[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45124-45132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19281]



[[Page 45123]]

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

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 68



Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Program 
Requirements Under Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7); Amendments to the 
Submission Schedule and Data Requirements; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 45124]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[OAR-2003-0044; FRL-7536-9]
RIN 2050-AF09


Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management 
Program Requirements Under Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7); Amendments 
to the Submission Schedule and Data Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 20, 1996, EPA published risk management planning 
regulations mandated under the accidental release prevention provisions 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These regulations require owners and 
operators of stationary sources to submit risk management plans (RMPs) 
to be made available to federal, state and local emergency planning and 
response agencies and to the public though a central location. The 
first submissions were received in early 1999. EPA is now proposing to 
modify the re-submission schedule under the risk management program for 
sources who have significant accidents and for those who change the 
information for the emergency contacts. EPA is also proposing to add 
three data elements to the RMP, make several revisions to the 
submission format for the RMP, and remove the regulatory requirement to 
discuss the off-site consequence analysis in the executive summary of 
the RMP. EPA intends to issue a final rule addressing all of these 
proposed changes in time for the majority of facilities to complete 
their 5-year anniversary re-submissions by June 21, 2004. The 
modifications proposed today seek to improve the accident prevention 
and reporting programs of regulated sources, and to assist federal, 
state, and local RMP implementation in light of new homeland security 
concerns.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 15, 2003. If 
requested within 7 days from publication date, EPA will hold a public 
hearing on August 15, 2003 to discuss the modifications in this 
proposed rule. Consult the sources of information in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT for the time and location of the hearing, if such 
hearing is requested.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0044. Submit 
comments by postal mail to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
West (Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room B108, Mail Code 
6102T, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0044. 
Follow the detailed instructions, and find more options, provided in 
section I.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline at (800) 424-
9346; in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, contact (703) 412-9810. 
The Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is 
(800) 535-7672. You may also access general information online at the 
Hotline Internet site, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/. For 
questions on the contents of this notice contact Vanessa Rodriguez, 
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, Mail Code 5104A, 
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, (202) 
564-7913, Fax (202) 564-8233, [email protected]. You may also 
wish to visit the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office 
(CEPPO) Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/ceppo.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. What Are the Affected or Regulated Entities?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those stationary 
sources that are subject to the chemical accident prevention 
requirements at 40 CFR part 68. Affected categories and entities 
include:

                 Category Examples of Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturers............  Basic chemical manufacturing,
                                     petrochemicals, resins,
                                     agricultural chemicals,
                                     pharmaceuticals, paints, cleaning
                                     compounds.
Petroleum.........................  Refineries.
Other Manufacturing...............  Paper, electronics, semiconductors,
                                     fabricated metals, industrial
                                     machinery, food processors.
Agriculture.......................  Agricultural retailers.
Public Sources....................  Drinking water and waste water
                                     treatment systems.
Utilities.........................  Electric utilities.
Other.............................  Cold storage, warehousing, and
                                     wholesalers.
Federal Sources...................  Military and energy installations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether a 
stationary source is affected by this action, carefully examine the 
provisions associated with the list of substances and thresholds under 
40 CFR 68.130 and the applicability criteria under Sec.  68.10. If you 
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0044. The official public docket 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not 
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket 
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at 
the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
Docket is (202) 566-1742.

[[Page 45125]]

    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in 
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility identified in section I.B.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket 
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject 
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to 
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, 
please follow the instructions in section I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets 
(EPA's electronic public docket and comment system) or e-mail to submit 
CBI or information protected by statute.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body 
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside 
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying 
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA 
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information 
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made 
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To 
access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, 
select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once 
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-
2003-0044. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0044. In 
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not 
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly 
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, 
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in section I.C.2. These 
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. When mailing comments through the U.S. Postal Service, 
send 2 copies of your comments to: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room: B108, 
Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-
2003-0044.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. When mailing comments through 
Federal Express, UPS, or other courier services, deliver 2 copies of 
your comments to: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room: B108, Mail Code 
6102T, Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0044. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation as identified in Unit I.B.
    4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: 202-566-1741, Attention 
Docket ID. No. OAR-2003-0044.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. 
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the

[[Page 45126]]

following address: Dorothy Mcmanus, Mail Code 5104A, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2003-0044. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI 
by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit 
CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
    The information in this proposed rule is organized as follows:

I. Introduction
    A. Statutory Authority
    B. Background
II. Discussion of Proposed Changes
    A. Changes to Reporting Schedule
    1. Five-Year Accident History
    2. Emergency Contact Information
    B. Changes to Executive Summary
    C. New Data Elements
    1. Emergency Contacts E-mail Address
    2. Reason for Subsequent RMP Submissions
    3. Contractor Information
    D. Revisions to RMP Submit Format
Uncontrolled/Runaway Reactions
III. Other Issues
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

    This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is being issued under 
section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) as amended (42 U.S.C. 
7412, 7601).

B. Background

    The 1990 CAA Amendments added, among other things, section 112(r) 
to provide for the prevention and mitigation of accidental releases of 
extremely hazardous substances. Section 112(r) calls for EPA to list 
the most dangerous substances and a threshold quantity for each 
substance. It also directs EPA to issue regulations requiring any 
stationary source with more than a threshold quantity of a listed 
substance to develop and implement a risk management program. EPA 
published a final rule creating the list of regulated substances and 
establishing thresholds on January 31, 1994 (59 FR 4478) (the ``List 
Rule''), and a final rule establishing the accidental release 
prevention regulations on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668) (the risk 
management program regulations or ``RMP Rule''). Together, these two 
rules are codified as part 68 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (40 CFR part 68).
    Sources subject to the RMP rule are required to develop and 
implement a risk management program that includes, for covered 
processes, a five-year accident history, an offsite consequence 
analysis, a prevention program, and an emergency response program. 
Sources must also submit to EPA a risk management plan (RMP) describing 
the source's risk management program. The deadline for submitting RMPs 
was June 21, 1999, for sources subject to the program by that date. 
Approximately 15,000 sources have submitted RMPs.
    The RMP rule requires sources to update and re-submit their RMPs at 
least every five years or sooner if any of the changes specified in 
section 68.190(b)(2) of the rule occur. The specified changes currently 
include the following conditions: (1) No later than three years after 
the date on which a regulated substance is first listed under Sec.  
68.130, (2) no later than the date on which a new regulated substance 
is first present in an already covered process above a threshold 
quantity, (3) no later than the date on which a regulated substance is 
first present above a threshold quantity in a new process, (4) within 6 
months of a change that requires a revised PHA or hazard review, (5) 
within 6 months of a change that requires a revised off-site 
consequence analysis as provided in Sec.  68.36, and (6) within six 
months of a change that alters the Program level that applied to any 
covered process. Updates and re-submissions entail the review and 
revision of all sections of the RMP as needed to bring the RMP up to 
date. They must be accompanied by a new certification letter for the 
entire RMP. If a source re-submits its RMP for any of the 
aforementioned reasons, the five-year anniversary date for resubmitting 
the RMP is reset.
    Sources may wish to revise their RMPs for other reasons, as well. 
The Agency distinguishes among the re-submissions discussed above and 
other various types of revisions, namely corrections, de-registrations 
(revised registrations) and withdrawals. A correction is a change only 
to individual data elements that a source wishes to change or correct, 
and requires a new certification letter covering that change. 
Corrections may be required if the implementing agency or the reporting 
center discovers the submission was incomplete based on a validation/
error report. The source may initiate a correction if it discovers an 
error, needs to make minor administrative changes (e.g., correction of 
a phone number or contact name), or changes owners but covered process 
operations do not change. Corrections do not entail the review and 
revision of all nine sections of the RMP, nor do they affect the five-
year anniversary date for updating and resubmitting the RMP.
    De-registrations (or revised registrations as these are referred to 
in

[[Page 45127]]

section 68.190(c)) occur when the source is no longer covered by the 
program (e.g., the source no longer uses any regulated substances or no 
longer holds regulated substances in amounts that exceed the threshold 
quantities). The source submits a letter requesting de-registration, 
with the RMP being retained in the reporting system database for 15 
years.
    A withdrawal occurs when a source that was never subject to the 
program submits an RMP in error. Such a source submits a letter 
requesting a withdrawal, and its RMP is taken out of the reporting 
system database altogether.
    Sources subject to the rule on June 21, 1999, were required to 
submit an RMP by that date. For those sources that submitted an RMP on 
June 21, 1999, their five-year anniversary date will be June 21, 2004. 
Other sources that submitted an RMP before the original deadline, have 
re-submitted an RMP since, or have become subject to the RMP rule since 
June 21, 1999, will have different anniversary dates.

II. Discussion of Proposed Changes

A. Changes to RMP Submission Requirements

1. Five-Year Accident History
    EPA proposes that facilities who have an accident that meets the 
criteria for the five-year accident history be required to update and 
re-submit their RMP within six months of the date of the accident.
    The five-year accident history element for the RMP (40 CFR 68.42) 
requires the owner or operator of a stationary source to record 
information in their RMP on all accidental releases from covered 
processes in the past five years that resulted in deaths, injuries, or 
significant property damage on site, or known offsite deaths, injuries, 
evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental 
damage. This requirement includes the release of any chemical from a 
covered process, not just the release of a regulated substance from 
that covered process. During the first year of RMP submissions, 
approximately 1,150 sources reported in their five-year history that 
their facility had an accidental release that met the criteria for 
including information on these releases in their RMP.
    The regulations require that each time a source re-submits its RMP, 
the five-year accident history is updated. Information on accidental 
releases in the previous RMP submission that are now outside the five-
year time frame is removed while information on recent accidental 
releases is added. However, unless a source re-submits its RMP sooner 
than the five-year anniversary date, information on more recent 
accidental releases will not be submitted in an RMP for potentially 5 
years. The five-year accident history is valuable information for 
chemical accident prevention and preparedness efforts by not only 
industry but by many stakeholders, including emergency responders. 
Consequently, EPA is proposing to require that sources update and re-
submit their RMP within six months of an accidental release that meets 
the five-year accident history reporting criteria.
    EPA believes this proposed requirement would help spur significant 
improvements in the accident prevention and reporting programs of 
sources at which reportable releases occur. Accidents can be caused by 
failures in a source's accident prevention program. This new re-
submission trigger would require the source to review its accident 
prevention program in light of the accident, and to update its RMP with 
any changes to the program. While all physical or procedural 
improvements may not be finished and completely implemented within the 
6-month accident reporting deadline, the Agency believes that review of 
the process hazard analysis and other elements of the program can be 
completed within six months. The Agency also believes that sources 
would benefit greatly from the prompt scrutiny of the accident, 
allowing the findings of an accident investigation to better influence 
any safety recommendations.
    EPA also believes the proposed requirement would have the 
additional benefit of improving reporting of accidental releases. By 
providing the details of the accident soon after the accident takes 
place, the source would be likely to provide more complete and accurate 
information in its accident reporting. Current requirements allow 
sources to compile an accident report for the RMP up to 5 years after 
the accident occurs.
    The proposed submission requirement would also allow EPA and 
interested stakeholders to determine on an annual basis if the rate of 
accidents is increasing or decreasing, rather than waiting five years 
to see such data. It would also enable all involved in chemical 
accident prevention to identify trends in accident causes, examine if 
there are problem areas or a need for assistance in specific industry 
sectors, and identify effective prevention measures that could be 
shared so that other sources may avoid similar accidents.
    This change would modify the schedule for updating and re-
submitting an RMP, but it should not significantly change the 
associated burden. If a source had a reportable accident, it would need 
to update and re-submit an RMP within 6 months. However, the source 
would not need to resubmit again, provided there are no other accidents 
or major changes, for another 5 years.
    An alternative that was also considered would require sources with 
new accidents that meet the criteria for reporting in the 5-year 
accident history to update their RMP on a fixed date every year. This 
option would have the Agency receiving RMPs at the same time from all 
of the sources who have had accidents that meet the criteria during the 
previous 12 months. This option would provide EPA with an annual report 
of all of the significant accidents that have occurred at reporting 
sources, and the changes that were made due to these accidents. EPA is 
not proposing this option at this time, because the Agency prefers to 
give the same amount of time for reporting (six months) to all sources. 
For example, if the fixed date for annual accident reporting was 
established as June 21, a source having an accident on June 15 would 
have no time to significantly investigate the accident and provide a 
meaningful report. Nonetheless, EPA is requesting comment on this 
option and whether it is preferable to requiring the re-submissions 
within six months of a significant accident.
2. Emergency Contact Information
    EPA proposes to require that facilities correct their emergency 
contact information within one month of a change in the information.
    The RMP has become a primary source of information for the federal 
government's efforts in the homeland security area. The emergency 
contact information is important not only to state and local 
responders, but also for the federal government. Under current 
requirements, if the information for the emergency contact becomes 
outdated (e.g., change of emergency contact's phone number, emergency 
contact leaves the position, etc.), the source may take up to five 
years to report these changes. Implementing agencies that have audited 
RMPs report that much of the information for emergency contacts is 
outdated or otherwise inaccurate. For these reasons, EPA is proposing 
to require that facilities correct their emergency contact information 
within one month of a change in the information. Explained in the 
following section in detail is also a proposal for an

[[Page 45128]]

additional email address data element; this would also trigger the 
requirement to correct emergency information within one month of a 
change. These changes to emergency contact information would be 
considered corrections and would not require a complete updating and 
re-submission of the RMP. EPA requests comment on this proposal.

B. Changes to Executive Summary

    EPA proposes to remove the requirement for sources to briefly 
describe the off-site consequence analysis (i.e, worst-case accidental 
release scenario(s) and the alternative accidental release scenario(s) 
within the executive summary of the RMP.
    Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act requires sources subject to 
the risk management program requirements to conduct an off-site 
consequence analysis (OCA) for one or more hypothetical accidental 
worst case and alternative release scenarios and report the results of 
the analysis in the RMP. In 1999, Congress passed the Chemical Safety 
Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (CSISSFRRA), 
governing the distribution of ``off-site consequence [OCA] 
information.'' The statute defines ``OCA information'' as the OCA 
sections of the RMP (sections 2 through 5) and any EPA database derived 
from those sections, but expressly excludes the executive summary 
section of the RMP. Under CSISSFRRA, EPA and the Department of Justice 
jointly issued regulations restricting access to OCA information and 
certain related information. This regulation (40 CFR part 1400) was 
published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2000 (65 FR 48108).
    Promulgated prior to the passage of CSISSFRRA, Sec.  68.155(c) of 
the RMP rule currently requires sources to briefly describe in their 
RMP executive summary ``the worst-case release scenario(s) and the 
alternative release scenario(s), including administrative controls and 
mitigation measures to limit the distances for each reported 
scenario.'' EPA, along with federal law enforcement agencies, believes 
that due to its sensitive nature, this information should not be 
included in executive summaries, which are available to the public 
without restriction under 40 CFR part 1400. For this reason, EPA is 
proposing to remove the requirement to summarize OCA results, and 
requests that sources not voluntarily provide this specific 
information, in the executive summary. Facilities must continue to 
provide details of the OCA in sections 2 through 5 of the RMP. The 
public would continue to have restricted access to OCA information in 
the manner required by the regulations at 40 CFR part 1400. EPA 
requests comment on this proposed change.

C. New Data Elements

1. Emergency Contacts E-Mail Address
    EPA proposes to add a mandatory data element to the RMP for sources 
to provide the e-mail address (if any) for the emergency contact.
    Section 68.160(b)(6) of the RMP rule currently requires facilities 
to provide the name, title, telephone number, and a 24-hour telephone 
number of an emergency contact person. Similarly, Sec.  68.160(b)(14) 
allows facilities to optionally provide an e-mail address for the 
source or parent company. From time to time, EPA is made aware of 
specific hazards. For example, in the Hazardous Materials Accident 
Report: Hazardous Materials Release From Railroad Tank Car With 
Subsequent Fire at Riverview, Michigan, July 14, 2001, the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) included the following 
recommendation:

    ``[EPA should] notify all facilities that are required to submit 
risk management plans to the Environmental Protection Agency that 
tank car excess flow valves cannot be relied upon to stop leaks that 
occur during tank car loading and unloading operations and that 
those companies that have included reliance on such valves in their 
risk management plans should instead identify and implement other 
measures that will stop the uncontrolled release of product in the 
event of a transfer line failure during tank car loading or 
unloading.'' (NTSB, R-02-17)

    Having an e-mail address for the emergency contact would allow the 
Agency to quickly and directly communicate hazard information such as 
that provided above by the NTSB. Providing such notifications in a 
timely manner to all sources subject to RMP requirements would improve 
sources access to critical process safety information.
    Additionally, RMPs have become a critical source of information for 
the federal government's homeland security efforts. In our new 
environment of heightened security, it may become necessary for an RMP 
implementing agency to communicate directly and on short notice with 
sources subject to the RMP program, or with a portion of that universe. 
The e-mail address for a source's emergency contact would be a 
necessary piece of information for this to occur.
    As noted above, EPA is also proposing that any change to the email 
address for a source's emergency contact be followed by a corresponding 
change to the source's RMP within a month of the address change. This 
requirement would trigger a correction; a re-submission would not be 
required for this particular change. The Agency requests comments on 
this proposal and also on the extent to which sources may not have an 
e-mail address. Some sources, such as small agricultural retailers or 
fertilizer warehouses, may not have e-mail capability.
2. Reason for Subsequent RMP Submissions
    EPA is proposing to add a mandatory data element to the RMP for 
sources to identify the purpose of submissions that revise or otherwise 
affect their previously filed RMPs.
    As noted above, sources are required to submit, update and resubmit 
their RMP by the schedule specified in section 68.190 of the RMP rule. 
Since the initial June 1999 reporting deadline, EPA has received 
thousands of submissions containing corrections, re-submissions, de-
registrations (revised registrations) or withdrawals of previously 
submitted RMPs. However, at this time the RMP electronic submission 
program does not have an entry that provides the reason for the 
submission, making it difficult at times for RMP implementing agencies 
to determine their purpose.
    This proposal would add a new data element in the RMP for sources 
to indicate what they are submitting and why. For example, a source 
that modifies its RMP to correct minor technical errors, make minor 
administrative changes (i.e., updates to contact names, addresses, 
telephone numbers, e-mail addresses), fill in missing data elements, or 
reflect facility ownership changes, would indicate that it was making 
such a correction. Similarly, a source that revised the RMP for its 
update and re-submission as required every five years or when certain 
changes are made, such as introducing a regulated substance in a 
process, would indicate that it was sending an RMP re-submission and 
why. A source that was previously required to submit an RMP, but due to 
changes in operations was no longer required to report, would indicate 
why it was submitting a de-registration (revised registration) of the 
chemical or process. Sources that had originally submitted an RMP in 
error (i.e. they were never subject to RMP regulation) would indicate 
why they were withdrawing their RMP from the national database. To help 
sources provide this information, we would anticipate adding to the RMP 
electronic submission program a pop-up menu of typical reasons for 
submissions. Sources

[[Page 45129]]

would simply click on the appropriate menu item or, if none is 
appropriate, briefly state the reason for the change.
    This additional reporting element is intended to assist the Agency 
and other implementing agencies in understanding the reason a source is 
submitting a revised RMP or asking to remove an existing one. This 
information would also provide a check on the RMP submission to ensure 
that information is provided accurately. Further, this proposed 
reporting requirement would provide important information on changes 
occurring in industry, providing insight into chemical usage and 
process safety management. For example, monitoring the number of 
sources de-registering their RMPs because they have substituted the 
regulated substance for a non-regulated substance, or decreasing the 
quantity of a regulated substance in a process, would provide some 
indication of the extent to which inherently safer or alternative 
technologies are being utilized by the sources subject to the RMP. This 
information would be of interest to sources that could learn from 
identified trends and industry practices in the area of chemical 
process safety management. The Agency is requesting comments on this 
proposal.
    The Agency also recognizes that the terminology used to identify 
the various types of submissions may cause some confusion, and is 
requesting comments that may help clarify those terms. Specifically, 
the Agency is considering changing the term revised registrations to 
de-registrations, which more clearly conveys the action being taken and 
is the term used in the implementation materials for the RMP.
3. Contractor Information
    EPA is proposing to add a mandatory data element in the RMP for 
sources that use a contractor to help prepare their RMPs to so 
indicate.
    Through RMP audits, implementing agencies have learned that many 
RMPs have been prepared in large part by contractors. Use of 
contractors for this purpose is allowed under the RMP rule. However, 
some implementing agencies have noted potential systemic errors in the 
way some contractors prepare RMPs. Concern has also been raised that, 
in some cases, sources whose RMPs are largely prepared by contractors 
are not sufficiently familiar with the contents of their RMPs. EPA is 
proposing to require an additional data element in the RMP for sources 
who use a contractor to help develop and fill out the RMP. Those 
sources would be required to provide the name of the contractor who 
helped prepare the RMP and a phone number to contact the contractor.
    This new data would allow the implementing agencies to monitor the 
use of contractors for RMP preparation and provide appropriate follow-
up. For example, RMP auditors could use the information to more easily 
identify systemic errors linked to a particular contractor, and could 
then share this information with the source submitting the RMP, thus 
improving the overall quality of the sources' safety management 
programs. Ultimate responsibility for RMP implementation would continue 
to reside on the stationary source's owner or operator. EPA requests 
comments on this new requirement.

D. Revisions to RMP Submit Format

Uncontrolled/Runaway Reactions
    EPA is proposing to expand the list of possible causes of 
accidental releases to the reporting of sources' five-year accident 
history so an owner or operator can indicate whether an accident 
involved an uncontrolled/runaway reaction.
    In its report, Improving Reactive Hazard Management (December 
2002), the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) 
recommended that EPA ``[m]odify the accident reporting requirements in 
RMP*Info to define and record reactive incidents. Consider adding the 
term `reactive incident' to the four existing `release events' in EPA's 
current 5-year accident reporting requirements (Gas Release, Liquid 
Spill/Evaporation, Fire, and Explosion). Structure this information 
collection to allow EPA and its stakeholders to identify and focus 
resources on industry sectors that experienced the incidents; chemicals 
and processes involved; and impact on the public, the workforce, and 
the environment'' (CSB recommendation 2001-01-H-R4).
    Based on this recommendation, EPA is proposing to revise RMP 
reporting of the five-year accident history (40 CFR 68.42) to allow the 
owner or operator to indicate whether the accident involved an 
uncontrolled/runaway reaction.
    The new element would provide sources with an additional choice to 
more accurately report accidents that involved uncontrolled or runaway 
reactions. This information is important when measuring whether the 
accidents involved simple releases of the chemical (e.g., broken valve, 
broken pipe) or were the result of a process upset. This new 
information would provide a better understanding of the types of 
accidents occurring at regulated sources.

III. Other Issues

Collection of OSHA Occupational Injury and Illness Data in Conjunction 
With the RMP Filing Required Under 112(r) of the CAA

    EPA and others use the information reported in the RMP accident 
history in combination with other data to better understand accident 
risks and to gauge the trends with respect to risk and accident 
prevention across various industry sectors. Health and safety 
indicators could also provide information to industry, government, and 
other researchers in understanding the factors that affect chemical 
accident prevention. Under 29 CFR part 1904, the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers to maintain logs of 
employee reportable injury and illness statistics (OII) for every 
calendar year. Employers need to have these records available for 
compliance officers to review upon inspections, and the records for 
each year must be kept for 5 years.
    Three of these records are of special interest to EPA: (1) Total 
Incidence Rate, (2) Workdays Lost to Injuries, and (3) Illness and 
Workdays under Restricted Duties. EPA is considering whether future RMP 
submissions should be required to include data for these three records, 
aggregated for five most recent calendar years. With renewed emphasis 
on quantifying the risks and benefits related to chemical accidents, 
and on the trends in key sectors covered by existing regulations, these 
data, if collected, would allow an objective analysis of any 
statistical relationship between levels of reported injuries and 
illnesses, accidental releases and a variety of other elements driving 
chemical industry preparedness and prevention activities. The ability 
to link to injury and illness data and the indicators they provide on 
health and safety at chemical facilities could provide extremely 
valuable information both to EPA and to industry for understanding the 
factors that underlie chemical process safety. Given that RMPs are 
submitted by a large number of chemical facilities, providing OSHA OII 
data in RMPs would greatly facilitate analysis of trends in the U.S. 
chemical industry on accidental releases and the relationship of these, 
if any, to facility safety levels.
    RMP submitters could provide the aggregate statistics requested 
with only minimal additional effort in filling out the RMP. For the 
government to obtain this data by other means would require significant 
effort. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) only collects this data 
from a representative sample of

[[Page 45130]]

companies/facilities and not from the entire set of facilities covered 
under RMP; linking BLS data to the RMP records outside of the RMP data 
collection would require a significant expenditure of time and 
resources even though it would lack a complete data set. EPA would 
expect little additional burden on industry for the collection of this 
information since OSHA already requires that it be maintained. EPA is 
requesting comments on the practicability and burden of adding these 
data elements to RMP reporting requirements, and on the potential value 
they may yield. EPA is also requesting comments with respect to other 
data elements that may serve this purpose.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (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 this proposal is not considered to be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1656.10.
    EPA is proposing to add three data elements to the Risk Management 
Plan (RMP), to modify one data element, and to remove the obligation to 
discuss the off-site consequence analysis in the executive summary of 
the RMP. EPA is also proposing to modify the submission schedule under 
the risk management program for sources who have significant accidents, 
and for those who change the information for the emergency contacts. 
This action may increase some burden on facilities that currently 
submit risk management plans to EPA.
    The most recently recorded number of sources subject to this 
proposed action, if adopted, is 14,930. The public reporting burden 
estimated for familiarizing with this rule amendment is 2.0 hours for 
each source. Estimated unit burden for the new RMP data elements is 
0.25 hours. The burden for change in submission schedule for RMP due to 
significant accidents ranges from 3.0 hours for wholesale to 9.0 hours 
for large chemical manufacturers. The burden for change in submission 
schedule for RMP due to change in emergency contact information is 0.1 
hour for each source.
    The total annual burden for rule familiarization, addition of new 
elements to the RMP, and for the change in RMP submission schedule is 
33,943 hours (101,829 hours for 3 years), with an annual cost of 
$992,400 ($2,977,200 for 3 years).
    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, 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.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under 
Docket ID number OAR-2003-0052. The public docket is available for 
viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
Docket is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is 
available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 
Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing 
of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in 
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the 
system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number OAR-2003-
0052. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 
NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after July 31, 2003, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by September 2, 2003. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et. seq, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is 
defined by the Small Business Administration by category of business 
using North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and 
codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that 
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-

[[Page 45131]]

profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, we have concluded that this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. 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 proposed rule would 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. The nationwide capital cost for these 
rule amendments is estimated to be zero and the annual nationwide costs 
for these amendments are estimated to be less than $1 million. Thus, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the Unfunded Mandates Act. EPA has determined that this proposed 
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. The new data elements and submission 
requirements would impose only minimal burden on these entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that 
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule focuses on 
requirements for regulated facilities without affecting the 
relationships between governments in its implementation. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although section 6 
of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult 
with State and local officials and implementing agencies in developing 
this rule. EPA held a RMP Implementing Agency meeting in Atlanta, 
October 21 and 22, 2002. State and local implementing agencies in 
attendance included representatives from Alabama, California, Colorado, 
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South 
Carolina. Participants were invited to provide feedback regarding the 
program and related software, as well as suggestions for improvements.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The 
proposed rule focuses on requirements for all regulated sources without 
affecting the relationships between tribal governments in its 
implementation, and applies to all regulated sources, without 
distinction of the surrounding populations affected. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits 
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

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

    The Executive Order 13045, entitled ``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 under Executive Order 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. EPA 
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject to Executive 
Order 13045 because it does not involve regulatory decisions that are 
based on

[[Page 45132]]

public health or safety risks, nor would it establish environmental 
standards intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, 
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 112(r) of the Clean Air Act.

    Dated: July 23, 2003.
Marianne L. Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
68 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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.

    2. Section 68.155 is amended by removing paragraph (c) and 
redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) as paragraphs (c) through (f).
    3. Section 68.160 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6), 
redesignating paragraphs b(14) through b(18) as paragraphs b(15) 
through b(19), and adding a new paragraph b(14) as follows:


Sec.  68.160  Registration.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) The name, title, telephone number, 24-hour telephone number, 
and the e-mail address (if an e-mail address exists) of the emergency 
contact;
* * * * *
    (14) The name, the mailing address, and the telephone number of any 
contractor who helped prepare the RMP;
* * * * *
    5. Section 68.190 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(6) and 
(b)(7), by adding a new paragraph (b)(8), by redesignating paragraph 
(c) as paragraph (d), and by adding new paragraphs (c) and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  68.190  Updates.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Within 6 months of a change that requires a revised offsite 
consequence analysis as provided in Sec.  68.36;
    (7) Within 6 months of a change that alters the Program level that 
applied to any covered process; and
    (8) Within 6 months of the date of an accidental release of any 
chemical from a covered process, where the accidental release meets the 
criteria for reporting in the 5-year accident history as provided in 
Sec.  68.42(a).
    (c) The owner or operator of a stationary source shall submit a 
correction to the RMP for any change in the emergency contact 
information required by Sec.  68.160 (b)(6) within one month of the 
change.
* * * * *
    (e) Following submission of an initial RMP, an owner or operator 
submitting any subsequent version or revision of the RMP shall identify 
the type of submission being made and the reason for it. The types of 
submission include:
    (1) Corrections (e.g., changes to fix minor technical errors, 
update administrative information, provide missing data elements or 
reflect facility ownership changes) which do not require an update and 
revision of the RMP under this section;
    (2) Re-submissions under paragraph (b) of this section;
    (3) De-registrations (revised registrations) under paragraph (c) of 
this section; and
    (4) Withdrawals of an RMP for any facility that was erroneously 
considered subject to part 68.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-19281 Filed 7-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P