Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40303 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–1002 FRL–9430–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Modifications to Indiana Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and NonAttainment New Source Review Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

Indiana’s modifications to its Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) rules. The amendments include 

grammatical changes, corrections to 

numbering, addition of definitions 

consistent with Federal PSD and NNSR 

regulations, and removal of references to 

provisions which were vacated in the 

Federal rules. Indiana submitted these 

rule revisions for approval on November 

24, 2010. They are consistent with the 

current Federal PSD and NNSR 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–1002, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charmagne Ackerman, Environmental 

Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0448, 

ackerman.charmagne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

State Implementation Plan submittal as 

a direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17037 Filed 7–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0396; FRL–9432–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from 

boiler, steam generators and process 

heaters larger than 2 MMBtu/hour that 

are not subject to RECLAIM. We are 

proposing action on local rules that 

regulate these emission sources 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 

August 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0396, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

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

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40304 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations to further 

Improve the Rules 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD ...................................... 1146 Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters.

09/05/08 07/20/10 

SCAQMD ...................................... 1146.1 Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Small Industrial, Institutional, 

and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters.

09/05/08 07/20/10 

On August 25, 2010, the submittal for 

SCAQMD Rules 1146 and 1146.1 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 these 

rules? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 1146 into the SIP on April 8, 2008 

(67 FR 16640) and of Rule 1146.1 on 

September 6, 1995 (60 FR 46220). 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. Rule 1146 

limits NOX and carbon monoxide (CO) 

emissions from boilers, steam generators 

and process heaters with a total rated 

heat input larger than 5 MMBtu/hour. 

Rule 1146.1 limits NOX and CO 

emissions from boilers, steam generators 

and process heaters with a total rated 

heat input larger than 2 MMBtu/hour 

and less than 5 MMBtu/hour. EPA’s 

technical support documents (TSD) 

have more information about these 

rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source in certain 

ozone nonattainment areas (see sections 

182(b)(2) and 182(f)), must not interfere 

with any applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress (RFP) or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act (CAA 

110(l)) or modify, in a nonattainment 

area, any SIP-approved control 

requirement in effect before November 

15, 1990 (CAA 193). Section 172(c)(1) of 

the Act also requires implementation of 

all reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) as expeditiously as 

practicable in nonattainment areas. 

Because the area regulated by SCAQMD 

is designated nonattainment for the fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and designated and classified 

as extreme nonattainment for the ozone 

NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.305), Rules 1146 

and 1146.1 must ensure RACT. 

Additionally, the RACM requirement in 

CAA section 172(c)(1) applies to this 

area. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, RACT 

and RACM requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule,’’ 72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007. 

5. ‘‘Credible Evidence Revisions; 

Final Rule,’’ 62 FR 8314, February 24, 

1997. 

6. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology and Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology 

for Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters,’’ CARB, July 18, 

1991. 

7. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

(ICI) Boilers’’, U.S. EPA, March 1994. 

8. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Utility 

Boilers’’, U.S. EPA, March 1994. 

9. ‘‘Review of State Implementation 

Plans and Revisions for Enforceability 

and Legal Sufficiency’’, Memorandum 

from J. Craig Potter, Thomas L. Adams 

Jr., Francis S. Blake, U.S. EPA, 

September 23, 1987. 

10. ‘‘State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess 

Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup 

and Shutdown’’, Memorandum from 

Steven A. Herman, Assistant 

Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, and Robert 

Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, September 20, 1999. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

Rules 1146 and 1146.1 improve the 

SIP by establishing more stringent 

emission limits. The rules are largely 

consistent with the relevant policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

RACT and SIP relaxations. We believe 

that in implementing RACT for NOX, 

the submitted rules also satisfy RACM 

requirements for NOX as a PM2.5

precursor. Rule provisions which do not 

meet the evaluation criteria are 

summarized below and discussed 

further in the TSD. 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

These provisions in Rule 1146 

conflict with section 110 and part D of 

the Act and prevent full approval of the 

SIP revision. Section (d)(8) and Section 

(d)(10) preclude the use of both source 

test data and portable analyzers test 

results from being used to prove a 

violation of the emission standard. This 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40305 

contradicts CAA requirements for 

enforceability and the national credible 

evidence rule from 1997 (62 FR 8314). 

These provisions in Rule 1146.1 

conflict with section 110 and part D of 

the Act and prevent full approval of the 

SIP revision. Section (d)(7) and Section 

(d)(9) preclude the use of both source 

test data and portable analyzers test 

results from being used to prove a 

violation of the emission standard. This 

contradicts CAA requirements for 

enforceability and the national credible 

evidence rule from 1997 (62 FR 8314). 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rules. 

E. 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 

rules to improve the SIP. If finalized, 

this action would incorporate the 

submitted rules into the SIP, including 

those provisions identified as deficient. 

This approval is limited because EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval of the rules under sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a). The South Coast 

AQMD has included these rules in the 

demonstration, required by CAA section 

172(c)(1), that its SIP provides for the 

implementation of RACM as necessary 

to attain the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. 

While we are proposing to find that the 

rules provide RACM level controls, we 

are also proposing to find that certain 

provisions of the rules raise 

enforcement concerns. Because of these 

concerns and the District’s inclusion of 

these rules in its CAA-required RACM 

demonstration, if this disapproval is 

finalized, sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act unless EPA 

approves subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months of the disapproval. These 

sanctions would be imposed according 

to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval 

would also trigger the 2-year clock for 

the Federal implementation plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c). Note 

that the submitted rules have been 

adopted by the SCAQMD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval would not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

them. The limited disapproval also 

would not prevent any portion of the 

rules from being incorporated by 

reference into the Federally enforceable 

SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA 

memo found at: http://www.epa.gov/

nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/pdf/memo-s.pdf. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. 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 rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals or 

disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

do not create any new requirements but 

simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

proposed Federal SIP limited approval/ 

limited disapproval 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. 

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 Reform Act 

Under sections 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 the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

proposed 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 Federal action proposes to approve 

and disapprove 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. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 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 

Executive Order 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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40306 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

This 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 proposes to approve or 

disapprove State rules 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 rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 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.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

Tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves state rules implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. 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. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: June 21, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17262 Filed 7–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 382 and 391 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2011–0073] 

RIN 2126–AB35 

Harmonizing Schedule I Drug 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

proposes to amend the physical 

qualifications for drivers and the 

instructions for the medical 

examination report to clarify that 

drivers may not use Schedule I drugs 

and be qualified to drive commercial 

motor vehicles under any 

circumstances. The proposal also 

harmonizes FMCSA’s provisions 

regarding pre-employment and returnto-duty test refusals with corresponding 

Department of Transportation (DOT)- 

wide provisions. Finally, the proposal 

corrects inaccurate uses of the term 

‘‘actual knowledge.’’ 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be submitted on or before 

September 6, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number FMCSA– 

2011–0073 using any one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Angela Ward, Nurse 

Consultant, Medical Programs Office, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, telephone: 202–366– 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS