[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28696-28701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12936]
[[Page 28695]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 68
Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs
Under Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7); Amendments to the Worst-Case
Release Scenario Analysis for Flammable Substances; Final and Proposed
Rules
Proposed Settlement; Clean Air Act 112(r) Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management Programs Litigation; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 28696]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 68
[FRL-6348-2]
Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7); Amendments to the
Worst-Case Release Scenario Analysis for Flammable Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This direct final action amends the Chemical Accident
Prevention Provisions, also known as the Risk Management Program (RMP)
regulations, codified in 40 CFR part 68. The revisions concern the
worst-case release scenario analysis for regulated flammable substances
in 40 CFR 68.25. EPA is issuing these revisions so that the regulated
community can treat regulated flammable substances in the same manner
as regulated toxic substances for determining the quantity released
when conducting a worst-case release scenario analysis. EPA is taking
this direct final action pursuant to a settlement agreement with the
American Petroleum Institute (API).
EPA is also clarifying its interpretation of Clean Air Act sections
112(l) and 112(r)(11), as they relate to Department of Transportation
(DOT) requirements under the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation
Law under a settlement agreement with the Chlorine Institute (CI).
DATES: This rule is effective on June 21, 1999 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 16, 1999 or, pursuant to
CAA section 113(g), declines to finalize the settlement agreement. If
we receive such comment, or decide to withdraw from the settlement
agreement, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that this rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Docket and Comments. Docket No. A-99-15, containing
supporting information used to develop these amendments, is available
for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday (except government holidays) from EPA's Air Docket, at
Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C., 20460,
telephone 202-260-7548. Written comments should be submitted to the
same address. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob or John Ferris, Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, Environmental Protection
Agency (5104), 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C., 20460, (202) 260-7249
or (202) 260-4043, respectively; or the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Hotline at 800-424-9346 (in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, (703) 412-9810). You may wish to visit the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) Internet site, at
www.epa.gov/ceppo.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those stationary
sources that have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance in a process. Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petrochemical............................. Refineries, Plastics,
Resins.
Chemical Manufacturing.................... Organics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers to indicate some of those entities likely to be
regulated by this action. The table lists entities EPA is aware of that
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether a
stationary source is regulated by this action, carefully examine the
provisions associated with the list of substances and thresholds under
Sec. 68.130 and the applicability criteria under Sec. 68.10. If you
have questions regarding applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the hotline or persons listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Background
C. RMP Rule Litigation
II. Discussion of Revisions to Sec. 68.25
III. Clarification of Section 112(l) and 112(r)(11)
IV. Judicial Review
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Executive Order 12875
D. Executive Order 13045
E. Executive Order 13084
F. Regulatory Flexibility
G. Paperwork Reduction
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction and Background
A. Statutory Authority
These amendments are being promulgated under sections 112(r) and
301(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r),
7601(a)(1)).
B. Background
The 1990 CAA Amendments added section 112(r) to provide for the
prevention and mitigation of accidental chemical releases. Section
112(r) mandates that EPA promulgate a list of ``regulated substances,''
with ``threshold quantities''. Processes at stationary sources that
contain a threshold quantity of a regulated substance are subject to
accidental release prevention regulations promulgated under CAA section
112(r)(7). EPA promulgated the list of regulated substances on January
31, 1994 (59 FR 4478) (the ``List Rule'') and the accidental release
prevention regulations creating the risk management program
requirements on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668) (the ``RMP Rule'').
Together, these two rules are codified at 40 CFR part 68. EPA has since
revised the rules in several respects, and these revisions are
reflected in the most recent codification of 40 CFR part 68.
Part 68 requires that any source with more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance in a process develop and implement a
risk management program that includes a five-year accident history,
offsite consequence analyses, a prevention program, and an emergency
response program. In part 68, processes are divided into three
categories (Programs 1 through 3). Processes that likely have no
potential impact on the public in the case of accidental releases have
minimal requirements (Program 1). Processes in Programs 2 and 3 have
additional requirements based on their potential for offsite
consequences as indicated by worst-case accidental release analysis and
their accident history. Program 3 is also triggered if the processes
are subject to OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard. By June
21, 1999, any source with more than a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance in a process must submit to EPA a risk management plan (RMP)
that summarizes their implementation of the risk management program.
C. RMP Rule Litigation
The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Chlorine Institute
(CI) filed petitions for judicial review of the
[[Page 28697]]
RMP Rule (The Chlorine Institute v. EPA, No. 94-1279 (D.C. Cir.) and
consolidated cases (Nos. 96-1284, 96-1288, 96-1289 & 96-1290)). In
court filings, API raised issues related to worst-case release scenario
analysis (Sec. 68.25 of the rule) for flammables.
In the final RMP rule issued on June 20, 1996, Sec. 68.25(e) states
that when conducting a worst-case scenario analysis for flammables, the
owner or operator shall assume that the quantity of the substance, as
determined under paragraph (b) of Sec. 68.25, vaporizes, resulting in a
vapor cloud explosion. This approach applies to all listed flammable
substances regardless of whether the flammable substance is normally a
liquid or liquefied by refrigeration. API suggested that flammable
liquids and those liquefied by refrigeration should be treated, for
modeling purposes, in the same manner as for toxic liquids or those
liquefied by refrigeration, as stated in Sec. 68.25 (c) and (d). EPA
agreed that flammable liquids (including those liquified by
refrigeration) could be appropriately treated in that manner.
Accordingly, EPA and API signed a proposed settlement agreement in May
1999. This settlement agreement is awaiting finalization pursuant to
section 113(g) of the CAA.
CI's primary litigation concern related to CAA sections 112(l) and
112(r)(11), as they relate to Department of Transportation (DOT)
requirements under the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law
(``Federal Hazmat Law''). EPA and CI reached an agreement on this issue
and signed a proposed settlement agreement in May 1999. This settlement
agreement is awaiting finalization pursuant to section 113(g) of the
CAA.
II. Discussion of Revisions to Sec. 68.25
40 CFR 68.25 requires each stationary source subject to the RMP
rule to analyze at least one worst-case release scenario for regulated
flammables and at least one for regulated toxic substances that are
present in a process at the stationary source above the threshold
quantity. A worst-case release means the release of the largest
quantity of a regulated substance from a vessel or process line failure
that results in the greatest distance to an endpoint defined in
Sec. 68.22(a).
In the final rule promulgated on June 20, 1996, EPA established a
framework for the worst-case scenario analysis that considers the
physical state of the substance and the way in which it is stored or
handled (see 40 CFR 68.25):
(1) For toxic gases and gases liquefied by pressure, the worst-case
release scenario assumes that the largest quantity is released in 10
minutes and the rate of release to the air is the quantity divided by
10 minutes. Upon loss of containment (e.g. a catastrophic vessel
failure), a gaseous substance will be completely released to the air
within 10 minutes. Although gases liquefied by pressure will behave
initially like a liquid, they will rapidly become gases upon
catastrophic release because of the sudden release of pressure and
because the storage temperature of the liquid is often much higher than
the boiling point of the substance. The rate of flashing and
volatilization is generally great enough to vaporize the entire
quantity within 10 minutes.
(2) For toxic liquids, the worst-case scenario assumes an
instantaneous spill; the release rate to the air is the volatilization
rate from a pool that spreads out to a 1 centimeter (cm) depth unless
passive mitigation (e.g., a diked area) contains the substance in a
smaller area. The rate of volatilization to the air depends on the
surface area of the liquid pool and it may be adjusted to account for
the smaller surface in a contained area.
(3) For toxic substances liquefied by refrigeration, the scenario
assumes an instantaneous liquid spill followed by volatilization of the
pool at the substance's boiling point but only if the spilled liquid is
contained by passive mitigation at a liquid depth greater than 1 cm. If
passive mitigation is not present or is of such large capacity that the
refrigerated liquid spill can spread out to a depth of 1 cm, then the
quantity of refrigerated liquid is assumed to completely volatilize
within 10 minutes. Gases liquefied by refrigeration need time to
vaporize and become a gas because the storage temperature of the liquid
is less than its boiling point. Therefore, the rate of release to the
air is less than the total quantity released in 10 minutes. The liquid
must be contained by passive mitigation at a depth greater than 1 cm;
otherwise, the rate of warming and volatilization is great enough to
completely vaporize the spill within 10 minutes.
For all listed flammables however, the worst case assumes that the
quantity in the largest vessel or pipeline vaporizes to form a vapor
cloud, followed by a vapor cloud explosion. No consideration was given
for liquids or substances liquefied by refrigeration, primarily because
EPA assumed that passive mitigation or containment was typically not
used under flammable storage due to fire safety reasons. The American
Petroleum Institute (API) argued that, in many cases, spilled flammable
liquids are, in fact contained, but in a way that prevents a liquid
fire from impacting storage vessels and prevents release to the
environment. Such containment serves to reduce the quantity available
for a vapor cloud explosion in the same way that liquid toxics generate
a smaller toxic vapor cloud than gases. If the flammable worst-case
scenario were revised to account for liquids in the same way as toxics,
then the flammable worst-case scenario could distinguish flammable
gases from liquids to avoid generating a technically incorrect and
overly conservative result.
EPA agrees that the worst-case assessment for flammable liquids and
flammables liquefied by refrigeration is not consistent with the
approach for toxic liquids or toxics liquefied by refrigeration. EPA is
thus taking direct final action to revise Sec. 68.25(e) so that
flammables may be treated in a manner consistent with the treatment of
toxics.
Specifically, EPA is making the following changes to Sec. 68.25 for
flammables: (1) For regulated flammable substances that are normally
gases at ambient temperature and handled as a gas or as a liquid under
pressure, the owner or operator shall assume that the quantity in the
vessel or pipe, as determined under Sec. 68.25(b), is released as a gas
over 10 minutes. The total quantity shall be assumed to be involved in
the vapor cloud explosion. (2) For regulated flammable substances that
are normally liquids at ambient temperature, the owner or operator
shall assume that the entire quantity in the vessel or pipe, as
determined under Sec. 68.25(b), is spilled instantaneously to form a
liquid pool. For liquids at temperatures below their atmospheric
boiling point, the volatilization rate shall be calculated at the
conditions specified in Sec. 68.25(d). The owner or operator shall
assume that the quantity which becomes vapor in the first 10 minutes is
reported as the quantity released. (3) For flammable gases handled as
refrigerated liquids at ambient pressure, the owner or operator may
assume that the total quantity of the substance determined in
Sec. 68.25(b) instantaneously spills followed by volatilization of the
liquid pool at the substance's boiling point and under the conditions
specified in Sec. 68.25(d), provided the spilled liquid would be
contained by passive mitigation at a liquid depth greater than 1 cm.
The quantity of substance that becomes vapor in the first 10 minutes is
involved in the vapor cloud explosion. If passive mitigation is not
present or is of such large capacity that the refrigerated liquid spill
can spread out to a depth of 1 cm, then the quantity of refrigerated
[[Page 28698]]
liquid is assumed to completely volatilize within 10 minutes and the
total quantity is involved in the vapor cloud explosion.
This modification allows stationary sources to account for
volatilization of the liquid pool if flammables are liquefied by
refrigeration; however, sources are not required to use this added
assumption. Sources can still use the quantity determined under
Sec. 68.25(b) as the quantity released. Sources that have already
submitted their RMP may choose to use this revised approach, but are
not required to do so. Sources that choose to use this revised
approach, must revise and re-submit their RMP to EPA by June 21, 1999.
EPA will not be modifying RMP*SubmitTM (the computer
database used to report the RMPs) as a result of this rule at this
time. Instead, stationary sources reporting for flammables liquefied by
refrigeration would need to calculate the total quantity of the gas
generated (taking the volatilization rate into account) from the pool
in a 10-minute period. This value would be reported as ``Quantity
released'' in section 4.4 of RMP*SubmitTM. The passive
mitigation (dikes, berms, etc.) considered would be specified at
``Other'' in section 4.10. EPA also suggests that stationary sources
utilize the Executive Summary section of RMP*SubmitTM to
explain how they calculated the quantity released for the refrigerated
flammable substances.
Section 68.25(e) will be revised by adding (i) and (ii) and adding
a new (f); existing (f), (g), and (h) will become (g), (h), and (i).
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as consistent with the original rule as promulgated and as a
noncontroversial amendment. No adverse comment is anticipated. The sole
regulatory change contemplated under the settlement agreement
represents a narrow technical amendment designed to make the treatment
of flammables consistent with that of toxics. This amendment merely
adjusts the way in which releases of these substances are modeled and
does not alter the number of sources subject to RMP or the basic
obligations under the RMP. In light of the foregoing and the need to
promulgate the revision prior to the rule's June 21, 1999 compliance
date, the Agency believes a direct final rule is the most appropriate
vehicle for implementation of the settlement agreement.
In the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register
publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to revise Sec. 68.25 for flammables if adverse comments
are filed. This rule will be effective on June 21, 1999, without
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by June 16, 1999. If
EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.
III. Clarification of CAA Sections 112(l) and 112(r)(11)
Pursuant to the settlement agreement with CI, EPA is clarifying its
interpretation of CAA sections 112(l) and 112(r)(11), as they relate to
DOT requirements under the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation
Law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127.
In our amendments to 40 CFR part 68 (63 FR 640, January 6, 1998) we
dealt with the issue of the relationship between part 68 and statutes
administered by and regulations promulgated by the Department of
Transportation (DOT), such as the Federal Hazardous Materials
Transportation Law (``Federal Hazmat Law'') and the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (``HMR''). We noted therein that: ``EPA's regulations do
not supersede or limit DOT's authorities and, therefore, are in
compliance with CAA section 310.''
The definition of stationary source finalized in that rule
generally provides that containers that are in transportation or
storage incident to transportation are not part of a stationary source
or a process at the stationary source. On the other hand, the
definition of stationary source does provide that such containers are
part of a stationary source under certain circumstances, most notably
when they are being loaded, unloaded or on site for storage not
incidental to transportation. Because a transportation container may at
times function as a storage container or a process at a stationary
source, or may function as part of operations at a stationary source,
EPA is specifically directed by statute to address these activities
(CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i)) (``The regulations shall cover storage,
as well as operations''). To the extent that DOT is also authorized
under the Federal Hazmat Law to regulate activities that are at a
stationary source, nothing in the CAA prohibits both agencies from
exercising concurrent jurisdiction over these activities. As EPA has
said in the context of the RMP Rule, compliance with Federal Hazmat Law
and HMR requirements may satisfy parallel requirements of part 68. This
approach to implementation reflects the coordination between the
agencies that is called for under CAA section 112(r)(7)(D). The
exercise of concurrent jurisdiction preserves the applicability of the
Federal Hazmat Law and HMR and does not supersede or limit DOT's
jurisdiction. CAA section 310 provides that the CAA shall not be
construed as superseding or limiting the authority or responsibilities
of any Federal agency. Thus, neither CAA section 112(r)(11) (which
provides that section 112(r) does not preempt state regulations that
are more stringent than EPA's) nor section 112(l) (which allows EPA to
delegate the accident prevention regulations to a state if the state's
program is no less stringent than EPA's) can be read to authorize a
state to regulate in a manner that would otherwise be preempted under
the Federal Hazmat Law. A state that, for purposes of obtaining
delegation under section 112(l), adopts Part 68 or a program that is
substantively the same as Part 68 will not be considered by EPA to
regulate in a manner that would otherwise be preempted under the
Federal Hazmat Law.
IV. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60
days of this notice, unless EPA withdraws this rule as described
earlier in this notice. Under section 307(b)(2) of CAA, the
requirements that are the subject of today's document may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket
is a dynamic file, because it allows members of the public and
industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that
they can effectively participate in the rulmaking process. Along with
the proposed and promulgated rules and their preambles, the contents of
the docket serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See
section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.)
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, has been established for this
[[Page 28699]]
rulemaking under Docket No. A-99-15, and is available for inspection
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The official rulemaking record is located at the address in
ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 Federal Register 51,735 (October
4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is
likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.''
It has been determined that today's action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of E.O. 12866 and is, therefore,
not subject to OMB review.
C. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, any
written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting
the need to issue the regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. This rule change does not impose any enforceable duties on
these entities. Instead, it merely provides an alternative approach for
calculating the quantity released in the worst-case scenario.
Stationary sources already subject to the rule may use this approach
for conducting worst-case release scenarios for flammable substances in
the same manner as toxic substances. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This action is not subject to the E.O. 13045 because it is not
``economically significant'' as defined in E.O. 12866, and because it
does not involve decisions based on environmental health or safety
risks.
E. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This rule change merely
provides an alternative approach for calculating the quantity released
in the worst-case scenario. Stationary sources already subject to the
rule may use this approach for conducting worst-case release scenarios
for flammable substances in the same manner as toxic substances.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule.
F. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this direct final rule and that
this rule will not have a significant negative economic impact on small
entities. This rule change does not require any stationary source to
report additional elements in the risk management plan. It merely
provides an alternative approach for stationary sources already subject
to the rule to use for conducting worst-case release scenarios for
flammable substances.
G. Paperwork Reduction
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2050-0144.
This rule does not include any new information collection
requirements for OMB review under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This revision of the rule does not impose any new
reporting, recordkeeping, or third party reporting requirements on
stationary sources, it merely provides an alternative approach for
sources to calculate the quantity released in the worst-case scenario
for flammables. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved
the information collection requirements contained in this rule under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0144.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons
[[Page 28700]]
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. EPA is
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR control
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information
requirements contained in this final rule.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Today's action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This rule change does not require
any stationary sources to report additional elements in the risk
management plan. It merely provides an alternative approach for
stationary sources already subject to the rule to use for conducting
worst-case release scenarios for flammable substances.
In addition, for the same reasons, EPA has determined that this
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et. seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action
is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will
be effective on June 21, 1999.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Chemical accident prevention.
Dated: May 17, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I,
subchapter C, part 68 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to
read as follows:
PART 68--CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 68 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r), 7601(a)(1), 7661-7661f.
Subpart B--Hazard Assessment
2. Section 68.25 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (f), (g),
and (h) as (g), (h), and (i), and by revising paragraph (e) and adding
a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.25 Worst-case release scenario analysis.
* * * * *
(e) Worst-case release scenario--flammable gases. The owner or
operator shall assume that the quantity of the substance, as determined
under paragraph (b) of this section and the provisions below, vaporizes
resulting in a vapor cloud explosion. A yield factor of 10 percent of
the available energy released in the explosion shall be used to
determine the distance to the explosion endpoint if the model used is
based on TNT equivalent methods.
(1) For regulated flammable substances that are normally gases at
ambient temperature and handled as a gas or as a liquid under pressure,
the owner or operator shall assume that the quantity in the vessel or
pipe, as determined under paragraph (b) of this section, is released as
a gas over 10 minutes. The total quantity shall be
[[Page 28701]]
assumed to be involved in the vapor cloud explosion.
(2) For flammable gases handled as refrigerated liquids at ambient
pressure:
(i) If the released substance is not contained by passive
mitigation systems or if the contained pool would have a depth of one
centimeter or less, the owner or operator shall assume that the total
quantity of the substance is released as a gas in 10 minutes, and the
total quantity will be involved in the vapor cloud explosion.
(ii) If the released substance is contained by passive mitigation
systems in a pool with a depth greater than 1 centimeter, the owner or
operator may assume that the quantity in the vessel or pipe, as
determined under paragraph (b) of this section, is spilled
instantaneously to form a liquid pool. The volatilization rate (release
rate) shall be calculated at the boiling point of the substance and at
the conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this section. The owner or
operator shall assume that the quantity which becomes vapor in the
first 10 minutes is involved in the vapor cloud explosion.
(f) Worst-case release scenario--flammable liquids. The owner or
operator shall assume that the quantity of the substance, as determined
under paragraph (b) of this section and the provisions below, vaporizes
resulting in a vapor cloud explosion. A yield factor of 10 percent of
the available energy released in the explosion shall be used to
determine the distance to the explosion endpoint if the model used is
based on TNT equivalent methods.
(1) For regulated flammable substances that are normally liquids at
ambient temperature, the owner or operator shall assume that the entire
quantity in the vessel or pipe, as determined under paragraph (b) of
this section, is spilled instantaneously to form a liquid pool. For
liquids at temperatures below their atmospheric boiling point, the
volatilization rate shall be calculated at the conditions specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) The owner or operator shall assume that the quantity which
becomes vapor in the first 10 minutes is involved in the vapor cloud
explosion.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-12936 Filed 5-24-99; 10:57 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P