Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12895 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Will not have disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects 

under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

This proposed action does not apply 

on any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, this proposed action does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 25, 2021. 

John Blevins, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04406 Filed 3–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2019–0491; FRL–10019– 

33–Region 9] 

California: Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) approved revisions to 

California’s federally authorized 

hazardous waste program by publishing 

proposed and final rules in the Federal 

Register on October 18, 2019 and 

January 14, 2020, respectively. The 

notice for the proposed rule 

inadvertently and unintentionally left 

out citations for approving the State’s 

authority to adopt additional waste 

streams as universal wastes in the State 

Analogues to the Federal Program table. 

In addition, the scope of the State 

program that is considered ‘‘broader in 

scope’’ than the federal program was 

mis-designated. We are proposing to 

correct these and related errors. EPA 

seeks public comment prior to taking 

final action. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

correction must be received by April 5, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

RCRA–2019–0491, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Amaro, EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3364 or by 

email at Amaro.Laurie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are corrections to the revised 

state program authorization necessary? 

States that have received final 

authorization from EPA under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) § 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), 

must maintain a hazardous waste 

program that is equivalent to, consistent 

with, and no less stringent than the 

federal program. As the federal program 

changes, states must change their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize the 

changes. EPA’s Federal Register notices 

regarding proposed and final 

authorization of revisions to state 

hazardous waste management programs 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to comment and also offer details with 

respect to the scope of the revised 

program authorizations on which both 

the general public and the regulated 

community may rely. Where these 

notices omit critical information or fail 

to clearly delineate the scope of 

authorized program revisions, 

corrections may be necessary and/or 

appropriate. 

B. What corrections is EPA making to 

this rule? 

After proposing updates to 

California’s authorized hazardous waste 

program on October 18, 2019 (80 FR 

55871), EPA authorized changes to 

California’s hazardous waste program 

on January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2038). EPA 

is now proposing to correct the updated 

authorization by clarifying that: (1) 

California is authorized to add federallyregulated hazardous waste streams to its 

universal waste program and the 

requirements that California establishes 

to manage such added waste streams are 

federally enforceable, whether they are 

added to California’s universal waste 

program prior to or after EPA’s 

authorization of the State’s universal 

waste program; (2) State universal waste 

requirements that apply to non-RCRA 

wastes designated by California as 

‘‘hazardous waste,’’ also known as 

‘‘non-RCRA hazardous waste,’’ are 

beyond the scope of the federal program 

and are not being authorized; and, 

similarly, (3) other wastes that are 

sometimes federally-regulated 

hazardous waste and sometimes nonRCRA hazardous waste under California 

law, are part of the federally authorized 

program, but only insofar as these 

materials constitute federally-regulated 

hazardous waste. If these corrections are 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12896 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

finalized, these changes to the scope of 

California’s authorized universal 

hazardous waste program would 

become effective. 

C. What happens if EPA receives 

comments that oppose this proposed 

action? 

EPA will consider all comments 

received during the comment period 

and address them in a final rule. You 

may not have another opportunity to 

comment. If you want to comment on 

the corrections proposed here, you must 

do so at this time. 

D. What has California previously been 

authorized for? 

California initially received final 

authorization for the state hazardous 

waste management program on July 23, 

1992 (57 FR 32726), effective August 1, 

1992. EPA granted final authorization 

for changes to California’s program on 

the following dates: September 26, 2001 

(66 FR 49118), effective September 26, 

2001 and October 7, 2011 (76 FR 62303), 

effective October 7, 2011 and January 

14, 2020 (85 FR 2038), effective January 

14, 2020. 

E. What changes is EPA proposing to 

authorize with this action? 

EPA proposes to correct and clarify 

the terms of the January 14, 2020 

authorization of California’s hazardous 

waste program with respect to universal 

waste. 

1. Proposed Changes to the State 

Analogues to the Federal Program Table 

EPA is recreating in this proposal the 

State Analogues to the Federal Program 

table that was published in the 

proposed authorization update Federal 

Register notice at 84 FR 55872 (October 

18, 2019). This table is a helpful tool in 

tracking the elements of the authorized 

State hazardous waste program. 

As an initial matter, EPA is adding 

citations in the table to reflect the 

Agency’s proposed authorization of 

California’s authority to add waste 

streams to the State’s universal waste 

program at Title 22 of the California 

Code of Regulations (CCR) 66260.22 and 

66260.23, the federal analogues of 

which are 40 CFR 260.20(a) and 

260.23(a) through (d), respectively. 

Authorization of these provisions— 

which were inadvertently omitted from 

the proposed and final rules authorizing 

California universal waste program—is 

critical to EPA’s ability to enforce State 

universal waste program requirements 

for federally-regulated hazardous wastes 

that have already been or are added to 

California’s universal waste program in 

the future. If these proposed corrections 

to authorize 22 CCR 66260.22 and 

66260.23 are finalized, EPA will be 

empowered to enforce California’s 

universal waste requirements for 

federally regulated hazardous waste that 

California has already added or adds to 

its universal waste program pursuant to 

these requirements in the future. 

Similarly, EPA is adding a footnote to 

the updated State Analogues to the 

Federal Program table to clarify the 

implications of the authorization of the 

State’s universal waste program on a 

waste stream that the State already 

identified as a universal waste before 

the universal waste authorization 

update was effective, i.e., aerosol cans. 

This footnote clarifies that, while EPA 

has more recently taken action to 

identify aerosol cans as universal waste 

(citing 84 FR 67202, December 9, 2019, 

effective February 7, 2020), California’s 

previous reliance on 22 CCR 66260.22 

and 66260.23 to add such wastes, which 

are proposed to be authorized in 

accordance with this correction, would 

be considered retroactive. Thus, if these 

corrections are approved, California’s 

universal waste requirements for aerosol 

cans would be federally enforceable. 

The Agency believes that these State 

requirements would have been included 

in California’s universal waste 

authorization update application, but 

for the fact that the federal aerosol can 

universal waste rule was not in effect at 

the time of the State’s July 10, 2019 

submittal of its application. Because the 

Agency is correcting the recent 

authorization update and is now 

proposing approval of California’s 

analogous provisions for adding new 

universal waste streams under 40 CFR 

260.20 and 260.23, and because aerosol 

cans were previously added to 

California’s universal waste program in 

accordance with its analogues to these 

provisions, the Agency maintains that 

the clarifying footnote in this proposal 

is both helpful and appropriate. 

The corrections proposed in this rule, 

and described above, would require 

modifications to the State Analogues to 

the Federal Program table published on 

October 18, 2019 (80 FR 55871), as 

follows: 

STATE ANALOGUES TO THE FEDERAL PROGRAM

Description of Federal requirement 

(checklist, if applicable) Federal Register date and page 

Analogous State Authority California Code of 

Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 4.5 and 

Health and Safety Code 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

260.20(a) and 260.23(a) through (d) (Checklist 142 E).

60 FR 25492, May 11, 1995 ............................ 22 CCR 66260.22, adopted 2003, amended 

March 15, 2003. 

22 CCR 66260.23, adopted 2003, amended 

February 4, 2009. 

40 (CFR) part 273, subparts A through G— 

Standards for Universal Waste a.

Excluding 273.33(a)(3)(iii) and 273.33 (b)(1) 

through (4) (Checklists 142 A, B, D, E, 176, 

181, 209, 215) b.

60 FR 25492, May 11, 1995 ............................

63 FR 71225, December 24, 1998 ..................

64 FR 36466, July 6, 1999 ..............................

70 FR 45508, Aug. 5, 2005 .............................

71 FR 40254, July 14, 2006 c ..........................

22 CCR 66273, October 22, 2018. 

Health & Safety Code 25201.16, October 3, 

2001. 

aBecause several definitions in the state universal waste regulations do not have federal counterparts, the state cited additional federal regulations at 40 CFR 260.1, 260.10, 261.4, 262.81, 264.142 and 270.2 in support of its application for authorization of the State’s universal waste program. bAlthough Checklist 214 is mentioned in the State Attorney General’s Statement, EPA is not including it here because the typographical and 

spelling corrections made in this checklist are not relevant to the State’s regulatory language. cAdding Aerosol Cans to Universal Waste (84 FR 67202, December 9, 2019, effective February 7, 2020) is not included here because it was 

not in effect at the time of the State’s application. In addition, we are approving the State’s analogous provisions for adding waste streams under 

40 CFR 260.20 and 260.23, thus the state may add additional waste streams that meet the conditions outlined in 40 CFR 273.81. As a result, 

California’s inclusion of aerosol cans in its universal waste program is also proposed to be authorized. Unlike the authorization of most of RCRA 

hazardous waste management requirements, the authorization of 22 CCR 66260.22(a) and 66260.23(a) through (d) means that any federally 

regulated hazardous waste added to California’s universal waste program pursuant to these requirements are automatically authorized, regardless of when California adds them. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12897 

2. Proposed Changes to the List of State 

Provisions Deemed ‘‘Broader in Scope’’ 

This notice also proposes to correct 

that part of EPA’s California universal 

waste authorization update that 

mistakenly identified California’s 

regulation of aerosol cans and other 

California-listed universal wastes as 

broader in scope than the federal 

program. EPA proposes to revise the list 

of California requirements beyond the 

scope of the federal program by deleting 

the following paragraph from the list of 

State requirements that are broader in 

scope than the federal program (section 

G from the October 18, 2019 proposal): 

California-only universal wastes. California 

has added the following non-RCRA waste 

streams to its universal waste program: 

Aerosol cans, cathode ray tubes (CRTs), CRT 

glass and electronic devices. 

The inclusion of this language in this 

section of the 2019 proposal was an 

inadvertent error. These materials were 

all previously identified by California as 

universal hazardous waste in 

accordance with 22 CCR 66260.22 and 

66260.23 and, except for aerosol cans, 

were all included in California’s 

authorization update application. As a 

result, similar to aerosol cans, 

California’s regulation of CRTs, CRT 

glass and electronic devices should be 

considered within the scope of the 

authorized California universal waste 

program. 

The Agency is also proposing to 

correct the list of requirements that are 

beyond the scope of the federal program 

to clarify that non-RCRA wastes 

included in the California universal 

waste program are broader in scope than 

the federal program. Thus, where wastes 

may sometimes be federally regulated 

(when, for example, they exhibit a 

characteristic for hazardous waste) but 

at other times are not federally regulated 

(where they do not exhibit a 

characteristic), California is authorized 

for that part of its universal waste 

program that covers the federallyregulated portion of the waste stream, 

but not for that portion of the State 

program that covers ‘‘non-RCRA 

hazardous waste’’ (i.e., non-federally 

regulated hazardous waste that 

California regulates as hazardous waste). 

For example, electronic waste (e-waste) 

may sometimes constitute a RCRA 

hazardous waste, but is always 

considered a ‘‘non-RCRA hazardous 

waste’’ under California law. EPA is 

proposing to correct its authorization of 

California’s universal waste program by 

identifying the non-federally regulated 

portion of such a universal waste stream 

as broader in scope than the federal 

program. 

Thus, EPA proposes to add the 

following language to its analysis of the 

parts of the California universal waste 

program that are broader in scope than 

the federal program: 

Non-RCRA wastes. California regulates as 

hazardous waste some wastes not regulated 

by EPA under RCRA. These are referred to as 

‘‘non-RCRA hazardous waste.’’ Any nonRCRA hazardous wastes that a state regulates 

as a hazardous waste are generally 

considered beyond the scope of the federal 

program (broader-in-scope). To the extent 

that California has included non-RCRA 

hazardous wastes in the State’s universal 

waste program, regulation of those non-RCRA 

hazardous wastes as universal waste would 

be broader in scope than the federal program. 

I. How does this action affect Indian 

country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in California? 

California is not authorized to carry 

out its hazardous waste program in 

Indian country within the state. 

Therefore, this action has no effect on 

Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction 

over Indian country and will continue 

to implement and administer the federal 

RCRA program on these lands. 

K. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this action (RCRA 

state authorization) from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

review by OMB. This action proposes 

corrections to the authorization of state 

requirements for the purpose of RCRA 

3006 and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, this action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action 

proposes correction of the authorization 

of pre-existing requirements under state 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). As 

explained above, this proposed action 

also does not significantly or uniquely 

affect the communities of Tribal 

governments, as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This proposed action will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

corrects the Federal Register notice in 

which EPA authorized state 

requirements as part of the state RCRA 

hazardous waste program without 

altering the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by RCRA. 

This proposed action also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant, and it does not 

concern environmental health or safety 

risks that EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionally affect children. This 

proposed correction is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 May 

22, 2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants 

a state’s application for authorization, as 

long as the state meets the criteria 

required by RCRA. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for the 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

authorization application, to require the 

use of any particular voluntary 

consensus standard in place of another 

standard that otherwise satisfies the 

requirements of RCRA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 do not apply. 

See 15 U.S.C. 272 note, sec. 12(d)(3), 

Public Law 104–113, 110 Stat. 783 (Mar. 

7, 1996) (exempting compliance with 

the NTTAA’s requirement to use VCS if 

compliance is ‘‘inconsistent with 

applicable law’’). As required by section 

3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), in issuing this 

proposed correction to its rule, the EPA 

has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. The EPA has complied 

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 

takings implications of the proposed 

correction to the rule in accordance 

with the ‘‘Attorney General’s 

Supplemental Guidelines for the 

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the Executive Order. This proposed 

correction to the rule authorizing 

California’s universal waste program 

does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12898 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Because this proposed correction to the 

California universal waste authorization 

rule authorizes pre-existing state rules 

which are at least equivalent to, and no 

less stringent than existing federal 

requirements, and impose no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law, and there are no anticipated 

significant adverse human health or 

environmental effects, the rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 12898. The 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq., as added by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, generally provides that before a 

rule may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. The EPA will submit a 

report containing this document and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the final rule correction 

in the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This proposed correction is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 

6974(b). 

Dated: February 26, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04586 Filed 3–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WT Docket No. 19–250; RM–11849; Report 

No. 3168; FRS 17410] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in Proceedings 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petition for Reconsideration 

(Petition) has been filed in the 

Commission’s proceeding by Gerard 

Lavery Lederer and Nancy L. Werner, on 

behalf of Local Governments and 

National Association of 

Telecommunications Officers and 

Advisors (‘‘NATOA’’). 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before March 22, 2021. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

on or before March 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Georgios Leris, Competition and 

Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418– 

1994. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, Report No. 3168, released 

January 14, 2021. The full text of the 

Petition can be accessed online via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. The Commission will not send a 

Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

submission to Congress or the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being 

adopted by the Commission. 

Subject: Implementation of State and 

Local Governments’ Obligation to 

Approve Certain Wireless Facility 

Modification Requests Under Section 

6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, 

published 85 FR 78005, December 3, 

2020, in WT Docket No. 19–250 and 

RM–11849. This document is being 

published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). 

See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), 

(g). 

Number of Petitions Filed: 1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04398 Filed 3–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 21–57; RM–11882; DA 21– 

166; FR ID 17526] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Savannah, Georgia 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Video Division has before 

it a petition for rulemaking filed 

November 27, 2020 (Petition) by Gray 

Television Licensee, LLC (Petitioner), 

the licensee of WTOC–TV (CBS), 

channel 11 (WTOC or Station), 

Savannah, Georgia. The Petitioner 

requests the substitution of channel 23 

for channel 11 at Savannah, Georgia in 

the DTV Table of Allotments. 

In support of its channel substitution 

request, the Petitioner states that the 

Commission has recognized that VHF 

channels have certain propagation 

characteristics which may cause 

reception issues for some viewers, and 

also that the ‘‘reception of VHF signals 

require larger antennas . . . relative to 

UHF channels.’’ According to the 

Petitioner, ‘‘many of its viewers 

experience significant difficulty 

receiving WTOC–TV’s signal’’ and its 

channel substitution proposal will allow 

WTOC ‘‘to deliver a more reliable overthe-air signal to viewers. The Petitioner 

further states that its channel 

substitution proposal will result in no 

loss of service. 

We believe that the Petitioner’s 

channel substitution proposal warrants 

consideration. Channel 23 can be 

substituted for channel 11 at Savannah, 

Georgia as proposed, in compliance 

with the principal community coverage 

requirements of section 73.625(a) of the 

Commission’s rules at coordinates 32– 

3–15.0 N and 81–21–0.0 W. In addition, 

we find that this channel change meets 

the technical requirements set forth in 

sections 73.616 and 73.623 of the rules. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before April 5, 2021 and reply 

comments on or before April 19, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 

L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve 

counsel for petitioner as follows: Joan 

Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Manley, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–0596 or Andrew.Manley@fcc.gov. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS