Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60781 

controls are in place preventing 

unacceptable exposure. The 

contaminated groundwater is being 

addressed under the facility’s RCRA 

permit and authority, therefore CERCLA 

response is not warranted. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to delete this Site from 

the NPL. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection; Air 

pollution control; Chemicals; Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances; 

Intergovernmental relations; Penalties; 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements; Superfund; Water 

pollution control; Water supply. 

Dated: September 13, 2011. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘MartinMarietta, Sodyeco, Inc.,’’ ‘‘Charlotte, 

NC.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2011–25107 Filed 9–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[EPA–HQ–OEI–2011–0196; FRL–9472–5] 

RIN 2025–AA31 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 

Reporting for Facilities Located in 

Indian Country and Clarification of 

Additional Opportunities Available to 

Tribal Governments Under the TRI 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to: 

require TRI reporting facilities located 

in Indian country to report to the 

appropriate Tribal government for the 

relevant area instead of the State; and 

improve and clarify certain 

opportunities allowing Tribal 

governments to participate more fully in 

the TRI Program. In 1990, EPA finalized 

regulations in the Federal Register (FR) 

requiring facilities in Indian country to 

submit annual TRI reports to EPA and 

the appropriate Tribal government. 

These amendments, however, were 

inadvertently omitted from the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), and the 

relevant provisions were later 

overwritten by a subsequent final rule, 

thus resulting in the exclusion of the 

intended requirement from the CFR. 

EPA intends to correct that inadvertent 

result by proposing this rule. Further, 

because Tribal governmental structures 

may vary, EPA is proposing to update 

its terminology to refer to the principal 

elected official of the Tribe as the 

‘‘Tribal chairperson or equivalent 

elected official.’’ EPA is also amending 

its definition of ‘‘State’’ for purposes of 

40 CFR part 372 to no longer include 

Indian country, so as to avoid any 

confusing overlap in terminology with 

the proposed express discussion of 

facilities in Indian country. With regard 

to the procedures for EPA to modify the 

list of covered chemicals and TRI 

reporting facilities, EPA proposes to 

clarify the opportunities available to 

Tribal governments. In particular, EPA 

proposes to include within the relevant 

provision an opportunity for the Tribal 

Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official to request that EPA apply the 

TRI reporting requirements to a specific 

facility located within the Tribe’s Indian 

country. Secondly, EPA is proposing 

that the Tribal Chairperson or 

equivalent elected official may petition 

EPA to add or delete a particular 

chemical respectively to or from the list 

of chemicals covered by TRI. By 

increasing the participation and 

engagement of Tribal governments in 

the TRI program, EPA is helping to 

increase awareness of toxic releases 

within Tribal communities, thereby 

increasing the understanding of 

potential human health and ecological 

impacts from these hazardous 

chemicals. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OEI–2011–0196, by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: oei.docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–0677 

• Mail: Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 

20460. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OEI–2011– 

0196. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage: http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://www.regulations.

gov index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http://www.

regulations.gov or in hard copy at OEI 

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 OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Louise Camalier, Environmental 

Analysis Division, Office of 

Environmental Information (2842T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

566–0503; fax number: (202) 566–0677; 

e-mail address: 

Camalier.louise@epa.gov, for specific 

information on this notice. For general 

information on EPRCA section 313, 

contact the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll 

free at (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412– 

9810 in Virginia and Alaska or toll free, 

TDD (800) 553–7672, http://www/epa/ 

gov/epaoswer/hotline/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you own or operate a 

facility located in Indian country (18 

U.S.C. 1151) with a toxic chemical(s) 

known by the owner or operator to be 

manufactured (including imported), 

processed, or otherwise used in excess 

of an applicable threshold quantity, as 

referenced in 40 CFR 372.25, 372.27, or 

372.28, at its covered facility described 

in § 372.22. Potentially affected 

categories and entities may include, but 

are not limited to: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry .............. Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to SIC codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 

313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 

211112*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512220, 

512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*.

* Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.

Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 

212111, 212112, 212113 (correspond to SIC 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 

212299 (correspond to SIC 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 

221121, 221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (correspond to SIC 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited 

to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 

562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (correspond to SIC 4953, Refuse Systems). 

Federal Government.Federal facilities.

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Some of the 

entities listed in the table have 

exemptions and/or limitations regarding 

coverage, and other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be affected. 

To determine whether your facility 

would be affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in part 372 subpart 

B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Facilities in Indian country would no 

longer be required to report to the 

States, although States would still 

receive this information once it is 

available to the public. Tribes with 

facilities located in their Indian country 

would receive the facility reports under 

this proposal. This would represent a 

change for facilities, States, and Tribes. 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. How should I submit CBI to the 

agency? 

Do not submit this information to EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

II. Introduction 

Since the beginning of the TRI 

Program in 1986, facilities that meet TRI 

reporting requirements have been 

required to submit annual TRI reports to 

EPA and the State in which they are 

located. In 1990, EPA finalized 

regulations in the Federal Register (FR) 

requiring facilities in Indian country to 

submit annual TRI reports to EPA and 

the appropriate Tribal government (55 

FR 30632). EPA’s rationale supporting 

those regulations was fully explained in 

the relevant preambles to the proposed 

and final rules. Id.; 45 FR 12992. These 

amendments, however, were 

inadvertently omitted from the CFR and 

later overwritten by a subsequent final 

rule and left out of the CFR. To correct 

this inadvertent omission, EPA intends 

to include these provisions in the CFR, 

in 40 CFR 372.30(a), to require each 

facility located in Indian country to 

submit its annual TRI reports to the 

appropriate Tribe, rather than to the 

State in which the facility is 

geographically located. The requirement 

for the facility to report to EPA would 

remain the same. 

To further encourage Tribal 

engagement and participation in the TRI 

program, EPA also proposes to make 

explicitly clear in the regulations certain 

additional opportunities for 

governments of federally-recognized 

Tribes. The first opportunity would 

allow the Tribal Chairperson or 

equivalent elected official to request 

that EPA apply the TRI reporting 

requirements to a specific facility 

located within the Tribe’s Indian 

country, under the authority of EPCRA 

Section 313(b)(2). The second 

opportunity would allow the Tribal 

Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official to petition EPA to add or delete 

a particular chemical respectively to or 

from the list of chemicals covered by 

TRI, under the authority of EPCRA 

Section 313(e)(2). EPA proposes to treat 

these request and petitioning 

opportunities as EPA currently treats 

those for Governors of States under 

EPCRA Sections 313(b)(2) and (e)(2). 

After EPA has received a formal request 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60783 

from a Tribe, EPA would make its final 

decision on the facility addition based 

on the criteria outlined in EPCRA 

Section 313(b)(2). EPA may also act on 

its own motion to add a facility without 

anyone requesting action. Opportunities 

for the public to participate in the TRI 

program consist of the right to petition 

the EPA to add or delete a particular 

chemical or chemicals to the TRI list of 

hazardous chemicals for toxics release 

reporting. 

III. Background Information 

A. What does this document do and 

what action does this document affect? 

This document primarily proposes to 

fulfill the goals of the July 26, 1990, 

action (55 FR 30632), which required 

facilities located in Indian country to 

report to the appropriate Tribal 

government and the EPA, instead of to 

the State and EPA. This amendment, 

however, was inadvertently omitted 

from the CFR and later overwritten by 

a subsequent final rule. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to update 40 CFR 372.30(a) 

to reflect the purpose of the 1990 

amendment. Secondly, to supplement 

this action, this document also clarifies 

existing TRI reporting regulations and 

guidance to further enable Tribal 

governments to participate more fully in 

the TRI Program. 

Under today’s proposal for 40 CFR 

372.30(a), an owner or operator of a TRI 

facility in Indian country would have to 

submit (to the extent applicable) EPA’s 

Form R, Form A, and Form R Schedule 

1 to the official designated by the Tribal 

Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official of the relevant Tribe, as well as 

to EPA. The form(s) would no longer 

have to be submitted to the State in 

which the facility is geographically 

located. Under this proposal, facilities 

would select/provide the name of the 

federally-recognized Tribe as part of the 

State data field in the Address block on 

the TRI forms. To accommodate this, 

EPA would make changes to the 

description of this data field on the TRI 

form. In addition, EPA would modify 

the instructions that accompany the 

forms in the annual TRI Reporting 

Forms & Instructions document 

accessible from the TRI Web site. 

Also under today’s proposal, EPA 

proposes to clarify request and 

petitioning rights available to Tribal 

governments. A Tribe would have the 

opportunity to request EPA to require 

TRI reporting by a facility in the Indian 

country of that Tribe. Tribes would also 

have the opportunity to petition for the 

addition or deletion of a chemical, 

which would apply to all facilities that 

manufacture (including import), 

process, or otherwise use the particular 

chemical. The statute—at sections 

313(b)(2) and 313(d)—expressly 

authorizes the Administrator to apply 

TRI reporting requirements to particular 

facilities and to add or delete chemicals 

to or from the list of chemicals subject 

to TRI reporting. The statute provides 

opportunities for Governors of States to 

request that particular facilities be 

subject to TRI reporting or that specific 

chemicals be added to or deleted from 

the TRI reporting list (EPCRA Section 

313(b)(2), (e)(2)). Similar to the process 

for Governors, after EPA has received a 

formal request from a Tribe, EPA would 

make its final decision on the facility 

addition based on the criteria outlined 

in EPCRA Section 313(b)(2). EPA may 

also act on its own motion to add a 

facility without anyone requesting 

action. EPA believes that these same 

opportunities are appropriately 

available to Tribal governments under 

the statute and EPA proposes to 

interpret these provisions so that the 

Tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official may make similar requests to 

EPA. Ultimately, it is EPA that 

determines whether TRI reporting 

requirements will apply to a particular 

facility or whether a specific chemical 

will be added to, or deleted from, the 

TRI chemicals list. 

B. What is the agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

EPA proposes this rule under sections 

313, 328, and 329 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

11023, 11048 and 11049. 

EPCRA Section 313(a) requires that 

the TRI reporting form be submitted to 

EPA and the official(s) of the State 

designated by the Governor. Section 329 

defines ‘‘State’’ to mean ‘‘any State of 

the United States, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the 

United States Virgin Islands, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 

territory or possession over which the 

United States has jurisdiction.’’ The 

statute has no separate definition of, or 

explicit reference to, Indian Tribes or 

Indian country. As EPA has explained 

previously, however, Congress clearly 

intended the statute’s protections to 

apply to all persons nationwide, 

including in Indian country. See, e.g., 

55 FR 30632, 30641–30642 (July 26, 

1990); 54 FR 12992, 13000–13002 

(March 29, 1989). In the context of a 

facility located in Indian country, EPA 

interprets section 313(a) as requiring 

reporting to EPA and the official 

designated by the Tribal Chairperson or 

equivalent elected official for the 

relevant area of Indian country. As 

discussed in EPA’s prior notices, the 

statutory language, the legislative 

history, and principles of Federal law 

relating to Indian Tribes and Indian 

country support the application of 

EPCRA in Indian country and EPA’s 

reasonable interpretation of section 

313(a) requirements. Id. 

This reasonable interpretation of the 

statute is reinforced by the broad grant 

of rulemaking authority from Congress 

to EPA under EPCRA. Section 328 

provides that the ‘‘Administrator may 

prescribe such regulations as may be 

necessary to carry out this chapter.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 11048. 

For purposes of regulatory clarity, 

EPA has proposed that the reporting 

requirements for a facility in Indian 

country be discussed expressly in part 

372. Part 372 already contains a 

definition of Indian country at 40 CFR 

372.3. To avoid any confusing overlap, 

EPA has proposed to remove Indian 

country from the definition of ‘‘State’’ as 

that term is used in part 372. 

EPA also expressly interprets section 

313(b)(2) and (e)(2) in the context of 

Indian Tribes. In the case of a facility 

located in Indian country, EPA 

interprets section 313(b)(2) as allowing 

requests by a Tribal Chairperson or 

equivalent elected official that EPA 

apply TRI reporting requirements to a 

facility located in the requesting Tribe’s 

Indian country. EPA also interprets 

section 313(e)(2) as allowing petitions 

by a Tribal Chairperson or equivalent 

elected official requesting that EPA add 

or delete a chemical to or from the list 

of chemicals subject to TRI reporting. 

EPA’s interpretation of each of these 

provisions flows from the same 

reasoning and authority as discussed 

above for section 313(a). EPA also notes 

that in all cases it is EPA, not a Tribe 

or State, that makes the final 

determination whether a facility or 

chemical should be subject to the TRI 

program. 

EPA believes that each of these Tribal 

roles will enhance Tribal participation 

in the TRI program and the availability 

of relevant information to communities 

within Indian country consistent with 

statutory authorities and requirements. 

EPA notes that pursuant to EPA’s 1990 

rulemaking cited above, federallyrecognized Indian Tribes already 

participate in other important elements 

of implementation of EPCRA in Indian 

country. Today’s proposed rulemaking 

would, among other things, rectify the 

inadvertent omission from the CFR of 

Tribal roles in the TRI program. 

C. What is an Indian Tribe, and what 

kind of land is Indian country? 

As defined at 40 CFR 372.3, ‘‘Indian 

Tribe’’ refers to those Tribes that are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60784 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘federally-recognized by the Secretary 

of the Interior.’’ The Secretary of the 

Interior maintains a list of federallyrecognized Indian Tribes, which is 

published periodically in the Federal 

Register. As also set forth at 40 CFR 

372.3, ‘‘Indian country’’ means Indian 

country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, 

which defines Indian country as: all 

land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

United States government, 

notwithstanding the issuance of any 

patent, and including rights-of-way 

running through the reservation; all 

dependent Indian communities within 

the borders of the United States whether 

within the original or subsequently 

acquired territory thereof, and whether 

within or without the limits of a State; 

and all Indian allotments, the Indian 

titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way 

running through the same. 

D. What is a Tribe’s responsibility under 

this rule? 

Under this proposed rule and per the 

intent of the 1990 regulation, a Tribe’s 

only responsibility would be to receive 

any TRI reports submitted by facilities 

located within its Indian country. 

E. How would Tribes receive reports 

from facilities? 

Under this proposed rule, Tribes may 

define how they would like to receive 

reports from TRI facilities. If a Tribe 

provides no specific guidance as to 

receipt, owners and operators of TRI 

facilities would mail TRI reports to the 

appropriate Tribal government 

representative. Tribes would be 

requested by EPA to provide a mailing 

address and contact name to be 

published on the TRI Web site, so that 

facilities in Indian country would know 

where to send their TRI reports. If no 

specific contact is provided, EPA would 

use the Tribal Council or Tribal 

Environmental Department as the 

default contact. As described further 

below, Tribal governments could also 

chose to provide electronic options for 

report submittal. 

F. How would the proposal affect TRI 

reporting facilities and the States or 

Tribes to which they would report? 

1. Submission of TRI Reports to Tribal 

Governments 

As described above, under the 

proposal the owner or operator of a 

facility located in Indian country would 

have to submit their TRI reports to the 

relevant Tribal government in lieu of the 

State government. The requirement to 

submit the report to EPA would remain 

unchanged. In many cases, this means 

the owner or operator would mail a 

copy of the TRI report to the specific 

Tribal government representative. As 

noted, Tribal governments may also 

choose to allow for electronic submittal 

of TRI reports. If a Tribal government 

becomes a member of the Internet-based 

TRI Data Exchange, then the owner or 

operator of a facility could meet its dual 

EPA/Tribal reporting requirements by 

submitting its TRI report to EPA via TRI 

Made Easy (TRI–ME) Web, a Web-based 

application that allows facilities to 

submit a paperless report. EPA would 

then automatically transmit the report to 

the appropriate Tribe (instead of the 

State) via the TRI Data Exchange. 

If the facility is located in the Indian 

country of a Tribe that does not become 

a member of the TRI Data Exchange, 

then the facility would be required to 

submit a TRI report to EPA and also 

separately to the appropriate Tribe. The 

approach described above is the same as 

for EPA and States for those facilities 

not located in Indian country. 

2. Requests by Tribal Governments for 

EPA To Add Specific Facilities to TRI 

Under this proposed rule, a Tribe 

would have the opportunity to request 

that EPA require that a currently noncovered facility located in its Indian 

country report the facility’s releases and 

other waste management to TRI. Under 

the statute, it is EPA that applies TRI 

reporting requirements to particular 

facilities (EPCRA Section 313(b)(2)). 

Section 313(b)(2) also provides an 

opportunity for Governors of States to 

request that EPA apply TRI 

requirements to facilities in their areas. 

The addition of certain facilities that 

would otherwise not be covered by TRI 

helps to aid communities and leaders to 

comprehensively assess chemical 

releases to their local environment. EPA 

proposes to interpret this provision to 

provide a similar opportunity for the 

Tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official to request that EPA apply TRI 

reporting requirements to particular 

facilities located in the Tribe’s Indian 

country. This opportunity for Tribes to 

request that EPA add a facility located 

in its Indian country can address 

situations where a Tribal government 

becomes aware of a facility that 

manufactures (including imports), 

processes, or otherwise uses a TRI 

chemical yet does not meet the full 

criteria to trigger reporting. This 

opportunity to add the facility may help 

the Tribe better understand chemical 

risks within their Indian country. 

This would be an opportunity and not 

a requirement, which means that the 

Tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official would not be required to request 

the addition of a facility; however, he or 

she may do so, for instance, if there is 

a concern about toxic releases coming 

from that facility. After EPA has 

received a formal request from a Tribe, 

EPA would make its final decision on 

the facility addition based on the 

criteria outlined in EPCRA Section 

313(b)(2). EPA may also act on its own 

motion to add a facility without anyone 

requesting action. 

EPA’s consultation with Tribes 

consisted of two consultation calls 

(February 7 and 28 of 2011), and during 

these calls EPA facilitated discussion 

and collected comments from Tribes in 

response to the actions proposed in this 

rule. Furthermore, EPA officiated two 

additional webinars for representatives 

from the National Tribal Air Association 

(NTAA) on March 17 and 30 of 2011, as 

well as hosting an electronic discussion 

forum (or ‘‘blog’’) to collect electronic 

feedback from interested parties. 

Material summarizing these meetings 

and the blog can be accessed from the 

docket for this proposed rule (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OEI–2011–0196). 

During the Agency’s consultation 

with Tribes, EPA received several 

positive comments about this proposed 

clarification to the request rights for 

Tribes to add a facility to the TRI. As 

EPA has heard in consultation, 

however, Tribes may be concerned 

about such facilities that are not in 

Indian country but are located nearby, 

where releases of those chemicals may 

inevitably reach and affect Indian 

country lands and communities. 

Although the opportunity expressly 

provided by the statute to request the 

addition of a facility under EPCRA 313 

only extends to a facility located in the 

relevant State and, under this proposed 

rule, Indian country, EPA would 

consider any concerns and information 

about facilities outside of the State or 

Indian country in the exercise of EPA’s 

discretionary authority, including 

concerns and information brought to 

EPA’s attention by a Tribal chairperson 

or equivalent elected official, and/or 

similarly, Governors of States. This 

possibility is especially relevant in 

situations where a facility releases 

chemicals into or near a Territory 

boundary or interstate community, yet it 

is not located within that Governor’s or 

Tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official’s jurisdiction. While there is no 

180-day time limit as there is for 

chemical petitions, and while this 

proposed rule does not address these 

general request opportunities which are 

already in existence, EPA, as a matter of 

administrative policy, would give such 

requests from Tribal governments (as 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60785 

well as Governors of States) appropriate 

priority and consideration. 

The impact on owners and operators 

of facilities that EPA includes within 

the TRI reporting program pursuant to 

the authority of EPCRA Section 

313(b)(2) is that they would be required 

to report to EPA and the relevant Tribe 

(for facilities located in Indian country) 

or State (for facilities outside of Indian 

country) under TRI. The impact from 

this opportunity on citizens around the 

requested facility would be access to 

additional information on chemicals 

being managed at the facility if EPA 

adds the facility. 

3. Petitions by Tribal Governments for 

EPA To Add or Delete Specific 

Chemicals to TRI List 

Under this proposed rule, Tribes 

would have the same opportunity as 

Governors of States to petition EPA to 

require that a chemical be added to or 

removed from the TRI list of toxic 

chemicals. Ultimately, it is EPA that 

determines whether the chemical will 

be added to, or deleted from, the TRI 

list. If EPA adds a chemical to the list, 

such action would affect all facilities 

releasing the particular substance, 

regardless of a facility’s location inside 

or outside of the petitioning Tribe’s 

Indian country. This type of provision 

already applies in the context of 

petitions by Governors of States (EPCRA 

Section 313(e)(2)). Therefore, EPA 

proposes to interpret the statute to 

provide similar opportunities to the 

Tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official. This would be an opportunity 

and not a requirement. In other words, 

the Tribal Chairperson or equivalent 

elected official would not be required to 

petition EPA to modify the list of 

substances managed by TRI; however, 

he or she may do so, for instance, if 

there is a concern about toxic releases 

of that substance. 

If EPA receives a petition from a Tribe 

that requests the addition of a particular 

chemical, EPA would have 180 days to 

respond with either the initiation of a 

rulemaking to add the chemical to the 

list or an explanation of why the 

petition does not meet the requirements 

to add a chemical to the list. The 

petition would need to be based on the 

criteria provided in subparagraph (A), 

(B), or (C) of EPCRA Section 313(d)(2). 

As a matter of administrative policy, 

EPA places a high priority on petitions 

from Tribes to add a chemical. However, 

if EPA does not respond within 180 

days of receipt of a Tribe’s petition to 

add a chemical, the chemical would be 

added to the list pursuant to EPCRA 

Section 313(e)(2). 

Within 180 days of receipt of a Tribe’s 

petition to delete a chemical based on 

the criteria provided in subparagraph 

(A), (B), or (C) of EPCRA Section 

313(d)(2), EPA would either initiate a 

rulemaking to delete the chemical or 

explain why EPA denied the petition. 

Unlike the analogous process for 

petitions to add a chemical, however, 

the chemical would not be deleted 

within 180 days if EPA failed to 

respond. 

During the Agency’s consultation 

with Tribes, EPA received several 

positive comments about this proposed 

clarification to the petition rights for 

Tribes to add a chemical to the TRI 

reporting list. For more information, the 

materials summarizing these meetings 

and the blog can be accessed from the 

docket for this proposed rule (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OEI–2011–0196). 

Further, any person may petition EPA 

to add or delete a chemical based on 

certain grounds specified under EPCRA 

Section 313(e)(1). However, if EPA 

receives a petition by a private citizen 

to add a chemical and EPA fails to 

respond within 180 days, the chemical 

would not necessarily be added. This 

result distinguishes citizen petitions to 

add a chemical from petitions to add a 

chemical by a Governor of a State or, as 

clarified under this proposed rule, the 

Tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official (compare EPCRA Section 

313(e)(1) with EPCRA Section 

313(e)(2)). 

If EPA adds a chemical(s) to the TRI 

list (through its own initiative under 

Section 313(d) or in response to a 

petition), the impact on owners and 

operators of facilities with the toxic 

chemical(s) in question would be that 

they would be required to evaluate the 

TRI reporting requirements with the 

new chemical and, if appropriate, based 

on those requirements, report under TRI 

to EPA and the relevant State or, if 

located in Indian country, the relevant 

or appropriate Tribe. The impact from 

this action by EPA on Tribes, States, and 

the general public would be that they 

would have access to information on 

new toxic chemicals being managed at 

facilities across the nation. The 

potential impact from this action on 

industry consists of the cost of 

compliance for facilities that would 

have to report for a particular chemical 

that was added. 

IV. References 

EPA has established an official public 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OEI–2011–0196. The 

public docket includes information 

considered by EPA in developing this 

action, which is electronically or 

physically located in the docket. In 

addition, interested parties should 

consult documents that are referenced 

in the documents that EPA has placed 

in the docket, regardless of whether 

these referenced documents are 

electronically or physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

documents that are referenced in 

documents that EPA has placed in the 

docket, but that are not electronically or 

physically located in the docket, please 

consult the person listed in the above 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

reviews associated with this action? 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under EOs 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new information collection 

requirements that require additional 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. Currently, the facilities subject to 

the reporting requirements under 

EPCRA 313 and PPA 6607 may use (to 

the extent applicable) the EPA Toxic 

Chemical Release Inventory Form R 

(EPA Form 9350–1), the EPA Toxic 

Chemical Release Inventory Form A 

(EPA Form 9350–2), and the EPA Toxic 

Chemical Release Inventory Form R 

Schedule 1 (EPA Form 9350–3) for 

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. The 

Form R must be completed if a facility 

manufactures, processes, or otherwise 

uses any listed chemical above 

threshold quantities and meets certain 

other criteria. For the Form A, EPA 

established an alternative threshold for 

facilities with low annual reportable 

amounts of a listed toxic chemical. A 

facility that meets the appropriate 

reporting thresholds, but estimates that 

the total annual reportable amount of 

the chemical does not exceed 500 

pounds per year, can take advantage of 

an alternative manufacture, process, or 

otherwise use threshold of 1 million 

pounds per year of the chemical, 

provided that certain conditions are 

met, and submit the Form A instead of 

the Form R. In addition, respondents 

may designate the specific chemical 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60786 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

identity of a substance as a trade secret 

pursuant to EPCRA section 322 42 

U.S.C. 11042: 40 CFR part 350. 

OMB has approved the reporting 

burden associated with the EPCRA 

Section 313 reporting requirements 

under OMB Control number 2070–0093 

(EPA Information Collection Request 

(ICR) No. 1363.15); OMB control 

number 2070–0143 (EPA ICR No. 

1704.09); and OMB Control 2070–0078 

(EPA ICR No. 1428). As provided in 5 

CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.6(a), an Agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB control numbers 

relevant to EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9, 48 CFR chapter 15, 

and displayed on the information 

collection instruments (e.g., forms, 

instructions). 

EPA estimates the incremental burden 

for facilities located in Indian country to 

send their reports to the Tribe instead of 

the State to average, in the first year, 

approximately $26.71 per facility for the 

51 facilities located in Indian country. 

EPA estimates an incremental burden of 

$18.14 for the remaining 20,746 TRI 

reporters. Thus, the total first year 

incremental cost associated with the 

rule is estimated at $377,695 based on 

6,934 total burden hours. In subsequent 

years, there is no incremental reporting 

burden, given that the burden created by 

the rule is limited to rule familiarization 

and compliance determination in which 

facilities will only engage in the first 

year. These estimates include the time 

needed to become familiar with the new 

requirement (rule familiarization) and to 

determine whether the facility is located 

in Indian country (compliance 

determination). The actual burden on 

any facility may be different from this 

estimate depending on how much time 

it takes individual facilities to complete 

these activities. Upon promulgation of a 

final rule, the Agency may determine 

that the existing burden estimates in the 

ICR need to be amended in order to 

account for an increase in burden 

associated with the final action. If so, 

the Agency will submit an information 

collection worksheet (ICW) to OMB 

requesting that the total burden in the 

ICR be amended, as appropriate. 

The Agency would appreciate any 

comments or information that could be 

used to: (1) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) evaluate the 

reasonableness of the Agency’s estimate 

of the incremental burden associated 

with the proposed rule, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (3) enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

Please submit your comments within 60 

days as specified at the beginning of this 

proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute 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 organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A business that 

is classified as a ‘‘small business’’ by the 

Small Business Administration at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. All of the 3,185 

potentially affected small entities have 

cost impacts of less than 1% in the first 

year of the rulemaking. Note that 

facilities do not incur reporting burden 

or costs in subsequent years of the 

rulemaking. No small entities are 

projected to have a cost impact of 1% 

or greater. Of the 3,185 estimated cost 

impacts, there is a maximum impact of 

approximately 0.13% and a median 

impact of approximately 0.002%. A 

more detailed analysis of the impacts on 

small entities is located in EPA’s 

economic analysis support document, 

Economic Analysis of the Proposed 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 

Reporting Rule for Facilities Located in 

Indian Country, located in the docket. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 

one year. EPA’s economic analysis 

indicates that the total cost of this rule 

is estimated to be $377,695 in the first 

year of reporting, and $0 in subsequent 

years. Thus, this rule is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Small governments are not subject to the 

EPCRA section 313 reporting 

requirements. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It 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. This action 

relates to toxic chemical reporting under 

EPCRA section 313, which primarily 

affects private sector facilities. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does have some Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action relates to toxic 

chemical reporting under EPCRA 

section 313, which primarily affects 

private sector facilities; however, it does 

have Tribal implications in the way that 

the Agency is proposing a change in the 

current way toxic chemical reporting 

information is transmitted and received. 

EPA organized and provided a formal 

consultation with Tribes to discuss the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60787 

proposed actions that may have the 

potential to affect one or more Tribes or 

areas of interest to Tribes. Two 

consultation calls occurred on February 

7 and 28 of 2011, and during these calls 

EPA facilitated discussion and collected 

comments from Tribes in response to 

the actions proposed in this rule. During 

the Agency’s consultation with Tribes, 

EPA received several positive comments 

about this proposed clarification to the 

request rights for Tribes to add a facility 

to the TRI, as well as the petitioning 

rights to add or delete a chemical. 

Furthermore, EPA officiated two 

additional Webinars for representatives 

from the National Tribal Air Association 

(NTAA) on March 17 and 30 of 2011, as 

well as hosting a blog to collect 

electronic feedback from interested 

parties. Additionally, in the spirit of EO 

13175, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and Indian Tribal governments, 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

Tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (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(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

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 

has determined that this proposed rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This proposed rule 

provides opportunities to request the 

addition of additional chemicals to the 

EPCRA section 313 reporting 

requirements. By adding chemicals to 

the list of toxic chemicals subject to 

reporting under section 313 of EPCRA, 

EPA would be providing communities 

across the United States (including 

minority populations and low-income 

populations) with access to data which 

they may use to seek lower exposures 

and consequently, reductions in 

chemical risks for themselves and their 

children. This information can also be 

used by government agencies and others 

to identify potential problems, set 

priorities, and take appropriate steps to 

reduce any potential risks to human 

health and the environment. Therefore, 

the informational benefits of the 

proposed rule will have a positive 

impact on the human health and 

environmental impacts of minority 

populations, low-income populations, 

and children. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 

Environmental protection, 

Community right-to-know, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Tribes, 

and Indian country. 

Dated: September 21, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

part 372 be amended as follows: 

PART 372—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 372 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048. 

2. In § 372.3, the definition of ‘‘Chief 

Executive Officer of the tribe’’ is 

removed, the definition of ‘‘State’’ is 

revised, and the definition ‘‘Tribal 

Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official’’ is added in alphabetical order 

to read as follows: 

§ 372.3 Definitions. 

State means any State of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 

American Samoa, the United States 

Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and any 

other territory or possession over which 

the United States has jurisdiction. 

* * * * * 

Tribal Chairperson or equivalent 

elected official means the person who is 

recognized by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs as the chief elected 

administrative officer of the Tribe. 

* * * * * 

3. Add § 372.20 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 372.20 Process for modifying covered 

chemicals and facilities. 

(a) Request to add a facility to the TRI 

list of covered facilities. 

(1) The Administrator, on his own 

motion or at the request of a Governor 

of a State (with regard to facilities 

located in that State) or a Tribal 

Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official (with regard to facilities located 

in the Indian country of that Tribe), may 

apply the requirements of section 313 of 

Title III to the owners and operators of 

any particular facility that 

manufactures, processes, or otherwise 

uses a toxic chemical listed under 

subsection (c) of section 313 of Title III 

if the Administrator determines that 

such action is warranted on the basis of 

toxicity of the toxic chemical, proximity 

to other facilities that release the toxic 

chemical or to population centers, the 

history of releases of such chemical at 

such facility, or such other factors as the 

Administrator deems appropriate. 

(b) Petition to add or delete a 

chemical from TRI list of covered 

chemicals. 

(1) In general. Any person may 

petition the Administrator to add or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60788 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

delete a chemical to or from the list 

described in subsection (c) of section 

313 of Title III on the basis of the 

criteria in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 

subsection (d)(2) and (d)(3) of section 

313 of Title III. Within 180 days after 

receipt of a petition, the Administrator 

shall take one of the following actions: 

(i) Initiate a rulemaking to add or 

delete the chemical to or from the list, 

in accordance with subsection (d)(2) or 

(d)(3) of section 313 of Title III. 

(ii) Publish an explanation of why the 

petition is denied. 

(2) State and Tribal petitions. A State 

Governor, or a Tribal chairperson or 

equivalent elected official, may petition 

the Administrator to add or delete a 

chemical to or from the list described in 

subsection (c) of section 313 of Title III 

on the basis of the criteria in 

subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 

subsection (d)(2) of section 313 of Title 

III. In the case of such a petition from 

a State Governor, or a Tribal 

Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official, to delete a chemical, the 

petition shall be treated in the same 

manner as a petition received under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. In the 

case of such a petition from a State 

Governor, or a Tribal Chairperson or 

equivalent elected official, to add a 

chemical, the chemical will be added to 

the list within 180 days after receipt of 

the petition, unless the Administrator: 

(i) Initiates a rulemaking to add the 

chemical to the list, in accordance with 

section (d)(2) of section 313 of Title III, 

or 

(ii) Publishes an explanation of why 

the Administrator believes the petition 

does not meet the requirement of 

subsection (d)(2) of section 313 of Title 

III for adding a chemical to the list. 

4. In § 372.27, paragraph (d) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 372.27, Alternate threshold and 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(d) Each certification statement under 

this section for activities involving a 

toxic chemical that occurred during a 

calendar year at a facility must be 

submitted to EPA and to the State in 

which the facility is located on or before 

July 1 of the next year. If the covered 

facility is located in Indian country, the 

facility shall submit the certification 

statement as described above to EPA 

and to the official designated by the 

Tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected 

official of the relevant Indian Tribe, 

instead of to the State. 

* * * * * 

5. In § 372.30(a), paragraph (a) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 372.30 Reporting requirements and 

schedule for reporting. 

(a) For each toxic chemical known by 

the owner or operator to be 

manufactured (including imported), 

processed, or otherwise used in excess 

of an applicable threshold quantity in 

§ 372.25, § 372.27, or § 372.28 at its 

covered facility described in § 372.22 for 

a calendar year, the owner or operator 

must submit to EPA and to the State in 

which the facility is located a completed 

EPA Form R (EPA Form 9350–1), EPA 

Form A (EPA Form 9350–2), and, for the 

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

category, EPA Form R Schedule 1 (EPA 

Form 9350–3) in accordance with the 

instructions referred to in subpart E of 

this part. If the covered facility is 

located in Indian country, the facility 

shall submit (to the extent applicable) a 

completed EPA Form R, Form A, and 

Form R Schedule 1 as described above 

to EPA and to the official designated by 

the Tribal Chairperson or equivalent 

elected official of the relevant Indian 

Tribe, instead of to the State. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–24821 Filed 9–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Parts 153, 155 and 156 

[CMS–9989–N2] 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act; Establishment of Exchanges and 

Qualified Health Plans, and Standards 

Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors 

and Risk Adjustment; Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document extends the 

comment period for two proposed rules 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 15, 2011. One proposed rule would 

implement the new Affordable 

Insurance Exchanges (‘‘Exchanges’’), 

consistent with Title I of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act of 

2010 as amended by the Health Care 

and Education Reconciliation Act of 

2010, referred to collectively as the 

Affordable Care Act. The other proposed 

rule would implement standards for 

States related to reinsurance and risk 

adjustment, and for health insurance 

issuers related to reinsurance, risk 

corridors, and risk adjustment 

consistent with Title I of the Affordable 

Care Act. The comment period for both 

proposed rules, which would have 

ended on September 28, 2011, is 

extended to October 31, 2011. 

DATES: The comment period for two 

proposed rules published in the Federal 

Register on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41866 

and 76 FR 41930, respectively), is 

extended from 5 p.m. Eastern Standard 

Time on September 28, 2011, to 5 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time on October 31, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code CMS–9989–N2. Because of 

staff and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

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

the instructions under the ‘‘More Search 

Options’’ tab. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Attention: 

CMS–9989–N2, P.O. Box 8010, 

Baltimore, MD 21244–8010. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments to the 

following address ONLY: Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Attention: CMS–9989–N2, 

Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments before the close 

of the comment period to either of the 

following addresses: 

a. For delivery in Washington, DC— 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert 

H. Humphrey Building, 200 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

(Because access to the interior of the 

Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not 

readily available to persons without 

Federal government identification, 

commenters are encouraged to leave 

their comments in the CMS drop slots 

located in the main lobby of the 

building. A stamp-in clock is available 

for persons wishing to retain a proof of 

filing by stamping in and retaining an 

extra copy of the comments being filed.) 

b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS