Subparagraph (a)(3) would require the RMP to identify a list of
Federal or state emergency plan requirements to which the stationary
source is subject. EPA would delete subparagraphs (a)(4) through
(a)(6);
     Sec.  68.180(b) by replacing the current text with a
requirement to identify whether the facility is a responding or non-
responding stationary source, pursuant to Sec.  68.90. EPA would
reorganize the paragraph into subparagraphs as follows:
    [cir] Subparagraph (b)(1) would apply to non-responding
stationary sources. In subparagraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii)
the owner or operator would be required to identify whether the
owner or operator has confirmed that local responders are capable of
responding to accidental releases at the source, whether appropriate
notification mechanisms are in place, and whether a notification
exercise occurs at least annually.
    [cir] Subparagraph (b)(2) would apply to responding stationary
sources. In subparagraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) the owner or
operator would be required to identify whether the LEPC or local
response entity requested that the stationary source be a responding
facility; whether the stationary source complies with requirements
in Sec.  68.95; whether a notification exercises occurs at least
annually, as required in Sec.  68.96(a); whether a field exercise is
conducted every five years and after any RMP reportable accident,
pursuant to Sec.  68.96(b)(1)(i); and whether a tabletop exercise
occurs at least annually, except during the calendar year when a
field exercise is conducted, as required in Sec.  68.96(b)(2)(i).

    EPA is proposing to delete Sec.  68.180(c), which requires the
owner or operator to list other Federal or state emergency plan
requirements to which the stationary source is subject.
5. Technical Corrections
a. Proposed Revisions to Sec.  68.10 (Applicability)
    EPA is proposing to correct a typographical error in Sec.
68.10(b)(2). Section 68.10(b)(2) uses the term public receptor and
indicates that public receptor is defined in Sec.  68.30; however the
term public receptor is defined in Sec.  68.3, not Sec.  68.30. The
proposed rule language corrects this typographical error.
b. Proposed Revisions to Sec.  68.48 (Safety information)
    EPA is proposing to remove the word ``material'' from the term
Material Safety Data Sheet in Sec.  68.48(a)(1) to conform with OSHA's
revised terminology for SDS. In 2012, OSHA made changes to its Hazard
Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200 in order to align with the
UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals (GHS), Revision 3 (77 FR 17574, March 26, 2012). One change
was the change in nomenclature from ``Material Safety Data Sheets'' to
``Safety Data Sheets.'' Consequently, OSHA made this change to the PSM
standard at 1910.119(d)(1)(vii) (78 FR 9311, February 8, 2013).
Chemical producers and users must comply with new SDS requirements by
June 1, 2015.\206\ In order to be consistent with OSHA and the UN GHS,
EPA is proposing to replace ``Material Safety Data Sheet'' with
``Safety Data Sheet'' in Sec.  68.48(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ OSHA Fact Sheet- Hazard Communication Standard Final Rule.
https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/HCSFactsheet.html.

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

c. Proposed Revisions to Sec. Sec.  68.54 and 68.71 (Training)
    The RMP rule requires initial and refresher training for employees
operating a Program 2 or Program 3 covered process. Since the inception
of the rule, however, there has been confusion on the types of
employees that are considered workers operating a covered process.
Although ``employee'' is not defined in Sec.  68.3, EPA has
traditionally interpreted an employee to be 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).
    EPA has noted during facility inspections that some owners and
operators are confused about how the existing training requirements
apply to supervisors involved in process operations. If a supervisor is
involved in decision-making for process operations, such as making
changes to operating parameters, developing or approving operating
procedures, or conducting emergency operations, then EPA expects that
the supervisor receives initial and refresher training appropriate to
the supervisor's responsibilities. In such cases, the training of a
supervisor might not need to be as extensive as that of an operator,
but EPA expects that the supervisor training would include process
operations for which the supervisor might have decision-making
authority. For this reason, EPA is proposing to clarify that the
training requirements in Sec. Sec.  68.54 and 68.71 (for Program 2 and
Program 3 facilities, respectively) apply to supervisors who are
involved in operating a covered process by adding paragraph (e) to
indicate that the term employee includes supervisors.
    Similarly, the EPA realizes that there may be other employee types
involved in operating a covered process besides operators. For example,
process engineers and maintenance technicians may occasionally be
involved in process operations. The degree of involvement for these
other employee types may vary greatly. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
revise Sec.  68.54(d) to clarify that the requirement applies to
employees involved in operating a process. For employees other than
operators and supervisors, EPA expects that initial and refresher
training will be appropriate to the employee's responsibilities in
operating the process.
    Finally, EPA believes that Program 3 requirements in Sec. Sec.
68.71(a) and 68.71(b) provides clearer regulatory language regarding
the applicability of employees subject to initial and refresher
training requirements than the similar Program 2 requirements
Sec. Sec.  68.54(a) and 68.54(b). Specifically, Sec. Sec.  68.71(a) and
68.71(b) indicates that initial and refresher training is required for
employees ``involved in'' operating a covered process. Because EPA
believes that this language can better facilitate compliance for
Program 2, the EPA is proposing to add similar language for Program 2
facilities at Sec. Sec.  68.54(a) and 68.54(b).
d. Proposed Revisions to Sec.  68.65 (PSI)
    EPA is proposing to revise Sec.  68.65(a) in order to remove
irrelevant text regarding the timeframe for initial development of PSI
and to more clearly demonstrate that PSI must be kept up-to-date. The
EPA believes that these proposed changes will help Program 3 facilities
to better comply with PSI requirements.
    EPA is proposing to revise Sec.  68.65(a) to remove the phrase ``In
accordance with the schedule set forth in Sec.  68.67.'' This language
appears to have been adopted from OSHA's PSM PHA completion schedule of
May 1994 to May 1997 and is not relevant to the RMP rule because the
compliance date of June 21, 1999 is after OSHA's PSM PHA completion
schedule. Additionally, the only schedule currently referenced in Sec.
68.67 is in Sec.  68.67(e), which pertains to a written schedule of PHA
corrective actions. Because Sec.  68.67(e) does not pertain to when a
PHA must be completed, EPA is proposing to remove the phrase ``In
accordance with the schedule set forth in Sec.  68.67'' from Sec.
68.65(a).
    Furthermore, EPA is proposing to add the phrase: ``and shall keep
PSI up-to-date.'' EPA has always intended that PSI be kept up-to-date
for Program 3 facilities. Updated PSI is necessary to properly update
or revalidate the PHA every 5 years as required by Sec.  68.67(f). PSI
items that that need to be kept up-to-date include, but are not limited
to, piping and instrumentation diagrams, SDSs, hazard information, and
changes to the design of the process. Although PSI must be updated for
Program 3 facilities through MOC requirements in Sec.  68.75(d), EPA
believes that the proposed change makes it clearer that PSI must be
kept up-to-date. This proposed change also ensures consistency with the
safety information requirement for Program 2 facilities, where Sec.
68.48(a) indicates ``The owner or operator shall compile and maintain
the following up-to-date safety information. . .'' EPA expects that
revising Sec.  68.65(a) in this manner will further clarify the
requirement that PSI must be completed prior to conducting a PHA.
    Finally, in order to be consistent with OSHA and the GHS, EPA is
proposing to replace ``Material Safety Data Sheet'' with ``Safety Data
Sheet'' in the note to Sec.  68.65(b).
e. Proposed Revisions to Sec.  68.130 List of Substances
    EPA is proposing revisions to Tables 1, 2, and 4 in Sec.  68.130 as
follows:
    Table 1 to Sec.  68.130--List of Regulated Toxic Substances and TQs
for Accidental Release Prevention. EPA is proposing to correct a
typographical error in the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number
(no.) for allyl alcohol in Table 1 in Sec.  68.130. The incorrect CAS
no. of 107-18-61 for allyl alcohol would be corrected to 107-18-6.
    Table 4 to Sec.  68.130--List of Regulated Flammable Substances and
TQs for Accidental Release Prevention. EPA is proposing to correct a
typographical error to the CAS no. for 1, 3-Butadiene, to read 106-99-
0, instead of 196-99-0, right justify the first CAS nos. column and
delete the second CAS nos. column because it is redundant.
f. Proposed Revisions to Sec.  68.200 (Recordkeeping)
    EPA is proposing to revise Sec.  68.200 to clarify that records
must be maintained at the stationary source.

VIII. Compliance Dates

    The initial Risk Management Program rule applied 3 years after
promulgation of the rule on June 20, 1996, which is consistent with the
last sentence of CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i). The provisions of this
proposal modify terms of the existing rule, and, in some cases, clarify
existing requirements. The statute does not directly address when
amendments should become applicable. Therefore, in modifications to
Sec.  68.10, EPA is proposing to:

     Require compliance with emergency response coordination
activities within one year of an effective date of a final rule;
     Provide up to three years for the owner or operator of
a non-responding stationary source to develop an emergency response
program in accordance with Sec.  68.95 following an LEPC or
equivalent's written request to do so;
     Comply with new provisions, unless otherwise stated,
four years after the effective date of the final rule; and
     Provide regulated sources one additional year (i.e.,
five years after the effective date of the final rule) to correct or
resubmit RMPs to reflect new and revised data elements.

    EPA is proposing that within one year of the effective date of a
final rule, the owner or operator of a stationary source comply with
emergency response

coordination activities in Sec. Sec.  68.93(a) and 68.93(b). This
includes coordinating response needs annually with local emergency
planning and response organizations to ensure resources and
capabilities are in place to respond to an accidental release of a
regulated substance, and documenting coordination activities. EPA
believes one year is sufficient to arrange for and document
coordination activities. The coordination activities in this proposed
rule mostly are clarifications of current requirements rather than new
provisions.
    EPA is also proposing to require three years for the owner or
operator of a stationary source to comply with emergency response
program requirements of Sec.  68.95 after receiving a written request
by an LEPC or equivalent to develop an emergency response program. This
timeframe is consistent with the time established in the original rule
to comply with risk management program requirements and submit initial
RMPs.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to provide additional time for
compliance with other proposed provisions (i.e., third-party compliance
audits, root cause analyses as part of incident investigations, STAA,
emergency response exercises, and information availability provisions).
For these provisions, the proposed rule requires affected facilities to
comply by four years after the effective date of the rule. Our reasons
for the four year phase for these modified requirements are set out
below. For the third-party audit, incident investigation root cause
analysis, and public meeting provisions, this means that for any RMP
reportable accident occurring later than four years after the effective
date of the rule, the owner or operator of a source must conduct a
third-party audit; investigate an incident, including a root cause
analysis; and hold a public meeting within 30 days of the accident. For
any incident that could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic
release (near miss), the owner or operator has four years after the
effective date of the rule to comply with the proposed incident
investigation root cause analysis requirements. For the STAA, emergency
exercise, and information availability provisions, this means that the
owner or operator must have completed or updated their PHA to include
the STAA; conducted a notification exercise and at least one tabletop
or field exercise; and prepared the required information to be provided
to the public or, upon request, to the LEPCs.
    EPA is proposing to provide this additional time for several
reasons. First, EPA believes that for most sources, the incident
investigation root cause analysis and emergency response exercise
requirements will involve training and program development activities
that may reasonably require significant time to complete. Second, the
extended compliance timeframe will allow potential auditors enough time
to meet the competency and independence criteria necessary to serve as
a third-party auditor. Third, for sources subject to the STAA
provisions, EPA believes that in many cases these sources will prefer
to perform a full PHA update when implementing the STAA requirements.
Sources subject to this provision are among the largest and most
complex sources regulated under 40 CFR part 68, and therefore PHAs and
PHA updates at these sources typically require a significant level of
effort. Since PHA updates are normally done at five year intervals, EPA
believes it would be appropriate to allow most sources to adopt these
provisions in their normal PHA update cycle if they so choose. Sources
that performed their most recent PHA update immediately prior to the
rule publication date would have up to four years to perform their next
PHA update and adopt the STAA provisions. Most sources could schedule
their PHA updates to incorporate the new STAA provisions on their
normal PHA update schedule.
    Lastly, EPA intends to publish guidance for certain provisions,
such as STAA, root cause analysis, and emergency response exercises.
Once these materials are complete, owners and operators will need time
to familiarize themselves with the new materials and incorporate them
into their risk management programs.
    EPA is also proposing to provide one additional year for owners or
operators to update RMPs to reflect proposed new or revised data
elements in subpart G of the rule. The additional year will allow
owners and operators an opportunity to begin to comply with revised
rule provisions prior to certifying compliance in the RMP.
Additionally, the Agency will need to make significant revisions to its
online RMP submission system, RMP*eSubmit, to accommodate the newly
required and revised data elements, and sources will not be able to
update RMPs with new or revised data elements until the submission
system is ready. Also, once it is ready, allowing an additional year
for sources to update RMPs will prevent potential problems with
thousands of sources submitting updated RMPs on the same day.

Examples for Compliance and Submission Dates

    The following examples assume a hypothetical effective date of June
5, 2017 for a final rule that includes the proposed provisions in Table
7: Proposed Rule Provisions and Corresponding Compliance Dates with
corresponding proposed compliance dates.

                      Table 7--Proposed Rule Provisions and Corresponding Compliance Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Initiated after an
           Rule provision              Proposed compliance     Hypothetical  compliance        RMP reportable
                                              date                       date                    accident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third-party audit..................  Four years after        June 5, 2021................  Yes.
                                      effective date.
Root cause analysis................  Four years after        June 5, 2021................  Yes (also required
                                      effective date.                                       after near misses).
STAA...............................  Four years after        June 5, 2021................  No.
                                      effective date.
Emergency response coordination      Within one year of      June 5, 2018................  No.
 activities.                          effective date.
LEPC requires compliance with Sec.   Within three years of   N/A.........................  No.
  68.95 (emergency response           receipt of written
 program).                            request.
Emergency response exercises.......  Four years after        June 5, 2021................  Partially--field
                                      effective date.                                       exercise within one
                                                                                year.
Information sharing................  Four years after        June 5, 2021................  Partially--public
                                      effective date.                                       meeting within 30
                                                                                days.
Update RMP.........................  Five years after        June 5, 2022................  No (but previously
                                      effective date.                                       existing correction
                                                                                requirements of Sec.
                                                                                68.195 still
                                                                                apply).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1: Proposed Provisions That Would Apply to a Non-Responding
Stationary Source

    Source A (see Table 8) is a non-responding stationary source with a
regulated process subject to Program 2 requirements. Source A's owner
submitted the latest RMP update to EPA on January 20, 2015 and
completed its latest compliance audit on August 11, 2017. The source is
not in NAICS 322, 324, or 325, and therefore is not subject to the
proposed STAA provisions. The source has not had any RMP reportable
accidents since the effective date of a final rule.

                      Table 8--Example 1, Source A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Source A--Program 2, non-responding stationary source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Last compliance
     Date of last RMP update               audit          Last  accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 20, 2015.................  August 11, 2017.....  N/A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this example, the following proposed provisions would apply:

     Annual emergency response coordination activities in
accordance with proposed Sec.  68.93;
     Notification exercises (proposed Sec.  68.96(a)); and
     Information availability provisions (proposed
Sec. Sec.  68.205 and 68.210).

    The owner or operator must coordinate response needs with local
emergency planning and response organizations to ensure resources and
capabilities are in place to respond to an accidental release of a
regulated substance. Coordination activities must occur annually and be
documented.
    Source A is a non-responding facility, and the owner or operator
would be required to conduct annual notification exercises. The owner
or operator would also be required to annually update information for
the LEPC and provide the information upon request, and make certain
information easily accessible to the public.
    Finally, beginning 5 years after the rule effective date, the owner
or operator must update the RMP to include all revised data elements
specified in subpart G and Sec.  68.42. In this case, the owner or
operator would update their RMP no later than January 20, 2020 (the
source's next scheduled five-year update), and again by June 5, 2022
(the required resubmission date for the proposed rule).
    Table 9: Summary of proposed provisions that would apply to a non-
responding stationary source summarizes the proposed provisions that
would apply to Source A.

         Table 9--Summary of Proposed Provisions That Would Apply to a Non-Responding Stationary Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Applicable provisions              Timeframe          Additional information        When to complete *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency response coordination     Within one year of     Occurs annually...........  Complete coordination
 activities.                         effective date of a                                activities before June
                                     final rule.                                        5, 2018 and document
                                                                                coordination.
Notification exercise.............  By four-years after    Occurs annually...........  Complete first
                                     effective date.                                    notification exercise by
                                                                                June 5, 2021.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Information availability provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information to LEPC...............  By four-years after    Update information          Develop by June 5, 2021
                                     effective date.        annually. Includes          and provide upon
                                                            information on regulated    request.
                                                            substances; accident
                                                            histories; compliance
                                                            audits; incident
                                                            investigations (as
                                                            applicable) and
                                                            exercises. Provide to
                                                            LEPC upon request.
Information to the public.........  By four-years after    Occurs annually. Includes   Complete first calendar
                                     effective date.        information on: Regulated   year submission by June
                                                            substances including        5, 2021.
                                                            Safety Data Sheets;
                                                            accident history;
                                                            emergency response
                                                            program; exercises; and
                                                            LEPC contact information.
Update RMP........................  By five years after    Owner's next 5-year         Update RMP on regular
                                     effective date.        resubmission date occurs    schedule (by January 20,
                                                            prior to effective date     2020) and again to
                                                            for provision, so owner     include new information
                                                            must update RMP twice.      by June 5, 2022.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dates are based on a hypothetical scenario including a rule effective date of June 5, 2017.

    If the LEPC submits a request to Source A's owner requesting the
source comply with the emergency response program requirements of Sec.
68.95, then Source A's owner would have three years from the date of
the letter to develop and implement an emergency response plan, obtain
equipment, and train personnel in relevant procedures.
    Once the owner has developed an emergency response program, the
source is a responding facility and must also comply with tabletop and
field exercise requirements for responding facilities.

Example 2A: Proposed Provisions That Would Apply to a Responding
Stationary Source

    Source B (see Table 10) is a responding stationary source with a
process subject to Program 3 requirements. Its latest RMP update was
submitted June 30, 2020 (i.e., three years after the rule effective
date). Its latest compliance audit was performed on April 6, 2020. The
source is not in NAICS 322, 324, or 325, and therefore is not subject
to the proposed STAA provisions, and the source has not had any RMP
reportable accidents since the effective date of a final rule.

                     Table 10--Example 2A, Source B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source B--Program 3, responding stationary source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Last compliance
     Date of last RMP update               audit          Last  accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 30, 2020....................  April 6, 2020.......  N/A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this example, the following proposed provisions would apply:

     Annual emergency response coordination activities in
accordance with proposed Sec.  68.93;
     Emergency response exercises (proposed Sec.  68.96);
and
     Information availability provisions (proposed
Sec. Sec.  68.205 and 68.210).

    The owner or operator must coordinate response needs with local
emergency planning and response organizations to ensure resources and
capabilities are in place to respond to an accidental release of a
regulated substance. Coordination activities must occur annually and be
documented.
    Additionally, since Source B is a responding facility, the owner or
operator would be required to conduct annual notification exercises,
annual tabletop exercises (with a field exercise substituting for a
tabletop exercise once every five years).
    The owner or operator would be required to update information
annually and provide the information upon request, to the LEPC and make
information easily accessible to the public.
    Finally, by five years after the rule effective date, the owner or
operator must update the RMP to include all revised data elements
specified in subpart G and Sec.  68.42. Table 11: Summary of proposed
provisions that would apply to Source B summarizes the proposed
provisions that would apply to Source B.

                      Table 11--Summary of Proposed Provisions That Would Apply to Source B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Applicable provisions                Timeframe           Additional information      When to complete *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency response coordination      Within one year of      Occurs annually............  Complete coordination
 activities.                          effective date of a                                  activities before
                                      final rule.                                          June 5, 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Emergency response exercises (proposed Sec.   68.96)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification exercise..............  Four-years after        Occurs annually............  Complete first
                                      effective date.                                      notification exercise
                                                                                by June 5, 2021.
Field and tabletop exercises.......  Four-years after        Tabletop exercise annually,  Complete first
                                      effective date.         field exercise once every    tabletop or field
                                                              five years. No tabletop      exercise by June 5,
                                                              exercises in the year of a   2021.
                                                              field exercise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Information availability provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information to LEPC................  Four-years after        Update information           Develop by June 5,
                                      effective date.         annually. Includes           2021 and provide upon
                                                              information on regulated     request.
                                                              substances; accident
                                                              histories; compliance
                                                              audits; incident
                                                              investigations (as
                                                              applicable) and exercises.
                                                              Provide to LEPC upon
                                                              request.
Information to the public..........  Four-years after        Occurs annually. Includes    Complete first
                                      effective date.         information on: Regulated    calendar year
                                                              substances including         submission by June 5,
                                                              Safety Data Sheets;          2021.
                                                              accident history;
                                                              emergency response
                                                              program; exercises; and
                                                              LEPC contact information.
Update RMP.........................  By five years after     ...........................  Update RMP to include
                                      effective date.                                      new information by
                                                                                June 5, 2022.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dates are based on a hypothetical scenario including a rule effective date of June 5, 2017.

Example 2B: Additional Proposed Provisions That Would Apply to a
Responding Stationary Following an RMP Reportable Accident

    See Table 12 below.

                     Table 12--Example 2B, Source B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source B--Program 3, responding stationary source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Date of last RMP update      Last compliance audit    Last accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 30, 2020.................  April 6, 2020.........  July 5, 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this example, Source B has an accidental release on July 5, 2021
that meets the reporting requirements of Sec.  68.42. As a result of
the accident, Source B's owner would be required to comply with the
following additional proposed provisions:

     Accident history provisions of Sec.  68.42 (to report
root causes identified during the incident investigation);
     Third-party audit provisions of Sec.  68.80;
     Incident investigation and root cause analysis
requirements of Sec.  68.81;
     Field exercise provisions of Sec.  68.96(b)(1)(i)
(i.e., requiring a field exercise within one year of any accidental
release required to be reported under Sec.  68.42); and
     Public meeting within 30 days of an RMP reportable
accident, pursuant to Sec.  68.210(d).

    Chronologically, the first provision that would apply is the
requirement to host a public meeting. Section 68.210(d) requires the
owner or operator to hold a public meeting within 30 days after the
accident to inform the public about

the accident, including information required under Sec.  68.42, and
other relevant information.
    An incident investigation must be initiated promptly, but no later
than 48 hours following an incident. The proposed incident
investigation provisions would require the owner or operator to
complete an incident investigation that includes a root cause analysis
and other elements specified in Sec.  68.81(d), and an incident
investigation report, within 12 months of the incident, unless the
implementing agency approves an extension of time. A summary of the
incident investigation report must be provided to the LEPC, upon
request.
    The proposed third-party audit provisions would require the owner
or operator to hire a third-party auditor to perform a third-party
compliance audit and submit an audit report to the implementing agency
and owner or operator within 12 months of the accident (if the source's
next scheduled compliance audit was required sooner than one year
following the incident, the third-party audit would be required to be
completed by the scheduled compliance audit date unless the
implementing agency approved an extension). The owner or operator must
also complete an audit findings response report and submit it to the
implementing agency within 90 days of receiving the audit report from
the third-party auditor. The owner or operator must also provide the
audit findings response report, as well as a schedule to address
deficiencies identified in the audit findings response report and
documentation of actions taken to address deficiencies, to the owner or
operator's audit committee of the Board of Directors, or other
comparable committee, if one exists.
    The owner or operator would also be required to conduct a field
exercise meeting the requirements of Sec.  68.96 within one year of the
accidental release, and prepare an evaluation report within 90 days of
completing the exercise. By five years after the rule effective date,
the owner or operator must update the RMP to include all revised data
elements specified in subpart G and Sec.  68.42. Table 13 summarizes
the additional provisions that would apply to Source B following an RMP
reportable accident (in addition to complying with new requirements
triggered by an RMP reportable accident, the owner or operator must
annually coordinate response needs with local emergency planning and
response organizations, document coordination activities, and comply
with the other information disclosure provisions as previously
described).

  Table 13--Summary of Additional Proposed Provisions That Would Apply to Source B Following an RMP Reportable
                                                    Accident
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable provisions following an
      RMP reportable accident             Timeframe          Additional information        When to complete *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public meeting....................  Four-years after       Within 30 days after an     Hold public meeting by
                                     effective date.        accident.                   August 4, 2021.
Incident investigations...........  Four-years after       Initiate within 48 hours,   Complete report by July
                                     effective date.        complete investigation      5, 2022.
                                                            and root cause analysis
                                                            within 12 months.
Third-party audit.................  Four-years after       Within 12 months of the     Complete third-party
                                     effective date.        accident or three years     audit by July 5, 2022;
                                                            of previous audit,          complete findings
                                                            whichever is sooner.        response report within
                                                                                90 days of completing
                                                                                audit.
Field exercise....................  Four-years after       At least once every five    Complete field exercise
                                     effective date.        years, and within one       by July 5, 2022;
                                                            year of an RMP reportable   complete an evaluation
                                                            accident.                   report within 90 days of
                                                                                the exercise.
Include new accident history        Five-years after       Correct RMP within 6        Correct RMP by January 5,
 information in RMP.                 effective date.        months of accident          2022; report complete
                                                            (existing requirement);     accident information by
                                                            report complete accident    June 5, 2025.
                                                            information in next five-
                                                            year RMP update.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dates are based on a hypothetical scenario including a rule effective date of June 5, 2017.

Example 3: Compliance Date Example For Sources Subject to STAA
Requirements

    Source C (see Table 14) is a petroleum refinery in NAICS 32411. Its
latest RMP update was submitted on March 31, 2018 (i.e., the year after
the rule effective date). Its latest PHA revalidation was completed on
March 7, 2017 (i.e., approximately three months before the rule
effective date).

                      Table 14--Example 3, Source C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Source C--Program 3, NAICS 32411
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Date of last RMP update               Last PHA revalidation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 31, 2018............................  March 7, 2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the source is in NAICS 32411, it is subject to the proposed
STAA provisions of Sec.  68.67(c)(8). Therefore, by four years after
the rule effective date, the owner or operator must complete a PHA
revalidation that addresses safer technology and alternative risk
management measures, and determine the feasibility of the ISTs and ISDs
considered. Under the proposed information availability requirements of
Sec.  68.205, the owner or operator must also submit to their LEPC a
summary of the ISTs or ISDs implemented or planned, and annually update
the summary as part of the calendar year submission described in Sec.
68.205(c).
    By June 5, 2018 the owner or operator of Source C must comply with
the new emergency response coordination provisions, and by June 5,
2021, the owner or operator must also comply with other applicable
proposed rule provisions including: Third-party audits; incident
investigations; emergency response exercises; and information
availability (including public meetings).
    By five years after the rule effective date, the owner or operator
of Source C must update the RMP to include all revised data elements
specified in subpart G and Sec.  68.42. Table 15: Compliance date
example for sources subject to STAA requirements, summarizes the
proposed STAA provisions that would apply to Source C.

                   Table 15--Compliance Date Example for Sources Subject to STAA Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Applicable provisions              Timeframe          Additional information        When to complete *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAA..............................  Four-years after       Occurs every five years as  By June 5, 2021.
                                     effective date.        part of PHA revalidation.
Information availability to LEPC,   Four-years after       In addition to other        Develop in first calendar
 upon request.                       effective date.        information availability    year after completion of
                                                            provisions, include         STAA or June 5, 2021,
                                                            information on IST or ISD   whichever is later and
                                                            to be implemented. Update   provide to LEPC upon
                                                            every five years as part    request.
                                                            of information to provide
                                                            to LEPC upon request.
Update RMP........................  Five years after rule  ..........................  By June 5, 2022.
                                     effective date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dates are based on a hypothetical scenario including a rule effective date of June 5, 2017.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the OMB for review. Any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA
prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This RIA is available in the
docket and is summarized here (Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725).
1. Why EPA Is Considering This Action
    In response to catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the
United States, President Obama issued Executive Order 13650,
``Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security,'' on August 1, 2013.
The Executive Order establishes the Chemical Facility Safety and
Security Working Group (Working Group), co-chaired by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the Administrator of EPA, and the Secretary of Labor
or their designated representatives at the Assistant Secretary level or
higher, and comprised of senior representatives of other Federal
departments, agencies, and offices. The Executive Order requires the
Working Group to carry out a number of tasks whose overall goal is to
prevent chemical accidents, such as the explosion that occurred at the
West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas, on April 17, 2013, which
killed 15 people, most of whom were first responders, caused multiple
injuries, and resulted in extensive building damage to the town.
    Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order 13650 requires the Working Group
to develop options for improved chemical facility safety and security
that identify ``improvements to existing risk management practices
through agency programs, private sector initiatives, Government
guidance, outreach, standards, and regulations.'' Section 6(c) of
Executive Order 13650 requires the Administrator of EPA to review the
Risk Management Program. As part of this effort to solicit comments and
information from the public regarding potential changes to EPA's RMP
regulations (40 CFR part 68), on July 31, 2014, EPA published an RFI
(79 FR 44604).
    EPA believes that the RMP regulations have been effective in
preventing and mitigating chemical accidents in the United States;
however, EPA believes that revisions could further protect human health
and the environment from chemical hazards through advancement of PSM
based on lessons learned. These revisions are a result of a review of
the existing Risk Management Program and information gathered from the
RFI and Executive Order listening sessions, and are proposed under the
statutory authority provided by CAA section 112(r) as amended (42
U.S.C. 7412(r)).
2. Description of Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    The RIA analyzed the proposed new requirements and revisions to
existing requirements as well as several alternatives for each.
Third-Party Audits--(Proposed Revisions Apply to Existing Sec. Sec.
68.58 and 68.79 and New Sec. Sec.  68.59 and 68.80)
    The existing rule requires Program 2 and Program 3 processes to
conduct a compliance audit at least once every 3 years. The proposed
rule would require facilities to contract with an independent third-
party to conduct the next scheduled compliance audit following an RMP
reportable accident or after an implementing agency determines that
certain circumstances exist that suggest a heightened risk for an
accident. The third-party would have to be someone with whom the
facility does not have an existing or recent relationship and who meets
specific qualification criteria. The low cost alternative would apply
only for Program 2 and Program 3 processes after an RMP reportable
accident or at the request of the implementing agency. The medium cost
alternative would apply every three years for all compliance audits
conducted for all Program 3 processes. The high cost alternative would
apply every three years for all compliance audits conducted for Program
2 and Program 3 processes.
Root Cause Analysis--(Proposed Revisions Apply to Sec. Sec.  68.60 and
68.81)
    The proposed rule would require facilities to conduct a root cause
analysis as part of an incident investigation following an RMP
reportable accident or an incident that could reasonably have resulted
in an RMP reportable accident (i.e., ``near miss''). A root cause
analysis is a formal process to identify underlying reasons for
failures that lead to accidental releases. These analyses usually
require someone trained in the technique. The low cost alternative
would apply the provision only to RMP reportable accidents or near
misses in Program 3 processes. The medium/high cost alternative would
apply to RMP reportable accidents or near misses involving Program 2
and Program 3 processes.
Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)--(Proposed Revisions
Apply to Sec.  68.67)
    Under the proposed rule, facilities in NAICS codes 322 (paper
manufacturing), 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing), and
325 (chemical manufacturing) with Program 3 processes would be required
to conduct a STAA for each process as part of their PHA, which occurs
every 5 years. The STAA includes two parts: The initial analysis to
identify alternatives, and a feasibility study to determine the costs
and assess the reasonableness of implementing

technology alternatives. The proposed rule is the low cost alternative,
which would apply to all facilities with Program 3 processes in NAICS
codes 322, 324, and 325. The medium cost alternative would apply the
requirement to all Program 3 processes. The high cost alternative would
apply the requirement to all Program 3 processes and require facilities
to implement feasible IST/ISD.
Coordination Activities--(Proposed Revisions Apply to Sec. Sec.  68.90,
New 68.93, and 68.95)
    Under the proposed rule, all facilities with Program 2 or Program 3
processes would be required to coordinate with local response agencies
annually to determine response needs and ensure that response resources
and capabilities are in place to respond to an accidental release of a
regulated substance. The owner or operator would also be required to
document coordination activities. The proposed rule also includes a
provision enabling the LEPC or local emergency response official to
request, in writing, that the RMP-facility owner or operator comply
with the emergency response program requirements of Sec.  68.95.
Section 68.95 requires the owner or operator to develop an emergency
response program that includes an emergency response plan, procedures
for use, inspection and maintenance of response equipment, training for
responding employees, and procedures to review and update the program.
    Alternatives to this provision are similar to the proposed
requirements. One alternative that imposes the same costs as the
proposed option would eliminate the option for local officials to
request that a facility owner or operator comply with the requirements
of Sec.  68.95. A second alternative is a high cost alternative and
would require all facilities with Program 2 or Program 3 processes to
comply with Sec.  68.95, regardless of local response capability. This
would be analogous to the requirements under the Oil Pollution
Prevention regulation (40 CFR part 112) where all facilities subject to
the FRP provisions at Sec.  112.20 are required to prepare and
implement an emergency response plan for oil discharges into navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines.
Exercises--(Proposed Revisions Apply to New Sec.  68.96)
    Notification Exercises. All facilities with Program 2 or Program 3
processes would be required to conduct a notification exercise annually
to ensure that the contact list to be used in an emergency is complete,
accurate, and up-to-date.
    Tabletop and Field Exercises. The proposed rule would require
responding facilities to conduct annual exercises of their emergency
response plans and invite local emergency response officials to
participate. Under the low cost alternative, facilities would conduct
tabletop exercises annually. Under the proposed rule, which is the
medium cost alternative, facilities would conduct a full field exercise
at least once every five years and tabletop exercises annually in the
interim years. Facilities with an RMP reportable accident would also
have to conduct a full field exercise within a year of an RMP
reportable accident, but this may not impose any additional burden
under the medium alternative as it would count as the required field
exercise for the next 5-year period. Under the high cost alternative,
facilities would conduct full field exercises annually.
Information Availability--(Proposed Revisions Apply to New Sec.  68.205
and Existing Sec.  68.210)
    The proposed rule would require all facilities to disclose certain
chemical hazard information to the public. The facility or its parent
company, if applicable, would have to make the information available in
an easily accessible manner, which might be presenting information on a
company Web site, posting the information at public libraries,
publishing it in local papers, or other means appropriate for
particular communities and facilities. The information to be disclosed
includes names of regulated substances at the facility; SDS; accident
history information; emergency response program information; and LEPC
or local response agency contact information.
    In addition, facility owners or operators would be required to
provide information upon request to the LEPC or other local response
agencies on all of the following that apply to the facility: Names and
quantities of regulated substances; five-year RMP reportable accident
history; summaries of compliance audit reports; summaries of incident
investigation reports; summaries of implementation of IST; and
information on emergency response exercises, including schedules for
upcoming exercises. Facilities owners or operators would be required to
update this information annually. Although EPA did not analyze
alternatives for this provision, the different applicability for the
STAA provision alternatives increases the cost of the medium/high
alternative for disclosure to the LEPC because more facilities would
have to report on that analysis.
Public Meeting--(Proposed Revisions Apply to Sec.  68.210)
    The proposed rule would require facilities to hold a public meeting
for the local community within 30 days of an RMP reportable accident.
The medium cost alternative would require Program 2 and Program 3
facilities to hold a public meeting at least once every 5 years and
within 30 days of an RMP reportable accident. The high cost alternative
would require all facilities (i.e., including Program 1 facilities) to
hold a public meeting at least once every 5 years and within 30 days of
an RMP reportable accident.
3. Summary of Costs
    Approximately 12,500 facilities have filed current RMPs with EPA
and are potentially affected by the proposed rule changes. These
facilities range from petroleum refineries and large chemical
manufacturers to water and wastewater treatment systems; chemical and
petroleum wholesalers and terminals; food manufacturers, packing
plants, and other cold storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration
systems; agricultural chemical distributors; midstream gas plants; and
a limited number of other sources that use RMP-regulated substances.
    Table 16 presents the number of facilities according to the latest
RMP reporting as of February 2015 by industrial sector and chemical
use.

                                Table 16--Number of Affected Facilities by Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Total
                Sector                         NAICS Codes           facilities            Chemical uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of environmental                               924           1,923  Use chlorine and other
 quality programs (i.e., governments).                                              chemicals for treatment.
Agricultural chemical distributors/          111, 112, 115, 42491           3,667  Store ammonia for sale; some
 wholesalers.                                                                       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,             248  Use chemicals for wastewater
                                                               72                   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, process, store
 manufacturing.                                                                     (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 Systems....               22131, 22132             102  Use chlorine and other
                                                                                chemicals.
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................  .........................          12,542  .............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 17 presents a summary of the annualized costs estimated in
the regulatory impact analysis. In total, EPA estimates annualized
costs of $158.3 million at a 3% discount rate and $161.0 million at a
7% discount rate.

                  Table 17--Summary of Annualized Costs
                        [Millions, 2014 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Provision                   3 (percent)     7 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third-party Audits......................            $5.0            $5.0
Incident Investigation/Root Cause.......             0.8             0.8
STAA....................................            34.8            34.8
Coordination............................             6.3             6.3
New Responders *........................            33.0            35.6
Notification Exercises..................             1.4             1.4
Facility Exercises......................            60.7            60.7
Information Sharing (LEPC)..............            11.7            11.7
Information Sharing (Public)............             4.0             4.0
Public Meeting..........................             0.4             0.4
Rule Familiarization....................             0.3             0.3
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Cost \+\......................           158.3           161.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reflects costs for some facilities to convert from ``non-responding''
  to ``responding'' as a result of improved coordination with local
  emergency response officials.
\+\ Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    The largest average annual cost of the proposed rule is the
exercise cost for current responders ($60.7 million), followed by new
responders ($35.6 million), STAA ($34.8 million), and information
sharing (LEPC) ($11.7 million). The remaining provisions impose average
annual costs under $10 million, including coordination ($6.3 million),
third-party audits ($5.0 million), information sharing (public) ($4.0
million), notification exercises ($1.4 million), incident
investigation/root cause analysis ($0.8 million), public meetings ($0.4
million), and rule familiarization ($0.3 million).
    The proposed rule includes three prevention program provisions--
third party audits, root cause analysis, and STAA--involving
information collection and analysis activities that can lead to a wide
range of outcomes, and therefore costs, if and when the owner acts upon
the findings and/or recommendations generated by the audit,
investigation, or analysis. Although resolving audit and investigation
findings is required under the existing rule provisions, and the
proposed rule does not require implementation of feasible IST
alternatives, EPA believes it is possible that there may be costs
associated with resolving findings from the proposed third-party audit
and root cause analysis provisions that go beyond the costs of the
existing provisions, and that some owners or operators may have
additional costs due to voluntary implementation of IST. Due to the
wide range of outcomes from these proposed provisions and the
significant uncertainties associated with their costs, EPA seeks
further information on their potential costs, and whether these costs
should accrue to this proposal. What types of costs result from
independent audits (other than the cost of the audit) that are
different from self-audit costs? What types of costs result from root
cause investigations as compared to non-root-cause investigations? For
the STAA provisions, what information exists to project what changes
facilities

are likely to voluntarily undertake? EPA particularly requests cost
data or studies for implementation of IST changes from any commenters
who may prefer the high option for this provision, which would require
implementation of feasible IST alternatives.
Summary of Potential Benefits
    EPA anticipates that promulgation and implementation of this rule
would result in a reduction of the frequency and magnitude of damages
from releases. Accidents and releases from RMP facilities occur every
year, resulting in fires and explosions, property damage, acute and
chronic exposures of workers and nearby residents to hazardous
materials, and resultant damages to health. Although we are unable to
quantify what specific damage reductions may occur as a result of these
proposed revisions, we are able to present data on the total damages
that currently occur at RMP facilities each year. The data presented
are based on a 10-year baseline period, summarizing RMP accident
impacts and, when possible, monetizing them. EPA expects that some
portion of future damages would be prevented through implementation of
a final rule. Table 18 presents a summary of the quantified damages
identified in the analysis.

                                     Table 18--Summary of Quantified Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average/
                                                Unit value      10-Year total     Average/year       accident
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     On-site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities..................................      $8,583,113      $497,820,554       $49,782,055        $328,161
Injuries....................................          50,000       105,150,000        10,515,000          69,314
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Damage.............................  ..............     2,054,895,236       205,489,524       1,354,578
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    On-site Total...........................  ..............     2,657,865,790       265,786,579       1,752,053
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Offsite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities..................................      $8,583,113        $8,583,113          $858,311          $5,658
Hospitalizations............................          36,000         6,804,000           680,400           4,485
Medical Treatment...........................           1,000        14,807,000         1,480,700           9,761
Evacuations.................................             181         6,992,327           699,233           4,609
Sheltering in Place.........................              91        40,920,849         4,092,085          26,975
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Damage.............................  ..............        11,352,105         1,135,211           7,483
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Offsite Total...........................  ..............        89,459,394         8,945,939          58,971
        Total...............................  ..............     2,747,325,184       274,732,518       1,811,024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA monetized both on-site and offsite damages. EPA estimated total
average annual on-site damages of $265.8 million. The largest monetized
average annual on-site damage was avoided on-site property damage,
which resulted in an average annual damage of approximately $205.5
million. The next largest impact was avoided on-site fatalities ($49.8
million) and injuries ($10.5 million).
    EPA estimated total average annual offsite damages of $8.9 million.
The largest monetized average annual offsite damage was from sheltering
in place ($4.1 million), followed by medical treatment ($1.5 million),
property damage ($1.1 million), fatalities ($0.9 million), evacuations
($0.7 million), and hospitalizations ($0.7 million).
    In total, EPA estimated monetized potential damages of $275 million
per year. However, the monetized impacts omit many important categories
of accident impacts including lost productivity, the costs of emergency
response, transaction costs, property value impacts in the surrounding
community (that overlap with other benefit categories), and
environmental impacts. Also not reflected in the 10-year baseline costs
are the impacts of non-RMP accidents at RMP facilities and any
potential impacts of rare high consequence catastrophes. A final
omission is related to the information provision. Reducing the
probability of chemical accidents and the severity of their impacts,
and improving information disclosure by chemical facilities, as the
proposed provisions intend, would provide benefits to potentially
affected members of society.
    Table 19 summarizes four broad social benefit categories related to
accident prevention and mitigation including prevention of RMP
accidents, mitigation of RMP accidents, prevention and mitigation of
non-RMP accidents at RMP facilities, and prevention of major
catastrophes. The table explains each and identifies ten associated
specific benefit categories, ranging from avoided fatalities to avoided
emergency response costs. Table 19 also highlights and explains the
information disclosure benefit category and identifies two specific
benefits associated with it: Improved efficiency of property markets
and allocation of emergency resources.

    Table 19--Summary of Social Benefits of Proposed Rule Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Specific benefit
   Broad benefit category          Explanation           categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accident Prevention.........  Prevention of future   Reduced
Accident Mitigation.........   RMP facility          Fatalities.
Non-RMP accident prevention    accidents.            Reduced
 and mitigation.              Mitigation of future   Injuries.
                               RMP facility          Reduced
Avoided Catastrophes........   accidents.            Property Damage.
                              Prevention and         Fewer
                               mitigation of         People Sheltered in
                               future non-RMP.       Place.
                               accidents at RMP      Fewer
                               facilities..          Evacuations.
                              Prevention of rare     Avoided
                               but extremely high    Lost Productivity.
                               con-.                 Avoided
                               sequence events....   Emergency Response
                                                     Costs.
                                                     Avoided
                                                     Transaction Costs.
                                                     Avoided
                                                     Property Value
                                                     Impacts.*
                                                     Avoided
                                                     Environmental
                                                     Impacts.
Information Disclosure......  Provision of           Improved
                               information to the    efficiency of
                               public and LEPCs.     property markets.
                                                     Improved
                                                     resource
                                                     allocation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These impacts partially overlap with several other categories such as
  reduced health and environmental impacts.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2537.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    This ICR would amend a previously approved ICR (1656.15), OMB
Control No. 2050-0144. That ICR covers the risk management program
rule, originally promulgated on June 20, 1996; the current rule,
including previous amendments, is codified as 40 CFR part 68. This ICR
addresses the following proposed information requirements that are part
of a proposed revision to the rule:
    (1) Make certain information related to the risk management program
available to the local community.
    (2) Provide information, upon request, to the LEPC and local
emergency response officials with summaries of certain activities under
the risk management program.
    (3) Hold a public meeting within 30-days of an accident subject to
reporting under Sec.  68.42.
    (4) Hire a third-party to conduct the compliance audit after a
reportable release.
    (5) Conduct and document a root cause analysis after a reportable
release.
    (6) Conduct and document an incident investigation, including root
cause analysis, after a near miss.
    (7) Conduct and document a safer technology and alternatives
analysis.
    (8) Meet and coordinate with local responders to ensure adequate
response capability exists.
    (9) Conduct a notification drill to verify information.
    (10) Conduct and document emergency response exercises.
    (11) Come into compliance with requirements for developing an
emergency response program, including developing an emergency response
plan, conducting emergency response exercises, documenting training,
and providing information to the LEPC.
    EPA believes that the RMP regulations have been effective in
preventing and mitigating chemical accidents in the United States.
However, EPA is proposing revisions to further protect human health and
the environment from chemical hazards through advancement of PSM based
on lessons learned--resulting in better coordination between
facilities, LEPC's, and the public. State and local authorities will
use the information in RMPs to modify and enhance their community
response plans. The agencies implementing the RMP rule will use RMPs to
evaluate compliance with part 68 and to identify sources for inspection
because they may pose significant risks to the community. Citizens may
use the information to assess and address chemical hazards in their
communities and to respond appropriately in the event of a release of a
regulated substance. These revisions are a result of a review of the
existing Risk Management Program and are proposed under the statutory
authority provided by section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C.
7412(r)).
    Some of the elements mandated in the regulation for the RMP may
require the submittal of data viewed as proprietary, trade secret, or
confidential. As described above, EPA has adopted procedures for
sources to claim certain information as confidential business
information. EPA encourages facilities that have CBI claims to submit
substantiation with the RMP.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers, utilities,
warehouses, wholesalers, food processors, ammonia retailers, and gas
processors.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (CAA sections
112(r)(7)(B)(i) and (ii), CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii), 114(c), CAA
114(a)(1)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 12,542.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 623,970 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $55,278,216 (per year), includes $4,303,435
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than
April 13, 2016. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available for review
in the docket and is summarized here.

1. Why EPA Is Considering This Action
    The purpose of this action is to improve safety at facilities that
use and distribute hazardous chemicals. In response to catastrophic
chemical facility incidents in the United States, including the
explosion that occurred at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas,
on April 17, 2013 that killed 15 people, President Obama issued
Executive Order 13650, ``Improving Chemical Facility Safety and
Security,'' on August 1, 2013. Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order 13650
requires that various Federal agencies develop options for improved
chemical facility safety and security, including modernizing
regulations. As a result, EPA is proposing revisions to the Risk
Management Program (40 CFR part 68). For more information on Executive
Order 13650, see section II. Background of this document.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule
    EPA believes that the RMP regulations have been effective in
preventing and mitigating chemical accidents in the United States;
however, EPA believes that revisions could further protect human health
and the environment from chemical hazards through the advancement of
process safety based on lessons learned. These revisions are a result
of a review of the existing Risk Management Program and information
gathered from the RFI and Executive Order listening sessions, and are
proposed under the statutory authority provided by CAA section 112(r)
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)).
3. Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule
Will Apply
    The RMP rule affects a broad range of sectors (296 separate NAICS
codes are listed in RMP filings; 240 of these are associated with small
entities). The RMP data include facility and parent company name as
well as the number of full time equivalents (FTE) for the facility and
the NAICS codes. To develop an estimate of the number of small
entities, the analysis required a series of reviews of the data to
identify the large entities and the small entities that were part of
small firms owning multiple facilities. The data were reviewed to
identify parent companies that were clear from the facility name, but
not included in the parent company field. That made it possible to
determine the total FTE for facilities belonging to the same parent
company and compare that number to the Small Business Administration
(SBA) standard (when in FTEs). If the total FTE exceeded the standard,
all the facilities were classified as large. Where the facilities
listed different NAICS codes, the analysis applied either the code used
for a majority of the facilities or, if no single code dominated, the
code with the highest threshold. For example, if a firm had facilities
in sectors where the standards were 500 and 1,000 FTE, the 1,000 FTE
standards was used to determine if the firm was large.
    For remaining facilities, if there were multiple facilities
belonging to a single firm and the total FTE approached the threshold
or if the name included ``USA'' or ``US holdings,'' which implied an
international company, Internet searches were conducted to identify
whether the facilities belonged to a firm with other facilities or
employees.
    The RFA defines small governments as governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.\207\ Most
governmental RMP facilities are water and wastewater treatment systems
and listed a city or county as the owning entity. A check of budgets
that were available for some of the smallest cities indicated that (1)
the systems are sub-agencies of the city/county and (2) obtain some
revenues from the general fund although most of their revenues are
derived from user fees. To determine which facilities belong to small
governments, the populations for each of cities or counties were
determined by checking the 2014 estimates from the Census. For special
water and irrigation districts, their Internet sites were checked for
information on the population served. Table 20 below presents the
number of small and large facilities by program level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ 5 U.S.C. 602.

                Table 20--Number of Facilities Owned by Small and Large Entities by Program Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Small           Large
           RMP program             Small private   Large private    government      government         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 3.......................           3,545           6,097             451             522          10,615
Program 2.......................             174             176             521             414           1,285
Program 1.......................             213             414               6               9             642
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           3,932           6,687             978             945          12,542
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
of the Proposed Rule
    Under the proposed rule, all facilities would be required to make
certain information available to the public and, upon request, to the
LEPC or local emergency response officials. Program 1 facilities would
not likely have to spend more than an hour a year on this disclosure
because the information disclosed to the public is information every
facility should have readily available and because the additional
information that would be provided, upon request, to the LEPC relates
to provisions that do not apply to Program 1 facilities. Therefore, the
IRFA has not considered Program 1 small facilities in the analysis of
impacts.
    Program 2 and Program 3 facilities would incur the same costs for
the other proposed provisions except the STAA. Each facility would be
required to update information to be disclosed annually, coordinate
with the local responders, and conduct a notification drill annually.
If the facility is a responder, it would have to hold an annual
exercise, including at least one full field exercise every 5 years.
Program 3 facilities in NAICS codes 322, 324, and 325 would have to
conduct an STAA as part their PHA every 5 years.
    If a facility has an accident, it would incur costs to hold a
public meeting within 30 days of an RMP reportable accident. It would
also incur additional costs for obtaining a third-party to conduct
their next scheduled compliance audit and to conduct a root cause
analysis as part of the incident investigation. Facilities would also
be required to conduct root cause investigations of near misses.
Finally, if

a facility has to become a responder, it would incur costs to develop
an emergency response plan, train personnel to respond, purchase and
maintain equipment, and conduct exercises.
    Table 21 presents three sets of costs: low year, annualized, and
high year (excludes costs incurred after an accident or a near miss).
Low-year costs represent costs for years in which routine annual costs
apply. These include costs for coordinating with local responders,
conducting notification exercises (applies to all Program 2 and Program
3 facilities), conducting tabletop exercises (applies only to
responders), and updating disclosure information to LEPC and the
public. High-year costs represent a year in which every applicable
provision would occur, except costs incurred after an accident or
``near miss.'' This includes the routine annual costs and periodic
costs that apply either every 3 or 5 years (i.e., field exercise in
lieu of a tabletop exercise, public meeting, all public disclosure
requirements, and STAA). Because the STAA provisions would only apply
to a subset of facilities (i.e., those in NAICS 322, 324, and 325),
these facilities are broken out separately in the last two rows of the
table. Complex facilities are those categorized as NAICS 324 or 325 and
simple facilities are all others. Annualized costs average the low
costs incurred for four years with the high costs incurred every fifth
year.

                                   Table 21--Low, Annualized, and High Year Combined Costs for Small Entities by Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Low year cost                    Annualized                    High year cost
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Simple          Complex         Simple          Complex         Simple          Complex
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Program 2 and Program 3 facilities (excludes Program 3 facilities subject to STAA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non Responder...........................................            $808          $1,223            $808          $1,223            $808          $1,223
Responder 0-19 FTE......................................           6,743           9,289           8,158          10,898           9,572          12,507
Responder 20+ FTE.......................................           7,870          10,761          11,885          15,261          15,900          19,761
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Program 3 facilities subject to STAA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non Responder...........................................             n/a           1,223             n/a          17,295             n/a          33,366
Responder <20 FTE.......................................             n/a           9,289             n/a          26,970             n/a          44,650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Related Federal Rules
    The Risk Management Program is one of several programs regarding
chemical facility safety and security. Executive Order 13650 directed
Federal agencies to identify ways to modernize policies, regulations,
and standards to enhance safety and security in chemical facilities.
The Executive Order established a Chemical Facility Safety and Security
Working Group to oversee this effort, which is tri-chaired by the EPA,
DOL, and DHS. Members of the Working Group (at the management and staff
level) regularly share information in order to coordinate activities on
any work involving revisions in regulations, such as revisions to
OSHA's PSM standard and DHS' CFATS regulations. These efforts also
serve to avoid unnecessary duplication, overlap and conflicts with the
Risk Management Program requirements.
    OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.119 PSM standard. Mandated by the CAAA of 1990
and issued in 1992, the PSM standard sets requirements for the
management of highly hazardous substances to prevent and mitigate
hazards associated with catastrophic releases of flammable, explosive,
reactive, and toxic chemicals that may endanger workers. The PSM
standard covers the manufacturing of explosives and processes involving
threshold quantities of flammable liquids and flammable gasses, as well
as 137 other highly hazardous chemicals.
    The OSHA PSM standard, similar to the EPA RMP rule, aims to prevent
or minimize the consequences of accidental chemical releases through
implementation of management program elements that integrate
technologies, procedures, and management practices. The EPA RMP
regulation closely tracks the accident prevention measures contained in
the OSHA PSM standard because Section 112(r)(7)(D) of the CAA requires
EPA to coordinate the RMP regulation with ``any requirements
established for comparable purposes'' by OSHA. Consequently, the OSHA
PSM standard and EPA RMP regulation are closely aligned in content,
policy interpretations, Agency guidance, and enforcement.
    Since the inception of these regulations, EPA and OSHA have
coordinated closely on their implementation in order to minimize
regulatory burden and avoid conflicting requirements for regulated
facilities. For example, owners and operators of RMP covered processes
also subject to the OSHA PSM standard will generally have met their RMP
accident prevention program obligations if they have properly
implemented their PSM program.
    Occupational Safety and Health Act General Duty Clause. Section
5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act requires
employers to provide its employees with a workplace free from
recognized hazards that are causing, or are likely to, cause death or
serious physical harm.
    EPA's EPCRA regulations (40 CFR 350-372). Following the 1984
release of approximately 40 tons of MIC into the air in Bhopal, India,
that killed over 3,700 people and the 1985 leak of 500 gallons of
aldicarb oxime from a Union Carbide facility in Institute, West
Virginia, Congress passed EPCRA in October 1986. The purpose of EPCRA
is twofold: (1) To encourage and support emergency planning efforts at
the state and local levels, and (2) to provide the public and local
governments with information concerning potential chemical hazards
present in their communities.
    EPCRA created state and local infrastructure designed to (1)
prepare for and mitigate the effects of a chemical incident and (2)
ensure that information on chemical risks in the community is provided
to the first responders and the public. These state and local entities
are the SERCs, TERCs, LEPCs, and TEPCs. Representatives on the LEPCs
include local officials and planners, facility owners and operators,
first responders, health and hospital personnel, environmental groups,
and citizen/members of the public.
    A central requirement of LEPCs and TEPCs is to develop a local
emergency response plan. These plans are required to:

     Identify facilities and transportation routes of
extremely hazardous substances and assess the risk based on chemical
information from facilities;
     Describe on-site and offsite emergency response
procedures;
     Designate a community coordinator and facility
emergency coordinator(s) to implement the plan;
     Describe emergency notification procedures;
     Describe how to determine the probable affected area
and population by releases (including identification of critical
community receptors and assets);
     Describe local emergency equipment and facilities and
the persons responsible for them;
     Describe evacuation plans;
     Identify the training program for emergency responders
(including schedules); and
     Identify the methods and schedules for exercising
emergency response plans.

    Under the community right-to-know section of EPCRA, certain
facilities that manufacture, process, or store any hazardous chemicals
are required to submit an SDS or list of hazardous chemicals, grouped
into hazard categories, to SERCs, TERCs, LEPCs, TEPCs, and local fire
departments. Under the Hazard Communication Standard, OSHA requires
SDSs that describe the properties, hazards, and health effects of these
chemicals as well as emergency response procedures and appropriate
personal protection equipment. Facilities must also annually report
their inventories of all on-site chemicals for which SDSs are required
that are stored above reporting threshold quantities to SERCs, LEPCs,
and local fire departments. LEPCs must use information about chemical
inventories at facilities and SDSs in developing their local emergency
plans; this information must also be available to the public.
    Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR 264 and 265). These
regulations establish minimum national standards which define the
acceptable management of hazardous waste including requirements for
arrangements that owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities
make with local authorities. In sections 264.37 and 265.37, hazardous
waste generators are required to attempt to make arrangements for
emergency response activities with local authorities, and document the
refusal of local or State authorities to complete such arrangements in
the operating record.
    CAA section 112(r)(1) general duty clause. The statute requires
facility owners and operators to identify hazards; design, maintain and
safely operate a facility; and prevent and minimize releases of any
regulated substances under Sec.  112(r)(3) (40 CFR part 130) and ``any
other extremely hazardous substance.'' \208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Although the term ``any other extremely hazardous
substance'' is not defined, the legislative history of the 1990 CAA
amendments indicates that the term would include any agent ``which
may or may not be listed or otherwise identified by any Government
agency which may as the result of short-term exposures associated
with releases to the air cause death, injury or property damage due
to its toxicity, reactivity, flammability, volatility, or
corrosivity.'' See: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-10/documents/gdcregionalguidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS's 6 CFR part 27 CFATS rule. The CFATS program, established in
2007, regulates chemical facilities that present a high level of
security risk to ensure they have security measures in place to reduce
the risks associated with their possession of chemicals of interest
(COI). There are 325 COI and 137 of the 140 RMP regulated substances
are included on the list of COI.
    The CFATS program requires the development, submission, and
implementation of Site Security Plans (SSPs) (or Alternative Security
Programs in lieu of SSPs), which document the security measures high-
risk chemical facilities use to satisfy the applicable risk-based
performance standards (RBPS) under CFATS. These plans are not ``one-
size-fits-all,'' but in-depth, highly customized, and dependent on each
facility's unique circumstances.
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
requirements for explosives. ATF is responsible for enforcing Federal
explosives laws that govern commerce in explosives in the United
States, including licensing, storage, recordkeeping, and conduct of
business. ATF conducts inspections of Federal explosives licensees who
manufacture, import, sell, or store explosives in the United States to
ensure that explosives are managed in accordance with Federal law.
6. Description of Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    The RIA analyzed the proposed new requirements and revisions to
existing requirements as well as several alternatives for each. In most
cases, EPA chose regulatory alternatives that had reduced impacts on
small businesses relative to other alternatives that EPA considered. In
this section, we discuss each regulatory provision, explain whether and
how the proposed provision minimizes impacts on small businesses, and
discuss additional recommendations resulting from the SBAR Panel that
could further mitigate small business impacts. EPA has requested
comment on these recommendations.
Third-Party Audits--(Proposed Revisions Apply to Existing Sec. Sec.
68.58 and 68.79 and New Sec. Sec.  68.59 and 68.80)
    EPA evaluated three options for this provision and selected the
lowest cost alternative, which would apply the requirement only to
sources with Program 2 and/or Program 3 processes that have had an RMP
reportable accident. The other alternatives would have required that
all compliance audits be conducted by third parties for sources with
either Program 3 processes or Program 2 and Program 3 processes.
Limiting the applicability of this proposed provision to sources that
have had RMP reportable accidents minimizes its impact to the overall
universe of RMP facilities, and particularly to small businesses. As
indicated in Exhibit 5-25 in the RIA, the estimated cost of the high
option ($96.2 million annualized) is nearly 20 times higher than the
estimated costs of the proposed option ($5.0 million annualized).
Furthermore, a majority of the costs for the proposed option would
likely be borne by large businesses, as historically, most RMP
accidents have occurred at facilities that do not meet SBA small
business criteria. Table 22 shows the percentage of accidents from
2004-2013 that occurred at small and large facilities.

                 Table 22--Percentage of Accidents at Small and Large RMP Facilities, 2004-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Program 1             Program 2             Program 3
               Sector               ------------------------------------------------------------------   Total
                                       Small      Large      Small      Large      Small      Large
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 325--Chemical Manufacturing..          0          6          1          5         53        465        530
NAICS 311, 312--Food/Beverage                0          0          2          0         58        210        270
 Manufacturers.....................
NAICS 322--Paper Manufacturing.....          0          0          0          0          9         37         46

NAICS 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 339--         0          0          4          0         12         27         43
 Other Manufacturing...............
NAICS 11, 12, 15, 42491--                    0          0          0          0         91         65        156
 Agricultural Chemical Distributors
NAICS 4246, 4247--Chemical/                  0          2          0          0          7         29         38
 petroleum wholesale...............
NAICS 4244, 4245--Other wholesale..          0          0          0          0          7         13         20
NAICS 493--Warehouse...............          0          1          0          0         18         53         72
NAICS 324--Petroleum and Coal                2          6          0          0         15        146        169
 Products Manufacturing............
NAICS 22131, 22132--Water/POTW.....          0          0         14         20         17         24         75
NAICS 211--Oil/Gas exploration.....          4          4          1          0         10         34         53
Other..............................          3          7          7          4          7         17         45
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................          9         26         29         29        304      1,120      1,517
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed third-party audit provision should have fairly
low impact on small businesses, the SBAR Panel made additional
recommendations to further minimize the impacts of this provision on
small businesses. The Panel recommended that EPA consider proposing
streamlined independence requirements for small businesses (i.e. based
on size of the facility). The Panel also recommended that EPA limit the
independence criteria to individuals participating in the audit rather
than the entire company. The Panel further recommended that EPA seek
comments on:

     Eliminating the independence requirement, in its
entirety, and retaining existing requirement for compliance audits;
     Limiting applicability of the third-party audit
provision by only requiring third-party audits, for Program 3
facilities, triggered by major accidents that have offsite impacts
and how to define or characterize ``major accidents with offsite
impacts'';
     Deleting the current PE requirement and considering
other independent accreditation for third-party auditors which also
carry ethical requirements, such as CSP, CIH, CFPS, CHMM, CPEA, or
CPSA; and
     The impacts a third-party auditor may have on a
facility's security and the measures that should be included in the
rule provision to protect facilities from terrorism or release of
CBI from a third-party auditor.

    EPA incorporated preamble language to address these Panel
recommendations in section IV.B of this document.
Incident Investigation/Root Cause Analysis--(Proposed Revisions Apply
to Sec. Sec.  68.60 and 68.81)
    In this case, EPA considered two potential regulatory options, and
proposed the higher cost option, which would apply the requirement for
an incident root cause analysis to all RMP-reportable accidents and
near misses involving Program 2 and Program 3 processes. The lower cost
option would apply the requirement to accidents and near misses at only
Program 3 processes. Although the Agency chose the higher cost option,
this provision is estimated to be one of the least costly provisions of
the proposed rule. In fact, the costs for both options considered were
nearly indistinguishable--as indicated in Exhibit 5-25 in the RIA, both
the low and proposed options are estimated to cost approximately $0.8
million annually. Therefore, EPA believes that the additional safety
benefit of requiring owners and operators of Program 2 processes to
also conduct root cause analyses after incidents and near misses was
warranted.
    The SBAR Panel also made recommendations to further minimize the
impacts of this provision on small businesses. The Panel recommended
that EPA clarify our intent that incident investigations are not
intended to cover minor accidents or minor near misses that could not
reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release. The Panel further
recommended that EPA consider proposing to require root cause analysis
only for reportable releases, not including near misses. The Panel
recommended that EPA clarify in the preamble the comparative advantages
of a root cause analysis to the current incident investigation
requirements in Sec. Sec.  68.60 and 68.81 of the rule. Finally, the
Panel recommended that EPA seek comments on:

     Whether the root cause analysis requirement should be
eliminated;
     The revised definition of catastrophic release and
whether it should be limited to loss of life, serious injury or
significant damage or loss of offsite property; and
     Examples of near misses.

    EPA incorporated preamble language to address these Panel
recommendations in section IV.A of this document.
STAA--(Proposed Revisions Apply to Sec.  68.67)
    For STAA, EPA examined three potential alternative regulatory
options, and chose the least costly option. The proposed option, which
would apply the STAA requirement to Program 3 processes in NAICS 322
(paper manufacturing), 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing),
and 325 (chemical manufacturing), costs $34.8 million annually and is
approximately half as costly as the medium option ($71.7 million
annually), which would apply the requirement to all Program 3
processes, and likely far less costly than the high option, which would
require implementation of feasible safer alternatives for all Program 3
processes.
    The low-cost STAA option not only minimizes the overall number of
sources that are subject to it, but is also biased toward larger
sources. This is because the three sectors selected for regulation
under this proposed provision all have a lower percentage of small
entities than the overall percentage of small entities within the RMP
facility universe. As indicated in Table 23, approximately 39% of
facilities regulated under the RMP regulation are owned by small
entities. In comparison, NAICS 322 (paper manufacturing) has about 20%
RMP-regulated small businesses within the sector, while NAICS 324
(petroleum and coal products manufacturing) and 325 (chemical
manufacturing) each have approximately 10% small businesses.

                   Table 23--Percentage of Small Businesses in NAICS 322, 324, 325 and Overall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentage
                             Sector                                    Small           Total           small
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 322--Paper Manufacturing..................................               9              46            19.6
NAICS 324--Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing............              17             169            10.1
NAICS 325--Chemical Manufacturing...............................              54             530            10.2
All Sectors.....................................................           4,910          12,542            39.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SBAR Panel also made recommendations to further minimize the
impacts of this provision on small businesses. The Panel recommended
that EPA explain what evidence we have that caused us to reconsider the
1996 assessment that IST analysis was unlikely to yield additional
benefits. The Panel further recommended that EPA seek comments on:

     Whether to eliminate this requirement;
     Limiting this provision to require analyses only to be
conducted at the design stage of new processes; and
     Exempting batch toll manufacturers from this
requirement.

    EPA incorporated preamble language to address these Panel
recommendations in section IV.C of this document.
Emergency Response Program Coordination With Local Responders--
(Proposed Revisions Apply to Sec. Sec.  68.90, New 68.93, and 68.95)
    The proposed option (medium option) would require all facilities
with Program 2 or Program 3 processes to coordinate with local response
agencies annually and document coordination activities. This option
would also allow the LEPC or local emergency response officials to
require that the RMP-facility owner or operator comply with the
emergency response program requirements of Sec.  68.95. EPA considered,
but did not propose, the more stringent option of requiring all
facilities with Program 2 or Program 3 processes to implement an
emergency response program and respond to accidental releases at the
facility. The proposed option is estimated to cost $6.3 million
annually and is far less costly than the high option, which would
likely have exceeded $100 million annually. Therefore, by selecting the
medium option, EPA substantially reduced the cost impact for the many
small entities that may rely on local response organizations to respond
to accidental releases at the source (see Exhibit 3-8 and Appendix B in
the RIA for more information on the number, size, and industrial
categories of non-responding facilities).
    While EPA does not believe it is necessary to require that all
facilities develop an in-house response capability, the Agency believes
that non-responding facilities, even if they are small businesses, must
still coordinate with local public responders so that they are prepared
to handle emergencies at the facility. EPA expects that these
coordination activities will result in some sources, including some
small entities, becoming responding facilities, which may involve
additional costs for those facilities (see section 5.6 of the RIA). EPA
believes this is necessary to meet the objectives of Clean Air Act
section 112(r), which requires the Agency to promulgate regulations to
(among other things) provide for a prompt emergency response to any
accidental releases in order to protect human health and the
environment. We also note that the 2013 accident at West Fertilizer,
which was one of several accidents that triggered the Executive Order
that ultimately led to this rule proposal, occurred at a facility that
would likely have been considered a small entity under the established
SBA criteria. The Agency believes it is appropriate to require that
such facilities conduct adequate emergency coordination, and if
necessary, develop adequate emergency response capabilities, even if
they are small.
    The SBAR Panel also made recommendations to further minimize the
impacts of this provision on small businesses. The Panel recommended
that EPA explain how coordination should occur between local emergency
response officials and small facilities and clarify requirements for
facilities that make a ``good faith'' effort to coordinate with local
emergency response officials. The Panel also recommended that EPA seek
comment on the proposed frequency for annual coordination. EPA
incorporated preamble language to address these Panel recommendations
in section V.A of this document.
Exercises--(Proposed Revisions Apply to New Sec.  68.96)
    Notification Exercises. The proposed rule would require all
facilities with Program 2 or Program 3 processes to annually conduct an
emergency notification exercise to ensure that their emergency contact
list is complete, accurate, and up-to-date. This proposed provision is
expected to be one of the least costly rule provisions at $1.4 million
annually (only the incident investigation root cause analysis and
public meetings provisions are estimated to cost less). Therefore EPA
did not consider any alternatives to reduce the impact of this
provision on small businesses, nor did the SBAR Panel make any such
recommendations.
Tabletop and Field Exercises
    The proposed option was the medium option, and would require
responding facilities to conduct a full field exercise at least once
every five years and tabletop exercises annually in the interim years.
This option was substantially less costly than the high option ($61
million vs $104 million annually), which would require annual field
exercises. As this provision only affects responding facilities, which
tend to more often be large facilities (see Exhibit 3-8 in the RIA),
EPA has proposed an option that mitigates the impact on small entities.
EPA also considered a low option that would only require annual
tabletop exercises. This option would have saved approximately $11
million annually. We did not propose the low option because the Agency
believes that periodic field exercises are an important component of a
comprehensive emergency response program. Nevertheless, this was also a
recommendation from the SBAR panel and we have requested comment on the
low option provision in the preamble to the proposed rule.
    The SBAR Panel also made other recommendations to further minimize
the impacts of this provision on small businesses. The Panel
recommended that EPA clarify that participation by local responders is
not required for a facility to comply with exercise requirements and
that field exercises and drills required by other state and Federal
regulations could meet this requirement if the facility's emergency
response plan is tested as part of those exercises. The Panel also
recommended that EPA seek comments on:
     Whether the exercise provision should be eliminated;

     How to address postponement and rescheduling issues (which
SERs have indicated may take up to a year);
     Limiting the requirement to only tabletop exercises; and
     The frequency of required field and tabletop exercises.
    EPA incorporated preamble language to address these Panel
recommendations in section V.B of this document.
Information Availability--(Proposed Revisions Apply to New Sec.  68.205
and Existing Sec.  68.210)
    There are three proposed information disclosure requirements. Under
the proposed requirements, all facilities would be required to make
certain information available to the public. Upon receiving a request
from their LEPC or local emergency response official, regulated
facilities would also be required to provide certain information to the
LEPC or emergency response officials. Lastly, facilities would be
required to hold public meetings within 30 days of any RMP reportable
accident. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA has requested
public comments on whether all regulated facilities should be required
to hold a public meeting every five years and after an RMP reportable
accident, or whether a requirement for periodic and post-accident
public meetings should be limited to only Program 2 and Program 3
facilities. Although EPA has not proposed specific alternatives to
minimize the impact of the information disclosure provisions on small
businesses, the Agency believes that in general, smaller facilities
will bear lower costs to comply with these provisions. By requiring
certain information disclosure elements (i.e., incident investigation
and public meeting provisions) only following an RMP reportable
accident, EPA is minimizing the impact to the overall universe of RMP
facilities, and particularly to small businesses. Most RMP reportable
accidents have generally occurred at facilities that do not meet SBA
small business criteria (see Exhibit 7-11 in the RIA). Also, small
facilities will generally have fewer processes, fewer chemicals, fewer
accidental releases, etc., on which to provide information to LEPCs and
the public.
    The SBAR Panel also made recommendations to further minimize the
impacts of this provision on small businesses. The Panel recommended
that EPA:

     Consider only requiring facilities to develop chemical
hazard information summaries and allowing LEPCs to make reasonable
requests for additional information;
     Make chemical hazard information available upon request
by the LEPC rather than requiring it to be automatically submitted
by the facility;
     Require that a public meeting be held only after an RMP
reportable accident; and
     Allow public meetings to be combined with any meeting
open to the general public (e.g. city council, municipal board, or
LEPC meeting).

    The Panel also recommended that EPA seeks comments on:

     Narrowing the approach to require a one page summary of
each significant chemical hazard during a fire identifying the
product, its properties, its location and firefighting measures for
responders--a one-page summary of information that addresses
chemical hazard information and emergency response measures;
     Limiting the amount of information to be shared with
LEPCs;
     Whether EPA should specify a format for summary
information to make it easier for local officials to find and
interpret the information that they need:
     Ways to limit the scope of the information elements
shared with the public as well as the format in which information
should be provided (e.g. a one-page summary of information that
addresses chemical hazard information and emergency response
measures);
     Whether the existing RMP data, including the executive
summary, are adequate for the public in the absence of a specific
request, and
     Whether additional information should only be provided
to the public upon request.
     Whether it is appropriate to require public meetings;
     Whether to eliminate the public meeting requirement and
instead require the facility to schedule a meeting with the LEPC
and/or emergency responders 60 to 90 days after an accident or
incident;
     Whether public meetings should be held upon request
(e.g., LEPC or its community equivalent) rather than automatically
within an established timeframe; and
     Extending the timeframe from 30 to 90 days or whether
there is a more appropriate timeframe for scheduling a meeting
following an RMP reportable accident and who should be included in
the invitation (e.g. limit to local emergency response officials and
LEPCs).

    EPA incorporated preamble language to address these Panel
recommendations in section VI of this document. EPA also revised the
proposed rule to incorporate the following two Panel recommendations as
the proposed options:

     Make chemical hazard information available upon request
by the LEPC rather than requiring it to be automatically submitted
by the facility; and
     Require that a public meeting be held only after an RMP
reportable accident.
7. Small Business Advocacy Review
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA also convened a
SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from SERs that
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. The SBAR Panel
evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues
related to elements of an IRFA. The SBAR report contains the
recommendations to the EPA Administrator from the three Federal Panel
members (EPA, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy and
the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs). This proposal
was informed by the small entity comments and the Panel report
recommendations were used in the development of this proposal, as
provided in section 609(b) of the RFA. A copy of the full SBAR Panel
Report is available in the rulemaking docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a Federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a written
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included
in the docket for this action and briefly summarized here.
    Over the 16 years of implementing the RMP program and, most
recently through Executive Order 13650 listening sessions, webinars,
and consultations, EPA has engaged states and local communities to
discuss chemical safety issues. In the nine Executive Order 13650
Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security listening sessions and
webinars, held between November 2013 and January 2014, states and local
communities identified lack of chemical facility participation and
coordination in local emergency contingency planning as a key barrier
to successful local community preparedness. Additionally, EPA has had
consultations with states and local communities through participation
in the NASTTPO annual meetings to discuss key issues related to
chemical facility and local community coordination and what areas of
the RMP regulations need to be modernized to facilitate this
coordination and improve local emergency preparedness and prevention.
Key priority options discussed with NASTTPO states and local
communities included: Improving emergency response coordination between
RMP facilities and LEPCs/first

responder and requiring emergency response exercises of the RMP
facility plan to involve LEPCs, first responders and emergency response
personnel.
    This action may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The EPA consulted with small governments concerning the regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. Through
the July 31, 2014, RFI (79 FR 44604), EPA sought feedback from
governmental entities while formulating the proposed revisions in this
action. Additionally, EPA participated in ongoing consultations with
affected SERs (including small governmental entities) through the SBAR
panel. EPA convened an SBAR panel in accordance with the requirements
of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA).

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have Federalism implications. The EPA
believes, however, that these proposed regulatory revisions may be of
significant interest to local governments. Consistent with the EPA's
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local
governments, and to better understand the concerns of local
governments, EPA sought feedback through the July 31, 2014, RFI (79 FR
44604). Additionally, consultations with governmental entities occurred
through the SBREFA process.

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA will be consulting with
tribal officials as it develops this regulation to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. Consultation will
include conference calls, webinars, and meetings with interested tribal
representatives to ensure that their concerns are addressed before the
rule is finalized. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175 and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
rule from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
The EPA believes that the proposed revisions to the Risk Management
Program regulations would further protect human health, including the
health of children, through advancement of process safety.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to
require third-party auditors to be experienced with applicable RAGAGEP,
which include Voluntary Consensus Standards as well as other measures,
for regulated processes being audited. Numerous different standards
apply to processes regulated under the proposed rule and their
application will vary depending on the particular process and chemicals
involved. EPA is not proposing to list all the various codes, standards
and practices that would apply to the wide variety of chemical
processes covered by this rule as doing so would be impracticable,
given that this rule affects sectors across many industries and listing
the applicable RAGAGEP measures would require the EPA to update that
list every time there was a change in the industry standards or best
practices. The proposed rule would require third-party auditors to be
familiar with standards applicable to processes they audit, and to
obtain their own copies of applicable standards where needed. Auditors
must be knowledgeable of applicable consensus standards because the
accident prevention program provisions of the existing rule (subparts C
and D) require owners or operators to comply with RAGAGEP. Therefore,
auditors must be knowledgeable of those practices in order to perform
an effective audit. EPA seeks comment on this proposed RAGAGEP
requirement.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental