[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28702-28704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12937]
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 28702]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 68
[FRL-6348-1]
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: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is planning to amend the Chemical Accident Prevention
Provisions, codified in 40 CFR part 68. The revisions concern the
worst-case release scenario analysis for regulated flammable
substances, 40 CFR 68.25. These revisions would allow the regulated
community to treat regulated flammable substances in the same manner as
regulated toxic substances for determining the quantity released when
conducting a worst-case release scenario.
Elsewhere in the Final Rule section of today's Federal Register,
EPA is issuing these revisions as a direct final rule. EPA views this
as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. A
detailed rationale for this revision is in the preamble to the direct
final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to
this proposed rule, no further action is needed on this notice. If EPA
receives relevant adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final
rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. This action
implements a settlement agreement between EPA and the American
Petroleum Institute.
As a result of a settlement agreement with the Chlorine Institute,
EPA is clarifying its interpretation of Clean Air Act sections 112(l)
and 112(r)(11), as they relate to Department of Transportation
requirements under the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law.
DATES: Comments. Comments on the regulations proposed by this action
must be received by June 16, 1999, unless a hearing is requested by
June 1, 1999. If a hearing is requested, written comments must be
received by July 1, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments. All written comments must be identified with the
appropriate docket number (Docket No. A-99-15) and must be submitted to
EPA Air Docket, Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C., 20460, telephone 202-260-7548.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should notify the
person(s) listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. Docket No. A-99-15, containing supporting information used
to develop the proposal, is available for public inspection and copying
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays at EPA's Air Docket at the above address.
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: In this document, EPA is proposing
amendments to the regulations in 40 CFR part 68 for the accident
prevention provisions under Clean Air Act section 112 (r),
specifically, Sec. 68.25(e), worst-case scenario analysis for
flammables. The rule revisions are presented and discussed in detail in
a direct final rule published in the Final Rules section of this
Federal Register.
The chemical accident prevention provisions, also known as the risk
management program regulations (``RMP rule'') were promulgated on June
20, 1996 (61 FR 31668). Stationary sources subject to the RMP rule are
required to submit a risk management plan on their hazard assessment
including off-site consequences, accident history, the prevention
program and the emergency response program, to EPA by June 21, 1999.
Among other requirements, the RMP rule requires covered stationary
sources 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.
In the final 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. In litigation filed by the
American Petroleum Institute (API), API suggested that flammable
liquids and those liquified by refrigeration should be treated, for
modeling purposes, in the same manner as for toxic liquids or those
liquified 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. EPA is
thus proposing these changes to Sec. 68.25.
The proposed revisions would allow stationary sources to model
releases of flammable substances in the same manner as toxics. EPA is
seeking comment on these proposed revisions. EPA considers these
revisions to be noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments.
If EPA timely receives significant, adverse comments, EPA will publish
a document in the Federal Register withdrawing the direct final rule.
In that event, all public comments received will be treated as comments
on this proposed rule and will be addressed in a subsequent final
rulemaking document. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this document. Any parties interested in commenting on these revisions
should do so at this time.
I. 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 rulemaking 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 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.
[[Page 28703]]
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 proposed 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. Therefore, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
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 to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
[[Page 28704]]
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Chemical accident prevention.
Dated: May 17, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-12937 Filed 5-24-99; 10:57 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P