[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24850-24883]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11059]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 104

May 30, 2018

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 68

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs
Under the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725; FRL-9975-20-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AG95

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting public
comment on several proposed changes to the final Risk Management
Program Amendments rule (Amendments rule) issued on January 13, 2017.
EPA is proposing to rescind amendments relating to safer technology and
alternatives analyses, third-party audits, incident investigations,
information availability, and several other minor regulatory changes.
EPA is also proposing to modify amendments relating to local emergency
coordination and emergency exercises, and to change the compliance
dates for these provisions.

DATES: Comments. Comments and additional material must be received on
or before July 30, 2018. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),
comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of
consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a
copy of your comments on or before June 29, 2018.
    Public testimony: Send requests to present oral testimony by June
8, 2018.
    Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed
rule on June 14, 2018 in Washington, DC.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit comments and additional materials,
identified by docket EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725 to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held in Washington, DC on
June 14, 2018 at William J. Clinton East Building Room 1153 (Map Room),
1201 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. The hearing will
convene at 9:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. The sessions will run from 9:00
a.m. to 12:00 p.m., with a break between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m.,
continuing from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., with a break from 4:30 to 5:30
p.m., and continuing from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Persons wishing to
preregister may be assigned a time according to this schedule. The
evening session beginning at 5:30 p.m. will be extended one hour after
all scheduled comments have been heard to accommodate those wishing to
make a comment as a walk-in registrant. Please register at https://www.epa.gov/rmp/public-hearing-proposed-changes-risk-management-program-rmp-rule to speak at the hearing. The last day to preregister
in advance to speak at the hearing is June 8, 2018. Additionally,
requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing
registration desk, although preferences on speaking times may not be
able to be fulfilled. If you require the service of a translator or
special accommodations such as audio description, we ask that you pre-
register for the hearing, on or before June 8, 2018 to allow sufficient
time to arrange such accommodations.
    The hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The
EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and
register. Because this hearing is being held at a U.S. government
facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared
to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to
gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act,
passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering
Federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska,
American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma or the state of Washington, you
must present an additional form of identification to enter the Federal
building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include:
Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and
military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a
property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon
leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass
to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building,
cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations
will not be allowed on Federal property for security reasons.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations,
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim
transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in
the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow
the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however,
please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind
schedule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Belke, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC
20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected], or Kathy Franklin, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].
    Electronic copies of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and
related news releases are available on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/rmp. Copies of this NPRM are also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ACC American Chemistry Council
AFPM American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
BATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
CAA Clean Air Act

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
CBI confidential business information
CFATS Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSAG Chemical Safety Advocacy Group
CSISSFRRA Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels
Regulatory Relief Act
CVI Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
DOT Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning & Community Right-To-Know Act
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FR Federal Register
ICR Information Collection Request
ISD inherently safer design
IST inherently safer technology
LEPC local emergency planning committee
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OCA offsite consequences analysis
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PHA process hazard analysis
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSI process safety information
PSM Process Safety Management
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFI request for information
RMP Risk Management Program
RTC Response to Comments
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SDS safety data sheet
SER small entity representative
SERC state emergency response commission
STAA safer technology and alternatives analysis
TQ threshold quantity
U.S.C. United States Code
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Organization of this Document. The contents of this preamble are:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
II. Background
    A. Events Leading to This Action
    B. EPA Authority to Reconsider and Revise the RMP Rule
    C. Overview of EPA's Risk Management Program Regulations
III. Proposed Changes
    A. Rescind incident investigation, third-party audit, safer
technology and alternatives analysis (STAA), and other prevention
program amendments
    B. Rescind information availability amendments
    C. Modify local coordination amendments
    D. Modify exercise amendments
    E. Revise emergency response contacts provided in RMP
    F. Revise compliance dates
    G. Corrections to cross referenced CFR sections
IV. Rationale for Rescissions and Modifications
    A. Maintain consistency in accident prevention requirements
    B. Address security concerns
    C. Address BATF finding on West Fertilizer incident
    D. Reduce unnecessary regulations and regulatory costs
    E. Revise compliance dates to provide necessary time for program
changes
    F. Other issues raised by petitioners
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This rule applies to those facilities (referred to as ``stationary
sources'' under the CAA) that are subject to the chemical accident
prevention requirements at 40 CFR part 68. This includes stationary
sources holding more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated
substance in a process. Table 1 provides industrial sectors and the
associated NAICS codes for entities potentially affected by this
action. The Agency's goal is to provide a guide for readers to consider
regarding entities that potentially could be affected by this action.
However, this action may affect other entities not listed in this
table. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person(s) listed in the
introductory section of this action under the heading entitled FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

   Table 1--Industrial Sectors and Associated NAICS Codes for Entities
                   Potentially Affected by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Sector                             NAICS code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of              924
 Environmental Quality
 Programs.
Agricultural Chemical
 Distributors.
Crop Production..............  111
Animal Production and          112
 Aquaculture.
Support Activities for         115
 Agriculture and Forestry.
Farm Supplies Merchant         42491
 Wholesalers.
Chemical Manufacturing.......  325
Chemical and Allied Products   4246
 Merchant Wholesalers.
Food Manufacturing...........  311
Beverage Manufacturing.......  3121
Oil and Gas Extraction.......  211
Other \1\....................  44, 45, 48, 54, 56, 61, 72
Other manufacturing..........  313, 326, 327, 33
Other Wholesale..............
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable  423
 Goods.
Merchant Wholesalers,          424
 Nondurable Goods.
Paper Manufacturing..........  322
Petroleum and Coal Products    324
 Manufacturing.
Petroleum and Petroleum        4247
 Products Merchant
 Wholesalers.
Utilities....................  221

Warehousing and Storage......  493
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What action is the Agency taking?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For descriptions of NAICS codes, see https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    The purpose of this action is to propose changes to the Risk
Management Program Amendments final rule in order to address issues
raised in three petitions for reconsideration received by EPA, as well
as other issues that EPA believes warrant reconsideration.
    On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule (82 FR 4594)
amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions
under section 112(r) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The amendments
addressed various aspects of risk management programs, including
prevention programs at stationary sources, emergency response
preparedness requirements, information availability, and various other
changes to streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the
underlying rules. 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 \2\ and one from a group of
states.\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ RMP Coalition's Petition for Reconsideration and Request for
Agency Stay Pending Reconsideration of Final RMP rule (82 FR 4594,
January 13, 2017), February 28, 2017. Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Washington, DC. Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0759 and
    Chemical Safety Advocacy Group (CSAG)'s Petition and
Reconsideration and Stay Request of the Final RMP rule (82 FR 4594,
January 13, 2017) March 13, 2017, Hunton & Williams, San Francisco,
CA, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0766 and EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0765
(supplemental petition).
    \3\ Petition for Reconsideration and Stay on behalf of States of
Louisiana, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and the Commonwealth of
Kentucky with respect to Risk Management Program Final Rule, (82 FR
4594, January 13, 2017), March 14, 2017. State of Louisiana,
Department of Justice, Attorney General. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    EPA proposes to rescind almost all the requirements added to the
accident prevention provisions program of Subparts C (for Program 2
processes) and D (for Program 3 processes). These include rescission of
all requirements for third-party compliance audits (Sec. Sec.  68.58,
68.59, 68.79 and 68.80), safer technology and alternatives analysis
(Sec.  68.67(c)(8)) for facilities with Program 3 regulated processes
in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 322
(paper manufacturing), 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing),
and 325 (chemical manufacturing) and rescinding the words ``for each
covered process'' from the compliance audit provisions in Sec. Sec.
68.58 and 68.79. EPA also proposes to rescind in Sec.  68.50(a)(2), the
requirement for the hazard review to include findings from incident
investigations. For incident investigations (Sec. Sec.  68.60 and
68.81), EPA proposes to rescind: Requirements for conducting root cause
analysis for incident investigations; for the incident investigation
report to have specified added data elements, a schedule to address
recommendations, a 12-month completion deadline, and for Sec.  68.60
only, a five-year record retention (EPA notes that the existing rule's
five-year record retention requirement at Sec.  68.200 will still
apply); and for investigating any incident resulting in catastrophic
releases that also results in the affected process being decommissioned
or destroyed. In Sec. Sec.  68.60 and 68.81, EPA also proposes to
rescind clarifying text ``(i.e., a near miss)'' that was added to
describe an incident that could reasonably have resulted in a
catastrophic release. In Sec.  68.60, EPA proposes to change the term
investigation ``report(s)'' to ``summary(ies)'' and rescind the
requirement for Program 2 processes to establish an incident
investigation team consisting of at least one person knowledgeable in
the process involved and other persons with experience to investigate
an incident.
    EPA proposes to rescind employee training requirements (Sec. Sec.
68.54 and 68.71) that would apply to supervisors responsible for
process operations as well as rescind minor wording changes involving
description of employees operating a process in Sec.  68.54. EPA
proposes to rescind the requirement in Sec.  68.65 for the owner or
operator to keep process safety information up-to-date and the
requirement in Sec.  68.67(c)(2) for the process hazard analysis to
address the findings from all incident investigations required under
Sec.  68.81, as well as any other potential failure scenarios. EPA will
retain two changes that would revise the term ``Material Safety Data
Sheets'' to ``Safety Data Sheets (SDS)'' in Sec. Sec.  68.48 and 68.65.
    Alternatively, EPA proposes to rescind all of the above changes to
Subparts C and D except for the requirement in Sec.  68.50(a)(2) for
the hazard review to include findings from incident investigations, the
term ``report(s)'' in place of the word ``summary(ies)'' in Sec.
68.60, the requirement in Sec.  68.60 for Program 2 processes to
establish an incident investigation team consisting of at least one
person knowledgeable in the process involved and other persons with
experience to investigate an incident, the requirements in Sec. Sec.
68.54 and 68.71 for training requirements to apply to supervisors
responsible for process operations and minor wording changes involving
the description of employees operating a process in Sec.  68.54, and
the two changes that would revise the term ``Material Safety Data
Sheets'' to ``Safety Data Sheets (SDS)'' in Sec. Sec.  68.48 and 68.65.
    EPA proposes to rescind the following definitions in Sec.  68.3:
active measures,

inherently safer technology or design, passive measures,
practicability, and procedural measures related to amendments to
requirements in Sec.  68.67; root cause related to amendments to
requirements in Sec.  68.60 and Sec.  68.81, and third-party audit
related to amendments to requirements in Sec. Sec.  68.58 and 68.79 and
added Sec. Sec.  68.59 and 68.80.
    EPA proposes to modify the local emergency response coordination
amendments by deleting 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'' or alternatively replace it with the phrase ``. . . and
other information necessary for developing and implementing the local
emergency response plan.'' EPA would retain the requirement for owners
or operators to provide the local emergency planning and response
organizations with the stationary source's emergency response plan if
one exists, emergency action plan, and updated emergency contact
information, as well as the requirement for the owner or operator to
request an opportunity to meet with the local emergency planning
committee (or equivalent) and/or local fire department as appropriate
to review and discuss these materials. EPA also proposes to incorporate
appropriate classified information and CBI protections to regulated
substance and stationary source information required to be provided
under Sec.  68.93.
    EPA is proposing to modify the exercise program provisions of Sec.
68.96(b), by removing the minimum frequency requirement for field
exercises. EPA proposes to establish more flexible scope and
documentation provisions for both field and tabletop exercises by only
recommending, and not requiring, items specified for inclusion in
exercises and exercise evaluation reports, while still requiring
documentation of both types of exercises. EPA would retain the
notification exercise requirement of Sec.  68.96(a) and the provision
for alternative means of meeting exercise requirements of Sec.
68.96(c).
    Alternatively, EPA is considering whether to fully rescind the
field and tabletop exercise provisions of Sec.  68.96(b). Under this
alternative proposal, EPA would retain the notification exercise
provision of Sec.  68.96(a), but revise it and Sec.  68.93(b) to remove
any reference to tabletop and field exercises, while also modifying the
provision in Sec.  68.96(c) for alternative means of meeting exercise
requirements so that it applies only to notification exercises.
    EPA proposes to rescind the requirements for providing to the
public upon request, chemical hazard information and access to
community emergency preparedness information in Sec.  68.210 (b)
through (d), as well as rescind the requirement to provide the ``other
chemical hazard information such as that described in paragraph (b) of
this section'' at public meetings required under Sec.  68.210 (e). EPA
will retain the requirement in Sec.  68.210 (e) for owner/operator of a
stationary source to hold a public meeting to provide accident
information required under Sec.  68.42 (b) no later than 90 days after
any accident subject to reporting under Sec.  68.42. EPA will retain
the change to Sec.  68.210 (a) which added 40 CFR part 1400 as a
limitation on RMP availability (addresses restrictions on disclosing
RMP offsite consequence analysis under CSISSFRRA),\5\ and the provision
for control of classified information in Sec.  68.210 (f). EPA proposes
to delete the provision for CBI in Sec.  68.210 (g), because the only
remaining information required to be provided at the public meeting is
the source's five-year accident history, which Sec.  68.151(b)(3)
prohibits the owner or operator from claiming as CBI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Chemical Safety Chemical Safety Information, Site Security
and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to rescind requirements to report in the risk
management plan any information associated with the rescinded
provisions of third-party audits, incident investigation, safer
technology and alternatives analysis, and information availability to
the public. EPA proposed to slightly modify the emergency response
contact information required by Sec.  68.180(a)(1) to be provided in a
facility's RMP.
    EPA proposes to delay the rule's compliance dates in Sec.  68.10 to
one year after the effective date of a final rule for the emergency
coordination provisions, four years after the effective date of a final
rule for emergency exercises, two years after the effective date for
the public meeting provision and five years after the effective date of
the final rule for those remaining risk management plan provisions
added as the result of the Amendments rule or changed by the
Reconsideration rule. Under the current proposal, owners and operators
would be still be required to have exercise plans and schedules meeting
the requirements of Sec.  68.96 in place within four years of the
effective date of a final rule, but would have up to one additional
year to perform their first notification drill, up to three additional
years to conduct their first tabletop exercise and no specified
deadline for the first field exercise, other than that established by
the owner or operator's exercise schedule in coordination with local
response agencies.
    The CFR amendatory language that appears at the end of this Federal
Register notice (see PART 68--CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROVISIONS)
proposes changes to the regulatory text that would have included
changes from the final RMP Amendments rule if it was in effect. For
easier review of the proposed changes, EPA has provided a copy of 40
CFR part 68 with the Amendments rule regulatory text changes in
redline/strikeout format, which is available in the rulemaking
docket.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Regulatory Text Redline/Strikeout Changes for Proposed RMP
Reconsideration Rule, April 26, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    The Agency's procedures in this rulemaking are controlled by CAA
section 307(d). The statutory authority for this action is provided by
section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). Each of the
portions of the Risk Management Program rule we propose to modify in
this document are based on section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42
U.S.C. 7412(r)). EPA's authority for convening a reconsideration
proceeding for certain issues is found under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B)
or 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B). A more detailed explanation of these
authorities can be found in Section II.B. of this preamble, EPA
Authority to Reconsider and Revise the RMP Rule.

D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?

1. Summary of Potential 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, including Federal installations,
that use RMP-regulated substances. Table 2 presents the number of
facilities according to the

RMP reporting as of February 2015 by industrial sector and chemical
use.

                                Table 2--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 3 presents a summary of the annualized cost savings estimated
in the regulatory impact analysis.\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 3--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 (net)..............           (3.2)           (3.7)
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Cost Savings*.................          (87.9)          (88.4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values may not sum due to rounding.

    Most of the annual cost savings under the proposed rule 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), information
availability (annual savings of $3.1 million), and root-cause incident
investigation (annual savings of $1.8 million).
2. 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

rulemaking 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.

II. Background

A. Events Leading to This Action

    On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule amending 40 CFR
part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions under section
112(r) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The amendments addressed various
aspects of risk management programs, including prevention programs at
stationary sources, emergency response preparedness requirements,
information availability, and various other changes to streamline,
clarify, and otherwise technically correct the underlying rules. This
rulemaking is known as the ``Risk Management Program Amendments'' or
``RMP Amendments'' rule. For further information on the Risk Management
Program Amendments, see 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).
    On January 26, 2017, the EPA published a final rule delaying the
effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments from March 14,
2017 to March 21, 2017, see 82 FR 8499. This revision to the effective
date of the Risk Management Program Amendments was part of an EPA final
rule implementing a memorandum dated January 20, 2017, from the
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory
Freeze Pending Review.'' This memorandum directed the heads of agencies
to postpone, until 60 days after the date of its issuance, the
effective date of rules that were published prior to January 20, 2017,
but which had not yet become effective.
    In a letter dated February 28, 2017, a group known as the ``RMP
Coalition,'' submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Risk
Management Program Amendments (``RMP Coalition Petition'') as provided
for in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).\8\ 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 and if the
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The
Administrator may stay the effective date of the rule for up to three
months during such reconsideration. On March 13, 2017, the Chemical
Safety Advocacy Group (``CSAG'') also submitted a petition (``CSAG
Petition'') for reconsideration and stay (including a March 14, 2017
supplement to the CSAG Petition).\9\ On March 14, 2017, the EPA
received a third petition for reconsideration and stay from the States
of Louisiana, joined by Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and the Commonwealth
of Kentucky (the ``States Petition'').\10\ The Petitioners CSAG and
States also requested that EPA delay the various compliance dates of
the Risk Management Program Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ RMP Coalition's Petition for Reconsideration and Request for
Agency Stay Pending Reconsideration of Final RMP rule (82 FR 4594,
January 13, 2017), February 28, 2017. Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Washington, DC. Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0759.
    \9\ Chemical Safety Advocacy Group (CSAG)'s Petition and
Reconsideration and Stay Request of the Final RMP rule (82 FR 4594,
January 13, 2017) March 13, 2017, Hunton & Williams, San Francisco,
CA, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0766 and EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0765
(supplemental petition).
    \10\ Petition for Reconsideration and Stay on behalf of States
of Louisiana, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and the Commonwealth of
Kentucky with respect to Risk Management Program Final Rule, (82 FR
4594, January 13, 2017), March 14, 2017. State of Louisiana,
Department of Justice, Attorney General. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator announced the
convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management
Program Amendments (a copy of this letter is included in the docket for
this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725).\11\ As explained in
that letter, having considered the objections raised in the RMP
Coalition Petition, the Administrator determined that the criteria for
reconsideration have been met for at least one of the objections. EPA
issued a three-month (90-day) administrative stay of the effective date
of the Risk Management Program Amendments until June 19, 2017 (82 FR
13968, March 16, 2017). EPA subsequently further delayed the effective
date of the Risk Management Program Amendments until February 19, 2019,
via notice and comment rulemaking (82 FR 27133, June 14, 2017). The
purpose of this Delay Rule was to allow EPA to conduct a
reconsideration proceeding and to consider other issues that may
benefit from additional comment. This proposed rulemaking is the next
step in EPA's reconsideration of the Risk Management Program
Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0758
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA Authority To Reconsider and Revise the RMP Rule

1. What are the procedural requirements for reconsidering the RMP
Amendments?
    Congress granted the EPA the authority for rulemaking on the
prevention of chemical accidental releases as well as the correction or
response to such releases in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of CAA section
112(r)(7). The scope of this authority is discussed in more detail
below. The EPA has used its authority under CAA section 112(r)(7) to
issue the RMP Rule (61 FR 31668, June 20, 1996), the 2017 RMP
Amendments, and this reconsideration document and proposed rulemaking.
    When promulgating rules under CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) and (B), the
EPA must follow the procedures for rulemaking set out in CAA section
307(d). See CAA sections 112(r)(7)(E) and 307(d)(1)(C). Among other
things, section 307(d) sets out requirements for the content of
proposed and final rules, the docket for rulemakings, requirement to
provide an opportunity for oral testimony on the proposed rulemaking,
the length of time for comments, and judicial review. Only objections
raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period may
be raised during judicial review.
    Section 307(d) has a provision that requires the EPA to convene a
reconsideration proceeding when the person makes an objection that
meets specific criteria set out in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The
statute provides:

    If the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection
within [the comment period] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
period specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the rule, the Administrator
shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and
provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had
the information been available at the time the rule was proposed.

    As noted in the Background section above, when several parties
petitioned for reconsideration of the 2017 RMP Amendments, the
Administrator found that at least one objection the petitioners raised
met the specific criteria for mandatory reconsideration and therefore
he convened a proceeding for reconsideration under CAA section

307(d)(7)(B). While section 307(d)(7)(B) sets out criteria for when the
Agency must conduct a reconsideration, the Agency has the discretion to
reopen, revisit, amend and revise a rule under the rulemaking authority
granted in CAA section 112(r)(7) by following the procedures of CAA
307(d) at any time, including while it conducts a reconsideration
proceeding required by CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). In light of the fact
that EPA must already grant petitioners ``the same procedural rights as
would have been afforded had the information been available at the time
the rule was proposed,'' it is efficient to conduct a discretionary
amendment proceeding simultaneously with the reconsideration
proceeding.
2. What is EPA's substantive authority under Clean Air Act section
112(r)(7)?
    Congress granted EPA authority for accident prevention rules under
two provisions in CAA section 112(r)(7). Under subparagraph (A) of CAA
section 112(r)(7), EPA may set rules addressing the prevention,
detection, and correction of accidental releases of substances listed
by EPA by rule (``regulated substances'' listed in the tables in 40 CFR
68.130). Such rules may include data collection, training, design,
equipment, work practice, and operational requirements. EPA has wide
discretion regarding the effective date (``as determined by the
Administrator, assuring compliance as expeditiously as practicable'').
    Under subparagraph (B) of CAA section 112(r)(7), Congress
authorized EPA to develop ``reasonable regulations and appropriate
guidance'' that provide for the prevention and detection of accidental
releases and the response to such releases, ``to the greatest extent
practicable.'' Congress required an initial rulemaking under this
subparagraph by November 15, 1993. Subparagraph (B) sets out a series
of mandatory subjects to address, interagency consultation
requirements, and discretionary provisions that allowed EPA to tailor
requirements to make them reasonable and practicable. For example, the
regulations needed to address ``storage, as well as operations'' and
``emergency response after accidental releases;'' EPA was to use the
expertise of the Secretaries of Labor and Transportation in
promulgating the regulations; and EPA had the discretion (``shall, as
appropriate'') to recognize differences in ``size, operations,
processes . . . and the voluntary actions'' of regulated sources to
prevent and respond to accidental releases (CAA section
112(r)(7)(B)(i)). At a minimum, the regulations had to require
stationary sources with more than a ``threshold quantity to prepare and
implement a risk management plan.'' Such plans needed to provide for
compliance with rule requirements under CAA section 112(r) and include
a hazard assessment with release scenarios and an accident history, a
release prevention program, and a response program (CAA section
112(r)(7)(B)(ii)). Plans were to be registered with EPA and submitted
to various planning entities (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii)). The rules
would apply to sources three years after promulgation or three years
after a substance was first listed for regulation under CAA section
112(r). (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i)).
    In addition to the direction to use the expertise of the
Secretaries of Labor and Transportation in subparagraph (B) of CAA
section 112(r)(7), the statute required EPA to consult with these
secretaries when carrying out the authority of CAA section 112(r)(7)
and to ``coordinate any requirements under [CAA section 112(r)(7)] with
any requirements established for comparable purposes by'' OSHA. (CAA
section 112(r)(7)(D)). This consultation and coordination language
derives from and expands upon provisions on hazard assessments in the
bill that eventually passed the Senate as its version of the 1990 CAAA,
section 129(e)(4) of S. 1630. The Senate committee report on this
language notes that the purpose of the coordination requirement is to
ensure that ``requirements imposed by both agencies to accomplish the
same purpose are not unduly burdensome or duplicative.'' Senate Report
at 244.\12\ The mandate for coordination in the area of safer chemical
processes was incorporated into the CAA in section 112(r)(7)(D) in the
same legislation that Congress directed OSHA to promulgate a process
safety standard that became the PSM standard. See CAAA of 1990 section
304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989, Report of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate together with
Additional and Minority Views to Accompany S. 1630. S. Report No.
101-228. 101st Congress, 1st Session, December 20, 1989.--``Senate
Report'' EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0645.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RMP Amendments and this reconsideration address three aspects
of the Risk Management Program: Requirements for prevention programs,
emergency response provisions, and information disclosure. The
prevention program provisions proposed to be rescinded in this document
(auditing, incident investigation, and safer technologies and
alternatives analysis) address the ``prevention and detection of
accidental releases.'' The emergency coordination and exercises
provisions in this rule modify existing provisions that provide for
``response to such releases by the owners or operators of the sources
of such releases.'' The information disclosure provisions proposed to
be rescinded or modified in this document are related to the
development of ``procedures and measures for emergency response after
an accidental release of a regulated substance in order to protect
human health and the environment.'' \13\ (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Incident investigation, compliance auditing, and STAA are
also authorized as release prevention requirements pertaining to
stationary source ``design, equipment . . . and work practice'' as
well as ``record-keeping [and] reporting.'' Information disclosure
is also authorized as ``reporting.'' CAA section 112(r)(7)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering whether it is legally permissible for the Agency to
rescind and/or modify provisions of the RMP Amendments rule while
continuing to meet EPA's obligations under CAA section 112(r), EPA
notes that the CAA did not require EPA to promulgate the RMP Amendments
rule. There are four provisions of CAA section 112(r) that require or
authorize the Administrator to promulgate regulations. The first two
relate to the list of regulated substances and their threshold
quantities. CAA section 112(r)(3) required EPA to promulgate a list of
at least 100 regulated substances. Section 112(r)(5) required EPA to
establish, by rule, a threshold quantity for each listed substance. EPA
met these obligations in 1994 with the publication of the list of
regulated substances and threshold quantities (59 FR 4493, January 31,
1994). Section 112(r)(7) contains the other two regulatory provisions.
Section 112(r)(7)(B) required EPA to publish accidental release
prevention, detection, and response requirements and guidance (``. . .
the Administrator shall promulgate reasonable regulations and
appropriate guidance to provide, to the greatest extent practicable,
for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of regulated
substances and for response to such releases by the owners or operators
of the sources of such releases''). EPA met this obligation in 1996
with the publication of the original RMP rule (61 FR 31668, June 20,
1996), and associated guidance documents published in the late 1990s.
The other regulatory promulgation provision of section 112(r)(7)--
section 112(r)(7)(A)--is permissive. Subparagraph (A) authorizes EPA to
promulgate regulations but does not require it.
    Therefore, EPA had met all of its regulatory obligations under
section 112(r) prior to promulgating the RMP

Amendments rule. In promulgating the RMP Amendments rule, EPA took a
discretionary regulatory action in response to Executive Order 13650,
``Improving Chemical Safety and Security.'' \14\ We have made
discretionary amendments to the RMP rule several times without a
dispute over our authority to issue discretionary amendments. See 64 FR
964 (January 6, 1999); 64 FR 28696 (May 26, 1999); 69 FR 18819 (April
9, 2004). As EPA's action in the RMP Amendments rule was discretionary,
the Agency may take additional action to rescind or modify provisions
of the RMP Amendments rule if the Agency finds that it is reasonable to
do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 82 FR 4594, January 13, 2017: ``Section 6(c) of
Executive Order 13650 requires the Administrator of EPA to review
the chemical hazards covered by the Risk Management Program and
expand, implement and enforce the Risk Management Program to address
any additional hazards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Overview of EPA's Risk Management Program Regulations

    EPA's existing RMP regulation was published in two stages. The
Agency published the list of regulated substances and TQs in 1994 (59
FR 4478, January 31, 1994) (the ``list rule'') \15\ and published the
RMP final regulation, containing risk management requirements for
covered sources, in 1996 (61 FR 31668, June 20, 1996) (the ``RMP
rule'').16 17 Subsequent modifications to the list rule and
RMP rule were made as discussed in the Amendments Rule (82 FR 4594,
January 13, 2017 at 4600). Prior to development of EPA's 1996 RMP rule,
OSHA published their Process Safety Management (PSM) standard in 1992
(57 FR 6356, February 24, 1992), as required by section 304 of the 1990
CAAA, using its authority under 29 U.S.C. 653. The OSHA PSM standard
can be found in 29 CFR 1910.119. Both the OSHA PSM standard and the EPA
RMP rule aim to prevent or minimize the consequences of accidental
chemical releases through implementation of management program elements
that integrate technologies, procedures, and management practices. In
addition to requiring implementation of management program elements,
the RMP rule requires covered sources to submit (to EPA) a document
summarizing the source's risk management program--called a Risk
Management Plan (or RMP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Documents and information related to development of the
list rule can be found in the EPA docket for the rulemaking, docket
number A-91-74.
    \16\ Documents and information related to development of the RMP
rule can be found in EPA docket number A-91-73.
    \17\ 40 CFR part 68 applies to owners and operators of
stationary sources that have more than a TQ of a regulated substance
within a process. The regulations do not apply to chemical hazards
other than listed substances held above a TQ within a regulated
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's risk management program requirements include conducting a
worst-case scenario analysis and a review of accident history,
coordinating emergency response procedures with local response
organizations, conducting a hazard assessment, documenting a management
system, implementing a prevention program and an emergency response
program, and submitting a risk management plan that addresses all
aspects of the risk management program for all covered processes and
chemicals. A process at a source is covered under one of three
different prevention programs (Program 1, Program 2 or Program 3) based
on the threat posed to the community and the environment. Program 1 has
minimal requirements and is for processes not classified in industrial
sectors \18\ specified for Program 3, that have not had an accidental
release with offsite consequences in the last five years prior to
submission of the source's risk management plan, and that have no
public receptors within the worst case release scenario vulnerable zone
for the process. Program 3 has the most requirements and applies to
processes covered by the OSHA PSM standard (but not eligible for RMP
Program 1) or classified in specified industrial sectors. Program 2 has
fewer requirements than Program 3, and applies to any process not
covered under Programs 1 or 3. Programs 2 and 3 both require a hazard
assessment, a prevention program and an emergency response program,
although Program 2 requirements are less extensive and more
streamlined. For example, the Program 2 prevention program was intended
to cover simpler processes located at smaller businesses and does not
require the following process safety elements: management of change,
pre-startup review, contractors, employee participation and hot work
permits. The Program 3 prevention program is fundamentally identical to
the OSHA PSM standard and designed to cover those processes in the
chemical industry. For further explanation and comparison of the PSM
standard and RMP requirements, see the ``Process Safety Management and
Risk Management Plan Comparison Tool'' published by OSHA and EPA in
October 2016.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See ten industry NAICS codes listed at Sec.  68.10(d)(1)
representing pulp mills, petroleum refineries, petrochemical
manufacturing, alkalies and chlorine manufacturing, all other basic
inorganic chemical manufacturing, cyclic crude and intermediates
manufacturing, all other basic chemical manufacturing, plastic
material and resin manufacturing, nitrogenous fertilizer
manufacturing and pesticide and other agricultural chemicals
manufacturing.
    \19\ Available at https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/psm_terminology.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Changes

A. Rescind Incident Investigation, Third-Party Audit, Safer Technology
and Alternatives Analysis (STAA), and Other Prevention Program
Amendments

    In this section, EPA discusses the proposed changes to the RMP
Amendments rule, but explanations of the rationale for most changes are
discussed later in Section IV. Rationale for Rescissions and
Modifications. Because many of the changes are being proposed for the
same reason, presenting the rationale separately eliminates redundant
discussion and allows rationale discussion to be organized by topic
(i.e. OSHA coordination, security risks, cost reduction).
    In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA added three major provisions to the
accident prevention program of Subparts C (for Program 2 processes) and
D (for Program 3 processes). These included:
    (1) A requirement in Sec.  68.60 and Sec.  68.81 for all facilities
with Program 2 or 3 processes to conduct a root cause analysis using a
recognized method as part of an incident investigation of a
catastrophic release or an incident that could have reasonably resulted
in a catastrophic release (i.e., a near-miss).
    (2) Requirements in Sec.  68.58 and Sec.  68.79 for regulated
facilities with Program 2 or Program 3 processes to contract with an
independent third-party, or assemble an audit team led by an
independent third-party, to perform a compliance audit after the
facility has an RMP reportable accident or when an implementing agency
requires a third-party audit due to conditions at the stationary source
that could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance, or
when a previous third-party audit failed to meet the specified
competency or independence criteria. Requirements were established in
new Sec.  68.59 and Sec.  68.80 for third-party auditor competency,
independence, and responsibilities and for third-party audit reports
and audit findings response reports.
    (3) A requirement in Sec.  68.67(c)(8) for facilities with Program
3 regulated processes in North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes 322 (paper manufacturing), 324

(petroleum and coal products manufacturing), and 325 (chemical
manufacturing) to conduct a safer technology and alternatives analysis
(STAA) as part of their process hazard analysis (PHA). This required
the owner or operator to address safer technology and alternative risk
management measures applicable to eliminating or reducing risk from
process hazards; to consider, in the following order or preference,
inherently safer technologies, passive measures, active measures and
procedural measures while using any combination of risk management
measures to achieve the desired risk reduction; and to evaluate the
practicability of any inherently safer technologies and designs
considered.
    (4) The RMP Amendments rule also made several other minor changes
to the Subparts C and D prevention program requirements. These included
the following:
     Sec.  68.48 Safety information--changed requirement in
subparagraph (a)(1) to maintain Safety Data Sheets (SDS) in lieu of
Material Safety Data Sheets.
     Sec.  68.50 Hazard review--added language to existing
subparagraph (a)(2) to require hazard reviews to include findings from
incident investigations when identifying opportunities for equipment
malfunctions or human errors that could cause an accidental release.
     Sec. Sec.  68.54 and 68.71 Training--changed description
of employee(s) ``operating a process'' to ``involved in operating a
process'' in Sec.  68.54 paragraphs (a) and (b), and changed
``operators'' to ``employees involved in operating a process'' in Sec.
68.54 (d). EPA also added paragraph (e) in Sec.  68.54 and paragraph
(d) in Sec.  68.71 to make employee training requirements also apply to
supervisors responsible for directing process operations (under Sec.
68.54) and supervisors with process operational responsibilities (under
Sec.  68.71).
     Sec. Sec.  68.58 and 68.79 Compliance audits--changes to
paragraph (a) for Program 2 and Program 3 provisions added language to
clarify that the owner or operator must evaluate compliance with each
covered process every three years.
     Sec. Sec.  68.60 and 68.81 Incident investigation--made
the following changes: Revised paragraph (a) in both sections by adding
clarifying text ``(i.e., a near miss)'' to describe an incident that
could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release; revised
paragraph (a) in both sections to require investigation when an
incident resulting in catastrophic releases also results in the
affected process being decommissioned or destroyed; added paragraph (c)
to Sec.  68.60 to require for Program 2 processes, incident
investigation teams to be established and consist of at least one
person knowledgeable in the process involved and other persons with
appropriate knowledge and experience to thoroughly investigate and
analyze the incident; redesignated paragraphs (c) through (f) in Sec.
68.60 as paragraphs (d) through (g); revised redesignated paragraph (d)
in Sec.  68.60 and paragraph (d) in Sec.  68.81 to require an incident
investigation report to be prepared and completed within 12 months of
the incident, unless the implementing agency approves, in writing, an
extension of time, and added paragraph (g) in Sec.  68.60 to require
investigation reports to be retained for five years; and in Sec.  68.60
replaced the word ``summary'' in redesignated paragraph (d) with
``report.'' The following changes were made in both paragraph (d) of
Sec.  68.81 and redesignated paragraph (d) of Sec.  68.60 to specify
additional required contents of the investigation report: revised
paragraph (d)(1) to include time and location of the incident; revised
paragraph (d)(3) to require that description of incident be in
chronological order, with all relevant facts provided; redesignated and
revised paragraph (d)(4) into paragraph (d)(7) to require that the
factors that contributed to the incident include the initiating event,
direct and indirect contributing; added new paragraph (d)(4) to require
the name and amount of the regulated substance involved in the release
(e.g. fire, explosion, toxic gas loss of containment) or near miss and
the duration of the event; added new paragraph (d)(5) to require the
consequences, if any, of the incident including, but not limited to:
injuries, fatalities, the number of people evacuated, the number of
people sheltered in place, and the impact on the environment; added new
paragraph (d)(6) to require the emergency response actions taken; and
redesignated and revised paragraph (d)(5) of Sec.  68.81 and paragraph
(c)(5) of Sec.  68.60 into paragraphs (d)(8) of both sections to
require that the investigation recommendations have a schedule for
being addressed.
     Sec.  68.65 Process safety information--change to
paragraph (a) required the owner or operator to keep process safety
information up-to-date; change to Note to paragraph (b) revised the
term ``Material Safety Data Sheets'' to ``Safety Data Sheets (SDS).''
     Sec.  68.67 Process hazard analysis--change to
subparagraph (c)(2) added requirement for PHA to address the findings
from all incident investigations required under Sec.  68.81, as well as
any other potential failure scenarios.
     Sec.  68.3 Definitions--added definitions for terms active
measures, inherently safer technology or design, passive measures,
practicability, and procedural measures related to amendments to
requirements in Sec.  68.67. Added definition of root cause related to
amendments to requirements in Sec.  68.60 and Sec.  68.81. Added
definition for term third-party audit related to amendments to
requirements in Sec.  68.58 and added Sec.  68.59.
    EPA now proposes to rescind all of the above changes, with the
exception of the two changes that would revise the term ``Material
Safety Data Sheets'' to ``Safety Data Sheets (SDS)'' in Sec. Sec.
68.48 and 68.65. This includes deleting the words ``for each covered
process'' from the compliance audit provisions in Sec.  68.58 and Sec.
68.79, which apply to RMP Program 2 and Program 3, respectively. EPA
proposes to rescind the requirements to report the following data
elements in the risk management plan: in Sec.  68.170 (i), whether the
most recent compliance audit was a third-party audit, pursuant to
Sec. Sec.  68.58 and 68.59; in Sec.  68.175 (k), whether the most
recent compliance audit was a third-party audit, pursuant to Sec. Sec.
68.79 and 68.80; and in Sec.  68.175 (e)(7), inherently safer
technology or design measures implemented since the last PHA, if any,
and the technology category (substitution, minimization, simplification
and/or moderation). In Sec.  68.175(e), EPA proposes to rescind the
Amendments rule's deletion of the expected date of completion of any
changes resulting from the PHA for program 3 facilities. Adding back
this requirement would revert reporting of the PHA information in the
risk management plan to what is currently required by the existing in-
effect rule. This would also be consistent with the similar Sec.
68.170 (e) requirement for Program 2 facilities to report the expected
date of completion of any changes resulting from the hazard review, a
requirement that was not deleted in the Amendments rule. EPA also
proposes to rescind the requirement in Sec.  68.190 (c), that prior to
de-registration, the owner or operator shall meet applicable reporting
and incident investigation requirements in accordance with Sec. Sec.
68.42, 68.60 and/or 68.81.
    Alternatively, EPA proposes to rescind all of the above changes,
except for the following:

     Requirement in Sec.  68.50(a)(2) for the hazard review to
include findings from incident investigations;
     Retain the term ``report(s)'' in place of the word
``summary(ies)'' in Sec.  68.60;
     Requirement in Sec.  68.60 for Program 2 processes to
establish an incident investigation team consisting of at least one
person knowledgeable in the process involved and other persons with
experience to investigate an incident;
     Requirements in Sec. Sec.  68.54 and 68.71 for training
requirements to apply to supervisors responsible for process operations
and minor wording changes involving the description of employees
operating a process in Sec.  68.54; and,
     Retain the two changes that would revise the term
``Material Safety Data Sheets'' to ``Safety Data Sheets (SDS)'' in
Sec. Sec.  68.48 and 68.65.
    EPA requests public comment on the Agency's proposal to rescind and
modify the prevention requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, as well
as the alternatives described above.

B. Rescind Information Availability Amendments

    In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA added several new provisions to
Sec.  68.210--Availability of information to the public. These
included:
    (1) A requirement for the owner or operator to provide, upon
request by any member of the public, specified chemical hazard
information for all regulated processes, as applicable, including:
     Names of regulated substances held in a process,
     SDSs for all regulated substances located at the facility,
     Accident history information required to be reported under
Sec.  68.42,
     Emergency response program information, including whether
or not the source responds to releases of regulated substances, name
and phone number of local emergency response organizations, and
procedures for informing the public and local emergency response
agencies about accidental releases,
     A list of scheduled exercises required under Sec.  68.96
(i.e., new emergency exercise provisions of the RMP Amendments rule),
and;
     Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) contact
information;
    (2) A requirement for the owner or operator to provide ongoing
notification on a company website, social media platforms, or through
other publicly accessible means that the above information is available
to the public upon request, along with the information elements that
may be requested and instructions for how to request the information,
as well as information on where members of the public may access
information on community preparedness, including shelter-in-place and
evacuation procedures;
    (3) A requirement for the owner or operator to provide the
requested chemical hazard information within 45 days of receiving a
request from any member of the public, and;
    (4) A requirement to hold a public meeting to provide accident
information required under Sec.  68.42 as well as other relevant
chemical hazard information, no later than 90 days after any accident
subject to reporting under Sec.  68.42.
    Additionally, the RMP Amendments rule added provisions to Sec.
68.210 to address classified information and confidential business
information (CBI) claims for information required to be provided to the
public, and made a minor change to the existing paragraph (a) RMP
availability, to add a reference to 40 CFR part 1400 for controlling
public access to RMPs.
    EPA now proposes for security reasons to rescind the requirements
for providing to the public upon request, chemical hazard information
and access to community emergency preparedness information in Sec.
68.210 (b) through (d), as well as rescind the requirement to provide
the ``other chemical hazard information such as that described in
paragraph (b) of this section'' at public meetings required under Sec.
68.210(e). Alternatively, EPA proposes to rescind all of the
information elements in Sec.  68.210 (b) through (d), as well as
rescind the requirement to provide the ``other chemical hazard
information such as that described in paragraph (b) of this section''
at public meetings required under Sec.  68.210(e), except for the
requirement in Sec.  68.210(b)(5) for the owner or operator to provide
a list of scheduled exercises required under Sec.  68.96. EPA will
retain the requirement in Sec.  68.210(e) for owner/operator of a
stationary source to hold a public meeting to provide accident
information required under Sec.  68.42 no later than 90 days after any
accident subject to reporting under Sec.  68.42, but clarifying that
the information to be provided is the data listed in Sec.  68.42(b).
This data would be provided for only the most recent accident, and not
for previous accidents covered by the 5-year accident history
requirement of Sec.  68.42(a). EPA will retain the change to paragraph
(a) ``RMP availability'' which added availability under 40 CFR part
1400 (addresses restrictions on disclosing RMP offsite consequence
analysis under the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels
Regulatory Relief Act (CSISSFRRA).\20\ The provisions for classified
information in Sec.  68.210(f) will also be retained but are separately
proposed to be incorporated into the emergency response coordination
section of the rule. EPA proposes to delete the provision for CBI in
Sec.  68.210(g), because the only remaining provision for public
information availability in this section (other than the provision for
RMP availability) is the requirement to provide at a public meeting,
the information required in the source's five-year accident history,
which Sec.  68.151(b)(3) prohibits the owner or operator from claiming
as CBI. EPA proposes to rescind the requirements in Sec.  68.160(b)(21)
to report in the risk management plan, the method of communication and
location of the notification that hazard information is available to
the public, pursuant to Sec.  68.210(c). EPA requests public comment on
the Agency's proposal to rescind and modify the public information
availability requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, as well as the
alternatives described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Modify Local Coordination Amendments

    In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA required owners or operators of
``responding'' and ``non-responding'' stationary sources to perform
emergency response coordination activities required under new Sec.
68.93. These activities included coordinating response needs at least
annually with local emergency planning and response organizations, as
well as documenting these coordination activities. The RMP Amendments
rule required coordination to include providing to the local emergency
planning and response organizations the stationary source's emergency
response plan if one exists, emergency action plan, updated emergency
contact information, and any other information that local emergency
planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local
emergency response planning. For responding stationary sources,
coordination must also include consulting with local emergency response
officials to establish appropriate schedules and plans for field and
tabletop exercises required under Sec.  68.96(b). Owners or operators
of responding and non-responding sources are required to request an
opportunity to meet with the local emergency planning committee (or
equivalent) and/or local fire department as appropriate to review and
discuss these materials.

    EPA now proposes to modify the local coordination amendments by
deleting 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.''
Alternatively, EPA proposes to change this phrase to read: ``other
information necessary for developing and implementing the local
emergency response plan.'' Under both alternatives, EPA also proposes
to incorporate appropriate classified information and CBI protections
to regulated substance and stationary source information required to be
provided under Sec.  68.93.
    EPA is retaining the requirement in Sec.  68.95(a)(1)(i) for
responding facilities to update their facility emergency response plans
to include appropriate changes based on information obtained from
coordination activities, emergency response exercises, incident
investigations or other information. In addition, EPA will retain the
requirement in Sec.  68.95(4) that emergency response plan notification
procedures must inform appropriate Federal and state emergency response
agencies, as well as local agencies and the public.
    EPA proposes to retain language in Sec.  68.93(b) referring to
field and tabletop exercise schedules and plans with a proposal to
retain some form of field and tabletop exercise requirement.
Alternatively, in conjunction with an alternative proposal to rescind
field and tabletop exercise requirements (see ``Modify exercise
amendments'' below), the Agency also proposes to rescind this language.
    EPA is proposing no other changes to the local coordination
requirements of the RMP Amendments rule. Under either alternative
proposed above, the following provisions would remain unchanged: The
provisions of paragraph (b) requiring coordination to include providing
to the local emergency planning and response organizations the
stationary source's emergency response plan if one exists, emergency
action plan, and updated emergency contact information, as well as the
requirement for the owner or operator to request an opportunity to meet
with the local emergency planning committee (or equivalent) and/or
local fire department as appropriate to review and discuss these
materials. For provisions of the RMP Amendments that we propose to
retain, we continue to rely on the rationale and responses we provided
when we promulgated the Amendments. See 81 FR 13671-74 (proposed RMP
Amendments rule), March 14, 2016, 82 FR 4653-58 (final RMP Amendments
rule), January 13, 2017. EPA requests public comment on the Agency's
proposal to modify the local coordination requirements of the RMP
Amendments rule, as well as the alternatives described above.

D. Modify Exercise Amendments

    In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA added a new section entitled Sec.
68.96 Emergency response exercises. This section contained several new
provisions, including:
     Notification exercises: At least once each calendar year,
the owner or operator of a stationary source with any Program 2 or
Program 3 process must conduct an exercise of the stationary source's
emergency response notification mechanisms.
    [cir] Owners or operators of responding stationary sources are
allowed to perform the notification exercise as part of the tabletop
and field exercises required in new Sec.  68.96(b).
    [cir] The owner/operator must maintain a written record of each
notification exercise conducted over the last five years.
     Emergency response exercise program: The owner or operator
of a responding stationary source must develop and implement an
exercise program for its emergency response program.
    [cir] Exercises must involve facility emergency response personnel
and, as appropriate, emergency response contractors.
    [cir] The emergency response exercise program must include field
and tabletop exercises involving the simulated accidental release of a
regulated substance.
    [cir] Under the RMP Amendments rule, the owner or operator is
required to consult with local emergency response officials to
establish an appropriate frequency for exercises, but at a minimum, the
owner or operator must hold a tabletop exercise at least once every
three years, and a field exercise at least once every ten years.
    [cir] Field exercises must 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.
    [cir] Tabletop exercises must 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.
     For both field and tabletop exercises, the RMP Amendments
rule requires the owner or operator to prepare an evaluation report
within 90 days of each exercise. The report must 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.
     The RMP Amendments rule also contains a provision for
alternative means of meeting exercise requirements, which allows the
owner or operator to satisfy the requirement to conduct notification,
field and/or tabletop exercises through exercises conducted to meet
other Federal, state or local exercise requirements, or by responding
to an actual accidental release.
    EPA is now proposing to modify the exercise program provisions of
Sec.  68.96(b), as requested by state and local response officials, by
removing the minimum frequency requirement for field exercises and
establishing more flexible scope and documentation provisions for both
field and tabletop exercises. Under this proposal, EPA would retain the
final RMP Amendments rule requirement for the owner or operator to
attempt to consult with local response officials to establish
appropriate frequencies and plans for field and tabletop exercises. The
minimum frequency for tabletop exercises would remain at three years.
However, there would be no minimum frequency specified for field
exercises in order to reduce burden on regulated facilities and local
responders as explained in rationale section IV. D. 5. Costs of Field
and Tabletop Exercises. Documentation of both types of exercises would
still be required, but the items specified for inclusion in exercises
and exercise evaluation

reports under the RMP Amendments rule would be recommended, and not
required. The content of exercise evaluation reports would be left to
the reasonable judgement of stationary source owners or operators and
local emergency response officials. As described in the RMP Amendments
rule, if local emergency response officials declined the owner or
operator's request for consultation on and/or participation in
exercises, the owner or operator would be allowed to unilaterally
establish appropriate frequencies and plans for the exercises (provided
that the frequency for tabletop exercises does not exceed three years),
and conduct exercises without the participation of local emergency
response officials. Likewise, if local emergency response officials and
the facility owner or operator cannot agree on the appropriate
frequency and plan for an exercise, owners and operators must still
ensure that exercises occur and should establish plans to execute the
exercises on their own. The RMP Amendments rule does not require local
responders to participate in any of these activities, nor would this
proposal.
    This proposal would not alter the notification exercise requirement
of Sec.  68.96(a) or the provision for alternative means of meeting
exercise requirements of Sec.  68.96(c). EPA proposes to correct an
error in Sec.  68.96(b)(2)(i) related to the frequency of tabletop
exercises by proposing to replace the phrase ``shall conduct a field
exercise every three years'' with ``shall conduct a tabletop exercise
every three years.'' For provisions of the RMP Amendments that we
propose to retain, we continue to rely on the rationale and responses
we provided when we promulgated the Amendments. See 81 FR 13674-76
(proposed RMP Amendments rule), March 16, 2016 and 82 FR 4659-67 (final
RMP Amendments rule), January 13, 2017. In summary, EPA found that
exercising an emergency response plan is critical to ensure that
response personnel understand their roles, that local emergency
responders are familiar with the hazards at the facility, and that the
emergency response plan is appropriate and up-to-date. Exercises also
ensure that personnel are properly trained and lessons learned from
exercises can be used to identify future training needs. Poor emergency
response procedures during some recent accidents have highlighted the
need for facilities to conduct periodic emergency response exercises.
Other EPA and federal agency programs and some state and local
regulations require emergency response exercises.
    Alternatively, EPA is considering whether to fully rescind the
field and tabletop exercise provisions of Sec.  68.96(b). Under this
alternative proposal, EPA would retain the notification exercise
provision of Sec.  68.96(a), but revise it and Sec.  68.93(b) to remove
any reference to tabletop and field exercises, while also modifying the
provision in Sec.  68.96(c) for alternative means of meeting exercise
requirements so that it applies only to notification exercises.
    EPA is also considering another alternative--to remove the minimum
frequency requirement for field exercises, but 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.
    EPA requests public comment on the Agency's proposal to modify the
exercise requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, as well as the
alternatives described above.

E. Revise Emergency Response Contacts Provided in RMP

    EPA proposes to modify the emergency response contact information
required to be provided in a facility's RMP. 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. .
. .''

F. Revise Compliance Dates

    In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA required compliance with the new
provisions as follows:
     Required compliance with emergency response coordination
activities by March 14, 2018;
     Required compliance 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;
     Required compliance with other major provisions (i.e.,
third-party compliance audits, root cause analyses and other added
requirements to incident investigations, STAA, emergency response
exercises, and information availability provisions), unless otherwise
stated, by March 15, 2021; and;
     Required the owner or operator to correct or resubmit
their RMP to reflect new and revised data elements promulgated in the
RMP Amendments rule by March 14, 2022.
    EPA did not specify compliance dates for the other minor changes to
the Subpart C and D prevention program requirements. Therefore, under
the RMP Amendments rule, compliance with these provisions was required
on the effective date of the RMP Amendments rule. EPA now proposes to
extend compliance dates as follows:
     For emergency response coordination activities, EPA
proposes to require compliance by one year after the effective date of
a final rule.
     For emergency response exercises, EPA proposes to require
owners and operators to have exercise plans and schedules meeting the
requirements of Sec.  68.96 in place by four years after the effective
date of a final rule. EPA also proposes to require owners and operators
to have completed their first notification drill by five years after
the effective date of a final rule, and to have completed their first
tabletop exercise by 7 years after the effective date of a final rule.
Under this proposal, there would be no specific compliance date
specified for field exercises, because field exercises would be
conducted according to a schedule developed by the owner or operator in
consultation with local emergency responders.
     For corrections or resubmissions of RMPs to reflect
reporting on new and revised data elements (public meeting information
and emergency response program and exercises), EPA proposes to require
compliance by five years after the effective date of a final rule.
     For third-party audits, STAA, root cause analyses and
other new provisions of the RMP Amendments rule for incident
investigations and chemical hazard information availability and notice
of availability of information, as well as other minor changes to the
Subpart C and D prevention program requirements (except for the two
changes that would revise the term ``Material Safety Data Sheets'' to
``Safety Data Sheets (SDS)'' in Sec. Sec.  68.48 and 68.65), EPA is
proposing to rescind these provisions. However, if a final rule does
not rescind these provisions, EPA proposes to require compliance with
any of these provisions that are not rescinded, by four years after the
effective date of a final rule.
     For the public meeting requirement in Sec.  68.210(b), EPA
proposes to require compliance by two years after the effective date of
a final rule.

     EPA is 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.
    For provisions of the RMP Amendments that we propose to retain, we
continue to rely on the rationale and responses we provided when we
promulgated the Amendments. See 81 FR 13686-91 proposed RMP Amendments
rule), March 14, 2016 and 82 FR 4675-80 (final RMP Amendments rule),
January 13, 2017. In summary, EPA found that one year was sufficient to
arrange and document coordination activities, three years was needed to
comply with emergency response program requirements, four years was
necessary to comply with exercise provisions, and five years was
necessary to update risk management plans.
    Three years to develop an emergency response program is necessary
for facility owners and operators to understand the requirements,
arrange for emergency response resources and train personnel to respond
to an accidental release. Compliance with emergency coordination
requirements could require up to one year because some facilities who
have not been regularly coordinating will need time to get familiar
with the new requirements, while having some flexibility in scheduling
and preparing for coordination meetings with local emergency response
organizations whose resources and time for coordination may be limited.
A shorter timeframe may be difficult to comply with, especially for RMP
sources whose local emergency organization has many RMP sources in
their jurisdiction who are trying to schedule coordination meetings
with local responders at the same time.
    For the emergency exercises, EPA is proposing a four year
compliance time for developing exercise plans and schedules, an
additional year for conducting the first notification exercise, and an
additional three years for conducting the first tabletop exercise,
because EPA believes that additional time is necessary for sources to
understand the new requirements for notification, field and tabletop
exercises, train facility personnel on how to plan and conduct these
exercises, coordinate with local responders to plan and schedule
exercises, and carry out the exercises. Additional time will also
provide owners and operators with flexibility to plan, schedule, and
conduct exercises in a manner which is least burdensome for facilities
and local response agencies. Also, EPA plans to publish guidance for
emergency response exercises and once these materials are complete,
owners and operators will need time to familiarize themselves with the
materials and use them to plan and develop their exercises. If local
emergency response organizations are to be able to participate in the
field and tabletop exercises, sufficient time is needed to accommodate
any time or resource limitations local responders might have not only
for participating in exercises, but for helping to plan them.
    For the public meeting requirement in Sec.  68.210(b), EPA proposes
to require compliance by two years after the effective date of a final
rule. The RMP Amendments rule allows four years for compliance for the
public meeting which was consistent with the compliance date for other
information to be required to the public by Sec.  68.210. However, EPA
is proposing to remove the requirement to provide to the public the
chemical hazard information in Sec.  68.210 (b), the notice of
availability of information in Sec.  68.210(c) and the timeframe for
providing information 68.210(d) as well proposing to remove the
requirement to provide the chemical hazard information in Sec.  68.210
(b) at the public meeting. The stationary source would be required to
provide the chemical accident data elements specified in Sec.  68.42,
data which should already be familiar to the source because this
information is currently required to be reported in their risk
management plan. Thus, two years should be enough time for facilities
to be prepared to provide the required information at a public meeting
after an RMP reportable accident. EPA seeks comment on whether a sooner
compliance date is more appropriate.
    With regard to the five-year compliance date for updating RMPs with
newly-required information, EPA is proposing this time frame because
EPA will need time to revise its RMP submission guidance for any
provisions finalized and also to revise its risk management plan
submission system, RMP*eSubmit, to include additional data elements.
Sources will not be able to update risk management plans until the
revised RMP*eSubmit system is ready. Also, once the software is ready,
some additional time is needed to allow sources to update their risk
management plans while preventing potential problems with thousands of
sources submitting updated risk management plans on the same day.

G. Corrections to Cross Referenced CFR Sections

    EPA proposes to correct CFR section numbers that are cross
referenced in certain sections of the rule because these were changes
necessitated by addition and redesignation of paragraphs pertaining to
provisions in the Amendments rule but were overlooked at the time.
Table 4 contains a list of these corrections.

        Table 4--Corrections to Cross Referenced Section Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                In section:                  Change in section reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
68.12(b)..................................  68.10(b) should be 68.10(g).
68.12(c)..................................  68.10(c) should be 68.10(h).
68.12(d)..................................  68.10(d) should be 68.10(i).
68.12(b)(4)...............................  68.10(b)(1) should be
                                             68.10(g)(1).
68.96(a)..................................  68.90(a)(2) should be
                                             68.90(b)(3).
68.180(a)(1)..............................  68.10(f)(3) should be
                                             68.10(g)(3).
68.215(a)(2)(i)...........................  68.10(a) should be 69.10(a)
                                             through (f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rationale for Rescissions and Modifications

A. Maintain Consistency in Accident Prevention Requirements

    In both the RMP Coalition Petition and the CSAG Petition, the
petitioners seek reconsideration of the RMP Amendments based on what
they view as either EPA's failure to coordinate with OSHA and DOT as
required by paragraph (D) of CAA section 112(r)(7) or at least
inadequate coordination. For example, CSAG's petition comments: \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ CSAG Petition, pg. 25, document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-
0766.

    Stakeholders have repeatedly asked EPA why it is pursuing this
effort in isolation when Congress directed it to coordinate any
requirements under Clean Air Act Section 112(r) with certain
industry standards, and with those issued for comparable purposes by
OSHA and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). This directive to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
coordinate was repeated in E.O. 13650 (footnotes omitted).

The RMP Coalition notes that OSHA had been reexamining the PSM standard
under E.O. 13650 but ``ha[d] yet to complete the PSM standard
rulemaking process and the timeframe for that regulation is unclear.''
\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ RMP Coalition Petition, pg. 19, Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-
2015-0725-0759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What was EPA's approach to coordination with other agencies prior to
E.O. 13650?
    Both EPA's 40 CFR part 68 RMP regulation and OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.119

PSM standard were authorized under the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. Both the OSHA PSM standard and the EPA RMP rule aim to prevent or
minimize the consequences of accidental chemical releases and protect
workers, the community and the environment through implementation of
management program elements that integrate technologies, procedures and
management practices. EPA's RMP regulation has a large overlap with the
PSM standard and both were written to complement each other in
accomplishing these Congressional goals.
    The 1996 Risk Management Program rule and the related notice and
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (60 FR 13526, March 13,
1995) not only mention and reflect consultations with both DOT and DOL-
OSHA, but also show close coordination between the PSM standard and the
EPA program. In the proposed Risk Management Program rule, EPA proposed
that all sources subject to EPA's rules comply with a prevention
program based on the PSM standard. See 58 FR 54190, 54195-96 (October
20, 1993). The preamble to the proposed rulemaking contained an
explanation of the differences between PSM standard and the Risk
Management Program and a section-by-section comparison. Id. at 54203-
05. In EPA's view, ``[e]xcept for the management system requirement . .
. , the proposed EPA prevention program covers the same elements as
OSHA's [PSM standard] and generally uses identical language except
where the statutory mandates of the two agencies dictate differences.''
Id. at 54204. EPA retained a PSM standard-based prevention program
(tier) in its supplemental proposal. See 60 FR 13526, March 13, 1995 at
13529. In the 1996 final rule, EPA placed all PSM standard-covered
processes that were subject to EPA's Risk Management Program in program
3 for prevention (unless the process was eligible for Program 1), and
adopted language in program 3 that even more closely tracked PSM than
had the proposal. See 61 FR 31668, June 20, 1996 at 31672-3, 31677,
31686-8, 31692-3, 31696-7, 31708 and 31711-12. Those differences in
provisions between program 3 and the PSM standard that did exist were
driven by statutory terms. See 61 FR 31668, June 20, 1996 at 31672,
31687, and 31696.
    Measures taken by sources to comply with the OSHA PSM standard for
any process that meets OSHA's PSM standard are sufficient to comply
with the prevention program requirements of all three Programs.\23\ The
Program 3 prevention program finalized in 1996 includes requirements of
the OSHA PSM standard 29 CFR 1910.119 (c) through (m) and (o), with
minor wording changes to address statutory differences. This makes it
clear that one accident prevention program to protect workers, the
general public, and the environment will satisfy both OSHA and EPA.\24\
These prevention program requirements in Program 3 cover employee
participation, process safety information, process hazard analysis,
operating procedures, training, contractors, pre-startup safety review,
mechanical integrity, hot work permits, management of change, incident
investigation, and compliance audits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 61 FR 31671, June 20, 1996. EPA final rule for Accidental
Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs under the
CAA, Section 112(r)(7).
    \24\ 61 FR 31672, June 20, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other provisions of the 1996 rule as well as subsequent amendments
to the Risk Management Program reflect coordination with DOT. EPA has
relied on DOT definitions for key terms and allowed compliance with the
hazardous material regulations to satisfy requirements of EPA's
program. See 61 FR 31668, June 20, 1996 at 31700, 63 FR 640, January 6,
1998, and 64 FR 28696, May 26, 1999 at 28698. The coordination with
other agencies in the Risk Management Program helped to minimize burden
and avoided requiring unduly duplicative and distinct compliance
programs addressing the same matters. In short, whenever possible,
compliance with one agency's program was compliance with all.
2. What was EPA's approach to coordination under E.O. 13650 during the
development of the RMP Amendments?
    EPA adopted a somewhat inconsistent approach to the consultation
and coordination requirement in developing the Risk Management Program
Amendments of 2017. After the West Fertilizer fire and explosion on
April 17, 2013, EPA and OSHA, (along with DHS) as members of the
Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Groups established by
Executive Order 13650, continued to consult with each other on their
overlapping programs as they considered changes to existing chemical
safety and security regulations. EPA and OSHA discussed options for
changes to the RMP regulations and the OSHA PSM standard, respectively,
in the May 2014 document entitled ``Executive Order 13650 Report to the
President--Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security--A
Shared Commitment.'' \25\ In justifying its pre-regulatory ``Request
for Information'' notice that raised for discussion potential
amendments to the risk management program, EPA noted that E.O. 13650
had directed OSHA to publish an RFI on potentially amending the PSM
standard, cited the coordination requirement of CAA section
112(r)(7)(D), and found that ``[t]his RFI will allow EPA to evaluate
any potential updates to the RMP regulation in parallel to OSHA's
evaluation of potential updates to the PSM standard.'' 79 FR 44604,
July 31, 2014 at 44605 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, when EPA
proceeded to rulemaking, we pushed forward with finalizing amendments
to the Risk Management Program before OSHA had evaluated all of the
information before it and before EPA had an understanding of OSHA's
future actions. In other words, when EPA proceeded with its rulemaking,
we no longer emphasized proceeding in parallel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group. May
2014. E. O. 13650 Report to the President--Actions to Improve
Chemical Facility Safety and Security--A Shared Commitment. EPA,
Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, Department of
Justice, Department of Agriculture and Department of Transportation
(DOT). Washington, DC, EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters were critical about EPA's approach to
coordination with OSHA and other agencies during the development of the
RMP Amendments. Many advanced theories of OSHA ``primacy'' in the area
of process safety and that EPA had impermissibly regulated workplace
safety in violation of the statute. See Amendments RTC at 15-16,\26\
see also id. for EPA's responses. Others claimed EPA failed to
coordinate with OSHA and should cease its rulemaking until it did so.
See Amendments RTC at 249-51. Generally, EPA responded by providing
information on meetings and other interactions with OSHA during the
rule development. Id.; see 82 FR 4594, January 13, 2017 at 4601.
However, some commenters made the more specific criticism that EPA
should have deferred proceeding with the RMP Amendments until OSHA had
a parallel proposed rule amending the PSM standard available.
Amendments RTC at 249-50. In response, EPA noted that each agency had
distinct rulemaking procedures and that the 1990 CAA Amendments allowed
for and contemplated each agency to proceed with rulemaking on
different schedules. Id. at 251. Furthermore, EPA noted that OSHA had
completed an advisory small

business panel proceeding on its potential PSM standard amendments, and
we expressed the belief that the two agencies did not need to proceed
on identical timelines. Id. at 232. Our responses were generally
focused on the legal permissibility of proceeding on separate schedules
rather than the policy wisdom of doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0729 in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is EPA's proposed approach to ``coordination'' in this
reconsideration?
    Under Clean Air Act section 112(r)(7)(D), although Congress has
conveyed to EPA discretion regarding how it should coordinate with
OSHA, Congress's intent is clear that EPA coordinate its program with
the other agencies' where possible. Accordingly, although at times
divergence between the RMP rule and the PSM standard may make sense
given the agencies' different missions, both agencies generally have
tried to minimize confusion and burden on the regulated community by
minimizing divergence. The RMP Amendments constitute a divergence from
that longstanding practice: Although EPA has regularly communicated and
coordinated with OSHA on its prevention program and process safety
efforts so far, EPA proceeded to promulgate the RMP Amendments before
understanding OSHA's path forward in this area and before understanding
whether any divergence is reasonable for EPA.
    After further consideration, EPA believes it did not give
sufficient weight to the value of coordination with OSHA and focused
too much on its legal authority to proceed independently. EPA now
proposes to determine that a more sensible approach would be to have a
better understanding of what OSHA will be doing in this area before
revising the RMP accident prevention program. Thus, EPA proposes to
rescind the RMP accident prevention amendments pending further action
by OSHA. This approach would allow the two programs' process safety
requirements to remain aligned as much as possible so that the
regulated community may have a better understanding of what to do to
comply while reducing unnecessary complexity and cost. Having
consistency between required safe practices and common understanding of
requirements should help industry to comply with the PSM standard and
RMP rule and improve the effectiveness of accident prevention efforts.
    This approach would better fulfill the Congressional purpose of
coordination between the two agencies while maximizing consistency and
ease of implementation of regulatory requirements. It is also
responsive to concerns from stakeholders about our approach to
coordination under the Amendments rule. We intend to allow for a better
understanding of OSHA's plan for changes to the PSM standard before
proposing any future changes to our rule.
    While EPA has amended the Risk Management Program several times
after 1996 without corresponding OSHA amendments to its PSM standard,
these changes did not involve the prevention program provisions, thus
precluding any need for coordination with OSHA. The Risk Management
Program Amendments of 2017 were the first time we had issued post-1996
amendments that were significant due to costs and deemed major for
purposes of the Congressional Review Act. Under these circumstances, we
think that our approach to the 1996 RMP rule, where we attempted to
either maintain consistent language with the PSM standard or carefully
justify our departure, is a better approach. Our record shows the 2017
Amendments have significant costs and are discretionary. Given the
flexibility in CAA section 112(r)(7), EPA may thus make a policy choice
to conduct EPA's rulemaking proceedings to improve the RMP program
after we have a better understanding of OSHA's timing of comment
opportunities, content of amendments, and implementation schedules. EPA
proposes to place greater weight than it did in promulgating the
Amendments on the policy importance of coordinating with OSHA and not
adopting significant changes to the risk prevention aspects of the RMP
rule that diverge from OSHA's requirements until we have a better
understanding of OSHA's path forward.
    The reasonableness of this approach to coordination can be seen in
both EPA's and OSHA's experiences conducting outreach to small entities
as both agencies prepared to develop amendments to the RMP rule and the
PSM standard. For EPA, we must ``take into consideration the concerns
of small business in promulgating regulations under [CAA section
112(r)].'' CAA section 112(r)(7)(C). During the fall/winter of 2015,
EPA convened an Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel to obtain
advice and recommendations from Small Entity Representatives (SERs)
that were potentially subject to the proposed RMP amendments. The SBAR
panel report on the proposed RMP amendments under consideration
contains the small entity comments and recommendations to the EPA
Administrator from the three panel members (EPA, Small Business
Administration Office of Advocacy, and the OMB Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs).\27\ EPA published its proposed rulemaking on
the RMP amendments on March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13638).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ EPA/OMB/SBA. February 19, 2016. Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel Report on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule: Risk Management
Modernization Rule. Letter to EPA Administrator with Executive
Summary (EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0030), Final Report (EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-
0725-0032), and Appendix B Written Comments Submitted by SERs (EPA-
HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the summer of 2016, OSHA initiated a Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel in order to get feedback on several potential revisions to
OSHA's Process Safety Management Program (PSM) standard. Some potential
revisions tracked EPA's RMP Amendments, which were in the proposed rule
stage, while others were not included in the Amendments. OSHA also
considered a number of minor modifications which largely codify
existing OSHA interpretations of the PSM standard. OSHA completed their
SBAR Panel Final Report in August 2016.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ OSHA. August 1, 2016. Process Safety Management (PSM)
SBREFA Panel Final Report. OSHA-2013-0020-0116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA may or may not adopt amendments discussed in the SBAR Panel
Report. EPA believes it would be prudent to understand OSHA's path
forward in this area before owners and operators are required to
implement changes under the RMP rule in order to decide whether any
divergence from OSHA's PSM standard is reasonable for EPA. One example
of potential divergence between the OSHA PSM standard and the RMP rule
would be in the requirement for third-party audits. The August 2016
OSHA SBAR panel report did not fully support third-party audits.
Instead the SBAR panel recommended further review of the need and
benefits of third-party audits; the sufficient availability, adequate
process knowledge and degree of independence needed of third-party
auditors; and whether facilities should decide the best type of audit
appropriate for their process.
    EPA believes that we should not retain and put into effect changes
to the prevention aspects of the Risk Management Program until we have
a better understanding of OSHA's plans for the PSM standard changes so
that we may move forward in a more coordinated fashion with regulatory
changes that improve process safety performance and reduce accidents
without causing undue burden and regulatory conflicts. Therefore, EPA
is

proposing to rescind the prevention requirements of the RMP Amendments
rule applicable to both Program 2 and Program 3 processes in order to
better understand OSHA's path forward for similar issues our sister
agency is still evaluating. We propose to rescind the RMP Amendment
provisions for incident investigation, third-party compliance audits,
STAA, and various minor changes impacting subpart C and D of the RMP
rule. Although the pre-amendment RMP Program 3 requirements were
consistent with OSHA PSM standard, the RMP Program 2 regulations were
slightly different by design, as explained earlier, providing less
rigorous requirements and recordkeeping for Program 2 facilities. In
contrast to Program 3 processes, small businesses make up a greater
percentage of the processes subject to Program 2. Therefore, EPA also
proposes to rescind any changes made to Program 2 prevention program
elements to keep the Program 2 requirements less burdensome than those
of Program 3, maintaining the pre-amendment RMP requirements for
Program 2 facilities and the pre-amendment balance of burdens on
smaller entities. EPA also proposes to rescind the words ``for each
covered process'' from the compliance audit provisions in Sec. Sec.
68.58 and 68.79, which apply to RMP Program 2 and Program 3,
respectively, in order to prevent unnecessary divergence from language
in compliance audits in the OSHA PSM standard.
    As an alternative to rescinding the Amendments rule changes to the
Program 2 and Program 3 prevention program provisions as proposed
above, EPA is considering rescinding all of the above changes except
for the requirement in Sec.  68.50(a)(2) for the hazard review to
include findings from incident investigations, the term ``report(s)''
in place of the word ``summary(ies)'' in Sec.  68.60, the requirement
in Sec.  68.60 for Program 2 processes to establish an incident
investigation team consisting of at least one person knowledgeable in
the process involved and other persons with experience to investigate
an incident, the requirements in Sec. Sec.  68.54 and 68.71 for
training requirements to apply to supervisors responsible for process
operations and minor wording changes involving the description of
employees operating a process in Sec.  68.54, and the two changes that
would revise the term ``Material Safety Data Sheets'' to ``Safety Data
Sheets (SDS)'' in Sec. Sec.  68.48 and 68.65.
    The reason that EPA is considering this alternative is that these
changes would not affect the consistency of the Program 3 prevention
program requirements with the OSHA PSM standard. With the exception of
the amendment to the training requirements (and the SDS provisions,
which are minor terminology changes), these provisions would affect
only the Program 2 prevention requirements. Also, retaining these
changes would not make these Program 2 provisions more rigorous than
their Program 3 counterparts, thus maintaining the rule's current model
where Program 2 requirements are generally more streamlined than the
comparable Program 3 requirements. Regarding the change to the Program
3 training requirement, as EPA noted in the proposed Amendments rule,
EPA has traditionally interpreted the training provisions of Sec. Sec.
68.54 and 68.71 to apply to any worker that is involved in operating a
process, including supervisors. This is consistent with the OSHA
definition of employee set forth at 29 CFR 1910.2(d) (see 81 FR 13686,
Monday, March 14, 2016). Therefore, retaining this change may make the
RMP Program 3 training provision even more consistent with the
comparable provision of the PSM standard.
    EPA requests comments on its proposal to rescind the changes made
in the Program 2 and Program 3 prevention program provisions of the
final RMP Amendments rule, including the alternative described above.
Should investigation of Program 2 processes be required to have a team
(of at least two people) with expertise in the process and
investigation methods in order to thoroughly investigate and analyze
the causes of incidents, even if the requirement to specifically
conduct a root causes analysis is rescinded? Should Program 2 process
investigations at least require investigation be performed by someone
with expertise in the process?

B. Address Security Concerns

1. Emergency Response Coordination
    EPA discussed the need for enhanced RMP local coordination
provisions in the proposed Amendments rule. See 81 FR 13671, March 14,
2016. In summary, although there is substantial overlap between EPCRA
requirements and RMP local coordination requirements, EPA found that
some facilities who had indicated they do not have an RMP emergency
response plan had not properly coordinated response actions with local
authorities. State and local officials echoed these same concerns. In
the final rule, EPA finalized enhanced local coordination provisions to
address these concerns, while clarifying source's obligations for
coordination, including specific information that must be communicated
to local responders during annual coordination activities. In addition,
EPA finalized the requirements to conduct field and tabletop exercises
and stipulations for scope, frequency and documentation of exercises.
Facilities must consult with local emergency response officials to
establish appropriate schedules and plans for these exercises. EPA
proposes to retain these requirements while addressing security
concerns raised by petitioners. In all three petitions requesting
reconsideration of the RMP Amendments rule, petitioners objected to 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.'' All Petitioners noted that the
language was new to the final rule (i.e., it was not contained in the
Amendments as proposed), broad, and posed potential security concerns.
Petitioner CSAG identified a particular problem with the new disclosure
provision: By relocating the disclosure provision from section Sec.
68.205 in the proposal to section Sec.  68.93, EPA had moved it to a
section of the RMP rule that did not have specific procedures for
handling CBI claims, and, CSAG argued, the protection in the RMP rule
for classified information in section 68.210(f) did not clearly apply
to disclosures under section 68.93(b).
    Petitioners have correctly noted that EPA incorporated the language
at issue in order to address concerns, including security concerns,
raised by various commenters over EPA's proposed RMP Amendments rule
(81 FR 13638, March 14, 2016), which among other things proposed to add
new Sec.  68.205 to require owners and operators of all RMP-regulated
facilities to provide certain information to Local Emergency Planning
Committees (LEPCs) or local emergency response officials upon request.
In response to these concerns, EPA, without acknowledging any
inconsistency with the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard or
other regulatory structure, did not finalize Sec.  68.205 of the
proposed rulemaking in the final Amendments rule. Instead we required
that the owner or operator to provide ``any other information that
local emergency planning and response organizations identify as
relevant to local emergency

planning'' in Sec.  68.93. Any claims for Chemical-terrorism
Vulnerability Information (CVI) could then be handled on a case-by-case
basis by the stationary source, the LEPC, DHS and others, as
appropriate.
    In effect, petitioners are saying not only that EPA's final rule
solution to the security concerns created by proposed Sec.  68.205 did
not fix the problem--it actually made it worse. After further review,
EPA acknowledges that the petitioners' concerns have merit. Section
68.205 from the proposed RMP Amendments rule listed specific items of
information that the owner or operator must provide to the LEPC or
local emergency response officials upon request, but it did not include
an open-ended provision for ``any other information that local
emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to
local emergency response planning.'' By including such a provision in
the final RMP Amendments rule, EPA may have inadvertently opened the
door to local emergency officials requesting and receiving security-
sensitive information even beyond the specific items included in Sec.
68.205 of the proposed RMP Amendments about which petitioners and
others had raised concerns.
    Petitioners have also correctly noted that by locating the final
rule's local responder information availability provision in Sec.
68.93, EPA removed any protections for CBI. Items requested under the
proposed amendment to Sec.  68.205 (but not included in final
Amendments rule) would have benefited from the inclusion in that
section of paragraphs (d) Classified information, and (e) CBI, but
these paragraphs do not appear in Sec.  68.93 of the final rule. EPA
did not intend to eliminate CBI protection--it was an inadvertent
consequence of relocating the local responder information availability
provision to Sec.  68.93.
    EPA disagrees with the Petitioners' assertion that the protection
for classified information in Sec.  68.210(f) would not apply to all
provisions of the RMP rule, including disclosures under Sec.  68.93(b).
This provision, which is simply a recodification of former Sec.
68.210(b), has always applied to all provisions under the RMP rule
since it was adopted in 1996. Nevertheless, EPA proposes removal of the
new broad information disclosure provision in Sec.  68.93(b) as
proposed to avoid any unnecessary disputes between LEPCs and holders of
classified information over the scope of Sec.  68.210(f) (to be
redesignated Sec.  68.210(b)).
    EPA's proposed deletion of 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'' would solve the problem with the open-ended disclosure
provision. This is EPA's preferred option, as the Agency believes that
the remaining language in Sec.  68.93 will still ensure that local
responders obtain the information they need while avoiding potential