckert (202-428-2470), Office of

Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. On July 25, 1996, the Commission adopted

a Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Sixth FNPRM) in MM

Docket No. 87-268, 61 FR 43209, August 21, 1996, that proposed policies

for developing the initial channel allotments for digital TV (DTV)

service, proposed procedures for assigning DTV allotments, and plans

for spectrum recovery. The Sixth FNPRM also contains a draft DTV Table

of Allotments. Comments responding to the Sixth FNPRM initially were

due November 22, 1996. On November 20, 1996, we issued an Order, 61 FR

63811, December 2, 1996, extending the date for filing reply comments

in response to the Sixth FNPRM to January 10, 1997.

2. On January 2, 1997, Sinclair Broadcast Group and Sullivan

Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Group Owners) requested that we extend the

date for filing reply comments in response to the Sixth FNPRM an

additional 60 days. The Group Owners submit that this additional time

is needed for themselves and other UHF station licensees to finalize

and present to the Commission a technically and commercially reasonable

solution that creates better coverage parity between UHF and VHF

stations and also ameliorates certain seriously adverse effects on UHF

television stations inherent in the primary allotment plans now under

consideration by the Commission. They argue that any delay in adopting

the DTV Table of Allotments that is occasioned by the requested

extension would be outweighed by the need for the Commission to have a

full record on the effects that its actions in this proceeding have on

UHF broadcasters.

3. The Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV) opposes

the Group Owners' request for an extension of the time for filing reply

comments. MSTV states that while it is sympathetic with the concerns

expressed in the Group Owners request, it believes that those concerns

may be addressed without further delaying the DTV allotment proceeding.

It argues that it is critical that the Commission conclude this

proceeding as promptly as possible so that the transition to DTV may

begin. MSTV argues that an across-the-board 60-day extension would

delay our rule making action, and that the submission of any proposal

could require still another round of comments that would cause further

delay. MSTV therefore urges that we deny the Group Owners extension

request. As an alternative, it suggests that we state that we will

accept late-filed reply comments for four weeks after the current

January 10, 1997, due date for reply comments to afford broadcasters

the opportunity to evaluate and respond to questions concerning this

issue.

4. In comments responding to the Group Owners' request, Motorola

[[Page 1872]]

submits that we have already provided interested parties sufficient

time to prepare responses to the comments on the Sixth FNPRM and that

an additional 60 days would constitute an unwarranted delay. It states

that expedited decision making on the initial DTV Table of Allotments

will facilitate the introduction of DTV services to the public and

clarify the status of the broadcast television spectrum and its

availability for reallocation. Motorola also submits that while it can

appreciate the Group Owners' concerns regarding the permissible

transmitting powers provided for their DTV stations, the ramifications

of ``service replication'' have been apparent since the release of the

Sixth FNPRM in mid-August. It therefore argues that a further delay of

two months to address DTV planning factors is unnecessary. Motorola

further states that it would not, however, be adverse to a more modest

extension of perhaps 15 days, given the intervening holiday season and

the large number of comments received in this proceeding.

5. On January 7, 1997, the Association of Federal Communications

Consulting Engineers (AFCCE) requested that we extend the date for

filing reply comments for at least six weeks. The AFCCE expressed a

similar request for extension of time in its comments responding to the

Sixth FNPRM. The AFCCE states that its objective is not to unduly delay

this proceeding, but to request that sufficient time be allotted to the

study of major technical issues prior to the adoption of technical

standards for the allotment of DTV channels by the Commission. It also

submits that it is reviewing the filings of other entities and plans to

respond to technical comments where it deems appropriate.

6. In its comments responding to the Sixth FNPRM, the engineering

consulting firm of du Treil, Lundin and Rackley (DLR) also expresses

concerns regarding the significantly higher power that would be

authorized for the DTV operations of existing VHF stations that would

operate in the UHF band. DLR submits that it is not practical to try to

replicate superior VHF propagation characteristics with brute force UHF

power. To address this concern, it submits an alternative transition

plan that would provide existing stations with DTV facilities that

would replicate their existing Grade A contours and would return

stations to their existing channels for permanent DTV operation after

the transition. DLR requests that we consider a further extension of

the date for filing reply comments of not less than 45 days in view of

the complexity of these issues and the intervening holiday season. It

further states that, due to the extraordinary nature of this

proceeding, we should designate a formal period in which to file

comments responding to reply comments.

7. We agree with MSTV and Motorola that it is in the public

interest to complete this proceeding and license DTV stations without

unnecessary delay. At the same time, we believe that it is desirable to

provide some additional time for the Group Owners, the AFCCE, DLR, and

other interested parties to address in more detail the issues they have

raised. We do not believe the approach suggested by MSTV that we accept

late-filed comments for up to four weeks beyond the current date for

filing reply comments is advisable. Rather, we believe that a two-week

additional extension of the date for filing reply comments would

provide an adequate period of time for broadcasters to submit

additional information addressing the issues discussed in the Group

Owners' and AFCCE's extension requests and DLR's comments without

delaying our decision in this matter. This two week period will allow

the development of a complete record on the matter of channel

allotments for operation of digital TV service. We therefore are

extending the date for filing reply comments to January 24, 1997. We

also agree with MSTV that providing an additional period for parties to

respond to reply comments would create unnecessary delay and therefore

will not provide for acceptance of replies to reply comments, as

requested by DLR.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the requests for extension of

the time for filing reply comments submitted by the Group Owners, the

AFCCE, and DLR ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and that the

date for filing reply comments relating to the Sixth FNPRM IS EXTENDED

to January 24, 1997. This action is taken pursuant to authority

provided in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i) and 303(r), and Sections 0.31, 0.241

and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Secs. 0.31, 0.241 and 1.46.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-832 Filed 1-13-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P