Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 29447 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Public Law 104–4). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 14, 2010. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Section 180.598 is amended in 

paragraph (a) as follows: 

i. Add alphabetically ‘‘Grain, aspirated 

fractions’’; ‘‘Hog, kidney’’; ‘‘Hog, liver’’; 

‘‘Poultry, kidney’’; ‘‘Poultry, liver’’; 

‘‘Sorghum, grain, forage’’; ‘‘Sorghum, 

grain, grain’’; and ‘‘Sorghum, grain, 

stover’’ to the table; and 

ii. Revise the entries for ‘‘Egg’’; ‘‘Hog, 

fat’’; ‘‘Hog, meat’’; ‘‘Hog, meat 

byproducts’’; ‘‘Poultry, fat’’; ‘‘Poultry, 

meat’’; and ‘‘Poultry, meat byproducts.’’ 

The added and revised entries to read as 

follows: 

§180.598 Novaluron; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

*****

Egg ................................. 1.5 

*****

Grain, aspirated fractions 25 

*****

Hog, fat ........................... 1.5 

Hog, kidney ..................... 0.10 

Hog, liver ........................ 0.10 

Hog, meat ....................... 0.07 

Hog, meat byproducts .... 0.10 

*****

Poultry, fat ...................... 7.0 

Poultry, kidney ................ 0.80 

Poultry, liver .................... 0.80 

Poultry, meat .................. 0.40 

Poultry, meat byproducts 0.80 

*****

Sorghum, grain, forage ... 6.0 

Sorghum, grain, grain ..... 3.0 

Sorghum, grain, stover ... 40 

*****

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–12649 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 5a 

RIN 0906–AA86 

Public Health Service Act, Rural 

Physician Training Grant Program, 

Definition of ‘‘Underserved Rural 

Community’’ 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA), Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comment. 

SUMMARY: This interim final rule (IFR) 

with request for comment is meant to 

comply with the statutory directive to 

issue a regulation defining ‘‘underserved 

rural community’’ for purposes of the 

Rural Physician Training Grant Program 

in section 749B of the Public Health 

Service Act, as amended by the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act of 

2010. This IFR is technical in nature. It 

will not change grant or funding 

eligibility for any other grant program 

currently available through the Office of 

Rural Health Policy (ORHP) or HRSA. 

For purposes of the Rural Physician 

Training Grant Program only, HRSA has 

combined existing definitions of 

‘‘underserved’’ and ‘‘rural’’ by using the 

definition of rural utilized by the ORHP 

Rural Health Grant programs and the 

definition of ‘‘underserved’’ established 

by HRSA’s Office of Shortage 

Designation (OSD) in the Bureau of 

Health Professions (BHPr). 

DATES: Effective Date: This interim final 

rule is effective 30 days after May 26, 

2010. 

Comment Date: To be assured 

consideration, written or electronic 

comments must be received at one of 

the addresses provided below, no later 

than 5 p.m. on July 26, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN), by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: mgoodman@hrsa.gov. 

Include RIN 0906–AA86 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Mail: Michelle Goodman, MAA, 

Office of Rural Health Policy, Health 

Resources and Services Administration, 

5600 Fishers Lane, Parklawn Building, 

10B–45, Rockville, MD 20857. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and RIN 

for this rulemaking. All comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection and copying, including any 

personal information provided, at 

Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

Room 10B–45, Rockville, Maryland 

20857, weekdays (Federal holidays 

excepted) between the hours of 8:30 

a.m. and 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Goodman, MAA, at the mail or 

e-mail address above or by telephone at 

301–443–0835. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comment 

III. Definition of ‘‘Underserved Rural 

Community’’ 

A. Definition of Rural 

B. Definition of Underserved 

IV. Collection of Information Requirements 

V. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

A. Introduction 

B. Why Is This Rule Needed? 

C. Costs and Benefits 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Regulation Text 

I. Background 

The ORHP was authorized in 

December 1987 through Public Law 

100–203 and is located in the HRSA. 

Congress charged ORHP with informing 

and advising HHS on matters affecting 

rural hospitals and health care and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
29448 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

coordinating activities within HHS that 

relate to rural health care. 

Section 10501(l) of Public Law 111– 

148 adds Section 749B to the Public 

Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293k et 

seq.) by authorizing the Rural Physician 

Training Grant Program. HRSA is 

authorized to establish this new grant 

program for the purposes of assisting 

eligible entities in recruiting students 

most likely to practice medicine in 

underserved rural communities; 

providing rural-focused training and 

experience; and increasing the number 

of recent allopathic and osteopathic 

medical school graduates who practice 

in underserved rural communities. As 

required by section 749B(f), not later 

than 60 days after the date of enactment 

of Public Law 111–148, the Secretary 

shall, by regulation, define ‘‘underserved 

rural community’’ for purposes of this 

section. HRSA must create an 

operational definition of ‘‘underserved 

rural community’’ to help in 

determining how to allocate funding for 

the approved activities in the grant. 

II. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comment 

We note that ordinarily we publish a 

notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register and invite public 

comment on the proposed rule. 

However, for the reasons that follow, the 

agency has determined to proceed 

directly with this IFR with request for 

comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B) because it has determined 

that good cause exists which makes the 

usual notice and comment procedure 

impractical, unnecessary, and contrary 

to the public interest. Nevertheless, we 

are providing the public with a 60-day 

period following publication of this 

document to submit comments on the 

IFR, and appropriate comments received 

will be used to determine whether to 

amend this rule and/or will be used to 

inform the development of the program 

guidance which will delineate the 

structure and requirements for the grant 

program (upon appropriation of funds to 

implement the grant). 

As mentioned above, section 749B(f) 

requires the Secretary to publish this 

regulation 60 days after the date of 

enactment of Public Law 111–148. We 

have determined that the usual notice 

and comment procedure would be 

impractical in this case because those 

procedures take significantly longer 

than 60 days. 

We also believe it is unnecessary to 

undertake rulemaking involving prior 

notice and comment because this IFR 

will have limited impact, as it defines 

‘‘underserved rural communities’’ only 

for purposes of the Rural Physician 

Training Grant Program and will not 

change grant or funding eligibility for 

any other grant program currently 

available through ORHP or HRSA. 

Additionally, we believe it is 

unnecessary to undertake prior notice 

and comment rulemaking because, 

while funds for this program have not 

yet been appropriated, such funds might 

become available with little notice and 

awarding the funds quickly would serve 

an important public interest because of 

the necessity of assisting underserved 

rural communities to attract and retain 

needed allopathic and osteopathic 

medical school graduates to serve in 

their communities. 

III. Definition of ‘‘Underserved Rural 

Community’’ 

HRSA proposes to combine two 

existing definitions for ‘‘underserved’’ 

and ‘‘rural’’ by using the rural definition 

utilized by the ORHP Rural Health 

Grant Programs and the geographic 

based Health Professions Shortage Area 

(HPSA) and Medically Underserved 

Area (MUA) definitions as established 

by HRSA’s OSD in the BHPr. 

A. Definition of Rural 

For the purposes of the Rural 

Physician Training Grant Program 

outlined in section 749B of the Public 

Health Services Act, HRSA must define 

‘‘underserved rural communities.’’ In 

order to maintain consistency through 

the various Rural Health Grant 

Programs, we propose to use the 

definition for ‘‘rural’’ that is used for the 

ORHP Rural Health Grant Programs. 

ORHP uses a two-tiered method to 

determine geographic eligibility for its 

grant programs. All counties that are not 

designated as part of a Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSAs) by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) are 

considered rural. This means that 

counties classified as part of a 

Micropolitan area are also considered 

rural. Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

statistical areas (metro and micro areas) 

are geographic entities defined by the 

OMB for use by Federal statistical 

agencies in collecting, tabulating, and 

publishing Federal statistics. A metro 

area contains a core urban area of 50,000 

or more population, and a micro area 

contains an urban core of at least 10,000 

(but less than 50,000) population. Each 

metro or micro area consists of one or 

more counties and includes the counties 

containing the core urban area, as well 

as any adjacent counties that have a 

high degree of social and economic 

integration (as measured by commuting 

to work) with the urban core. The 

current list of MSAs and updates are 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.census.gov/population/www/ 

metroareas/metrodef.html. 

Due to the fact that entire counties are 

designated as Metropolitan when, in 

fact, large parts of many of these 

counties may be rural in nature, ORHP 

has sought a method of identifying subcounty sections of these Metropolitan 

counties that should also be considered/ 

designated as rural. Rather than exclude 

large numbers of arguably rural citizens 

from eligibility for the Rural Health 

Grant Programs, ORHP sought a 

rational, data-driven method to identify/ 

designate rural areas inside of 

Metropolitan counties. ORHP funded 

the development of ‘‘Rural/Urban 

Commuting Area Codes’’ (RUCAs), by 

the WWAMI Rural Research Center at 

the University of Washington in 

cooperation with the Department of 

Agriculture’s Economic Research 

Service, to categorize various levels of 

rurality and make possible designation 

of ‘‘rural’’ areas within MSAs. Using 

commuting data from the Census 

Bureau, every census tract in the United 

States is assigned a RUCA code. 

Currently, there are ten primary RUCA 

codes with 30 secondary codes based on 

2000 Census data and 2004 ZIP Code 

areas (see Table 1). 

TABLE 1—RURAL-URBAN COMMUTING AREAS (RUCAS), 2000 

1 .............................. Metropolitan area core: Primary flow within an urbanized area (UA) 

1.0 No additional code. 

1.1 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a larger UA. 

2 .............................. Metropolitan area high commuting: Primary flow 30% or more to a UA. 

2.0 No additional code. 

2.1 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a larger UA. 

3 .............................. Metropolitan area low commuting: Primary flow 5% to 30% to a UA. 

3.0 No additional code. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 29449 

TABLE 1—RURAL-URBAN COMMUTING AREAS (RUCAS), 2000—Continued 

4 .............................. Micropolitan area core: Primary flow within an Urban Cluster (UC) of 10,000 to 49,999 (large UC). 

4.0 No additional code. 

4.1 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA. 

4.2 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a UA. 

5 .............................. Micropolitan high commuting: Primary flow 30% or more to a large UC. 

5.0 No additional code. 

5.1 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA. 

5.2 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a UA. 

6 .............................. Micropolitan low commuting: Primary flow 10% to 30% to a large UC. 

6.0 No additional code. 

6.1 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a UA. 

7 .............................. Small town core: Primary flow within an Urban Cluster of 2,500 to 9,999 (small UC). 

7.0 No additional code. 

7.1 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA. 

7.2 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a large UC. 

7.3 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a UA. 

7.4 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a large UC. 

8 .............................. Small town high commuting: Primary flow 30% or more to a small UC. 

8.0 No additional code. 

8.1 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA. 

8.2 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a large UC. 

8.3 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a UA. 

8.4 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a large UC. 

9 .............................. Small town low commuting: Primary flow 10% to 30% to a small UC. 

9.0 No additional code. 

9.1 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a UA. 

9.2 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a large UC. 

10 ............................ Rural areas: Primary flow to a tract outside a UA or UC. 

10.0 No additional code. 

10.1 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a UA. 

10.2 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a large UC. 

10.3 Secondary flow 30% to 50% to a small UC. 

10.4 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a UA. 

10.5 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a large UC. 

10.6 Secondary flow 10% to 30% to a small UC. 

Those Census tracts within MSAs that 

have RUCA codes 4 through 10 are 

considered rural for the purposes of 

ORHP Rural Health Grant Programs. In 

addition, those Census Tracts within 

MSAs that have RUCA codes 2 or 3, are 

individually larger than 400 square 

miles in area, and have a population 

density of less than 30 people per 

square mile, also are considered rural. 

(More information on RUCAs is 

available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/ 

briefing/Rurality/ 

RuralUrbanCommutingAreas/ or at 

http://depts.washington.edu/uwruca/.) 

ORHP has previously used this 

definition of rural for Rural Health 

Grant Programs. The RUCA definition is 

further described in a Federal Register 

Notice published on May 3, 2007 (Vol. 

72, No. 85; pgs 24589–24591). In 

preparing guidance for the Rural 

Physician Training Grant Program, 

HRSA will use the most current list of 

eligible rural counties as determined by 

the ORHP and published on their Web 

site at http://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/ 

RuralAdvisor/RuralHealthAdvisor.aspx. 

In summary, for the purposes of the 

Rural Physician Training Grant 

Program, HRSA is proposing to define 

the rural portion of the ‘‘underserved 

rural communities’’ as: 

(a) Any non-Metropolitan County, 

including Micropolitan counties; or 

(b) Within a Metropolitan county, all 

Census Tracts that are assigned a RUCA 

code of 4–10; or 

(c) Census Tracts within a 

Metropolitan Area with RUCA codes 2 

and 3 that are larger than 400 square 

miles and have population density of 

less than 30 people per square mile. 

B. Definition of Underserved 

As previously stated, for the purposes 

restricted to the Rural Physician 

Training Grant Program, outlined in 

section 749B of the Public Health 

Services Act, HRSA is also required to 

define the ‘‘underserved’’ portion of the 

term ‘‘underserved rural communities.’’ 

HRSA’s OSD in the BHPr is 

responsible for developing shortage/ 

underservice designation criteria and for 

using the established criteria to decide 

if a geographic area, population group, 

or facility is a HPSA or a Medically 

Underserved Area or Population (MUA/ 

P), or both. Three types of HPSAs may 

be designated: those with shortages of 

primary medical care, dental, or mental 

health providers. Urban or rural 

geographic areas and population groups 

may be designated as MUA/P or HPSA; 

certain medical or other public facilities 

are also eligible for HPSA designation. 

Location in a designated HPSA and 

MUA/P establishes initial eligibility for 

many Federal and State programs (such 

as National Health Service Corps 

placements, Health Center funding, 

Federally Qualified Health Center and/ 

or Rural Health Clinic certification). The 

criteria established to identify 

geographic areas, population groups, or 

facilities with shortages of primary 

health care, dental, or mental health 

providers are located at 42 CFR Part 5. 

HPSA designations are based on the 

population-to-provider ratio in a 

defined service area, together with other 

factors indicative of unusually high 

needs or insufficient capacity. More 

information on all the factors needed to 

be designated as a HPSA can be found 

at the OSD’s Web site: 

http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/shortage/ 

hpsadesignation.htm. MUA/P 

designations utilize an Index of Medical 

Underservice to calculate a score for 

each area, based on a weighted 

combination of four factors: The ratio of 

primary medical care physicians per 

1,000 population, infant mortality rate, 

percentage of the population with 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
29450 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

incomes below the poverty level, and 

percentage of the population age 65 or 

over. 

Information on HPSA and MUA/P 

designation status, including the date of 

the most recent designation or update, 

is available on the HRSA Data 

Warehouse Web site: http:// 

datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/GeoAdvisor/ 

ShortageDesignationAdvisor.aspx, or at 

the HRSA Web site http:// 

hpsafind.hrsa.gov/ and http:// 

muafind.hrsa.gov. In preparing 

guidance for the Rural Physician 

Training Grant Program, HRSA will use 

the most current list of eligible HPSAs 

and MUAs as determined by the OSD 

and published on their Web site. The 

OSD Web site list is the most up-to-date 

list available and removes areas that no 

longer qualify for designation, even if 

the Federal Register list has not yet 

been updated. 

As required by Section 5602 of Public 

Law 111–148, HRSA plans to establish 

a comprehensive methodology and 

criteria for designation of MUPs and 

Primary Care HPSAs [under sections 

330(b)(3) and 332 of the Public Health 

Service (PHS) Act, respectively], using a 

Negotiated Rulemaking process as 

outlined in the Federal Register on May 

11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90). Any 

change that HRSA makes to the 

methodology used to determine 

designations will not alter the definition 

for the Rural Physician Training Grant 

Program. 

For the purposes of the Rural 

Physician Training Grant Program, 

HRSA is defining the ‘‘underserved’’ 

portion of the term ‘‘underserved rural 

community’’ to include current: 

(a) Geographic Primary Care Health 

Professions Shortage Areas (HPSAs), 

(Federally designated under section 

332(a)(1)(A) of the PHS Act) located in 

rural areas as defined above; or 

(b) Medically Underserved Areas 

(MUAs) (Federally designated under 

section 330(b)(3) of the PHS Act) located 

in rural areas as defined above. 

HRSA is not including Federallydesignated Dental or Mental Health 

HPSAs for purposes of defining 

‘‘underserved rural communities’’ for the 

Rural Physician Training Grant 

Program, as this Program is specifically 

targeted to students at or recent 

graduates of schools of allopathic and 

osteopathic medicine (Sec. 749B (a–b)), 

and therefore not focusing on Mental 

Health or Dental Health providers. 

For purposes of defining ‘‘underserved 

rural communities’’ for the Rural 

Physician Training Grant Program, 

HRSA is not including population-based 

HPSA designations, MUP designations, 

or facility-based HPSA designations. 

The operational definition of 

‘‘underserved rural community’’ will be 

applied to determine whether 

applicants meet the statutory eligibility 

and priority criteria of the Rural 

Physician Training Grant program. 

These requirements are based on the 

ability to identify geographic places. 

The MUP and population HPSA 

designations are used to target a group 

of people, not a geographic place. The 

facility-based designation is given to an 

actual facility. While there is a 

geographic boundary within which 

qualifying underserved populations are 

located, this boundary also contains 

many people who are not underserved 

(e.g. homeless populations within a 

community that would otherwise not be 

underserved). Using this boundary as if 

it captures the same level of 

underservice as geographic shortage 

areas (without additional restrictions on 

the specific patient population within 

that boundary) could easily result in 

qualifying programs and program 

designs which do not fulfill the grant 

program’s intended purpose. 

HRSA is seeking public comments, 

through this IFR, on the following 

definition for ‘‘Underserved Rural 

Community—Those communities that: 

(a) Located in: 

i. Any non-Metropolitan County, 

including Micropolitan counties; or 

ii. Within a Metropolitan county, all 

Census Tracts that are assigned RuralUrban Commuting Area Codes (RUCAs) 

code of 4–10; or 

iii. Census Tracts within a 

Metropolitan Area with RUCA codes 2 

and 3 that are larger than 400 square 

miles and have population density of 

less than 30 people per square mile; and 

(b) Being in a current: 

i. Federally-designated Primary 

Health Care Geographic Health 

Professions Shortage Area (HPSA), 

(under section 332(a)(1)(A) of the PHS 

Act) or 

ii. Federally-designated Medically 

Underserved Area (MUA) (under section 

330(b)(3) of the PHS Act). 

IV. Collection of Information 

Requirements 

This IFR contains no new information 

collection requirements subject to 

review by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

V. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

A. Introduction 

This IFR is technical in nature. This 

new regulation is meant to define 

‘‘underserved rural communities’’ solely 

for purposes related to the Rural 

Physician Training Grant Program, as 

outlined in section 749B of the Public 

Health Service Act. This will not change 

grant or funding eligibility for any other 

grant program administered through 

ORHP or HRSA. 

We have examined the impacts of this 

rule as required by Executive Order 

12866 on Regulatory Planning and 

Review (September 30, 1993, as further 

amended), the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), section 202 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) (UMRA), 

Executive Order 13132 on Federalism 

(August 4, 1999), and the Congressional 

Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). 

B. Why Is This Rule Needed? 

This regulation is required to 

implement section 749B of the Public 

Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293) as 

amended by section 10501(l) of Public 

Law 111–148. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

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). A regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) must be prepared for 

major rules with economically 

significant effects ($100 million or more 

in any one year). We have determined 

that this IFR is not an economically 

significant rule. Moreover, the Secretary 

has determined that this IFR is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ within the meaning of the 

statute providing for Congressional 

Review of Agency Rulemaking, 5 U.S.C. 

801. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires agencies to analyze options for 

regulatory relief of small businesses if a 

rule has a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Secretary has determined that no 

resources are required to implement the 

requirements in this IFR. Therefore, in 

accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 

1996, which amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Secretary certifies 

that this IFR will not, if implemented, 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 29451 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on State and local 

governments, preempts State law, or 

otherwise has federalism implications. 

The Secretary has reviewed this IFR in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132 

regarding federalism, and has 

determined that it does not have 

‘‘federalism implications.’’ This rule 

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.’’ 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires cost-benefit and other analyses 

before any rulemaking if the rule 

includes a ‘‘Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year.’’ 

The current inflation adjusted statutory 

threshold is approximately $130 

million. The Department has 

determined that this rule would not 

constitute a significant rule under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 

because it would impose no mandates. 

In accordance with the provisions in 

Executive Order 12866, this IFR was 

reviewed by OMB. 

Dated: May 18, 2010. 

Mary Wakefield, 

Administrator, Health Resources and Services 

Administration. 

Approved: May 20, 2010. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 5a 

Grants administration, Health 

professions, Physicians, Rural areas, 

Shortages, Underserved. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department amends 42 

CFR Chapter I to add Part 5a as follows: 

PART 5a—RURAL PHYSICIAN 

TRAINING GRANT PROGRAM 

Sec. 

5a.1 Statutory basis and purpose. 

5a.2 Applicability. 

5a.3 Definition of Underserved Rural 

Community. 

Authority: Sec. 749B of the Public Health 

Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293k) as amended. 

§ 5a.1—Statutory basis and purpose. 

This part implements section 749B(f) 

of the Public Health Service Act. These 

provisions define ‘‘underserved rural 

community’’ for purposes of the Rural 

Physician Training Grant Program. 

§ 5a.2 Applicability. 

This part applies to grants made 

under section 749B of the Public Health 

Service Act. 

§ 5a.3—Definition of Underserved Rural 

Community. 

Underserved Rural Community means 

a community: 

(a) Located in: 

(1) A non-Metropolitan County or 

Micropolitan county; or 

(2) If it is within a Metropolitan 

county, all Census Tracts that are 

assigned a Rural-Urban Commuting 

Area (RUCAs) codes of 4–10; or 

(3) Census Tracts within a 

Metropolitan Area with RUCA codes 2 

and 3 that are larger than 400 square 

miles and have population density of 

less than 30 people per square mile; and 

(b) Located in a current: 

(1) Federally-designated Primary 

Health Care Geographic Health 

Professions Shortage Area, (under 

section 332(a)(1)(A) of the Public Health 

Service Act) or 

(2) Federally-designated Medically 

Underserved Area (under section 

330(b)(3) of the Public Health Service 

Act). 

[FR Doc. 2010–12557 Filed 5–21–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4165–15–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

46 CFR Part 501, 502, and 535 

[Docket No. 10–04] 

RIN 3072–AC37 

Agency Reorganization and 

Delegations of Authority 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime 

Commission (FMC or Commission) 

amends its regulations relating to 

agency organization to reflect the 

reorganization of the agency that took 

effect January 31, 2010, and to delegate 

authority to certain FMC bureaus and 

offices in order to improve the FMC’s 

ability to carry out its statutory 

responsibilities over the ocean shipping 

industry in a more responsive manner to 

the industry’s changing needs. This rule 

also corrects typographical errors in two 

sections in the Commission’s rules. 

DATES: Effective May 26, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca A. Fenneman, Deputy General 

Counsel, Federal Maritime Commission, 

800 North Capitol Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20573, (202) 523–5740, 

GeneralCounsel@fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMC 

amends Part 501 and § 502.604 of Part 

502 of Title 46 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations to reflect the reorganization 

of the agency that took effect on January 

31, 2010. The FMC was reorganized by 

restoring the position of the Managing 

Director to serve as the Commission’s 

Chief Operating Officer responsible for 

the management and coordination of the 

Commission’s major organizational 

components to ensure all offices are 

cohesively directed toward achieving 

fair and efficient ocean transportation 

that helps improve the nation’s 

economy. The reorganization also gives 

heightened priority to the role of the 

Commission’s Office of Consumer 

Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services 

(CADRS), which assists exporters and 

other consumers and works with the 

public and ocean transportation 

industry to mediate disputes without 

costly lawsuits. The Director of CADRS 

will serve as the Commission’s 

Ombudsman and handle inquiries and 

complaints about industry issues and 

Commission services. CADRS will 

continue to provide the public and 

ocean transportation industry a variety 

of impartial, speedy, and confidential 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

services, such as mediation and 

arbitration. As an independent office, it 

will be able to assist parties in a neutral 

and confidential manner, enabling 

disputants to discuss matters while 

knowing that their discussions and any 

information revealed in a dispute 

resolution proceeding will not be made 

available to any other Commission 

official or staff members. This rule also 

corrects typographical errors in 

§ 501.41(a) of Part 501 and § 535.401(g) 

of Part 535. 

Because the changes made in this 

proceeding only address internal agency 

operating procedure and organization, 

which do not require notice and public 

procedure pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553, this rule is published as final. The 

Chairman of the Commission certifies, 

pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq., that the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ under 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES