11 FCC Red No. 4 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 96-8 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
MM Docket No. 87-268 
In the Matter of 
Advanced Television Systems 
and Their Impact Upon the 
Existing Television Broadcast 
Service 
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME 
FOR FILING REPLY COMMENTS 
Adopted: January 11, 1996; Released: January 11, 1996 
Reply Comment Date: January 22, 1996 
By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau: 
1. On July 28, 1995, the Commission, as part of its 
ongoing Advanced Television rulemaking proceeding, 
adopted a Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
and Third Notice of Inquiry ("Fourth Furtht:r Notiu").' Ini­
tially, comments on the Fourth Further Notice were due on 
October 18, 1995, and reply comments on December 4, 
1995. Subsequently, in response to the request of several 
parties, the Chief, Mass Media Bureau. extended the dead­
lines for filing comments and reply comments to Novem­
ber 15, 1995 and January 12, 1996, respectively.2 By Public 
Notice , Procedures for the Filing of Documents that Wt:re 
Due During the Government Shutdown or During the Weath­
er Emergency, DA 96-2, released January 11, 1996, the 
Commission provided that documents due to be filed on 
January 11 or 124 1996, which would include reply com­
ments in the instant proceeding, are now due on January 
16, 1996. 
2. By letter, dated January 10, 1996 and sent by facsimile 
mail, Robert K. Graves of R. K. Graves Associates. on 
behalf of the HDTV Grand Alliance ("Graves"), has re­
quested that the Commission extend the due date for filing 
reply comments in this proceeding to January 26. 1996. In 
support of that request, Graves notes that: ( I) the volume 
of the comments covering a broad range of issues has made 
it difficult to prepare thoughtful and thorough responses 
within the current time frame: (2) the closure of the 
Commission as part of the partial federal government 
shutdown last November caused the comments to be filed 
on November 20 or later , at least five days after the sched­
uled due date; (3) the preoccupation of the Grand Alliance 
and other parties with preparations for the December 12 en 
bane hearing made it impossible to begin preparing reply 
comments until after the hearing and demonstrations: (4) a 
substantial body of additional testimony was filed in con­
nection with the hearing, requiring further analysis: and 
1 10 FCC Red 10540 (1995). 
2 Order Granting Extension of Time for Filing Comments and 
Reply Comments, DA 95-2137, released October 11, IQQ5. 
• '7'70 
(5) the blizzard of 1996 has made it very difficult for those 
involved in preparing the reply for the Grand Alliance to 
communicate and share information effectively during the 
last week. Graves also notes that it has been impossible to 
request an extension earlier because the Commission has 
been closed, first because of the partial Government 
shutdown due to lack of appropriations and then because 
of the bad weather. 
3. We are mindful that Section 1.46 of the Commission's 
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.46, articulates a Commission policy 
that extensions of time for filing comments in rulemaking 
proceedings are not to be routinely granted and that we 
have, in our earlier Order extending the comment and 
reply comment deadlines in this proceeding stated that we 
do not anticipate that it would be necessary to allow a 
further extension of time for filing comments or reply 
comments in response to the Fourth Further Notice. Never­
theless, we find that good cause exists for granting a short 
extension of the reply comment deadlines. We wish to 
afford the parties an adequate opportunity for reasoned 
replies to the comments in this proceeding and are aware 
that the Fourth Further Notice raised many complex issues. 
We take note of the blizzard of 1996, an extremely unusual 
event, which has stalled mail deliveries. disrupted transit, 
and forced many workplaces to close, among other things, 
and has therefore undoubtedly complicated efforts to com­
plete the reply comments, particularly for those parties 
whose comments required coordination among multiple 
entities or persons. However, we hesitate to extend the 
reply comment date until January 26, 1996, as requested by 
Graves, because we do not want to unnecessarily delay the 
conclusion of this lengthy proceeding. Accordingly, we will 
grant a short extension of the reply comment deadline 
until January 22, 1996. 
4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED. that the letter request, 
filed by Robert K. Graves on behalf of the HDTV Grand 
Alliance. seeking an extension of time in which to file 
reply comments in response to the Fourth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Third Notice of Inquiry in MM 
Docket No. 87-268, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated 
herein and, in all other respects IS DENIED. 
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED. that the time for filing 
reply comments in the above- captioned proceeding IS 
EXTENDED to January 22, 1996. 
6. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in 
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 0.204(b), 0.283 and 1.45 of the Commission's 
Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.204(b), 0.283 and 1.45. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Roy J. Stewart 
Chief, Mass Media Bureau