32008 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 

rulemaking, which proposes to approve 

Maryland’s certification that Maryland’s 

SIP-approved emissions statement 

regulation meets the emissions 

statement requirement of section 

182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: May 28, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11924 Filed 6–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 51c 

RIN 0906–AB25 

Proposed Rescission of Executive 

Order 13937, ‘‘Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications’’ 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA), Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) proposes to 

rescind the final rule entitled 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications,’’ published in the 

December 23, 2020, Federal Register. 

HHS is proposing the rescission due to 

undue administrative costs and burdens 

that implementation would impose on 

health centers. In particular, the final 

rule would require health centers to 

create and sustain new practices 

necessary to determine patients’ 

eligibility to receive certain drugs at or 

below the discounted price paid by the 

health center or subgrantees under the 

340B Program, resulting in reduced 

resources available to support critical 

services to their patients—including 

those who use insulin and injectable 

epinephrine. These challenges would be 

significantly exacerbated by the 

multitude of demands on health centers 

related to the COVID–19 pandemic. 

HHS is seeking public comment on this 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 

As Executive Order 13937 remains in 

effect, should the final rule be 

rescinded, other implementation 

approaches will be considered to 

effectuate the Executive Order. 

DATES: Written comments and related 

material to this proposed rule must be 

received to the online docket via https:// 

www.regulations.gov on or before July 

16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

identified by HHS Docket No. HRSA– 

2021–0003 and submitted electronically 

to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments and attachments will be 

posted to the docket unchanged. 

Because your comments will be made 

public, you are solely responsible for 

ensuring that your comments do not 

include any confidential information 

that you or a third party may not wish 

to be posted, such as medical 

information, your or anyone else’s 

Social Security number, or confidential 

business information. Additionally, if 

you include your name, contact 

information, or other information that 

identifies you in the body of your 

comments, that information will be 

posted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Joseph, Director, Office of 

Policy and Program Development, 

Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health 

Resources and Services Administration, 

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 

20857; email: jjoseph@hrsa.gov; 

telephone: 301–594–4300; fax: 301– 

594–4997. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

HHS published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register on September 28, 2020 (85 FR 

60748), and a final rule on December 23, 

2020 (85 FR 83822) entitled, 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications.’’ This rule established a 

new requirement directing all health 

centers receiving grants under section 

330(e) of the Public Health Service 

(PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(e)) that 

participate in the 340B Program (42 

U.S.C. 256b), to the extent that they plan 

to make insulin and/or injectable 

epinephrine available to their patients, 

to provide assurances that they have 

established practices to provide these 

drugs at or below the discounted price 

paid by the health center or subgrantees 

under the 340B Program (plus a 

minimal administration fee) to health 

center patients with low incomes, as 

determined by the Secretary, who have 

a high cost sharing requirement for 

either insulin or injectable epinephrine; 

have a high unmet deductible; or who 

have no health insurance. 

Pursuant to the January 20, 2021, 

memorandum from the Assistant to the 

President and Chief of Staff, entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,’’ 

and OMB Memorandum M–21–14, the 

effective date of the ‘‘Implementation of 

Executive Order on Access to Affordable 

Life-Saving Medications’’ rule, 

published in the December 23, 2020, 

Federal Register (85 FR 83822), was 

delayed from January 22, 2021, to March 

22, 2021 (86 FR 7069), to give HHS 

officials the opportunity for further 

review and consideration of the rule. 

On March 11, 2021 (86 FR 13872), 

HHS published a proposed rule to 

further delay the effective date of the 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications’’ rule. On March 22, 2021, 

the effective date of the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32009 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications’’ rule was delayed to July 

20, 2021 (86 FR 15423), to allow HHS 

an additional opportunity to review and 

consider further questions of fact, law, 

and policy that may be raised by the 

rule, including whether revision or 

withdrawal of the rule may be 

warranted. 

After a careful reassessment of the 

comments submitted in response to the 

proposed rule published at 85 FR 60748 

(September 28, 2020) and consideration 

of the comments received on the 

proposed rule published at 86 FR 13872 

(March 11, 2021), HHS is proposing in 

this NRPM to rescind the 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications’’ rule. As set forth more 

specifically below, HHS has significant 

concerns regarding health centers 

needing to divert vital resources to 

implement this rule, as the 

administrative burden and cost 

necessary to comply with the rule and 

thus maintain eligibility for future 

grants has the potential to constrain 

health centers’ ability to provide 

ongoing primary care services to 

medically underserved and vulnerable 

populations. HHS has reconsidered 

previously submitted comments 

regarding the administrative burdens 

associated with the rule in light of the 

significantly increased, long-term 

reliance on health centers in responding 

to the COVID–19 pandemic, particularly 

related to health centers’ role in 

addressing health equity and vaccine 

delivery for hard-to-reach and 

disproportionately affected populations 

that were not readily apparent at the 

time the rule was finalized in December 

2020. Moreover, this rule will result in 

a loss of revenue from 340B savings for 

health centers participating in the 340B 

Program and this loss, along with 

increased administrative costs and 

administrative burden, will result in 

reduced resources being available to 

support services to health center 

patients. In addition, most commenters 

noted that, in many cases, these health 

centers already provide medications at 

reduced prices to their patients. 

HHS has considered comments 

submitted by commenters prior to the 

final rule’s promulgation and in 

response to the proposed rule published 

at 86 FR 13872 (March 11, 2021) in the 

development of this NPRM and will 

consider new comments submitted in 

response to this NPRM. 

II. Statutory Authority 

The statement of authority for 42 CFR 

part 51c continues to read section 330 

of the Public Health Service Act (‘‘PHS 

Act’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) (42 U.S.C. 254b) and 

section 215 of the PHS Act, (42 U.S.C. 

216). 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

HHS is proposing to rescind the 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications’’ rule. As the final rule has 

not become effective, this NPRM 

proposes that the existing regulation 

remain unchanged. In particular, this 

NPRM proposes to rescind the final rule 

and retract the related requirement for 

awarding new grants under section 

330(e) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 254b) 

that the awardee offering insulin and 

injectable epinephrine to its patients 

have established written practices to 

make insulin and injectable epinephrine 

available at or below the discounted 

price paid by the health center grantee 

or subgrantee under the 340B Program 

(plus a minimal administration fee) to 

health center patients with low incomes 

who: (a) Have a high cost sharing 

requirement for either insulin or 

injectable epinephrine, (b) have a high 

unmet deductible, or (c) have no health 

insurance. 

This NPRM proposes to rescind the 

rule that amended 42 CFR 51c.303, by 

deleting paragraph (w). This NPRM also 

proposes that the Program Term 

established by the ‘‘Implementation of 

Executive Order on Access to Affordable 

Life-Saving Medications’’ rule not be 

included on any Notices of Award 

issued to health centers receiving grant 

funds under section 330(e) of the Act. 

HHS is proposing to rescind this rule 

because, although certain health center 

patients might benefit from it, the 

additional costs and burden the rule 

would place on health centers could 

harm the program and the patients it 

serves as a whole. Allowing this final 

rule to become effective would increase 

the burden on health centers and divert 

necessary resources from patient care to 

the administration of new processes. In 

order to implement this new 

requirement, health centers would need 

to absorb significant additional cost, 

time, and ongoing support staff to create 

and maintain new reporting, 

monitoring, technical and 

administrative re-engineering, staff 

training, and workflow re-designs to 

assess eligibility for patients to receive 

insulin and injectable epinephrine 

consistent with the final rule. 

Other more specific administrative 

burdens and costs imposed by the final 

rule that were shared by commenters 

included the need for health center staff 

to track patients’ eligibility for the 

pricing described in the rule as it relates 

to: (1) Whether patients are receiving 

insulin or injectable epinephrine 

through a 340B pharmacy, (2) whether 

patients’ incomes meet the threshold in 

the rule (which is different from that 

used for the Health Center Program 

sliding fee discount schedule and 

therefore has to be calculated 

separately), and (3) whether patients 

have a high unmet deductible each time 

they fill their prescriptions—which may 

be further complicated due to the delay 

in medical billing and claims 

processing—or whether they have a 

high deductible or high cost-sharing 

requirement as part of their insurance 

plan. These burdens would also extend 

to ensuring that all relevant information 

is transmitted to contract pharmacies. 

HHS has concerns that under the final 

rule, health centers and pharmacies 

with whom they contract may find it 

challenging to ascertain a patient’s 

eligibility for pricing under this rule 

based on whether or not that patient 

continues to have a high unmet 

deductible in real time, particularly due 

to delays in medical billing and claims 

processing. 

HHS is also concerned that the final 

rule creates a new required definition, 

applicable only to these two classes of 

drugs, of ‘‘individuals with low 

income,’’ to include those individuals 

with incomes at or below 350 percent of 

the amount identified in the Federal 

Poverty Guidelines (FPG). This new 

required definition is in contrast with 

the Health Center Program’s required 

use of a sliding fee discount schedule 

standard for Health Center Program 

grantees applicable to individuals with 

incomes at or below 200 percent of the 

FPG, pursuant to 42 CFR 51c.303(f). 

Health centers must currently establish 

a sliding fee discount schedule for 

services provided to patients with 

incomes between 100 and 200 percent 

of the FPG, with a full discount to 

individuals and families with annual 

incomes at or below 100 percent of 

those set forth in the FPG. Health 

centers also may collect nominal fees for 

services from individuals and families 

at or below 100 percent of the FPG, and 

no sliding fee discount may be provided 

to individuals and families with annual 

incomes greater than 200 percent of the 

FPG. Health centers must also 

demonstrate to HHS that they maintain 

and apply such sliding fee discount 

schedules to the provision of health 

services, which requires them to 

establish and maintain processes for 

identifying patient income levels for 

billing purposes consistent with these 

requirements. Therefore, given the 

differences between these standards, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32010 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

HHS agrees with the concerns expressed 

by a substantial majority of commenters 

that describing ‘‘low income’’ as 350 

percent of FPG for the purpose of the 

rule would require the establishment of 

a new, distinct, and higher ‘‘low 

income’’ threshold applicable to these 

two classes of drugs, and that applying 

this distinct standard for purposes of 

billing for these drugs would create 

significant administrative challenges for 

health centers. HHS shares commenters’ 

concerns regarding the undue 

administrative burden and costs of the 

rule and the resulting diversion of 

resources from needed patient care, 

especially during the COVID–19 

pandemic, in order to cover such 

increased administrative costs. 

HHS also shares commenters’ 

concerns that defining ‘‘individuals 

with low incomes’’ at 350 percent of 

FPG imposes the additional burden and 

cost of creating and operating two 

different eligibility systems. This 

definition of ‘‘low income’’ is 

inconsistent with standards applied in 

other comparable federal programs. 

Commenters noted that every federal 

program with an income eligibility 

threshold defines ‘‘low income’’ as 250 

percent of the FPG or less. Commenters 

further noted that, while the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act uses 

a ceiling of 400 percent of the FPG to 

identify those eligible for premium tax 

credits on the Exchanges, this is not a 

definition of ‘‘low income,’’ as premium 

tax credits are designed for both lower 

and middle income individuals. 26 

U.S.C. 36B(b)(3)(A)(i). 

Finally, commenters expressed 

concerns that the rule was based on a 

fundamental misunderstanding of the 

340B Program since health centers are 

already required by the Health Center 

Program to use any savings to benefit 

their patient population (42 U.S.C. 

254b(e)(5)(D)). HHS shares their 

concerns that this rule will result in a 

loss of 340B revenue for health centers 

participating in the 340B Program, and 

that this loss, along with increased 

administrative costs and administrative 

burden, will result in reduced resources 

available to support critical services to 

health center patients, including those 

who use insulin or injectable 

epinephrine and who receive other 

services from health centers. HHS is 

undertaking this unusual step of issuing 

this NPRM to understand more about 

these concerns and to propose a 

potential rescission of this rule. 

HHS invites comment on this NPRM 

proposing to rescind the final rule 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications.’’ 

IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 

HHS has examined the effects of this 

NPRM as required by Executive Order 

12866 on Regulatory Planning and 

Review (September 30, 1993), Executive 

Order 13563 on Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review (January 8, 

2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(Pub. L. 96–354, September 19, 1980), 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), and Executive 

Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 

1999). 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 is 

supplemental to and reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review as 

established in Executive Order 12866, 

emphasizing the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. Section 3(f) 

of Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action that is likely to result in a rule: 

(1) Having an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more in any 

1 year, or adversely and materially 

affecting a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities (also referred to as 

‘‘economically significant’’); (2) creating 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfering with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially altering the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 

raising novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. A 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must 

be prepared for major rules with 

economically significant effects ($100 

million or more in any 1 year), and a 

‘‘significant’’ regulatory action is subject 

to review by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). HRSA estimates 

that, on average, each health center 

would need one additional full-time 

equivalent (FTE) eligibility assistance 

worker at approximately $50,000 to 

support necessary additional 

administrative processes, totaling 

approximately $68,750,000 across 

health centers. 

As stated in the RIA for the final rule 

published December 23, 2020, HRSA 

determined that the rule is not 

economically significant, given that the 

administrative burden of $68.7 million 

described above falls below the 

‘‘economically significant’’ threshold of 

$100 million. HRSA relies on that same 

analysis now, finding that rescission of 

that rule will have an economic impact 

of the same amount, $68,750,000, in 

administrative savings to health centers, 

and that such amount is below the 

‘‘economically significant’’ threshold of 

$100 million. Also, as stated in the 

December 23, 2020 final rule, a number 

of patients served at health centers and 

covered by that final rule may already 

receive these two medications at 

reduced prices, further reducing the 

economic significance of this proposed 

rescission. In order to determine 

whether the proposed rescission of the 

rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866, HHS welcomes comments 

concerning the economic impact of this 

proposed rescission of the 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications’’ rule or implementation of 

the proposed rescission on the 

economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or state, local, or tribal 

governments or communities. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) and the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement and 

Fairness Act of 1996, which amended 

the RFA, require HHS to analyze 

options for regulatory relief of small 

businesses. If a rule has a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities, the Secretary must 

specifically consider the economic 

effect of the rule on small entities and 

analyze regulatory options that could 

lessen the impact of the rule. As we did 

in the ‘‘Implementation of Executive 

Order on Access to Affordable LifeSaving Medications’’ final rule, HHS 

will use an RFA threshold of at least a 

3 percent impact on at least 5 percent 

of small entities. 

For purposes of the RFA, HHS 

considers all health care providers to be 

small entities either by meeting the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

size standard for a small business, or by 

being a nonprofit organization that is 

not dominant in its market. The current 

SBA size standard for health care 

providers ranges from annual receipts of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32011 

$8 million to $41.5 million. As of 

August 8, 2020, the Health Center 

Program provides grant funding under 

section 330(e) of the PHS Act to 1,310 

organizations to provide health care to 

medically underserved communities. 

HHS has determined, and the Secretary 

certifies, that this NPRM would not 

have a significant impact on the 

operations of a substantial number of 

small health centers; therefore, we are 

not preparing an analysis of impact for 

purposes of the RFA. HHS estimates the 

economic impact on small entities as a 

result of rescinding the 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications’’ final rule would be 

minimal. HHS welcomes comments 

concerning the economic impact of this 

NPRM on health centers. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 

that agencies prepare a written 

statement, which includes an 

assessment of anticipated costs and 

benefits, before proposing ‘‘any rule that 

includes any Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted annually 

for inflation) in any one year.’’ In 2019, 

that threshold level was approximately 

$164 million. HHS does not expect this 

NPRM to exceed the threshold. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

HHS has reviewed this NPRM in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132 

regarding federalism, and has 

determined that it does not have 

‘‘federalism implications.’’ This NPRM 

would not ‘‘have substantial direct 

effects on the States, or on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This NPRM 

would not adversely affect the following 

family elements: Family safety, family 

stability, marital commitment; parental 

rights in the education, nurture, and 

supervision of their children; family 

functioning, disposable income or 

poverty; or the behavior and personal 

responsibility of youth, as determined 

under section 654(c) of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that OMB 

approve all collections of information 

by a federal agency from the public 

before they can be implemented. This 

NPRM is projected to have no impact on 

current reporting and recordkeeping 

burden for health centers. This NPRM 

would result in no new reporting 

burdens. Comments are welcome on the 

accuracy of this statement. 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 51c 

Grant programs—Health, Health care, 

Health facilities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 10, 2021. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Accordingly, by the authority vested 

in me as the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, and for the reasons set 

forth in the preamble, 42 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 51c is amended 

as follows: 

PART 51c—GRANTS FOR 

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51c 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 330, Public Health Service 

Act, 89 Stat. 342, (42 U.S.C. 254b); sec. 215, 

Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 690, (42 

U.S.C. 216). 

§ 51c.303 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 51c.303 by removing 

paragraph (w). 

[FR Doc. 2021–12545 Filed 6–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4165–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 21–221; RM–11908; DA 21– 

600; FR ID 29165] 

Television Broadcasting Services Las 

Vegas, Nevada 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by 

Scripps Broadcasting Holdings, LLC 

(Petitioner), the licensee of KTNV–TV 

(ABC), channel 13, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

The Petitioner requests the substitution 

of channel 26 for channel 13 at Las 

Vegas in the DTV Table of Allotments. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before July 16, 2021 and reply 

comments on or before August 2, 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 the Petitioner as follows: 

Daniel Kirkpatrick, Esq., Baker & 

Hostetler, LLP, 1050 Connecticut 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media 

Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In support 

of its channel substitution request, the 

Petitioner states that the Commission 

has recognized that VHF channels have 

certain characteristics that pose 

challenges for their use in providing 

digital television service, including 

propagation characteristics that allow 

undesired signals and noise to be 

receivable at relatively far distances and 

nearby electrical devices to cause 

interference. According to the 

Petitioner, it has received many 

complaints from viewers unable to 

receive a reliable signal on channel 13. 

In addition, the Petitioner demonstrated 

that its proposal would result in a loss 

area of 460.9 square kilometers, 

containing only five people who will 

continue to receive service from two 

other full power television stations. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21–221; 

RM–11908; DA 21–600, adopted May 

21, 2021, and released May 21, 2021. 

The full text of this document is 

available for download at https://

www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials 

in accessible formats (braille, large 

print, computer diskettes, or audio 

recordings), please send an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, do not apply to this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that all ex parte contacts are prohibited 

from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is issued to the time the 

matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, 

however, exceptions to this prohibition, 

which can be found in Section 1.1204(a) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS