Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-03633

Proposed Rule2026-03633

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

February 24, 2026

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing to amend its Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations by making several proposed changes to the 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) rule. The proposed revisions include changes to provisions relating to safer technology and alternatives analyses, information availability, third-party audits, employee participation, community and emergency responder notification, stationary source siting, natural hazards, power loss, declined recommendations documentation, emergency response exercises, process safety information (PSI) and recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP), deregistration form information collection, hot work permit retention, and the retail facility definition. These proposed amendments seek to improve chemical process safety by avoiding duplicative requirements, realigning RMP requirements with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements, and eliminating unnecessary burdens placed on facilities where there is not specific data available to show that the current RMP standards would reduce or have reduced the number of accidental releases.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8970-9011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03633]

[[Page 8969]]

Vol. 91

Tuesday,

No. 36

February 24, 2026

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 68

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs
Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident
Prevention; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 36 / Tuesday, February 24, 2026 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 8970]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0313; FRL-5766.8-01-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AH37

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical
Accident Prevention

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
proposing to amend its Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations by
making several proposed changes to the 2024 Safer Communities by
Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) rule. The proposed revisions
include changes to provisions relating to safer technology and
alternatives analyses, information availability, third-party audits,
employee participation, community and emergency responder notification,
stationary source siting, natural hazards, power loss, declined
recommendations documentation, emergency response exercises, process
safety information (PSI) and recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices (RAGAGEP), deregistration form information
collection, hot work permit retention, and the retail facility
definition. These proposed amendments seek to improve chemical process
safety by avoiding duplicative requirements, realigning RMP
requirements with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements, and eliminating
unnecessary burdens placed on facilities where there is not specific
data available to show that the current RMP standards would reduce or
have reduced the number of accidental releases.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2026. Comments
on the information collection provisions of the proposed rule under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) must be received by the Office of
Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OMB-OIRA) on or before March 26, 2026. Please refer to the PRA section
under ``Statutory and Executive Order Reviews'' in this preamble for
specific instructions.
Public hearing: The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on March
10, 2026 at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule">https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule</a>. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for additional information on the public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2025-0313, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, OLEM Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
<bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
The virtual hearing will be held at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule">https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule</a>. The hearing
will convene at 12:00 p.m. ET and will conclude after all speakers have
presented, but no earlier than 5:00 p.m. ET. Refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Guarino, Office of Land and
Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202) 566-1235; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c6b796d7e65626322677e657f7865626d4c697c6d226b637a">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Please also
contact Kristina Guarino if you are a person with disabilities who
needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The EPA uses multiple acronyms
and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CBI Confidential Business Information
CCPS Center for Chemical Process Safety
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSB Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
CSISSFRA Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels
Regulatory Relief Act
DOJ Department of Justice
E.O. Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
FAQ Frequently Asked Question
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FR Federal Register
GDC General Duty Clause
HF hydrogen fluoride
ICR Information Collection Request
ISD inherently safer design
IST inherently safer technology
LEPC local emergency planning committee
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NTTAA National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
OCA offsite consequence analysis
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PBI Proprietary Business Information
PHA process hazard analysis
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSI process safety information
PSM process safety management
RAGAGEP recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RMP Risk Management Program or risk management plan
RTC Response to Comment
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SCCAP Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention
SISNOSE significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities
SNPRM supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
STAA safer technology and alternatives analysis
TQ threshold quantity
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
A. Written Comments
B. Comment Headings
C. Participation in Virtual Public Hearings
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What is the purpose of the proposed regulatory action?

[[Page 8971]]

C. What is the Agency's authority for proposing this action?
D. What are the costs and benefits of this action?
III. Background
A. Overview of the EPA's Risk Management Program
B. Events Leading to This Proposed Action
C. The EPA's Authority To Revise the RMP Rule
IV. Proposed Action
A. Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)
B. Information Availability
C. Third-Party Compliance Audits
D. Employee Participation
E. Community and Emergency Responder Notification
F. Stationary Source Siting
G. Natural Hazards
H. Power Loss
I. Declined Recommendations
J. Emergency Response Exercises
K. Safety Information and Recognized and Generally Accepted Good
Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP)
L. Deregistration Form Information Collection
M. Retention of Hot Work Permits
N. Retail Facility Definition
O. Compliance Dates
P. Technical Corrections To Address Incorrect Numbering
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

I. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-
0313, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to the
EPA's docket at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). Please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a> for additional submission methods; the
full EPA public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or
multimedia submissions; and general guidance on making effective
comments.

B. Comment Headings

Commentors should review the discussions in the preamble and may
comment on any matter that is addressed by the proposed rule. For
comments submitted through postal mail or <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>,
the EPA is requesting commenters to identify their comments on specific
issues by using the appropriate number and comment headings listed
below to make it simpler for the Agency to process your comment. If
your comment covers multiple issues, please use all the heading numbers
and names that relate to that comment. The comment headings are listed
as follows:

1. For comments submitted on Safer Technologies and Alternatives
Analysis (STAA), use ``#1--STAA'' as the comment header. The
proposal on this issue can be found in section IV.A.
2. For comments submitted on information availability, use
``#2--Information Availability'' as the comment header. The proposal
on this issue can be found in section IV.B.
3. For comments submitted on third-party compliance audits, use
``#3--Third-Party Compliance Audits'' as the comment header. The
proposal on this issue can be found in section IV.C.
4. For comments submitted on employee participation, use ``#4--
Employee Participation'' as the comment header. The proposal on this
issue can be found in section IV.D.
5. For comments submitted on community and emergency responder
notification, use ``#5--Community and Emergency Responder
Notification'' as the comment header. The proposal on this issue can
be found in section IV.E.
6. For comments submitted on stationary source siting, use
``#6--Stationary Source Siting'' as the comment header. The proposal
on this issue can be found in section IV.F.
7. For comments submitted on natural hazards, use ``#7--Natural
Hazards'' as the comment header. The proposal on this issue can be
found in section IV.G.
8. For comments submitted on power loss, use ``#8--Power Loss''
as the comment header. The proposal on this issue can be found in
section IV.H.
9. For comments submitted on declined recommendations, use
``#9--Declined Recommendations'' as the comment header. The proposal
on this issue can be found in section IV.I.
10. For comments submitted on emergency response exercises, use
``#10--Emergency Response Exercises'' as the comment header. The
proposal on this issue can be found in section IV.J.
11. For comments submitted on safety information and RAGAGEP,
use ``#11--Safety Information and RAGAGEP'' as the comment header.
The proposal on this issue can be found in section IV.K.
12. For comments submitted on deregistration form information
collection, use ``#12--Deregistration Form Information Collection''
as the comment header. The proposal on this issue can be found in
section IV.L.
13. For comments submitted on retention of hot work permits, use
``#13--Retention of Hot Work Permits'' as the comment header. The
proposal on this issue can be found in section IV.M.
14. For comments submitted on retail facility definition, use
``#14--Retail Facility Definition'' as the comment header. The
proposal on this issue can be found in section IV.N.
15. For comments submitted on compliance dates, use ``#15--
Compliance Dates'' as the comment header. The proposal on this issue
can be found in section IV.O.
16. For comments submitted on numbering corrections, use ``#16--
Numbering Corrections'' as the comment header. The proposal on this
issue can be found in section IV.P.
17. For any comments not falling under one of the preceding
categories, please identify using ``#17--OTHER'' as the comment
header.

C. Participation in Virtual Public Hearings

The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon
publication of this preamble in the Federal Register (FR). To register
to speak at the virtual hearing, please see the online registration
form available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule">https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule</a> or contact Kristina Guarino
at (202) 566-1235 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7116041003181f1e5f1a03180205181f10311401105f161e07">[email&#160;protected]</a> to register to speak at
the virtual hearing. The last day to pre-register to speak at the
hearing will be March 9, 2026, the EPA will post a general agenda for
the hearing that will list preregistered speakers in approximate order
at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule">https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule</a>.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearings; however, please plan for the
hearing to

[[Page 8972]]

run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have three minutes to provide oral testimony.
The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their
oral testimony electronically (via email) to Kristina Guarino at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6819387948f8889c88d948f95928f8887a6839687c8818990">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The EPA also recommends submitting the text
of your oral comments as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearings.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearings are
posted online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule">https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule</a>. While the EPA expects the
hearings to go forward as set forth above, please monitor the Agency's
website or contact Kristina Guarino at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2958793809b9c9ddc99809b81869b9c93b2978293dc959d84">[email&#160;protected]</a>, to
determine if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish
a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or special
accommodations such as audio description, please preregister for the
hearings with Kristina Guarino and describe your needs by March 9,
2026. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

This proposed rule would apply to those facilities (referred to as
``stationary sources'' under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that are subject
to the chemical accident prevention requirements at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 68. This includes stationary sources holding
more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance in a
process. See 40 CFR 68.130. This proposed rule will not impact the
existing scope and applicability of the General Duty Clause (GDC) in
CAA section 112(r)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(1). See 40 CFR 68.1. Table 1
provides industrial sectors and the associated North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes for entities potentially affected
by this action. The Agency's goal is to provide a guide on entities
that might be affected by this action. However, this action may affect
other entities not listed in this table. If you have questions about
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble.

Table 1--Industrial Sectors and Associated NAICS Codes for Entities
Potentially Affected By This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of Environmental Quality 924.
Programs.
Agricultural Chemical Distributors:
Crop Production.......................... 111.
Animal Production and Aquaculture........ 112.
Support Activities for Agriculture and 115.
Forestry Farm.
Supplies Merchant Wholesalers............ 42491.
Chemical Manufacturing....................... 325.
Chemical and Allied Products Merchant 4246.
Wholesalers.
Food Manufacturing........................... 311.
Beverage Manufacturing....................... 3121.
Oil and Gas Extraction....................... 211.
Other........................................ 44, 45, 48, 54, 56, 61,
72.
Other manufacturing.......................... 313, 326, 327, 33.
Other Wholesale:
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods...... 423.
Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods... 424.
Paper Manufacturing.......................... 322.
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing.... 324.
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant 4247.
Wholesalers.
Utilities.................................... 221.
Warehousing and Storage...................... 493.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For descriptions of NAICS codes, see <a href="https://www.census.gov/naics/">https://www.census.gov/naics/</a>.

B. What is the purpose of the proposed regulatory action?

The purpose of this document is to propose changes to the RMP rule
in order to improve safety at facilities that use and distribute
regulated substances by avoiding duplicative requirements, re-aligning
RMP requirements with OSHA PSM requirements, and eliminating
unnecessary burdens placed on facilities where there is not specific
data available to show that the current RMP standards would reduce or
have reduced the number of accidental releases. The RMP regulations
have benefited from technological advances that have resulted in
improvements in preventing and mitigating chemical accidents in the
United States. However, we have preliminarily concluded that revisions
could maintain protection of human health and the environment from
chemical hazards while also reducing regulatory burden. As further
explained in detail in the following sections, the EPA therefore
proposes to rescind or modify several changes to the Risk Management
Program made by the 2024 SCCAP rule as a result of Agency review.

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

The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided by
section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). Specifically,
CAA section 112(r)(7) (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)) authorizes the EPA to
promulgate requirements that meet the elements set out in the statute.
When promulgating rules under CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) and (B), the EPA
must follow the procedures for rulemaking set out in CAA section 307(d)
(see CAA sections 112(r)(7)(E), 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)(E) and
307(d)(1)(C), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(C)). Among other things, CAA section
307(d)

[[Page 8973]]

sets out requirements for the content of proposed and final rules, the
docket for each rulemaking, opportunities for oral testimony on
proposed rulemakings, the length of time for comments, and judicial
review.

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

1. Summary of Estimated Costs
Table 2 presents a summary of the annualized proposed rule costs
and cost savings estimated in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA),
which is available in the docket for this proposed action. In total,
the EPA estimates annualized cost savings of $234.7-240.3 million at a
3% discount rate and $236.2-241.9 million at a 7% discount rate.

Table 2--Summary of Estimated Costs Over a 10-Year Period
[Millions, 2022 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total discounted Total discounted
Cost elements Total undiscounted (3%) (7%) Annualized (3%) Annualized (7%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Familiarization (new)...................... $13.4 $13.0 $12.5 $1.5 $1.8
STAA Initial Evaluation (new)................... 88.4 75.4 62.1 8.8 8.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost *................................ 113.0 99.3 85.1 11.6 12.1
Rule Familiarization (previous)................. (39.7) (38.5) (37.1) (4.5) (5.3)
Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis (STAA):
Initial Evaluation (previous)............... (176.4) (158.2) (138.3) (18.5) (19.7)
Practicability Assessment................... (256.9) (230.2) (201.0) (27.0) (28.6)
Implementation.............................. (1,700.4) (1,438.9) (1,172.6) (168.7) (167.0)
Third-party Audits *............................ (75.2)-(18.7) (64.2)-(15.9) (52.8)-(13.1) (7.5)-(1.9) (7.5)-(1.9)
Employee Participation Plan..................... (110.1) (93.9) (77.3) (11.0) (11.0)
Backup Power for Perimeter Monitors............. (3.3) (2.8) (2.3) (0.3) (0.3)
RMP Justifications:
No Backup Power............................. (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) ** (0.0) ** (0.0)
Natural Hazards............................. (0.4) (0.4) (0.3) ** (0.0) ** (0.0)
Facility Siting............................. (0.4) (0.4) (0.3) ** (0.0) ** (0.0)
RAGAGEP..................................... (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) ** (0.0) ** (0.0)
Community Notification System................... (2.7) (2.3) (1.9) (0.3) (0.3)
Information Availability........................ (127.0) (108.3) (89.2) (12.7) (12.7)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Savings *........................ (2,493.0)-(2,436.4) (2,138.3)-(2,090.1) (1,773.4)-(1,733.7) (250.7)-(245.0) (252.5)-(246.8)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Cost *............................ (2,391.2)-(2,334.6) (2,049.9)-(2,001.7) (1,698.8)-(1,659.1) (240.3)-(234.7) (241.9)-(236.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding. Total cost savings refers to the sum of monetized cost savings among all cost-saving elements. Net costs refer to
the sum of all monetized costs and cost savings in the proposed rule. Negative values reflect cost savings. Third-party Audits, Total Cost Savings,
and Total Net Costs present two values in each cell, the first reflecting costs avoided under co-proposed option #1 that would immediately rescind the
third-party audit requirement, and the second reflecting costs avoided under co-proposed option #2 that would retain a modified the third-party audit
requirement for 10 years.
** Costs are zero due to rounding. Unrounded costs are ($15,798) for No Backup Power, ($42,307) for Natural Hazards and Facility Siting, and ($27,582)
for RAGAGEP.

The largest annualized cost savings of the proposed rule is the
safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA) implementation cost
savings ($168.7 million at a 3% discount rate and $167.0 million at a
7% discount rate), followed by practicability assessment ($27.0 million
at a 3% discount rate and $28.6 million at a 7% discount rate), STAA
initial evaluation ($18.5 million at a 3% discount rate and $19.7
million at a 7% discount rate), information availability ($12.7 million
at both 3% and 7% discount rates), employee participation plans ($11.0
million at both 3% and 7% discount rates), familiarization with 2024
SCCAP rule ($4.5 million at a 3% discount rate and $5.3 million at a 7%
discount rate), and third-party audits ($1.86 million at both 3% and 7%
discount rates). Two provisions impose new costs: STAA initial
evaluations for new Program 3 processes ($8.8 million at both 3% and 7%
discount rates) and rule familiarization ($1.5 million at a 3% discount
rate and $1.8 million at a 7% discount rate). The remaining provisions
result in annualized cost savings under $1 million, including backup
power for perimeter monitors ($0.3 million at both 3% and 7% discount
rates), community notification systems ($0.27 million at both 3% and 7%
discount rates), and RMP declined recommendation documentation for no
backup power, natural hazards, facility siting, and RAGAGEP ($0.13
million at both 3% and 7% discount rates).
The Agency estimates that the 2,257 potentially regulated private
sector small entities potentially impacted by this proposed rule would
experience cost savings of, on average, $87,400 over the 10-year
analysis period, or $197.24 million in total. The 590 small government
entities potentially affected by this proposed rule would experience
cost savings of, on average, $2,150 over the same period. These
estimates are conservatively based on the proposed rule with avoided
third-party audit costs under co-proposed option #2, which would have
lower cost savings than under option #1. The EPA has estimated this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). The EPA requests comment on the estimated costs
of this action, including the EPA's assumptions, data, and methods.
Additionally, the EPA requests comment on any costs already incurred in
complying with the 2024 SCCAP rule, i.e., have facilities already
incurred costs for rule familiarization, Safer Technologies and
Alternatives Analysis, or other requirements of the 2024 SCCAP rule.
2. Summary of Benefits
In this proposed action, the EPA is seeking to provide clarity,
remove redundant or unnecessary regulatory requirements, and realign
the Risk Management Program with OSHA's PSM standard. If finalized,
this proposed rule would ensure long-term information access to the
public to promote community response planning and preparedness while
balancing site security concerns. The proposed action would also
refocus requirements for regulated facility owners and operators on
addressing areas that pose the greatest risk to a process. See the
discussion of each proposed change below for more information.
Additional

[[Page 8974]]

information on potential benefits and disbenefits is also provided in
Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket for this
rulemaking. The EPA requests comment on the estimated benefits of this
action, including the EPA's assumptions, data, and methods.
Additionally, the EPA requests comment on the relative benefits and
costs of the regulatory alternatives considered; specifically, the EPA
requests comment on the assumption that lower-cost alternatives will
yield lower benefits and higher-cost alternatives will yield higher
benefits.

III. Background

A. Overview of the EPA's Risk Management Program

The EPA originally issued the RMP regulations in two stages. The
Agency published the list of regulated substances and Threshold
Quantities (TQ) in 1994: ``List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds
for Accidental Release Prevention; Requirements for Petitions Under
Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amended'' (59 FR 4478, January
31, 1994), hereinafter referred to as the ``list rule.'' \1\ The Agency
published the RMP final regulation, containing risk management
requirements for covered sources, in 1996: ``Accidental Release
Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under Clean Air Act
Section 112(r)(7)'' (61 FR 31668, June 20, 1996), hereinafter referred
to as the ``1996 RMP rule''.2 3 Subsequent modifications to
the list rule and the 1996 RMP rule were made as discussed in the 2017
Amendments rule (``Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk
Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act'' (82 FR 4594, January 13,
2017), hereinafter referred to as the ``2017 Amendments rule''), the
2019 Reconsideration rule (``Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act'' (84 FR
69834, December 19, 2019), hereinafter referred to as the ``2019
Reconsideration rule''), and the 2024 SCCAP rule (``Accidental Release
Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air
Act; Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention'' (89 FR 17622,
March 11, 2024), hereinafter referred to as the 2024 SCCAP rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Documents and information related to development of the list
rule can be found in the EPA docket for the rulemaking, docket
number A-91-74.
\2\ Documents and information related to development of the 1996
RMP rule can be found in the EPA docket number A-91-73.
\3\ 40 CFR part 68 applies to owners and operators of stationary
sources that have more than a TQ of a regulated substance within a
process. The regulations do not apply to chemical hazards other than
listed substances held above a TQ within a regulated process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to development of the EPA's 1996 RMP rule, OSHA published its
PSM standard in 1992 (57 FR 6356, February 24, 1992), as required by
section 304 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), using its
authority under 29 U.S.C. 653. The OSHA PSM standard can be found in 29
CFR 1910.119. Both the OSHA PSM standard and the EPA's RMP rule aim to
prevent or minimize the consequences of accidental chemical releases
through implementation of management program elements that integrate
technologies, procedures, and management practices. In addition to
requiring implementation of management program elements, the RMP rule
requires any covered source to submit (to the EPA) a document
summarizing the source's risk management program--called a risk
management plan (RMP).
The EPA's risk management program requirements include conducting a
worst-case scenario analysis and a review of accident history,
coordinating emergency response procedures with local response
organizations, conducting a hazard assessment, documenting a management
system, implementing a prevention program and an emergency response
program, and submitting a risk management plan that addresses all
aspects of the risk management program for all covered processes and
chemicals. A process at a source is covered under one of three
different prevention programs (Program 1, Program 2, or Program 3)
based directly or indirectly on the threat posed to the community and
the environment by an accidental release. Program 1 has minimal
requirements and applies to processes that have not had an accidental
release with offsite consequences in the last five years before
submission of the source's risk management risk management plan, and
that have no public receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals) within the
worst-case release scenario vulnerable zone for the process. Program 3
applies to processes not eligible for Program 1 and to processes
covered by the OSHA PSM standard or classified in specified industrial
sectors; it also has the most requirements. Program 2 has fewer
requirements than Program 3 and applies to any process not covered
under Programs 1 or 3. Programs 2 and 3 both require a hazard
assessment, a prevention program, and an emergency response program,
although Program 2 requirements are less extensive and more
streamlined. For example, the Program 2 prevention program was intended
to cover, in many cases, simpler processes at smaller businesses and
does not require the following process safety elements: management of
change, pre-startup review, contractors, employee participation, and
hot work permits. The Program 3 prevention program is fundamentally
identical to the OSHA PSM standard and designed to cover those
processes in the chemical industry.

B. Events Leading to This Proposed Action

On January 13, 2017, the EPA published amendments to the RMP rule
(82 FR 4594). The 2017 Amendments rule was prompted by E.O. 13650,
``Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.'' \4\ The 2017
Amendments rule contained various new provisions applicable to RMP-
regulated facilities addressing prevention program elements, including
STAA, incident investigation root cause analysis, third-party
compliance audits, emergency response coordination with local
responders (including emergency response exercises), and availability
of information to the public. In December 2019, the EPA finalized
revisions to the RMP regulations to reconsider the rule changes made in
January 2017. The 2019 Reconsideration rule rescinded certain
information disclosure provisions of the 2017 Amendments rule,
rescinded most of the new accident prevention requirements added by the
2017 rule, and modified other provisions of the 2017 Amendments rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Available at <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/01/executive-order-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security">https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/01/executive-order-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2024 SCCAP rule was prompted by Executive Order (E.O.) 13990,
``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis'' (86 FR 7037). E.O. 13990 directed Federal
agencies to review existing regulations and take action to address
priorities established by the former Administration, which included
bolstering regulations in response to the impacts of climate change and
prioritizing environmental justice. As a result, the EPA again made
updates to the RMP regulations through the 2024 SCCAP rule. These
revisions included several changes to the accident prevention program
requirements, including STAA, root cause analysis, employee
participation, third-party audit, emergency preparedness, and
information availability requirements,

[[Page 8975]]

as well as several other changes to certain regulatory definitions or
points of clarification.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14148, titled
``Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions'' (90 FR
13037), which revoked E.O. 13990. On the same date, President Trump
also issued E.O. 14154, ``Unleashing American Energy'', which directed
agencies (including the EPA) to review agency actions that potentially
burden the development of domestic energy resources (90 FR 8353). In
response, the EPA reviewed the 2024 SCCAP rule with respect to
potentially burdensome requirements for facilities with processes in
NAICS code 324 and, more specifically, facilities with processes in
NAICS code 324 with hydrofluoric acid alkylation, a process used in
petroleum refining. To align the RMP regulations with the
Administration priorities outlined in E.O. 14148 and E.O. 14154, the
Agency evaluated the RMP regulations and is proposing to take the
actions set out in this preamble.
The EPA seeks comment on the proposed amendments detailed
throughout this document, including with respect to the substance of
the proposed changes; their impacts on safety, cost, and effective
compliance; and any significant reliance interests the Agency should
consider in deciding whether to finalize changes to the existing
provisions at issue in this rulemaking. We request that any suggestions
for alternative options include an appropriate rationale and supporting
data for the Agency to be able to consider such alternative in a final
action. To the extent submitted comments repeats or relies on material
submitted in the docket used for the 2017 Amendments rule, the 2019
Reconsideration rule, or the 2024 SCCAP rule, we request that
commenters include the relevant material in the submitted comment with
a specific reference to the portion of the material cited as support.

C. The EPA's Authority To Revise the RMP Rule

Congress granted the EPA authority to establish accident prevention
rules under two provisions in CAA section 112(r)(7). Under CAA section
112(r)(7)(A), the EPA may set rules addressing the prevention,
detection, and correction of accidental releases of substances listed
by the EPA by rule (``regulated substances'' listed in the tables 1
through 4 to 40 CFR 68.130). Such rules may include requirements
related to monitoring, data collection, training, design, equipment,
work practice, and operational requirements. In promulgating its
regulations, the EPA may draw distinctions between types, classes, and
kinds of facilities by taking into consideration various factors
including size and location. This provision also indicates that the EPA
has discretion regarding the date rules will take effect. Regulations
become effective ``as determined by the Administrator, assuring
compliance as expeditiously as practicable.''
Under CAA section 112(r)(7)(B), Congress directed the EPA to
develop ``reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance'' that
provide for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of
regulated substances and for response to such releases ``to the
greatest extent practicable.'' Congress required an initial rulemaking
under this subparagraph by November 15, 1993. CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)
sets out a series of mandatory subjects to address, interagency
consultation requirements, and provisions that allowed the EPA to
tailor requirements to make them reasonable and practicable. The
regulations needed to address ``storage, as well as operations'' and
emergency response after accidental release; the EPA was to use the
expertise of the Secretaries of Labor and Transportation in
promulgating the regulations. This provision gave the EPA the
discretion to recognize differences in factors such as ``size,
operations, processes, class, and categories of sources'' and the
voluntary actions taken by owners and operators of regulated sources to
prevent and respond to accidental releases (CAA section
112(r)(7)(B)(i)). At a minimum, the regulations had to require any
stationary source with more than a threshold quantity of regulated
substances to prepare and implement a risk management plan. Such a plan
is needed to provide for compliance with rule requirements under CAA
section 112(r) and include a hazard assessment with release scenarios,
accident history, release prevention program, and response program (CAA
section 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)). Plans were to be registered with the EPA and
submitted to various planning entities (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii)).
These initial rules had to apply to sources three years after
promulgation or three years after a substance was first listed for
regulation under CAA section 112(r) (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i)). The
EPA fulfilled its initial obligations under section 112(r)(7)(B) with
the 1996 RMP rule (61 FR 31668), but the Agency views section
112(r)(7)(B) to give the EPA continuing authority to improve the RMP
regulations to achieve the statutory directives.
In addition to the direction to use the expertise of the
Secretaries of Labor and Transportation in CAA section 112(r)(7)(B),
the statute more broadly requires the EPA to consult with these
secretaries when carrying out the authority of CAA section 112(r)(7)
and to ``coordinate any requirements under [CAA section 112(r)(7)] with
any requirements established for comparable purposes by'' OSHA (CAA
section 112(r)(7)(D)). This consultation and coordination language
derives from and expands upon provisions on hazard assessments in the
bill that passed in the Senate as its version of what eventually became
the 1990 CAAA, section 129(e)(4) of S.1630. The Senate Committee Report
noted that the purpose of the coordination requirement is to ensure
that ``requirements imposed by both agencies to accomplish the same
purpose are not unduly burdensome or duplicative.'' \5\ Thus, the
mandate for coordination in the area of safer chemical processes was
incorporated into CAA section 112(r)(7)(D). In the same legislation,
Congress directed OSHA to promulgate a process safety standard that
became the PSM standard (see CAAA of 1990 section 304).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Committee on Environment and Public Works, Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1989: Report of the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, U.S. Senate, Together with Additional and Minority
Views, to Accompany S.1630 (December 20, 1989), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0645">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0645</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA used its authority under CAA section 112(r)(7) to issue the
1996 RMP rule (61 FR 31668), the 2017 Amendments rule (82 FR 4594), the
2019 Reconsideration rule (84 FR 69834), and the 2024 SCCAP rule (89 FR
17622). The Agency is also implementing this authority in this proposed
rulemaking. These proposed amendments address three requirements of the
RMP regulations: accident prevention program, emergency preparedness,
and information availability. The prevention program provisions in this
proposed rule address the prevention and detection of accidental
releases and include the following topics: stationary source siting,
STAA, third-party compliance auditing, natural hazards, power loss,
safety information and RAGAGEP, hot work permit retention, and employee
participation. The emergency response provisions in this proposed rule
modify existing provisions that provide for owner or operator responses
to accidental releases. The information availability provisions
discussed in this document generally assist in the

[[Page 8976]]

development of emergency response procedures and measures to protect
human health and the environment after an accidental release (CAA
section 112(r)(7)(B)(i)).\6\ When determining which amendments would
result in reasonable regulations that would also prevent and detect
accidental releases of regulated substances to the greatest extent
practicable, the EPA took into consideration multiple factors
including--but not limited to--eliminating unnecessary burdens placed
on facilities where there is not specific data available to show that
the current RMP standards would reduce or have reduced the number of
accidental releases, avoiding duplicative requirements, and realigning
RMP requirements with OSHA PSM requirements. This proposed rulemaking
therefore proposes substantive amendments to 40 CFR part 68 and is
authorized by CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) and (B), as explained herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Incident investigation, compliance auditing, and STAA are
also authorized as release prevention requirements pertaining to
stationary source design, equipment, work practice, recordkeeping,
and reporting. Information disclosure is also authorized as
reporting (CAA section 112(r)(7)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In considering whether it is legally permissible for the EPA to
modify provisions of the RMP rule while continuing to meet its
obligations under CAA section 112(r), the Agency notes that it has made
discretionary amendments to the 1996 RMP rule several times without
dispute over its authority to issue discretionary amendments (64 FR
964, January 6, 1999; 64 FR 28696, May 26, 1999; 69 FR 18819, April 9,
2004). According to the decision in Air Alliance Houston v. EPA, 906
F.3d 1049, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2018), ``EPA retains the authority under
Section 7412(r)(7) [CAA section 112(r)(7)] to substantively amend the
programmatic requirements of the [2017 RMP amendments] . . . subject to
arbitrary and capricious review.'' Therefore, the EPA has determined it
has ample statutory authority to modify the provisions of the current
RMP regulations in a reasonable manner that is reasonably explained.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. Association of the United
States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29
(1983). In addressing the standard of review to reconsider a
regulation, the Supreme Court stated that the rescission or
modification of safety standards ``is subject to the same test'' as
the ``agency's action in promulgating such standards [and] may be
set aside if found to be `arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law' '' (463 U.S. at
41, quoting 5 U.S.C. 706). The same standard that applies to the
promulgation of a rule applies to the modification or rescission of
that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

More generally, the Supreme Court has consistently held that unless
provided otherwise by statute, agencies are free to change their
existing policies, so long as they provide a reasoned explanation for
the change, display awareness of the change, and consider ``serious
reliance interests.'' FDA v. Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC, 145 S. Ct.
898, 917 (2025) (quoting FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S.
502, 515 (2009)). The agency must also show that the changes in policy
are permissible under the statute, and that ``there are good reasons
for [them], and that the agency believes [them] to be better'' than
prior policies. Fox Television, 556 U.S. at 515. To that end, the
agency does not need to demonstrate that the new policy is better than
the prior one, ``[n]or must it provide a more detailed justification
than what would suffice for a new policy created on a blank slate.''
Wages & White Lion, 145 S. Ct. at 918; See Fox Television, 556 U.S. at
515. As explained in detail above, the policy changes proposed in this
action are permissible under the statute. Additionally, as explained
both in this section and throughout the preamble, the EPA has
determined that there are good reasons for the policies described in
this proposed rule and the EPA believes them to be better than policies
we are proposing to rescind or amend.
As described in the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, the Agency justified
adding regulatory requirements to the prevention program provisions of
the 2019 Reconsideration rule, STAA, incident investigation, root cause
analysis, and third-party compliance audits based on, inter alia, a
``broader based, rule-driven'' approach in order to ``have stationary
sources handling dangerous chemicals work to prevent potentially
catastrophic incidents'' (87 FR 53565, August 31, 2022). The 2024 SCCAP
rule was designed so that facilities would be more proactive in
changing their processes rather than relying on case-specific
enforcement actions to be the catalyst for facility updates (89 FR
17635). As described in the proposal for that action, the EPA thus
attempted to focus on ``certain classes of facilities [that] are more
likely to have accidents near communities'' by taking into
consideration the size of the facility, the quantity of the substances
handled, and the location of the facility in relation to other RMP
facilities (87 FR 53565). Therefore, the 2024 SCCAP rule attempted to
focus on certain perceived higher risk facilities by distinguishing
among classes and categories of sources by industry and process type,
as well as likelihood of an accidental release that may impact a
community. However, as explained throughout this preamble, revolving
entire new and costly provisions \8\ around only a portion of
facilities identified by the EPA as being higher risk, resulted in
duplicative and/or superfluous requirements, thereby adding unnecessary
burden and costs onto many facilities subject to the Risk Management
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ For example, the 2024 SCCAP rule's STAA provisions accounted
for $253.2M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agency acknowledges that while accidental releases remain a
significant concern to communities, the number of accidental releases
has steadily declined over the ten-year period evaluated for this
proposed rulemaking, with 147 accidents (within 12,396 registered
facilities facilities) in 2014 to 81 accidents (within 11,510
registered facilities) in 2023.\9\ Because of that, it is clear that
many of the sources subject to the 2024 SCCAP final rule prevention
measures already had successful prevention programs in place. In fact,
as explained in more detail in each section of this preamble, some of
the requirements in the 2024 SCCAP rule were added without having
specific data showing that those updates to the regulations would
result in the decline of accidental releases, nor has recent data
demonstrated such a result. We therefore believe it is better not to
impose substantial regulatory requirements on entire industry sectors
subject to the Risk Management Program on the basis of information
about individual incidents and opinions where more comprehensive data
do not demonstrate the efficacy of such a requirement across the board.
For example, we believe the data do not adequately support the
conclusion that incorporating new requirements such as those finalized
for STAA, third-party audits, and retention of hot work permits would
address safety issues or prevent accidental releases (see sections
IV.A., C., and M. for further discussion of STAA, third-party audits,
and retention of hot work permits, respectively). In order to address
this gap in analysis, in addition to proposing specific updates and/or
rescissions to the 2024 SCCAP requirements the EPA is requesting
comment on how better to acquire data on some of these proposed
requirements so that the EPA continues to ensure that its requirements
are preventing accidental releases to the greatest extent practicable,
while being reasonable and not unduly burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Exhibits 3-13a and 3-13.1. Accident History Document.

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

[[Page 8977]]

Thus, rather than take the 2024 SCCAP approach with new STAA
requirements on a subset of existing facilities and with new auditing
and investigation requirements at all Program 2 and 3 facilities with
one accident, the EPA has concluded for this proposed rulemaking that
it could obtain accident-prevention benefits at lower cost through STAA
requirements on only new processes coming into the Risk Management
Program and by requiring third-party audits at facilities that have had
two or more accidents in a five-year period. Through oversight on a
source-specific basis, when the EPA identifies a facility that is not
implementing a successful prevention program, the Agency has the
ability to seek injunctive relief that includes appropriate safety
measures. This approach is supported by the observed reduction in the
rate of RMP-reportable accidents over many years. Therefore, in this
proposed rulemaking, the EPA is considering a more reasonable and
practicable approach to accident prevention in order to avoid an
unnecessary increase in compliance costs for the entire regulated
community.
An additional benefit to the EPA's proposed changes would be to
realign RMP requirements with OSHA requirements to the extent we can do
so consistently with the EPA's statutory directive. While the EPA
generally has broad authority to prevent accidental releases separate
from OSHA requirements, the statute also requires that the EPA
``coordinate any requirements . . . with any requirements established
for comparable purposes by [OSHA.]'' CAA section 112(r)(7)(D). As
mentioned above, the legislative history for this section outlines that
the purpose of the coordination requirement is to ensure that
``requirements imposed by both agencies to accomplish the same purpose
are not unduly burdensome or duplicative.'' \10\ As outlined in
specific detail in each applicable section below, we believe there were
several instances where the 2024 SCCAP rule departed unnecessarily from
OSHA PSM standards. As explained below, we have determined that this
resulted in a combination of unnecessary burdens on facilities and
caused confusion as to what the requirements actually were. Therefore,
this proposed rule aims to be consistent with the EPA's historic
practice by realigning RMP regulations, where reasonable and
appropriate, with OSHA regulations in order to ensure that the RMP
requirements are not unduly burdensome. In so doing, the EPA does not
delegate to OSHA or assign it primacy in the subject matter. The EPA
does not take the position that neither agency can act without the
other moving in sync. Rather, reflecting on the potential burden of the
changes adopted in the 2024 SCCAP rule as well as the lack of data
concerning the benefits of the rule-driven approach adopted in the 2024
SCCAP rule, we believe continued coordination with OSHA on the issues
being addressed would lead to better accident prevention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Supra FN [8]. Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989: Report of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Together with Additional
and Minority Views, to Accompany S.1630 (December 20, 1989), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0645">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0645</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, this proposed rule addresses important security concerns
that were raised during the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule comment period and
since the 2024 SCCAP rule was finalized, specifically revolving around
information availability. The EPA reaffirms its view of the importance
of balancing the public's need for chemical hazard information with
chemical facility security. From the beginning, one of the objectives
of the Risk Management Program has been to improve the availability of
information about chemical hazards to community members and emergency
planners in order to improve emergency preparedness. As addressed more
fully in section IV.B., this proposed rule would rescind certain
provisions from the 2024 SCCAP rule, while also proposing to modify
others. For example, the EPA is proposing to retain, albeit in a more
controlled manner, the RMP Public Data Tool. This would allow people to
search for facilities nearby while also balancing important security
concerns by limiting search criteria to the county-level and
eliminating the mapping feature. The EPA's proposed revisions aim to
ensure that the information shared with the public provide stability
and certainty to concerned individuals while also saving on costs to
the facility and safeguarding information that could be used
improperly.
The EPA acknowledges that this compliance- and performance-driven
approach is similar to the EPA's justification for the 2019
Reconsideration rule (84 FR 69843), which was subsequently reconsidered
in the 2024 SCCAP rule. However, as explained above and in each
individual proposed regulation update below, the EPA is proposing
options to reduce the burden and overall costs from the 2024 SCCAP
rule. Further, the EPA is initiating this rulemaking before the
compliance dates for the 2024 SCCAP rule go into effect to put the
regulated entities and the surrounding communities on notice of the
EPA's proposed changes. The EPA is committed to conducting this
rulemaking expeditiously to avoid disruption of any serious reliance
interests related to certain SCCAP compliance dates (89 FR 17680).\11\
By focusing on requirements that would prevent accidental releases
while also not being unduly burdensome to facilities, the EPA continues
to fulfill its statutory duty to promulgate reasonable regulations to
provide to the greatest extent practicable for the prevention and
detection of accidental releases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ The 2024 SCCAP rule requires regulated sources to comply
with new STAA, incident investigation root cause analysis, third-
party compliance audit, employee participation, emergency response
public notification and exercise evaluation reports, and information
availability provisions, unless otherwise stated, three years after
the effective date of the final rule, which is May 10, 2027. The
Agency stated that time is needed for facility owners and operators
to understand the revised rule; train facility personnel on the
revised provisions; learn new investigation techniques, as
appropriate; research safer technologies; arrange for emergency
response resources; incorporate changes into their RMPs; and
establish a strategy to notify the public that certain information
is available upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

This proposed action addresses 14 substantive issues: safer
technologies and alternatives analyses (STAA), information
availability, third-party audits, employee participation, community and
emergency responder notification, stationary source siting, natural
hazards, power loss, declined recommendation documentation, emergency
response exercises, process safety information (PSI) and recognized and
generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP), deregistration
form information collection, hot work permit retention, and the retail
facility definition.
The EPA's main objectives through this proposed rulemaking are to
avoid duplicative requirements, realign RMP requirements with OSHA PSM
requirements, and eliminate unnecessary burdens placed on facilities
where there are not specific data available to show that the current
RMP standards would reduce or have reduced the number of accidental
releases. Below, the EPA presents several proposed amendments for
consideration and public comment. Additional information can be found
in the Technical Background Document and the Accident History document
in

[[Page 8978]]

the rulemaking docket.\12\ The Agency seeks comment on the information
in those documents as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Available in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-
0313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)

The 2024 SCCAP rule added STAA requirements to the existing RMP
regulations in 40 CFR 68.67 governing PHAs for Program 3 processes.
STAA is a means of evaluating chemical processes to identify
opportunities to use inherently safer technology or design measures
(IST/ISD), as well as consider other passive, active, or procedural
measures to reduce the risk of accidental releases of regulated
substances.
<bullet> IST/ISD measures are those that minimize the use of
regulated substances, substitute less hazardous substances, moderate
the use of regulated substances, or simplify processes to make
accidental releases less likely, or the impacts of such releases less
severe.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ CCPS. 2009. Inherently Safer Chemical Processes: A Life
Cycle Approach, 2nd ed., American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
CCPS New York, Wiley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Passive risk management measures are those that use design
features to reduce either the frequency or consequence of the hazard
without human, mechanical, or other energy input. Examples include
pressure vessel designs, dikes, berms, and blast walls.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Active risk management measures or engineering controls
rely on mechanical or other energy input to detect and respond to
process deviations. Examples of active measures include alarms, safety
instrumented systems, and detection hardware (such as hydrocarbon
sensors).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Procedural, or administrative, measures include
operational practices or policies that prevent or minimize incidents,
such as policies limiting the filling of a tank to less than capacity
or checklists to follow when starting up a process.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For additional background and explanation on STAA, refer to the
EPA's discussion of safer technology and alternatives in the 2016
Amendments proposed rule and the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule (81 FR 13638;
87 FR 53556).
The 2024 SCCAP rule adopted three measures related to STAA. The
rule required:
<bullet> All regulated facilities with Program 3 processes in NAICS
codes 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing) and 325 (chemical
manufacturing) to conduct a STAA evaluation under 40 CFR
68.67(c)(9)(i);
<bullet> For a subset of facilities with processes in these sectors
to conduct a practicability assessment for IST/ISD under 40 CFR
68.67(c)(9)(ii). This applied to:
[cir] Co-located sources within one mile of another stationary
source having a covered process in NAICS code 324 or 325,
[cir] Refinery hydrogen fluoride (HF) alkylation processes, and
[cir] Those that have had a reportable accident since the most
recent process hazard analysis (PHA); and
<bullet> For the same subset of facilities to implement at least
one practicable passive measure or similarly protective combination of
active or procedural measure(s) resulting from each STAA practicability
assessment (40 CFR 68.67(h)).
The EPA understands that there is value in examining safer
alternatives and considering IST for improving process safety, and that
owners and operators should consider and address inherent safety at
their facilities, as appropriate. The Agency also has determined that
the EPA's legal authority to require a STAA evaluation arises under
both paragraphs (A) and (B) of CAA section 112(r)(7) (87 FR 53563-53564
and 89 FR 17647). However, the EPA also understands that STAA measures
impose significant costs and other burdens on regulated entities. As a
result, the EPA is proposing to remove these regulatory requirements
for existing facilities to reduce burden on sources that are already
implementing effective prevention programs. The EPA is proposing to
retain STAA evaluation criteria for new processes entering the Risk
Management Program.
For the reasons outlined in further detail in the following
subsections, the EPA is proposing to rescind the STAA implementation
requirements under 40 CFR 68.67(h). The EPA is also proposing to modify
the STAA evaluation and practicability provisions under 40 CFR
68.67(c)(9) by removing the requirement for all facilities with Program
3 regulated processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325 to conduct a STAA
evaluation and the requirement for a narrower subset of facilities with
Program 3 processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325 to conduct a
practicability assessment for IST/ISD. Rather, in this document, the
EPA proposes that the initial STAA evaluation requirement currently in
40 CFR 68.67(c)(9)(i) apply to all new Program 3 processes, regardless
of NAICS code. The Agency proposes that processes considered to be new,
and subject to these requirements, include any newly designed and built
processes at existing or newly operating facilities. This would include
processes that become operational and subject to the RMP rule three
years after the effective date of this final rule. The EPA seeks
comments on what should be considered a new process, and alternative
options for how to set this requirement.
1. Background on IST/ISD
In the 1995 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) for
the initial requirements under CAA section 112(r)(7), the EPA solicited
comments on requiring IST (60 FR 13534-13535, March 13, 1995). Prior to
the 2017 Amendments rule, however, the EPA had not required RMP
facilities to conduct a STAA or implement identified IST/ISD. The 2017
Amendments rule added a requirement to the PHA for owners or operators
of facilities with Program 3 regulated processes in NAICS codes 322
(paper manufacturing), 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing),
and 325 (chemical manufacturing) to conduct a STAA as part of their PHA
and evaluate and document the practicability of any IST identified.
In the 2019 Reconsideration rule, the EPA removed the 2017 STAA
requirement for all facilities based on an accident history analysis
(84 FR 69834). As stated in the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, ``EPA
analyzed accident history data in the RMP database, both nationally and
in States and localities with programs that contained some or all the
elements of the prevention program provisions. . . The analysis
suggested that accident rates in jurisdictions that adopted STAA-like
programs were not lower than national accident rates. Based on this
assessment, EPA concluded that STAA regulations would likely not be
effective at reducing accidents if applied on a national scale,
relative to the pre-2017 program.\17\ Instead, EPA decided to take a
source-specific, compliance-driven approach, using oversight and
enforcement tools to identify sources that could benefit from STAA and
to then seek STAA adoption at such sources.'' 87 FR 53576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, the EPA, relying in part on
comments received from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) regarding data from their State program which has
STAA- and IST-like regulations in place, determined that the

[[Page 8979]]

low accident counts in New Jersey (zero to two per year) in the
relevant sectors prevented the Agency from reaching meaningful
conclusions regarding the effectiveness of STAA provisions (87 FR
53578). The Agency concluded that it was more appropriate to emphasize
the views of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)
and other researchers, case studies, and the EPA's technical judgement
rather than the analysis in the 2019 Reconsideration rule. That
analysis compared accident rates of facilities regulated under the New
Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act Program to national rates for
RMP facilities and helped form the basis for rescinding STAA (87 FR
53579).
The 2024 SCCAP rule added a requirement for all regulated sources
in NAICS codes 324 and 325 to conduct a STAA evaluation as part of a
PHA. The 2024 SCCAP rule also added additional requirements for a
subset of facilities, including: those with Program 3 processes in
NAICS codes 324 and 325 that are located within one mile of another
stationary source having a covered process in NAICS code 324 or 325, in
NAICS code 324 with hydrofluoric acid alkylation covered processes, and
in NAICS codes 324 and 325 that have had one accident meeting the
accident history reporting requirements under 40 CFR 68.42 since the
most recent PHA. In addition to the STAA evaluation, the 2024 SCCAP
rule required this subset of facilities to conduct an IST/ISD
practicability assessment and implement at least one passive measure,
or an IST/ISD, or a combination of active and procedural measures
equivalent to or greater than the risk reduction of a passive measure
after each STAA.
2. STAA Applicability
The EPA is proposing to revise the STAA applicability provisions as
delineated in the 2024 SCCAP rule. Specifically, the EPA is proposing
to rescind the STAA implementation and practicability requirements for
all sources in the petroleum and coal products manufacturing (NAICS
324) and chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325) sectors located within one
mile of another RMP-regulated 324 or 325 facility; all facilities with
processes in NAICS 324 using HF in an alkylation unit; and all
facilities with Program 3 processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325 that
have had an accidental release that meets the accident history
reporting requirements under 40 CFR 68.42 since the facility's most
recent PHA. The EPA is also proposing to rescind the STAA evaluation
requirements for all covered processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325.
By limiting the applicability of the STAA provisions to processes
under specific NAICS codes in the 2024 SCCAP rule, the Agency has
determined that it inadvertently created new Program levels. In the
1995 SNPRM, the EPA proposed the use of three ``Tiers,'' which became
``Programs'' in the 1996 RMP rule, to ensure that the effort to achieve
the program objectives is appropriate to the potential risk. The tiered
approach also accounted for the prevention steps that sources were
already required to take under other regulatory programs. To establish
which sources would be assigned to Program 3, the EPA analyzed its
Accidental Release Information Program database for the period from
1987 to 1993 and identified sources in specific Standard Industrial
Classification codes (later replaced by NAICS codes) that had a release
history which supported requiring those sectors to implement a Program
level 3 prevention program. Program 3 also applies to processes subject
to the OSHA PSM standard (29 CFR 1910.119). In applying the STAA
evaluation provisions to only sources with processes in NAICS codes 324
and 325, and the practicability and implementation provisions to a
subset of those facilities, the EPA in effect created additional
Program levels that do not align with those established by the 1996 RMP
rule. The EPA now recognizes that the addition of these new unofficial
Program levels may have created an unnecessary burden for affected
industry groups and is not supported by the data, for the reasons
described below. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a compliance- and
performance-driven approach to STAA rather than establishing over-broad
regulatory requirements that could impose unnecessary burdens on
regulated facilities, many of which are already performing well. A
compliance- and performance-driven approach is more practicable because
it provides regulatory relief to sources implementing effective
programs and the EPA can tailor compliance activities to sources with
less effective prevention programs.
By requiring that a subset of processes comply with the STAA
provisions in the 2024 SCCAP rule, the Agency mistakenly added an
additional burden to complex processes that were already subject to the
full risk management program. These already comprehensive risk
management program regulations have been effective in preventing and
mitigating chemical accidents in the United States. The total number of
accidental releases at Program 3 RMP facilities declined by 45% over
the ten-year period evaluated for this proposed rulemaking, with 147
accidents having occurred in 2014 and 81 accidents in 2023.\18\ For
Program 3 sources in NAICS codes 324 and 325, the number of RMP-
reportable accidents declined by 43%, from 65 accidents in 2014 to 37
in 2023.\19\ Therefore, imposing these STAA provisions on whole
industry sectors when most individual sources have successful accident
prevention programs adds additional, unnecessary burden to owners and
operators who are usually in the best position to make the
determination of when it is appropriate to evaluate and implement safer
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Exhibit 3-13a. Accident History Document.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this proposed action, the EPA reviewed accident data over a 10-
year period, from 2014-2023. Facilities with processes subject to the
STAA provisions as finalized by the 2024 SCCAP rule also had low rates
of accidents having offsite impacts, including offsite deaths,
injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or
environmental damage. Between 2014 and 2023, the total number of RMP-
reportable accidents having had offsite impacts, across all sectors and
Program levels, was 335 accidents (within 11,510 registered facilities
in 2023; roughly 33 accidents per year).\20\ Over this time period, the
subset of facilities subject to the 2024 SCCAP rule STAA provisions
(662 registered RMP facilities) had 91 accidents (approximately 9
accidents per year) with offsite impacts resulting in $12.92 million in
property damage, accounting for approximately 27% of accidents with
offsite impacts and 6.4% of property damages, respectively.\21\ The
majority of RMP-reportable accidents causing offsite impacts between
2014 and 2023 occurred at facilities that would not be subject to the
STAA provisions as finalized in the 2024 SCCAP rule. The EPA,
therefore, now believes that it is more appropriate to take a
performance-based approach to STAA. This will allow the Agency to focus
compliance efforts on facilities that are having accidents, especially
those having offsite impacts affecting the surrounding community
without burdening those facilities that are not having accidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Exhibit 3-12. Accident History Document.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subset of processes required to comply with the STAA
practicability and implementation provisions in the 2024 SCCAP rule
also showed a decline

[[Page 8980]]

in accidents at facilities with these processes over time, with 50
accidents occurring in 2014 and 35 accidents (within 662 registered
STAA facilities) occurring in 2023.\22\ Between 2019 and 2023, a total
of 184 accidents occurred at facilities with processes subject to the
STAA practicability and implementation provisions required by the 2024
SCCAP rule.\23\ In 2023, 662 RMP facilities had processes that met the
requirements to be subject to those 2024 SCCAP rule provisions.\24\
Using the 2023 facility count, and not accounting for facilities that
had multiple accidents, approximately 28% of this subset of facilities
had an RMP-reportable accident over the 5-year period. Thus, 72% of
facilities subject to the STAA practicability and implementation
provisions finalized in the 2024 SCCAP rule did not have an RMP-
reportable accident between 2019 and 2023.\25\ With most facilities not
having any reportable accidents, applying the STAA provisions to these
specific industry sectors places additional burdens on owners or
operators of facilities that are not having accidents without providing
any tangible benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Id.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
\25\ Exhibit 3-13a.1. Accident History Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2024 SCCAP rule also applied more stringent regulatory
requirements for facilities in NAICS codes 324 and 325 located within
one mile of another stationary source having a covered process in NAICS
code 324 or 325. The EPA does not dispute that communities near densely
co-located facilities in these NAICS codes have experienced more
frequent accidents than communities near other facilities in these
NAICS codes and have had more offsite impacts from releases than other
communities have experienced (87 FR 53577). However, the EPA has
determined that utilizing the median distance of one mile between
facilities with processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325 in the period from
2016 to 2020 to the nearest facilities with a process in NAICS code 324
or 325 imposed an undue burden for these sources by requiring them to
conduct a STAA practicability analysis and implement at least one
passive, or other, combination of measures. The EPA is not aware of any
evidence to show that neighboring facilities increase the hazards at
nearby facilities. Additionally, the EPA recognizes that its prior
statements regarding the possibility of a ``knock-on'' release
occurring due to the proximity of densely co-located refining and
chemical manufacturing facilities are flawed because the Agency is not
aware of any accidents occurring at co-located facilities with
processes in NAICS code 324 or 325 that have led to an accidental
release at a nearby facility.
The 2024 SCCAP rule also required owners or operators of processes
in NAICS code 324 with hydrofluoric acid alkylation covered processes
to comply with additional STAA requirements. The EPA discussed HF in
the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule and the 2024 SCCAP final rule (87 FR
53576; 89 FR 17646). HF is a toxic chemical that is lethal at 30 ppm.
It is covered by the Risk Management Program when more than 1,000
pounds are used in a process. See 40 CFR 68.130. The Agency recognizes
that the extreme toxicity of HF is of concern to the public. The EPA
also acknowledges that there are potentially safer alternatives
available for HF alkylation that have been successfully implemented by
refineries, such as sulfuric acid alkylation, ionic liquid alkylation,
or solid acid catalyst alkylation.26 27 These alternatives,
along with other IST/ISD, active, passive, and procedural measures may
be considered by owners and operators of HF alkylation processes when
conducting a STAA evaluation. However, placing burdensome STAA
practicability assessment and implementation requirements on owners and
operators of NAICS 324 sources with HF alkylation processes may result
in facilities limiting their consideration of more costly options, even
if they may be more effective in preventing accidental releases. The
EPA recognizes that owners and operators are in the best position to
determine whether it is appropriate to assess the practicability of,
and ultimately implement, alternatives, especially because the costs of
implementation can be as high as $900 million.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Chevron, Chevron and Honeywell Announce Start-up of World's
First Commercial ISOALKYTM Ionic Liquids Alkylation Unit, last
modified April 13, 2021, <a href="https://www.chevron.com/stories/chevron-and-honeywell-announce-start-up-of-isoalky-ionic-liquids-alkylation-unit">https://www.chevron.com/stories/chevron-and-honeywell-announce-start-up-of-isoalky-ionic-liquids-alkylation-unit</a>.
\27\ United Steelworkers, A Risk Too Great: Hydrofluoric Acid in
U.S. Refineries (April 2013), <a href="https://assets.usw.org/resources/hse/pdf/A-Risk-Too-Great.pdf">https://assets.usw.org/resources/hse/pdf/A-Risk-Too-Great.pdf</a>.
\28\ The EPA located cost estimates to modify or replace an HF
alkylation unit, ranging from $50 million to $900 million. See
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Safer Communities by Chemical Accident
Prevention: Final Rule. August 30, 2023. <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0587">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0587</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the list of regulated substances established by the 1994
List rule includes HF, it also includes an array of other substances
that may cause harm to human health and the environment (59 FR 4478).
For this proposed rule, the EPA examined the average annual number of
RMP-reportable accidents per facility by chemical between 2014 and
2023. In so doing, the EPA found an average of 4.5 accidents per year
occurred at an average of 139 facilities with HF covered processes, or
0.032 accidents per facility.\29\ The EPA found that multiple other
chemicals, including phosgene, hydrogen sulfide, and chlorine dioxide,
among others, had higher annual frequencies of accidents occurring per
facility over HF.\30\ When looking at the average annual number of RMP-
reportable accidents per process over the same time period, the average
annual number of accidents occurring per HF process was 0.024.\31\ This
frequency was less than that of other chemicals, including methyl
mercaptan and hydrogen selenide, among others.\32\ Additionally, the
10-year monetized accident costs per 2023 facility and per 2023 process
shows that accidents involving HF did not cause significantly more
damage than accidents involving other regulated substances.\33\ Program
3 facilities in NAICS 324 with HF alkylation covered processes, subject
to STAA implementation requirements, had higher rates of accidents
between 2014 and 2023 (1.42 per 2023 facility and 0.09 per 2023
process) and monetized accident costs ($31.8 million per 2023 facility
and $2.1 million per 2023 process).\34\ However, only six of these 43
facilities were responsible for 89% of the 2014-2023 monetized accident
costs at Program 3 facilities in NAICS 324 with HF alkylation covered
processes.\35\ Based on this analysis, the EPA has tentatively
determined that the majority of affected sources are effectively
managing the risks of these processes. As a result, the EPA has
tentatively determined that placing additional requirements on all
owners and operators of HF alkylation processes is not justified and a
compliance- and performance-driven program is more appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Exhibit 3-13j.1. Accident History Document.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Exhibit 3-13j.2. Accident History Document.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Exhibit 3-13k. Accident History Document.
\34\ Exhibit 3-13a and Exhibit 3-13b. Accident History Document.
\35\ Exhibit 3-13a, Exhibit 3-13b, and Exhibit 3-17. Accident
History Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2024 SCCAP rule also placed additional STAA requirements on
facilities with processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325 that had one
accident meeting the accident history reporting requirements under 40
CFR 68.42 since the most recent PHA. As the EPA has

[[Page 8981]]

stated in previous rulemakings, a past accident is one of the best
predictors of future accidents that could potentially threaten a
facility's nearby community (89 FR 17649). Rather than requiring these
sources to perform a STAA practicability assessment and implement one
passive, or other, combination of measures, the EPA is proposing to
take a more compliance- and performance-driven approach to these
sources having accidents. As the EPA described in the 2019
Reconsideration rule, this approach prioritizes inspections at
facilities that have had an accidental release (84 FR 69843). By using
a compliance- and performance-driven approach, the Agency may require
STAA actions through enforcement actions that are specific to a
facility or situation, and therefore more appropriate, without placing
a broad requirement to conduct a practicability assessment that may not
appropriately address the risks at a given facility that has had an
accident. This approach also addresses the potential for risk-shifting
(described in section IV.A.5. below) at these already accident-prone
facilities. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to assess all sources that
have had accidents through a compliance- and performance-driven
approach, which may result in enforcement actions that require STAA-
like actions to be taken as injunctive relief for sources with less
effective prevention programs, where the Agency determines that such
relief is appropriate. Because the Agency can pursue imposing these
requirements through enforcement actions, imposing a blanket
requirement on these facilities is unnecessary and potentially
overbroad.
3. STAA Implementation
The EPA is proposing to rescind the STAA implementation
requirements under 40 CFR 68.67(h) for the subset of facilities with
Program 3 regulated processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325. These
implementation requirements represented the largest annualized cost of
the 2024 SCCAP rule ($168.7 million at a 3% discount rate and $167.0
million at a 7% discount rate) (89 FR 17623).\36\ With the estimated
total annualized cost of the final rule being $256.9 million at a 3%
discount rate and $259.0 million at a 7% discount rate over a 10-year
period, this provision alone accounted for approximately 67% of the
total cost of the 2024 SCCAP rule (89 FR 17623).\37\ Over the period
2014-2023, the monetized impacts of accidents for sources subject to
the STAA implementation and practicability requirements averaged
$277.57 million per year (2022 dollars).\38\ Thus, for the monetized
benefits of the STAA implementation provisions to outweigh the costs,
these provisions would need to reduce accident costs by at least 60% of
historical monetized accident costs.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Note the 2024 SCCAP rule reported the annualized cost of
STAA implementation as $204.9 million at a 7% discount rate due to a
calculation error corrected above.
\37\ Note the 2024 SCCAP rule reported the annualized cost of
the final rule as $296.9 million at a 7% discount rate due to a
calculation error corrected above.
\38\ Exhibit 3-15. Accident History Document.
\39\ As described in the 2024 SCCAP rule RIA, monetized accident
costs omit certain unmonetized damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the STAA initial evaluation and practicability
assessment provisions are prerequisites for STAA implementation.
Therefore, the cost of the initial evaluation and practicability
assessment provisions should be considered too when assessing the costs
and benefits of the STAA implementation provisions. The estimated total
annualized cost of all three of these provisions for the subset of
sources subject to the STAA implementation requirements is $208.9
million at a 3% discount rate and $209.7 million at a 7% discount rate
over a 10-year period.\40\ Thus, for the benefits of the STAA
implementation provisions, inclusive of evaluation and practicability
assessment at these implementing facilities, to outweigh the monetized
accident damages, these provisions would need to reduce accident costs
by at least 75% of historical monetized accident costs. The EPA is not
aware of any data to suggest that the STAA measures in the 2024 SCCAP
rule would reduce monetized accident damages by half, much less three-
quarters. The RMP program already relies on using layered prevention
and mitigation strategies that may be as effective, if not more
effective, than some ISTs. By using a defense-in-depth strategy, owners
and operators may be able to achieve high levels of protection without
implementing costly safer technologies. As a result, the EPA recognizes
that the STAA implementation requirements impose an unnecessary burden
on regulated entities with little to no demonstrable safety benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ See Exhibit 6-2: STAA Costs for Implementation Facilities
in the 2025 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Chapter 6: Benefits of
the Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, implementing a safer technology or other passive, active,
or procedural measure does not ensure accident prevention. As stated in
the 2024 SCCAP rule, requiring facilities to implement IST can involve
extensive changes to a facility's process (89 FR 17652). Specifically,
previous comments on the STAA provisions have raised the concern of
risk shifting when implementing STAA requirements. The EPA acknowledges
that any change to a process, especially if it involves substitution of
alternative chemicals and/or major process redesign to existing
processes, can introduce new hazards, such as unfamiliar processes or
previously unidentified chemical hazards. However, these hazards may
not always be recognized during the STAA evaluation stage, leading to
risk shifting and potential adverse consequences of changes made.
Because of this, implementing IST/ISD or passive, active, and/or
procedural measures may not result in the intended accident reduction.
In other words, while technologies that may be implemented may be
inherently safer for one aspect of a process, they may not address all
potential safety concerns. For example, implementing a safer technology
would not automatically address the root cause of accidents. Each
facility requires a site-specific evaluation of potential hazards and,
as such, owners and operators are in the best position to make a
determination of if or when to implement safer technologies. To that
end, the Agency expects that owners and operators will determine where
the highest risks are at their facilities and follow industry best
practices to make the switch to safer technologies when practicable. As
a result, the Agency has tentatively determined that the STAA
implementation requirements are not justified and a compliance- and
performance-driven program that directly targets sources with less
effective prevention programs through enforcement actions is more
appropriate because it does not unduly burden sources that have
effective prevention programs. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to
rescind the STAA implementation requirements under 40 CFR 68.67(h) for
the subset of facilities with Program 3 regulated processes in NAICS
codes 324 and 325.
4. STAA Practicability Assessment
The EPA is proposing to rescind the STAA practicability
requirements under 40 CFR 68.67(c)(9)(ii) for the subset of facilities
with Program 3 regulated processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325. These
requirements represent the second largest annualized cost of the 2024
SCCAP rule ($27.0 million at a 3% discount rate and $28.6 million at a
7% discount rate) (89 FR 17623). The

[[Page 8982]]

Agency acknowledges that there is value in assessing the practicability
of implementing safer technologies when appropriate; however, requiring
a subset of owners and operators of regulated processes to perform a
practicability assessment alone may not result in tangible benefits,
and therefore does not justify the cost.
By proposing to rescind the requirement for a subset of facilities
to conduct STAA practicability assessments, the EPA intends to remove
an overly burdensome paperwork requirement that likely would not result
in improved safety. Conducting a practicability assessment alone,
without implementing a practicable passive or other measure, would not
provide benefits to owners or operators that would aid in protecting
workers, surrounding communities, and the environment from chemical
accidents. Additionally, the results of a STAA evaluation and
practicability assessment are highly dependent upon the specific risk
being evaluated, such as technological failures, natural disasters,
human errors, acts of malfeasance, etc. The IST/ISD considerations for
each individual risk being evaluated would likely often yield
different, and perhaps contradictory, results when the same chemical
process is evaluated relative to different causes of accidental
releases. This could lead to uncertainty on how to assess
practicability, as the results of an evaluation, and therefore what is
practicable, depend on the risk being evaluated. Even then, solutions
deemed ``practicable'' to address one risk factor may not result in the
greatest reduction of overall risk. Additionally, owners or operators
need to consider the potential tradeoffs associated with a
``practicable'' solution addressing one risk factor that may
inadvertently increase another. Assessing tradeoffs is a part of
assessing practicability of safer technologies; however, it lacks
clarity for compliance. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to rescind the
STAA practicability requirements of under 40 CFR 68.67(c)(9)(ii) for
the subset of facilities with Program 3 regulated processes in NAICS
codes 324 and 325.
5. STAA Evaluation
The EPA is proposing to modify the STAA evaluation provisions in 40
CFR 68.67(c)(9)(i) by removing the requirement for all facilities with
Program 3 regulated processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325 to conduct an
STAA evaluation. Instead, the EPA proposes to require an initial STAA
evaluation for all new Program 3 processes, regardless of NAICS code.
As described above, new processes would include new processes designed
and added to existing RMP facilities and newly built facilities. The
Agency has long held the view that STAAs are likely best conducted
during the design of new processes. For example, in the 1995 RMP SNPRM,
the EPA stated ``such costly analyses are probably best conducted
during the design of new processes, when, according to industry
commenters, they often are already part of the design process to
identify cost-effective approaches to improving safety'' (60 FR 13535).
While the EPA maintains that many IST options may still be practicable
after the initial design phase and that STAA involves more than just
IST, the Agency also recognizes that the best opportunity for
evaluating and implementing IST is during the early phases of process
design, as described by the National Research Council in its 2012
report, ``The Use and Storage of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) at Bayer
CropScience.'' \41\ The EPA, therefore, proposes that during the design
phase of new processes, owners or operators are required to consider
and document, in the following order of preference, IST/ISD, passive
measures, active measures, and procedural measures; to minimize the
risk of catastrophic release. This will provide tangible benefits that
evaluations of existing processes may not due to cost and technological
constraints. The EPA also proposes that the STAA evaluation be
performed by a team knowledgeable in process safety and equipment
design. Through these proposed requirements, the EPA maintains that a
combination of risk management measures may be used to achieve the
desired risk reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ National Research Council, The Use and Storage of Methyl
Isocyanate (MIC) at Bayer CropScience. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press (2012). <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/13385">https://doi.org/10.17226/13385</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since data on STAA-like provisions that are required by some State
and local prevention programs (i.e., the Contra Costa County Health
Services and NJDEP IST regulations) are limited, it is difficult to
assess the effectiveness of these provisions. To aid the Agency in
understanding the effectiveness of an STAA evaluation, the EPA also
proposes to collect information on STAA evaluations conducted during
the design phase of new processes, including categories of safer design
considered/implemented and not implemented and determining factors not
for implementing safer designs.\42\ Categories for designs considered/
implemented and not implemented may include: use of safer substance;
moderation of substance; minimization of substance; simplification of
process; and other techniques considered. The Agency also proposes
collecting information on causal factors for not implementing a safer
design, including costs, or technical infeasibility. Additionally, the
Agency proposes collecting information on the determining factors for
implementing safer designs, which may include: regulatory requirements;
cost savings; accident prevention; and other reasons. The EPA expects
that collecting data on safer technologies would help inform future
guidance related to STAA and seeks comment on the value of collecting
this information from new processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ See Technical Background Document--Safer Technologies and
Alternatives Analysis (STAA) Information Collection--Initial
Evaluation for New Processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Proposed Regulatory Changes
For the reasons stated above, the EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR
68.175 by removing paragraphs (e)(8) and (e)(9) and revising paragraph
(e)(7) to apply to new Program 3 processes. The EPA is proposing that
new Program 3 processes include new processes designed and added to
existing RMP facilities and those designed and built at newly operating
facilities. Processes considered new would commence operation three
years after the effective date of this rule. The EPA is proposing to
modify the PHA provisions by removing paragraph (h) from 40 CFR 68.67,
rescinding the STAA implementation requirements. The EPA is also
proposing to remove paragraph (c)(9)(ii) from 40 CFR 68.67, rescinding
the STAA practicability requirements. The EPA is also proposing to
modify paragraph (c)(9)(i) to specify that the STAA evaluation applies
only to new Program 3 processes, as described above. The EPA seeks
comment on these proposed revisions. The EPA also seeks comment on
whether paragraph (c)(9)(iii) should be modified to clarify that the
STAA evaluation for new processes shall be performed by a team
knowledgeable in process design, or if the paragraph is not necessary
and should be removed.
7. Alternative Options
The EPA considered other options and is seeking comment on these
alternative approaches. The Agency seeks comment on requiring STAA
implementation to capture processes with ``heightened risk,'' which
could include facilities:
<bullet> Found to have not reported RMP accidents;

[[Page 8983]]

<bullet> With one accident that resulted in offsite injuries;
<bullet> Found to have multiple ``serious'' violations during an
EPA inspection; and
<bullet> With substantial property damage due to a reportable
accident.
The EPA also seeks comment on additional conditions that may
qualify a process to be considered of ``heightened risk.''
The EPA seeks comment on a regulatory process that would allow
facilities to seek an exemption from STAA implementation by appealing
to the EPA Administrator. Owners or operators seeking an exemption
would need to justify how they are addressing risk separately from STAA
implementation.
The Agency seeks comment on requiring the STAA practicability
analysis for new Program 3 processes, regardless of NAICS code. This
would include new processes at new and existing facilities, similar to
what the Agency proposed above for the STAA initial evaluation. As this
is likely occurring as a part of the design process, the Agency does
not expect that a practicability analysis for new processes would add
additional burden to owners and operators. Additionally, the Agency
seeks comment on requiring the STAA practicability analysis and initial
evaluation for processes with heightened risk, as outlined above.
Finally, the EPA seeks comment on rescinding the STAA initial
evaluation criteria and adding clarifying language that all Program
level 3 processes must consider passive, active, and procedural
measures as a part of the PHA.

B. Information Availability

In the 2017 Amendments rule, the EPA added new information
availability requirements under 40 CFR 68.210, including the
requirement for the owner or operator to provide, within 45 days of
receiving a request by any member of the public, without limits,
specified chemical hazard information for all RMP-regulated processes.
The provision required the owner or operator to provide ongoing
notification on a company website, on social media platforms, or
through other publicly accessible means such that the information is
available to the public upon request, along with the information
elements that may be requested and instructions for how to request the
information. The rule also added that a public meeting shall be held no
later than 90 days after an RMP-reportable accident. The EPA explained
that the purpose of the provision was to ensure communities can access
the necessary chemical hazard information to protect first responders
and residents and thereby mitigate the impacts of potential RMP
accidents (82 FR 4665). To justify implementation of the provision, the
EPA cited two studies in the 2017 RIA which indicated that information
availability regarding local facility chemical inventories improves the
efficiency of nearby property markets by adjusted property values and
the allocation of resources to emergency response and preparedness.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ Regulatory Impact Analysis--Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,
section 112(r)(7), p. 73 (December 16, 2016). <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0734">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0734</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 2019 Reconsideration rule, the EPA rescinded the information
availability requirements because a benefit-versus-risk calculation
that the 2017 Amendments rule ``underweighted security concerns in
balancing the positive effects of information availability on accident
prevention and the negative effects on public safety from the utility
to terrorists and criminals of the newly available information and
dissemination methods'' (84 FR 69885). In the rationale for rescinding
the provisions, the EPA cited the Department of Justice (DOJ) report
``Assessment of the Increased Risk of Terrorist or Other Criminal
Activity Associated with Posting Off-Site Consequence Analysis
Information on the internet,'' which found that assembling otherwise-
public data is valuable to criminal actors in identifying and focusing
on sources that could be targets of criminal acts.\44\ The goal of
DOJ's assessment was to determine which variables and forms of
dissemination would create vulnerabilities enabling a terrorist attack.
In the 2019 Reconsideration rule, the EPA also stated that the 2017
provisions would make otherwise-public information anonymously
accessible via the web and other means in a more consolidated fashion
(84 FR 69887). The EPA observed that this consolidated information
``may present a more comprehensive picture of the vulnerabilities of a
facility than would be apparent'' otherwise, and thus potentially
increasing terrorist risk (84 FR 69887). Therefore, the EPA removed the
information availability provisions but retained the public meeting
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ Department of Justice. April 18, 2000. Assessment of the
Increased Risk of Terrorist or Other Criminal Activity Associated
with Posting Off-Site Consequence Analysis Information on the
internet. <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-2003">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-2003</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, in the 2024 SCCAP rule, the EPA again finalized provisions
for facilities to share information, but limited the requirement to
people residing, working, or spending significant time within six miles
of a facility. The EPA cited two studies showing that information
availability did not contribute to intentional criminal acts and that
no industries now regulated under RMP had been subject to any
intentional events since the 1970s (89 FR 17675). Another study cited
in the 2024 SCCAP rule demonstrated that well-informed communities were
better prepared for accidents (89 FR 17675). To support adding the six-
mile radius limit, the EPA referenced data showing that 90% of toxic
worst-case distances to endpoints are within six miles (89 FR 17672).
The EPA also required that facilities must share, upon request,
declined recommendations related to potential safety gaps between
codes, standards, or practices to which the process was designed and
constructed and the most current version of applicable codes,
standards, or practices (89 FR 17642). In addition, the EPA required
that information be provided in multiple languages and a record of
members of the public requesting information to be retained for five
years. When the 2024 SCCAP rule was finalized, the EPA released the
Public Data Tool, a website maintained by the Agency which made most
RMP non-offsite consequence analysis (non-OCA) data available to the
public.
As discussed in further detail below, the EPA is now proposing to
provide RMP information through the RMP Public Data Tool instead of
requiring owners or operators to provide this information to members of
the public upon request.
The EPA is also proposing to rescind multiple provisions on
information availability from the 2024 SCCAP final rule, including
notification of availability of information, timeframe to provide
requested information, declined recommendations, access in multiple
languages, recordkeeping, and documenting the notification method and
location in the RMP.
1. Proposed Modifications to the RMP Public Data Tool
The EPA is proposing to rescind the requirement in 40 CFR 68.210(d)
for owners or operators to provide chemical hazard information to
members of the public upon request and codify in the regulation what
information is shared through the RMP Public Data Tool. The data made
available on the RMP Public Data Tool for each facility would

[[Page 8984]]

include: (1) regulated substance names; (2) Safety Data Sheets for all
regulated substances; (3) accident history information; (4) emergency
response information, including whether the facility is a responding or
non-responding facility, name and phone number of LEPC, and
notification procedures in the event of a release; and (5) scheduled
exercises. In terms of the functionality of the tool, the EPA also
proposes to modify the RMP Public Data Tool by removing the map display
and restricting the search function to county or facility name, as this
would allow residents to search for facilities nearby that they may be
unaware of, while balancing security concerns. This function would also
be sufficient to cover a requestor that resides, works, or spends a
significant time within the six-mile radius, and the public can reach
out to the LEPC identified in the RMP Public Data Tool for more
information, if needed.
This would provide more stability and certainty around what is
consistently available to the public. Additionally, information sharing
through the RMP Public Data Tool would apply uniformly to all
facilities and provide more visibility to the information being
disseminated. To balance information transparency and better protect
sensitive chemical information, the EPA is proposing to limit search
criteria in the data to county-level and eliminate the mapping feature.
Rescinding these information availability requirements and making
the information available through the RMP Public Data Tool would reduce
the burden on RMP-regulated facilities and help avoid the costs of
information sharing requirements under the 2024 SCCAP rule, which was
estimated to be $12.8 million annually. Lastly, the proposed
requirements could help fill informational gaps created by non-active
LEPCs and disseminate awareness of non-active LEPCs if their
information is provided through the RMP Public Data Tool. Under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) sections 301
and 303, LEPCs must develop an emergency response plan, review the plan
at least annually, and provide information about chemicals in the
community to residents. According to a 2023 survey, there are 2,554
active LEPCs, while approximately 1,236 LEPCs are reported as inactive
or unknown based on submissions from 49 states and two territories.\45\
Information on where LEPCs are inactive could help target resources,
planning, and preparedness to higher risk areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ EPA. ``National Survey of State Emergency Response
Commissions (SERCs),'' Revised March 2025. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-04/national-survey-of-the-state-emergency-response-commissions_revised-march-2025.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-04/national-survey-of-the-state-emergency-response-commissions_revised-march-2025.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, the EPA provided rationale for
potential non-rule RMP policy changes to allow the public access to RMP
facility information. The EPA explained that the Agency had restricted
access to the RMP database even though CAA 112(r)(7)(H) and its
implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 1400 only restrict a portion of
the database (offsite consequence analysis, or OCA data). The EPA is
committed to safeguarding OCA information in accordance with
requirements in the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and
Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (CSISSFRA) 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)(H)(ii),
which allows for any member of the public to access paper copies of OCA
information for a limited number of facilities. This OCA information
remains accessible to the public only in Federal reading rooms or upon
voluntary disclosure by the source itself. The EPA nonetheless finds
there are many weaknesses with the current approach of visiting reading
rooms in which members of the public can view RMPs, obtaining RMP
information from State and local government officials with RMP data
access, or submitting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to
the EPA for non-OCA RMP information. While current OCA provisions allow
for a person visiting a reading room to request information of up to 10
facilities per year regardless of location and the OCA information for
all facilities with a vulnerable zone that extends into the
jurisdiction of the LEPC or Tribal emergency planning committee (TEPC)
where the person lives or works, there are a limited number of reading
rooms even in large States, and these reading rooms generally are not
located close to the communities potentially impacted by process safety
at particular facilities. While the reading room restrictions are
necessary for OCA information, the restrictions in locations and access
can nonetheless make them an inefficient way to access information in
the RMPs that Congress chose not to restrict when it enacted CSISSFRA.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to provide access to information
through the RMP Public Data Tool. In addition, other programs within
the EPA, such as the Toxics Release Inventory have demonstrated that
facility and chemical information can be made publicly available in a
readily accessible format and without increased security risks. The EPA
requests comment on the proposed changes to the RMP Public Data Tool
and whether these changes satisfy the need for access to RMP
information while addressing security concerns.
2. Proposed Rescinded SCCAP Provisions
Because the EPA is proposing to rescind the requirement to provide
chemical hazard information upon request, the EPA is also proposing to
rescind related information availability requirements that mandate how
and when such information should be provided. The EPA has tentatively
determined that there is no longer a need for notification of
availability of information under 40 CFR 68.210(f) if the information
will exist on a publicly available EPA website. Additionally, the RMP
Public Data Tool would indicate that a requestor could ask the LEPC for
more information, should the public wish to have more information than
what the data tool would provide. Likewise, there would no longer be a
need for the 45-day timeframe to provide the information requested
since the EPA is proposing to alleviate the burden on facilities to
provide the information.
In this action, the EPA is separately proposing to rescind the
requirement to document declined recommendations for potential safety
gaps between previous codes, standards, or practices to which the
process was designed/constructed and the most current version of
applicable codes, standards, or practices (see section IV.I.). Based on
this proposed rescission, the EPA is also proposing to remove the
requirement to make declined recommendations available to the public.
The EPA is also proposing to rescind the requirement from the 2024
SCCAP rule to provide information to the public in multiple languages.
This proposed recission eliminates the translation costs for
facilities,\46\ which could be significant without adding commensurate
benefit.\47\ Further, this would align with E.O. 14224, ``Designating
English as the Official Language of The United States,'' signed on
March 1, 2025, which specifies that

[[Page 8985]]

English is the official language of the United States (90 FR 11363).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ See Exhibit 4-17: Proposed Rule Unit and Facility Costs,
Rescinded Requirement to Translate Information into Two Languages
(2022 dollars) in the 2025 RIA Chapter 4: Costs and Cost Savings of
Proposed Rule Provisions
\47\ EPA, Response to Comments on the 2022 Proposed Rule, p.
252, December 15, 2023. Available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0583">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0583</a>, hereinafter referred to as
``the 2024 SCCAP rule RTC''; 89 FR 17636; March 11, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the recordkeeping requirements, since members of the
public would no longer need to contact a facility to request chemical
hazard information because of the availability of the RMP Public Data
Tool, there would no longer be a need for a recordkeeping requirement.
Additionally, because the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement
for an owner or operator to notify the public that information is
available, if finalized, there would no longer be a need for an owner
or operator to document the notification method and location in the
RMP. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to remove the recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR 68.210(h).
3. Previous Comments on Information Availability
In developing this proposed rule, the EPA reviewed comments on
previous RMP rulemakings. Although the 2024 SCCAP rule provisions were
supported by a wide variety of stakeholder groups, including
individuals, advocacy groups, mass comment campaigns, unions, State
attorneys general, city governments, State commissions, and industry
trade associations, other industry groups raised several concerns.\48\
Commenters presented various arguments against expanded information
availability requirements, including that the EPA lacked evidence for
the provisions' effectiveness,\49\ the provisions would be burdensome
or costly,\50\ the provisions were redundant or duplicative of EPCRA
requirements,\51\ the six-mile radius lacked justification,\52\ and the
provisions would generate security risks for terrorist or cybersecurity
attacks on facilities.\53\ In response to these comments, the EPA said
that the added requirements were important to help the public
understand how facilities address the hazards that may affect their
community to control that risk.\54\ The EPA also cited studies that
demonstrate the benefits of sharing information, including a 2021 study
in which researchers attempted to compile a database of intentional
acts upon chemical processing facilities and found documentation of 84
incidents in the chemical and petrochemical industries.\55\ According
to the database, no terrorist event in process industries (excluding
transportation and pipelines) has occurred in North America after the
1970s (87 FR 53603). At this time, the EPA is not aware of any new data
showing a correlation between certain sensitive RMP data being made
available to the public and increased criminal activity or intentional
releases. The EPA also cited a 2020 publication that showed that access
to pre-incident information, such as facility location and potential
disasters, allows communities to be better prepared for disasters like
RMP-reportable accidents.\56\ Since the 2024 SCCAP rule was finalized,
a 2025 update to that publication reviewed the effects of pre-incident
education on public preparedness and found that any pre-incident
education improved knowledge and intention to act, with more intensive
training leading to greater engagement and response to emergency or
disaster situations.\57\ Therefore, the EPA has determined that
providing chemical hazard information to the general public allows
people that live or work near a regulated facility to improve their
awareness of risks to the community and be prepared to protect
themselves in the event of an accidental release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174.
\49\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0205; 0239; 0241; 0263.
\50\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0165; 0180; 0184; 0193; 0196; 0201;
0202; 0213; 0215; 0226; 0233; 0234; 0239; 0262; 0268; 0271; 0272;
0275; 0458.
\51\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0164; 0196; 0233; 0262; 0267; 0268;
0272.
\52\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0180; 0193; 0205; 0207; 0213; 0215;
0217; 0223; 0226; 0234; 0238; 0268; 0272; 0458; 0460.
\53\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0163; 0180; 0181; 0184; 0201; 0207;
0215; 0217; 0226; 0229; 0232; 0233; 0234; 0237; 0238; 0239; 0244;
0253; 0262; 0263; 0267; 0268; 0271; 0272; 0458.
\54\ The 2024 SCCAP rule RTC at p. 247.
\55\ Valeria Casson Moreno et al., ``Analysis of Physical and
Cyber Security-Related Events in the Chemical and Process
Industry,'' Process Safety and Environmental Protection 116 (2018),
621-31, http://doi:10.1016/j.psep.2018.03.026; 2) Matteo Iaiani et
al., ``Analysis of Events Involving the Intentional Release of
Hazardous Substances from Industrial Facilities,'' Reliability
Engineering & System Safety 212 (2021), 107593, http://doi:10.1016/
j.ress.2021.107593.
\56\ Holly Carter, John Drury, and Richard Amlot,
``Recommendations for Improving Public Engagement with Pre-incident
Information Materials for Initial Response to a Chemical,
Biological, Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) Incident: A Systematic
Review,'' International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51
(2020), 101796, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101796; the 2024 SCCAP rule
RTC at p. 276.
\57\ Boyce, Niki and Symons, Charles and Carter, Holly and
Majumdar, Arnab, ``How Can We Improve Public Engagement with Pre-
Incident Information for Initial Response to a Mass Casualty
Emergency? Recommendations from a Systematic Review.'' Pre-print
(2025), <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5231947">http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5231947</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under EPCRA's regulatory provisions at 40 CFR part 370, subpart D,
a person can access an SDS or hazardous chemical inventory information
for a specific facility by reaching out to the LEPC. However, the EPA
has determined that information should be more easily accessible to the
public than the existing mechanisms. Additionally, EPCRA and other
state and local-implemented laws has been uneven across the
country.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ The 2024 SCCAP rule RTC at p. 250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA conducted a benefits assessment under CAA section
112(r)(7)(H)(ii)(I)(bb) in 2000 which described the benefits of
providing community access specifically to OCA information and
addressed the benefits of public disclosure of risk management plan
information. The EPA found that public disclosure of risk management
plan information would likely lead to a reduction in the number and
severity of accidents, which also supports this proposed action (89 FR
17670).
4. Proposed Regulatory Changes
For the reasons outlined above, the EPA requests comment on its
proposal to codify the RMP Public Data Tool with potential
modifications as described above. The EPA proposes to revise 40 CFR
68.210(d) by replacing the phrase ``[t]he owner or operator of a
stationary source shall provide, upon request by any member of the
public residing, working, or spending significant time within 6 miles
of the fenceline of a stationary source'' with ``EPA shall provide
through an online Public Data Sharing tool.''
Additionally, the EPA requests public comment on its proposal to
rescind the 2024 SCCAP rule provisions 40 CFR 68.210(d)(7), ``Declined
Recommendations and justifications,'' along with 40 CFR 68.210(e),
``Languages,'' 40 CFR 68.210(f), ``Notification of availability of
information,'' 40 CFR 68.210(g), ``Timeframe to provide requested
information,'' and 40 CFR 68.210(h), ``Recordkeeping.'' The EPA also
requests comment on its proposal to remove 40 CFR 68.160(b)(22), which
requires owners or operators to document in the RMP the method and the
location for notifying the public within a six-mile radius that
information is available.
5. Alternative Options
As an alternative, the EPA requests comment on rescinding all 2024
SCCAP rule information availability provisions but retaining the RMP
Public Data Tool, but not codifying it, with the same modifications as
described above in the primary proposal. This approach would relieve
the burden on facilities from having to share information with the
public, as communities and emergency planners would still have access
to RMP information. As detailed above, the

[[Page 8986]]

proposed limited search function could mitigate the risk of criminal
activity and that information sharing through the RMP Public Data Tool
would apply uniformly to all facilities; provide increased visibility
of the information being disseminated; and be reliably available to the
public moving forward. The EPA requests comment on this alternative.
Another alternative is to rescind all the 2024 SCCAP rule
provisions and take the RMP Public Data Tool offline permanently. This
option would address concerns raised by the regulated community related
to risks of criminal activity and intentional releases resulting from
information being readily available and revert the information
availability requirements to those implemented prior to the 2024 SCCAP
rule. Under this alternative, members of the public could still view
risk management plans at Federal reading rooms, obtain risk management
plan information from State or local government officials with RMP data
access, or submit a FOIA request to the EPA. However, under this
option, communities and emergency responders may not have access to
critical information for emergency planning response. In the 2022 SCCAP
proposed rule, the EPA acknowledged that if data is not provided to the
public, the Agency could be in violation of FOIA requirements to make
information requested via FOIA three or more times ``available for
public inspection in an electronic format'' when the information is
likely to be requested again (87 FR 53602). The EPA requests comment on
this alternative.
The EPA further requests comment on alternatives to fully
rescinding the requirement to provide information in multiple
languages. For example, the EPA could limit the information required to
be shared in multiple languages to immediate emergency situations, or
limit the requirement to English and, if different, the single language
predominant in the area.

C. Third-Party Compliance Audits

1. Background
Compliance audits have been required as part of the Risk Management
Program for both Program 2 and Program 3 processes under 40 CFR 68.58
and 68.79 since the rule was first promulgated in 1996 (61 FR 31668;
June 20, 1996). These requirements were designed to ensure the owner or
operator certifies compliance with the Risk Management Program every
three years. The compliance audit provisions require audits be
conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the process; that the
owner or operator develop a report of audit findings; the owner or
operator determine and document a response for each of the compliance
audit findings and correct deficiencies; and the owner or operator
retain the two most recent compliance audit reports.
With the 2024 SCCAP rule, a compliance audit is required to be
conducted by a third-party auditor if a Program level 2 or 3 facility
has had an accidental release meeting the criteria under Sec. 68.42(a)
or if an implementing agency requires a third-party audit due to
conditions at the stationary source that could lead to an accidental
release of a regulated substance, or when a previous third-party audit
failed to meet the competency or independence criteria of 40 CFR
68.59(c) See 40 CFR 68.58(f) and 68.79(f).
Although third-party compliance audits were discussed in the 1995
SNPRM (60 FR 13530), requirements for a third-party audit program were
not codified until the 2017 Amendments rule (82 FR 4594), which were
subsequently rescinded with the 2019 Reconsideration rule (84 FR
69834), and then reinstated with a few key differences in the 2024
SCCAP rule (89 FR 17622). The Agency maintains that there could be
value in requiring third-party audits where ``independent third-party
auditing can assist the owners and operators, the EPA (or the
implementing agency), and the public to better determine whether the
procedures and practices developed by the owner and/or operator under
subparts C and/or D of the RMP rule (i.e., the prevention program
requirements) are adequate and being followed'' (81 FR 13654, March 14,
2016). However, one of the common threads underlying this proposed
rulemaking and all previous rulemakings is that the Agency has limited
data demonstrating the extent to which those benefits would be realized
specifically through RMP requirements. As stated in the 2016 Amendments
proposed rule (81 FR 13655), the EPA has required third-party audits in
enforcement settlement agreements, which has provided clear direct
benefit in those cases, but the Agency has not been able to extrapolate
a dataset to justify and determine which facilities should be required
to conduct third-party audits and what the benefits of those audits
would be as it relates to regulatory compliance.
In the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, the Agency cited other successful
third-party audit programs to support requiring third-party compliance
audits under the Risk Management Program (87 FR 53585). In reviewing
those examples for this proposed rulemaking, however, the Agency
questions whether they are definitive in proving benefits for a
regulatory RMP third-party audit program. The examples provided in the
2022 proposed rule included other Federal and state agencies' third-
party verification programs, which are not directly comparable to the
Risk Management Program, or included trade-association third-party
verification programs, which are voluntary instead of the regulatory
requirement codified through the 2024 SCCAP rule. For all the examples
provided, there was no quantitative data to support how a third-party
audit program, replacing a self-audit program, would increase
regulatory compliance.
The 2017 Amendments rule and the 2024 SCCAP rule also relied on
outcomes from CSB investigations to support the third-party audit
requirements, but only a handful of examples were provided, and the
benefits of a third-party audit are unclear. As stated in the 2017
Amendments rule, the third-party audit requirements were intended to
address poor compliance audits as a contributing factor to the severity
of past chemical accidents (81 FR 13654-13655).\59\ The 2022 SCCAP
proposed rule echoed those issues by stating: ``In the 2016 proposed
amendments, EPA explained that poor compliance audits have been cited
by EPA and CSB as a contributing factor to the severity of past
chemical accidents'' (87 FR 53585). The EPA continues to believe that
in some cases, RMP facilities are not conducting adequate compliance
audits. Because of this, the agency is taking comment through joint
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ A further discussion of specific CSB investigations
identifying issues with compliance audits can be found in the 2016
proposed rule; see 81 FR 13654-55; March 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The potential issues with requiring and implementing third-party
audits are well documented through the EPA's three most recent
rulemakings. For example, in the 2018 Reconsideration proposed rule,
the EPA referred to the OSHA Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)
panel, stating: ``The August 2016 OSHA SBAR panel report did not fully
support third-party audits. Instead, the SBAR panel recommended further
review of the need and benefits of third-party audits; the sufficient
availability, adequate process knowledge and degree of independence
needed of third-party auditors; and whether facilities should decide
the best type of audit appropriate for their process.'' (83 FR 24864,
May 30, 2018). Since then, except for information from

[[Page 8987]]

a handful of enforcement-driven third-party audits, the Agency
continues to lack direct data on the need for third-party audits.
Concerns continued as evidenced by comments received on the 2022 SCCAP
proposed rule. During the comment period, many commenters expressed
concerns about the availability of third-party auditors and burdens
associated with finding qualified auditors.\60\ At that time, the
Agency's response was, in part, that ``EPA believes the provision, as
adopted, ensures additional available independent auditors to act in an
independent and impartial manner, allowing more flexibility in choosing
auditors for all industries while also ensuring quality will not
suffer.'' \61\ Even though the 2024 SCCAP rule included flexibilities
in the requirements for how a third-party audit team is assembled, the
Agency also did not have data to show whether there is an adequate pool
of third-party auditors available to implement the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ The 2024 SCCAP rule RTC at p. 173.
\61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to the lack of data to provide a clear direction for
implementing a third-party audit program, the Agency is co-proposing
two options: (1) rescind all the 2024 third-party audit provisions, and
(2) modify the 2024 provisions to focus on facilities with two
accidents in a five-year period; require data on the third-party audits
to be submitted to the EPA; and put in place a sunset provision after
the regulations have been in effect for 10 years.
2. Proposal #1--Rescind Third-Party Compliance Audits
Through the prior three rulemakings (2017, 2019, and 2024), the EPA
has not only changed position on whether to require third-party audits,
but also on what facilities should be required to conduct a third-party
audit should they be required. For example, in the 2017 Amendments
rule, the Agency required facilities with Program 2 and Program 3
processes having one accident to conduct a third-party audit. In the
2019 Reconsideration rule, the EPA rescinded the third-party audit
requirements. Then in the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule the EPA proposed
third-party audits for facilities with Program 2 and Program 3
processes having either two accidental releases within five years
meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 68.42(a) from a covered process at a
stationary source; or one accidental release within five years meeting
the criteria in 40 CFR 68.42(a) from a covered process at a stationary
source in NAICS code 324 or 325, located within one mile of another
stationary source having a process in NAICS code 324 or 325. In 2024,
the EPA ultimately finalized third-party audits for all Program 2 and
Program 3 processes having one accidental release meeting the criteria
in 40 CFR 68.42(a) in the SCCAP final rule. The Agency's inconsistency
has caused regulatory uncertainty for owners and operators of RMP-
covered processes. This inconsistency is due in part to a lack in
appropriate data to provide a clear direction for implementing a third-
party audit program, as described above. Because of this, the Agency is
proposing to rescind the third-party audit requirements.
The Agency is also proposing to rescind the provision for
implementing agencies to require third-party audits due to conditions
at the stationary source that could lead to an accidental release of a
regulated substance (under 40 CFR 68.58(f)(2) and 68.79(f)(2)). For the
reasons previously outlined, the 2024 provision is unnecessary and
creates regulatory uncertainty for owners and operators under the Risk
Management Program. However, the Agency has been using, and will
continue to use, third-party compliance audits as part of enforcement
agreements.
The 2024 provision allowed an implementing agency to require a
third-party audit due to ``conditions at the stationary source that
could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance.'' While
the Agency continues to agree conceptually with this provision, without
having parameters on what those ``conditions'' could be, it could
create significant confusion and uncertainty for regulated entities and
implementing agencies. While the 2024 provisions under 40 CFR 68.58(g)
and 68.79(g) attempted to mitigate this issue by establishing an appeal
process for the Agency-required third-party audits, it merely added to
the resource burden placed upon facilities and the Agency. The Agency
is therefore proposing to rescind both the provision for implementing
agencies to require third-party audits under 40 CFR 68.58(f)(2) and
68.79(f)(2) and the provision establishing an appeals process under 40
CFR 68.58(g) and 68.79(g).
3. Proposal #2--Modify the Third-Party Compliance Audit Requirements
For this proposal, rather than completely rescinding the third-
party audit requirements, the Agency would instead modify the third-
party audit requirements to apply to a subset of facilities over a
limited 10-year window while the Agency collects data on the value of
the third-party audit requirements. The Agency is proposing to target
facilities that have had two RMP-reportable accidents in a five-year
period for third-party audits. The short-term goal would be to ensure
those facilities are complying with the Risk Management Program. The
long-term goal would be to collect enough information on the
effectiveness of third-party audits, to evaluate whether third-party
audits have the perceived benefits that have been contemplated since
the 1995 SNPRM. This proposal therefore includes a sunset provision
after 10 years.
a. Two-Accident Applicability Criteria
In the 2024 SCCAP rulemaking, the EPA pivoted from proposing third-
party audits for facilities having two accidents within a five-year
period, as initially outlined in the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, to
requiring audits for facilities that have had only one accident. The
pivot was based primarily on comments received on the proposed rule,
and the justification for the change was that just one 40 CFR 68.42(a)
accidental release was a serious matter, with real consequences both on
and off-site as well as significant costs (89 FR 17660).
While the Agency still holds that view, each RMP accidental release
has its own underlying root cause and set of circumstances that led to
the accident, which is why the Agency already requires incident
investigation including root cause analyses, under Sec. Sec. 68.60 and
68.81, to determine the cause. Therefore, not every single RMP process
having had an accident may warrant or benefit from a third-party audit.
The Agency also explained in the 2024 SCCAP rule that ``EPA does
not believe affected communities should have to experience the adverse
consequences of a second reportable accident before an objective party
comes in to evaluate the facility for compliance. The pattern of
repeated accidents at RMP facilities provide a reasoned basis for EPA's
focus on these facilities to apply a greater level of risk reduction
measures'' (89 FR 17660). While the EPA continues to agree with this
statement, the Agency also acknowledges that it does not have the
necessary predictive data to identify which facilities are likely to
have second accidents. For example, as shown by data in the 2022 SCCAP
proposed rule, only a subset of facilities having one accident will
have a second (87 FR 53581-53582). For reference, from 2016-2020, 70
facilities had multiple accidents, and from 2019-2023, 57 facilities
had multiple accidents. Also from 2014-2023, 580

[[Page 8988]]

facilities had only one RMP-reportable accident and 177 had more than
one RMP-reportable accident.\62\ Among the 801 facilities having an
RMP-reportable accident during 2004-2013, 522 (65%) did not experience
another RMP-reportable accident within 10 years.\63\ While the Agency
aims to prevent all accidental releases, it nonetheless recognizes that
requiring third-party audits broadly and without targeting the
facilities and circumstances that would benefit from an external audit
could be counterproductive--if the quality of the third-party audit is
poor, it could result in confusing, inconsequential, or possibly even
detrimental recommendations--diverting facility resources away from
actual safety concerns to, instead, address third-party
recommendations. Furthermore, the Agency acknowledges that facility
resources allocated to process safety are not unlimited. Some
facilities that are required to conduct a third-party audit may not
experience tangible benefits from an external audit, which may result
in facility resources used to manage and coordinate with third-party
auditors being pulled from other process safety responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ Exhibit 3-13a. Accident History Document.
\63\ Facilities with 1+ Accidents 2004-2013 and Subsequent
Accidents within 10 Years (millions, 2024 dollars). Accident History
Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In relation to determining applicability, the five-year period
would be a rolling period. For example, the clock for the five-year
period would specifically begin following the first RMP-reportable
accident. Any additional RMP-reportable accidents that occur within
five years of the first accident would meet the applicability for a
third-party audit and begin the clock for the next five-year period.
Should an RMP-reportable accident happen in year six, then that would
be the beginning of a new five-year period timeframe.
Pursuant to the statements and justification outlined in the 2022
SCCAP proposed rule, which targeted facilities having multiple
accidents in a five-year period, the Agency maintains that there may be
circumstances where, after multiple accidents, a facility would benefit
from the insight of a third-party auditor. As stated in the 2022 SCCAP
proposed rule and now echoed for this proposal, ``[t]he proposed
provisions for this action reflect that the most accident-prone
facilities have not been able to properly evaluate and apply
appropriate prevention program measures to regulated processes to stop
accidents from occurring and that the availability of some qualified
third-party auditors may be limited'' (87 FR 53586). Furthermore,
``[w]hen RMP facilities have multiple accidents within a 5-year period,
EPA is concerned that those facilities have not been able to identify
measures on their own (through incident investigations, hazard
evaluations, and compliance self-audits) to properly evaluate and apply
appropriate prevention program measures to stop accidents from
occurring'' (87 FR 53584).
For these reasons and the reasons outlined throughout this section,
the Agency is proposing that third-party audits be required for
facilities that have had two or more accidents in a five-year period.
The Agency seeks comment on the applicability criteria of two accidents
in five years as well as how to calculate the five-year timeframe.
With both co-proposals, the Agency is proposing to rescind the
provision for implementing agencies to require third-party audits due
to conditions at the stationary source that could lead to an accidental
release of a regulated substance (under Sec. Sec. 68.58(f)(2) and
68.79(f)(2)). The rationale for the proposed rescission is detailed in
the preceding section.
b. Sunset Provision
Within this modification co-proposal, the Agency is also proposing
to sunset the third-party audit provisions. Specifically, the Agency is
proposing a 10-year sunset date after the initial compliance date of
third-party audit provisions. As stated previously, one of the
objectives of establishing the proposed third-party audit program is to
clearly and finally identify the effectiveness of the program. At the
end of the sunset period, the Agency should have enough data to
determine if the program should continue as is, be modified, or simply
be sunset. The sunset date holds the EPA accountable to evaluate the
program and take action if the program has benefits that warrant
continuing. The EPA seeks comment on the sunset provision in general,
and specifically what other timeframes the EPA should consider for the
sunset period.
c. Independence Criteria
Similar to the applicability criteria for third-party audit
regulations, the Agency does not have data showing what auditor
independence criteria would result in producing the most effective
compliance audits. The Agency continues to agree with the independence
concepts provided in the 2024 rulemaking and the requirements set under
40 CFR 68.59(b) and (c) and 68.80(b) and (c) (see the 2022 SCCAP
proposed rule and the 2024 SCCAP final rule for further discussion).
However, in this proposed rule, the Agency is raising three issues for
clarification: the cooling-off period under 40 CFR 68.59(c)(2)(iv) and
68.80(c)(2)(iv); the auditor experienced with the stationary source
type and processes being audited under 40 CFR 68.59(c)(1)(ii) and
68.80(c)(1)(ii); and the audit team members not employed by the third-
party auditor under 40 CFR 68.59(b)(2)(ii) and 68.80(b)(2)(ii).
Rescinding the two-year cooling off period. The cooling off period
in 40 CFR 68.59(c)(2)(iv) and 68.80(c)(2)(iv), as finalized in the 2024
SCCAP rule, was intended to ensure auditor independence and
impartiality, but is potentially problematic for several reasons. The
provisions state that ``all third-party personnel involved in the audit
do not accept future employment with the owner or operator of the
stationary source for a period of at least two years following
submission of the final audit report.'' This is referred to as ``the
cooling-off period.'' A high-level, potential problem could be whether
this restriction even contributes to facility compliance with the Risk
Management Program, which is the goal of a third-party audit.
Additionally, some large companies operating multiple facilities
are subject to the regulations. By accepting the work to conduct a
third-party audit on one facility, the auditor would not only be
restricted from conducting other unrelated work at that facility, but
also from conducting work at other facilities under the same corporate
umbrella. This restriction may impact the willingness of contractors to
accept the third-party audit work, which further compounds the already
limited pool of chemical process safety experts. In effect, this
provision may not only be deterring certain process safety experts from
accepting the third-party audit work, but also not allowing those
process safety experts to provide their expertise in certain
situations, including additional work at the facility they audited,
which may benefit the most. This would be potentially
counterproductive, since the goal of the provision is to ensure these
facilities comply with the Risk Management Program. Furthermore, while
the Agency continues to agree with the concept of independence of the
third-party auditor, the Agency does not have any data to support
whether the cooling-off period would have benefits that lead to less
accidental releases.
The Agency is proposing to rescind the cooling-off period
requirement because of the reasons identified above.

[[Page 8989]]

Additionally, the Agency believes that removing the third-party auditor
qualification restriction will be more beneficial than attempting to
retain auditor independence and impartiality through a cooling-off
period. The Agency seeks comment on this rescission. Specifically, the
Agency seeks comment on whether there is any data that could be
collected related to third-party auditors accepting future employment
with owners or operators that are subject to the audit that would
reflect the effectiveness of the third-party compliance audit. At the
sunset of the 10-year timeframe for the proposed third-party audit
requirements, the Agency should be able to evaluate the effectiveness
of audits through the facility's safety records and EPA inspections,
for which the cooling-off period may be irrelevant.
Conversely, if the Agency retains the cooling-off requirements,
what provisions could be added to address the issues identified? For
example, how could the Agency address cooling-off requirements for
auditors working on Federal, state, or locally owned or operated
facilities (i.e., would the auditor be restricted from future
employment with the EPA because he or she conducted an audit on a
Department of Defense facility)? The Agency seeks comment on shortening
the cooling-off period and excluding work unrelated to the third-party
audit.
Experienced with the stationary source type and processes. The
Agency maintains that the provisions at 40 CFR 68.59(c)(1)(ii) and
68.80(c)(1)(ii) are appropriate. A third-party compliance auditor
should be experienced with the stationary source type and process. The
provision is intentionally generalized to allow for maximum flexibility
while still requiring that the auditor is capable to perform the work.
The Agency seeks comment on retaining this provision, and if there are
alternatives that may capture the intent.
Audit team members not employed by the third-party auditor. The
Agency is clarifying the provisions under 40 CFR 68.59(b)(2)(ii) and
68.80(b)(2)(ii) which allow for the audit team to include current and
former company personnel. Specifically, in the scenario where a
facility's sister facility may offer the most knowledgeable personnel
to assist with a third-party compliance audit, this would be
permissible under provisions 40 CFR 68.59(b)(2)(ii) and
68.80(b)(2)(ii). Although, the lead auditor would still need to meet
the independence criteria. To further support this position, the
following is an excerpt from the 2017 Amendments rule: ``Other
personnel not employed by the third-party auditor firm (e.g. facility
personnel or employees of another consulting firm with specialized
expertise). These personnel are not required to meet the competency
and/or independence criteria of the rule. EPA agrees with commenters
who suggest that allowing facility personnel and other knowledgeable
but non-independent contractors and consultants to participate in the
audit would improve the audit teams' performance and outcomes'' (82 FR
4619). The Agency seeks input on this issue, as well as comment on
whether a process to grant waivers from the independence criteria for
the lead auditor would be necessary or preferrable.
d. The 90-Day Deadline for Audit Responses
In 40 CFR 68.59(f)(1) and 68.80(f)(1), which were codified with the
2024 SCCAP rule, the Agency added the following deadline for audit
responses: ``As soon as possible, but no later than 90 days after
receiving the final audit report, the owner or operator shall determine
an appropriate response to each of the findings in the audit report.''
The 2024 rulemaking Response to Comment (RTC) document states that this
is appropriate timeframe, allowing for a schedule that could extend
beyond 90-days, but balancing the need for prompt redress.
The Agency continues to support the 90-day deadline for audit
responses. However, the Agency seeks comment on whether an extension
process should be established. Such a process could include a notice to
the EPA, along with limited information on why the extension is needed.
The Agency is also soliciting comment on whether a 60-day extension is
a more appropriate length of time.
e. Mandatory Board Reporting of Third-Party Audits
Under 40 CFR 68.59(f)(3) and 68.80(f)(3), the owner or operator
shall immediately provide a copy of the third-party audit findings
response report and implementation schedule, when completed, to the
owner or operator's audit committee of the Board of Directors or
another comparable committee or individual, if applicable. The Agency
justified this provision in the 2024 rulemaking RTC document stating
that ensuring audit committees of the Board of Directors with audit
findings will ensure they are aware of deficiencies and can work
potential remedies into budgeting and operations decisions in a timely
manner.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ The 2024 SCCAP rule RTC at p. 170-171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the Agency continues to see a benefit with the concept of
elevating time-sensitive safety information to the highest levels in
the corporate structure, the Agency also acknowledges that there is no
data supporting that elevation of this information would result in
increased compliance. Furthermore, the Agency now recognizes that the
Board of Directors may not be the appropriate decision-makers with
respect to issues resulting from the audit process--therefore, there
was no necessity for the Agency to speculate on corporate structure and
reporting by inserting a prescriptive reporting element into a
performance-based program. For these reasons the Agency is proposing to
rescind the mandatory board reporting requirements under 40 CFR
68.59(f)(3) and 68.80(f)(3).
f. Findings Report Certification Statement
40 CFR 68.59(f)(1)(iv) and 68.80(f)(1)(iv), which were added with
the 2024 SCCAP rule, require a certification statement with the audit
findings response report, which is to be signed and dated by a senior
corporate officer, or an official in an equivalent position, of the
owner or operator of the stationary source. The required certification
statement includes acknowledging that the person signing has engaged in
a third-party audit, certifies the audit findings response report, and
is punctuated with, ``I am aware that there are significant penalties
for making false material statements, representations, or
certifications, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for
knowing violations.'' The rationale for the certification requirement
can be found in the 2024 rulemaking RTC document,\65\ but to summarize,
the conditions triggering a third-party audit are serious enough to
warrant a certification statement to further ensure that the facility
staff and corporate officers are reviewing the third-party compliance
audit findings diligently. The Agency continues to support this concept
but is also soliciting comment on this provision since the Agency is
co-proposing to modify the applicability criteria for third-party
audits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ The 2024 SCCAP rule RTC at p. 179-180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Data Gathering
The limited implementation of the proposed third-party audits would
allow the EPA to assess third-party audit effectiveness, but only if
the

[[Page 8990]]

correct data is collected. At a high-level, if the proposed regulations
are finalized, the Agency would be able to evaluate accident history at
facilities before and after conducting third-party compliance audits.
The Agency could also evaluate violations and compliance rates if
inspections are conducted at the regulated facilities. Separately, the
Agency could begin to aggregate information on the EPA's enforcement-
driven third-party audits and potentially work with other implementing
agencies on any data they may have on third-party audits. However, that
may only provide a partial view of the utility of third-party audits.
Therefore, the Agency seeks comment on what other data sources the EPA
could use, and more importantly what other data elements should the EPA
collect during the 10-year window when a subset of facilities would be
conducting third-party audits. Should the EPA collect information on
the make-up of the audit teams to evaluate if there appears to be
sufficient chemical process safety experts capable of performing
compliance audits for the Risk Management Program? Or to see how the
make-up for the audit team may impact the quality of the audit? Should
the Agency collect information on the audit findings report and audit
findings report responses to evaluate both the third-party auditor and
owner or operator's ability to address deficiencies in a timely and
effective manner? The Agency seeks comment on collecting data to
evaluate the effectiveness of third-party audits.
h. Other Provisions
For the co-proposal to modify the current requirements to only
require third-party audits for facilities having two or more accidents
in five years, at this time the Agency is only proposing changes to the
third-party requirements at 40 CFR 68.58(f), (g), and (h);
68.59(c)(2)(iv); 68.79(f), (g), and (h); and 68.80(c)(2)(iv). However,
since the Agency is proposing to modify the applicability criteria for
third-party audits, the Agency seeks input on all other provisions in
40 CFR 68.59 and 68.80.
4. Proposed Regulatory Changes
The Agency is co-proposing: (1) rescinding all third-party audits,
and (2) requiring third-party audits for facilities with two RMP-
reportable accidents in a five-year period. The second proposal
includes a sunset date for the third-party compliance audit
requirements.
Even though the Agency is co-proposing to rescind all third-party
audit provisions, the regulatory text in this proposal reflects the co-
proposed retention and modification of the third-party audits for
Program 2 and Program 3 facilities having two or more RMP-reportable
accidents in a five-year period.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to:
<bullet> Revise 40 CFR 68.58(f)(1) and 68.79(f)(1) to two RMP-
reportable accidental releases in a five-year period for the third-
party audit applicability criteria.
<bullet> Rescind 40 CFR 68.58(f)(2) and 68.79(f)(2) which are the
provisions for implementing agencies to require an audit based on
conditions at the stationary source that could lead to an RMP-
reportable accident.
<bullet> Rescind 40 CFR 68.58(g) and 68.79(g) which are the appeals
process requirements for third-party audits when required by the
implementing agency.
<bullet> Modify 40 CFR 68.58(h) and 68.79(h) by deleting the phrase
``unless a different timeframe is specified by the implementing
agency''.
<bullet> Rescind 40 CFR 68.59(c)(2)(iv) and 68.80(c)(2)(iv) which
is the two-year cooling-off provision.
<bullet> Modify existing section 40 CFR 68.10(g)(2) to delay the
effective date of the third-party audit provisions from May 10, 2027,
to three years after the promulgation of a final rule for this action.
The proposed regulatory section is 40 CFR 68.10(j)(1).
<bullet> Modify existing section 40 CFR 68.10(g)(2) to include a
sunset date 10 years after the effective date of the third-party audit
requirements. This would be 13 years after promulgation of the final
rule for this action. The proposed regulatory section is 40 CFR
68.10(j)(1).
5. Alternative Options
The Agency seeks comment on whether any of the RMP-reportable
accident factors should be discounted when determining if facilities
are required to conduct a third-party audit. For example, if a facility
had an RMP-reportable accident that resulted in significant property
damage onsite, but no injuries or deaths and no offsite damages, should
that accident ``count'' towards the applicability for third-party
audits? Similarly, what about accidents only resulting from onsite
injuries that were ``minor''?
Additionally, the Agency seeks comment on what other information
could be used to identify or target facilities and/or processes that
could benefit from a third-party compliance audit. The EPA seeks
comment on the following potential criteria for inclusion in the third-
party audit program: facilities found to have not reported an RMP-
reportable accident; facilities with one accident that resulted in
offsite injuries; and facilities for which a reportable accident
resulted in substantial property damage, whether at the facility or
offsite.
The EPA seeks comment on the 2024 provision allowing implementing
agencies to require a third-party audit based on conditions at the
stationary source. Specifically, how could ``conditions'' be defined?
Is there a specific set of conditions that would provide regulatory
certainty to this provision?
Finally, the Agency seeks comment on industry programs and
standards for third-party compliance audits. Specifically, the Agency
is requesting comment and information on potentially incorporating by
reference industry standards for non-self-audits in lieu of the
independent third-party audit regulations codified with the 2024 SCCAP
rule and proposed to be modified with this NPRM.

D. Employee Participation

In the 2024 SCCAP rule, the EPA finalized new employee
participation provisions for owners and operators of facilities with
Program 2 and Program 3 processes. The rule added Program 2 employee
participation provisions at 40 CFR 68.62, which require owners or
operators to develop written employee participation plans and provide
access to hazard reviews and all other information developed pursuant
to the Program 2 prevention program requirements. The 2024 SCCAP rule
aligned the employee participation requirements for Program 2 with
existing Program 3 employee participation requirements at 40 CFR 68.83.
The 2024 SCCAP rule also added new provisions for both Program 2 and
Program 3 owners and operators. Under the 2024 SCCAP rule, owners and
operators are required to provide annual notice to employees that the
written plan of action is available and explain how it can be accessed
and to provide training on the plan, as necessary. Additionally, the
2024 SCCAP rule added a new provision that requires Program 2 and
Program 3 owners or operators to implement a process to allow employees
to report hazards to the owner or operator and/or the EPA, where
reporting may be anonymous or with attribution, and requires records of
reports to be maintained for three years, at 40 CFR 68.62(b) and
68.83(e).
The Agency requires owners and operators of facilities with Program
3 processes to consult knowledgeable employees on addressing
recommendations and findings of PHAs,

[[Page 8991]]

compliance audits, and incident investigations at 40 CFR 68.83(c).
Additionally, at 40 CFR 68.83(d), the 2024 SCCAP rule requires owners
or operators to provide employees knowledgeable in the process with
authority to recommend partial or complete shutdown of a process and
allow a qualified operator to partially or completely shut down a
process, in accordance with operating procedures, based on the
potential for a catastrophic release.
The EPA is not proposing to reopen the employee participation
provisions for facilities with Program 2 processes at 40 CFR 68.62(a)
for owners or operators to develop an employee participation plan,
provide notice to employees that the plan is available (40 CFR
68.62(a)(1)), and provide employees and their representatives access to
hazard reviews and all other information required to be developed under
the Program 2 prevention program (40 CFR 68.62(c)). However, the EPA
proposes to rescind the requirements at 40 CFR 68.62(a)(2) for owners
or operators of facilities with Program 2 processes to provide training
on the plan. For facilities with Program 3 processes, the EPA similarly
proposes to rescind the training requirement at 40 CFR 68.83(a)(2). The
EPA is retaining the requirement at 40 CFR 68.83(a)(1) for owners or
operators of facilities with Program 3 processes to provide annual
notification that the employee participation plan is available. As
explained below, the EPA proposes to rescind the requirements for
owners or operators of facilities with Program 2 and Program 3
processes to develop a process for employees to report to the owner or
operator and/or the EPA unaddressed hazards, accidents, and other
noncompliance either anonymously or with attribution, and retain a
record of the report for three years (40 CFR 68.62(b)(1)-(3) and
68.83(e)(1)-(3)).
As explained below, for facilities with Program 3 processes, the
EPA proposes to rescind the requirement at 40 CFR 68.83(c) for owners
or operators to consult with employees on addressing recommendations
and findings from PHAs, compliance audits, and incident investigations.
The EPA also proposes to rescind requirements for owners or operators
of facilities with Program 3 processes to provide employees
knowledgeable in the process the authority to (1) recommend that the
operator in charge of a unit partially or completely shut down a unit
(40 CFR 68.83(d)(1)), and (2) allow a qualified operator in charge of a
unit to partially or completely shut down a unit, in accordance with
operating procedures established in 40 CFR 68.69(a) based on the
potential for a catastrophic release (40 CFR 68.83(d)(2)).
As the EPA established in its 1993 RMP proposed rule ``Risk
Management Programs for Chemical Accidental Release Prevention,'' the
Agency's longstanding view has been that employee participation
provisions are worker protection issues and are, therefore, primarily
in OSHA's area of concern (58 FR 54205, October 20, 1993). In response
to comments received on the EPA's 1993 proposed rule regarding ensuring
consistency with OSHA and having a complete prevention program, the EPA
added employee participation provisions to its 1996 RMP rule (61 FR
31697). The 1996 RMP rule adopted 40 CFR 68.83 verbatim from OSHA
except for changing ``employer'' to ``owner or operator'' (61 FR
31697). Additionally, the EPA has maintained the view that the Program
3 prevention program requirements should be identical to OSHA's PSM
standard to avoid confusion and redundant requirements and to ensure
that sources develop one accidental release prevention program that
protects workers, the general public, and the environment (61 FR
31697). Because it is OSHA's responsibility to protect workers, the
Agency continues to believe that the employee participation provisions
should align with OSHA's PSM standard to the extent we are able to do
so consistent with the EPA's statutory directive. The EPA therefore is
proposing to realign the RMP employee participation requirements with
OSHA PSM requirements.
1. Plan Development, Annual Notice and Training
The EPA is not proposing to reopen the 2024 SCCAP rule provisions
for owners and operators of facilities with Program 2 processes to
develop a plan and provide annual notice to employees (40 CFR 68.62(a))
as well as to provide access to hazard reviews and other prevention
program information (40 CFR 68.62(c)) to maintain alignment with
Program 3 and OSHA requirements. The EPA maintains that providing
annual notification of the plan is not an onerous requirement, and that
requirements for plan development, notice, and retaining access to
hazard reviews would ensure employee awareness of the plan and
knowledge of prevention program requirements and improve accident
prevention at facilities with Program 2 processes. The EPA maintains
that the requirement to provide annual written or electronic notice to
employees indicating that the plan is ready and how to access the
information, although not identical to OSHA PSM requirements, does not
create confusion or redundant requirements because the burden on owners
and operators is so minimal. The Agency is not re-opening this
provision for comment.
The EPA is proposing to rescind the training requirements for
owners and operators of facilities with Program 2 processes (40 CFR
68.62(a)(2)) or Program 3 processes (40 CFR 68.83(a)(2)). The Agency
intends this recission to realign the employee participation provisions
with the OSHA PSM standard, thereby making it less burdensome on
facilities while continuing to ensure that these processes are being
operated safely. The 2024 SCCAP rule also requires owners or operators
of Program 2 or Program 3 processes to develop and implement a process
to allow employees and their representatives to anonymously report
unaddressed hazards that could lead to a catastrophic release,
unreported RMP-reportable accidents, or other noncompliance in 40 CFR
68.62(b) and 68.83(e) (89 FR 17662). The training requirements
introduced in the 2024 SCCAP rule were intended in part to potentially
help reduce unvalidated noncompliance reports resulting from these
provisions, which some commenters indicated could become a concern (89
FR 17665). The EPA anticipates that by rescinding the employee accident
and noncompliance reporting requirements for Program 2 and Program 3
processes (see section IV.A.2. below), unvalidated noncompliance
reports and related training would no longer be a concern. Further, the
Agency has tentatively determined that there is not enough information
demonstrating that training on the employee participation plan is
necessary to justify this requirement; instead, the EPA encourages
owners or operators to provide training on the plan should they receive
any requests from management, employees, or their representatives.
2. Employee Accident and Noncompliance Reporting
The EPA is proposing to rescind the employee accident and
noncompliance reporting requirements at 40 CFR 68.62(b) and 68.83(e)
for facilities with Program 2 and Program 3 processes. The addition of
these requirements in the 2024 SCCAP rule was redundant with existing
methods for noncompliance reporting, described below. The EPA's goal in
rescinding these requirements is to eliminate unnecessary provisions
and

[[Page 8992]]

realign the employee participation provisions with the OSHA PSM
standard.
In the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, the EPA included a comment from
the 2021 listening session that provided data analysis showing a late
reporting rate of 6.7% in accident reporting pursuant to 40 CFR
68.195(a) (87 FR 53596). In the 2024 SCCAP final rule, the EPA
instituted the employee accident and noncompliance reporting
provisions, in part, to address this issue. The EPA continues to
recognize that timely reporting of accidents is important. However,
prior to the 2024 SCCAP rule provisions, the RMP rule already required
owners or operators to correct the submitted RMP within six months of
any accidental release meeting the five-year accident history
requirement. Additionally, employees have always had the ability to
report accidents and noncompliance to the EPA without specific
guidelines being codified in the regulatory text. For example,
employees and the public may report information related to a violation
of the CAA to the EPA via an existing website or to another appropriate
Federal agency or department. The EPA website also features resources
for employees and the public to understand the difference between a
possible violation and an emergency and provides the phone number to
the National Response Center.\66\ Employees and the public also have
options for contracting Agency personnel regarding the RMP Rule.\67\
Additionally, OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program (42 U.S.C. 7622)
provides protections for employees reporting violations of the CAA.\68\
These existing protections, along with efforts by owners and operators
to create a welcoming atmosphere for employees to internally discuss
safety concerns, allow employees to express their concerns about
unaddressed hazards and noncompliance without fear of repercussions.
The Agency expects that owners or operators will continually improve
their efforts to enhance safety cultures, strengthen safety teams, and
foster employee communication. Due to existing methods for reporting
hazards and requirements for reporting accidents, the addition of
accident and noncompliance reporting provisions for Program 2 and
Program 3 to the 2024 SCCAP rule was not necessary and should be
removed to better align the employee participation provisions with
OSHA's PSM requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ EPA. ``Report Environmental Violations,'' last updated May
22, 2024, <a href="https://echo.epa.gov/report-environmental-violations">https://echo.epa.gov/report-environmental-violations</a>.
\67\ EPA. ``Contact Us about the Risk Management Program Rule,''
last updated May 28, 2025, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/rmp/forms/contact-us-about-risk-management-program-rule">https://www.epa.gov/rmp/forms/contact-us-about-risk-management-program-rule</a>.
\68\ OSHA Fact Sheet: Filing Whistleblower Complaints under the
Clean Air Act--<a href="https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3784.pdf">https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3784.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Recommendation Decisions
The EPA is proposing to rescind the 2024 SCCAP rule provision for
facilities with Program 3 processes to consult employees on addressing
recommendations and findings of PHAs, compliance audits, and incident
investigations (40 CFR 68.83(c)). The EPA intends this proposed
recission to realign the provisions with the OSHA PSM standard. The EPA
notes that the intent of the 2024 SCCAP rule provision for
recommendation decisions was to provide employees with the opportunity
to provide their perspective based on their knowledge of the process
and safety concerns. The Agency upholds that employees directly
involved in operating and maintaining a process are the most
knowledgeable about the daily requirements for operating and
maintaining equipment safely. Prior to the 2024 SCCAP rule, sources
were required to involve at least one person knowledgeable in the
process in PHAs, compliance audits, and incident investigations (40 CFR
68.67(d), 68.79(b), and 68.81(c), respectively). Accordingly, the
resulting recommendations from those activities should already reflect
the knowledge of employees, rendering the 2024 SCCAP rule provision for
employee participation in recommendation decisions unnecessary. The EPA
is not currently aware of any information that suggests that these
redundant requirements have had any demonstrable impact on safety and
seeks comments offering any specific information to that effect.
The Agency maintains that involving directly affected employees in
discussions and decisions on Program 3 processes helps ensure that the
most effective recommendations are considered. However, the EPA expects
that those ``knowledgeable in the process'' are already involved in
PHAs, compliance audits, and incident investigations and are also
involved in addressing recommendations resulting from these program
elements. The Agency therefore requests comment to assist in
determining whether rescinding this provision and realigning with the
OSHA PSM standard would remove redundant requirements while maintaining
an appropriate level of employee involvement in recommendation
decisions.
4. Stop Work Authority
The EPA is proposing to rescind the 2024 SCCAP rule provision for
stop work authority (40 CFR 68.83(d)) for Program 3 processes. The EPA
intends this recission to realign the provisions with the OSHA PSM
standard. In the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, the EPA explained that,
although the RMP regulations in place prior to the 2022 proposed rule
did not contain explicit requirements for stop work, the RMP rule
already addressed many aspects of a stop work authority that provide a
means to identify and resolve imminent operational risks before they
occur (87 FR 53591). For example, operating procedures developed under
the RMP rule (40 CFR 68.69) already address how and under what
circumstances a facility should conduct normal and temporary
operations, emergency shutdown (including the assignment of a
responsible qualified operator to do so), emergency operations, and
normal shutdown. Operating procedures should also address when process
operations deviate from operating limits, steps to correct and avoid
deviation, safety and health conditions to consider, and safety systems
and their functions. Mechanical integrity requirements (40 CFR
68.73(e)) ensure equipment deficiencies that are outside acceptable
limits are corrected in a safe and timely manner or before further use
to assure safe operation. The associated trainings for operating
procedures (40 CFR 68.71) and maintenance (40 CFR 68.73(c)) are key to
ensuring that those processes are well understood. The EPA explained
that it believed that all these components create a stop work authority
as they address the circumstances and procedures to identify unsafe
operations (87 FR 53591). The stop work provision in the 2024 SCCAP
rule was intended to ensure facilities' employees are aware of these
existing authorities to manage unsafe work by requiring owners or
operators to document these authorities in the employee participation
plan (89 FR 17663). In the preamble to the 2024 SCCAP rule, the EPA
emphasized that ``this provision is not intended to create new
authorities or require additional components to those already
developed'' (89 FR 17663).
As described above, previous RMP rule requirements, although not
containing explicit requirements for stop work, already address many
aspects of a stop work authority that provide a means to identify and
resolve imminent operational risks before they occur (i.e., operating
procedures for normal, temporary, and emergency operations; mechanical
integrity

[[Page 8993]]

requirements to ensure equipment deficiencies are corrected in a safe
and timely manner; associated trainings on operating procedures and
maintenance). Therefore, the EPA has determined that the additional
requirement to document specifically prescribed stop work authority in
the employee participation plan is unnecessary and may inadvertently
cause confusion and impose an unexpected regulatory burden for
regulated entities who interpret the requirement to impose to require
new stop work authorities or require additional components to those
already developed. As such, the Agency expects that rescinding this
provision and realigning with the OSHA PSM standard would remove
redundant requirements that created unnecessary confusion and burden
for regulated entities without generating any demonstrable safety
benefits.
5. Proposed Regulatory Changes
For the reasons stated above, the EPA proposes to remove the
following language from 40 CFR 68.62(a)(2) and 68.83(a)(2): ``Training
shall be provided as often as necessary to ensure employees and their
representatives, and management involved in the process, are informed
of the details of the plan.'' The EPA proposes to remove the accident
and noncompliance reporting provisions at 40 CFR 68.62(b) and 68.83(e).
The EPA proposes to remove the new language regarding recommendation
decisions at 40 CFR 68.83(c) and revert to the pre-2024 language
(current 40 CFR 68.83(f)). Similarly, the EPA proposes to remove the
new stop work authority provision at 40 CFR 68.83(d). The EPA seeks
comment on these proposed provisions.
6. Alternative Options
In addition, the EPA considered other options and is seeking
comment on these alternative approaches. The EPA requests public
comment on retaining 40 CFR 68.62(a)(2) and 68.83(a)(2), including any
data to support that training on the employee participation plan would
contribute to chemical accident prevention. The EPA additionally seeks
comment on how owners or operators and the EPA would determine the
effectiveness of training on the employee participation plan.
The EPA also requests comment on a requirement for owners or
operators to develop and implement a process to allow employees to
report noncompliance concerns only to the owner or operator as a part
of the employee participation plan, with reporting to the EPA still
available through existing channels (i.e., the EPA's website or through
regional contacts). The Agency also seeks comment on requiring owners
or operators to provide information on the EPA's existing noncompliance
reporting options as a part of the employee participation plan.
Finally, the Agency solicits comment on whether there are
opportunities for the EPA to ensure that employees are aware of their
authorities to manage unsafe work through existing operating procedures
and mechanical integrity provisions. Additionally, the EPA solicits
comment on including additional language (in italics) in the initial
training requirement at 40 CFR 68.71(a)(1) to clarify that, in addition
to understanding the procedures for emergency operations, employees
shall be made aware of the risks that could potentially lead to such an
event. For example: ``Each employee presently involved in operating a
process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly
assigned process, shall be trained in an overview of the process and in
the operating procedures as specified in 40 CFR 68.69. The training
shall include emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards,
identifying imminent operational risks that may lead to emergency
operations including shutdown and how to perform these operations, and
safe work practices applicable to the employee's job tasks.''

E. Community and Emergency Responder Notification

The 2024 SCCAP rule added requirements for RMP facilities to
implement procedures for informing the public about accidental releases
or to meet the requirement with other existing notification mechanisms
under 40 CFR 68.90(b)(3) and 68.95(c); to partner with local response
agencies to ensure a community notification system is in place to warn
the public within the area ``potentially'' threatened by an accidental
release and to document the collaboration under 40 CFR 68.90(b)(6) and
68.95(a)(1)(i); and to provide necessary entities with initial
accidental release information under 40 CFR 68.90(b)(3) and 68.95(c)
(89 FR 17666). The EPA explained that the purpose of these provisions
was to require RMP-regulated facilities to provide information to
surrounding communities so they can appropriately prepare for potential
emergencies (89 FR 17666). In the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, the EPA
cited data on the extent of accidents with offsite impacts, including
those in which no local or offsite responders were notified; several
case studies of effective emergency response in the event of a chemical
accident that included redundant communication systems or in which an
improved community notification system could have supported appropriate
public notification; and multiple industry guidance documents that
outline the importance of having a coordinated effort to ensure public
notification of accidental releases (87 FR 53556).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to modify the community
notification requirements from the 2024 SCCAP rule. Specifically, the
EPA is proposing to further clarify who is responsible for notifying
the community of an accidental release by adding language to 40 CFR
68.90(b)(6) and 68.95(a)(1)(i) to emphasize that RMP facility owners
and operators are responsible for coordinating with local officials
when community notifications are necessary following an accidental
release. The Agency is also proposing to modify related documentation
requirements in the same section.
1. Community Notification System and Coordination Clarification
The 2022 SCCAP proposed rule provisions were supported by a wide
range of stakeholder groups, including advocacy groups, State attorneys
general, mass comment campaigns, individuals, and local
governments.\69\ However, some public commenters opposed the
requirement for RMP facilities to be solely responsible for community
warning systems and notification of emergencies. Some commenters said
that the language in the proposed provision should be changed from
``and ensure that'' to ``and partner to ensure that'' a community
notification system is in place.\70\ Therefore, in the 2024 SCCAP rule,
the EPA clarified that RMP facility owners and operators should partner
with local response agencies to ensure a community notification system
is in place (89 FR 17666).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0141; 0143; 0151; 0179; 0191; 0208; 0209;
0211; 0240; 0243; 0252; 0255; 0257; 0264; 0269; 0383; 0413; 0444;
0460.
\70\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0184; 0237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was not, and is not, the EPA's intention to transfer inherent
government responsibilities to RMP-regulated facilities. Rather, the
EPA's intention for this provision was, and remains, for facility
owners and operators to work with the local responders to ensure that,
during a release, a notification system is in place that will notify
the public of a potential emergency situation. The Agency has
determined that in most cases, local

[[Page 8994]]

government emergency response officials will be the entities providing
the notice, since that is typically the case and the role of those
officials. The EPA's intention of the joint roles and responsibilities
of facilities and local emergency responders has remained consistent
since the 1996 RMP rule. As stated in the response to comments on the
1995 RMP proposed rule, public notification is typically handled by the
local responders, however, in some cases the facility may make the
notifications.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ EPA, Risk Management Plan Rule: Summary and Response to
Comments, Part 6 of 12, p. 18-38, May 24, 1996. Docket No. A-91-73,
Document Number IX-C-1. Available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0365-0008">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0365-0008</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA is thus proposing modifications to clarify that facility
owners or operators should coordinate with local emergency responders
to ensure that, during a release, all necessary information is
available to notify the community of the incident. This coordination
can occur as part of the annual emergency response coordination meeting
under 40 CFR 68.93 and/or notification exercise under the 40 CFR
68.96(a) requirements. If no community notification system is in place,
then the facility personnel should partner with local officials to
determine how to relay information in a timely manner to protect the
community from harm. Therefore, because the EPA is clarifying the joint
responsibility between facilities and local responders and the fact
that a specific notification ``system'' may not necessarily be
appropriate in all circumstances, the EPA has concluded that there is
no need for a requirement for a facility to develop, operate, and
maintain a community notification system.
To clarify who is responsible for notifying the community of an
accidental release, the EPA proposes adding language to 40 CFR
68.90(b)(6) and 68.95(a)(1)(i) to emphasize that RMP facility owners
and operators are responsible for coordinating with local officials
when community notifications are necessary following an accidental
release. That is, facility personnel would partner with emergency
responders to ensure responders have the necessary accidental release
information to convey through community notification systems. This
proposed language would ensure that facility representatives and local
emergency responders understand their roles and responsibilities for
timely notification to the surrounding communities should an accidental
release occur.
2. Documentation Requirements
The Agency is also proposing to modify related documentation
requirements. The 2024 SCCAP rule included documentation requirements
under 40 CFR 68.90(b)(6) and 68.95(a)(1)(i) to capture the partnership
of the owner or operator and the emergency response agency with respect
to a community notification system. The EPA is proposing to eliminate
these documentation requirements and instead replace them with the
collection of two data elements: (1) the type of community notification
system; and (2) whether the local responder or the owner or operator
will send the notification to the community. The EPA is proposing that
both data elements be submitted by the owner or operator with their RMP
submission to the EPA under 40 CFR 68.180.
By collecting the type of notification systems and the party
responsible for sending the notification, implementing agencies could
easily determine if there are local response agencies and owners and
operators that need assistance with their notification procedure. The
EPA's goal is to ensure that all communities have an adequate
notification system in place. For non-responding facilities (facilities
whose employees will not respond to accidental releases and instead
will use other resources), the existing regulations under 40 CFR
68.180(b)(1)(iii) already cover submission of ``What mechanisms are in
place to notify the public and emergency responders when there is a
need for emergency response.'' However, for this requirement, the
Agency has historically only collected the answer to the question
``Does your facility's ER plan include procedures for informing the
public and local agencies responding to accidental releases?'', which
lacks specificity that could better inform community preparedness. The
Agency is thus proposing to update the RMP*eSubmit System to document
the type of community notification system and who is responsible for
sending notifications. Additionally, for responding facilities, the
Agency is proposing to mirror this requirement under 40 CFR
68.180(b)(2).
The Agency is also soliciting comment on sharing these data
elements through the RMP Public Data Tool, via proposed 40 CFR 68.210.
The EPA intends that sharing information on what emergency notification
system is in place would allow communities surrounding RMP facilities
to appropriately prepare for and respond to potential emergencies.
3. Proposed Regulatory Changes
For the reasons stated above, the EPA seeks comment on its proposal
to amend 40 CFR 68.90(b)(6) and 68.95(a)(1)(i) to clarify the EPA's
intention to require facilities partner with local emergency response
agencies to ensure that necessary information is available to
responders and add language to clarify that responders may relay that
information through a community notification system to warn the public.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to replace ``. . . and partnering
with these response agencies to ensure that a community notification
system is in place'' with ``Further, the owner or operator partner with
response agencies to ensure that responders have the necessary
information to relay through a community notification system . . .''
The EPA also proposes to remove the documentation requirements in 40
CFR 68.90(b)(6) and 68.95(a)(1)(i) related to the partnership between
the owner or operator and the local emergency response agencies and
instead add a new subparagraph at 40 CFR 68.180(b)(2)(v) to require
owners or operators to provide basic information about notification
mechanisms and responsibilities in their RMP submissions.
Additionally, the EPA seeks comment on whether there should be any
difference in the requirements for responding and non-responding
facilities. The Agency seeks comment on whether the proposed regulatory
text under 40 CFR 68.180(b)(2)(v), for responding facilities, needs to
specify a notification mechanism for the public and emergency
responders or solely the public.
Further, the Agency seeks comment on what types of public
notification mechanisms should be included in the options in
RMP*eSubmit for owners or operators (e.g., Integrated Public Alert &
Warning System). The Agency is also soliciting comment on what other
data should be collected with respect to a community notification
system. The Agency seeks comment on whether there should be an
indicator for the facility to identify when the local emergency
planning agency has not been responsive to attempts to coordinate.
Additionally, the EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should
collect and share information on how communities can ``register'' for
the community notification system.
Finally, the EPA solicits comment on other actions the Agency could
take to identify and correct gaps in emergency

[[Page 8995]]

notification procedures and mechanisms.

F. Stationary Source Siting

As stated in the 2022 SCCAP proposed rule, ``siting'' is a
``longstanding regulatory requirement'' for Program 2 and 3 facilities
(87 FR 53567). In the 2024 SCCAP final rule, the EPA added regulatory
language to explicitly clarify stationary source siting as inclusive of
the placement of processes, equipment, buildings within the facility,
and hazards posed by proximate facilities, and accidental release
consequences posed by proximity to the public and public receptors for
both Program 2 hazard reviews under 40 CFR 68.50(a)(6) and Program 3
process hazard analyses under 40 CFR 68.67(c)(5).
The Agency intended to add the amplifying language to the siting
requirement in the 2024 SCCAP rule to clarify the longstanding
regulatory requirement without imposing any additional regulatory
burden (87 FR 53567). The EPA's rationale was that the siting of
processes and equipment within a stationary source can impact the
surrounding community not only through the proximity of an accidental
release to offsite receptors adjacent to the facility boundary (e.g.,
people, infrastructure, environmental resources), but also through
increasing the likelihood of a secondary ``knock-on'' release by
compromising nearby processes (87 FR 53571). Therefore, the 2024 SCCAP
rule expanded the regulatory text in 40 CFR 68.67(c)(5) for Program 3
facilities to read: ``Stationary source siting, including the placement
of processes, equipment, and buildings within the facility, and hazards
posed by proximate stationary sources, and accidental release
consequences posed by proximity to the public and public receptors''
and explicitly added siting, including the same amplifying text
included for Program 3 facilities, to the hazard review for Program 2
facilities under 40 CFR 68.50(a)(6).
The EPA is proposing to rescind the amplifying regulatory text for
Program 3 facilities under 40 CFR 68.67(c)(5) \72\ and for Program 2
facilities under 40 CFR 68.50(a)(6), i.e., the

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on February 24, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.