[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 69 (Friday, April 9, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18819-18832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7777]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[OAR-2003-0044; FRL-7643-6]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making several 
changes to the reporting requirements of its chemical accident 
prevention regulations under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act. 
Today's final rule requires that, beginning June 21, 2004, chemical 
facilities subject to the accident prevention regulations submit 
information on any significant chemical accidents and any changes to 
emergency contact information on a more timely basis than previously 
required. The rule also immediately removes the regulatory requirement 
for covered facilities to include in the executive summaries of their 
risk management plans (RMPs) a brief description of the off-site 
consequence analysis (OCA) for their facilities. In addition, the final 
rule also requires that, beginning June 21, 2004, covered facilities 
include three new pieces of information in their RMPs: the e-mail 
address for the facility emergency contact, the name, address and 
telephone number of the contractor who prepared the RMP, and the 
purpose of any RMP submission that changes or otherwise affects an 
earlier RMP submission. The rule also clarifies that the deadline for 
updating RMPs that were submitted before or on June 21, 1999, is June 
21, 2004, except for those facilities required to update their RMPs as 
a result of changes at the facility. Finally, EPA is making several 
related and other revisions to the format for submitting RMPs 
(RMP*Submit), including expanding the list of options for possible 
accident causes to include uncontrolled chemical reactions. The 
modifications promulgated today seek to improve the accident prevention 
and reporting programs of covered facilities, and to assist federal, 
state, and local RMP implementation in light of new homeland security 
concerns.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 9, 2004.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section I.B for docket 
addresses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline at (800) 424-
9346; in the Washington, D.C. 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 document 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 facilities 
(referred to as ``stationary sources'' under the CAA) 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

[[Page 18820]]

Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    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.
    The information in this final rule is organized as follows:

I. Introduction
    A. Statutory Authority
    B. Background
II. Discussion of the Final Rule and Public Comments
    A. Changes to the RMP Reporting Schedule
    1. Five-Year Accident History
    2. Emergency Contact Information
    B. Changes to Executive Summary
    C. New Data Elements
    1. Emergency Contact's E-mail address
    2. Purpose of Subsequent RMP Submissions
    3. Contractor Information
    D. Revisions to RMP*Submit Format
    Uncontrolled/Runaway Reactions
III. Other Issues
    Collection of OSHA Occupational Injury and Illness Data in 
Conjunction with the RMP Filing Required under 112(r) of the CAA.
IV. Effective Date, Update Clarification and Compliance Schedule
V. Technical Corrections
VI. Summary of the Final Rule
VII. Judicial Review
VIII. 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 & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

    This final rule is being issued under section 112(r) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act) (42 U.S.C. 7412).

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 and to 
submit a RMP describing its 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 risk management program and plan requirements on June 
20, 1996 (61 FR 31668) (the ``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 RMP describing the source's risk 
management program. The deadline for submitting RMPs was June 21, 1999, 
for sources subject to the rule by that date. Sources must also update 
their RMPs at least every five years. Approximately 15,000 sources have 
submitted RMPs, and a significant number of those sources have their 
five-year anniversary date coming up in June, 2004.
    Specifically, 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 Sec.  68.190(b)(2) of the rule occur. Updates and re-
submissions entail the review and revision of all sections of the RMP 
as needed to bring the RMP up to date and must be accompanied by a 
letter certifying that the entire RMP is true, accurate and complete. 
The five-year anniversary date for resubmitting the RMP is reset with 
any update and re-submission.
    Sources may revise their RMPs for reasons other than those that 
trigger an update and re-submission. The Agency distinguishes between 
updates and re-submissions and other types of revisions, namely 
corrections, de-registrations (revised registrations) and withdrawals. 
A correction changes only individual data entries in the RMP (known as 
``RMP data elements''). Corrections may include clerical errors, minor 
administrative changes, or changes of ownership when 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. 
Corrections have entailed submission of the corrected RMP on a diskette 
(or in hard copy) accompanied by a letter certifying the change. EPA is 
currently working on an alternative, Internet-based, secure system that 
would allow corrections of administrative data elements within the RMP 
registration to be made more easily.
    De-registrations (or revised registrations as these are referred to 
in Sec.  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. Withdrawals occur when sources that were never subject to the 
program submit an RMP in error. A letter requesting a withdrawal is 
submitted, and the RMP is taken out of the reporting system database.

II. Discussion of the Final Rule and Public Comments

    With this final rule, EPA is taking action to amend several of the 
reporting requirements of the chemical accident prevention regulations. 
EPA is requiring any source at which a significant accident occurs 
following the effective date of this rule to add information about that 
accident and the resulting incident investigation to the source RMP 
within 6 months of the accident. EPA is not, however, requiring that a 
source necessarily update and resubmit its RMP following such an 
accident. EPA is also requiring sources which change emergency contact 
personnel or related information to correct the corresponding 
information in their RMP within one month of making the change. EPA is 
removing the regulatory requirement to briefly summarize OCA in the 
executive summary of the RMP. In addition, EPA is adding three 
mandatory data elements to the RMP: (1) The e-mail address for the 
facility

[[Page 18821]]

emergency contact, when available, (2) the purpose of any subsequent 
RMP submissions (e.g., correction, update, withdrawal), and (3) the 
name, address and telephone number of any contractor who helped prepare 
the RMP. EPA is also allowing an optional data element for the e-mail 
address of the facility person responsible for the RMP. Relatedly, EPA 
is making several revisions to the submission format for the RMP 
(RMP*Submit), including expanding the list of options for possible 
accident causes to include uncontrolled chemical reactions.
    These changes were proposed on July 31, 2003 (68 FR 45126). EPA 
received 71 comments on the proposal. Summaries of all comments and the 
Agency's responses can be found in the Summary and Response to Comments 
document in the docket.

A. Changes to the RMP Reporting Schedule

1. Five-Year Accident History
    EPA is amending the RMP rule to require that facilities who have an 
accident that meets the criteria for the five-year accident history 
revise all elements of their RMP accident history (Sec.  68.168) and 
the date of investigation and expected date of completion of changes 
due to an accident investigation in their Incident Investigation data 
elements (Sec. Sec.  68.170(j) and 68.175(l)) within six months of the 
date of the accident.
    The five-year accident history section of the RMP rule (40 CFR 
68.42) requires the owner or operator of a covered 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. However, the original RMP rule did not require a source to 
update its accident history until it updated and re-submitted its 
entire RMP, which could be as infrequently as every five years. One 
year ago, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 
(CSB), created under section 112(r)(6) of the CAA, recommended that RMP 
accident histories be updated on a more timely basis in view of the 
valuable information they provide for chemical accident prevention and 
preparedness efforts by government, industry and the public (Joint 
Chemical Safety Board, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and EPA 
Roundtable on Developing Improved Metrics on Accidental Chemical 
Process Releases, November 14, 2002). EPA agreed with that 
recommendation and consequently proposed 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. The Agency 
also requested comment on requiring all sources with reportable 
accidents to update and resubmit their RMPs by the same date (e.g., 
June 1 of each year).
    Thirteen comments supported the proposal for a full update and re-
submission of the RMP after an accident that met the accident history 
reporting criteria, while 43 comments opposed all or part of the 
proposal. Comments supporting the proposal stated that it would not 
pose a substantial burden to the regulated community, and that timely 
submission of accident information in RMPs would be beneficial in 
assisting Federal, State, and local responders with accident prevention 
and response. These comments generally favored requiring an update and 
re-submission within some number of months following an accident, as 
opposed to requiring every source to update and resubmit their RMPs by 
a fixed date.
    Other comments opposing the proposal pointed out that many 
accidents are subject to other reporting requirements, making timely 
RMP reporting arguably unnecessary. Many comments also disagreed with 
the need to update and re-submit an entire RMP following any reportable 
accident. In proposing the update and re-submission requirement, EPA 
explained that it sought not only more recent accident information in 
RMPs but also assurance that any lessons learned from an accident 
investigation would be applied to the source's risk management program 
and reflected in its RMP. A number of comments noted, however, that the 
RMP rule already requires the vast majority of RMP facilities to (1) 
investigate incidents that result in, or could have resulted in, 
catastrophic releases; (2) prepare a summary or report of the 
investigation, including a description of the incident, factors that 
contributed to the incident and any recommendations resulting from the 
investigation; (3) address and resolve all findings and 
recommendations; and (4) document all resolutions and corrective 
actions taken (see Sec. Sec.  68.60 and 68.81). These comments argued 
that these existing requirements already accomplished EPA's goal of 
sources incorporating lessons learned into their risk management 
programs. The comments also noted that to the extent sources made 
changes in light of accidents that triggered the update requirement of 
the existing rule, the RMP would be updated and re-submitted in that 
event.
    Several comments also stated that RMP reporting is not detailed 
enough to capture many of the changes a source might make in response 
to an accident investigation. In addition, some comments noted that for 
a source with more than one RMP-covered process, an accident involving 
one process may have no implications for other, different processes at 
the source. For such sources, a requirement to update and re-submit the 
RMP for all processes would make little sense. There was also concern 
that six months is not a sufficient amount of time to update and 
resubmit an entire RMP following an accident that may take several 
months or more to fully investigate. Finally, a number of comments 
expressed concern with a statement in the preamble to the proposed rule 
suggesting that reporting would be required for significant releases 
from covered processes of any extremely hazardous substance, not just a 
substance listed under CAA section 112(r) (``regulated substances''). A 
number of comments argued that EPA had overstated the scope of the 
existing reporting requirement.
    EPA has considered the comments and further studied existing 
requirements for accident reporting and follow-up. The Agency continues 
to believe that more timely reporting of significant accidents in RMPs 
is worthwhile. Although there are a number of other Federal, State and 
local requirements for accident reporting, the data collected for 
accident reporting in RMPs are uniquely useful and accessible. RMP 
accident history reporting provides more than basic information about 
an accident; it also covers the cause of the release and measures taken 
to reduce the risk or consequences of a reoccurrence. The data 
consequently help in understanding the reason(s) for a release and 
safety measures that have been taken in response. Moreover, the RMP 
accident histories are available by law to Federal, State and local 
officials and the public, including other chemical sources.
    EPA believes significant benefits will accrue as accident histories 
are reported on a more timely basis, as lessons learned are more 
promptly shared and acted upon to prevent similar occurrences. 
Implementing agencies will be able to better identify the need for 
technical assistance, and more timely accident information will help in 
identifying trends and providing timely

[[Page 18822]]

outreach to prevent similar incidents. As noted above, more timely 
reporting was also recommended by the CSB. Those recommendations were 
particularly aimed at improving our understanding of the frequency, 
nature, and causes of reactive chemical incidents, and ultimately to 
promote safer management of reactive chemicals. EPA believes more 
timely reporting of accident history information, along with other 
modifications made in today's final rule, will allow the Agency, other 
government agencies, members of the public, and other interested 
parties to better understand and prevent chemical accidents, including 
those resulting from reactive chemicals.
    While EPA is establishing a requirement for more timely reporting 
of significant accidents, it is not adopting the proposed requirement 
that RMPs be fully updated and resubmitted within six months of an 
accident. The Agency understands the concern that a full update of an 
RMP may not be possible within six months of an accident, as a thorough 
investigation of a major accident, implementation of any new safety 
measures and updating of the entire RMP could take longer, particularly 
for larger sources. EPA also agrees with the comments that existing 
requirements for incident investigations already accomplish the 
Agency's primary purpose in proposing a full update and re-submission 
requirement--assurance that lessons learned are applied. EPA further 
recognizes that updating an RMP in full may make little sense where an 
accident involves only one process at sources with other, different 
processes. The Agency has accordingly decided not to require a full 
update and re-submission of an RMP following an accident.
    At the same time, EPA is requiring that information about 
reportable accidents be added to RMPs within six months of the accident 
(unless an RMP update is required sooner). The Agency continues to 
believe that facilities will be more likely to recall and report 
accurate accident history information if that information is recorded 
within six months of an accident. Under the previous reporting 
requirement facilities were asked to include in their RMPs detailed 
information about an accident that occurred as long as five years ago. 
While some comments expressed concern that accident investigations and 
implementation of corrective actions could take longer than six months 
in some cases, the existing accident history data elements take into 
account that a source may not have complete information at the time a 
report is made. Section 68.42(b) of the RMP rule requires information 
about weather conditions, offsite impacts, initiating event and 
contributing factors ``if known'' and only an ``estimate'' of the 
quantity of chemical released. To the extent complete information about 
these matters is not available six months after a reportable accident 
occurs (or by the time an RMP update is due, if earlier), the source 
need only provide the information it does have. When the source is next 
required to update and resubmit its entire RMP, it can and must provide 
any additional or more accurate information at that time.
    The Agency recognizes that Sec.  68.42(b)(11) as originally drafted 
required a source to report ``operational or process changes that 
resulted from investigation of the release,'' and that a source may not 
have made all such changes by the time it must submit information about 
the accident. EPA is thus revising that data element to require 
reporting of only those changes the source has made by the time it 
submits the accident information as part of accident reporting or an 
RMP update. EPA recognizes that providing a longer time frame for 
accident reporting would make it more likely that complete information 
would always be available at the time a report is made. But the Agency 
believes it is important to collect accident information as soon as 
reasonably practicable, even if that information is not always 
complete, in view of the benefit such information may provide to other 
entities that could learn from the accident. A six-month deadline for 
reporting accident information is a reasonable compromise between the 
time facilities generally need to investigate and learn from an 
accident and the public interest in obtaining accident information 
quickly. Sources that make additional accident-related changes after 
submitting accident information can and must report on those changes 
when the their next scheduled RMP update is submitted.
    Relatedly, the Agency is requiring that the addition of new 
accident history information to an RMP be accompanied with corrections 
to two other RMP data elements: the date of the source's most recent 
incident investigation and the expected date of completion of any 
changes resulting from the investigation (Sec. Sec.  68.170(j) and 
68.175(l)). As noted above, a number of comments pointed out that 
requiring a full update and re-submission of an RMP was not necessary 
to ensuring that lessons learned from an accident were applied, given 
the existing requirement that sources investigate and learn from any 
incident that ``resulted in or could reasonably have resulted in a 
catastrophic release.'' EPA agrees with this comment and its premise--
that accidents subject to the reporting requirement of the RMP rule 
trigger the incident investigation requirements of the rule. As 
described above, those requirements ensure that significant incidents 
are thoroughly investigated and documented, and any lessons learned 
identified and applied. EPA therefore expects that a source 
experiencing a reportable accident will follow-up with an incident 
investigation that may in turn lead to changes that address the cause 
or consequences of the accident. Six months following the accident, the 
source should be able to provide accident history information as well 
as the date of its incident investigation and the expected date of 
completion of any changes. A source need not be sure of when changes 
will be complete or even if particular changes will ultimately be made 
to provide a reasonable ``expected'' date for completion of ``any'' 
changes.
    The Agency also agrees with the comment that an incident 
investigation may well trigger existing requirements for an update and 
re-submission of the RMP under Sec.  68.190 of the rule, and that this 
would then be the appropriate route for a facility update in the 
aftermath of an accidental release. Other avenues or types of reporting 
that were suggested (i.e., 8-hour reporting, accident reports, accident 
fact sheets, separate accident databases, attachments to current RMPs) 
where all focused on avoiding a full RMP update and re-submission. The 
Agency believes that by not requiring a full update and instead 
requiring only submission of new accident information, it has addressed 
the concern behind those suggestions.
    The Agency also agrees with the comments preferring a specified 
time frame (such as six months) following an accident over a fixed date 
for sources to submit new accident information. A fixed calendar date 
could result in sources being required to submit information shortly 
after an accidental release, before they have had time to investigate 
or make any changes in response to the accident. That approach would 
not be advantageous either for the sources or for those interested in 
the accident data.
    The Agency acknowledges the concerns raised about the preamble 
statement that accident history reporting is required for significant 
releases from covered processes for all extremely hazardous chemicals, 
not just chemicals listed under CAA section 112(r). EPA notes that the 
relevant regulatory language can be interpreted to reach

[[Page 18823]]

accidents involving extremely hazardous substances in addition to those 
listed. Section 68.42 of the RMP rule requires reporting of 
``accidental releases'' meeting certain criteria, and section 
112(r)(2)(A) of the CAA and Sec.  68.3 of the rule define an 
``accidental release'' as a release of a substance regulated under CAA 
section 112(r) ``or any other extremely hazardous substance.'' The 
Agency recognizes, however, that its ``General Guidance'' for meeting 
RMP rule requirements has specified that reportable accidents are those 
involving regulated substances. Interpreting the rule to require 
reporting of all releases of extremely hazardous substances from 
covered process would allow the Agency and others to look at trends 
with respect to chemicals, and provide information that could be useful 
in amending the list of regulated substances. An example of how broader 
reporting could be useful was highlighted by a comment that concerned 
catastrophic reactive/dust explosion accidents, not currently covered 
by the RMP rule because the involved substances are not listed. 
However, in light of the guidance provided previously and in order to 
avoid confusion, the Agency agrees it is best to retain for now the 
current interpretation for reporting only accidents involving regulated 
substances. EPA, however, may revisit this issue in a future 
rulemaking.
    This final rule establishes a new schedule for any source 
experiencing a reportable accident to include in its RMP information 
for all the elements of the five-year accident history as set forth in 
Sec.  68.42 of the RMP rule, as well as the date of an incident 
investigation and the expected date of completion of any changes 
triggered by an incident investigation as required by Sec. Sec.  
68.170(j) and 68.175(l) of the RMP rule. Because the Agency is no 
longer requiring a full update and re-submission of the RMP, these 
requirements should not significantly change the associated burden. If 
a source had a reportable accident, it would need to revise those 
elements of its RMP within six months; the source would not need to 
update its entire RMP unless the accident led to a change triggering 
the existing update requirement.
2. Emergency Contact Information
    EPA is amending the RMP rule to require that facilities correct 
their emergency contact information within one month of a change in the 
information.
    The RMP database has become an important source of information for 
Federal, State and local government efforts in the homeland security 
area. Many RMP sources are considered part of the nation's critical 
infrastructure or are otherwise important to protecting homeland 
security. All levels of government use the database to help assess 
security needs and to obtain emergency contact information.
    Under current requirements, a change may occur in a facility's 
emergency contact information (for example, the emergency contact's 
phone number is changed or the emergency contact leaves the position), 
and the facility may have up to five years to report these changes in 
its RMP. Implementing agencies that have audited RMPs report that much 
of the information for emergency contacts is outdated or otherwise 
inaccurate. In light of the importance of this information, EPA 
proposed to require that facilities correct their emergency contact 
information within one month of a change in the information.
    Seventeen comments indicated support for this proposal, while 12 
comments opposed all or part of it. Supporters argued that keeping 
emergency contact information current was valuable to ensuring a timely 
response to an accidental release, and was particularly critical to 
emergency planning and response. Some comments also suggested similar 
correction requirements for other administrative information in the 
RMP. Comments highlighted how emergency responses are less efficient 
without current emergency contact information, how any delay in access 
to current facility information can have catastrophic impacts on first 
responders, and how this requirement would not pose an undue burden on 
reporting facilities.
    While some comments opposing this requirement argued that 
corrections to contact information were unnecessary, most were focused 
on the timing of these corrections, arguing for the most part for a 
longer period of time. These comments stated that it can take longer 
than 30 days to assign new staff to vacancies, that the proposal would 
be unduly burdensome and would subject facilities to possible non-
compliance with every personnel change, and that the facility contact 
person can actually change routinely based on employee turnovers, 
promotions, and relocations, making the administrative burden and 
potential liability of the current proposal outweigh its benefits. 
Arguments were made for alternative means of correcting this 
information, for example through a secure internet-based site. Some 
comments also urged that EPA require reporting of only the emergency 
contact position versus the name of the individual filling that 
position.
    The Agency agrees with comments that RMP emergency contact 
information is important to emergency planning and response efforts at 
the Federal, State and local levels, particularly for facilitating the 
work of first responders and safeguarding the community. It is 
therefore important that the information be kept as up-to-date as 
possible.
    The Agency appreciates that, currently, even small corrections of 
RMPs require sources to send EPA a diskette containing the entire RMP 
(with the corrected information) and a certification letter attesting 
to the accuracy of the corrected information. To ease the burden of 
making such changes, including changes to emergency contact 
information, EPA is working to make available a secure means for making 
administrative corrections over the Internet. Sources that need to make 
such corrections will be allowed secured access to non-sensitive pieces 
of RMP information, including much of the information in the 
registration part of the RMP (section 1).
    As this electronic system for making corrections to emergency 
contact information is made available, the time and resources needed to 
make a correction should not be significant. Although timely updates to 
all basic registration information would be beneficial as well, the 
need for updates is most urgent in the case of emergency contact 
information. EPA encourages sources to update all of the information in 
their RMPs as changes are made, but the Agency does not want to add 
unduly to the reporting burden of the program. Sources' efforts are 
best focused on maintaining the accuracy of key information in their 
RMPs, so EPA is not adding other data elements to the requirement to 
correct emergency contact information.
    The Agency disagrees with the comment that some emergency contact 
information, including the name of the emergency contact person, need 
not be reported at all. The Agency believes that action at the local 
level is most important in preparing for, preventing, and responding to 
accidents, and that the name of the emergency contact person, as 
opposed to the name of the position or more general corporate 
information, is a key piece of information for such local efforts. 
Common sense suggests that it is easier to reach a named individual 
than an unknown person filling a particular position. Unless whoever 
answers the phone or e-mail at a source knows who

[[Page 18824]]

fills the emergency contact position, it could take several more phone 
calls to reach the emergency contact person himself. In the event of an 
accidental release or other emergency, the extra time required to reach 
the emergency contact person could be costly. EPA is thus retaining the 
requirement that sources supply the name of the emergency contact 
person and is requiring the correction of that name within one month of 
a change. The Agency recognizes that personnel changes may sometimes 
take longer than a month, but in that event it expects the source to 
have assigned the responsibility to someone in the interim. Given the 
electronic means of correcting such information expected to be 
available, EPA believes it is reasonable to require facilities to keep 
this information relatively current, even if that means supplying the 
name of an interim emergency contact person until a permanent person is 
in place.
    Even with a requirement to correct emergency contact information 
within one month of a change, that still leaves RMP emergency contact 
information potentially outdated for as much as a month. EPA is 
concerned that the 24-hour emergency phone number provided in the RMP 
is a key element of emergency contact information that should be 
corrected as soon as possible after it changes. The Agency strongly 
encourages sources to ensure that their 24-hour emergency number 
continues to reach someone able to address emergencies even after an 
emergency contact person leaves that position. Ideally, the 24-hour 
emergency number would remain the same indefinitely, regardless of who 
fills the emergency contact position or any other position at the 
facility.
    This final rule establishes a new requirement to correct the 
emergency contact information within one month of a change in the 
information. The Agency expects that while changes are ongoing at the 
facility, the basic phone number information provided should continue 
to be available, routed as appropriate, so that facilities always have 
a current 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week means for emergency contact.

B. Changes to Executive Summary

    EPA is amending the RMP rule 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.
    CAA section 112(r)(7) and the chemical accident prevention 
regulations require sources subject to the RMP rule 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. The Chemical Safety Information, Site Security 
and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (CSISSFRRA) of 1999 governs the 
distribution of ``off-site consequence [OCA] information,'' defined as 
those portions of an RMP, excluding the executive summary, that contain 
the results of the OCA for the source submitting the RMP. Under 
CSISSFRRA, EPA and the Department of Justice jointly issued regulations 
at 40 CFR part 1400 restricting public access to OCA information and 
certain related information to government reading rooms.
    Section 68.155(c) of the RMP rule as originally drafted required 
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, now believes that due to its sensitive nature, 
this information should no longer be included in executive summaries, 
which are not subject to the access restrictions of the CSISSFRRA 
regulations. Consequently, EPA proposed to remove the requirement to 
summarize OCA results in the executive summary.
    Forty comments supported removing this requirement, several noting 
national and facility security concerns. Several comments opined that 
the information is too sensitive to be easily accessible to the public. 
Four comments opposed the proposal as written, noting that more ready 
public access to OCA information would help stimulate greater safety 
efforts on the part of facilities and the communities in which they are 
located. Eight comments presented recommendations, requested 
clarification, or had other comments about the proposed changes.
    The Agency continues to believe that the requirement for briefly 
describing OCA in executive summaries should be removed in the face of 
ongoing concerns about the potential misuse of such information by 
terrorists, particularly if the information can be easily and 
anonymously accessed. Removing this requirement will not affect the 
controlled public access currently available to OCA information under 
the CSISSFRRA regulations. Sources must continue to provide details of 
their OCA in sections 2 through 5 of the RMP, and the public will 
continue to have the access to OCA information afforded by the 
regulations at 40 CFR part 1400. The Agency also agrees with the 
comment that removing OCA data from executive summaries would reduce or 
eliminate any risk that Internet posting of executive summaries might 
pose.
    The Agency agrees that OCA information provides a context for each 
RMP submission by providing a rough estimate of the risk the facility 
could pose to the community in the event of an accidental release. But 
EPA disagrees that this information would be lost over the years if it 
is removed from executive summaries. Complete OCA results are reported 
in sections 2 through 5 of facilities' RMPs, and the Agency maintains a 
database including all RMPs submitted since 1999 (except for RMPs 
submitted and then withdrawn by facilities that were never subject to 
the program). As noted above, the public will continue to have access 
to OCA information in RMPs in the manner provided by the CSISSFRRA 
regulations.
    The Agency disagrees with the comment that executive summaries are 
not available to the public. CSISSFRRA and its implementing regulations 
impose restrictions on sections 2 through 5 of the RMP only, and 
expressly exclude executive summaries from the portions of RMPs that 
can be restricted. CSISSFRRA was enacted several years after EPA issued 
the RMP regulations requiring a brief description of OCA in executive 
summaries, so Congress was presumably aware that executive summaries 
would contain some OCA data when it excluded executive summaries from 
the information that CSISSFRRA regulations could restrict. At the same 
time, EPA disagrees that Congress' decision to exclude executive 
summaries from coverage by CSISSFRRA precludes EPA from removing the 
regulatory requirement to include a brief description of OCA in 
executive summaries. Congress' exclusion of executive summaries from 
CSISSFRRA restrictions does not amount to a congressional directive for 
EPA to continue requiring OCA descriptions in executive summaries. 
CSISSFRRA was enacted prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist 
attacks, which heightened concerns about the potential misuse of 
detailed OCA data found in some executive summaries. The Departments of 
Justice and Homeland Security have advised against the continued 
inclusion of OCA data in executive summaries, and EPA agrees that 
recent events make it imperative to remove the requirement for 
including this information.

[[Page 18825]]

    One comment suggested that instead of removing the requirement 
altogether, EPA provide guidance on how to briefly describe OCA in 
executive summaries without including sensitive information. EPA agrees 
that such guidance could help, but believes that removing the 
requirement altogether will be more effective in removing sensitive 
information from the summaries. Any guidance EPA could issue would not 
necessarily come to the attention of, or be followed by, every RMP 
facility, thus risking the continued inclusion of OCA data in executive 
summaries. Another comment suggested including a summary of OCA results 
in the restricted OCA sections of the RMP, but EPA believes little 
would be accomplished by including a summary there. The OCA sections of 
the RMP are designed to be easily understood and reviewed, so providing 
a summary within those sections would serve little purpose. EPA 
intended executive summaries to provide an overview of the entire RMP, 
including the OCA sections. Since EPA has judged OCA descriptions in 
executive summaries to be unwise, there is no point in including a 
summary of OCA results in any other part of the RMP.
    EPA is not forbidding sources from including OCA data in executive 
summaries, as some comments suggested. The Agency expects, however, 
that in view of the concerns cited, sources will not include any OCA 
data in their executive summaries.
    The Agency agrees with comments that the OCA information should 
continue to be made readily available to covered persons, an important 
group of which are state and local emergency responders. This 
information will continue to assist in developing effective plans for 
accident prevention and emergency response. The Agency continues to 
work closely with the Department of Justice and with the Department of 
Homeland Security to ensure the best balance between providing public 
information and protecting national security.
    This final rule removes the requirement for sources to briefly 
describe the OCA conducted for their facilities in the executive 
summary of the RMP.

C. New Data Elements

1. Emergency Contact's E-mail Address
    EPA is amending the RMP rule by adding a mandatory data element to 
the RMP for sources to provide the e-mail address (if any) for the 
emergency contact.
    Under Sec.  68.160(b)(6) of the RMP rule as originally drafted, 
sources were required to provide the name, title, telephone number, and 
a 24-hour telephone number of the person who serves as the source's 
emergency contact, with no provision, optional or otherwise, for 
sources to provide an e-mail address for that person. Having an e-mail 
address for the emergency contact would allow the Agency to quickly and 
directly communicate hazard information, improving sources' access to 
critical process safety information. Additionally, it might 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, as RMPs have become a critical source of information 
for the federal government's homeland security efforts. For these 
reasons EPA proposed that sources provide the e-mail address for the 
source's emergency contact when available, and that any change to the 
e-mail address be followed by a correction to the source's RMP within a 
month of the address change.
    Twenty-two comments supported adding a mandatory data element for 
emergency contact e-mail addresses. A number of comments noted that 
this requirement would enhance communication between implementing 
agencies and reporting facilities and facilitate coordination and 
training with first responders without posing an undue burden on the 
reporting facilities. Comments suggested that similar access to the e-
mail address of the person at the source with overall risk management 
program responsibility would also be helpful to agencies. Ten comments 
opposed adding this as a mandatory data element. Arguments included the 
fact that not all facilities have e-mail; that e-mail may not be the 
most reliable means of communicating with a facility, particularly in 
emergency situations; and that this field would be very cumbersome to 
maintain as an updated distribution list.
    The Agency believes that access to emergency contact e-mail 
information will provide an advantage to the regulated community, 
implementing agencies, and emergency planners and responders alike. 
Improved communications, and a variety of avenues to facilitate them, 
will allow for improved exchange of critical emergency planning and 
accident prevention and hazard information of benefit to all. E-mail is 
an excellent tool for distributing information to a large audience 
quickly. Although keeping e-mail address information up-to-date will 
require some effort from all parties involved, the benefits of having 
that information will outweigh the effort. The Agency agrees with 
comments that e-mail should not be the only vehicle that the Agency 
relies upon, particularly in cases of emergencies. However, it is 
certainly one of the most immediate and common means of communications 
used today, and will serve as an important component for information 
dissemination, along with mail and telephone communications. Since not 
every source has e-mail, the Agency is requiring only those sources 
with existing e-mails to submit this information. It is not the intent 
of this requirement to allow for unnecessary use of the e-mail address. 
To guard against the use of the address for distribution of spam or 
junk mail, the Agency does not plan to issue a list of facilities' e-
mails.
    The Agency agrees that e-mail to a single emergency contact may not 
be appropriate for all communications; other forms of communications, 
such as mail, phone, or through trade groups, will continue to be used 
by the Agency and other implementing agencies. The current RMP rule 
also requires the e-mail address for the source or parent company. This 
address, in conjunction with the emergency contact e-mail address and 
the optional RMP responsible person e-mail address, will provide 
additional means to quickly contact RMP facilities. In response to 
suggestions that EPA obtain the e-mail address for the person 
responsible for the source's RMP as a better choice for receiving e-
mailed information, the Agency will provide a field in RMP*Submit for 
facilities that have such an e-mail address to provide that information 
at their option.
    This final rule, therefore, requires that RMP facilities provide 
the e-mail address for the facility emergency contact, and that this 
information is corrected within one month of a change. The e-mail 
address for the person responsible for the facility RMP will be an 
optional field in RMP*Submit. As with the other emergency contact 
information correction requirements, the Agency intends to implement a 
system that would allow facilities to correct this and other 
administrative information via a secure web site, and is working to 
implement such a system as soon as practicable.
2. Purpose of Subsequent RMP Submissions
    EPA is amending the RMP rule to add a mandatory data element for 
sources to identify the purpose of submissions that

[[Page 18826]]

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 Sec.  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, the RMP electronic submission program has not 
had an entry that provides the reason for the submission. To assist EPA 
and other implementing agencies in understanding the reason for a 
submission, EPA proposed a new data element in the RMP for sources to 
indicate what they are submitting and why. The Agency also requested 
comment on whether to replace the term revised registrations with de-
registration, which more clearly conveys the action being taken and is 
the term used in the implementation materials for the RMP rule.
    Twenty-five comments indicated support for the proposal, and four 
comments raised objections to it. Comments in support argued this data 
element would streamline the submission process by expediting the 
review and evaluation of the RMP by both EPA and state and local 
implementing agencies. Comments in support argued this requirement 
would enable all users of RMP data to understand and track information 
in the system for trends while posing little in the way of additional 
costs to registered parties. Comments also supported the idea of menu 
options provided as part of RMP*Submit, to ease data entry and ensure 
consistency of reporting, and were generally in support of changing the 
term revised registration to de-registration. Comments questioning the 
proposed data element argued that the proposal fell short of explaining 
how it would enable EPA to know if facilities had adopted inherently 
safer or alternative technologies because it failed to distinguish 
between facilities that actually reduce hazards and facilities that 
merely recalculate vulnerabilities using different methodologies.
    The Agency has decided to adopt the proposed data element because 
it will result in expedited review and evaluation of submitted RMP 
data, as well as better understanding and tracking of industry trends 
in the area of accident prevention and process safety, at very little 
cost to RMP sources. Certainly sources submitting a change to their RMP 
know the reason for the change; the new data element only requires them 
to specify that reason so implementing agencies need not review all the 
changes themselves to infer the reason. EPA also plans to develop a 
pop-up menu listing the typical reasons for RMP changes (e.g., new 
submission; correction of the emergency contact or facility ownership 
data elements; update triggered by revised process hazards analysis; 
de-registration as a result of no longer using regulated substances at 
all or above threshold quantities) so that sources can easily indicate 
the reason for their change. To the extent the pop-up menu does not 
include a source's particular reason for a change, the source need only 
briefly state the reason for the change. In developing the pop-up menu, 
EPA plans to incorporate some of the specific suggested elements to 
better reflect the reasons behind RMP submissions and changes. In 
addition, EPA is changing the term revised registration to de-
registration as comments agreed that this would be a useful 
clarification.
    Although the Agency believes information about the reasons for 
changes will help identify and track industry trends, it does not 
intend to pressure industries to adopt particular changes. Facilities 
are in the best position to assess their hazards and how to address 
them. The Agency may choose to provide industry with analyses of the 
data so that it can be taken into account as individual facilities 
determine their best approach to process safety.
3. Contractor Information
    EPA is amending the RMP rule by adding a mandatory data element for 
sources that use a contractor to 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 
have not properly implemented accident prevention program elements at 
the source and are not sufficiently familiar with the contents of their 
RMPs. EPA proposed to require an additional data element in the RMP for 
sources who use a contractor to prepare their RMP to provide the name, 
address and phone number of that contractor, so that implementing 
agencies can more easily identify potential issues and provide 
appropriate follow-up.
    Twelve comments indicated support for the proposal, while 16 
opposed it. Supportive comments stated that this element would provide 
additional information that may help identify systematic or recurring 
errors in risk management programs and plans. A few state and local 
implementing agencies commented that they were aware of some 
contractors completing RMPs and supplying information to the facility 
without fully explaining the accident prevention program requirements 
or failing to even provide the facility with all of the required plan 
information. These agencies argued that knowing whether a contractor 
had assisted in RMP preparation and the name of that contractor would 
assist auditors in prioritizing inspections.
    Other comments urged that enforcement actions related to RMP errors 
should be directed to the facility and not the contractor since 
facilities are responsible for the content of their RMPs whether the 
program is developed ``in-house'' or through use of a contractor. 
Concerns were also raised that EPA would assess and advertise the 
Agency's judgement of specific technical consultants, or that somehow 
facility information or business relationships would be compromised if 
the Agency came between a client facility and its contractor.
    The Agency agrees that adding the contractor information data 
element will provide valuable information to implementing agencies in 
identifying possible systemic errors without imposing significant 
burden on the reporting facility. The Agency also agrees with the 
comments that the facility owner or operator is ultimately responsible 
for the RMP, whether or not it has been prepared by a contractor. 
However, implementing agencies have seen cases where contractors have 
been used to develop RMPs where no accident prevention program actually 
existed at the facility, or was not understood by personnel responsible 
for its implementation. Implementing agencies have also seen systemic 
errors in RMP submissions that can be linked to the same contractor. 
EPA believes it is important to require this piece of information to 
facilitate the review of RMPs by the implementing agencies, as well as 
to provide another measure of accountability on the part of the 
facility. The Agency is therefore adopting its proposal to require 
sources that use a contractor prepare their RMP to provide the name, 
address and phone number of that contractor. EPA recognizes that some 
sources utilize contract services to assist in developing portions of 
their risk management program, such as the process hazards analysis. 
The requirement to supply contractor

[[Page 18827]]

information does not apply to such services; it applies only to 
contractors that prepare RMP submissions.
    Contractor information will be used by implementing agencies to 
conduct further outreach and compliance assistance efforts. To the 
extent EPA identifies systemic errors or other problems potentially 
associated with a contractor, the Agency plans to contact the affected 
sources to alert them to the problem. EPA may also contact the 
contractor to discuss systemic problems and how to correct them; such 
discussions would focus not on particular RMP facilities but on the 
contractor's understanding and implementation of RMP requirements 
generally. The Agency would not enforce RMP requirements against a 
contractor, since those requirements apply only to owners and operators 
of covered sources. Also, EPA has no intention of listing or rating 
contractors in any way. The Agency considered the suggestion of making 
contractor information an optional element, but it believes that a 
mandatory requirement will ensure the availability of useful 
information for program implementation, data quality, outreach and 
compliance assistance.

D. Revisions to RMP*Submit Format

Uncontrolled/Runaway Reactions
    EPA is revising the RMP submission format (RMP*Submit) to expand 
the list of possible causes of accidental releases reported as part of 
a source's 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 * * * 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).

    EPA, in agreement with the Board's recommendation, proposed 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.
    A total of 16 comments indicated support for expanding the list of 
possible causes of accidental releases included in a source's five-year 
accident history so an owner or operator could indicate whether an 
accident involved an uncontrolled/runaway reaction. Comments suggested 
that the proposed change would allow sources to more accurately 
characterize an accident and would allow for a more detailed analysis 
of accident data. Comments supporting this data collection argued that 
not enough attention is being given to reactive chemical hazards and 
that the additional element would be an important, low-cost step 
towards accident prevention.
    Twenty-three comments supported expanding the list of possible 
causes but recommended that EPA use a term other than uncontrolled/
runaway reaction because the term could be subjectively interpreted, 
leading to inconsistent reporting and irrelevant data. Comments also 
recommended that the term be added to the drop-down menu already 
available under RMP*Submit. Two comments opposed the proposed change, 
arguing that the proposed term is not consistent with the current list.
    Overall, the comments confirm EPA's view that adding a new term for 
uncontrolled reactions will provide sources with an additional choice 
to more accurately report information about accidents and that this new 
information will provide a better understanding of the types of 
accidents occurring at regulated sources. This information will help 
the Agency identify incidents involving reactive chemicals and offer 
insights on how best to address that hazard category.
    The Agency disagrees with comments that the new term is 
inconsistent with the current ones (gas release, liquid spill/
evaporation, fire, and explosion), but does acknowledge that more than 
one term may describe a particular incident. In an effort to capture 
more specific accident cause information, the Agency will modify 
RMP*Submit to allow sources reporting accident information to select 
more than one of the categories from the list of accident causes.
    The Agency recognizes the concern that the term uncontrolled/
runaway reaction may perhaps be open to subjective interpretations. In 
response to this comment, the Agency will include a help function for 
this menu, with examples of the types of incidents that the Agency 
expects to be reported as uncontrolled/runaway chemical reactions. This 
revision to the RMP*Submit format will provide the opportunity to 
gather more data on reactive incidents, in that way informing any 
future actions the Agency may take.

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 RMP accident 
histories 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. EPA considered of special interest three of these 
records: (1) Total Incidence Rate, (2) Workdays Lost to Injuries, and 
(3) Illness and Workdays Under Restricted Duties. EPA requested 
comments on the practicability and burden of future RMP submissions if 
including data for these three records, aggregated for five most recent 
calendar years should be required. EPA did not propose this element.
    Four comments indicated that they would support such a proposal, 
while 48 comments indicated that they would oppose it. Those in support 
of the additional elements argued that this information would enable 
EPA to better understand accident risks and to gauge the trends with 
respect to risk and accident prevention across various industry 
sectors, and that the ability to link employee illness with risks at 
the facility can lead to better prevention programs as well as 
providing data on safety standards. The comments opposing the 
collection of this data in conjunction with the RMP questioned both 
EPA's need for, and use of, the data. Comments argued that these OSHA 
reportable injuries are not necessarily or typically related to RMP 
chemicals or processes, and that because of this, misrepresentations 
and errors would result when trying to apply this data to EPA risk 
factors. The comments explained that injury and illness rates at a 
facility mostly involve ergonomic conditions, slips, trips and falls, 
hand lacerations, and automobile work-related accidents, which have no

[[Page 18828]]

relation to RMP-listed chemicals. In short, OSHA data covers all 
accidents and illnesses, not just those related or located near an RMP-
covered chemical process. Comments argued that the OSHA data would thus 
not aid in identifying safety trends or in statistical analyses of use 
to EPA. The argument was also made that OII data is already reported to 
the Federal government and available to EPA and further, that the 
collection of OSHA data does not fall within EPA's jurisdiction or 
authority under CAA section 112(r). Issues regarding the implementation 
of the proposed changes were also raised, including concerns that OII 
data may not be readily available for all facilities, that it would be 
time-consuming and that it would impose an undue burden on facilities.
    The Agency recognizes the multiple issues that are associated with 
the collection of OSHA injury and illness data in conjunction with the 
RMP and appreciates the very detailed comments received. As this was 
not a proposed element, the Agency will reserve judgement on whether 
and how to gather additional data, and will consider all comments if at 
a later time, it decides to propose additional RMP data elements for 
such information.

IV. Effective Date, Update Clarification and Compliance Schedule

    Today's rule is being made effective immediately in order to 
relieve sources of the requirement to include an OCA description in the 
executive summaries of their RMPs. As explained previously, homeland 
security and law enforcement concerns have been raised about continuing 
to include OCA data in RMP executive summaries, which are not subject 
to the public access restrictions under CSISSFRRA. Some sources may be 
in the process of updating or otherwise revising their RMPs, and EPA 
wants every source to be able to remove the OCA data in their executive 
summaries as soon as possible. The Agency finds good cause to make the 
rule effective upon promulgation because the rule relieves regulated 
entities from a requirement that has become problematic--describing OCA 
results in RMP executive summaries.
    The rule's new reporting requirements apply as of June 21, 2004, 
the five-year anniversary for RMPs initially submitted by June 21, 
1999. As an initial matter, EPA wants to make clear that sources that 
submitted their initial RMPs before the original June 21, 1999 deadline 
are required to submit the 5-year update of their RMPs by June 21, 
2004, not before. (Sources that previously updated their RMPs as a 
result of a change at the facility will not be required to update their 
RMPs again until five years from the last update.) The 5-year update 
requirement in the RMP rule was written with the expectation that 
sources would submit their initial RMPs on or shortly before June 21, 
2004. In reality, hundreds of sources submitted their initial RMPs 
months early, and may now be proceeding to update their RMPs by the 
five-year anniversary of their original submission. EPA applauds early 
compliance with its requirements. However, in this instance, sources 
that complied early would be put at a disadvantage if their five-year 
update requirement were based on the date of their initial submission. 
Such sources could be faced with submitting an updated RMP that still 
includes OCA data and that lacks some of the newly required data 
elements. If these sources submitted such an RMP, they would have to 
submit revised RMPs that removed the OCA data (unless they chose to 
retain it) and included the new data under the today's rule. Any OCA 
data that had been submitted as part of the update, moreover, would 
remain part of EPA's official records. The Agency is therefore 
clarifying that the rule's 5-year update provision requires that RMPs 
initially due on June 21, 1999 be updated by June 21, 2004, not before. 
Early filers that received an EPA letter acknowledging receipt and 
indicating an update deadline prior to June 21, 2004, should disregard 
that date, which was calculated without consideration of potential 
early filings, and instead submit their 5-year update by June 21, 
2004.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Any source that has submitted an update prior to issuance of 
today's rule may request to have its update returned and may use the 
June 21, 2004, date as the deadline for its update. An update that 
is returned upon such a request would not be retained as part of 
EPA's official records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the clarification above, EPA anticipates that the vast 
majority of RMPs initially submitted by June 21, 1999 will be updated 
and submitted to the Agency on or close to June 21, 2004. EPA has 
therefore selected June 21, 2004, as the start date for complying with 
the new reporting requirements established by today's rule. 
Accordingly, as of June 21, 2004, all current RMPs on file with EPA 
must include the new emergency contact, contractor, and RMP submission 
information required by today's rule. EPA therefore recommends that RMP 
updates now being prepared include this information by the time they 
are submitted on or before June 21, 2004. RMP updates submitted prior 
to June 21, 2004, without this information will have to be corrected to 
include this information by June 21, 2004. RMPs not being updated by 
June 21, 2004, will also have to be corrected to include this 
information by the June 21, 2004, deadline. As discussed above, EPA 
plans to have in place an Internet-based system for adding this 
information that should reduce the burden of having to supply the 
information separate from any RMP update.
    The June 21, 2004, start date also applies to the new requirement 
to include in RMP accident histories information about reportable 
accidents within six months of the accident. Any accidental release 
meeting accident history reporting criteria and occurring after 
promulgation of this rule will need to be added to the source's RMP 
accident history within six months of the accident or by the time the 
source is required to update its RMP (which requires an update of the 
source's accident history), whichever is earlier.

V. Technical Corrections

    The original RMP rule published in January of 1994 contains a 
provision, Sec.  68.2, effectively staying the rule for several years 
for certain types of sources. EPA later amended the rule to exclude 
these types of sources from the rule's coverage altogether. See 61 FR 
31731 (June 20, 1996), and 64 FR 29170 (May 28, 1999). The time period 
of the stay lapsed in 1997 and 1999 (depending on the type of source 
affected). Moreover, the need for a stay was eliminated with the rule 
changes. EPA is therefore rescinding Sec.  68.2, since its presence in 
the regulations continues to cause confusion about their applicability.
    Several provisions of the original RMP rule refer to June 21, 1999 
for purposes of identifying the correct method and format for 
submitting RMPs to EPA (see Sec. Sec.  68.150(a) and 68.190(a)). That 
date was appropriate for initial RMPs that were due on June 21, 1999, 
but with today's rule it no longer makes sense. EPA is thus changing 
those provisions to reflect that sources should use the method and 
format for submitting RMPs that EPA has specified by the date of 
submission.

VI. Summary of the Final Rule

    EPA is amending several sections of part 68 of title 40 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations.
    Section 68.2 is deleted as the period for these stayed provisions 
has expired and final actions on these were taken at 61 FR 31731 on 
June 20, 1996, and at 64 FR 29170 on May 28, 1999.

[[Page 18829]]

    Section 68.150, Submission, is amended to reflect the new reporting 
schedule requirements.
    Section 68.155, Executive Summary, is amended 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 68.160, Registration, is amended to require reporting of 
(1) the e-mail address for the emergency contact, if such an address 
exists, (2) the name, address and phone number of any contractor who 
helped in preparing the source's RMP; and (3) the type of and reason 
for any RMP submission changing or otherwise affecting the previously 
submitted RMP. The section is also amended to allow for optional 
reporting of the e-mail address of the person responsible for the RMP 
elements and implementation.
    Section 68.190 is amended to clarify that sources that submitted 
their RMPs prior to June 21, 1999 (the initial deadline for submitting 
RMPs) are not required to submit a five-year update of their RMPs 
before June 21, 2004; to reflect the periodic nature of the five-year 
update requirement; and to change the revised registration reference to 
de-registration.
    Section 68.195, Corrections, is added. This new section requires 
sources to submit revised RMP accident history and incident 
investigation elements within six months of an accidental release that 
meets the five-year accident history reporting criteria. Sources are 
also required to submit a correction to the RMP emergency contact 
information within one month of any changes.

VII. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, judicial review of 
the actions taken by this final rule is available only on the filing of 
a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this action. 
Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the 
subject of today's action may not be challenged later in civil or 
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

VIII. 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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA 
that it considered this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the 
meaning of the Executive Order. EPA submitted this action to OMB for 
review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations 
are documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this 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 requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document has 
been assigned EPA ICR number 1656.11.
    EPA is modifying 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 
adding three mandatory data elements and an optional data element to 
the RMP. EPA is removing the regulatory requirement to discuss the off-
site consequence analysis (OCA) data in the executive summary of the 
RMP.
    Two commenters opposed Agency's estimates in the ICR (1656.10) 
developed for the proposed rule (68 FR 45124). Commenters argued that 
EPA underestimated the burden associated with one of the elements 
proposed, the re-submission of the RMP within six months of the date of 
the accident. Based on the data included in the 1999 RMP submissions 
from 15,000 facilities, only 55 facilities have reported multiple 
accidents in the five-year accident history section of their RMPs. EPA 
assumed that only these facilities will be affected by the re-
submission schedule due to frequent accidents. Most of these 55 are 
facilities with Program 3 processes, which are already covered by the 
OSHA Process Safety Management (OSHA PSM) Program. OSHA already 
requires facilities under the PSM program to conduct accident 
investigation. There is no additional burden under the risk management 
program for conducting accident investigations for these facilities, 
except for reporting the accident history elements specified in the 
risk management plan. The recent ICR renewal approved by OMB (ICR No. 
1656.09) already accounted burden estimates for resubmitting RMP in 
June 2004. The estimates in the ICR developed for this final rule is 
only for the changes made to the regulations.
    EPA has made reasonable estimates for the changes made in this 
final rule. To become familiar with this rule, it is estimated that it 
will take only 2.0 hours for each facility. To report new data 
elements, EPA estimates that it will take 0.25 hours for each facility. 
To report accident history elements within six months of the accident, 
the burden is estimated to range from 3.0 hours for wholesale to 9.0 
hours for large chemical manufacturers. For those facilities that may 
have changes in their emergency contact information, the reporting 
burden is estimated to be 0.10 hours for each facility. For 14,930 
facilities that are currently subject to part 68, this rule change will 
increase a burden of 33,943 hours annually (101,829 hours for three 
years) at a cost of $992,400 annually ($2,997,200 for three 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

[[Page 18830]]

control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 
are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the 
Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 
Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved 
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.

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-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    Since today's rule only revises several reporting requirements of 
the RMP rule, its economic impact on regulated entities is addressed by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this document. After considering 
the relatively minor economic impacts of the final 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 final 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 final 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 
regulation.
    This final 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 final 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.

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 final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The final 
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

[[Page 18831]]

populations affected. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

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 final rule is not subject to Executive 
Order 13045 because it does not involve regulatory decisions that are 
based on 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 
final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not 
considering 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. A Major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published 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 April 9, 2004.

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: March 31, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 68 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 68--CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 68 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r), 7601(a)(1), 7661-7661f.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 68.2 is removed.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
3. Section 68.42 is amended to revise paragraph (b)(11) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  68.42  Five-year accident history.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (11) Operational or process changes that resulted from 
investigation of the release and that have been made by the time this 
information is submitted in accordance with Sec.  68.168.
* * * * *

Subpart G--[Amended]

0
4. Section 68.150 is amended to redesignate paragraphs (c) through (e) 
as paragraphs (d) through (f), to add a new paragraph (c), and to 
revise paragraph (a) and newly designated paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  68.150  Submission.

    (a) The owner or operator shall submit a single RMP that includes 
the information required by Sec. Sec.  68.155 through 68.185 for all 
covered processes. The RMP shall be submitted in the method and format 
to the central point specified by EPA as of the date of submission.
* * * * *
    (c) The owner or operator of any stationary source for which an RMP 
was submitted before June 21, 2004, shall revise the RMP to include the 
information required by Sec.  68.160(b)(6) and (14) by June 21, 2004 in 
the manner specified by EPA prior to that date. Any such submission 
shall also include the information required by Sec.  68.160(b)(20) 
(indicating that the submission is a correction to include the 
information required by Sec.  68.160(b)(6) and (14) or an update under 
Sec.  68.190).
    (d) RMPs submitted under this section shall be updated and 
corrected in accordance with Sec. Sec.  68.190 and 68.195.
* * * * *


Sec.  68.155  [Amended]

0
5. Section 68.155 is amended to remove paragraph (c) and redesignate 
paragraphs (d) through (g) as paragraphs (c) through (f).

0
6. Section 68.160 is amended to revise paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6), 
redesignate paragraphs (b)(14) through (b)(18) as paragraphs (b)(15) 
through (b)(19), and to add new paragraphs (b)(14) and (b)(20) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  68.160  Registration.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) The name and title of the person or position with overall 
responsibility for RMP elements and implementation, and (optional) the 
e-mail address for that person or position;
    (6) The name, title, telephone number, 24-hour telephone number, 
and, as of June 21, 2004, the e-mail address (if an e-mail address 
exists) of the emergency contact;
* * * * *
    (14) As of June 21, 2004, the name, the mailing address, and the 
telephone

[[Page 18832]]

number of the contractor who prepared the RMP (if any);
* * * * *
    (20) As of June 21, 2004, the type of and reason for any changes 
being made to a previously submitted RMP; the types of changes to RMP 
are categorized as follows:
    (i) Updates and re-submissions required under Sec.  68.190(b);
    (ii) Corrections under Sec.  68.195 or for purposes of correcting 
minor clerical errors, updating administrative information, providing 
missing data elements or reflecting facility ownership changes, and 
which do not require an update and re-submission as specified in Sec.  
68.190(b);
    (iii) De-registrations required under Sec.  68.190(c); and
    (iv) Withdrawals of an RMP for any facility that was erroneously 
considered subject to this part 68.

0
7. Section 68.190 is amended to revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and (c) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  68.190  Updates.

    (a) The owner or operator shall review and update the RMP as 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section and submit it in the method 
and format to the central point specified by EPA as of the date of 
submission.
    (b) * * *
    (1) At least once every five years from the date of its initial 
submission or most recent update required by paragraphs (b)(2) through 
(b)(7) of this section, whichever is later. For purposes of determining 
the date of initial submissions, RMPs submitted before June 21, 1999 
are considered to have been submitted on that date.
* * * * *
    (c) If a stationary source is no longer subject to this part, the 
owner or operator shall submit a de-registration to EPA within six 
months indicating that the stationary source is no longer covered.

0
8. Section 68.195 is added to subpart G to read as follows:


Sec.  68.195  Required corrections.

    The owner or operator of a stationary source for which a RMP was 
submitted shall correct the RMP as follows:
    (a) New accident history information--For any accidental release 
meeting the five-year accident history reporting criteria of Sec.  
68.42 and occurring after April 9, 2004, the owner or operator shall 
submit the data required under Sec. Sec.  68.168, 68.170(j), and 
68.175(l) with respect to that accident within six months of the 
release or by the time the RMP is updated under Sec.  68.190, whichever 
is earlier.
    (b) Emergency contact information--Beginning June 21, 2004, within 
one month of any change in the emergency contact information required 
under Sec.  68.160(b)(6), the owner or operator shall submit a 
correction of that information.

[FR Doc. 04-7777 Filed 4-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P