39852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This final rule 

would not affect any small entities. 

Only VA beneficiaries could be directly 

affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), this final rule is exempt from the 

initial and final regulatory flexibility 

analysis requirements of sections 603 

and 604. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), as any regulatory action that is 

likely to result in a rule that may: (1) 

Have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities; 

(2) create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this final rule have been 

examined, and it has been determined 

to be a significant regulatory action 

under the Executive Order because it is 

likely to result in a rule that will raise 

novel legal or policy issues arising out 

of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

the Executive Order. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

year. This final rule would have no such 

effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers and Titles 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program numbers and titles 

for this rule are 64.109, Veterans 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Disability and 64.110, Veterans 

Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Death. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. John 

R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on May 6, 2010, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive 

materials, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Dated: July 7, 2010. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director, Regulation Policy and Management. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 3 as 

follows: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, 

and Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart A, continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 3.304 as follows. 

■ a. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (f). 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (f)(3) and 

(f)(4) as paragraphs (f)(4) and (f)(5), 

respectively. 

■ c. Add new paragraph (f)(3). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 3.304 Direct service connection; wartime 

and peacetime. 

* * * * * 

(f) Posttraumatic stress disorder. 

Service connection for posttraumatic 

stress disorder requires medical 

evidence diagnosing the condition in 

accordance with § 4.125(a) of this 

chapter; a link, established by medical 

evidence, between current symptoms 

and an in-service stressor; and credible 

supporting evidence that the claimed inservice stressor occurred. The following 

provisions apply to claims for service 

connection of posttraumatic stress 

disorder diagnosed during service or 

based on the specified type of claimed 

stressor: 

* * * * * 

(3) If a stressor claimed by a veteran 

is related to the veteran’s fear of hostile 

military or terrorist activity and a VA 

psychiatrist or psychologist, or a 

psychiatrist or psychologist with whom 

VA has contracted, confirms that the 

claimed stressor is adequate to support 

a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress 

disorder and that the veteran’s 

symptoms are related to the claimed 

stressor, in the absence of clear and 

convincing evidence to the contrary, 

and provided the claimed stressor is 

consistent with the places, types, and 

circumstances of the veteran’s service, 

the veteran’s lay testimony alone may 

establish the occurrence of the claimed 

in-service stressor. For purposes of this 

paragraph, ‘‘fear of hostile military or 

terrorist activity’’ means that a veteran 

experienced, witnessed, or was 

confronted with an event or 

circumstance that involved actual or 

threatened death or serious injury, or a 

threat to the physical integrity of the 

veteran or others, such as from an actual 

or potential improvised explosive 

device; vehicle-imbedded explosive 

device; incoming artillery, rocket, or 

mortar fire; grenade; small arms fire, 

including suspected sniper fire; or 

attack upon friendly military aircraft, 

and the veteran’s response to the event 

or circumstance involved a 

psychological or psycho-physiological 

state of fear, helplessness, or horror. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–16885 Filed 7–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 355 and 370 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1998–0002; FRL–9168–7] 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act; Guidance on 

Reporting Options for Sections 311 

and 312 and Interpretations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Guidance and interpretations. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 39853 

1The regulations were first promulgated in 1987 

and amended in 1990, 1999 and 2008. See Federal 

Register Notices April 22, 1987 (52 FR 13378), 

October 15, 1987 (52 FR 38344), February 11, 1999 

(64 FR 7031), July 26, 1990 (55 FR 30632) and 

November 3, 2008 (73 FR 65452). 

SUMMARY: In this document, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 

or the Agency) is providing guidance on 

various reporting options that States and 

local agencies may choose in 

implementing sections 311 and 312 of 

the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 

(EPCRA). In addition, the Agency is also 

providing some new interpretations and 

revising some existing ones to help 

facilities comply with certain of the 

requirements under EPCRA. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1998–0002. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the 

Superfund Docket is (202) 566–0276. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy 

Jacob, Office of Emergency 

Management, Mail Code 5104A, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8019; fax number: 

(202) 564–2620; e-mail address: 

jacob.sicy@epa.gov. Also, you may 

contact the Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, 

RMP and Oil Information Center at (800) 

424–9346 or (703) 412–9810 (in the 

Washington, DC metropolitan area). The 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

(TDD) number is (800) 553–7672 or 

(703) 412–3323 (in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area). You may wish to 

visit the Office of Emergency 

Management (OEM) Internet site at 

http://www.epa.gov/emergencies. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Here are 

the contents of the document: 

I. Who is affected by this guidance? 

II. What is the background of this guidance? 

A. Statutory 

B. Regulations and Guidance 

III. What are the various reporting options for 

implementing Sections 311 and 312 of 

EPCRA? 

A. UST Forms To Fulfill the Requirements 

for Tier I Information Under EPCRA 

Section 312 

B. Partnership Programs for Joint Access to 

Information and Streamlined Submission 

of EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 

Reporting 

C. Electronic Submittal for EPCRA Section 

312 Reporting 

D. Incorporation of Previous Submissions 

Into EPCRA Section 312 Reporting 

E. Electronic Access to Facility MSDS 

Database 

F. EPCRA Section 312 Reporting To Fulfill 

Reporting Requirements Under Section 

311 

IV. Interpretations. 

A. Emergency Release Notification 

B. Hazardous Chemical Exemption for 

Solids Under EPCRA Section 311(e)(2) 

I. Who is affected by this guidance? 

This guidance is provided to States 

and local agencies on various reporting 

options that they may choose for 

implementing sections 311 and 312 of 

the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA). Entities that would be affected 

by this guidance are those organizations 

and facilities subject to EPCRA and its 

implementing regulations found in 40 

CFR parts 355 and 370. 

II. What is the background of this 

guidance? 

A. Statutory 

EPCRA, which was enacted as Title III 

of the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99– 

499), (SARA) Title III, establishes 

authorities for emergency planning and 

preparedness, emergency release 

notification, community right-to-know 

reporting, and toxic chemical release 

reporting. It is intended to encourage 

State and local planning and 

preparedness for releases of extremely 

hazardous substances (EHSs) and to 

provide the public, local agencies, fire 

departments, and other emergency 

officials with information concerning 

potential chemical risks in their 

communities. 

Section 302 of EPCRA requires 

facilities to notify their State Emergency 

Response Commission (SERC) of any 

EHS present at their site above its 

threshold planning quantity (TPQ). This 

information is then used by the Local 

Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) 

to develop emergency response plans 

for the community. The implementing 

regulations, EHSs and their TPQs are 

codified in 40 CFR part 355. 

Section 304 of EPCRA requires 

facilities to notify their SERC and the 

community emergency coordinator for 

the LEPC of any release of an EHS or a 

CERCLA hazardous substance above its 

reportable quantity (RQ). The RQs for 

the CERCLA hazardous substances are 

in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302. The 

implementing regulations for section 

304 of EPCRA are codified in 40 CFR 

part 355. 

Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA 

require facilities to submit information 

on hazardous chemicals at their sites 

above the threshold quantities. The 

information on hazardous chemicals is 

submitted to the SERC, LEPC and the 

local fire department. The implementing 

regulations for sections 311 and 312 are 

codified in 40 CFR part 370. 

B. Regulations and Guidance 

On June 8, 1998, EPA published a 

proposed rule (63 FR 31268) to 

streamline the reporting requirements 

under EPCRA.1 Specifically, EPA 

proposed four major regulatory 

revisions, along with draft guidance to 

provide flexibility to the States and 

local agencies in implementing the 

EPCRA program. The four proposed 

regulatory revisions were: (1) Higher 

threshold levels for reporting gasoline 

and diesel fuel at retail gas stations; (2) 

relief from routine reporting for 

substances with minimal hazards and 

minimal risks; (3) relief from routine 

reporting for sand, gravel and rock salt; 

and (4) ‘‘Other Regulatory Changes,’’ 

such as: Reporting of mixtures; 

removing the Tier I and Tier II inventory 

forms and instructions from the CFR, as 

well as some other revisions to the 

forms and instructions; and some minor 

changes to the emergency planning and 

emergency release notification 

regulations (40 CFR part 355). The 

regulatory provisions for items (1) and 

(4) were finalized on February 11, 1999 

(64 FR 7031) and November 3, 2008 (73 

FR 65452), respectively. The regulatory 

provisions for items (2) and (3) may be 

finalized at a later date. 

In addition to the four regulatory 

revisions, EPA took comment on various 

reporting options to streamline the 

reporting requirements for facilities and 

to reduce the information management 

burden for SERCs, LEPCs and fire 

departments in the form of draft 

guidance in the preamble to the June 8, 

1998 proposed rule. The main objective 

of the draft guidance was to provide 

flexibility to the States and local 

agencies in implementing sections 311 

and 312. In particular, EPA stated that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
39854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2Tier I information provides the general types 

and locations of hazardous chemicals present at the 

facility during the previous calendar year. The Tier 

I information is the minimum information to be 

provided to be in compliance with the inventory 

reporting requirements. If Tier I information is 

reported, the hazardous chemicals must be 

aggregated by hazard categories. There are two 

hazard categories and three physical hazard 

categories for purposes of reporting under Tier I. 

These five hazard categories are defined in 40 CFR 

370.66. 

3Tier II information provides the specific 

amounts and locations of hazardous chemicals 

present at the facility during the previous calendar 

year. 

States may implement any or all of the 

reporting options provided in the 

preamble whether EPA finalized the 

guidance or not. Since the proposed 

rule, many States have adopted at least 

one or two reporting options, such as 

electronic filing via diskettes or on-line 

filing of the Federal reporting form, Tier 

II, or the State equivalent form. States 

were always given the flexibility to 

implement the EPCRA program as 

necessary to meet the goals of EPCRA, 

which is to prepare for and respond to 

releases of EHSs and to provide the 

public with information on potential 

chemical risks in their communities. 

This flexibility includes adding more 

chemicals, setting lower reporting 

thresholds and creating a reporting form 

or format that includes more 

information than is required by the 

Federal reporting requirements. 

EPA did not propose any regulatory 

revisions, but sought comments on 

various reporting options under sections 

311 and 312. The reporting options 

discussed were: (1) The use of 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) forms 

to fulfill the requirements for Tier I 

Information under EPCRA section 312; 

(2) partnership programs for joint access 

to EPCRA sections 311 and 312 

information by SERCs, LEPCs, and fire 

departments; (3) electronic submittal for 

EPCRA section 312 reporting; and (4) 

incorporation of previous submissions 

into EPCRA section 312 reporting. 

These four options, the Agency 

believed, would reduce the information 

management burden for States and local 

agencies, as well as minimize the 

reporting burden for the regulated 

community. (See preamble to the June 8, 

1998 proposed rule for further 

discussion on the various reporting 

options.) 

EPA also suggested a few other 

options to streamline reporting and 

revise some existing regulatory 

interpretations for facilities. These 

additional options, the Agency believed, 

would also reduce the information 

management burden for States and local 

agencies. The options and suggested 

interpretations are: (1) Electronic access 

to a facility’s databases of MSDSs; (2) 

interpretation of the hazardous chemical 

exemption for solids under EPCRA 

sections 311(e)(2); and (3) EPCRA 

section 312 reporting to fulfill the 

reporting requirements under section 

311. (See preamble to the June 8, 1998 

proposed rule for further discussion on 

the various options and suggested 

interpretations.) 

In the June 1998 preamble, EPA also 

defined and took comment on several 

terms or phrases used in the regulations. 

EPA requested comments on whether 

the Agency should provide guidance on 

the meaning of the term ‘‘promptly’’ 

associated with providing notice of any 

changes relevant to emergency planning 

(40 CFR part 355) and the phrase ‘‘as 

soon as practicable’’ associated with 

providing a written follow-up 

emergency notice under the emergency 

release notification requirements (40 

CFR part 355). The Agency did not 

intend to revise the regulatory 

requirements, but only to provide 

guidance for these two terms. However, 

EPA received comments from many 

States and local agencies that the term 

‘‘promptly’’ should be defined in the 

regulations since receiving information 

from facilities on changes relevant to 

emergency planning is crucial in 

developing and/or updating emergency 

response plans. As a result, the Agency 

defined this term in the recent final rule 

published on November 3, 2008 (73 FR 

65452). The requirement added to 40 

CFR 355.20 states that any changes 

relevant to emergency planning must be 

provided to the LEPC within 30 days 

after the changes have occurred. EPA 

will define the phrase, ‘‘as soon as 

practicable’’ associated with providing 

written follow-up emergency notice 

under the emergency release 

notification requirements in this 

guidance. 

III. What are the various reporting 

options for implementing Sections 311 

and 312 of EPCRA? 

EPA requested comments on the draft 

guidance in the preamble to the June 

1998 proposed rule (63 FR 31268) in an 

effort to streamline compliance with the 

reporting requirements. EPA did not 

propose any regulatory changes, but 

sought comments on the options 

provided. The Agency stated in the 1998 

preamble that States and local agencies 

may implement any or all of the options 

regardless of whether EPA issues final 

guidance, provided the approach 

adopted met the statutory and 

regulatory requirements. 

In general, commenters supported 

some of the options provided in the 

draft guidance. However, a few 

commenters stated that the options may 

actually increase compliance costs and 

the risk of non-compliance at companies 

with multiple facilities due to the loss 

of consistency in data management and 

compliance reporting. As noted 

previously, the various reporting 

options under EPCRA sections 311 and 

312 were to provide flexibility to the 

States and local agencies so they may 

implement the program as necessary for 

their community emergency planning 

and response efforts. States may need to 

develop specific methods to manage the 

information provided by facilities 

within their State so that LEPCs can 

develop emergency response plans and 

provide the public with information. 

Thus, States are not required to adopt or 

implement these options. 

The following is a more specific 

discussion of each of the reporting 

options and guidance on implementing 

them. 

A. UST Forms To Fulfill the 

Requirements for Tier I Information 

Under EPCRA Section 312 

At the time of the June 1998 proposal, 

many States were accepting the Tier I 

inventory form, which contains the 

minimum information about hazardous 

chemicals at a facility.2 Only a few 

States required the Tier II inventory 

form, which contains specific 

information about hazardous chemicals 

at the facility.3 To provide flexibility, 

the draft guidance offered States the 

option to allow facilities to use the UST 

form required under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

to comply with the reporting 

requirements under section 312 of 

EPCRA. This option reduces the 

reporting burden for those facilities that 

only have USTs on their site containing 

hazardous chemicals. In most cases, 

these facilities are retail gas stations 

which usually only have USTs that may 

be subject to the reporting requirements 

under sections 311 and 312. At the same 

time, in the June 1998 proposed rule, 

EPA proposed to raise the reporting 

thresholds for gasoline and diesel fuel at 

retail gas stations provided these 

facilities meet certain requirements. 

EPA finalized the higher reporting 

thresholds for gasoline and diesel fuel 

on February 11, 1999 (64 FR 7047). 

A few commenters supported the use 

of the UST form to fulfill the section 312 

requirements, but most opposed it. 

These commenters argued that it would 

be confusing and burdensome for LEPCs 

and fire departments and would make 

electronic filing more difficult. Some of 

these commenters also stated that the 

differences in information and filing 

schedules would make this approach 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 39855 

inappropriate. Other commenters 

argued that EPA’s approach would not 

result in streamlining and that EPA 

should eliminate duplicative reporting, 

not duplicative forms. These 

commenters also questioned the need 

for the approach because most States 

require the Tier II form and the higher 

reporting thresholds for gasoline and 

diesel fuel will remove most of the 

facilities subject to UST reporting from 

Part 370. 

The Tier I inventory form provides 

the minimum information required 

under EPCRA section 312 and its 

implementing regulations. When the 

proposed rule was published in June 

1998, some States were accepting the 

Tier I form. However, all States now 

require facilities to submit a State 

specific form or the Federal Tier II 

inventory form. Therefore, use of the 

UST form as suggested in 1998 may not 

be beneficial for implementing agencies. 

Additionally, EPA expected that the 

UST form would be used instead of the 

Tier I form mainly by retail gas stations 

since they likely only have underground 

storage tanks containing hazardous 

chemicals. Since EPA raised the 

reporting threshold for gasoline and 

diesel fuel stored at retail gas stations on 

February 11, 1999 (64 FR 7047), most 

retail gas stations may not need to 

report. Therefore, the Agency’s guidance 

is that the use of the UST form as a 

replacement of the Tier I form for 

reporting under EPCRA section 312 is 

not recommended. 

B. Partnership Programs for Joint Access 

to Information and Streamlined 

Submission of EPCRA Sections 311 and 

312 Reporting 

To streamline the submission process, 

EPA suggested in the draft guidance that 

SERCs, LEPCs, and fire departments 

could partner together and agree that 

one agency would receive the section 

311 and 312 reporting information and 

make it available electronically to the 

others. Although the statute and its 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 

part 370 state that facilities are required 

to submit their MSDSs or chemical lists 

under section 311 of EPCRA and the 

Tier I or Tier II form to their SERC, 

LEPC and the local fire department, EPA 

believed the single point submission 

option satisfies the intent of the statute 

and its implementing regulations. If 

implementing agencies choose to use 

this option, EPA stated that they should 

ensure that all statutory and regulatory 

requirements are met, especially the 

deadline for submission. 

Many commenters supported the idea 

of partnerships to allow filing of 

information to a single point. Other 

commenters, while supporting this 

approach, cited problems. For example, 

many LEPCs and fire departments do 

not have access to computers or the 

Internet. A few commenters also stated 

that they provide compliance assistance 

to facilities and a centralized 

compliance point would take away this 

working relationship. 

The Agency suggested the single point 

submission to reduce the burden on the 

regulated community, as well as reduce 

information management burden on 

some implementing agencies. For 

example, a SERC could develop a 

reporting format for facilities to submit 

the Tier II form or an equivalent State 

form. The SERC could collect the 

information and then make it 

immediately available electronically to 

LEPCs and fire departments on-line. 

Electronic access eliminates searching 

through hundreds of papers during an 

emergency situation. If LEPCs and/or 

fire departments do not have the 

capability to access the information online, then the SERC could provide the 

information to these entities on 

diskettes or in hard copy. 

At the time of the June 1998 proposed 

rule, only a few States were accepting 

the Tier II form or the State form 

electronically. Today, many States have 

developed their own electronic 

reporting system or are using EPA’s Tier 

II reporting system (Tier2 Submit). Most 

of these States accept section 312 

reports on-line. EPA encourages these 

States to explore ways to provide their 

LEPCs and fire departments joint access 

to the information. EPA also expects 

that today most LEPCs and fire 

departments can accept or access 

section 312 reports electronically. 

EPA realizes that a lack of funding 

may limit a State’s capability to set up 

a partnership or to develop database 

systems and access to information. 

Since the EPCRA program has matured 

over the past ten years, many States 

have established program funding 

mechanisms through reporting fee 

systems, Federal grants, etc. EPA 

encourages States to use these 

mechanisms to provide the necessary 

resources to develop a database system 

and access to information for LEPCs and 

fire departments. 

Although States have the flexibility to 

choose any method for submittal and 

joint access to information, that method 

must meet the March 1 reporting 

deadline specified in the statute. To 

ensure this deadline is met, States may 

want to revise their right-to-know 

program regulations to require facilities 

to submit the Tier II form or State 

equivalent before March 1 to allow 

enough time for processing and access 

by LEPCs and fire departments by 

March 1. If States choose to implement 

a partnership program for sharing of 

information, we believe that a formal 

agreement is necessary between the 

three entities. States should then notify 

the facilities about this agreement and 

the new submission process. That is, 

States should inform the facilities that 

they can submit their section 312 report 

to the SERC and it will provide access 

to the LEPC and the fire department. 

C. Electronic Submittal for EPCRA 

Section 312 Reporting 

Since the beginning of EPCRA, the 

Agency encouraged States to implement 

the EPCRA program as necessary to 

meet its goals: to prepare for and 

respond to emergency releases of 

extremely hazardous substances and 

provide information to the public on 

potential chemical risks in their 

communities. States have the flexibility 

to tailor the program to their needs by 

adding chemicals or setting lower 

reporting thresholds, etc. Over the years, 

States have reported that their biggest 

burden is handling thousands of paper 

Tier I/II form submissions. Some States 

requested that they be allowed to create 

an electronic reporting format for 

facilities to use to comply with EPCRA 

section 312. Electronic reporting would 

reduce the burden on facilities since 

they need to enter most of their 

information on the Tier II form only in 

the first year and then revise it as 

needed in subsequent years. As 

discussed in the previous section, 

electronic reporting makes joint access 

easier. 

Many commenters supported 

electronic submittals, but noted that it 

would not be practical for many LEPCs, 

fire departments, and smaller facilities 

since they likely don’t have the 

capability. Other commenters opposed 

the idea because of the financial burden 

on State and local agencies. Still other 

commenters supported electronic 

reporting and provided ideas for 

certification of electronic submissions. 

The Agency understands the concerns 

raised by commenters on electronic 

reporting. Prior to the June 1998 

proposed rule, many States and local 

agencies requested that the Agency 

develop an electronic reporting system 

to reduce the burden of information 

management at the State and local level. 

Some State and local agencies asked 

that they be allowed to develop their 

own electronic reporting format. This is 

why EPA suggested in the draft 

guidance that States and local agencies 

have the flexibility to choose any 

reporting options provided the statutory 

and regulatory requirements are met. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
39856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA has since developed and offered 

States an electronic reporting system— 

Tier2 Submit electronic reporting 

software. Many States also have created 

electronic reporting formats and require 

on-line reporting or submission via 

diskettes. Only a few States accept 

paper Tier II report submissions. EPA 

recognizes that there may be facilities 

that do not have the capability to submit 

Tier II forms electronically. EPA 

encourages States and local agencies to 

allow these facilities to submit paper 

copies of their Tier II report, unless the 

States make arrangements to collect and 

provide the data to LEPCs and the fire 

departments. 

Recently, many States requested 

guidance on electronic signatures and 

certification of electronically submitted 

information. Currently, the regulations 

in part 370 require the facility owner or 

operator (or the officially designated 

representative of the owner or operator) 

submit a certification statement with 

their hazardous chemical inventory 

form containing an original signature 

that the information submitted is true, 

accurate and complete. The June 8, 1998 

draft guidance stated that the States and 

local agencies may continue to develop 

their own reporting format, including 

electronic reporting as long as the 

information required includes the 

information required by the statute and 

its implementing regulations and that 

certification is required regardless of the 

format in which it is submitted. The 

draft guidance also stated that if States 

and local officials allow section 312 

reporting information to be submitted 

via the Internet, it will be necessary for 

the facility owner or operator or its 

officially designated representative to 

certify the information submitted. 

At the time the draft guidance was 

published in June 1998 Federal 

Register, on-line submittal and 

certification options were not available 

for reporting under section 312. 

Recently, States and the regulated 

community requested that EPA provide 

guidance on how the original signature 

requirement stated in 40 CFR 370.41 

and 370.42 could be met if facilities 

submit the hazardous chemical 

inventory form on-line. 

EPA advises States and the regulated 

community that for electronic section 

312 reporting, the original signature as 

required by 40 CFR part 370 may be 

provided on paper (i.e. a ‘‘wet’’ 

signature) or by electronic certification 

according to requirements established 

by the State. (Memorandum from Debbie 

Dietrich to EPA Regional Superfund 

Managers on Electronic Reporting and 

Signature under EPCRA Section 312, 

July 30, 2009. This memorandum is 

available on the Agency’s Web Site at 

http://www.epa.gov/emergencies). States 

have the flexibility to use any system for 

collecting chemical inventory 

information under section 312 and to 

establish the means to ensure the 

information is true, accurate, and 

complete so they may effectively and 

efficiently manage chemical risks and 

provide information to the public. 

Facilities that submit the hazardous 

chemical inventory form and 

certification on-line, do not need to also 

submit a certification statement on 

paper unless the State and local 

agencies require it. EPA encourages 

facility owners and operators to contact 

their State and local agencies for the 

reporting requirements in each State. 

The regulated community and the 

implementing agencies may visit the 

Agency’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/emergencies for Federal 

reporting requirements and access to 

each of the State Web sites. 

D. Incorporation of Previous 

Submissions Into EPCRA Section 312 

Reporting 

Under EPCRA section 312, facilities 

are required to submit a Tier I form or, 

if requested, a Tier II form annually to 

the SERC, LEPC and the fire department 

even though the information submitted 

in a previous year has not changed. To 

reduce the burden on facilities that have 

no changes in their data from the 

previous year’s submission, EPA 

discussed several options in the June 

1998 preamble for meeting the 

requirements under EPCRA section 312 

without having to re-create the 

information. 

One approach suggested in the draft 

guidance would be for the facility to 

simply reference and attach a copy of 

the unchanged information from the 

previous year’s submittal to the current 

year’s submission. This would mean 

that the facility would have to retain a 

copy of its previous submission. A 

second approach would be for the 

facility to reference previous submittals 

already retained by the SERC, LEPC and 

local fire department. A third approach 

would require reporting only if the 

information changed. 

Some commenters opposed the option 

to require reporting only when changes 

have occurred. Few commenters 

supported the idea of simply referencing 

and/or attaching a copy of the 

unchanged information. They stated this 

approach could increase the burden on 

implementing agencies because they 

would need to maintain and reference 

previous years’ files. These commenters 

also stated that facilities probably would 

forget to report and could consider some 

changes unimportant. 

At the time the various approaches 

were discussed in the preamble to the 

June 1998 proposal, States did not have 

electronic reporting methods in place. 

Now that many States have established 

electronic reporting or are using the 

Tier2 Submit software developed by 

EPA, the burden for facilities to recreate information on paper does not 

exist for most facilities. Facilities can 

store their Tier II report electronically 

and revise as needed for subsequent 

years. Therefore, EPA is no longer 

suggesting that facilities be allowed to 

incorporate previous submissions as 

part of the EPCRA section 312 reporting 

requirement since it is unlikely to 

reduce the reporting burden. However, 

States that still require submission of a 

facility’s Tier II or State equivalent 

forms on paper may still consider 

options for incorporation of previous 

submissions to reduce the paperwork 

burden. 

E. Electronic Access to Facility MSDS 

Database 

Some facilities maintain an electronic 

database of MSDSs for the hazardous 

chemicals on their site. EPA requested 

comments whether a facility should be 

allowed to give the SERC, LEPC and the 

local fire department electronic access 

to its MSDS database instead of actually 

submitting the MSDSs to the three 

entities as required under EPCRA 

section 311. 

A few commenters supported this 

option and some asked for development 

of a central database that would include 

MSDSs from all facilities. However, 

other commenters opposed the 

approach for a number of reasons, such 

as it would raise concerns about the 

security of a company’s computer 

systems, it would not meet the 

requirements of the statute, as well as 

the fact that many LEPCs and fire 

departments do not have the capability 

to access databases electronically. Still 

other commenters stated that access 

would need to be assured even when 

power outages occur. 

Submission of MSDSs for hazardous 

chemicals present at a facility to the 

SERC, LEPC and the fire department is 

a statutory requirement. EPA has 

codified this requirement in 40 CFR part 

370. The Agency suggested electronic 

submission of MSDSs or providing 

access to a facility’s MSDS database to 

reduce the burden on the regulated 

community and reduce the information 

management burden on implementing 

agencies. However, such an approach 

does raise a number of issues, including 

whether it would meet the statutory 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 39857 

requirements under EPCRA section 311. 

Therefore, the Agency is no longer 

recommending such an approach in 

place of the submission of the MSDS 

forms for hazardous chemicals at the 

facility to the SERC, LEPC and fire 

departments, except as discussed 

elsewhere in today’s notice. 

F. EPCRA Section 312 Reporting To 

Fulfill Reporting Requirements Under 

Section 311 

EPA’s draft guidance suggested 

another approach to reduce the 

reporting requirements for facilities. 

Specifically, the Agency sought 

comments on whether the section 312 

reporting requirement can fulfill the 

section 311 reporting requirements 

provided that the section 312 reporting 

conforms to the required time frame and 

that the Tier II information is accurate 

and complete. Since reporting under 

both sections 311 and 312 are submitted 

to the SERC, LEPC and the fire 

department, this approach should not 

pose any additional burden on these 

entities. 

Section 311 of EPCRA and its 

implementing regulations require the 

submission of MSDSs or a list of 

hazardous chemicals to the SERC, LEPC, 

and fire department within three 

months after becoming subject to the 

reporting requirements, or within three 

months after discovery of significant 

new information concerning a 

hazardous chemical that has already 

been reported, or within 30 days of a 

request from the SERC, LEPC or fire 

department. Section 312 of EPCRA 

requires a submission of a Tier I (or Tier 

II) form to these three entities by March 

1 of each year. Since the section 312 

report is due by March 1, for 

information from the previous calendar 

year, some facilities may submit their 

Tier I/II form between January 1 and 

March 1. Therefore, Section 312 could 

be used to meet the section 311 

reporting requirements for those 

facilities that become subject to 

reporting under section 311, or discover 

significant new information concerning 

a hazardous chemical between October 

1 and December 31 of any given 

calendar year. 

All but one commenter who 

addressed this issue supported EPA’s 

draft guidance regarding this matter. 

Many States indicated they already use 

this approach and find that it works 

well allowing them to utilize its 

resources in a more efficient manner. 

One commenter objected because it 

would require reprogramming of 

company systems. 

After reviewing the comments, the 

Agency, recognizing that some States 

are already implementing this reporting 

option, is retaining this option in this 

final guidance. However, those States 

that choose to implement or are already 

implementing this reporting option will 

need to require facilities to submit a 

section 312 report three months after 

acquiring a new chemical in order to be 

in compliance with the section 311 

reporting requirements. 

IV. Interpretations 

A. Emergency Release Notification 

In addition to providing draft 

guidance to the implementing agencies 

for various reporting options under 

EPCRA section 312, EPA also provided 

draft guidance to the regulated 

community on defining certain terms 

and phrases used in the regulations. In 

the June 1998 proposed rule, EPA 

requested comments on the Agency’s 

interpretation of the meaning of the 

term ‘‘promptly’’ in section 355.20 and 

the phrase ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ in 

section 355.40. The Agency did not 

intend to revise the regulatory 

requirements, but only to provide 

guidance for these two terms. 

EPA received comments from many 

States and local agencies that the term 

‘‘promptly’’ should be defined in the 

regulations since receiving information 

from facilities on changes relevant to 

emergency planning is crucial in 

developing and/or updating emergency 

response plans. Therefore, to be 

consistent with EPCRA section 

303(d)(2), the Agency proposed to add 

the term ‘‘promptly’’ to the regulations in 

40 CFR 355.20 associated with 

providing the LEPC with notification of 

any changes occurring at the facility 

which may be relevant to emergency 

planning. Commenters supported this 

revision, but suggested that the Agency 

provide a specific time period, such as 

10, 20 or 30 days because of the need 

for this information for emergency 

planning. As previously noted, the final 

rule published on November 3, 2008 (73 

FR 65452) revised 40 CFR 355.20 to 

state that any changes relevant to 

emergency planning must be provided 

to the LEPC within 30 days after the 

changes have occurred. 

EPA also requested comments on 

whether the Agency should provide 

guidance on the meaning of the phrase 

‘‘as soon as practicable’’ under the 

emergency release notification in 40 

CFR 355.40, which states (at 40 CFR 

355.40(b)) that a written follow-up 

emergency notice must be provided by 

a facility ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ after a 

release. EPA sought comments on 

whether 30 days should be allowed to 

provide a written follow-up notice. 

Commenters generally supported 

defining ‘‘as soon as practicable,’’ but 

differed on whether 30 days was a 

reasonable period. Some commenters 

stated that the period should be shorter 

(7 or 14 days) or longer (45 to 90 days), 

while other commenters supported the 

30-day period. A few commenters noted 

that 30 days was inconsistent with 

EPA’s guidance on enforcement actions. 

Based on the comments and EPA’s 

evaluation, the Agency has decided that 

30 days should be sufficient to submit 

the written follow-up notice of the 

emergency release to the SERC and 

LEPC. The Agency will be revising its 

enforcement response policy to reflect 

this change. States may implement a 

more stringent timeframe if they so 

choose. 

B. Hazardous Chemical Exemption for 

Solids Under EPCRA Section 311(e)(2) 

EPCRA section 311 provides some 

exemptions for certain substances from 

the definition of hazardous chemical. 

Under section 311(e)(2), ‘‘any substance 

present as a solid in any manufactured 

item to the extent exposure to the 

substance does not occur under normal 

conditions of use’’ is exempt from the 

definition of hazardous chemical and 

therefore need not be reported under 

sections 311 and 312. However, EPA’s 

interpretation of this exemption has 

been that if portions of the solid metal 

are modified, such that exposure to a 

hazardous chemical can occur, then all 

of the solid metal should be included 

and counted to determine the quantity 

of hazardous chemical present for 

threshold purposes. For example, if 

there are 10,000 pounds of steel 

undergoing a welding process at a 

facility at any one time, then 10,000 

pounds would need to be counted 

toward the quantity for threshold 

determination even if only a portion of 

the steel is welded. EPA believes this 

interpretation occasionally requires 

reporting of information that is 

unnecessary for emergency planning 

and community right-to-know purposes. 

To relieve the burden for facilities and 

to relieve the burden on information 

management for implementing agencies, 

the Agency suggested that this 

interpretation be modified in the 

preamble to the June 1998 proposed 

rule. Under the new interpretation, 

facilities would only have to include 

and count the amount of fume or dust 

emitted or released from a manufactured 

solid that is being modified to 

determine whether the EPCRA sections 

311 and 312 reporting thresholds have 

been reached. EPA requested comments 

on this new interpretation and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
39858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

commenters generally supported this 

new interpretation for this exemption. 

Based on the comments provided by 

the regulated community and the 

implementing agencies, EPA is revising 

its interpretation for the exemption for 

solids under section 311(e)(2), such that 

facilities would only have to include 

and count the amount of fume or dust 

given off a piece of metal that is being 

modified toward the threshold 

determination. In addition, as EPA 

stated in the preamble to the June 1998 

proposed rule, stamping a piece of metal 

doesn’t negate the exemption for that 

piece of metal; the piece of metal would 

still qualify for the exemption. EPA 

believes that the stamping of sheet metal 

does not present exposure to a 

hazardous chemical. 

This new interpretation would also 

apply to bricks or any other 

manufactured solid item that undergoes 

a modification process (for example, 

cutting). Thus, facilities would need to 

count the amount of fume or dust 

released during the modification 

process toward the threshold 

determination. 

These interpretations are provided as 

guidance. States may implement more 

stringent requirements if they so choose. 

The Agency realizes the format for 

this guidance is different from the usual 

EPA format. Since the Agency requested 

comments on the various reporting 

options and interpretations, we decided 

to publish the guidance in the Federal 

Register to address the comments. A 

fact sheet that includes all the elements 

in this guidance is available on the 

Agency’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/emergencies. 

SUMMARY OF THE REPORTING OPTIONS

Reporting Option Guidance 

Use of UST Forms to Fulfill the Requirements for Tier I Information 

under EPCRA Section 312..

Since all States now require facilities to submit Tier II or State equivalent forms, this reporting option is no longer useful. 

Partnership Programs for Joint Access to Information and Streamlined 

Submission of EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 Reporting. If a single 

point submission is allowed for facilities, then one agency would receive the information and provide access to the other two agencies..

States may implement this approach, but the statutory and regulatory 

requirements must still be met. That is, all three entities get access 

to section 312 information by March 1 annually. 

Electronic Submittal and Certification for EPCRA Section 312 Reporting • States may require facilities to submit information using Tier 2 Submit, the Federal electronic reporting format or the State equivalent 

electronic reporting format. 

• Those facilities that do not have capability to file electronically should 

be given the option to file a hardcopy. 

• The original signature requirement in 40 CFR 370.41 and 370.42 

could be met by providing the certification statement on paper (i.e. 

wet signature) or by any electronic certification established by State 

and local agencies. (Memorandum from Debbie Dietrich to EPA Regional Superfund Managers on Electronic Reporting and Signature 

under EPCRA Section 312, July 30, 2009. This memorandum is 

available on the Agency’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/emergencies). 

Incorporation of Previous Submissions into EPCRA Section 312 Reporting.States may adopt this reporting approach, especially for those facilities 

that submit section 312 information on paper. 

Electronic Access to Facility MSS Database ........................................... EPA believes that this approach is inappropriate since there is a concern for computer and information security. 

EPCRA Section 312 Reporting to Fulfill Reporting Requirements under 

Section 311.

• This reporting approach is only beneficial to those facilities that acquire a new chemical between October 1 and December 31 of any 

given calendar year. 

• States may implement this reporting approach ensuring that facilities 

comply with section 312 three months after acquiring a new chemical. 

SUMMARY OF THE INTERPRETATIONS

Interpretations Guidance 

Emergency Release Notification .............................................................. Facilities may have up to 30 days to submit a written follow-up report 

to State and local agencies. States may implement more stringent 

requirements. 

Hazardous Chemical Exemption for Solids under EPCRA section 

311()(2).

Facilities would only have to count the amount of fume or dust given 

off a piece of metal, brick or any other manufactured solid item that 

undergoes a modification process (i.e. cutting, welding, etc.). States 

may implement more stringent requirements. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 39859 

Dated: June 22, 2010. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17031 Filed 7–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 10–51; FCC 10–88] 

Structure and Practices of the Video 

Relay Service Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission adopts an interim rule 

addressing the certification of provider 

information for Telecommunications 

Relay Services (TRS) calls. By requiring 

providers to be more accountable for 

their submissions, the Commission 

takes necessary, affirmative steps to 

preserve the Interstate TRS Fund 

(Fund). 

DATES: Effective July 13, 2010, except 

for the amendment to 47 CFR 64.604 

(c)(5)(iii)(I), which contains new 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) that have not been approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Written comments by the public 

on the new information collections are 

due September 13, 2010. The 

Commission will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of these requirements. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the Secretary, a 

copy of any comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

Cathy Williams, Federal 

Communications Commission via e-mail 

at PRA@fcc.gov and 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov, and to 

Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via fax at 

(202) 395–5167, or via e-mail to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

559–5158 (VP), or e-mail: 

Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov. For additional 

information concerning the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, contact Cathy Williams 

at (202) 418–2918, or e-mail: 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Structure 

and Practices of the Video Relay Service 

Program, Order, document FCC 10–88, 

adopted May 24, 2010, and released 

May 27, 2010, in CG Docket No. 10–51. 

Simultaneously with the Order, the 

Commission also issued a Declaratory 

Ruling and Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 10–51. 

The full text of document FCC 10–88 

and copies of any subsequently filed 

documents in this matter will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

Document FCC 10–88 and copies of 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

its Web site http://www.bcpiweb.com or 

by calling 1–800–378–3160. To request 

materials in accessible formats (such as 

Braille, large print, electronic files, or 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 

(202) 418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418– 

0432 (TTY). Document FCC 10–88 can 

be also downloaded in Word and 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at 

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/ 

trs.html#orders. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

Document FCC 10–88 contains new 

information collection requirements 

subject to the PRA. It will be submitted 

to OMB for review under section 3507 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other Federal agencies are invited to 

comment on the new information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. Public and agency 

comments are due September 13, 2010. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 

(c)(4), the Commission seeks comment 

on how it may ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

Synopsis 

The rapid growth of the Fund within 

a five year span requires the 

Commission to take immediate steps in 

preserving the Fund to ensure the 

continued availability of TRS. Indeed, 

the Commission has a fiduciary duty to 

ensure that the Fund operates 

efficiently, and to guard against waste, 

fraud, and abuse. The Commission takes 

steps in document FCC 10–88 to uphold 

that duty. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act requires that agencies 

provide notice of, and an opportunity 

for public comment on, their proposed 

rules except, inter alia, ‘‘when the 

agency for good cause finds (and 

incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons therefore in the 

rules issued) that notice and public 

procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ Notice and comment have 

been excused in emergency situations or 

where delay could result in serious 

harm. Additionally, agencies, including 

this Commission, have been afforded 

‘‘substantial deference’’ when imposing 

interim regulations with or without 

prior notice and comment, particularly 

where such regulations have been 

shown to be necessary to prevent 

irreparable harm and the agency is 

seeking comment on the matter in a 

rulemaking proceeding. 

In this case, the Commission finds 

good cause to adopt the interim rule 

below to make providers more 

accountable by requiring senior 

executives to certify compliance with 

the Commission’s regulations under 

penalty of perjury. By requiring 

providers to be more accountable for 

their submissions, the Commission 

takes necessary, affirmative steps to 

preserve the TRS Fund. The 

Commission adopts an interim rule to 

require the Chief Executive Officer 

(CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), or 

other senior executive of a relay service 

provider to certify, under penalty of 

perjury, that: (1) Minutes submitted to 

the Fund administrator for 

compensation were handled in 

compliance with section 225 of the 

Communications Act and the 

Commission’s rules and orders, and are 

not the result of impermissible financial 

incentives, or payments or kickbacks, to 

generate calls, and (2) cost and demand 

data submitted to the Fund 

administrator related to the 

determination of compensation rates or 

methodologies are true and correct. In 

the accompanying NPRM section of 

document FCC 10–88, the Commission 

seeks additional comment on whether it 

should make this rule permanent. 

The TRS rules currently require 

providers to ‘‘submit reports of * * * 

TRS minutes of use to the [Fund] 

administrator in order to receive 

payments.’’ The rules further require 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES