security concerns associated with the deleted provision. Even with this
change, Sec.  68.93 still requires the owner and operator to provide
local responders with the names and quantities of regulated substances
at the stationary source, the risks presented by covered processes, and
the resources and capabilities at the stationary source to respond to
an accidental release of a regulated substance, as well as the
stationary source's emergency response plan if one exists; emergency
action plan; and updated emergency contact information. Responding
stationary sources would still be required to consult with local
emergency response officials to establish appropriate schedules and
plans for field and tabletop exercises required under Sec.  68.96(b),
and all stationary source owners or operators would still be required
to request an opportunity to meet with the LEPC (or equivalent) and/or
local fire department as appropriate to review and discuss the
information.
    EPA's alternative proposal--to replace the phrase ``. . . any other
information that local emergency planning and response organizations
identify as relevant to local emergency response planning'' with the
phrase, ``other information necessary for developing and implementing
the local emergency response plan,'' opts to use language virtually
identical to that used in Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA) section 303(d)(3), [42 U.S.C. 11003(d)(3)]. That
provision of EPCRA states: ``Upon request from the emergency planning
committee, the owner or operator of the facility shall promptly provide
information to such committee necessary for developing and implementing
the emergency plan.'' This language also appears in Sec.  68.95(c) of
the version of the RMP rule currently in effect, which applies to
facilities with Program 2 and Program 3 processes whose employees
respond to accidental releases of regulated substances. Therefore, as a
result of either the EPCRA section 303(d)(3) provision or the provision
in Sec.  68.95(c), most RMP facilities have long been subject to this
requirement, and applying it to the relatively few RMP facilities that
are not already subject to it under EPCRA section 303(d)(3) or Sec.
68.95(c) should not create any security vulnerabilities.
    Under both alternatives, EPA's proposal to incorporate CBI and
classified information protections to regulated substance and
stationary source information provided under Sec.  68.93 is intended to
address petitioners' concerns regarding these issues. Incorporating a
CBI provision in this section of the rule will emphasize the facility
owner or operator's right to protect CBI. EPA notes that the RMP rule
already authorizes the owner or operator of an RMP-regulated facility
to assert CBI claims for information submitted in the RMP required
under subpart G that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 2.301, with some
limitations (e.g. five-year accident history information and emergency
response program information required to be reported in source's RMP
cannot be claimed as CBI). EPA's proposal would relocate the CBI
provision of Sec.  68.210(g) of the final RMP Amendments rule to Sec.
68.93, which would allow CBI claims for emergency response coordination
information in the same manner as required in Sec. Sec.  68.151 and
68.152 for information contained in the RMP. EPA's proposal would also
replicate the classified information provisions of Sec.  68.210(f) of
the final RMP Amendments rule in Sec.  68.93, which would require that
the disclosure of emergency response coordination information
classified by the Department of Defense or other Federal agencies or
contractors of such agencies be controlled by applicable laws,
regulations, or executive orders concerning the release of classified
information.\29\ While the provision in Sec.  68.210 (to be restored to
Sec.  68.210(b)) protects classified information for all information
disclosure under the RMP rule, we believe replicating this language in
Sec.  68.93 will avoid unnecessary disputes between LEPCs and holders
of classified information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The classified information provisions of Sec.  68.210(f)
would also remain within Sec.  68.210, but be renumbered to Sec.
68.210(b), which is where they appear within the currently-in-effect
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA requests public comments on its proposed changes to the
emergency response coordination activities section of the RMP
Amendments final rule. Does deleting the phrase in Sec.  68.93(b) ``. .
. any other information that local emergency planning and response
organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response
planning'' resolve petitioners' security concerns without denying
important emergency

planning information to local emergency responders?
    Would EPA's alternate proposal, which replaces this language with,
``other information necessary for developing and implementing the local
emergency response plan'' better resolve the issue by limiting
additional information to that necessary for developing the local
response plan?
    If stakeholders believe the alternative language also presents new
security concerns, how is it that this language has not caused such
concerns in relation to its presence in EPCRA section 303(d)(3) or in
Sec.  68.95(c) of the currently in-effect RMP rule? Does EPA's proposal
to incorporate the classified information provision of Sec.  68.210(f)
into Sec.  68.93 limit the potential for disputes between holders of
classified information and LEPCs over the scope of the general
protection against disclosure of classified information in section
68.210? Does EPA's proposal to incorporate the CBI provisions of Sec.
68.210(g) into Sec.  68.93 appropriately address petitioners' concerns
that these issues were not addressed in the emergency response
coordination provisions of the final RMP Amendments rule?
2. Information Availability
    Notwithstanding EPA efforts to address security concerns raised in
public comments on the RMP Amendments, petitioners remain concerned
about the potential for the information made available under Sec.
68.210 of the RMP Amendments rule to be used by criminals or terrorists
to target facilities for attack. Petitioner CSAG stated, ``By providing
unfettered access to information by local response organizations
without safeguards, and by requiring disclosure of extensive facility
information to the public upon request, EPA has done nothing to protect
sensitive facility information.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ CSAG Petition, pgs. 6-7. Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-
0766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The States Petition enumerates the States' specific concerns with
public information availability provisions, including that there is no
screening process for requesters or limitations on the use or
distribution of information, and that the provisions potentially
conflict with other anti-terrorism laws, and others.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ States Petition, pgs. 3-4. Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-
0725-0762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Linking its objection to the BATF finding that the West Fertilizer
incident was due to criminal conduct, Petitioner RMP Coalition
suggests: \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ RMP Coalition Petition, pg. 16, Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-
2015-0725-0759.

    For example, EPA might have focused its proposal on enhanced
security measures for facilities, strict scrutiny of the type of
information that should be disclosed to LEPCs or the public,
protections for that information, prohibitions against using any
sensitive information from these facilities to cause harm to the
public or the environment, or screening measures for third parties
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
with access to the facility and its sensitive information.

    In the proposed RMP Amendments rule, under Sec.  68.210 EPA
proposed to require the owner or operator to distribute to the public
in an easily accessible manner, such as on a company website, the
following information:
     Names of regulated substances held in a process;
     SDSs for all regulated substances at the facility;
     The facility's five-year accident history required under
Sec.  68.42;
     Emergency response program information concerning the
source's compliance with Sec.  68.10(b)(3) or the emergency response
provisions of subpart E, including:
    [cir] Whether the source is a responding stationary source or a
non-responding stationary source;
    [cir] Name and phone number of local emergency response
organizations with which the source last coordinated emergency response
efforts, pursuant to Sec.  68.180; and
    [cir] For sources subject to Sec.  68.95, procedures for informing
the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental
releases.
     Information on emergency response exercises required under
Sec.  68.96, including schedules for upcoming exercises, reports for
completed exercises as described in Sec.  68.96(b)(3), and any other
related information; and
     LEPC contact information, including LEPC name, phone
number, and website address as available.
    In the final Amendments rule, EPA made only one change to this
list--EPA revised the exercise information element to require the owner
or operator to provide a list of scheduled exercises required under
Sec.  68.96, rather than the additional exercise information that was
proposed. In so doing, EPA noted that, ``The information required to be
disclosed by this rule largely draws on information otherwise in the
public domain and simplified the public's access to it.'' EPA further
stated, ``Other statutes and regulatory programs, or other provisions
of the risk management program, require the stationary source to
assemble the information that the rule would make available upon
request (e.g., accident history, SDSs, and aspects of the emergency
response program).'' (82 FR 4668, January 13, 2017).
    Noting that many commenters on the proposed RMP Amendments rule had
objected to the proposed public information availability provisions
because, they argued, those provisions had the potential to create a
security risk, EPA's primary method of addressing commenters' concerns
was to require facility owners and operators to notify the public that
certain information is available upon request, and only provide the
information after receiving such a request. EPA indicated that this
would ``allow community members an opportunity to request chemical
hazard information from a facility, so they can take measures to
protect themselves in the event of an accidental release, while
allowing facility owners and operators to identify who is requesting
the information.'' (82 FR 4668, January 13, 2017).
    Petitioners' comments summarized above indicate that EPA in the
final amendments may not have struck the appropriate balance between
various relevant policy concerns, including information availability,
community right to know, minimizing facility burden, and minimizing
information security risks. EPA agrees with petitioners that requiring
unlimited disclosure of the chemical hazard information elements
required under the RMP Amendments may create additional policy
concerns, particularly with regard to the potential security risks
created by disclosing such information.
    A related concern not specifically raised by petitioners, but which
EPA is now considering, is whether the synthesis of the required
information disclosure elements could create an additional security
risk for facilities. EPA had not previously considered that the
combination of mandatory disclosure elements as required under the
Amendments is generally not already available to the public from any
single source. EPA believes that the synthesis of the required chemical
hazard and facility information may present a more comprehensive
picture of the vulnerabilities of a facility than would be apparent
from any individual element, and that therefore requiring it to be made
more easily available to the public from a single source (i.e., the
facility itself) could increase the risk of a terrorist attack on some
facilities. For example, if a facility is required to disclose in
synthesis and in one public source that it has experienced frequent
accidental releases involving large quantities of highly toxic or
flammable chemicals, does not maintain an on-site

response capability, and is located a long distance away from the
nearest public responders, the synthesis of this information might
allow a criminal or terrorist to identify a relatively ``softer''
facility target for attack, or a target that if attacked could cause
more damage to the facility and surrounding community due to a less
timely response.
    EPA's proposal to rescind the public information availability
provisions would address this concern, as well as petitioners' and
other commenters concerns about the lack of any appeals or vetting
process for members of the public requesting facility information.
Information on most of the required disclosure elements would still be
available via other means, such as through an LEPC, by visiting a
Federal RMP reading room, or making a request under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). FOIA requests require a name and U.S. state or
territory address to receive information.\33\ Federal Reading Rooms
require photo identification issued by a Federal, state, or local
government agency such as a driver's license or passport.\34\ These
requirements to accurately identify the party requesting the
information may provide a deterrent to those who seek to obtain
chemical information for a facility for terrorist purposes without
unduly impeding access to the information by those in the nearby
community with a right-to-know. The current provisions in Sec.  68.210
do not specify that requestors provide any particular identification.
For example, if a facility is providing access to the required
information by responding to email requests, requestors could receive
information via email without verification of their true identity.
While EPA's intent was to give the local community access to
information ``by facilitating public participation at the local level''
and ``allow people that live and work near a regulated facility to
improve their awareness of risks to the community and to be prepared to
protect themselves in the event of an accidental release'' (82 FR 4668,
January 13, 2017), the provisions have no limitation on the location or
address of the requestors or whether the requestor must provide an
accurate identification of their name and address. A justification
cannot be made for those outside of the community to know, for example,
a schedule of upcoming exercises, for the purpose intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/request/createRequest.
    \34\ https://www.epa.gov/rmp/federal-reading-rooms-risk-management-plans-rmp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA requests comments on its proposal to rescind the public
information availability requirements of the final RMP Amendments rule.
As an alternative to rescinding all of the public information elements,
EPA request comments on rescinding all except the information on
exercise schedules. If EPA maintains a field exercise requirement in
the final rule, information on upcoming facility exercises would be the
only item of information required to be disclosed in Sec.  68.210(b)
that is not already available from another source, and EPA maintains
that providing the local community with this information could avoid
unnecessary public concerns or panic during facility exercises.
    Another element of publicly available information is the RMP
information about local emergency response organizations. In Sec.
68.180(a)(1) of the Amendments rule, EPA required the owner or operator
to provide the name, organizational affiliation, phone number, and
email address of local emergency planning and response organizations
with which the stationary source last coordinated emergency response
efforts. EPA now proposes to modify this requirement to read: ``Name,
phone number, and email address of local emergency planning and
response organizations . . . .'' This change would clarify that the
Agency is only requiring organization-level information about local
emergency planning and response organizations, and that facilities are
not required to provide information about individual local emergency
responders in order to reduce the amount of personally identifiable
information available in facility RMPs. This could help avoid criminals
or terrorists targeting individual emergency responders through
identifying them using the publicly available portions of facility's
RMPs.
3. Public Meeting After an Accident
    The public meeting requirement in Sec.  68.210(e) requires the
owner/operator of a stationary source to ``hold a public meeting to
provide accident information required under Sec.  68.42 as well as
other relevant chemical hazard information, such as that described in
paragraph (b) of this section, no later than 90 days after any accident
subject to reporting under Sec.  68.42.'' The requirement to provide
``other relevant chemical hazard information'' could be interpreted to
be an overly broad requirement for information, similar to the
requirement to provide ``any other information that local emergency
planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local
emergency response planning'' to LEPCs, which EPA is now proposing to
rescind. ``Information, such as that described in paragraph (b) of this
section'' is referring to the same chemical hazard information that is
required to be provided upon request to the public. As discussed in
section IV.B.2. of this preamble ``Information Availability'', all
three of the petitioners had security concerns with providing this type
of information with no screening process for requesters or limitations
on the use or distribution of information. Based on the reasoning
provided in sections IV.B.1 and 2 of this preamble, EPA proposes to
rescind the requirement to provide at the public meeting ``other
relevant chemical hazard information, such as that described in
paragraph (b) of this section.''
    CSAG's petition \35\ cited additional concerns with the public
meeting requirement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ CSAG Petition, pg. 21, Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-
0766.

    The requirement to hold a public meeting within 90 days after
any reportable accident is overly broad. It is not necessary for
facilities to hold a public meeting every time that a release
occurs. EPA provided no evidence that public meetings were requested
or needed and not held under pre-existing rules. Often a release
does not warrant a public meeting and the expense should not be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
imposed automatically. See CSAG Proposed Rule Comments, at pg. 17.

    A public meeting is not required under the 2017 Amendments every
time that a release occurs, but only after an accident occurs that is
subject to reporting under Sec.  68.42. Those are accidents that
resulted in deaths, injuries, or significant property damage on site,
or known offsite deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place,
property damage, or environmental damage. EPA believes that having a
public meeting so that community members may learn more about the
causes of an accident that resulted in such impacts, and the facility's
plans to address those causes is warranted. A public meeting also gives
members of the community an opportunity to ask questions directly of
the facility about issues that concern them. Therefore, EPA proposes to
retain the public meeting requirement in Sec.  68.210(e), modified to
require that the owner or operator provide only accident information
required under Sec.  68.42(b) no later than 90 days after any
reportable accident. However, EPA requests public comment on whether
the Agency should further limit the public meeting requirement to apply

only after accidents that meet certain criteria, such as accidents with
offsite impacts specified in Sec.  68.42(a) (i.e., known offsite
deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or
environmental damage)? In comments on the RMP Amendments rule,
commenters stated that the public would not attend a meeting after a
minor incident, but recommended holding a public meeting for an event
with major offsite impacts.\36\ Would members of communities
surrounding RMP facilities be less likely to attend post-accident
public meetings if the accident had no offsite public or environmental
impacts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See document IDs EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0492, and EPA-HQ-OEM-
2015-0725-0542 in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA requests public comment on the required time
frame for public meetings. In the proposed Amendments rule, EPA had
proposed that post-accident public meetings be required within 30 days.
Several commenters claimed that this time frame was too short, and
would cause owners and operators to divert resources away from post-
accident investigations.\37\ However, other commenters agreed with
EPA's proposed 30-day time frame, and one commenter recommended that
the meeting should occur within two weeks of the accident. Although the
final Amendments rule required public meetings to occur within 90 days
of an accident and this proposal would not change that time frame, EPA
is again considering whether public meetings should be required sooner
than 90 days after an accident. Would a shorter time frame, such as 30,
45, or 60 days, be more useful to surrounding communities without
unduly impeding facilities' post-accident recovery and investigation
activities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Response to Comments on the 2016 Proposed Rule Amending
EPA's Risk Management Program Regulations (March 14, 2016; 81 FR
13637), EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0729, pgs. 207-209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing the requirement for the owner or operator to
provide accident information required under Sec.  68.42 at public
meetings, we have not previously specified whether it requires the
owner or operator to provide at the meeting, accident information for
only the accident triggering the public meeting, or, if the facility
has multiple accidents in its five-year accident history, for all such
accidents. EPA did not intend that the public meeting cover providing
information for all reportable accidents over the last five years. EPA
proposes to amend the public meeting provision to require the
information listed in Sec.  68.42(b) for only the most recent accident,
and not for previous accidents covered by the 5-year accident history
requirement of Sec.  68.42(a). This proposed modification should
provide clarity for the regulated community regarding the public
meeting requirements. Nevertheless, EPA requests comments on this
issue--should the public meeting provision require providing
information on all accidents in a facility's five-year accident
history?
    Because EPA proposes to rescind the requirements in Sec.  68.210(b)
for the owner or operator to provide chemical hazard information to the
public upon request and to provide ``other relevant chemical hazard
information'' at public meetings after a reportable accident, EPA
proposes to delete the provision for CBI in Sec.  68.210(g), as
unnecessary. The proposed revised public meeting provision would only
require the owner or operator to provide data specified in the source's
five-year accident history (Sec.  68.42), which is not allowed to be
claimed as CBI under Sec.  68.151(b)(3). The owner or operator may
provide additional information during public meetings, but is not
required to do so.

C. Address BATF Finding on West Fertilizer Incident

    Petitioner RMP Coalition asserted that it was impracticable for
commenters to address in their comments the significance of the May 11,
2016 determination by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (BATF) that the fire and explosion at the West Fertilizer
facility was caused by an intentional, criminal act. Petitioner further
stated: \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ RMP Coalition Petition, pg. 16, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0759.

    As the primary driver behind the Executive Order that inspired
this rule, and the focus of EPA's introduction to the Proposed Rule,
the circumstances surrounding the West, Texas, incident highlight
the risks central to the Final Rule. Knowing that the incident was
intentional would could [sic] have impacted the scope of the
Executive Order, certainly have changed the comments EPA received,
and likely would have caused EPA to construct its proposed and final
rules differently had it known of these circumstances at the time of
the proposed rulemaking. For example, EPA might have focused its
proposal on enhanced security measures for facilities, strict
scrutiny of the type of information that should be disclosed to
LEPCs or the public, protections for that information, prohibitions
against using any sensitive information from these facilities to
cause harm to the public or the environment, or screening measures
for third parties with access to the facility and its sensitive
information. Reliance on the E.O. as a predicate for this rule,
combined with the West, Texas, investigation results further merits
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reconsideration of the EPA's RMP Final Rule.

    In responding to this petition, EPA Administrator Pruitt agreed
that the timing of the BATF finding was a valid basis for
reconsideration of the RMP Amendments rule: \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ March 13, 2017 letter from EPA Administrator E. Scott
Pruitt to Justin Savage, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP. Letter
available in the docket for this rulemaking. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-
0758.

    Among the objections raised in the petition that meet the
requirements for a petition for reconsideration under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), we believe the timing of the BATF finding on the West,
Texas incident, which was announced just before the close of the
public comment period, made it impracticable for many commenters to
meaningfully address the significance of this finding in their
comments on this multi-faceted rule. Prior to this finding, many
parties had assumed that the cause of the incident was accidental.
Additionally, the prominence of the incident in the policy decisions
underlying the rule makes the BATF finding regarding the cause of
the incident of central relevance to the Risk Management Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments.

    EPA agrees that the West, Texas, incident was prominent in the
issuance of Executive Order 13650 and the consideration for the final
RMP Amendments rule. In the Executive Order 13650 Report for the
President, the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group, of
which EPA serves as one of three tri-chairs, stated:\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Executive Order 13650 Actions to Improve Chemical Safety
and Security--a Shared Commitment, Report for the President, May
2014, page 1, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0246.

    The West, Texas, disaster in which a fire involving ammonium
nitrate at a fertilizer facility resulted in an explosion that
killed 15 people, injured many others, and caused widespread damage,
revealed a variety of issues related to chemical hazard awareness,
regulatory coverage, and emergency response. The Working Group has
outlined a suite of actions to address these issues, such as:
     Strengthening State and local capabilities
     Expanding tools to assist emergency responders
     Enhancing awareness and increasing information sharing
with communities around chemical facilities
     Increasing awareness of chemical facility safety and
security regulatory responsibilities
     Pursuing rulemaking options for changes to EPA, OSHA,
and DHS standards to improve safety and security, including
potential changes specific to ammonium nitrate.

    The ``changes to EPA . . . standards'' ultimately became the RMP
Amendments final rule, where EPA

again acknowledged the prominence of the West Fertilizer incident: \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 82 FR 4594, January 13, 2017.

    The purpose of this action is to improve safety at facilities
that use and distribute hazardous chemicals. In response to
catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the United States,
including the explosion that occurred at the West Fertilizer
facility in West, Texas, on April 17, 2013 that killed 15 people (on
May 11, 2016, ATF ruled that the fire was intentionally set.)
President Obama issued Executive Order 13650, ``Improving Chemical
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Safety and Security,'' on August 1, 2013.

    As indicated above, the final RMP Amendments rule acknowledged the
BATF finding concerning the cause of the West Fertilizer incident. 82
FR at 4594, January 13, 2017. Notwithstanding this finding, EPA
maintained that the incident still highlighted the need for better
coordination between facility staff and local emergency responders. EPA
also highlighted in the RMP Amendments Rule other incidents that
further supported the need for better coordination between facility
staff and local emergency responders (e.g., BP Refinery incident in
Texas City, TX; Tesoro Refinery incident in Anacortes, WA). EPA
reaffirms this view, and this proposal would preserve the emergency
response coordination enhancements of the RMP Amendments rule with
minor modifications to address valid security concerns raised by
petitioners. Our proposal also would rescind virtually all changes to
the accident prevention provisions of Subparts C and D made in the RMP
Amendments rule, as well as the public information availability
provisions (except for the requirement to hold a public meeting after
an accident), and make modifications to the emergency exercise
provisions. EPA primarily justifies herein these proposed rescissions
and modifications on bases other than the BATF finding. However, the
BATF finding informs EPA's concern, expressed above, that the
Amendments may not have struck the appropriate balance between multiple
policy considerations, including but not limited to information
security and community right to know.
    The BATF finding was contrary to the widespread belief among the
public and regulated community during development of the proposed RMP
rule that the West incident was the result of an accident. Considering
the timing of BATF's announcement, and that few commenters made
reference to the finding in their comments on the proposed RMP
Amendments rule, EPA is requesting further public comment on the
significance of the BATF finding to the final RMP Amendments rule, and
this proposal. When we solicited comment during the rulemaking to delay
the effective date of the RMP Amendments to February 19, 2019, several
commenters criticized the methodology used by BATF in support of its
finding regarding the cause of the West Explosion. See 82 FR 27140,
June 14, 2017. These commenters claimed the BATF used a process of
elimination called ``negative corpus'' to develop its conclusion rather
than a more sound investigative methodology.\42\ BATF provided EPA an
explanation of methodology used in their investigation, which did not
rely on ``negative corpus'' but relied on the scientific method as
explained in the 2014 Edition of the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and
Explosion Investigations and by considering the significant evidence,
artifacts, and information collected.\43\ BATF continues to have an
award posted for information leading to an arrest of the person or
persons responsible for the fire and subsequent explosion at the West
Fertilizer facility. EPA defers to BATF expertise in determining the
cause of the West Fertilizer fire and explosion and the validity of
investigation methods. We also believe we should strike a different
balance between security and safety with respect to information
disclosure and security for the reasons stated above, and solicit
comment on this view. Does the BATF finding provide additional
justification for EPA rescinding the STAA, third-party audit, incident
investigation, and information availability provisions of the RMP
Amendments rule? Do EPA's proposed changes to the emergency response
coordination provisions preserve the Agency's goal of better
coordination between facility staff and local emergency responders that
it sought in the final RMP Amendments rule while resolving petitioners'
security concerns? Does the BATF finding have any significance for
EPA's proposed revisions to the emergency exercise provisions, or
alternatively, their rescission?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Response to Comments on the 2017 Proposed Rule Further
Delaying the Effective Date of EPA's Risk Management Program
Amendments (April 3, 2017; 82 FR 16146), EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0881,
pgs. 32-33.
    \43\ BATF. 2016. Excerpt from West Fertilizer Investigation
Report regarding investigation methodology. US Department of
Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reduce Unnecessary Regulations and Regulatory Costs

1. Petitioners' Comments on Costs and EPA's Economic Analysis
    All three petitioners objected to the costs and burdens associated
with the new provisions of the RMP Amendments rule, and claimed that
EPA's economic analysis did not accurately assess the costs of new
provisions and violated procedural requirements by not quantifying
potential benefits or linking specific rule provisions to quantified
benefits. Most of these objections were variations of the comments
previously provided on issues raised in the proposed RMP Amendments
rule.\44\ Without deciding whether reconsideration of any particular
objection meets the standard of CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), EPA is using
its discretion to reopen its consideration of regulatory costs of the
Amendments in this reconsideration proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Compare RMP Coalition Petition, pgs.8-10, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-
0725-0759 to American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) May
13, 2016 comments on RMP proposed rule (81 FR 13638, March 14,
2016), part 1 of 2, pgs. 56-59, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the 1996 RMP rule, the Agency addressed the
reasonableness of its regulations in part by taking account of the
costs and implementation burdens. See 61 FR 31668, 31717 (June 20,
1996). For example, EPA shifted from an initially proposed approach of
requiring all source prevention programs to be based on the PSM
standard to requiring PSM standard-based prevention programs only for
sources already subject to the PSM standard or in high-accident
sectors; EPA allowed other sources subject to the risk management
program to use more streamlined prevention requirements. Additionally,
EPA developed tools and parameters to simplify offsite consequence
analyses for release scenarios. The Agency also centralized risk
management plan submissions, standardizing the format and establishing
an electronically accessible database, in order to relieve multiple
agencies of data management burdens and to simplify compliance for
small businesses. While not explicitly adopting a requirement that
costs exceed benefits in the 1996 rule, EPA helped justify the various
modifications between the RMP proposal of 1993 and the final rule of
1996 by noting large cost reductions relative to prior proposed
approaches without significant loss of benefits. See, e.g., 60 FR
13526, 13527, March 13, 1995 (prevention program); id. at 13533

(dispersion lookup tables); 61 FR at 31695, June 20, 1996 (burden
reducing effect of electronic submission).
    In developing the RMP Amendments, EPA also considered costs and
burdens in deciding not to propose certain options and to modify or not
go forward with various provisions in the final rule. For example, EPA
chose not to propose requiring all Program 2 and 3 facilities to
implement an emergency response program; See 81 FR 13674 (March 14,
2016), or perform emergency exercises. Id. at 13677. In the final
Amendments rule, EPA chose not to incorporate commenters' suggestion
that EPA require third-party audits for all RMP facilities with Program
2 or 3 processes, see 82 FR 4617 (January 13, 2017); and EPA chose to
reduce the required frequency of field and tabletop exercises from what
had initially been proposed. Id. at 4662.
    While at the time we promulgated the final Amendments rule we
believed the costs of the rule were reasonable in relation to its
benefits, we are reexamining the reasonableness of the Amendments in
light of three newly promulgated Executive Orders that require Agencies
to place greater emphasis on reducing regulatory costs and burdens.
These Executive Orders, and their relationship to this proposal, are
discussed below. The agency acknowledges that the continual decrease in
accidental releases under the existing RMP rule is evidence that the
existing rule is working and that additional costs may not justify the
additional requirements. EPA is uncertain about whether the additional
requirements (i.e., third party audits, STAA, and root cause analysis)
add environmental benefits beyond those provided by the existing
requirements that are significant enough to justify their added costs.
EPA will carefully examine the provisions of the RMP Amendments for
their costs and benefits in implementing the statutory provisions of
CAA section 112(r)(7).
2. New Executive Orders on Reducing Regulation, Regulatory Reform, and
Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth
    In the final Delay Rule published June 14, 2017,\45\ EPA said the
following: ``During the reconsideration, EPA may also consider other
issues, beyond those raised by petitioners, that may benefit from
additional comment, and take further regulatory action.'' One such
issue that EPA believes it should consider is the policies of the
President that are reflected in the new Executive Orders. Each of these
Executive Orders was promulgated shortly after the final RMP Amendments
rule was published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 82 FR 27133, June 14, 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs'' of January 30, 2017, says that any new incremental
costs associated with new regulation shall, to the extent permitted by
law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at
least two prior regulations.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Executive Order 13771: ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'' which was signed on January 30, 2017
and published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2017 (82 FR
9339).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda''
of February 24, 2017, calls for agency Regulatory Reform Task Forces to
identify regulations that, among other things, impose costs that exceed
benefits, evaluate these regulations and make recommendations to the
agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification,
consistent with applicable law.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Executive Order 13777: ``Enforcing the Regulatory
Reform Agenda'' which was signed on February 24, 2017 and published
in the Federal Register on March 31, 2017 (82 FR 12285).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order 13783,'' Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth'' of March 28, 2017, directs executive departments and agencies
to immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the
development or use of domestically produced energy resources and
appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the
development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to
protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.\48\ This
Executive Order also directs that environmental regulations have
greater benefits than cost, when permissible under law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Executive Order 13783: ``Promoting Energy Independence
and Economic Growth'' which was signed on March 28, 2017 and
published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2017 (82 FR 16093).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the justifications discussed previously (i.e., to
maintain consistency in accident prevention programs and address
security concerns), an important factor in selecting the provisions of
the final RMP Amendments rule that EPA seeks to rescind or modify with
this proposal is that these provisions would otherwise place
substantial economic burdens on regulated entities, potentially
contravening the new policy direction set in these new Executive
Orders. In addition, such burdens are directly relevant to whether the
Amendments are ``practicable'' for sources, as that term is used in CAA
section 112(r)(7). In deciding whether the Amendments are
``reasonable,'' consistent with the President's policy direction, EPA
is now placing greater weight on the uncertainty of the accident
reduction benefits than we had when we promulgated the RMP Amendments,
especially in contrast to the extensive record on the costs of the
rule. In determining whether rescinding or modifying particular
provisions is reasonable and practicable, we examined each on its
merits and in the context of the policy direction reflected in the new
Executive Orders. EPA notes that while further analysis of the
reasonableness and practicability of the Amendments is in keeping with
the principles articulated in the new Executive Orders, such an
analysis would be appropriate even without the Executive Orders, and
the Agency retained the discretion to do so prior to their
promulgation.
3. Costs of STAA, Third-Party Audits, and Incident Investigation Root
Cause Analysis
    STAA is by far the costliest provision of the RMP Amendments rule.
EPA estimated that this provision would cost $70 million on an
annualized basis. This represents over 53% of the total estimated costs
of the rule ($131.8 million annualized at a 7% discount rate). EPA
estimated that third-party audits would cost approximately $9.8 million
on an annualized basis, and that incident investigation root-cause
analysis would cost approximately $1.8 million on an annualized basis.
    Petitioners for reconsideration raised objections to the costs and
other burdens of these provisions. For example, CSAG complained of
``ill-defined and potentially expansive triggers for third party
auditing,'' as well as reports from such audits and ``restrictive
qualifications'' for auditors as imposing significant burdens beyond
what we quantified. The RMP Coalition noted the potential need for
sources to duplicate Process Hazard Analysis (PHAs) during the phase-in
of STAA under the requirement to complete a PHA with STAA by 4 years
after the promulgation of the Amendments.
    In the RMP Amendments, EPA had judged the costs of STAA to be
reasonable based on two assumptions, one explicit and one implicit.
First, we explicitly assumed that, whatever the cost of a new safer
technology alternative, a company would incur such costs only if it
were net beneficial to the company. Amendments RTC at 70. We then
implicitly assumed that an unknown but sufficient fraction of the three
affected industries would in fact implement changes as a result of
having

performed STAA to make the requirement to conduct STAA assessments
reasonable. Nevertheless, the Agency also acknowledged that no benefits
would accrue from implementing STAA unless facilities subject to the
requirement voluntarily elect to implement a safer technology. EPA did
not account for the indirect costs of implementing safer technologies
and alternatives in the RMP Amendments rule, but in the RIA provided
examples of safer technologies that could cost as much as $500 million
(converting hydrogen fluoride (HF) alkylation unit to sulfuric acid) or
$1 billion (converting a paper mill from gaseous chlorine bleaching to
chlorine dioxide). Therefore, not only are the known costs of complying
with this provision high, indirect costs could also be incurred, if
facilities take actions based on the results of their STAA (or based on
external pressures to implement STAA recommendations regardless of
whether they are necessary or practical). Lastly, given the application
of the current requirements, the Agency now questions the implicit
assumption that a sufficient number of sources would implement STAA
improvements to offset the costs of the provision.
    Both the third-party auditing and the root cause incident
investigation provisions trigger after one incident--either a
reportable accident for third-party auditing or a catastrophic release
for a root-cause investigation. Data analysis provided by the American
Chemistry Council (ACC) to support the RMP Coalition Petition
demonstrates that accidents, and especially patterns of multiple
accidents, are concentrated in very few facilities. Of the
approximately 1500 reportable accidents in EPA's RMP database from the
years 2004 to 2013, only 8% of the 12,500 facilities subject to the RMP
rule reported any accidental releases, while the less than 2% of
facilities that reported multiple releases in that time frame were
responsible for nearly half (48%) of reportable accidents from all
types of facilities. Within NAICS code 325, the chemical manufacturing
industry, of the 1465 facilities subject to the RMP rule, 99 facilities
with multiple reportable accidents were responsible for approximately
70% of all reportable accidents in the sector and more than one-third
of all reportable accidents.\49\ Other studies have also found a
history of past accidents is a strong predictor of future
accidents.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ EPA. March 9, 2017. Notes and Documentation Related to a
March 9, 2017 Meeting between the RMP Coalition and EPA regarding a
Petition for Reconsideration of the RMP Amendments rule (82 FR 4594,
January 17, 2017). USEPA, Office of Emergency Management.
    \50\ Kleindorfer, P.R., Belke, J.C., Elliot, M.R, Lee, K., Lowe,
R.A., and Feldman, H.I., 2003. Accident Epidemiology and the U.S.
Chemical Industry: Accident History and Worst-Case Data from
RMP*Info, Risk Analysis, Vol.23, No. 5, pgs. 865-881. See Table IV,
pg. 872. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f0c9/f27d670a6ea77187aeb3f78ca0ced444db8b.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters during the rulemaking asked that EPA emphasize
enforcement rather than amend the RMP rule. The data (as analyzed by
ACC in its petition) tend to support the reasonableness of an
enforcement-led approach to strengthening accident prevention that
focuses on problematic facilities rather than broader regulatory
mandates. Under the RMP rule as it existed before the RMP Amendments,
EPA has required third-party audits in resolving enforcement actions
not only after reported releases but also when inspections have
indicated potentially weak prevention programs. By requiring third-
party audits after every reportable accident rather than using an
enforcement-led approach, the RMP Amendments potentially burden more of
the regulated community than is appropriate in light of new policy
direction that we put more emphasis on regulatory burden reduction and
improved net benefits. An enforcement-led approach allows the agency
additional discretion to make a determination of the utility of a
third-party audit or a root-cause analysis. While EPA believes an
enforcement-led approach is preferable to a uniform regulatory standard
for third party audits and root cause analyses, the Agency requests
public comment on whether a third-party audit or root-cause analysis
should be required under certain well-defined regulatory criteria. For
third party audits, such criteria might include requiring audits
following multiple RMP-reportable accidents, or multiple regulatory
violations of a particular gravity. For root-cause analyses, EPA could
consider requiring such analyses following incidents exceeding
specified severity levels. Although it is not our intent at this time
to adopt such provisions, we invite parties to suggest appropriate
regulatory criteria for third party audits and root-cause analyses.
    For third party audits, while EPA cited a number of studies
relating to the usefulness of such audits in various contexts,\51\ EPA
is particularly interested in gaining additional information relating
to third-party audit programs relevant to process safety auditing. The
most directly analogous programs reviewed by EPA included programs
relating to boiler safety, medical device safety, food and product
safety, hazardous waste site cleanups, and compliance with waste
treatment and underground storage tank regulations, but even these
programs do not involve review of production processes as complex as
modern refineries and chemical manufacturing plants. When EPA first
took comment on third party oversight in 1995,\52\ we examined whether
such oversight would be appropriate for sectors with simpler processes,
and EPA's own RMP third party audit pilot project conducted with the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania involved simpler
processes.\53\ Should EPA consider limiting third party audits to
relatively simple or common processes where experts could apply
transferable expertise more easily than in more complex processes? Are
there other ways to more narrowly tailor applicability to appropriate
RMP facilities without broadly burdening the RMP-regulated universe
with a third-party audit requirement? Should third party audits only be
mandated for facilities with multiple incidents? Some critics of the
RMP Amendments have particular concerns about whether parties that meet
the strict independence criteria of the RMP Amendments would be able to
understand these complex processes enough to make strong
recommendations in an audit. Should the agency consider modifying the
independence criteria in any future third-party audit provision?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 81 FR 13656-58, March 14, 2016 and 82 FR 4620-25,
January 13, 2017.
    \52\ See 60 FR 13530. March 13, 1995.
    \53\ EPA conducted a pilot study with the Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania on the efficacy of voluntary third-party
RMP audits. For relevant reports from this pilot, see R. Barrish, R.
Antoff, & J. Brabson, Dep't of Natural Resources & Env. Control,
Third Party Audit Pilot Project in the State of Delaware, Final
Report (June 6, 2000) http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/2000, Document ID EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0658 and EPA Region 3, Third-
Party Pilot Project in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Final
Report (February 2001), Document ID, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, by burdening whole sectors rather than facilities that
have multiple accidents, the RMP Amendments missed an opportunity to
better target the burdens of STAA to the specific facilities that are
responsible for nearly half of the accidents associated with regulated
substances at stationary sources subject to the RMP rule. EPA has also
used an enforcement-led approach in some past CAA section 112(r)
enforcement cases where facility owners or operators have entered into

consent agreements involving implementation of safer alternatives as
discussed in the proposed RMP Amendments rule. See 82 FR at 13664,
March 16, 2016.
    Given the small numbers of problematic facilities, the
reasonableness of an enforcement-led approach to the prevention
programs under the RMP rule in lieu of the RMP Amendments leads us to
believe that the prevention program provisions in the RMP Amendments
place an unnecessary and undue burden on regulated entities. In lieu of
broadly imposing STAA in particular on broad sectors, an enforcement-
led approach can retain much benefit of the RMP Amendments at a
fraction of the cost. Such an approach would contain a compliance
assistance element as well. Targeted compliance assistance could
provide the benefit of independent assistance to sources that have had
multiple releases with more flexibility than the third-party audit
provisions of the RMP Amendments. Such a program would be consistent
with a measure included in the President's proposed budget that would
authorize a fee-based program allowing owners and operators to request
EPA to conduct a walk-through of their facilities to assist in
compliance. Another non-regulatory option to promote IST and ISD would
be to encourage technology transfer, either through EPA-led forums or
through non-governmental entities like industry associations or
academic institutions. By not establishing any means for sharing IST
and ISD beyond the facility, the RMP Amendments did little to promote
technology-transfer. An approach that emphasizes voluntary technology-
transfer would be consistent with the statutory provision to
``recognize . . . the voluntary actions of [facilities] to prevent . .
. and respond to [accidental] releases.'' CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i).
Emphasizing burden reduction while retaining benefits is consistent
with the approach we took when we adopted the RMP rule in 1996.
    It is also possible that the existing rule's prevention program
measures already encompass many of the benefits of the Amendments rule
prevention provisions--some facilities may already be considering safer
technologies in conjunction with their process hazard analysis, using
root cause analysis for incident investigations, and/or hiring
independent third parties to conduct audits. Considering the low and
declining accident rate \54\ at RMP facilities under the existing RMP
rule, the Agency believes it is likely that the costs associated with
the prevention program provisions of the RMP Amendments exceed their
benefits unless significant non-monetized benefits are assumed. Thus,
we recommend rescinding them in accordance with the direction reflected
in E.O. 13777. Rescinding these provisions would also allow EPA greater
flexibility to offset the incremental costs associated with other new
regulations in accordance with E.O. 13771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Reconsideration RIA, Exhibit 3-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the STAA costs are concentrated on three industry
sectors--petroleum and coal products manufacturing, chemical
manufacturing, and paper manufacturing--which include a significant
number of facilities that produce domestic energy resources. Therefore,
this provision in particular appears to be a good candidate for
rescission to achieve the policies reflected in E.O. 13783.
4. Costs of Information Availability
    For providing the public the means to access the available chemical
hazard information in Sec.  68.210(b), as well as information on
community preparedness, in the RMP Amendments rule EPA required the
regulated facility to provide ongoing notification on a company
website, social media platforms, or through other publicly accessible
means for instructions on how to request the information (e.g. email,
mailing address, and/or telephone or website request). The facility is
required to identify this publicly accessible means in their RMP
submission [Sec.  68.160 (b)(21)--``Method of communication and
location of the notification that chemical hazard information is
available to the public, pursuant to Sec.  68.210(c)'']. Unless a
member of the public discovered the means to access the information
through their own efforts or were notified by outreach efforts of the
facility, they would need to access the facility's RMP submission to
determine how to obtain the chemical hazard information available under
Sec.  68.210(b). However, most of the Sec.  68.210(b) chemical hazard
information elements are already in the RMP submission, as it already
contains, among other information, the names of regulated substances
held above threshold quantities, the facility's five-year accident
history, whether the facility is a responding or non-responding
stationary source, the name and phone number of the local response
organization involved in emergency response coordination, and the LEPC
name.
    One chemical hazard information item required to be provided under
Sec.  68.210(b) that is not available in a facility's RMP is the Safety
Data Sheet (SDS) for a regulated substance. However, SDSs are already
widely available to the public by means of a basic internet search
using the chemical name. Some chemical manufacturers provide access to
SDSs for their specific products on the company's website. Hazardous
chemical SDSs that are required to be submitted to State Emergency
Response Commissions (SERCs) and LEPCs under Section 311 of EPCRA (42
U.S.C. 11044) are available to the public upon request from the SERC or
LEPC, except the identity of any chemical name meeting the criteria for
trade secret protection provided by Section 322 of EPCRA (42 U.S.C.
11042) may not be disclosed.
    In addition to chemical hazard information, Sec.  68.210(b)
requires the facility to provide emergency response program information
(including whether the stationary source is a responding stationary
source or a non-responding stationary source, the name and phone number
of local emergency response organizations with which the owner or
operator last coordinated emergency response efforts, and for
stationary sources subject to Sec.  68.95, procedures for informing the
public and local emergency response agencies about accidental
releases), LEPC contact information (including LEPC name, phone number,
and web address as available), and a list of scheduled exercises
required under Sec.  68.96. Most of this information is also already
available in the facility's RMP. The only required item of emergency
response program information that is not available in the facility's
RMP is the facility's procedure for informing the public and local
emergency response agencies about accidental releases. However, this
information can be obtained by contacting the appropriate local
response agencies. A member of the public living near a facility can
identify their LEPC either by reviewing the facility's RMP, or by
contacting their SERC. EPA maintains contact information for each SERC
on its website.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ https://www.epa.gov/epcra/local-emergency-planning-committees Contains contact information for each SERC, names,
address and websites for each SERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, once a member of the public obtains a facility's RMP,
the need to make a request to that facility for the elements contained
in the RMP would be eliminated, and most other elements are available
using the internet or by contacting local response agencies. In
promulgating the Amendments, EPA

overlooked the apparent redundancy of requiring the public to obtain a
facility's RMP in order to find out how to request the information
authorized for disclosure under Sec.  68.210(b). For this reason, as
well as the availability of information from other public data sources,
EPA now believes that the additional burden for facilities to provide
these information elements directly to the public is not justified and
that these provisions are good candidates for rescission to further the
policies reflected in Executive Orders 13771 and 13777.
    As indicated above, if EPA maintains a field exercise requirement
in the final rule, information on upcoming facility exercises would be
the only item of information required to be disclosed in Sec.
68.210(b) that is not already available from another source. EPA
nevertheless is proposing not to require disclosure of exercise
schedules. As stated previously, there is no easy way to restrict that
information to only members of the local public, and wider distribution
of this information could carry security risks. Nevertheless, the
Agency requests public comment on whether information on upcoming
exercises should still be required to be provided to members of the
public upon request.
5. Costs of Field and Tabletop Exercises
    After STAA, field and tabletop exercises were estimated to be the
next costliest provision of the RMP Amendments rule, at $24.7 million
per year. While the majority of these costs were projected to fall on
regulated facilities, EPA also projected that a significant share of
costs would fall on local emergency responders participating in field
and tabletop exercises.\56\ Petitioner States indicated that emergency
coordination and exercise costs would place significant burdens on
state and local responders: \57\ Petitioner States also claimed that
EPA understated costs for these provisions and did not show
benefits.\58\ Petitioner CSAG made similar claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See final rule RIA, page Exhibits 4-7 and 4-8, page 47.
    \57\ States Petition, pgs. 4-5, Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-
0725-0762.
    \58\ States Petition, pg. 5, Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-
0762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is not certain that it properly assessed the actual
demands of these provisions or the increased burden on LEPCs in the
final rule. EPA agrees that these provisions, and particularly the
emergency exercise provisions, would place substantial burdens on
regulated facilities and local responders. Local responders with
multiple facilities in their area are particularly impacted by the
minimum exercise frequency requirement. EPA's proposal herein would
retain the emergency response coordination provisions (with proposed
modifications) and emergency notification drill provisions, and modify
the field and tabletop exercise provisions by removing the minimum
exercise frequency requirements for field exercises and modifying
exercise scope and documentation requirements to provide more
flexibility to regulated facilities. As alternatives to modifying the
frequency, scope, and documentation requirements, EPA has considered
either fully rescinding the emergency field and tabletop exercise
provisions or modifying them by removing the minimum exercise frequency
requirement for field exercises but retaining the existing requirements
for scope and documentation of field and tabletop exercises. EPA
believes that any of these alternatives would reduce the regulatory
burden on both facilities and local responders.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Note, however, that the RIA for this rulemaking retains the
cost estimate for exercises from the Amendments rule. See
Reconsideration RIA, Ch. 4. EPA retained this estimate as a
conservative approach to estimating exercise costs under this
proposal. By removing the minimum frequency requirement for field
exercises and encouraging facilities to conduct joint exercises and
using exercises already conducted under other requirements to meet
the requirements of the RMP rule, EPA expects that the total number,
and therefore costs, of exercises held for compliance with the rule
is likely to be lower than this estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's proposed revisions to Sec.  68.96(b)(1)(ii) and Sec.
68.96(b)(2)(ii)--the scope provisions for field and tabletop exercises,
respectively--would provide the owner or operator with discretion to
decide on an appropriate scope for exercises. In the RMP Amendments
rule, EPA stated that field exercises shall include: Tests of
procedures to notify the public and the appropriate Federal, state, and
local emergency response agencies about an accidental release; tests of
procedures and measures for emergency response actions including
evacuations and medical treatment; tests of communications systems;
mobilization of facility emergency response personnel, including
contractors, as appropriate; coordination with local emergency
responders; emergency response equipment deployment; and any other
action identified in the emergency response program, as appropriate.
For tabletop exercises, EPA stated that exercises shall include
discussions of: Procedures to notify the public and the appropriate
Federal, state, and local emergency response agencies; procedures and
measures for emergency response including evacuations and medical
treatment; identification of facility emergency response personnel and/
or contractors and their responsibilities; coordination with local
emergency responders; procedures for emergency response equipment
deployment; and any other action identified in the emergency response
plan, as appropriate. EPA is proposing to replace ``shall'' with
``should'' in both provisions. While EPA believes that these scope
provisions are likely to be suitable guidelines for most facilities,
the Agency believes that converting them to discretionary provisions
(i.e., ``should'') will allow owners and operators to coordinate with
local responders to design exercises that are most suitable for their
own situations. Alternatively, EPA considered retaining the exercise
scope provisions as stated in the final RMP Amendments rule. EPA
requests comments on its proposed revisions to the field and tabletop
scope provisions. Would EPA's proposed changes reduce the burden of the
exercise requirements on owners and operators and local responders by
allowing them to design exercises that are tailored to their own
circumstances?
    EPA's proposed revisions to Sec.  68.96(b)(3) Documentation, would
retain the RMP Amendments rule requirement that the owner/operator
prepare an evaluation report within 90 days of each exercise. However,
the contents of the report would be discretionary. In the RMP
Amendments rule, EPA stated that the report shall include: A
description of the exercise scenario; names and organizations of each
participant; an evaluation of the exercise results including lessons
learned; recommendations for improvement or revisions to the emergency
response exercise program and emergency response program; and a
schedule to promptly address and resolve recommendations. EPA is
proposing to replace ``shall'' with ``should'' in this provision. While
EPA continues to believe that it is important to prepare an evaluation
report for each exercise in order to identify lessons learned and share
results with others involved in responding to releases, the Agency
believes it may be reasonable to allow owners and operators discretion
on the contents of the report. Allowing such flexibility in documenting
exercises would also allow owners and operators to create separate
exercise documents and/or appendices in such documentation that clearly
distinguish content that should be shared with local

emergency responders from security-sensitive content that should be
closely held by the owner or operator. Alternatively, EPA considered
retaining the exercise documentation requirement as stated in the final
RMP Amendments rule. EPA requests comments on its proposed revision to
the exercise documentation requirements. Should the requirement for
exercise evaluation reports be retained, but altered to provide more
flexibility to regulated facilities?
6. Stakeholder Input on Cost Reductions
    EPA requests public comment on the cost and burden reductions
associated with the proposed rule. Would eliminating the STAA, third-
party audit, incident investigation, and information availability
provisions and modifying or rescinding the field and tabletop exercise
provisions contribute toward the goals of Executive Orders 13771,
13777, and 13783 and address petitioners' and other commenters'
concerns about excessive regulatory costs and unjustified burdens? Are
there any data from chemical accident or toxic use reduction programs
that demonstrates a substantially lower accident rate at existing
facilities that already had successful accident prevention programs in
place and then conducted Inherently Safer Technology or Design (IST/
ISD) reviews or otherwise conducted chemical substitution to lower
chemical hazards? EPA's proposal to modify the emergency exercise
provisions would retain the RMP Amendments rule requirement for
regulated facilities to coordinate with local emergency responders to
develop emergency exercise schedules, but would remove the minimum
frequency requirement for field exercises, and allow facility owners to
work with local responders to establish appropriate frequencies and
plans for exercises. Would these changes help to address petitioners'
and commenters' concerns about the excessive costs of the exercise
provisions? Should EPA make other changes to these provisions, or fully
rescind the field and tabletop exercise provisions in order to further
reduce costs? If EPA were to fully rescind the exercise provisions,
would the remaining requirements of the RMP Amendments rule for annual
notification drills (Sec.  68.96(a)), enhanced emergency response
coordination (Sec.  68.93--with proposed modifications), and enhanced
emergency response program updates (Sec.  68.95(a)(4)) be sufficient to
address the emergency response planning and coordination gaps
highlighted by the West Fertilizer incident and other incidents noted
by EPA in the proposed RMP Amendments rule, while reducing undue
burdens on facilities and local emergency responders as much as
reasonably possible? Are there additional modifications or rescissions
that EPA should make in order to further reduce costs, without
significantly impacting public health and environmental protection?

E. Revise Compliance Dates to Provide Necessary Time for Program
Changes

    Petitioner CSAG recommended that EPA delay the compliance dates for
the same period by which the effective date of the rule was
extended.\60\ Petitioner States made the same recommendation.\61\ In
the final rule to delay the effective date of the RMP Amendments, EPA
did not adjust the rule's compliance dates, indicating that the Agency
would propose to take such action as necessary when considering future
regulatory action.\62\ EPA now proposes to delay the rule's compliance
dates to one year after the effective date of a final rule for the
emergency coordination provisions, two years after the effective date
of a final rule for the public meeting provision, four years after the
effective date of a final rule for the emergency exercise provisions,
and five years after the effective date of a final rule for the risk
management plan reporting provisions affected by new requirements. EPA
is also retaining the requirement to comply with the emergency response
program requirements of Sec.  68.95 within three years of when the
owner or operator initially determines that the stationary source is
subject to those requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ CSAG Petition, pg. 1, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0766.
    \61\ States Petition, pg. 1, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0762.
    \62\ See 82 FR 27142, June 14, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for the new proposed compliance date for public meetings,
these proposed compliance dates would toll the compliance dates
established under the final Amendments rule, using the same one-year
compliance interval for the emergency coordination provision, four-year
compliance interval for the exercise provisions, and five-year
compliance interval for new or modified risk management plan reporting
provisions, that were used under the final Amendments rule, but
establishing the new compliance dates relative to the future effective
date of a final rule resulting from this proposal. In so doing, EPA is
relying on the same rationale it used in establishing compliance dates
under the final Amendments rule.\63\ We believe the guidances and
outreach materials we had committed to developing in the final RMP
Amendments will still be useful to sources seeking to comply with those
portions of our rule that we do not rescind. EPA will need time to
develop that material. EPA also agrees with CSAG and the States that
regulated sources and local responders should not be expected to expend
resources complying with rule provisions that may change, and that
owners and operators will require this additional time to familiarize
themselves with the revised rule and implement appropriate programmatic
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See 82 FR 4675-8, January 13, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing a different compliance date for public meetings
than that established under the final Amendments rule because with the
proposed rescission of the other information availability requirements
of the final Amendments rule, EPA believes that sources would not
require four years to prepare to conduct post-accident public meetings.
See Section III.F--Revise compliance dates above for further discussion
of this proposed change.
    EPA is also proposing one modification to the compliance date for
emergency exercises. Under the final amendments rule, EPA required that
owners and operators comply with the emergency exercise provisions by
four years after the effective date of the final rule. As EPA explained
in the final rule, this meant that the owner or operator must have
completed a notification exercise, consulted with local emergency
response officials to establish a schedule for conducting tabletop and
field exercises, and completed at least one field or tabletop exercise
by the compliance date. Under the current proposal, owners and
operators would be still be required to have exercise programs and
schedules meeting the requirements of Sec.  68.96 in place within four
years of the effective date of a final rule. However, the owner or
operator would not be required to have completed a notification and
field or tabletop exercise by that date. Based on the schedule
established by the owner or operator in coordination with local
response agencies, the owner or operator would have up to one
additional year to perform their first notification drill, and up to
three additional years to conduct their first tabletop exercise. There
would be no specified deadline date for the first field exercise, other
than that established in the owner or operator's exercise schedule.
    EPA is proposing this change to avoid overburdening facilities and
local responders in meeting exercise

requirements. Requiring every facility to complete notification and
field or tabletop exercises by the compliance date would likely result
in many exercises occurring at or near the compliance date. In
communities with multiple RMP facilities, this could result in
excessive demands on local responders to participate in notification
drills and exercises, and be inconsistent with EPA's desire to give
facilities and local responders more flexibility in scheduling and
conducting exercises. EPA believes that a better approach would be to
allow facilities and local responders to work together to establish an
appropriate schedule by the compliance date. In communities with
multiple RMP facilities, this should allow facilities and local
responders to conduct required exercises at more appropriate intervals,
avoid concentrating numerous exercises around one date, provide more
regular training opportunities for facility and local responders, and
take full advantage of opportunities to conduct joint exercises or
combine RMP facility exercises with exercises conducted under other
requirements. EPA requests public comment on its proposal to extend
compliance dates, including the proposed new compliance date for public
meetings and the proposed modification to the compliance date for
exercises.
    In addition to recommending that EPA toll the rule's compliance
dates, Petitioner CSAG indicated particular concern with the four-year
compliance date for STAA: \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ CSAG Petition, pg. 16, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0766.

    CSAG is concerned with the four-year compliance deadline
provided in the rule for the STAA requirements. Such analysis is
highly complex, and--given that the STAA would have to be part of
the PHA for a covered process within four years--facilities will
have to begin working immediately on incorporating this analysis
without a commonly accepted methodology. In the RMP Rule preamble,
EPA notes future ``guidance'' that will be developed for complying
with RMP PHA and STAA requirements before sources must comply with
the STAA provision and its plans to make draft guidance available
for public comment.\42\ Without the benefit of this guidance to
reflect its intentions with respect to enforcement of the STAA
provision, complying with the new requirements within four years
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
will be extremely challenging.

\42\82 FR 4640, [January 13, 2017].

    If EPA finalizes its proposal to rescind the STAA provisions,
CSAG's concern with the compliance date for STAA would be rendered
moot. However, in the event that EPA does not rescind the STAA
provisions, the Agency requests public comment on whether the
compliance date for STAA should be further extended. For example,
should EPA extend the STAA compliance date to 5 years or some longer
interval, so that all facilities subject to it would have the
opportunity to incorporate the STAA into their PHA during their regular
PHA revalidation cycle? Alternatively, should EPA require STAA in PHAs
performed after a certain date, such as 3 or 4 years after promulgation
of a final rule?

F. Other Issues Raised by Petitioners

    In addition to the issues discussed previously, petitioners raised
several other issues that EPA would like to address.
1. New Documents Entered in Docket After Close of Comment Period
    The RMP Coalition indicated that EPA added numerous documents to
the rulemaking docket after the close of the comment period, that EPA
used several of these to support core provisions of the final rule, and
that members of the public were not able to submit comments on these
documents.65 66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ RMP Coalition Petition, pg. 5, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0759.
    \66\ Ibid, pgs. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA added 129 documents to the rulemaking docket after the end of
the public comment period. Many of these documents (59 total) were
documents that would normally be added after the comment period, such
as final interagency review documents, final rule support documents
(RIA, technical background document, EPA response to comments),
documentation of tribal consultation, EPA responses to requests to
extend the comment period, and documentation of post-proposal meetings
or presentations of the proposed rulemaking that occurred after the end
of the comment period. Also included were copies of laws, statutes,
Federal or state regulations, Federal Register document that were
mentioned in the final rule, RIA or Response to Comments, but not the
proposed rulemaking or RIA. These were added for convenience although
they are generally publicly available from internet sources. There were
also a few documents that were cited in the final rule or RIA, but were
published in 2016 after the close of comment period on May 13, 2016. Of
the remaining 70 documents, some were technical articles, reports,
studies (some mentioned by commenters), and EPA enforcement cases or
press releases relevant to discussion of third party audits, STAA
feasibility, near misses or root cause analysis that were added in the
final rule and RIA or Response to Comments. Other documents were
internal EPA email communications involving the development of the
proposed RMP amendments provisions or estimating the rule's costs, and
some EPA and OSHA documents related to RMP or PSM program guidance and
enforcement.
    To the extent EPA may have relied on these documents to support the
third-party audit and STAA provisions of the final RMP Amendments rule
without providing the public with full opportunity for review and
comment, this point will become moot if the Agency rescinds those
provisions, as we have proposed herein. Nevertheless, the documents are
now available for public review in the rulemaking docket. A list of
these 129 rule support documents is also available in the rulemaking
docket.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ List of 129 Supporting Documents for RMP Amendments Rule
Added to Rulemaking Docket EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725 after Close of
Comment Period (May 13, 2016). USEPA, Office of Emergency
Management, April 25, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. New Third-Party Audit Trigger and New Legal Rationales for Third-
Party Audits and STAA
    The RMP Coalition stated that in the final RMP Amendments rule, EPA
added a new trigger [criterion] for third-party audits \68\ as well as
new legal rationales for third-party audits and STAA, and that members
of the public did not have an opportunity to review and comment on the
new provision or legal rationales:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ RMP Coalition Petition, pg. 5, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0759.

    Though EPA claims that it only ``modifie[d] the criterion,'' the
Final Rule provision transformed a predictable trigger (non-
compliance with specific regulations) into an unpredictable one that
relies entirely on the implementing agency's discretion to determine
which conditions ``could lead to an accidental release.'' [82 FR at
4699.] The Proposed Rule had identified a specific condition EPA
thought was problematic, namely noncompliance with the regulations.
The Final Rule provision is unrelated to legal compliance and
subject to the whims and imagination of the implementing agency.
Commenters had no opportunity to object to the incredible breadth of
a requirement that covers any conditions that could lead, no matter
how remote the chance of the condition resulting an accidental
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
release. (footnote omitted)

    In the Proposed Rulemaking, EPA proposed changes to Sec. Sec.
68.58 and 68.79 to require third-party compliance audits for both
Program 2 and Program 3 processes, under certain conditions.

These proposed changes included adding paragraph (f) to Sec. Sec.
68.58 and 68.79 which identified third-party audit applicability. EPA
proposed that the next required compliance audit for an RMP facility
would be a third-party audit when one of the following conditions
apply: An accidental release meeting the criteria in Sec.  68.42(a)
from a covered process has occurred; or an implementing agency requires
a third-party audit based on non-compliance with the requirements of
this subpart, including when a previous third-party audit failed to
meet the competency, independence, or impartiality criteria, set forth
in new paragraphs Sec. Sec.  68.59(b) or 68.80(b).
    After considering public comments received on the proposed
conditions that would require a third-party audit, in the final
Amendments Rule, EPA revised the applicability criteria for third-party
audits required by implementing agencies from non-compliance to
conditions that could lead to an accidental release of a regulated
substance. EPA believed that having the implementing agency evaluate
whether conditions exist at a stationary source that could lead to an
accidental release better addressed the types of situations where a
third-party audit would be most effective, and would minimize the
potential for inconsistent or arbitrary decisions made by implementing
agencies. This revised criterion responded to commenters' requests was
not intended to be a new condition, but a narrowing of the
applicability of these requirements. The criterion in the Final Rule
focused on conditions with the potential to lead to accidental
releases, rather than authorizing implementing agencies to require
third-party audits under a potentially wide range of circumstances,
including minor non-compliance. However, insofar as it is a change, the
petitioner correctly notes that the public did not have a chance to
comment on the new language.
    EPA is proposing to rescind the third-party audit requirements;
however, if these requirements are not rescinded, EPA requests comment
on the revised applicability criteria for third-party audits required
by implementing agencies from non-compliance to conditions that could
lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance.
3. Coordination and Emergency Response Provisions Constitute Unfunded
Mandates on State and Local Responders
    Petitioners CSAG and the States argued that the coordination and
emergency response provisions of the final rule constitute unfunded
mandates and impose unjustified burdens on state and local emergency
responders.\69\ As an initial matter, EPA notes that these objections
would not meet the standard for reconsideration under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), because the same objections were raised during the
comment period for the proposed RMP Amendments rule, and responded to
by EPA in the Response to Comments document for the rule.\70\ However,
EPA seeks comment on the Petitioners' claims that the coordination and
emergency response provisions of the final rule constitute unfunded
mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See CSAG Petition, pgs. 8-9 and States Petition, pgs. 4-6.
    \70\ See Response to Comments document, pgs. 165-167, 185-186,
238, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0729. See also States Petition at pg. 5
(``Various State and other entities raised these concerns during the
comment period'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket. EPA prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This RIA is
available in the docket and is summarized here (Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OEM-2015-0725).
1. Why EPA is Considering This Action
    This action addresses and responds to a number of issues related to
the final RMP Amendments Rule, including those raised by petitioners,
as well as other issues that EPA believes warrant reconsideration.
    As discussed above in section I of this preamble, prior to the rule
taking effect, EPA received three petitions for reconsideration of the
rule under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), two from industry groups and one
from a group of states. Under that provision, the Administrator is to
commence a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's
judgement, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was
impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for
the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for
judicial review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude
that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
    In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator responded to
the first of the reconsideration petitions received by announcing the
convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management
Program Amendments.\71\ As explained in that letter, having considered
the objections raised in the petition, the Administrator determined
that the criteria for reconsideration have been met for at least one of
the objections. This proposal addresses the issues raised in all three
petitions for reconsideration, as well as other issues that EPA
believes warrant reconsideration. A detailed discussion of EPA's
rationale for the rescissions and modifications to the rule is included
above in section IV. of this preamble,
Rationale for Rescissions and Modifications
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0758.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in section IV. A. of this preamble, Maintain
consistency in accident prevention requirements, this action addresses
the issues raised by petitioners regarding several of the provisions of
the final Amendments rule. Petitioners asserted that EPA failed to
sufficiently coordinate the changes to the RMP regulations with OSHA
and the PSM program, and that the regulations as revised by the Final
Rule leave important gaps and create compliance uncertainties. Although
EPA has regularly communicated and coordinated with OSHA on its efforts
so far, EPA believes it is reasonable to develop a better understanding
of OSHA's intentions regarding potential changes to the PSM standard
before modifying the RMP rule. EPA has determined that a more sensible
approach would be to rescind the RMP accident prevention amendments at
this time and continue existing coordination with OSHA on any future
regulatory changes.
    All three petitions requesting reconsideration of the RMP
Amendments rule raised security concerns regarding provisions of the
final Amendments rule, as discussed above in section IV. B. of this
preamble, Address security concerns. These included objections, in all
three petitions, regarding the rule language in Sec.  68.93(b)
requiring local emergency response coordination to include providing to
the local emergency planning and response organizations ``. . . any
other information that local emergency planning and response
organizations identify as relevant to

local emergency response planning.'' Petitioners claim that this
language creates a security risk for regulated facilities. Petitioners
have also noted concerns regarding the removal of protections for CBI
and classified information that items proposed under Sec.  68.205 would
have benefited from. Petitioners also raised concerns about the
potential for the information made available under Sec.  68.210 of the
RMP Amendments rule to be used by criminals or terrorists to target
facilities for attack. EPA is also considering another security concern
not specifically raised by petitioners, regarding whether the synthesis
of the required information disclosure elements could create an
additional security risk for facilities.
    As discussed in section IV.C. of this preamble, Address BATF
finding on West Fertilizer incident, above, petitioners asserted that
it was impracticable for commenters to address in their comments the
significance of the May 11, 2016 determination by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) that the fire and
explosion at the West Fertilizer facility was caused by an intentional,
criminal act. In responding to this petition, EPA Administrator Pruitt
agreed that the timing of the BATF finding was a valid basis for
reconsideration of the RMP Amendments rule.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ March 13, 2017 letter from EPA Administrator E. Scott
Pruitt to Justin Savage, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP. Letter
available in the docket for this rulemaking. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-
0758.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All three petitioners objected to the costs and burdens associated
with the new provisions of the RMP Amendments rule, and claimed that
EPA's economic analysis did not accurately assess the costs of new
provisions and violated procedural requirements by not properly
quantifying potential benefits. Petitioners submitted extensive
commentary on these issues (complete copies of each petition are
available in the docket for this rulemaking). A discussion of this
issue is included above in section IV.D. of this preamble, Reduce
unnecessary regulations and regulatory costs.
    This action also considers and addresses several other issues
raised by petitioners. One petitioner noted that EPA added numerous
documents to the rulemaking docket after the close of the comment
period, that EPA used several of these to support core provisions of
the final rule, and that members of the public were not able to submit
comments on these documents.73 74 Petitioner the RMP
Coalition stated that in the final RMP Amendments rule, EPA added a new
trigger for third-party audits as well as new legal rationales for
third-party audits and STAA, and that members of the public did not
have an opportunity to review and comment on the new provision or legal
rationales. Petitioners CSAG and the States argued that the
coordination and emergency response provisions of the final rule
constitute unfunded mandates and impose unjustified burdens on state
and local emergency responders. These issues are discussed in more
detail in section IV. F. of this preamble, Other issues raised by
petitioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ RMP Coalition Petition, pg. 5, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0759.
    \74\ Ibid, pgs. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Description of Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    The RIA analyzed the proposed rescissions and changes to the
requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, including one alternative
option for emergency tabletop and field exercises. The proposed
rulemaking would retain the requirement for tabletop and field
exercises, but remove the minimum frequency requirement for field
exercises and establish more flexible scope and documentation
provisions for both field and tabletop exercises. Although these
changes are intended to reduce the burden of and offer more flexibility
to owners and local response agencies in meeting the exercise
requirements, the RIA took the conservative approach of assuming that
the cost of the provision as estimated under the Amendments final rule
would not change. EPA is considering two alternatives to the proposed
exercise provisions. One alternative would be similar to the proposed
option--this alternative would remove the minimum frequency requirement
for field exercises, but unlike the proposed option, the alternative
would retain all remaining provisions of the RMP Amendments rule
regarding field and tabletop exercises, including the RMP Amendments
rule requirements for exercise scope and documentation. Like the
proposed option, EPA assumes that the cost of the exercise provisions
as estimated under the Amendments final rule would not change under
this alternative. Another, lower-cost alternative to EPA's proposal
would be to fully rescind the field and tabletop exercise provisions.
This alternative would result in an additional annual cost savings of
approximately $24.7 million (2015 dollars).
    EPA is also considering an alternative to the proposed modification
to the emergency coordination provisions of the Amendments rule. EPA's
proposed modification to the local emergency response coordination
amendments would delete the phrase in Sec.  68.93(b), ``. . . and any
other information that local emergency planning and response
organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response
planning.'' As an alternative to this proposal, EPA is considering
replace this phrase with the phrase ``other information necessary for
developing and implementing the local emergency response plan.''
However, EPA does not believe either its proposed option or the
alternative phrasing would significantly affect the cost of complying
with the emergency coordination provisions of the Amendments rule.
    Lastly, EPA is considering an alternative to rescinding the
availability of all chemical hazard information to the public under the
final Amendments rule. Under this alternative, EPA would rescind all
elements required to be disclosed under Sec.  68.210(b) of the final
Amendments rule except the information on exercise schedules. If EPA
were to adopt this alternative, the annual net cost savings under the
proposed rule would decline by up to $3.1 million.
3. Summary of Cost Savings
    Approximately 12,500 facilities have filed current RMPs with EPA
and are potentially affected by the proposed rule changes. These
facilities range from petroleum refineries and large chemical
manufacturers to water and wastewater treatment systems; chemical and
petroleum wholesalers and terminals; food manufacturers, packing
plants, and other cold storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration
systems; agricultural chemical distributors; midstream gas plants; and
a limited number of other sources that use RMP-regulated substances.
    Table 5 presents the number of facilities according to the latest
RMP reporting as of February 2015 by industrial sector and chemical
use.

                                Table 5--Number of Affected Facilities by Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
             Sector                              NAICS codes                    facilities       Chemical uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of environmental  924........................................           1,923  Use chlorine and
 quality programs (i.e.,                                                                       other chemicals
 governments).                                                                                for treatment.
Agricultural chemical            111, 112, 115, 42491.......................           3,667  Store ammonia for
 distributors/wholesalers.                                                                     sale; some in
                                                                                NAICS 111 and 115
                                                                                use ammonia as a
                                                                                refrigerant.
Chemical manufacturing.........  325........................................           1,466  Manufacture,
                                                                                process, store.
Chemical wholesalers...........  4246.......................................             333  Store for sale.
Food and beverage manufacturing  311, 312...................................           1,476  Use (mostly
                                                                                ammonia as a
                                                                                refrigerant).
Oil and gas extraction.........  211........................................             741  Intermediate
                                                                                processing
                                                                                (mostly regulated
                                                                                flammable
                                                                                substances and
                                                                                flammable
                                                                                mixtures).
Other..........................  44, 45, 48, 54, 56, 61, 72.................             248  Use chemicals for
                                                                                wastewater
                                                                                treatment,
                                                                                refrigeration,
                                                                                store chemicals
                                                                                for sale.
Other manufacturing............  313, 326, 327, 33..........................             384  Use various
                                                                                chemicals in
                                                                                manufacturing
                                                                                process, waste
                                                                                treatment.
Other wholesale................  423, 424...................................             302  Use (mostly
                                                                                ammonia as a
                                                                                refrigerant).
Paper manufacturing............  322........................................              70  Use various
                                                                                chemicals in pulp
                                                                                and paper
                                                                                manufacturing.
Petroleum and coal products      324........................................             156  Manufacture,
 manufacturing.                                                                                process, store
                                                                                (mostly regulated
                                                                                flammable
                                                                                substances and
                                                                                flammable
                                                                                mixtures).
Petroleum wholesalers..........  4247.......................................             276  Store for sale
                                                                                (mostly regulated
                                                                                flammable
                                                                                substances and
                                                                                flammable
                                                                                mixtures).
Utilities......................  221 (except 22131, 22132)..................             343  Use chlorine
                                                                                (mostly for water
                                                                                treatment).
Warehousing and storage........  493........................................           1,056  Use mostly ammonia
                                                                                as a refrigerant.
Water/wastewater Treatment       22131, 22132...............................             102  Use chlorine and
 Systems.                                                                                other chemicals.
                                                                             ----------------
    Total......................  ...........................................          12,542  ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 presents a summary of the annualized cost savings estimated
in the regulatory impact analysis.\75\ In total, EPA estimates
annualized cost savings of $87.9 million at a 3% discount rate and
$88.4 million at a 7% discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ A full description of costs and benefits for this proposed
rule can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis; Reconsideration
of the 2017 Amendments to the Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,
Section 112(r)(7). This document is available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725).

               Table 6--Summary of Annualized Cost Savings
                        [Millions, 2015 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Provision                       3%              7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third-party Audits......................           (9.8)           (9.8)
Incident Investigation/Root Cause.......           (1.8)           (1.8)
STAA....................................          (70.0)          (70.0)
Information Availability................           (3.1)           (3.1)
Rule Familiarization....................           (3.2)           (3.7)
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Cost Savings..................          (87.9)          (88.4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the annual cost savings under the proposed rulemaking are
due to the repeal of the STAA provision (annual savings of $70
million), followed by third party audits (annual savings of $9.8
million), rule familiarization (annual net savings of $3.7 million),
rule familiarization (annual net savings of $3.7 million), information
availability (annual savings of $3.1 million), and root cause incident
investigation (annual savings of $1.8 million). See the RIA for
additional information on costs and cost savings.
4. Summary of Potential Benefits and Benefit Reductions
    The RMP Amendments Rule produced a variety of benefits from
prevention and mitigation of future RMP and non-RMP accidents at RMP
facilities, avoided catastrophes at RMP facilities, and easier access
to facility chemical hazard information. The proposed Reconsideration
rule would largely retain the revised local emergency coordination and
exercise provisions of the 2017 Amendments final rule, which convey
mitigation benefits. The proposed rescission of the prevention program
requirements (i.e., third-party audits, incident investigation, STAA),
would result in a reduction in the magnitude of these benefits. The
proposed rescission of the chemical hazard information availability
provision would result in a reduction of the information sharing
benefit, although a portion of this benefit from the Amendments rule
would still be conveyed by the public meeting, emergency coordination
and exercise provisions. The proposed rule would also convey the
benefit of improved chemical site security, by modifying previously
open-ended information sharing provisions of the Amendments rule that
might have resulted in an increased risk of terrorism against regulated
sources. See the RIA

for additional information on benefits and benefit reductions.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can
be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See ``Regulatory Impact Analysis; Reconsideration of the
2017 Amendments to the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements:
Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Section
112(r)(7)'', in docket EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2537.03. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    The ICR that covers the risk management program rule, promulgated
on June 20, 1996; including previous amendments, codified as 40 CFR
part 68, is ICR number 1656.15, OMB Control No. 2050-0144. This ICR
(2537.03) addresses the following information requirements that were
promulgated in the final RMP Amendments rule and not proposed to be
rescinded by the proposed revision to the rule:
Improve Information Availability (Applies to all Facilities)
    1. Hold a public meeting within 90 days of an accident subject to
reporting under Sec.  68.42 (i.e., an RMP reportable accident) and for
this accident provide the accident information required under Sec.
68.42 (b).
Improve Emergency Preparedness (Applies to P2 and P3 Facilities)
    2. Meet and coordinate with local responders annually to exchange
emergency planning information and coordinate exercise schedules.
Responding facilities' updates of their facility emergency response
plans will include appropriate changes based on information obtained
from coordination activities, emergency response exercises, incident
investigations or other information. Emergency response plans will have
procedures for informing appropriate Federal and state emergency
response agencies, as well as local agencies and the public (informing
local agencies and the public is already required under the original
rule).
    3. Conduct an annual notification drill with emergency responders
to verify emergency contact information.
    4. Responding facilities conduct and document emergency response
exercises including:
    a. Field exercises according to a schedule established by the
facility in consultation with local responders, and;
    b. A tabletop exercise at least every three years.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers, utilities,
warehouses, wholesalers, food processors, ammonia retailers, and gas
processors.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (CAA sections
112(r)(7)(B)(i) and (ii), CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii), 114(c), CAA
114(a)(1)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 14,280
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 682,665 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $44,712,465 (per year), includes $83,600
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    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 for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than June 29,
2018. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule.
    The RMP Amendments final rule considered a broad range of costs on
small entities based on facility type. As estimated in the 2017
Amendments RIA, the provisions in that final rule had quantifiable
impacts on small entities. This proposed rule largely repeals, or
retains with slight modification, the provisions incurring costs on
small entities. As a result, EPA expects the proposed rule to impose
negative costs for all facilities, including small entities. The only
new costs imposed on small entities would be rule familiarization with
the proposed rule, but even that cost would be offset by savings
associated with eliminating the larger costs associated with becoming
familiar with the RMP Amendments final rule. The impact of this
proposed rule on small entities is discussed further in the RIA, which
is available in the rulemaking docket.\77\ We have therefore concluded
that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly
regulated small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See ``Regulatory Impact Analysis; Reconsideration of the
2017 Amendments to the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements:
Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Section
112(r)(7)'', Chapter 7, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA will be consulting with
tribal officials as it develops this regulation to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. Consultation will
include conversations with interested

tribal representatives to ensure that their concerns are addressed
before the rule is finalized. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175
and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA
and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from tribal officials.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk
to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
the RIA for this proposed rule, available in the docket.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This proposed action is not a ``significant energy action'' because
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This proposed action is not anticipated
to have notable impacts on emissions, costs or energy supply decisions
for the affected electric utility industry.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action may have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in chapter 8 of
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), a copy of which has been placed
in the public docket for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 68

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 17, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
68, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 68--CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 68 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7412(r), 7601(a)(1), 7661-7661f.

Sec.  68.3   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  68.3 by removing the definitions ``Active measures'',
``Inherently safer technology or design'', ``Passives measures'',
``Practicability'', ``Procedural measures'', ``Root cause'' and
``Third-party audit''.
0
3. Amend Sec.  68.10 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (e);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (f) through (j) as paragraphs (g) through
(k); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (f).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  68.10  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) By [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator of a stationary source shall comply with the
emergency response coordination activities in Sec.  68.93.
* * * * *
    (d) By [DATE 4 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator shall have developed plans for conducting
emergency response exercises in accordance with provisions of Sec.
68.96.
    (e) After [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]
the owner or operator of a stationary source shall comply with the
public meeting requirement in Sec.  68.210(b) for any accident meeting
the five-year accident history requirements of Sec.  68.42 that occurs
after [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (f) By [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator shall comply with Sec.  68.160 (b)(21) of the
risk management plan provisions of subpart G of this part promulgated
on [PUBLICATION DATE OF FINAL RULE] and with Sec.  68.180 of the risk
management plan provisions of subpart G of this part promulgated on
January 13, 2017.
* * * * *

Sec.  68.12   [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  68.12 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b):
0
1. In the introductory text removing the text ``68.10(b)'' and adding
``68.10(g)'' in its place;
0
2. In paragraph (4) second sentence, removing the text ``68.10(b)(1)''
and adding ``68.10(g)(1)'' in its place;
0
b. In paragraph (c) introductory text by removing the text ``68.10(c)''
and adding ``68.10(h)'' in its place;
0
c. In paragraph (d) introductory text by removing the text ``68.10(d)''
and adding ``68.10(i)'' in its place.
0
5. Amend Sec.  68.50 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  68.50   Hazard review.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Opportunities for equipment malfunctions or human errors that
could cause an accidental release;
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  68.54 by revising the first sentence in paragraphs (a)
and (b), paragraph (d), and removing paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  68.54   Training.

    (a) The owner or operator shall ensure that each employee presently
operating a process, and each employee newly assigned to a covered
process have been trained or tested competent in the operating
procedures provided in Sec.  68.52 that pertain to their duties. * * *
    (b) Refresher training. Refresher training shall be provided at
least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee
operating a process to ensure that the employee understands and adheres
to the current operating procedures of the process. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator shall ensure that operators are trained
in any updated or new procedures prior to startup of a process after a
major change.
0
7. Amend Sec.  68.58 by revising paragraph (a) and removing paragraphs
(f) through (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  68.58   Compliance audits.

    (a) The owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated
compliance with the provisions of this subpart at least every three
years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under this
subpart are adequate and are being followed.
* * * * *

Sec.  68.59   [Removed]

0
8. Remove Sec.  68.59.
0
9. Amend Sec.  68.60 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c);

0
c. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (c)
0
d. In the newly designated paragraph (c):
0
1. Revising the paragraph introductory text, and paragraphs (1) and
(3);
0
2. Removing paragraphs (4) through (6);
0
3. Redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs (4) and (5); and
0
4. Revising the newly designated paragraphs (4) and (5);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (g) as paragraphs (d) through
(f); and
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  68.60   Incident investigation.

    (a) The owner or operator shall investigate each incident which
resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic
release.
* * * * *
    (c) A summary shall be prepared at the conclusion of the
investigation which includes at a minimum:
    (1) Date of incident;
* * * * *
    (3) A description of the incident;
    (4) The factors that contributed to the incident; and,
    (5) Any recommendations resulting from the investigation.
* * * * *
    (f) Investigation summaries shall be retained for five years.
0
10. Amend Sec.  68.65 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)
and revising the note to paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  68.65   Process safety information.

    (a) In accordance with the schedule set forth in Sec.  68.67, the
owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process
safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis
required by the rule. * * *
    (b) * * *

    Note to paragraph (b):  Safety Data Sheets (SDS) meeting the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) may be used to comply with this
requirement to the extent they contain the information required by
paragraph (b) of this section.

0
11. Amend Sec.  68.67 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2);
0
b. Amending (c)(6) by adding the word ``and'' at the end of the
paragraph;
0
c. Amending paragraph (c)(7) by removing ``, and '' and adding a period
at the end of the paragraph; and
0
d. Removing paragraph (c)(8).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  68.67   Process hazard analysis.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The identification of any previous incident which had a likely
potential for catastrophic consequences;
* * * * *

Sec.  68.71   [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  68.71 by removing paragraph (d).
0
13. Amend Sec.  68.79 by revising paragraph (a) and removing paragraphs
(f) through (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  68.79   Compliance audits.