42600 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

than 100 beds. Section 601(g) of the 

Social Security Amendments of 1983 

(Pub. L. 98–21) designated hospitals in 

certain New England counties as 

belonging to the adjacent urban area. 

Thus, for purposes of the IPPS, we 

continue to classify these hospitals as 

urban hospitals. As noted previously, 

we expect the effects of the changes 

announced in this document to impact 

only approximately 15 providers. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(Pub. L. 104–4) also requires that 

agencies assess anticipated costs and 

benefits before issuing any rule whose 

mandates require spending in any 1 year 

of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated 

annually for inflation. In 2018, that 

threshold is approximately $150 

million. The changes announced in this 

document will not mandate any 

requirements for State, local, or tribal 

governments, nor will it affect private 

sector costs. 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on State and local 

governments, preempts State law, or 

otherwise has Federalism implications. 

The changes announced in this 

document will not have a substantial 

effect on State and local governments. 

Executive Order 13771, entitled 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs,’’ was issued on 

January 30, 2017, and requires that the 

costs associated with significant new 

regulations ‘‘shall, to the extent 

permitted by law, be offset by the 

elimination of existing costs associated 

with at least two prior regulations.’’ It 

has been determined that the provisions 

announced in this document are actions 

that primarily result in transfers, and 

thus are not a regulatory or deregulatory 

action for the purposes of Executive 

Order 13771. 

V. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Delay of Effective Date 

We ordinarily publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register and invite public comment 

prior to a rule taking effect in 

accordance with section 553(b) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

and section 1871 of the Act. In addition, 

in accordance with section 553(d) of the 

APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the 

Act, we ordinarily provide a 30 day 

delay to a substantive rule’s effective 

date. For substantive rules that 

constitute major rules, in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 801, we ordinarily provide 

a 60-day delay in the effective date. 

None of the processes or effective date 

requirements apply, however, when the 

rule in question is interpretive, a general 

statement of policy, or a rule of agency 

organization, procedure or practice. 

They also do not apply when the statute 

establishes rules that are to be applied, 

leaving no discretion or gaps for an 

agency to fill in through rulemaking. 

In addition, an agency may waive 

notice and comment rulemaking, as well 

as any delay in effective date, when the 

agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public comment on the rule as well 

the effective date delay are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. In cases where an 

agency finds good cause, the agency 

must incorporate a statement of this 

finding and its reasons in the rule 

issued. 

The policies being publicized in this 

document do not constitute agency 

rulemaking. Rather, the statute, as 

amended by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018, has already 

required that the agency make these 

changes, and we are simply notifying 

the public of the changes to the payment 

adjustment for low-volume hospitals for 

FYs 2011 through 2017 relating to the 

application of the mileage criterion for 

IHS and non-IHS hospitals. As this 

document merely informs the public of 

these changes, it is not a rule and does 

not require any notice and comment 

rulemaking. To the extent any of the 

policies articulated in this document 

constitute interpretations of the statute’s 

requirements or procedures that will be 

used to implement the statute’s 

directive, they are interpretive rules, 

general statements of policy, and rules 

of agency procedure or practice, which 

are not subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking or a delayed effective date. 

However, to the extent that notice and 

comment rulemaking, a delay in 

effective date, or both would otherwise 

apply, we find good cause to waive such 

requirements. Specifically, we find it 

unnecessary to undertake notice and 

comment rulemaking in this instance as 

this document does not propose to make 

any substantive changes to the policies 

or methodologies already in effect as a 

matter of law, but simply applies 

payment adjustments under the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 

to these existing policies and 

methodologies. As the changes outlined 

in this document have already taken 

effect, it would also be impracticable to 

undertake notice and comment 

rulemaking. For these reasons, we also 

find that a waiver of any delay in 

effective date, if it were otherwise 

applicable, is necessary to comply with 

the requirements of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018. Therefore, we 

find good cause to waive notice and 

comment procedures as well as any 

delay in effective date, if such 

procedures or delays are required at all. 

Dated: August 16, 2018. 

Seema Verma, 

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18271 Filed 8–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2018–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8543] 

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 and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. Also, information 

identifying the current participation 

status of a community can be obtained 

from FEMA’s Community Status Book 

(CSB). The CSB is available at https:// 

www.fema.gov/national-floodinsurance-program-community-statusbook. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42601 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 

212–3966. 

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 and new construction 

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 program 

regulations, 44 CFR part 59. 

Accordingly, the communities will be 

suspended on the effective date in the 

third column. As of that date, flood 

insurance will no longer be available in 

the community. We recognize that some 

of these communities may adopt and 

submit the required documentation of 

legally enforceable floodplain 

management measures 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. A notice withdrawing the 

suspension of such communities will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

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 FIRM, if one has been 

published, 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 II 

New Jersey: 

Brigantine, City of, Atlantic County ....... 345286 May 15, 1970, Emerg; June 18, 1971, Reg; 

August 28, 2018, Susp.

August 28, 2018 August 28, 2018. 

Buena, Borough of, Atlantic County ..... 340004 January 17, 1975, Emerg; March 4, 1983, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Hamilton, Township of, Atlantic County 340009 November 26, 1971, Emerg; March 15, 

1977, Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Hammonton, Town of, Atlantic County 340010 July 7, 1975, Emerg; January 6, 1982, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Linwood, City of, Atlantic County ......... 340011 March 27, 1974, Emerg; January 19, 1983, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Longport, Borough of, Atlantic County 345302 July 10, 1970, Emerg; June 18, 1971, Reg; 

August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Margate City, City of, Atlantic County .. 345304 July 10, 1970, Emerg; June 19, 1971, Reg; 

August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42602 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / 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 

Weymouth, Township of, Atlantic 

County.

340536 August 13, 1975, Emerg; August 10, 1979, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Region IV 

North Carolina: 

Belville, Town of, Brunswick County .... 370545 September 15, 2003, Emerg; June 2, 2006, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Holden Beach, Town of, Brunswick 

County.

375352 March 19, 1971, Emerg; May 26, 1972, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Navassa, Town of, Brunswick County .. 370593 May 19, 2005, Emerg; June 2, 2006, Reg; 

August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Shallotte, Town of, Brunswick County .. 370388 July 1, 1975, Emerg; January 3, 1986, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Varnamtown, Town of, Brunswick 

County.

370648 N/A, Emerg; May 30, 2001, Reg; August 

28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Region V 

Michigan: 

Acme, Township of, Grand Traverse 

County.

260749 March 3, 1986, Emerg; December 18, 

1986, Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

August 28, 2018 August 28, 2018. 

Bingham, Township of, Leelanau 

County.

260772 August 29, 1986, Emerg; September 18, 

1987, Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Cleveland, Township of, Leelanau 

County.

260302 July 18, 1974, Emerg; September 1, 1986, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Elmwood, Township of, Leelanau 

County.

260113 July 2, 1975, Emerg; February 2, 1983, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Empire, Township of, Leelanau County 260765 June 16, 1986, Emerg; September 4, 1986, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Empire, Village of, Leelanau County .... 260605 April 8, 1975, Emerg; November 15, 1985, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Garfield, Charter Township of, Grand 

Traverse County.

260753 April 25, 1986, Emerg; December 18, 

1986, Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Glen Arbor, Township of, Leelanau 

County.

260604 March 7, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 1986, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Leelanau, Township of, Leelanau 

County.

260114 June 5, 1975, Emerg; April 2, 1986, Reg; 

August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Leland, Township of, Leelanau County 260760 May 5, 1986, Emerg; March 18, 1987, Reg; 

August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Northport, Village of, Leelanau County 260580 July 24, 1975, Emerg; March 2, 1989, Reg; 

August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Paradise, Township of, Grand Traverse 

County.

260830 December 20, 1990, Emerg; May 4, 1992, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Peninsula, Township of, Grand Traverse County.260747 March 3, 1986, Emerg; December 18, 

1986, Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Suttons Bay, Township of, Leelanau 

County.

260770 July 21, 1986, Emerg; April 3, 1987, Reg; 

August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Suttons Bay, Village of, Leelanau 

County.

260283 September 17, 1973, Emerg; June 1, 1977, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

August 28, 2018 August 28, 2018. 

Traverse City, City of, Grand Traverse 

and Leelanau Counties.

260082 August 8, 1975, Emerg; December 15, 

1982, Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Union, Township of, Grand Traverse 

County.

260805 April 23, 1987, Emerg; September 30, 

1988, Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Whitewater, Township of, Grand Traverse County.260794 January 29, 1987, Emerg; September 30, 

1988, Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Region VI 

Texas: 

Brown County, Unincorporated Areas .. 480717 June 6, 1990, Emerg; March 1, 1991, Reg; 

August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Brownwood, City of, Brown County ...... 480087 June 20, 1975, Emerg; April 15, 1981, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Early, City of, Brown County ................ 480088 January 12, 1982, Emerg; July 1, 1987, 

Reg; August 28, 2018, Susp.

August 28, 2018 August 28, 2018. 

Code for reading third column: Emerg. — Emergency; Reg. — Regular; Susp — Suspension. 

*-do- =Ditto. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42603 

Dated: August 9, 2018. 

Katherine B. Fox, 

Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration—FEMA Resilience, 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18150 Filed 8–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 11 

[EB Docket No. 04–296, PS Docket No. 15– 

94; FCC 18–102] 

Review of the Emergency Alert System 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for partial 

reconsideration; final decision. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) partially denies and 

partially grants a petition for partial 

reconsideration of the Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) requirements for certain 

Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) satellite 

operators jointly filed by PanAmSat 

Corporation, SES Americom, Inc., and 

Intelsat, Ltd. 

DATES: Effective September 24, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Cooke, Deputy Chief, Policy 

and Licensing Division, Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 

418–7452, or by email at 

Gregory.Cooke@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration (Order) in EB Docket 

No. 04–296 and PS Docket No. 15–94, 

FCC 18–102, adopted on July 23, 2018, 

and released on July 24, 2018. The full 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text may also be downloaded at: 

www.fcc.gov. 

Synopsis 

1. In the Order, the Commission 

partially denies and partially grants the 

petition for partial reconsideration 

(Petition) of the EAS requirements for 

FSS satellite operators jointly filed by 

PanAmSat Corporation, SES Americom, 

Inc., and Intelsat, Ltd. (Petitioners). 

Specifically, the Commission denies 

Petitioners’ request to shift the EAS 

obligations adopted for Ku band FSS 

licensees to the video programming 

distributors that lease transponder 

capacity from such licensees. The 

Commission also denies Petitioners’ 

alternative request to not apply the FSS 

EAS rules to FSS satellite operations 

subject to satellite capacity lease 

agreements already in place when the 

FSS EAS requirements became effective. 

The Commission does, however, grant 

the Petition to the extent that it adopts 

more specific criteria for determining 

when EAS obligations are triggered for 

FSS licensees whose satellites are used 

to provide programming directed 

primarily to consumers outside the U.S., 

with only incidental reception by 

consumers in the U.S. 

I. Background 

A. The EAS 

2. The EAS is a national public 

warning system through which 

broadcasters, cable systems, and other 

service providers (EAS Participants) 

deliver alerts to the public to warn them 

of impending emergencies and dangers 

to life and property. The primary 

purpose of the EAS is to provide the 

President with ‘‘the capability to 

provide immediate communications and 

information to the general public at the 

national, state and local levels during 

periods of national emergency.’’ The 

EAS also is used by state and local 

governments, as well as the National 

Weather Service, to distribute alerts. 

B. The EAS First Report and Order 

3. In 2005, in recognition that 

consumers were increasingly adopting 

digital technologies as replacements for 

analog broadcast and cable systems that 

were already subject to EAS 

requirements, the Commission adopted 

the First Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (First 

Report and Order) in EB Docket No. 04– 

296, 70 FR 71023, 71072 (Nov. 25, 

2005), expanding EAS obligations to 

digital television and radio, digital 

cable, and satellite television and radio 

services. The Commission deemed that 

‘‘some level of EAS participation must 

be established for these new digital 

services to ensure that large portions of 

the American public are able to receive 

national and/or regional public alerts 

and warnings.’’ 

4. With respect to satellite video 

services, the Commission, in part 

pursuant to its jurisdiction under 

section 303(v) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), to 

regulate direct-to-home (DTH) satellite 

services, extended EAS obligations to 

DBS services, as defined in section 

25.701(a)(1)–(3) of the Commission’s 

rules. As used in section 25.701(a), the 

definition of DBS includes entities 

licensed to operate FSS satellites in the 

Ku band that ‘‘sell or lease capacity to 

a video programming distributor that 

offers service directly to consumers 

providing a sufficient number of 

channels so that four percent of the total 

applicable programming channels yields 

a set aside of at least one channel of 

non-commercial programming pursuant 

to [section 25.701(e) of the 

Commission’s rules]’’ (hereinafter, 

‘‘DTH–FSS licensees’’). The 

Commission anticipated that this 

definition would ‘‘ensure[ ] that the EAS 

rules apply to the vast majority of 

existing DTH satellite services, 

particularly those for which viewers 

may have expectations as to available 

warnings based on experience with 

broadcast television services.’’ With 

respect to compliance requirements, the 

Commission generally required DBS 

entities to participate in national EAS 

activations, and meet related 

monitoring, testing and equipment 

readiness requirements. 

5. The Commission, however, allowed 

DTH–FSS licensees to delegate their 

EAS obligations to the video 

programming distributors that lease 

capacity on their satellites. Specifically, 

the Commission stated that ‘‘compliance 

with EAS requirements may be 

established based upon a certification 

from a [video programming] distributor 

that expressly states that the distributor 

has complied with the EAS 

obligations.’’ The Commission added 

that the DTH–FSS licensees ‘‘will not be 

required to verify compliance by 

distributors unless there is evidence that 

the distributor has not met its 

obligation.’’ The Commission concluded 

that placing ultimate compliance 

responsibility on the DTH–FSS 

licensees under this scheme was not 

unduly burdensome because the 

‘‘certification requirements can be 

included in satellite carriage and leasing 

contracts,’’ and because it was similar to 

the certification scheme adopted for FSS 

Part 25 licensees to meet their DBS 

public interest obligations. The 

Commission declined to apply EAS 

obligations to Home Satellite Dish 

(HSD) service, which also falls under 

the Commission’s DTH jurisdiction. 

C. The Petition 

6. The Petitioners state that they 

‘‘support the application of the EAS 

requirements to DTH–FSS services,’’ but 

seek reconsideration of three aspects of 

the Commission’s decision adopting 

such requirements. First, the Petition 

requests that the Commission modify 

the FSS EAS requirements adopted in 

the First Report and Order by applying 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES