Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30145

Such report will note that the physician,

dentist, or other health care practitioner

is being reported in a supervisory

capacity.

Note to paragraph (c): Licensed trainees

acting outside the scope of their training

program (e.g. acting as admitting officer of

the day) will be reported under the

provisions of paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) The Director of the facility at

which the claim arose has the primary

responsibility for submitting the report

to the National Practitioner Data Bank

and for providing a copy to the

practitioner, to the State Licensing

Board in each State where the

practitioner holds a license, and to the

State Licensing Board in which the

facility is located. However, the Chief

Patient Care Services Officer is also

authorized to submit the report to the

National Practitioner Data Bank and

provide copies to the practitioner and

State Licensing Boards in cases where

the Chief Patient Care Services Officer

deems it appropriate to do so.

§ 46.4 Clinical privileges actions reporting.

(a) VA will file an adverse action

report with the National Practitioner

Data Bank in accordance with

regulations at 45 CFR part 60, subpart B,

as applicable, regarding any of the

following actions:

(1) An action of a Director after

consideration of a professional review

action that, for a period longer than 30

days, adversely affects (by reducing,

restricting, suspending, revoking, or

failing to renew) the clinical privileges

of a physician or dentist relating to

possible incompetence or improper

professional conduct.

(2) Acceptance of the surrender of

clinical privileges, including the

surrender of clinical privileges inherent

in resignation or retirement, or any

restriction of such privileges by a

physician or dentist either while under

investigation by the health care entity

relating to possible incompetence or

improper professional conduct, or in

return for not conducting such an

investigation or proceeding whether or

not the individual remains in VA

service.

(b) The report specified in paragraph

(a) of this section will provide the

following information—

(1) With respect to the physician or

dentist:

(i) Name;

(ii) Work address;

(iii) Home address, if known;

(iv) Social Security number, if known

(and if obtained in accordance with

section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974);

(v) Date of birth;

(vi) Name of each professional school

attended and year of graduation;

(vii) For each professional license: the

license number, the field of licensure,

and the name of the State in which the

license is held;

(viii) Drug Enforcement

Administration registration number, if

applicable and known;

(ix) A description of the acts or

omissions or other reasons for privilege

loss, or, if known, for surrender; and

(x) Action taken, date action was

made final, length of action and

effective date of the action.

(2) With respect to the VA facility—

(i) Name and address of the reporting

facility; and

(ii) Name, title, and telephone number

of the responsible official submitting the

report.

(c) A copy of the report referred to in

paragraph (a) of this section will also be

filed with the State Licensing Board in

the State(s) in which the practitioner is

licensed and in which the facility is

located. It is intended that the report be

filed within 15 days of the date the

action is made final, that is, subsequent

to any internal (to the facility) appeal.

(d) As soon as practicable after it is

determined that a report shall be filed

with the National Practitioner Data Bank

and State Licensing Boards under

paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) of this section,

VA shall provide written notice to the

practitioner that a report will be filed

with the National Practitioner Data Bank

with a copy to the State Licensing Board

in each State in which the practitioner

is licensed and in the State in which the

facility is located.

Subpart C—National Practitioner Data

Bank Inquiries

§ 46.5 National Practitioner Data Bank

inquiries.

VA will request information from the

National Practitioner Data Bank, in

accordance with the regulations

published at 45 CFR part 60, subpart C,

as applicable, concerning a physician,

dentist, or other licensed health care

practitioner as follows:

(a) At the time a physician, dentist, or

other health care practitioner applies for

a position at VA Central Office, any of

its regional offices, or on the medical

staff, or for clinical privileges at a VA

hospital or other health care entity

operated under the auspice of VA;

(b) No less often than every 2 years

concerning any physician, dentist, or

other health care practitioner who is on

the medical staff or who has clinical

privileges at a VA hospital or other

health care entity operated under the

auspice of VA; and

(c) At other times pursuant to VA

policy and needs and consistent with

the Act and Department of Health and

Human Services Regulations (45 CFR

part 60).

Subpart D—Miscellaneous

§ 46.6 Medical quality assurance records

confidentiality.

Note that medical quality assurance

records that are confidential and

privileged under the provisions of 38

U.S.C. 5705 may not be used as

evidence for reporting individuals to the

National Practitioner Data Bank.

§ 46.7 Prohibitions concerning

negotiations.

Reporting under this part (including

the submission of copies) may not be

the subject of negotiation in any

settlement agreement, employee action,

legal proceedings, or any other

negotiated settlement.

§ 46.8 Independent contractors.

Independent contractors acting on

behalf of the Department of Veterans

Affairs are subject to the National

Practitioner Data Bank reporting

provisions of this part. In the following

circumstances, VA will provide the

contractor with notice that a report of a

clinical privileges action will be filed

with the National Practitioner Data Bank

with a copy with the State Licensing

Board in the State(s) in which the

contractor is licensed and in which the

facility is located: where VA terminates

a contract for possible incompetence or

improper professional conduct, thereby

automatically revoking the contractor’s

clinical privileges, or where the

contractor terminates the contract,

thereby surrendering clinical privileges,

either while under investigation relating

to possible incompetence or improper

professional conduct or in return for not

conducting such an investigation or

proceeding.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5705)

[FR Doc. 01–13989 Filed 6–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 242–0281; FRL–6990–8]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Imperial County

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

30146 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited

approval and limited disapproval of a

revision to the Imperial County Air

Pollution Control District (ICAPCD)

portion of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP). This

revision concerns the control of

emissions from sulfur compounds. We

are proposing action on a local rule that

regulates these emissions under the

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA

or the Act). We are taking comments on

this proposal and plan to follow with a

final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by

July 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted SIP revision and EPA’s

technical support document (TSD) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted SIP revision at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Imperial County Air Pollution Control

District, 150 South 9th Street, El

Centro, CA 92243–2801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted

rule revision?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action.

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation

criteria?

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

D. Proposed action and public comment.

III. Background information.

A. Why was this rule submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this

proposal with the date that it was

adopted by the local air agency and

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB).

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

CAPCD ............................................................ 405 Sulfur Compounds Emission Standards, Limitations.09/14/99 05/26/00

On October 6, 2000, this rule

submittal was found to meet the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51

Appendix V, which must be met before

formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of This

Rule?

EPA approved a version of Rule 405

into the SIP on August 11, 1978.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted

Rule Revision?

ICAPCD Rule 405 includes the

following significant changes from the

current SIP:

• The effluent process gas from sulfur

recovery units, sulfuric acid units, and

fuel burning equipment shall not exceed

500 ppm by volume of sulfur

compounds calculated as sulfur dioxide;

or 200 lbs. per hour of sulfur

compounds calculated as sulfur dioxide.

Additionally, sulfur recovery units shall

not discharge more than 10 ppm by

volume of hydrogen sulfide.

• A person shall not burn any gaseous

fuel containing sulfur compounds in

excess of 50 grains per 100 cubic feet of

gaseous fuel, calculated as hydrogen

sulfide at standard conditions; or a

sulfur content in excess of 0.5 percent

by weight.

• The use of non-complying fuel may

be allowed with approval where process

conditions or control equipment will

reduce emissions at a level equal to or

less than emissions associated with the

use of complying fuel.

• Several test methods are included

to determine compliance. The TSD has

more information about this rule.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

Generally, SIP rules for SO2 must be

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the

Act) and must not relax existing

requirements (see sections 110(l) and

193). ICAPCD is listed as being

attainment for the national ambient air

quality standards (see 40 CFR 81) for

sulfur dioxide (SO2). Therefore, for

purposes of controlling SO2, Rule 405

needs only to comply with the general

provisions of Section 110 of the Act.

Guidance and policy documents that

we used to define specific enforceability

requirements include the following:

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations;

Clarification to Appendix D of

November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of

availability published in the May 25,

1988 Federal Register.

2. ‘‘SO2 Guideline Document,’’ EPA–

452/R–94–008.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

This rule improves the SIP by

establishing requirements for sulfur

emissions and listing the appropriate

test methods. This rule is largely

consistent with the relevant policy and

guidance regarding enforceability. One

deficiency that does not meet the

evaluation criteria summarized below

and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What Is the Rule Deficiency?

This rule lacks recordkeeping

requirements for sources subject to the

rule and prevents full approval of the

SIP revision.

D. Proposed Action and Public

Comment

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing

a limited approval of the submitted rule

to improve the SIP. If finalized, this

action would incorporate the submitted

rule into the SIP, including the

identified deficiency. This approval is

limited because EPA is simultaneously

proposing a limited disapproval of the

rule under section 110(k)(3). If this

disapproval is finalized, sanctions will

be not be imposed under section 179

because this an attainment area and not

a required submittal. Note that the

submitted rule has been adopted by the

ICAPCD, and EPA’s final limited

disapproval would not prevent the local

agency from enforcing it.

We will accept comments from the

public on the proposed limited approval

and limited disapproval for the next 30

days.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30147

III. Background Information

A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

Sulfur dioxide is formed by the

combustion of fuels containing sulfur

compounds and causes harm to human

health and the environment. This rule is

designed to reduce SO2 emissions.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Equal

Opportunity 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Equal

Opportunity 13045 because it does not

involve decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Equal Opportunity 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Equal Opportunity 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely acts on a state rule implementing

a federal standard, and does not alter

the relationship or the distribution of

power and responsibilities established

in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes.’’

This proposed rule does not have

tribal implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on tribal

governments, on the relationship

between the Federal government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal government and Indian tribes,

as specified in Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not

apply to this rule. In the spirit of

Executive Order 13175, and consistent

with EPA policy to promote

communications between EPA and

tribal governments, EPA specifically

solicits additional comment on this

proposed rule from tribal officials.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This proposed rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply act on requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

EPA’s proposed disapproval of the

state request under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small

entities. Any pre-existing federal

requirements remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the

state submittal does not affect state

enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

30148 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

proposed action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This proposed Federal

action acts on pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

E. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to today’s proposed action

because it does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Jane Diamond,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–14082 Filed 6–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Availability of a

Genetics Study for the Status Review

of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in the

Western United States and Reopening

of Comment Period

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability and

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), in

conjunction with the United States

Geological Service (USGS), announce

the availability of a genetics study

entitled the ‘‘Taxonomic and

Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU)

Status of Western Yellow-billed

Cuckoos (Coccyzus americanus).’’ This

study, contracted by both agencies, was

prepared by Dr. Robert Fleischer of the

National Zoological Park, Smithsonian

Institute, Washington DC.

We are also providing notice of the

reopening of the comment period for the

12-month finding on a petition to list

this species as endangered to allow all

interested parties to comment

simultaneously on the 90-day petition

and study. Comments previously

submitted need not be resubmitted as

they will be incorporated into the public

record as part of this reopened comment

period, and will be fully considered in

the 12-month petition finding.

DATES: We will accept public comments

until June 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review

the study may receive a copy by

contacting the Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way,

Room W–2605, Sacramento, California

95825. Written comments and

information should be submitted to the

Field Supervisor at the address above.

For electronic mail address and further

instructions on commenting, refer to the

Public Comments Solicited section of

this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dwight Harvey or Stephanie Brady at

the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office, at the above address (telephone

916/414–6600).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 17, 2000, we published

in the Federal Register a 90-day finding

on a petition to list the yellow-billed

cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) as

endangered, pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (65 FR 8104).

We determined that the petition

presented substantial information that

the listing of the yellow-billed cuckoo

may be warranted, and initiated a status

review which will result in a 12-month

finding at the conclusion of the review.

The information presented suggested

that the yellow-billed cuckoo may be

endangered in a significant portion of its

range (i.e., the western United States),

and that the western United States

represents the range of a valid

subspecies, termed the western yellowbilled cuckoo. In our 90-day petition

finding, while we determined that the

listing of the yellow-billed cuckoo may

be warranted, the taxonomy of the

species is unclear.

To clarify the validity and range of a

western subspecies, the Service and

USGS solicited proposals for a genetic

analysis throughout the species

breeding range in the United States and

Mexico. We selected and funded a

proposal submitted by Dr. Robert

Fleischer of the Smithsonian Institution

from a total of five proposals. We

received the final genetics study

prepared by Dr. Fleischer on April 24,

2001.

Public Comments Solicited

We will accept written comments and

information during this reopened

comment period. If you wish to

comment, you may submit your

comments and materials by any of

several methods:

(1) You may submit written comments

and information to the Field Supervisor,

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,

2800 Cottage Way, Room W–2605,

Sacramento, California 95825.

(2) You may send comments by

electronic mail (e-mail) to:

FW1YBC@fws.gov. If you submit

comments by e-mail, please submit

them as an ASCII file and avoid the use

of special characters and any form of

encryption. Please also include your

name and return address in your e-mail

message. If you do not receive a

conformation from the system that we

have received your e-mail message,

contact us directly by calling our

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at

telephone number 916/414–6600.

(3) You may hand-deliver comments

to our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office at the address given above.

Comments and materials received, as

well as supporting documentation used

in preparation of the 12-month petition

finding to list the yellow-billed cuckoo,

will be available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the address listed under (1)

above. Copies of the study and the 90-

day petition finding are available by

writing to the Field Supervisor at the

address under (1) above.

Author(s)

The primary authors of this notice are

Stephanie Brady (see ADDRESSES

section), and Barbara Behan, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Regional Office,

911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon

97232.

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq..