Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10837 

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/advisorycommittees/vaccines/reports/accvrecommendation-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/workwith-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. 

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; February 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; February 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do. 

Culpeper County, Unincorporated Areas.510041 November 26, 1974, Emerg; July 1, 1987, Reg; February 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do. 

Rappahannock County, Unincorporated Areas.510128 January 7, 1976, Emerg; August 24, 1984, Reg; February 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10839 

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; February 26, 2021, Susp. ......do Do. 

Cheatham County, Unincorporated 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; February 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, Unincorporated Areas.470158 May 28, 1982, Emerg; June 15, 1984, Reg; February 

26, 2021, Susp. 

......do Do. 

Williamson County, Unincorporated 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