Federal Communications Commission DA 97-1481
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Advanced Television Systems )
and Their Impact upon the ) MM Docket No. 87-268 
Existing Television Broadcast ) 
Service )
ORDER DENYING CONSOLIDATION OF FILING DEADLINES
Adopted: July 14, 1997 ; Released: July 14, 1997
/
By the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology:
1. In the Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No 87-268, the Commission set forth 
a Table of Allotments for digital TV (DTV) service, rules for initial DTV allotments, 
procedures for assigning DTV allotments to eligible broadcasters, and plans for spectrum 
recovery.' We received over 200 petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of this 
decision. Oppositions to these petitions are due July 18, 1997.2 On July 2, 1997, we issued 
an Order, DA-1377, clarifying our action in that decision with regard to OET Bulletin No. 69 
and providing an additional 45-day period for parties requesting reconsideration of individual 
allotments included in the DTV Table to submit supplemental information relating to their 
petitions. Supplemental filings relating to those requests are due on or before August 22, 
1997. We also released OET Bulletin No. 69 on July 2, 1997, concurrent with our Order.
2. On July 9, 1997, Hogan and Hartson, L.L.P. (Hogan & Hartson) requested that we 
consolidate the deadline for filing oppositions to the petitions for reconsideration of the Sixth 
Report and Order with the deadline for the filing of oppositions to supplements to those
1 See Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-268, adopted April 3, 1997, FCC 
97-115 (released April 21, 1997).
2 A Public Notice announcing the filing of these petitions was released June 26, 1997, 
("Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in Rule Making Proceedings," 
Report No. 2207) and published in the Federal Register on July 3, 1997, 62 FR 36066.
10256
Federal Communications Commission DA 97-1481
petitions for reconsideration.3 Hogan and Hartson argues that consolidation of these two 
deadlines would streamline the DTV proceeding and avoid the filing of two sets of opposition 
pleadings (and replies). It states that a-consolidated opposition deadline after the date for 
supplementing petitions would instead permit all parties to prepare (and the Commission's 
staff to review) a single consolidated opposition to all petitions, as supplemented. It believes 
that the result would be a more efficient, and less confusing, proceeding.
3. In a statement filed on July 10, 1997, the Association for Maximum Service 
Television. Inc. (MSTV) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) endorse our 
recent actions releasing OET Bulletin No. 69 and providing for limited supplementary filings. 
MSTV and NAB state that we have appropriately provided additional time for petitioners that 
have raised questions about specific DTV assignments to supplement their petitions in these 
respects in light of OET Bulletin No. 69. They also state that, just as significantly, we did 
not extend the current deadline for filing oppositions and replies with regard to petitions for 
reconsideration. They agree that these deadlines should not be extended, noting that OET 
Bulletin No. 69, because of the narrowness of its scope, does not bear materially on general 
policy issues'.
4. While recognize the arguments that Hogan and Hartson raise with regard to the 
desirability of avoiding multiple filings relating to the petitions for reconsideration and any 
supplemental information that may be filed, we are concerned that extending the time allowed 
for responding to the petitions would serve to delay the final resolution of issues relating to 
the allotment of DTV channels. We are particularly concerned that providing an extended 
period of time for filing oppositions to the petitions for reconsideration could increase 
uncertainty for broadcasters with regard to our DTV allotment policies and the availability of 
channels and thereby hinder their ability to proceed with the rapid introduction of DTV 
service. We believe that it is important that these issues be concluded as expeditiously as 
possible and therefore will proceed in accordance with the schedule and procedures for filing 
oppositions that is currently in place.
3 As provided under Section 1.429(0 of the Commission's rules, oppositions to the 
supplements to the petitions for reconsideration will be due 15 days after the date of public 
notice of the filing of the supplements. See 47 CFR § 1.429(f).
10257
Federal Communications Commission DA 97-1481
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 303(r), and Sections 0.31, 
0.241, 1.3, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.31, 0.241, 1.3, 1.429, Hogan" 
and Hartson's request for consolidation of opposition deadlines IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Richard M. Smith
Chief,
Office of Engineering and Technology
10258