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

Federal RegisterFeb 24, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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

https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule.

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:

•

Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/

(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

•

Mail:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, OLEM Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.

•

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

https://www.regulations.gov,

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

https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule.

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:

guarino.kristina@epa.gov.

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?

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

https://www.regulations.gov

(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

https://www.regulations.gov

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

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets

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

https://www.regulations.gov,

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

https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule

or contact Kristina Guarino at (202) 566-1235 or

guarino.kristina@epa.gov

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

https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule.

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

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

guarino.kristina@epa.gov.

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

https://www.epa.gov/rmp/common-sense-approach-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule.

While the EPA expects the hearings to go forward as set forth above, please monitor the Agency's website or contact Kristina Guarino at

guarino.kristina@epa.gov,

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

Administration of Environmental Quality Programs

924.

Agricultural Chemical Distributors:

Crop Production

111.

Animal Production and Aquaculture

112.

Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry Farm

115.

Supplies Merchant Wholesalers

42491.

Chemical Manufacturing

325.

Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers

4246.

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 Wholesalers

4247.

Utilities

221.

Warehousing and Storage

493.

For descriptions of NAICS codes, see

https://www.census.gov/naics/.

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)

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]

Cost elements

Total

undiscounted

Total

discounted

(3%)

Total

discounted

(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

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)

Employee Participation Plan

(110.1)

(93.9)

(77.3)

(11.0)

Backup Power for Perimeter Monitors

(3.3)

(2.8)

(2.3)

(0.3)

RMP Justifications:

No Backup Power

(0.2)

(0.1)

** (0.0)

Natural Hazards

(0.4)

(0.3)

** (0.0)

Facility Siting

(0.4)

(0.3)

** (0.0)

RAGAGEP

(0.3)

(0.2)

** (0.0)

Community Notification System

(2.7)

(2.3)

(1.9)

(0.3)

Information Availability

(127.0)

(108.3)

(89.2)

(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

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.”

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).

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.

Documents and information related to development of the 1996 RMP rule can be found in the EPA docket number A-91-73.

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.”

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.

Available at

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/01/executive-order-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security.

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,

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.”

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).

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),

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0645.

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

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)).

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.

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

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.

See Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. Association of the United States, Inc.

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

Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC,

145 S. Ct. 898, 917 (2025) (quoting

FCC

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.”

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.

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),

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0645.

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).

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.

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

the rulemaking docket.

The Agency seeks comment on the information in those documents as well.

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.

• 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.

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

• 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.

Id.

• 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).

Id.

• 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.

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:

• 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);

• 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:

○ Co-located sources within one mile of another stationary source having a covered process in NAICS code 324 or 325,

○ Refinery hydrogen fluoride (HF) alkylation processes, and

○ Those that have had a reportable accident since the most recent process hazard analysis (PHA); and

• 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Exhibit 3-13a. Accident History Document.

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).

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.

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.

Exhibit 3-12. Accident History Document.

Id.

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

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.

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.

In 2023, 662 RMP facilities had processes that met the requirements to be subject to those 2024 SCCAP rule provisions.

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.

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.

Id.

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.

Chevron, Chevron and Honeywell Announce Start-up of World's First Commercial ISOALKYTM Ionic Liquids Alkylation Unit, last modified April 13, 2021,

https://www.chevron.com/stories/chevron-and-honeywell-announce-start-up-of-isoalky-ionic-liquids-alkylation-unit.

United Steelworkers, A Risk Too Great: Hydrofluoric Acid in U.S. Refineries (April 2013),

https://assets.usw.org/resources/hse/pdf/A-Risk-Too-Great.pdf.

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.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0587.

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.

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.

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.

This frequency was less than that of other chemicals, including methyl mercaptan and hydrogen selenide, among others.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Exhibit 3-13j.1. Accident History Document.

Id.

Exhibit 3-13j.2. Accident History Document.

Id.

Exhibit 3-13k. Accident History Document.

Exhibit 3-13a and Exhibit 3-13b. Accident History Document.

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

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

Exhibit 3-15. Accident History Document.

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.

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.

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

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.”

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.

National Research Council, The Use and Storage of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) at Bayer CropScience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (2012).

https://doi.org/10.17226/13385.

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.

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.

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:

• Found to have not reported RMP accidents;

• With one accident that resulted in offsite injuries;

• Found to have multiple “serious” violations during an EPA inspection; and

• 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.

Regulatory Impact Analysis—Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, section 112(r)(7), p. 73 (December 16, 2016).

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0734.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-2003.

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

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.

Information on where LEPCs are inactive could help target resources, planning, and preparedness to higher risk areas.

EPA. “National Survey of State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs),” Revised March 2025.

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-04/national-survey-of-the-state-emergency-response-commissions_revised-march-2025.pdf.

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,

which could be significant without adding commensurate benefit.

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

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

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

EPA, Response to Comments on the 2022 Proposed Rule, p. 252, December 15, 2023. Available at

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0583,

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.

Commenters presented various arguments against expanded information availability requirements, including that the EPA lacked evidence for the provisions' effectiveness,

the provisions would be burdensome or costly,

the provisions were redundant or duplicative of EPCRA requirements,

the six-mile radius lacked justification,

and the provisions would generate security risks for terrorist or cybersecurity attacks on facilities.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0205; 0239; 0241; 0263.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0165; 0180; 0184; 0193; 0196; 0201; 0202; 0213; 0215; 0226; 0233; 0234; 0239; 0262; 0268; 0271; 0272; 0275; 0458.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0164; 0196; 0233; 0262; 0267; 0268; 0272.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174-0180; 0193; 0205; 0207; 0213; 0215; 0217; 0223; 0226; 0234; 0238; 0268; 0272; 0458; 0460.

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.

The 2024 SCCAP rule RTC at p. 247.

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.

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.

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),

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5231947.

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.

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

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 § 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).

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.

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

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.

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.”

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.

The 2024 SCCAP rule RTC at p. 173.

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 §§ 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

facilities had only one RMP-reportable accident and 177 had more than one RMP-reportable accident.

Among the 801 facilities having an RMP-reportable accident during 2004-2013, 522 (65%) did not experience another RMP-reportable accident within 10 years.

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.

Exhibit 3-13a. Accident History Document.

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 §§ 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.

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.

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,

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.

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

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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Modify 40 CFR 68.58(h) and 68.79(h) by deleting the phrase “unless a different timeframe is specified by the implementing agency”.

• Rescind 40 CFR 68.59(c)(2)(iv) and 68.80(c)(2)(iv) which is the two-year cooling-off provision.

• 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).

• 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,

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

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.