Suspension of Community Eligibility
| Citation | 86 FR 10837 |
| Record Number | 2021-03223 |
| Published date | 23 February 2021 |
| Section | Rules and Regulations |
| Court | Federal Emergency Management Agency |
10837
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
privileged, confidential document that
could not be discussed. It was not on
the agenda for the March 6, 2020
meeting.’’ While the member
acknowledged a brief discussion did
occur, it remains clear that not all ACCV
members believed they could discuss
the NPRM during the March meeting. In
a letter to the Secretary of HHS dated
May 20, 2020, with the recommendation
to oppose the proposed changes to the
Table, the ACCV again expressed
dissatisfaction with the ACCV
recommendation process, stating,
‘‘During its March 6 Meeting, the
Commission briefly discussed this draft
NPRM; however, no representative from
HHS was present to address questions
from ACCV members, and discussion of
the draft NPRM was not an agenda item.
Therefore, ACCV members requested,
among other things, a meeting with an
HHS official to respond to their
questions about the NPRM. Thus, the
May 18, 2020 meeting was scheduled,
but an HHS official who could respond
to the ACCV’s questions did not
attend.’’ (See https://www.hrsa.gov/
sites/default/files/hrsa/advisory-
committees/vaccines/reports/accv-
recommendation-may-2020.pdf.)
That anonymous commenter also
stated that the public was made aware
of the entire revised regulation,
including the qualifications and aids to
interpretation and coverage provisions,
because ‘‘the NPRM and the Final Rule
provide: ‘In 100.3, revise paragraph (a)
and remove paragraphs (c)(10) and (13)
and (e)(8).’ 85 FR 43,804; 86 FR 6249,
6267 (Jan. 21, 2021).’’ The anonymous
commenter said he or she believes it is
sufficient to refer solely to the
paragraphs being removed, and not spell
out the entire revised regulation.
However, the final rule says, ‘‘In § 100.3,
revise paragraph (a) and remove
paragraphs (c)(10) and (13) and (e)(8).
The revision reads as follows . . .’’
After the ‘‘as follows,’’ the only text that
is included is the Table itself, and not
the revised qualifications and aids to
interpretation and coverage provisions.
Therefore, the language in the proposed
and final rules is ambiguous because it
implies that the entirety of the revised
regulation is included, but then only
includes the Table itself. Furthermore,
the version of the Vaccine Injury Table
that is currently displayed on the eCFR
includes a link titled ‘‘Link to an
amendment published at 86 FR 6267,
Jan. 21, 2021.’’ This link displays only
the Vaccine Injury Table that was
published in the final rule, and this
delay will permit HHS to clarify these
seemingly conflicting instructions
concerning 42 CFR 100.3(b)–(e).
III. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
when rulemaking is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that provide the
greatest net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health,
safety, distributive, and equity effects).
In addition, under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, if a rule has a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities, HHS must specifically
consider the economic effect of a rule on
small entities and analyze regulatory
options that could lessen the impact of
the rule.
The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866.
HHS has determined that no resources
are required to implement the
requirements in this rule because
compensation will continue to be made
consistent with the status quo.
Therefore, in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), and the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996,
which amended the RFA, HHS certifies
that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
HHS has also determined that this
rule does not meet the criteria for a
major rule under the Congressional
Review Act or Executive Order 12866
and would have no major effect on the
economy or Federal expenditures.
Similarly, it will not have effects on
State, local, and tribal governments and
on the private sector such as to require
consultation under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Nor on
the basis of family well-being will the
provisions of this rule 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.
Impact of the New Rule
This rule extends the effective date of
the final rule titled ‘‘National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program:
Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table’’
until April 23, 2021, to determine
whether that rule’s promulgation raises
any legal issues. This delay is
reasonable and will not be disruptive
because the underlying rule has not yet
been implemented or taken effect.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule has no information
collection requirements.
Norris Cochran,
Acting Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2021–03747 Filed 2–19–21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4165–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket ID FEMA–2021–0003; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–8667]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
AGENCY
: Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION
: Final rule.
SUMMARY
: This rule identifies
communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) that are scheduled for
suspension on the effective dates listed
within this rule because of
noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the
program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives
documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain
management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this
rule, the suspension will not occur.
Information identifying the current
participation status of a community can
be obtained from FEMA’s CSB available
at www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-
with-nfip/community-status-book.
Please note that per Revisions to
Publication Requirements for
Community Eligibility Status
Information Under the National Flood
Insurance Program, notices such as this
one for scheduled suspension will no
longer be published in the Federal
Register as of June 2021 but will be
available at National Flood Insurance
Community Status and Public
Notification | FEMA.gov. Individuals
without internet access will be able to
contact their local floodplain
management official and/or State NFIP
Coordinating Office directly for
assistance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:28 Feb 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23FER1.SGM 23FER1
10838
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
DATES
: The effective date of each
community’s scheduled suspension is
the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) listed in the
third column of the following tables.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
: If
you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended
on the suspension date or for further
information, contact Adrienne L.
Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 400 C
Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202)
674–1087. Details regarding updated
publication requirements of community
eligibility status information under the
NFIP can be found on the CSB section
at www.fema.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: The NFIP
enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not
otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities
agree to adopt and administer local
floodplain management measures aimed
at protecting lives, new and
substantially improved construction,
and development in general from future
flooding. Section 1315 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the
sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an
appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in
this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance
with NFIP regulations, 44 CFR part 59.
Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date listed in
the third column. As of that date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in
the community. FEMA recognizes
communities may adopt and submit the
required documentation after this rule is
published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue
to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood
insurance. Their current NFIP
participation status can be verified at
anytime on the CSB section at fema.gov.
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the published FIRM is
indicated in the fourth column of the
table. No direct federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in
connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition
of buildings in identified SFHAs for
communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year
on FEMA’s initial FIRM for the
community as having flood-prone areas
(section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4106(a), as amended). This prohibition
against certain types of federal
assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown
in the last column. The Administrator
finds that notice and public comment
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are
impracticable and unnecessary because
communities listed in this final rule
have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month,
90-day, and 30-day notification letters
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer
stating that the community will be
suspended unless the required
floodplain management measures are
met prior to the effective suspension
date. Since these notifications were
made, this final rule may take effect
within less than 30 days.
National Environmental Policy Act.
FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in
this rule is a non-discretionary action
and therefore the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Administrator has determined that this
rule is exempt from the requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance
coverage unless an appropriate public
body adopts adequate floodplain
management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The
communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and
after the effective date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the
communities unless remedial action
takes place.
Regulatory Classification. This final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
under the criteria of section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This rule involves no policies that have
federalism implications under Executive
Order 13132.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule meets the applicable
standards of Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
does not involve any collection of
information for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is
amended as follows:
PART 64—[AMENDED]
■1. The authority citation for Part 64
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,
3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.
§ 64.6 [Amended]
■2. The tables published under the
authority of § 64.6 are amended as
follows:
State and location Community
No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of
sale of flood insurance in community Current effective
map date
Date certain
federal assistance
no longer available
in SFHAs
Region 3
Pennsylvania: East Buffalo,
Township of, Union
County.
421011 April 24, 1973, Emerg; February 2, 1977, Reg; Feb-
ruary 26, 2021, Susp. Feb. 26, 2021 Feb. 26, 2021.
Susquehanna, Township of,
Juniata County. 421746 June 27, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1982, Reg; February
26, 2021, Susp. ......do * Do.
Virginia: Culpeper, Town of,
Culpeper County. 510042 June 16, 1975, Emerg; March 2, 1989, Reg; Feb-
ruary 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do.
Culpeper County, Unincor-
porated Areas. 510041 November 26, 1974, Emerg; July 1, 1987, Reg; Feb-
ruary 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do.
Rappahannock County, Un-
incorporated Areas. 510128 January 7, 1976, Emerg; August 24, 1984, Reg; Feb-
ruary 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:28 Feb 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23FER1.SGM 23FER1
10839
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
State and location Community
No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of
sale of flood insurance in community Current effective
map date
Date certain
federal assistance
no longer available
in SFHAs
Region 4
Tennessee: Brentwood, City
of, Williamson County. 470205 March 23, 1973, Emerg; February 1, 1978, Reg; Feb-
ruary 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do.
Cheatham County, Unincor-
porated Areas. 470026 September 27, 1974, Emerg; May 19, 1981, Reg;
February 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do.
Hendersonville, City of,
Sumner County. 470186 May 28, 1974, Emerg; November 4, 1981, Reg; Feb-
ruary 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do.
Pegram, Town of,
Cheatham County. 470291 N/A, Emerg; April 9, 1987, Reg; February 26, 2021,
Susp. ......do Do.
Pleasant View, Town of,
Cheatham County. 470428 N/A, Emerg; August 1, 2011, Reg; February 26,
2021, Susp. ......do Do.
Ridgetop, City of, Davidson
and Robertson Counties. 470162 N/A, Emerg; March 13, 2009, Reg; February 26,
2021, Susp. ......do Do.
Robertson County, Unincor-
porated Areas. 470158 May 28, 1982, Emerg; June 15, 1984, Reg; February
26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do.
Williamson County, Unin-
corporated Areas. 470204 May 27, 1975, Emerg; April 1, 1981, Reg; February
26, 2021, Susp. Feb. 26, 2021 Feb. 26, 2021.
* -do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
Eric J. Letvin,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration—FEMA Resilience,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021–03223 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WT Docket No. 18–120; FCC 20–183; FRS
17359]
Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band
AGENCY
: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION
: Dismissal of petitions for
reconsideration.
SUMMARY
: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) addresses the Petitions
for Reconsideration (Petitions) filed by
National Congress of American Indians
(NCAI) and Schools, Health & Libraries
Broadband Coalition and others (SHLB
et al.), asking that the Commission
reinstate the eligibility restrictions it
eliminated in the 2.5 GHz Report and
Order, published on October 25, 2019,
and create a window for additional
educational use of the band. The
Commission dismisses the Petitions in
part and, alternatively and
independently, denies the other two
petitions. The Hawai’i Broadband
Initiative filed a Petition for
Reconsideration, which it subsequently
requested leave to withdraw. The
Commission grants Hawai’i Broadband
Initiative’s request to withdraw its
petition.
DATES
: The Commission adopted the
Order on Reconsideration denying the
Petitions for Reconsideration on
December 9, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
: John
Schauble, Deputy Chief, Broadband
Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, (202) 418–0797 or email
John.Schauble@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order on
Reconsideration (Reconsideration
Order), WT Docket No. 18–120; FCC 20–
183, adopted on December 9, 2020 and
released on December 17, 2020. The full
text of the Reconsideration Order is
available electronically via the FCC’s
Electronic Document Management
System (EDOCS) website at https://
www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) website at http://www.fcc.gov/
ecfs. (Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.) Alternative
formats are available for people with
disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), by
sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
calling the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY). The 2.5 GHz Report and Order,
WT Docket No. 18–120, FCC 19–62,
released July 11, 2019 published at 84
FR 57343 on October 25, 2019.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. The 2.5 GHz band (2496–2690
MHz) is the single largest band of
contiguous spectrum below 3 gigahertz.
Too much of this spectrum, which is
prime mid-band spectrum for next
generation mobile operations, including
5G, has lain fallow for more than twenty
years. In the 2.5 GHz Report and Order,
the Commission transformed the
regulatory framework governing the
band in order to move this spectrum
into the hands of those who will
provide service to Americans across the
country, and particularly in rural and
Tribal areas. The Commission replaced
an outdated regulatory regime,
developed in the days when educational
TV was the only use envisioned for this
spectrum, with one that not only gives
incumbent users more flexibility in how
they use the spectrum, but also provides
opportunities for additional entities to
obtain access to unused 2.5 GHz
spectrum. Among other things, the
Commission established a Tribal
Priority Window to address the acute
problem of lack of access to wireless
communications services in rural Tribal
areas, and it decided to hold an overlay
auction thereafter for remaining
unassigned spectrum rights.
2. Three parties sought
reconsideration of various aspects of the
order. The National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI) seeks
reconsideration of the Commission’s
decision to focus the Tribal Priority
Window opportunity on rural Tribal
land. The Schools, Health & Libraries
Broadband Coalition and others (SHLB
et al.), meanwhile, ask that the
Commission reinstate the eligibility
restrictions the Commission eliminated
in the 2.5 GHz Report and Order and
create a window for additional
educational use of the band And the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:28 Feb 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23FER1.SGM 23FER1
