**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

)

In the Matter of )

)

Amendment of Section 73.622(b), ) MM Docket No. 00-99

Table of Allotments, ) RM-9858

Digital Television Broadcast Stations. )

(Anchorage, Alaska) )

)

)

**[NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING]{.underline}**

**Adopted: June 2, 2000 Released: June 5, 2000**

Comment Date: July 27, 2000

Reply Comment Date: August 11, 2000

By the Chief, Video Services Division:

1\. The Commission has before it a petition for rule making filed by
Fireweed Communications Corporation ("Fireweed"), licensee of station
KYES-TV, NTSC Channel 5, Anchorage, Alaska.[^1] Fireweed requests the
substitution of DTV Channel 6 for its assigned DTV Channel 22 at
Anchorage, Alaska.

2\. Fireweed states that granting its proposal will allow station
KYES-TV to provide improved DTV service to a larger area. It asserts
that the use of VHF Channel 6 is less expensive and will cause no
interference to any other full service TV or LPTV broadcast station.
Fireweed argues that 100% replication can be accomplished with VHF
Channel 6.

3\. We believe petitioner\'s proposal warrants consideration. DTV
Channel 6 can be substituted for DTV Channel 22 at Anchorage, Alaska, as
proposed, in compliance with the principle community coverage
requirements of Section 73.625(a) at coordinates 61-20-10 N and
149-30-47 W. In addition, we find that this channel change is acceptable
under the 2 percent criterion for [de]{.underline} [minimis]{.underline}
impact that is applied in evaluating requests for modification of
initial DTV allotments under Section 73.623(c)(2). We propose to
substitute DTV Channel 6 for DTV Channel 22 for station KYES-TV at
Anchorage with the following specifications:

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  State & City      DTV Channel       DTV power (kW)    Antenna HAAT (m)

  AK Anchorage      6                 45                250
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

4\. Accordingly, we seek comments on the proposed amendment of the DTV
Table of Allotments, Section 73.622(b) of the Commission\'s Rules, for
the community listed below, to read as follows:

[Channel No.]{.underline}

[City]{.underline} [Present]{.underline} [Proposed]{.underline}

Anchorage, Alaska 18, 20, 22, 6, 18, 20,

\*24, \*26, 28, \*24, \*26, 28,

30, 32 30, 32

5\. The Commission\'s authority to institute rule making proceedings,
showings required, cut-off procedures, and filing requirements are
contained in the attached Appendix and are incorporated by reference
herein. In particular, we note that a showing of continuing interest is
required by paragraph 2 of the Appendix before a channel will be
allotted.

6\. Interested parties may file comments on or before July 27, 2000, and
reply comments on or before August 11, 2000, and are advised to read the
Appendix for the proper procedures. Comments should be filed with the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.
Additionally, a copy of such comments should be served on the
petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows:

Jeremy Lansman, President

Fireweed Communications Corporation

3700 Woodland Drive, #800

Anchorage, Alaska 99517

(Petitioner)

7\. The Commission has determined that the relevant provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to rule making
proceedings to amend the TV Table of Allotments, Section 73.606(b) and
73.622(b) of the Commission\'s Rules. [See]{.underline} [Certification
That Sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory]{.underline} [Flexibility
Act Do Not Apply to Rule Making to Amend Sections 73.202(b),
73.504]{.underline} [and 73.606(b) of the Commission\'s
Rules]{.underline}, 46 FR 11549, February 9, 1981. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 would also not apply to rule making proceedings
to amend the DTV Table of Allotments, Section 73.622(b) of the
Commission\'s Rules.

8\. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Pam
Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. For purposes of this
restricted notice and comment rule making proceeding, members of the
public are advised that no [ex parte]{.underline} presentations are
permitted from the time the Commission adopts a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making until the proceeding has been decided and such decision is no
longer subject to reconsideration by the Commission or review by any
court. An [ex parte]{.underline} presentation is not prohibited if
specifically requested by the Commission or staff for the clarification
or adduction of evidence or resolution of issues in the proceeding.
However, any new written information elicited from such a request or a
summary of any new oral information shall be served by the person making
the presentation upon the other parties to the proceeding unless the
Commission specifically waives this service requirement. Any comment
which has not been served on the petitioner constitutes an [ex
parte]{.underline} presentation and shall not be considered in the
proceeding. Any reply comment which has not been served on the person(s)
who filed the comment, to which the reply is directed, constitutes an
[ex parte]{.underline} presentation and shall not be considered in the
proceeding.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Barbara A. Kreisman

Chief, Video Services Division

Mass Media Bureau

Attachment: Appendix

[APPENDIX]{.underline}

1\. Pursuant to authority found in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and
(r), and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission\'s Rules, IT IS
PROPOSED TO AMEND the DTV Table of Allotments, Section 73.622(b) of the
Commission\'s Rules and Regulations, as set forth in the [Notice of
Proposed Rule Making]{.underline} to which this Appendix is attached.

2\. [Showings Required]{.underline}. Comments are invited on the
proposal(s) discussed in the [Notice of Proposed Rule
Making]{.underline} to which this Appendix is attached. Proponent(s)
will be expected to answer whatever questions are presented in initial
comments. The proponent of a proposed allotment is also expected to file
comments even if it only resubmits or incorporates by reference its
former pleadings. It should also restate its present intention to apply
for the channel if it is allotted and, if authorized, to build a station
promptly. Failure to file may lead to denial of the request.

3\. [Cut-off protection]{.underline}. The following procedures will
govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding.

\(a\) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be
considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment
on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in
reply comments. ([See]{.underline} Section 1.420(d) of the Commission\'s
Rules).

\(b\) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the
proposals in this [Notice]{.underline}, they will be considered as
comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be
given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial
comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be
considered in connection with the decision in this docket.

\(c\) The filing of a counterproposal may lead the Commission to allot a
different channel than was requested for any of the communities
involved.

4\. [Comments and Reply Comments; Service]{.underline}. Pursuant to
applicable procedures set out in Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the
Commission\'s Rules and Regulations, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or before the dates set forth in the
[Notice of Proposed Rule Making]{.underline} to which this Appendix is
attached. All submissions by parties to this proceeding or by persons
acting on behalf of such parties must be made in written comments, reply
comments, or other appropriate pleadings. Comments shall be served on
the petitioner by the person filing the comments. Reply comments shall
be served on the person(s) who filed comments to which the reply is
directed. Such comments and reply comments shall be accompanied by a
certificate of service. ([See]{.underline} Section 1.420(a), (b) and (c)
of the Commission\'s Rules.) Comments should be filed with the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

5\. [Number of Copies]{.underline}. In accordance with the provisions of
Section 1.420 of the Commission\'s Rules and Regulations, an original
and four copies of all comments, reply comments, pleadings, briefs, or
other documents shall be furnished the Commission.

6\. [Public Inspection of Filings]{.underline}. All filings made in this
proceeding will be available for examination by interested parties
during regular business hours in the Commission\'s Reference Center
(Room CY-A257) at its headquarters, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C.

[^1]: Although petitioner's request indicates that the original copy of
    his proposal was signed, petitioner failed to include an affidavit
    verifying that the statements contained in his petition were
    accurate to the best of his knowledge. Section 1.52 of the
    Commission's Rules requires that the original of any document filed
    with the Commission by a party not represented by counsel must be
    signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the
    absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section
    1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making
    proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must
    conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription
    and verification. [See also]{.underline} [Amendment of Section 1.420
    and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the
    Commission's Processes]{.underline}, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, n.41 (1990).
    Petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in his comments.