[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10074-10095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02418]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

40 CFR Part 1604

[Agency Docket Number: CSB-2019-0004]
RIN 3301-AA00


Accidental Release Reporting

AGENCY: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The enabling statute of the Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board (CSB) provides that the CSB shall establish by 
regulation requirements binding on persons for reporting accidental 
releases into the ambient air subject to the Board's investigative 
jurisdiction. The final rule is intended to satisfy this statutory 
requirement. The rule describes when an owner or operator is required 
to file a report of an accidental release, and the required content of 
such a report. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that the CSB 
receives rapid, accurate reports of any accidental release that meets 
established statutory criteria.

DATES: This rule is effective as of March 23, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Goonan, General Counsel of 
the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, by telephone at 
202-261-7600, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CSB was established by the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (November 15, 
1990). The statute directs the CSB, among other things, to investigate 
(or cause to be investigated), determine, and report to the public in 
writing the facts, conditions, and circumstances and the cause or 
probable cause of any accidental release resulting in a fatality, 
serious injury, or substantial property damages and recommend measures 
to reduce the likelihood or the consequences of accidental releases and 
propose corrective steps to make chemical production, processing, 
handling and storage as safe and free

[[Page 10075]]

from risk of injury as is possible. 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(i) and 
(ii).
    The CSB's enabling legislation also includes a requirement that the 
CSB establish by regulation requirements binding on persons for 
reporting accidental releases into the ambient air subject to the 
Board's investigatory jurisdiction. Reporting releases to the National 
Response Center, in lieu of the Board directly, shall satisfy such 
regulations. The National Response Center shall promptly notify the 
Board of any releases which are within the Board's jurisdiction. 42 
U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(iii).
    Although the CSB's enabling legislation was enacted in 1990, the 
CSB did not begin operations until 1998. Since 1998, the CSB has not 
promulgated an accidental release-reporting requirement as envisioned 
in the CSB enabling legislation.
    In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector 
General recommended that the CSB implement the statutory reporting 
requirement: ``The CSB needs to refine its mechanism for learning of 
chemical incidents, and it should publish a regulation describing how 
the CSB will receive the notifications it needs.'' (Department of 
Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, ``A Report on the 
Continuing Development of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board,'' OIG-04-04, Jan. 2004, at 14.) In 2008, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) also recommended that the CSB 
fulfill its statutory obligation by issuing a reporting rule. (U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, ``Chemical Safety Board: Improvements 
in Management and Oversight Are Needed,'' GAO-08-864R, Aug. 22, 2008, 
at 11.)
    On June 25, 2009, the CSB submitted an advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled ``Chemical Release Reporting,'' at 74 FR 
30259-30263, June 25, 2009. The ANPRM outlined four potential 
approaches to accidental release reporting and requested additional 
information for developing a proposed rule. Specifically, the CSB 
sought comments in response to several specific questions, including 
but not limited to the following:
     Are there Federal, State, or local rules or programs for 
reporting chemical or other types of incidents that would be an 
appropriate model for the CSB to consider in developing a reporting 
requirement?
     Should an initial report be made to the CSB or the 
National Response Center?
     What information should be reported to the CSB?
     How soon after an accident should reporting occur?
     Should the rule be designed with distinct requirements for 
rapid notification of high-consequence incidents and more systematic 
(and slower) notification of other incidents?
Id. at 30262.
    In response to the ANPRM, the CSB received 27 comments from a 
variety of interested parties. These comments are included as part of 
the docket for this rulemaking and labeled for reference as CSB-
ANPR0901-000001 to CSB-ANPR0901-000133.
    On February 4, 2019, a U.S. District Court judge ordered the CSB to 
issue a rule requiring the reporting of accidental chemical releases to 
the CSB. See Air Alliance of Houston, et al. v. U.S. Chemical Safety 
and Hazard Investigation Board, 365 F. Supp. 3d 118 (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 
2019). The court directed the CSB to promulgate a final rule within 12 
months of the date of the court's final order.
    On December 12, 2019, the CSB published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking and provided thirty days for public comment. 84 FR 67899, 
December 12, 2019.
    In response to the proposed rule, the CSB received numerous 
comments from approximately 43 interested parties or groups. In light 
of these comments and additional analysis, the CSB has revised certain 
sections of the proposed rule which are reflected in the final rule 
adopted in this document.

Regulatory Requirements

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. Ch. 25)

    The Act does not apply to independent regulatory agencies, 2 U.S.C. 
658(1). In any event, the rule does not contain a Federal mandate that 
may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in 
any one year. Nor will it have a significant or unique effect on small 
governments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 6)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to 
assess the impact of a rule on small entities and to consider less 
burdensome alternatives for rules that are expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
5 U.S.C. 603. However, an agency is not required to prepare such an 
analysis for a rule if the Agency head certifies that the rule will 
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). For the reasons 
discussed below, the CSB has certified to the SBA's Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, or small 
organizations.

Summary of Rule

    As authorized by 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(iii), the CSB is issuing a 
final rule to require an owner or operator of a stationary source to 
submit an accidental release report to the CSB. The d rule describes 
when an owner or operator is required to file a report of an accidental 
release, and the required content of such a report. The purpose of the 
rule is to ensure that the CSB receives rapid, accurate reports of any 
accidental release that meets established statutory criteria.
    The accidental release reports will require only information that 
is already known or should be available to an owner/operator soon after 
an accidental release. To provide the owner/operator more time to 
gather the necessary information the final rule has increased the 
reporting window from four to eight hours. The required information is 
also limited in scope to critical information required for the CSB to 
make informed decisions about its jurisdiction, interagency 
coordination, and deployment decision-making. For example, paragraphs 
(a) through (e) require only minimal contact information and a basic 
description of the accidental release. Paragraph (g) requests the 
relevant Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number associated 
with the chemical(s) involved in the accidental release. Paragraphs 
(h), (i), (j), and (l)(1)-(3) include an important qualifier, ``if 
known.'' This qualifier recognizes that some or all of this information 
may not be known within eight hours of an accidental release. (See 
discussion under Sec.  1604.3, Reporting an accidental release).

Economic Impact

Small Entity Impact

    Although the CSB concluded that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on businesses, regardless of size, the CSB 
nevertheless estimated how many small businesses would be impacted by 
the proposed rule by using the following methodology.
    In order to estimate the percentage of reports that would likely be 
filed by small businesses each year, the CSB

[[Page 10076]]

reviewed the 1,923 accidental releases that occurred between 2009 and 
2019 to determine how many releases could be matched to an NAICS code 
and how many distinct NAICS codes were represented. Of the 1,923 
incidents, approximately 85 percent (1,625) had a NAICS code 
identifier. The 1,625 events were distributed among 441 distinct, six-
digit NAICS codes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CSB determined that a total of 253 NAICS codes appeared 
only one time over 10 years. Thus, 57% (253 out of 441) of the codes 
involved only one incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the distribution of accidental releases among so many 
different NAICS codes, the CSB focused its analysis on the business 
types most likely to be impacted by the proposed rule: firms with NAICS 
codes that appeared most often in the dataset. The CSB sorted the 1,625 
releases with a NAICS code into three segments: (1) NAICS codes which 
appeared at least 10 times in the dataset; (2) NAICS codes which 
appeared between 5-9 times, and (3) NAICS codes that appeared less than 
5 times. The CSB concluded that a total of 19 NAICS codes appeared 10 
or more times and represented 423 separate incidents, or 26% of the 
1,923 events recorded in the database.
    The 19 NAICS codes with at least 10 events over the pertinent time 
period are listed in Table 2 below. The CSB used these 19 codes as a 
sample to assess impact on small businesses. The CSB assumed that 
releases fell evenly across all businesses within each NAICS code. 
Based on the total number of reports for each code (column 2), the CSB 
calculated the percentage of accidental releases occurring within each 
of the 19 most frequent NAICS codes in relation to the total number of 
1,923 incidents in the database. This information is summarized in 
Table 2, column 3.
    The CSB used the U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small 
Business Size Standards to determine the pertinent small business 
standard for each of the 19 NAICS categories.\2\ Depending on the NAICS 
code, a firm's status as a small business is determined by the number 
of employees or by annual revenue.\3\ The pertinent measure for each 
NAICS code, employment or revenue, is set out in Table 2 in the fourth 
and fifth columns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business 
Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification 
System Codes (effective August 19, 2019), available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
    \3\ Id. The SBA does set out some alternative measures for 
certain codes, but the CSB review used only standard measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSB determined the total number of firms in each category, and 
the total number of small firms in each category, by consulting the 
most recent census tables summarizing data for U.S. businesses. See 
Table 1, columns 6 and 7. The most recent data for businesses measured 
by employment is from 2016.\4\ The most recent data for businesses 
measured in terms of revenue is from 2012.\5\ The percentage of small 
businesses within each NAICS code is listed in the last column of Table 
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and 
Annual Payroll by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States, 
All Industries: 2016 (released 12/18/2018), available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/econ/susb/2016-susb-annual.html.
    \5\ Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, 
Annual Payroll, and Estimated Receipts by Enterprise Receipt Sizes 
for the United States, All Industries: 2012 (released June 22, 
2015), available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/econ/susb/2012-susb-annual.html.

                                    Table 1--Releases by NAICS Categories in Terms of Frequency of Releases 2009-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number      Size standards
                                                           (percent) of   in millions of  Size standards
           NAICS code              NAICS industry name     incidents in     dollars of     in number of    Total  firms        Small         %  Small
                                                              sample          revenue        employees
                                                             (N=1,923)        (2012)          (2016)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
324110.........................  Petroleum Refineries...       54 (2.8%)             N/A           1,500              96            * 51              53
213112.........................  Support Activities for        48 (2.5%)             $42             N/A           8,877           8,595              98
                                  Oil and Gas Operations.
211111.........................  Crude Petroleum and           44 (2.3%)             N/A            1250           5,658         * 5,558              98
                                  Natural Gas Extraction.
424690.........................  Other Chemical and            28 (1.5%)             N/A             150           5,912           5,410              92
                                  Allied Products
                                  Merchant Wholesalers.
213111.........................  Drilling oil and gas...       27 (1.4%)             N/A            1000           1,795         * 1,754              98
325199.........................  All Other Basic Organic      24 (1.25%)             N/A           1,250             584           * 485              83
                                  Chemical Manufacturing.
325998.........................  All Other Miscellaneous      24 (1.25%)             N/A             500           1,005             924              92
                                  Chemical Product and
                                  Preparation
                                  Manufacturing.
325211.........................  Plastics Material and        20 (1.04%)             N/A           1,250             855           * 736              86
                                  Resin Manufacturing.
423930.........................  Recyclable Material          20 (1.04%)             N/A             100           6,776            6569              97
                                  Merchant Wholesalers.
331110.........................  Iron and Steel Mills...      22 (1.14%)             N/A           1,500             442           * 372              84
221310.........................  Water Supply and              18 (.94%)             $30             N/A           3,293           3,243              98
                                  Irrigation Systems.
424720.........................  Petroleum and Petroleum       17 (.88%)             N/A             200           1,690            1490              88
                                  Products Merchant
                                  Wholesalers.
238910.........................  Site Preparation              15 (.78%)             $17             N/A          33,806          33,324              98
                                  Contractors.
311615.........................  Poultry Processing.....       13 (.68%)             N/A           1,250             317           * 258              81
325180.........................  All Other Basic                 16 (.8)             N/A            1000             365             279              76
                                  Inorganic.
221320.........................  Sewage Treatment              12 (.62%)             $22             N/A             398             370              93
                                  Facilities.
237120.........................  Oil and Gas Pipeline          12 (.62%)             $40             N/A           1,779            1592              89
                                  and Related Structures
                                  Construction.
811111.........................  General Automotive            11 (.57%)              $8             N/A          76,336          75,639              99
                                  Repair.

[[Page 10077]]

 
713940.........................  Fitness and                   10 (.52%)              $8             N/A          24,775          24,348              98
                                  Recreational Sports
                                  Centers.
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total..................       435 (23%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: An asterisk appears next to numbers in the table that are estimates based on a lack of sufficiently specific census data. For example, the
  pertinent employment size standard for iron and steel mills set by the SBA is 1,500 employees. However, census data does not provide specific
  information on the number of firms with more than 1,500 employees. Instead, the highest category is 500 and more employees. Thus, for purposes of
  analysis, the firms with less than 500 employees were counted as small firms.

* * * * *
    The CSB then multiplied the percentage of small businesses within 
each category by the total number of reported releases in that category 
over the 10-year period. Table 2, column 7. This number was then 
divided by 10 to obtain the number of reports anticipated each year on 
average from small businesses within each NAICS code.\6\ Table 2, 
column 8. Because the number of small business reports expected 
annually is low, (covering a range from .91 to 4.7) for the sectors 
with the most identifiable releases, the CSB reasons that the impact in 
sectors with only a few releases over 10 years would be 
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The database covered approximately 10.5 years, but the CSB 
used 10 in its calculation for simplicity.

                                                    Table 2--Expected Annual Reports Burden by Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Expected
                                                                                                             Expected      reports from      Expected
           NAICS code              NAICS industry name         Total           Small          % Small     reports (2020-       small          annual
                                                          businesses \7\                                       2030)        businesses    reports--small
                                                                                                                            (2020-2030)      business
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213112.........................  Support Activities for            8,727           8,596             .98              48              47             4.7
                                  Oil and Gas Operations.
211111.........................  Crude Petroleum and               5,658           5,558             .98              44              43            4.32
                                  Natural Gas Extraction.
324110.........................  Petroleum Refineries...              96              51             .53              54           28.29            2.87
213111.........................  Drilling Oil and Gas              1,795           1,754             .98              27              27            2.64
                                  Operations.
325998.........................  Miscellaneous Chemical            1,005             924             .92              24              22             2.2
                                  Product & Preparation
                                  Manufacturing.
423930.........................  Recyclable Material               6,776           6,569             .97              20            19.4            1.94
                                  Merchant Wholesalers.
325199.........................  All Other Basic Organic             584             485             .83              24              20            1.99
                                  Chemical Manufacturing.
331110.........................  Iron and Steel Mills...             442             372             .84              22           18.48            1.85
325211.........................  Plastics Material and               855             736             .86              20            17.2             1.7
                                  Resin Manufacturing.
221310.........................  Water Supply and                  3,293           3,243             .98              18            17.6            1.76
                                  Irrigation Systems.
424690.........................  Other Chemical and                5,912           5,410             .92              17           15.64            1.56
                                  Allied Products
                                  Merchant Wholesalers.
424720.........................  Petro. and Petro.                 1,690           1,487             .88              17              15             1.5
                                  Products Merchant
                                  Wholesalers (except
                                  Bulk Stations and
                                  Terminals).
238910.........................  Site Preparation                 34,153          32,997             .98              15            14.7            1.47
                                  Contractors.
325180.........................  All Other Basic                     365             279             .76              16           12.16            1.22
                                  Inorganic Chemical
                                  Manufacturing.
221320.........................  Sewage Treatment                    398             370             .93              12            11.2            1.12
                                  Facilities.
811111.........................  General Automotive               76,336          75,639             .99              11           10.89            1.08
                                  Repair.
237120.........................  Oil and Gas Pipeline              1,779           1,592             .89              12              11             1.1
                                  and Related Structures
                                  Construction.
311615.........................  Poultry Processing.....             317             258             .81              13            10.5             1.0

[[Page 10078]]

 
713940.........................  Fitness and                      24,775          24,348             .98              10              10             .98
                                  Recreational Sports
                                  Centers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In order to calculate the number of small businesses, the CSB had to use two different census tables. If the size standard was based on revenue, the
  CSB relied on a 2012 table. If the size standard was based on employment, the CSB used the 2016 table.

Estimated Reports per Year

    The CSB identified 1,923 chemical accidents in its database that 
occurred between January 1, 2009, and July 15, 2019. Each of these 
incidents involved either a fatality or hospitalization. A copy of the 
CSB's database information regarding the 1,923 accidental releases is 
included in the docket for reference.\8\ The total number of annual 
incidents ranged from a low of 113 in 2017 to a high of 291 in 2012. 
Over 10.5 years, the average annual number of accidents was 
approximately 183. The median number of accidents per year was 169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Because of the CSB's limited resources and lack of available 
information, there are certain limitations to the information 
contained in the CSB database. The database was not designed to 
comprehensively collect statistically valid data concerning all 
accidental releases. Much of the information in the database comes 
from the first day of incident media reports. The CSB could only 
follow up on a limited number of events per year to verify 
information contained in the media reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the database tracked hospitalizations (as opposed to the 
broader definition of serious injuries as defined in the proposed 
rule), it is possible that certain incidents where there was no death 
or hospitalization are not included in the database. In addition, it is 
possible that the CSB's data does not include a small number of 
accidental releases that resulted in a fatality. A release resulting in 
a fatality might have been missed if it was not reported to the 
National Response Center (NRC) pursuant to other law or not reported in 
the media.\9\ For these reasons, the CSB recognizes that the annual 
average of 183 incidents may undercount a certain number of accidental 
releases which meet the CSB's statutory criteria. On the other hand, 
the past annual average does not take into account that a certain 
number of full reports will not be required under the proposed rule if 
a party has already reported the release to the NRC as required by the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA). In light of all factors, the CSB increased its annual 
estimate of reports from the historic average of 183 to 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ During the relevant time period, the CSB relied on NRC 
reports and media surveillance search engines to identify releases 
of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burden Estimate-Time

    The CSB considered two areas of burden: Familiarization costs and 
reporting costs. The CSB estimated that it would take approximately 45 
minutes for each firm to learn about the rule and when to report. The 
CSB considers this a one-time cost, which will be borne by all entities 
that might experience an accidental release, whether or not such a 
release occurs. The CSB also estimated that it would take each firm 
approximately 15 minutes to submit a report to the CSB following an 
accidental release.
    The CSB compared forms the NRC uses to guide its operators in 
taking release information with questions similar to those included in 
the CSB's proposed form. The main difference is that the proposed CSB 
form had fewer data queries. The CSB asked NRC how long it typically 
took its operators to collect information from a caller reporting an 
accidental release. NRC explained it does have specific information 
concerning how the length of calls differ based on the type of report 
being made,\10\ but that it had more general information to share. NRC 
informed the CSB that it receives approximately 30,000 telephone 
reports each year, and the average time required for each operator to 
complete the call was approximately eight minutes. The CSB conducted 
two simulated accidental release phone calls in which the caller was 
asked for the same information as is required under the proposed rule. 
These simulated calls also took approximately 8 minutes. Thus, the 
available information indicated that a phone submission would take 
approximately 8 minutes. In its judgment, the CSB estimated that it 
would take 2-3 additional minutes to complete a screen-fillable pdf 
form and email it to the CSB. To allow for some margin of error in its 
analysis, the CSB estimates that it will take approximately 15 minutes 
to submit a report, either by telephone or by emailing a form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The NRC receives reports under many different laws. When 
NRC receives a call, it does not ask questions based on the specific 
law. Rather, it asks for information based on the type of ``event.'' 
For example, there is an offshore release event category and an 
onshore facility release category. The NRC does not compare how long 
it takes to obtain information based on the nature of each event 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burden Estimate-Cost

    The CSB then estimated an hourly labor cost to translate the time 
requirement into a cost figure. In order to determine an appropriate 
hourly rate, the CSB identified six relevant occupation codes, the 
annual mean wage, and the mean hourly wage for each, based on the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2018 National Occupational Employment 
and Wage Estimates United States.\11\ The CSB next combined the average 
hourly rate for each of the six classifications and divided that total 
by six. This calculation produced an average hourly rate of $37.20. 
This information is summarized in Table 3 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSB then multiplied the average hourly wage ($37.20) by the 
total time requirement for the first year of one (1) hour (45 minutes 
to learn about the rule and 15 minutes to submit a report). This 
calculation resulted in an estimated per-business compliance cost 
during the first year of $37.20. However, not all businesses will need 
to file a report during the first year or each year thereafter. 
Further, some businesses who need to file a report each year will not 
have to submit a full report to the CSB if the firm has already 
reported the event to the NRC under CERCLA.
    Based on the minimal per business cost, the CSB has concluded that 
the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on any 
business, regardless of size.

[[Page 10079]]



                                 Table 3--Occupational Classifications and Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Mean annual
             Occupational code                         Occupation title                wage         Mean hourly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13-1041....................................  Compliance Officer.................         $72,520          $34.86
17-2081....................................  Environmental Engineers............          92,640           44.54
17-2110....................................  Industrial Engineers \12\..........          91,800           44.14
17-1111....................................  Health and Safety Engineers \13\...          93,630           45.01
17-3025....................................  Environmental Engineering                    54,800           26.34
                                              Technicians.
17-3026....................................  Industrial Engineering Technicians.          58,860           28.30
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Composite Average Hourly...............  ...................................  ..............           37.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Includes health and safety engineers.
\13\ Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors.

    The CSB also requested comments on the threshold economic analysis, 
presented above, and its underlying assumptions. The CSB received a 
number of comments concerning the CSB's estimate of annual reports and 
the related burden of compliance. The CSB discusses these issues in 
more detail the preamble and has made revisions to the rule that 
address such concerns.
    After reviewing the comments and making certain revisions to the 
final rule to address concerns, the CSB has concluded that this rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35)

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) 
provides that an agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a 
collection of information, and no person is required to respond to, nor 
be subject to a penalty for, failure to comply with a collection of 
information unless that collection has obtained Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) approval and displays a currently valid OMB Control 
Number.
    The proposed rule also included the notice required under 5 CFR 
1320.5(a)(1)(iv), which is reprinted below.
    Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    Title of the Collection: Accidental release report.
    Summary of the Collection: The proposed collection requires an 
owner/operator of a stationary source to report information concerning 
an accidental release. Specific detail is provided in the proposed 
information collection request.
    Need for the information and proposed use of the information: The 
CSB is required by law to issue an accidental release reporting rule. 
The CSB intends to use the information to learn of any accidental 
release within its jurisdiction and to plan how to respond to that 
particular accidental release.
    A description of the likely respondents: The vast majority of 
respondents will be private sector businesses involved in the 
production, storage or handling of regulated substances or extremely 
hazardous substances.
    Estimated number of likely respondents per year: 200.
    Proposed frequency of response to the collection of information: 
Most respondents will only submit a response if an accidental release 
within the scope of the rule occurs during a given year. For the vast 
majority of potential respondents, the frequency of responses will 
likely be ``none'' in a given year.
    An estimate of the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:
    Reporting: The CSB estimates that approximately 200 reports will be 
submitted each year, and that each report will take approximately 15 
minutes for each respondent to complete and submit to the CSB. Thus, 
the CSB estimates the total annual labor burden each year for reporting 
parties will be approximately 50 hours.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This estimate does not include first-year familiarization 
costs for potentially impacted firms to learn about the rule and its 
requirements. However, the first year familiarization cost 
calculation is addressed in the regulatory flexibility section of 
the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSB then estimated an hourly labor cost to translate the time 
requirement into an annual cost figure. In order to determine an 
appropriate hourly rate, the CSB identified six relevant occupational 
classifications, and the annual salary for each position, based on the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2018 National Occupational Employment 
and Wage Estimates. A full discussion of this calculation is included 
in the discussion above concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Based on its analysis, the CSB estimated an hourly rate of $37.20 was 
appropriate for purposes of estimated labor cost. The CSB then 
multiplied the average hourly wage rate of $37.20 by the total annual 
time estimate of 50 hours to determine its total annual cost estimate 
of $1,860.00.
    Recordkeeping: There is no recordkeeping requirement.
     * * *
    When the proposed rule was published, the CSB submitted its PRA 
package to OMB in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(3). The proposed rule 
also provided notice that comments could be provided to OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the CSB. The 
notice also indicated the deadline for submitting such comments to OMB.
    The notice explained that any interested person could also submit 
comments directly to the CSB regarding the accuracy of the provided 
burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent 
burden directly. Specifically, the notice asked commenters to:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Address the potential to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and
     Discuss options to minimize the burden of the collection 
of information on those who are to respond, including through the use 
of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other 
technological collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
    As of this date, the CSB has received one set of comments in 
response to the

[[Page 10080]]

notice which it has attempted to address in the preamble. As of this 
date, the CSB is still awaiting OMB's response to the CSB's PRA 
submission.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 
Ch. 6)

    The rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (as amended), 5 
U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the 
economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; 
or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and 
export markets.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (5 U.S.C. 804)

    The rule will not have a significant effect on the human 
environment. Accordingly, this rule is categorically excluded from 
environmental analysis under 43 CFR 46.210(i).

E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3504)

    Section 206 of the E-Government Act requires agencies, to the 
extent practicable, to ensure that all information about that agency 
required to be published in the Federal Register is also published on a 
publicly accessible website. All information about the CSB required to 
be published in the Federal Register may be accessed at 
www.regulations.gov.
    The E-Government Act requires, to the extent practicable, that 
agencies ensure that a publicly accessible Federal Government website 
contains electronic dockets for rulemakings under the Administrative 
Procedure Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.). Under this Act, an 
electronic docket consists of all submissions under section 553(c) of 
title 5, United States Code; and all other materials that by agency 
rule or practice are included in the rulemaking docket under section 
553(c) of title 5, United States Code, whether or not submitted 
electronically. The electronic docket for this rulemaking is available 
at www.regulations.gov.

Plain Writing Act of 2010 (5 U.S.C. 301)

    Under this Act, the term ``plain writing'' means writing that is 
clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices 
appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience. To ensure 
that this rulemaking has been written in plain and clear language so 
that it can be used and understood by the public, the CSB has modeled 
the language of this rule on the Federal Plain Language Guidelines.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12(d) 
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 Note)

    The NTTAA requires agencies to ``use technical standards that are 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies'' to carry 
out policy objectives determined by the agencies, unless they are 
``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.'' The CSB 
has determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards that are 
appropriate for use in the development of this rule.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the CSB 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. This action is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Discussion

    This rule adds a new part to title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, which will appear as a new part 1604. The new part 
consists of six sections. Section 1604.1 states the purpose of the 
rule. Section 1604.2 sets forth key definitions. Section 1604.3 sets 
forth who must file a report and when. Section 1604.4 describes the 
information required in each report. Section 1604.5 implements the 
enforcement provisions authorized by 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(O). Section 
1604.6 confirms that the procedure for seeking records obtained 
pursuant to the rule is governed by the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, the CSB's procedural regulations for disclosure 
of records under the FOIA, 40 CFR part 1601, and other pertinent 
Federal disclosure laws. Before addressing comments and revisions in 
the final rule to these specific provisions, the CSB will address areas 
of general concern reflected in the comments.

The CSB's Rule Is Duplicative and Unnecessary

    The CSB received a number of comments which complained that the 
proposed rule was unnecessary, duplicated existing reporting 
requirements under other laws, would result in a flood of data the CSB 
could not handle,\15\ and divert resources from the CSB's core mission 
of investigating and reporting on accidental releases.\16\ The CSB also 
received a number of comments that suggested that the CSB rely on 
information already submitted to the National Response Center (NRC). 
Other comments suggested that the CSB satisfy its requirements by 
relying on data collected by other Federal agencies--such as 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A comment from the ``CSB Coalition'' observed that the CSB 
only deployed to a small fraction of the accidental releases the CSB 
identified from January 1, 2009 to July 15, 2019.
    \16\ One commenter worried that processing data from the rule 
would divert far too many of the CSB's limited resources to 
gathering and screening such information, rather than investigating 
and developing critical safety recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a threshold matter, the CSB's response to comments concerning 
the necessity of the rule is simple. The CSB has a statutory duty, 
confirmed by court order, to issue a reporting rule despite concerns 
about its necessity or the duplication of existing requirements. At the 
same time, the CSB has considered comments and explored options for 
minimizing any burden that might be imposed by adding its own reporting 
requirement in addition to existing Federal requirements.
    In 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order 13650, which 
established the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group 
(Working Group). The goal of the Working Group was to improve 
coordination of Federal chemical safety and security efforts. In its 
2014 report, ``Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and 
Security--A Shared Commitment,'' the Working Group reported that 
stakeholders were concerned by duplicative Federal reporting and data 
requirements. The report (at p. viii.) noted that ``this duplication 
stems in part from multiple regulatory programs that developed and 
evolved over decades, with each incorporating technologies and data 
collection requirements independent of one another (often due to 
differing statutory requirements).'' The Working Group found ``there is 
no chemical security and safety data clearinghouse that contains all of 
the data points germane to all Federal agency regulations.'' Id.
    In this rulemaking, the AFL-CIO submitted a comment which echoed 
the Working Group's report:

    A number of agencies require some form of chemical accident 
reporting, including the National Response Center, OSHA, the EPA 
Risk Management Program, and the Coast Guard. Each has its own 
reporting procedures and deadlines, its own definition of a 
reportable accident, and its own lists of

[[Page 10081]]

covered facilities and chemicals. Much of the required information 
overlaps. This is an inefficient use of government resources, and it 
creates unnecessary burdens for owners/operators, researchers, 
emergency responders and interested members of the public.

    Accordingly, the CSB carefully considered various suggestions to 
avoid duplication of existing reporting requirements while ensuring 
that the CSB appropriately meets its statutory responsibility to issue 
a new Federal reporting requirement.
    Many comments urged the CSB to rely on the NRC for information. For 
most of its existence, the CSB has received and reviewed NRC reports. 
Various parties file reports with NRC according to a number of laws, 
and the CSB reviews this information to determine if there has been an 
accidental release within the CSB's jurisdiction. In proposing this 
rule, the CSB considered whether accidents reported to the NRC under 
other laws \17\ could reliably satisfy the CSB's notification 
requirements. The CSB concluded that reliance on information already 
reported to NRC would not satisfy its statutory obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A number of laws require that a report be sent to the NRC 
if a given event occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSB screened 1,923 incidents from 2010 to July 15, 2019 which 
resulted in an injury or fatality. The CSB compared NRC reports it 
received during that time period with the information it had collected 
through other means. The CSB found that it had matching NRC reports for 
only 13.16 percent (253) of the incidents the CSB had identified 
through other means. Moreover, of those matching reports, the CSB 
received notification of the incident from the media prior to receiving 
an NRC report 61% of the time.\18\ During the 10-year review period, 
the CSB concluded that the primary source of accidental release 
information was not NRC reports. Prior to proposing this rule, the CSB 
and NRC have consulted on ways to better utilize NRC information. While 
improvements can be made, some releases within the CSB's jurisdiction 
inevitably will not be reported to the NRC. One reason for this 
difference is that some laws do not require a report unless a threshold 
quantity of a regulated substance is released. Releases of less than a 
threshold quantity will not be reported to the NRC pursuant to those 
laws. However, the same release may have caused a death or serious 
injury within the jurisdiction of the CSB.\19\ This analysis supports a 
comment from the AFL-CIO that suggested the CSB rule should require 
that a report be filed with the CSB whether or not the accident was 
also reported to the National Response Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The CSB has added its analysis to the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    \19\ There may also be other factors that explain the CSBs 
findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also suggested that the CSB rely on information from 
other agencies that collect similar information pursuant to other laws. 
For example, the U.S. Sugar Beet Association argued that the CSB should 
rely on reports that OSHA obtains under 29 CFR 1904.39 and that a 
separate report to the CSB should not be required. However, OSHA's 
reporting rule under 29 CFR 1904.39 does not capture all the accidental 
releases within the CSB's jurisdiction. For example, an accidental 
release may result in the death of a member of the general public but 
no death or injury to an OSHA covered employee. In that instance, there 
would be no report to OSHA. In addition, OSHA's reporting rule does not 
require information on serious injuries within the time frame required 
by the CSB.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ OSHA's rule does set an eight-hour deadline for reporting 
fatalities, but allows 24 hours for employers to submit reports 
related to inpatient hospitalizations. Compare 29 CFR 1904.39(a)(1) 
and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CSB's Estimate of Burden Is Unrealistically Low

    Several commenters argued that the CSB's estimate of approximately 
200 reports per year was unrealistically low. The reason for the low 
estimate, according to these comments, was that the CSB relied on one 
definition of ``serious injury'' for its estimate but proposed a 
different, broader definition of ``serious injury'' in the proposed 
rule. Specifically, the CSB based its estimate on accidental releases 
resulting in a death or hospitalization but proposed a definition of 
``serious injury'' in its proposed rule that would require reports even 
if an accidental release did not result in a death or hospitalization. 
Because of this discrepancy, commenters argued that the definition of 
``serious injury'' should be limited to fatalities and 
hospitalizations.
    For example, the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration 
commented:

    [T]he 200 reports per year used in the economic impact/burden 
assessment for the rule and other discussions is based on the OSHA 
reportable definition (fatality and hospitalization). The proposed 
definition falls more in line with recordable injuries. If this 
definition is used, there will be thousands of reports per year, not 
200.

Based in large part on these concerns, the CSB has revised the 
definition of serious injury in the final rule to read as follows: 
``Serious injury means any injury or illness that results in death or 
in patient hospitalization.'' \21\ The proposed definition of ``serious 
injury'' in the rule is now the same as the criteria used in developing 
the CSB's estimate in its RFA analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The CSB has also added a definition of ``in patient 
hospitalization'' to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This revision does not mean that the CSB agrees with comments that 
argued the original definition of ``serious injury'' would have 
resulted in thousands of additional accidental release reports each 
year. Those comments relied on either anecdotal information or on 
``lost workday'' data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The 
CSB believes that estimates based on the BLS information greatly 
exaggerated the potential burden of a broader definition of serious 
injury.
    For example, the American Forest and Paper Association based its 
estimate on 17,000 lost workday cases recorded in 2018 BLS data which 
was due to exposure to harmful substances. Based on this information, 
the Association concluded that the proposed definition of ``serious 
injury'' would generate thousands of accidental release reports every 
year. The CSB disagrees with that conclusion. The BLS data does not 
indicate the nature of the substance involved, or whether the exposure 
was the result of an accidental release or some other cause. Even if 
the CSB had retained its proposed definition of ``serious injury,'' the 
CSB believes that the estimates based on the BLS lost days cases are 
exaggerated.
    In the past, the CSB has relied on broader injury criteria to help 
identify accidental releases within its jurisdiction. When the CSB 
employed this criteria, it did not identify thousands of events within 
its jurisdiction each year. Thus, the CSB will monitor information 
received under this rule and culled from public sources to further 
refine its criteria. For now, however, the CSB is confident that its 
revised definition of serious injury will capture all serious events 
which merit consideration for a possible agency deployment.
    In addition to the concerns described above, the CSB received 
numerous comments on each section of the proposed rule. These comments 
and the CSB's responses are discussed below.

Sec.  1604.1 Purpose

    The purpose of the rule remains unchanged--to ensure that the CSB 
receives prompt notice of any accidental release within the CSB's 
investigatory jurisdiction. The purpose of the rule is

[[Page 10082]]

to collect information useful to the CSB in assessing its jurisdiction 
and making deployment decisions. Some comments urged the CSB to employ 
its authority to obtain more detailed information on each accidental 
release in order to establish and maintain a comprehensive database 
that might be useful for several purposes. Other comments expressed 
concern that such an undertaking would divert the CSB's limited 
resource from its unique mission of conducting in depth safety 
investigations and making preventive recommendations. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ On a related note, a comment submitted by the American 
Chemistry Council raised a number of issues for further analysis, 
including the practical impact of the rule on board operations. ACC 
suggested that CSB conduct an analysis to determine whether the 
reporting regulation will, in fact, significantly improve the 
Board's investigation response time and is justified by the 
associated costs. Such an analysis is a useful suggestion but, must 
await implementation of the rule. The ACC had other comments 
concerning the CSB's historical database in comparison to other 
sources of chemical incident information. In its discussion of other 
comments, the CSB generally addressed this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the proposed rule, the CSB interprets its rulemaking 
authority as plainly focused on serving its investigative function--
that is, to ensure that the CSB receives prompt notice of accidental 
releases within its jurisdiction. A broader interpretation is 
inconsistent with the plain meaning of 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(6)(C)(iii).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In contrast, when Congress wants an agency to collect 
information for safety trend analysis and early warning of issues, 
it employs specific language to carry out such a purpose. E.g., 49 
U.S.C. 30166 (establishing clear authority for Secretary of 
Transportation to collect and analyze motor vehicle defect, accident 
and other information for purposes of trend analysis and 
prevention.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, there are already a variety of statutes designed to 
support broader data collection and analysis initiatives. There are 
also others laws, such as The Emergency Planning and Community Right to 
Know Act (EPCRA), are more tailored to making the public aware of 
information to mitigate risks and to enhance emergency 
preparedness.\24\ Thus, the final rule remains focused on ensuring that 
an owner/operator promptly reports an accidental release to the CSB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See section 303 of EPCRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1604.2 Definitions

    Section 1604.2 establishes definitions for the final rule. As 
explained in the proposed rule, the CSB incorporated the following 
definitions that are established at 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(A)-(C): 
``accidental release,'' ``stationary source,'' and ``regulated 
substance.'' The CSB exercised its rulemaking authority to define 
certain other terms important to rule implementation.
    Accidental release is defined as an unanticipated emission of a 
regulated substance or other extremely hazardous substance into the 
ambient air from a stationary source.
    This proposed definition is adopted verbatim from 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(2)(A). The CSB uses the statutory term ``accidental release'' 
throughout the rule to refer to an event meeting the specific statutory 
criteria under 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(A). To the extent there are 
references, in this or other related documents, to a ``chemical 
accident'' or ``incident,'' the context and specific facts will 
determine whether the event meets the statutory definition of an 
``accidental release,'' or is instead employed generically to describe 
an event that may or may not satisfy the statutory definition of an 
accidental release.
    One commenter suggested the CSB clarify that an explosion is not a 
per se accidental release. The rule does not indicate that an explosion 
is a per se accidental release. To the extent the commenter has a 
question or seeks clarification, the CSB may address the issue in 
guidance documents once the rule is final.

Another commenter wrote:

    A literal reading of the definition of ``accidental release'' 
would indicate that the proposal only covers unanticipated releases. 
Consequently, if a person sustains a serious injury that results 
from an intentional release, such as an approved and controlled 
discharge, then it is not a CSB-reportable incident. The Board 
should clarify as to how those injuries would be addressed for 
reporting purposes.

Again, the CSB cannot revise the statutory definition of ``accidental 
release.'' In addition, the commenter's hypothetical appears to be a 
compliance question, not a comment on the substance of the proposed 
rule. The CSB may address the hypothetical in a future guidance 
document.
    Another commenter complained that the statutory definition of 
accidental release incorporated into the rule contains no explanation 
of how the term as defined relates to various exemptions under other 
law such as CERCLA and EPCRA. The comment is not a proposal to revise 
the definition, which the CSB, of course, cannot do. Instead, the 
comment is a question for implementation guidance. In any event, if 
there is an accidental release as defined here which results in a 
death, serious injury, or substantial property damage, then the CSB 
expects that the release will be reported as required under this rule.
    Ambient air is defined as any portion of the atmosphere inside, 
adjacent to, or outside a stationary source. The CSB based this 
definition on the plain meaning of the words ``ambient'' and ``air.'' 
\25\ The proposed definition also took into account the specific 
purpose of the CSB and how this purpose differs from other programs 
established under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The plain meaning of the phrase ``ambient air'' is defined 
by two words--ambient, meaning ``existing or present on all sides'' 
and ``air,'' meaning ``the mixture of invisible odorless tasteless 
gases (as nitrogen and oxygen) that surrounds the earth'' (see, 
e.g., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambient; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/air).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing this definition, the CSB distinguished its proposed 
definition from one adopted by the EPA in its rule implementing the 
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA 
defines ``ambient air'' as that portion of the atmosphere, external to 
buildings, to which the general public has access. 40 CFR 50.1(e). As 
the CSB explained, EPA's definition at 40 CFR 50.1(e) may work well for 
implementation of the National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air 
Quality Standards. However, use of the EPA's definition of ambient air 
in the CSB's rule would undercut a primary purpose of section 112 of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990--to protect workers inside 
structures at a stationary source.
    Despite its explanation in the proposed rule, the CSB received 
several negative comments that argued the CSB's rule should use the EPA 
definition of ``ambient air'' at 40 CFR 50.1(e). One commenter asserted 
that both state and Federal courts have consistently understood, along 
with EPA, that ``ambient air'' refers to, at most, the unconfined 
portion of atmosphere or outdoor air. Another commenter observed that 
``[e]ven if CSB's purpose is broader than the purpose of the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, as CSB asserts, that purpose cannot 
justify rewriting a statutory term, as CSB's interpretation 
accomplishes by including air inside stationary source.'' Another 
argued that ``[w]hen Congress has determined an agency should exercise 
jurisdiction over indoor air (inside a stationary source), it has 
clearly expressed that intent (see, e.g., Radon Gas and Indoor Air 
Quality Research Act of 1986).''
    The CSB disagrees with these comments. First, the CSB is not 
rewriting a ``statutory'' term as one comment suggested. While the term 
``ambient air'' is used many times in the Clean Air Act, there is no 
statutory definition of ``ambient air'' under the Act. The CSB 
possesses the independent

[[Page 10083]]

authority to define the term as appropriate for purposes of 
implementing a reporting rule.
    Moreover, the EPA's definition is not applicable to the 
implementation of the CSB's statute. Adopting EPA's definition would 
divest the CSB of jurisdiction if an accidental release were not 
``exterior to buildings'' or into some areas ``to which the general 
public has access.'' Contrary to one comment, neither restriction is 
mandated by state or Federal courts. Thus, there is no legal 
requirement or rationale to use the EPA definition. Even the EPA has 
successfully argued that the 40 CFR 50.1(e) definition does not apply 
to other parts of the CAA. United States v. O' Connell, 2017 WL 4675775 
(E. D. Wis. 2017).
    The ``general public'' element of the EPA definition of ``ambient 
air'' would also add an additional jurisdictional hurdle not found in 
the CSB's enabling legislation.\26\ In U.S. v. Transocean Deepwater 
Drilling, Inc., 936 F. Supp. 818, 832 (S. D. Texas, March 30, 2013), 
Transocean argued that the EPA definition divested the CSB of 
jurisdiction by reading into 40 CFR 50.1(e) a requirement that air be 
promptly accessible to the general public. The Court rejected this 
interpretation, noting that Transocean lacked any authority for the 
argument. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ On December 2, 2019, the EPA announced a revised 
interpretation of the term ``ambient air'' which excludes the 
atmosphere over land controlled by the source ``where the source 
employs measures, which may include physical barriers that are 
effective in precluding access to the land by the general public.'' 
The CSB is aware that the EPA has longstanding policy 
interpretations of ``general public'' for purposes of implementing 
other sections of the Clean Air Act. However, these policy 
interpretations are neither binding nor pertinent to the CSB's 
implementation of an accidental release-reporting rule under its 
statutory authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the CSB's enabling legislation is to serve the 
safety interests of members of the general public and workers. If some 
form of ``general public'' requirement was read into the definition of 
``ambient air,'' the CSB's statutory language concerning 
recommendations to OSHA would be meaningless. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(6)(J).
    Extremely hazardous substance is defined as any substance that may 
cause death, serious injury, or substantial property damages, including 
but not limited to any ``regulated substance'' at or below any 
threshold quantity set by the EPA Administrator under 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(5).
    The term ``extremely hazardous substance'' is not defined in the 
CSB's enabling legislation. However, the relevant legislative history 
provides: ``The release of any substance which causes death or serious 
injury because of its acute toxic effect or as the result of explosion 
or fire or which causes substantial property damage by blast, fire, 
corrosion or other reaction would create a presumption that such 
substance is extremely hazardous.'' Sen. R. 101-228 at 139 (1989), 
reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3596. Although it is an important 
element, the specific property of a substance, such as flammability, 
toxicity, corrosivity, etc., does not always determine whether a 
substance is extremely hazardous. For example, a substance on its own 
may not be considered hazardous. When combined with other substances, 
however, the consequences may be lethal.
    The CSB's proposed definition of ``extremely hazardous substance'' 
focused on the consequences of a substance when it is accidentally 
released. Thus, an ``extremely hazardous substance,'' by CSB's 
definition, includes any substance that alone, or in combination with 
other substances or factors, causes death, serious injury, or 
substantial property damages. The manner in which it inflicts such 
consequences may vary (fire, explosion, etc.) but what defines the 
substance as hazardous is its impact on people and the environment.
    CSB's proposed rule explained that other laws or rules that define 
or list ``hazardous substance(s)'' provide useful guidance as to what 
is an ``extremely hazardous substance'' for purposes of the CSB's 
definition, but such lists or associated threshold quantities do not 
control the CSB's definition. Again, the pertinent legislative history 
supports an expansive definition:

    Extremely hazardous substances would also include other agents 
which may or may not be listed or otherwise identified by any 
Government agency currently which may as the result short-term 
exposures associated with releases to the air cause death, injury or 
property damage due to their toxicity, reactivity, flammability, 
volatility or corrosivity.

    S. Rep. 101-228 at 212 (1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 
3596.
    For example, the CSB asserted that its definition is not limited to 
substances listed as a ``regulated substance'' defined as such under 42 
U.S.C 7412(r)(3).

    The accidents which the Board is to investigate are those which 
result from the production, processing, handling or storage of a 
chemical substance (not limited to the extremely hazardous 
substances listed under subsection (c)) which result in a death, 
serious injury, or substantial property damage.

    S. Rep. 101-228 at 231 (1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 
3615. Thus, ``[e]xtremely hazardous substances would include, but are 
not limited to, those substances which are specifically listed by the 
Administrator under subsection (c).'' S. Rep.101-228 at 212 (1989), 
reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3596.
    Nor should the CSB definition be limited by threshold quantity 
limits set by other laws. A ``regulated substance'' includes a 
``threshold quantity'' set by the Administrator under 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(5). Limiting the CSB definition to threshold limits set by 
other laws would potentially lead to results inconsistent with the 
CSB's statutory purpose. For example, the accidental release of a 
``regulated substance'' that does not meet a threshold quantity can 
still cause serious injuries and death. There is nothing in the 
statutory scheme to suggest that a death or serious injury caused by 
less than a threshold quantity of a ``regulated substance'' or other 
hazardous substance falls outside the CSB's investigatory jurisdiction.
    To emphasize its broad definition and the inapplicability of a 
threshold limit, the CSB proposed definition of ``extremely hazardous 
substance'' includes the phrase ``including but not limited to any 
`regulated substance' at or below any threshold quantity set by the EPA 
Administrator under 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(5).'' EPA's list of regulated 
substances is a regulation that applies only to owners or operators of 
stationary sources (see 40 CFR 68.10), not to an independent Federal 
agency. The EPA lists threshold amounts to determine when a facility 
owner must develop a Risk Management Plan. 40 CFR 68.150-68.185. 
Whether a substance is, by definition, a ``regulated substance'' does 
not turn on the presence of a threshold amount of that substance. By 
the same token, whether a substance is, by definition, an extremely 
hazardous substance, does not turn on the amount of that substance 
involved in the accidental release.
    Thus, the CSB's definition of extremely hazardous substance remains 
unchanged. The AFL-CIO expressed strong support for the CBS's proposed 
definition:

    We strongly support the proposed definition of Extremely 
Hazardous Substance as any substance that may cause death, serious 
injury, or substantial property damage. We urge the CSB to resist 
pressure to tie the definition of one or more lists of regulated 
substances. For example, the lists contained in the OSHA Process 
Safety Management Standard and the EPA Risk

[[Page 10084]]

Management Program regulations do not include most reactive 
substances. Neither includes ammonium nitrate, the chemical 
responsible for the April 17, 2013 explosion and fire at the West, 
Texas fertilizer storage and distribution facility, which took 14 
lives. The CSB is not a regulatory agency. If a chemical accident 
has caused death, serious injury or substantial property damage it 
should be reported irrespective of whether the chemical is on some 
regulatory list.

Some comments suggest that the CSB tie its definition to existing lists 
of hazardous substances. This approach would frustrate a major purpose 
of the statute. A key function of the CSB is to make recommendations to 
the EPA about improving the rules designed to prevent chemical 
accidents. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(ii), (H), (I), and (K); S. Rep. 
No. 101-228, at 229 (1989), 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3613 (explaining 
the intent that the CSB serve as an ``organizational stimulus'' to EPA 
regulatory activity through the CSB's investigations and resulting 
recommendations.''). Such recommendations would include CSB suggestions 
to the Administrator to list new substances. Thus, the CSB was 
established specifically to look past established statutory criteria 
and already understood hazards. Rather, the hazard investigation 
function of the CSB includes identifying new, previously unknown 
hazards, even those caused by substances not yet discovered or in 
widespread use. A narrow definition of ``extremely hazardous 
substance'' based on previously established lists or narrow criteria 
would completely frustrate a key objective of the statute.
    Other commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition of 
extremely hazardous substance could cause confusion. However, a number 
of factors persuade the CSB that owner/operators will be able to 
readily apply the definition. The plain meaning of the term ``extremely 
hazardous'' provides clear direction. The various established 
regulatory lists and definitions provide extensive detail concerning 
known hazards. Finally, the CSB discussion here should provide ample 
guidance.
    The CSB's consequence-based definition provides a bright line test. 
When there is an accidental release which results in a death or serious 
injury, there should rarely be confusion as to whether the substance 
involved was hazardous.\27\ Moreover, the CSB will provide a grace 
period. The CSB can use such a grace period to establish additional 
explanatory guidance to owner/operators if that proves necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Some commenters suggested hypotheticals which could result 
from a broad definition of ``extremely hazardous substances.'' 
However, upon scrutiny, these hypotheticals are tied mostly to 
concerns about the definition of ``serious injury.'' When the 
revised, narrower definition of ``serious injury'' is taken into 
consideration, these hypotheticals are no longer problematic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inpatient hospitalization is defined as a formal admission to the 
inpatient service of a hospital or clinic for care.
    Owner or operator is defined as any person who owns, leases, 
operates, controls, or supervises a stationary source.
    This proposed regulatory definition is adopted verbatim from 42 
U.S.C. 7412(a)(9). As the enabling legislation recognizes, a stationary 
source may be under the ``common control'' of different entities. See 
42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(C). Multiple owners, leaseholders, or operators 
can exist alongside each other in complex business relationships such 
that a stationary source may be considered under the common control of 
two or more entities. Therefore, this definition applies to any person 
or entity who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a 
stationary source, and can include parties with a joint interest, 
partnership interest, partial ownership interest, co-ownership 
interest, or any otherwise co-responsible parties who, in some manner, 
share in the ownership, leasing, operation, control or supervision of a 
stationary source.
    These parties are in the best position to coordinate among 
themselves to determine which entity should file an accidental release 
report under this rule for an accidental release. For the purpose of 
efficiency, multiple owner/operators may agree in advance or at the 
time of release to a single, consolidated report on behalf of one or 
more parties who are responsible for reporting an accidental release 
from a stationary source. Under the definition provided, the owner(s) 
and operator(s) decide for themselves how best to meet the requirements 
of the rule, as long as an accidental release report is submitted by 
one of the parties following an accidental release.
    One commenter suggested that the CSB should be clear that only one 
report is required. If the owner/operators cannot agree on who should 
file the consolidated report, all owner/operators are required to file 
individual reports. In response to this comment, the CSB has added a 
new paragraph (d) to Sec.  1604.3 to clarify reporting options when 
there are multiple owner/operators.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Because this new paragraph has been added, the final rule 
re-designates paragraph (d) in the proposed rule as paragraph (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the final rule adds new Sec.  1604.3(d), while moving 
the existing paragraph (d) to (e).
    Property damage is defined as damage to, or the destruction of, 
tangible public or private property, including loss of use of that 
property.
    This definition is well-established for purposes of commercial 
liability insurance policies, and therefore most owner/operators should 
be familiar with its meaning and have no difficulty in determining 
whether there has been any property damage. In addition, the proposed 
definition confirms that pertinent property damage is not limited to 
the stationary source, but also includes damage to private property 
(e.g., homes) and public property outside the stationary source.
    Several comments suggested changes to the proposed definition of 
``property damage.'' Several commenters disagreed that ``loss of use'' 
of property should be considered property damage. Another commenter 
suggested that only permanent loss of use should be within the 
definition. Another suggested that the CSB include a definition of 
``loss of use.''
    The CSB declines to adopt these comments. If property sustains 
enough damage so that it cannot be properly used, that clearly amounts 
to damages--just as the complete destruction amounts to damages. 
Obviously, if the property can be repaired and returned to service, the 
damage would be lessened. But all of these types of damage should be 
estimated and figured into whether the damage amounted to 
``substantial'' property damage, i.e., over $1,000,000.
    Another commenter urged the CSB to count only property damage 
``directly resulting from the incident'' for purposes of the $1 million 
threshold for ``substantial'' property damage. The CSB declines to 
adopt this suggestion, because it would create serious definitional 
issues in determining whether the damage ``directly resulted from'' the 
incident. Moreover, indirect damage can be just as costly or disruptive 
as direct damage, however defined.
    Finally, another commenter urged the CSB to exclude ``business 
interruption costs'' as a criterion for accident reporting. The CSB did 
not explicitly make business interruption costs a reportable item, but 
if property damage leads to business interruption, that should be 
factored into calculating the overall costs of such damage.
    Regulated substance is defined as any substance listed by the EPA 
Administrator pursuant to the authority of 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(3).

[[Page 10085]]

    This definition is based on the definition at 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(2)(B). That definition simply refers to ``substances listed 
under paragraph (3).'' For clarity, the definition here refers to the 
full citation at 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(3). The definition as set out in the 
rule is no different in substance than the one provided for under 42 
U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(B).
    Nonetheless, one commenter expressed concern that the CSB's 
definition of ``regulated substance'' was an attempt to circumvent or 
supplant the EPA's authority to list a substance under 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(3). The CSB definition does not alter EPA's authority to list 
substances under 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(3) in any manner. The CSB may make 
recommendations to EPA concerning which substances should be listed. 42 
U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(H). However, the EPA Administrator decides what 
substances get listed.
    Another commenter wrote that ``[f]or these regulations, the CSB 
needs to define `regulated substance' as identical to each substance 
listed at 40 CFR 68.130.'' \29\ There is no need for the CSB to replace 
the statutory definition with the proposed definition suggested by the 
commenter. For practical purposes, the definition of regulated 
substance in the rule refers to the same list that the Administrator 
maintains pursuant to the authority of 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ If the comment meant to suggest that the CSB's authority to 
require a report is limited to releases involving a ``regulated 
substance,'' the CSB rejects that interpretation. The statutory 
definition of ``accidental release'' is clearly not limited to 
``regulated substances.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Serious injury is defined as any injury or illness if it results in 
death or inpatient hospitalization.
    The definition of serious injury in the proposed rule was based on 
OSHA's regulations pertaining to Recording and Reporting Occupational 
Injuries and Illness, found at 29 CFR 1904.7.
    As discussed above, many commenters criticized the proposed 
definition as overbroad and inconsistent with the CSB's burden 
estimate. The revised definition (``any injury or illness if it results 
in death or inpatient hospitalization'') addresses this criticism.
    Stationary source is defined as any buildings, structures, 
equipment, installations or substance emitting stationary activities 
(i) which belong to the same industrial group, (ii) which are located 
on one or more contiguous properties, (iii) which are under the control 
of the same person (or persons under common control), and (iv) from 
which an accidental release may occur.
    This definition is taken verbatim from 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(C). 
While this definition reiterates longstanding statutory language, the 
CSB notes that the phrase ``same industrial group'' requires some 
additional clarification. The CSB interprets this phrase as referring 
to ``industry group'' under the Standard Industrial Classification 
(SIC) system, which was in common use when the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990 were signed into law. SIC employed a four-digit classification 
system; the first three digits in the four-digit sequence indicated the 
``industry group.''
    In 1997, the SIC system was replaced by the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS). NAICS employs a six-digit classification 
system. Under NAICS, the fourth digit in the six-digit sequence 
indicates industrial group. www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/faqs/faqs.html#q5.
    The USWAG had a concern about the scope of the definition:

    While this definition might be acceptable to a discrete 
industrial facility with fixed and defined property lines, fences, 
etc., electric and gas distribution and transmission systems 
necessarily have thousands of stationary sources which include 
utility poles, vaults and manholes. It would be incredibly 
challenging to monitor all of these ``stationary sources'' for 
potential accidental discharges and to require reporting of these 
discharges within four hours of the release, especially if property 
damage is the only impact of the discharge.

    The comment further suggested that the CSB ``limit the scope of the 
proposal to significant stationary sources or sources that are 
regularly staffed.'' The CSB disagrees with the comment. The definition 
of ``stationary source'' specifically applies to the subsection of the 
Clean Air Act that established the CSB. In addition, for a report to be 
required, there would need to be an ``accidental release'' which 
resulted in a ``death, serious injury, or substantial property 
damages.'' Such consequences should be a relatively rare occurrence at 
manholes.
    The CSB believes that if an accidental release occurs in a spread-
out facility or even in a part of a source that is not regularly 
staffed, it still should be reported as soon as the owner/operator 
learns about it. With the increase in the reporting time to eight 
hours, the owner/operator should have ample time to learn about such a 
release even in a remote part of the source. Furthermore, the CSB 
retains discretion whether to refer violations to the EPA for 
enforcement actions; challenges presented by the nature of different 
types of sources can be factored into such referral decisions. 
Consequently the CSB decided not to revise this definition.
    The same commenter incorrectly asserted that the CSB's definition 
of ``stationary source'' is based on 40 U.S.C. 7411(a)(3). The 
definition of stationary source under 40 U.S.C. 7411(a)(3) is 
applicable to a section of the CAA governing performance standards for 
new stationary sources. Under this subsection of the CAA, the EPA 
Administrator is required to identify new stationary sources that are 
significant air pollution sources and then establish requirements that 
would cover only those sources. See 40 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1). Based on this 
language, the commenter argued that the CSB's authorities are limited 
to stationary sources identified by the EPA as new ``stationary 
sources'' under 40 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1). The comment concluded that the 
CSB is not authorized to ``identify all those sources that could or 
should be subject to regulation.'' However, the comment lacks merit 
because the CSB's definition of stationary source is taken verbatim 
from 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(C)--an entirely different section of the CAA 
with a different purpose.
    The Environment Alliance of New York (EANY) commented that CSB 
should clarify its definition of stationary source to describe 
``significant, large emitting sources of air emissions as described in 
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7602(j) and 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A)). EANY's 
proposal incorrectly rests on sections of the CAA that are not 
pertinent to the CSB's authority. In addition, the CSB cannot issue a 
rule to restrict or limit application of the statutory definition of 
stationary source. 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(C).
    The CSB is simply applying the definition of ``stationary source'' 
applicable to the subsection of the Clean Air Act which established the 
CSB. The CSB is not required (or authorized) to incorporate a 
definition of stationary source that is applicable to a different 
section of the CAA to serve another statutory purpose.
    The proposed rule defined substantial property damages as 
``property damage, at or outside the stationary source, estimated to be 
equal to or greater than $1,000,000.''
    In developing its definition, the CSB began with the plain meaning 
of the statute.\30\ The CSB determined that the word ``substantial'' 
must be accorded some significance. Merriam Webster defines substantial 
as ``considerable in

[[Page 10086]]

quantity: significantly great. . . .'' Clearly, property damage in a 
minimal amount (i.e., $100) should not be considered ``substantial.'' 
This interpretation is consistent with the available legislative 
history:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The CSB separately defined the term ``property damage.'' 
See discussion above.

    The Board is authorized to investigate accidental releases which 
cause substantial property damage. Substantial damage would include 
fires, explosions, and other events which cause damages that are 
very costly to repair or correct, and would not include incidental 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
damage to equipment or controls.

    H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 952, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 340(1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3867, 3872.
    At the same time, the CSB determined that a very high dollar 
threshold, i.e., $10,000,000, would not be consistent with the 
statutory intent because there are amounts far below that level that 
any reasonable person would consider substantial. The difficulty is 
where to draw the line between substantial and non-substantial damage. 
The CSB looked at different sources for guidance.
    In reviewing its own work, the CSB concluded that nearly all of its 
published investigation reports involved a fatality or serious injury. 
This is noteworthy because the CSB has not relied heavily on the 
substantial property damage factor in selecting accidental releases for 
investigation. A low-dollar, property-damage-only criterion could 
result in many accidental release reports that would be unlikely 
candidates for CSB investigation.
    The CSB considered other Government definitions of substantial 
property damage. For example, FEMA has defined the phrase ``substantial 
damage'' as damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the 
cost of restoring the structure to its before-damage condition would 
equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before 
the damage occurred. 44 CFR 209.2. However, the CSB determined that 
this definition was too narrow (property damage limited to structure) 
and would be less easy to apply than an estimate of monetary damage. In 
addition, due to the wide variety of structures and businesses within 
CSB's jurisdiction, a percentage of market value definition would be 
far too complicated.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The NTSB's definition of ``substantial property damage'' is 
based on the specific types of damage to airplanes. 49 CFR 830.2. A 
specific, narrow definition such as this could not work for the CSB 
due to the variety of damage and businesses involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to its ANPRM, the CSB received few comments regarding 
this definition. The American Chemistry Council's (ACC's) comment 
suggested that the CSB adopt the DOT regulatory limit of $50,000. CSB-
ANPR0901-000115. The CSB also considered API 754 (2016). API 754 
suggests recording ``fire or explosion damage greater than or equal to 
$100,000 of direct cost'' under its Tier 1 category. Under API 754 
Table D.1-Tier 1 Process Safety Event Severity Weighting, $100,000 in 
property damage would score one point. $1,000,000 would score three 
points, $10,000,000 would score 9 points, and $100,000,000 would score 
27 points.
    The CSB also considered EPA's ``Summary of Quantified Damages'' in 
the EPA's proposed amendments to its risk management plan (RMP) rule. 
81 FR 13637 at 13642-43, (March 14, 2016). In looking at EPA RMP-
covered facilities over a 10-year period, the EPA estimated an average 
of $1,354,578 in onsite property damage for each accident. Id. However, 
this figure is only an average, not a median, and is limited to only a 
subset of facilities within the scope of the CSB's final rule.
    After reviewing the relevant factors, the CSB proposed $1,000,000 
as a threshold for purposes of defining ``substantial property 
damages.'' The CSB believes this amount will likely capture accidental 
releases of significance when there is no other basis for jurisdiction 
(i.e., no deaths or serious injuries.) At the same time, this threshold 
should reduce the number of reports required when there is very little 
likelihood of serious scrutiny or follow-up investigation by the CSB 
because the accidental release did not cause any deaths or serious 
injuries.
    The CSB notes, however, that any threshold, even a much lower one, 
may exclude a small number of very significant accidental releases. 
This might occur if an accidental release fortuitously did not result 
in death, serious injury, or substantial property damage, but 
nevertheless involved the release of a significant amount of an 
extremely hazardous substance such as hydrofluoric acid. Despite the 
potential significance of such an accidental release, the CSB is 
concerned that its statutory language--``death, serious injury, or 
substantial property damages''--does not authorize it to require 
reports when all three consequences are absent.
    The CSB received a number of comments on its proposed $1,000,000 
threshold for substantial property damages. One comment argued that the 
figure was ``far too high,'' that the CSB had investigated incidents 
with less than that amount of property damage (and no deaths or serious 
injuries), and recommended the amount be lowered to $50,000. Another 
comment described $1 million as a ``good starting point,'' but that it 
should be phased down to $50,000 in four years.
    On the other hand, several commenters urged a higher threshold (one 
suggested $3-5 million) because minor damage to costly specialized 
equipment could easily exceed $1 million in repair and replacement 
costs. Others suggested that the $1 million threshold may be sensible 
for damages outside the facility, but that it was too low for damage 
inside, suggesting a $2 million threshold for inside damage.
    In the middle of the spectrum were a group of commenters who 
supported the $1 million threshold. One supported the $1 million 
threshold as ``a clear, bright-line rule'' that is ``appropriate.'' 
Another urged ``that CSB not lower the threshold'' and agreed that it 
``should likely capture major releases in rare cases where there are no 
deaths of serious injuries.'' Several others simply agreed that it was 
``appropriate.''
    After reviewing all comments, the CSB has determined to keep the $1 
million threshold in its final rule. The CSB believes that a bright-
line rule is necessary, and that this figure is a middle-ground marker 
that best conforms to the Board's past practice and the legislative 
history for the provision. It may be true that expensive machinery can 
sustain seemingly minor damage that might meet this threshold. However, 
that does not make the damage any less substantial. Moreover, companies 
with such expensive machinery should have the wherewithal to make such 
estimates expeditiously. The CSB also rejects a bifurcated damage 
threshold for damage inside or outside the plant as impractical and 
unwarranted.
    A few other issues regarding this definition were also addressed in 
the comments. One commenter urged that the CSB set no threshold dollar 
amount, but should simply use its established tracking mechanisms to 
identify where substantial property damage has occurred. The CSB 
believes a bright-line rule is helpful as a guide to owner/operators 
when they do their estimates and that inclusion of this factor is 
necessary to assist the agency in receiving the information it needs to 
prioritize its investigations. Several commenters suggested that the $1 
million threshold for meeting the criterion of ``substantial property 
damages'' should be indexed for inflation. The CSB has decided not to 
add this complicating factor to what is intended to be a bright-line 
standard. Instead, the CSB will revisit the standard periodically to 
make necessary adjustments, if appropriate.

[[Page 10087]]

    Finally, one commenter made the editorial suggestion to replace the 
term ``damages'' with ``damage'' throughout the rule. Although 
``damages'' is the statutory term, (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(i)), the 
CSB agrees that ``damage'' is the more normal usage in this context and 
has revised the final rule accordingly.

Sec.  1604.3 Reporting an Accidental Release

    Section 1604.3(a) through (d) of the proposed rule set out the 
basic requirements for reporting an accidental release and as proposed, 
provided as follows:
     The owner or operator of a stationary source must report 
in accordance with Sec.  1604.3(b) or (c), any accidental release 
resulting in a fatality, serious injury or substantial property 
damages.
     If the owner or operator has submitted a report to the 
National Response Center (NRC) pursuant to 40 CFR 302.6, the CSB 
reporting requirement may be satisfied by submitting the NRC 
identification number to the CSB immediately following submission of 
the report to the NRC.
     If the owner or operator has not submitted a report to the 
NRC and notified the CSB under Sec.  1604.3(b), the owner/operator must 
submit a report directly to the CSB within four hours of the accidental 
release and must include the required information listed in Sec.  
1604.4. A report may be made by email to: [email protected], or by 
telephone at 202-261-7600.
     Notwithstanding the foregoing, an owner or operator of a 
stationary source, without penalty, may revise and/or update 
information reported to the NRC or CSB by sending a notification with 
revisions by email to: [email protected], or by correspondence to: 
Chemical Safety Board (CSB) 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 910, 
Washington, DC 20006, within 30 days following the submission of a 
report to the NRC or CSB. If applicable, the notification must 
reference the original NRC identification number. No update or 
revisions should be sent to the NRC.

Four-Hour Deadline

    The CSB received a number of negative comments regarding the 
proposed four- hour deadline for submitting a report. Based on the 
CSB's consideration of these comments, the proposed deadline of four 
hours has been extended to eight hours in the final rule.
    Some commenters understood that the proposed deadline was driven by 
the CSB's need to be on-scene promptly to commence its investigation 
and noted that a four hour deadline was consistent with other reporting 
deadlines, some of which require ``immediate'' notification. The CSB 
has learned over its history that prompt deployment (within 24 hours 
following an accidental release) helps satisfy several legitimate 
objectives: Preservation of key physical evidence and obtaining witness 
testimony while the information regarding the release is fresh.\32\ 
Prompt arrival of CSB investigators also allows them to gain an 
understanding of what changes may have been made to an accident scene 
during emergency response (e.g., what valves were turned, or what 
equipment was moved). Prompt deployment also facilitates quicker 
implementation of an appropriate evidence and site control agreement 
among the parties to an investigation. These activities are only a few 
of many critical CSB investigation-related tasks that can only be 
accomplished at the very earliest stages of an investigation. If the 
CSB cannot get to the site to preserve and otherwise obtain the 
information it needs to initiate an investigation, the CSB's 
investigation can be significantly hampered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Often, key evidence is maintained in electronic form as 
distributed control system (DCS) data. In simplest terms, a DCS is 
an electronic system which provides for control and monitoring of a 
process within a facility. This information is often critical in 
determining the cause of an accidental release. Unfortunately, DCS 
data may be overwritten by new DCS data every 24-48 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the importance of prompt notification, twenty-four 
commenters were generally critical of the four-hour reporting 
requirement and suggested that CSB allow additional time. These 
commenters found the four-hour reporting requirement to be 
inappropriate for a number of reasons which are discussed below:
    The four-hour deadline is impractical and the CSB has no documented 
basis for it. The CSB explained the basis for the four-hour requirement 
in its proposed rule. As explained above, some comments were 
supportive. One commenter noted that four hours was ``very generous.'' 
Indeed, other reporting laws require ``immediate'' notification. The 
CSB also believes, as explained above, that there are several important 
factors which support a four-hour deadline, even though it has 
increased the deadline to eight hours.
    A four-hour reporting requirement will detract from the reporting 
entity's emergency response activities following an accidental release. 
As the CSB acknowledged in its proposed rule, the ``CSB understands 
that the first several hours following an accidental release require a 
focus on emergency response actions.'' 84 FR 67908 at 67908. ``The CSB 
has also considered the need of an owner/operator to focus on numerous 
matters in the immediate aftermath of accidental release.'' Id. Thus, 
the rule requires information that is limited in scope to critical 
information required for the CSB to make an informed decision about 
deployment.
    In response to the CSB's 2009 ANPRM, the American Society of Safety 
Professionals commented, ``a minimum of three hours is needed for a 
site's emergency response priorities and any extenuating circumstances 
to be handled.'' The CSB's proposal was designed to avoid conflict with 
emergency response activities. Still, some commenters requested that 
the reporting rule be amended to allow 24 hours, 48 hours, or even 72 
hours to file an accidental release report. Such delayed notice would 
defeat the purpose of the rule. However, the final rule does increase 
the deadline for reporting from four to eight hours. The CSB believes 
this extension will provide an additional safeguard to avoid any 
potential conflict with urgent emergency response activities.
    Reports to the CSB should generally comport with similar deadlines 
already imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
for fatalities and serious injuries. The revised eight-hour limit 
matches OSHA's eight-hour requirement for reporting fatalities.
    Owners/operators should be granted more time to gather all of the 
necessary information needed to ascertain whether the accidental 
release is required for reporting, to perform an internal investigation 
and to inform leadership before completing the report. The CSB 
originally believed four hours to be sufficient to meet the reporting 
requirement under this rule when it was published for notice and 
comment. The CSB is now convinced that expanding the time to report an 
accidental release to eight hours is ample time to make an assessment 
of whether a fatality, serious injuries or substantial property damage 
has occurred, while still being timely enough for CSB purposes. Within 
eight hours, an owner/operator should have sufficient information at 
hand to make a report. The rule requires basic information, and notes 
that certain information need only be reported ``if known.'' In 
addition, the final rule allows for updating an initial report.
    A longer reporting deadline will promote the CSB's ability to 
coordinate with other agencies. One commenter thought it would be 
helpful to get recordable and reportable information

[[Page 10088]]

about injuries from OSHA. The CSB does obtain information from OSHA and 
other agencies during an investigation. However, such information is 
typically not readily available during the brief window when the CSB 
needs to make a deployment determination. In addition, OSHA may not 
obtain information on all accidental releases important to the CSB. For 
example, OSHA does not collect information on property damages under 
its reporting provision. See generally 29 CFR 1904.39. Thus, 
information from OSHA, even if it could be obtained promptly, would 
omit certain accidental releases that require a report under the CSB's 
criteria.
    A four-hour reporting requirement will yield little information to 
understand the incident or determine root causes, or even whether the 
incident is reportable. The report requires basic information necessary 
to inform the CSB of the accidental release and preliminary information 
regarding the release. The report is not intended to support ``root 
cause'' analysis. If the CSB requires additional information following 
notification, it has broad investigative authority to do so. Where the 
CSB's reporting authority ends, the CSB's investigative authority 
begins.
    The number and nature of fatalities and serious injuries, and the 
fullness of significant property damage, will often not be fully known 
or understood within four hours of an accidental release. While 
complete information may not be available, sufficient information 
should be known to facilitate CSB deployment decision-making. The CSB 
has considerable experience monitoring incidents in real time through 
internet-based news sources and traditional media. This information is 
also supplemented in many cases by other governmental sources of 
information. While this early information can be incomplete, the CSB 
has observed that an owner/operator may have important information 
concerning fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property 
damage--often within hours after an accidental release. The CSB is 
satisfied that an eight-hour deadline provides an owner/operator with 
sufficient time to gather important information that can be conveyed to 
the CSB.
    A four-hour reporting requirement may preempt prompt notifications 
to other Federal and state agencies.
    To be clear, the proposed rule does not legally preempt any other 
law. The CSB did not interpret this comment from Consumer Union to be 
making a legal preemption argument, but the CSB wishes to avoid any 
confusion. The CSB hopes that the extension of its deadline to eight 
hours lessens any practical concern about competing reporting 
obligations Moreover, with a revised definition of ``serious injury'' 
in the final rule, the CSB believes that only a very small fraction of 
owner/operators will ever need to file a report with the CSB.
    Sec.  1604.3(a): One commenter argued that Sec.  1604.3(a) should 
require reports from owner/operators if there is a ``near miss.'' Such 
a situation arises, the comment suggested, when an accidental release 
does not cause death, serious injury, or substantial property damage, 
but where it nonetheless poses a threat to the general public. The 
comment relied on 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(E), which provides that in no 
event shall the Board forego an investigation where an accidental 
release causes a fatality or serious injury among the general public, 
or had the potential to cause substantial property damage or a number 
of deaths or injuries among the general public.
    Another commenter interpreted 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(E) in a similar 
manner but was concerned that a requirement to report near misses could 
have negative consequences: ``the flow of information would quickly 
overwhelm the CSB's meager resources.'' For the reasons discussed 
below, the CSB has not revised the proposed rule to require the 
reporting of near miss events as suggested by the comment.
    Both comments are based on an incorrect interpretation of three key 
statutory provisions. 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(i), 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(6)(C)(iii), and 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(E).

Investigatory Jurisdiction

    The Board's investigatory jurisdiction is set out in subsection 
C(i) and provides that the Board shall investigate (or cause to be 
investigated), determine and report to the public in writing the facts, 
conditions, and circumstances and the cause or probable cause of any 
accidental release resulting in a fatality, serious injury or 
substantial property damages.

Reporting Requirement

    Subsection C(iii) sets out the CSB's authority to issue a reporting 
rule and provides that the CSB may require reports when there is an 
accidental release ``subject to the Board's investigatory 
jurisdiction'' as defined in subsection C(i). Thus, the final rule 
requires a report whenever there is an accidental release fitting one 
of the three criteria in subsection (C)(i)--a death, serious injury, or 
substantial property damages.
    Subsection E is not relevant unless there is an ``accidental 
release resulting in a fatality, serious injury or substantial property 
damages.'' 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(i). If that condition precedent is 
not met, the Board does not have the authority to investigate or to 
require a report. If it is met, the Board requires a report and may 
investigate. If the accidental release ``causes a fatality or serious 
injury among the general public, or had the potential to cause 
substantial property damage or a number of deaths or injuries among the 
general public,'' then subsection E becomes relevant.

Interagency Coordination

    Subsection E sets out the CSB's responsibilities with respect to 
interagency coordination. While that section stresses coordination, it 
also provides that the CSB shall not ``forego an investigation where an 
accidental release causes a fatality or serious injury among the 
general public, or had the potential to cause substantial property 
damage or a number of deaths or injuries among the general public.''
    Sec.  1604.3(b): The proposed rule provided if the owner or 
operator has submitted a report to the National Response Center (NRC) 
pursuant to 40 CFR 302.6, the CSB reporting requirement may be 
satisfied by submitting the NRC identification number to the CSB 
immediately following submission of the report to the NRC.
    Some commenters argued that Sec.  1604.3(b) is inconsistent with 
the CSB's rulemaking authority at 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(iii), which 
provides that the CSB shall ``establish by regulation requirements 
binding on persons for reporting accidental releases into the ambient 
air subject to the Board's investigatory jurisdiction.'' Subsection 
C(iii) also provides as follows:
    1. Reporting releases to the National Response Center, in lieu of 
the Board directly, shall satisfy such regulations; and
    2. The National Response Center shall promptly notify the Board of 
any releases which are within the Board's jurisdiction.
    Some commenters interpreted the authority provided in no. 1 to mean 
one or more of the following: (1) That the CSB's rule must provide for 
submission of accidental release reports to the NRC only; (2) that 
submission of any report to the NRC under any statutory scheme 
satisfies any CSB requirement, and/or (3) the CSB is not authorized to 
require an owner/operator to submit an NRC number to the CSB if it has 
already filed a report with the NRC pursuant 40 CFR

[[Page 10089]]

302.6. The CSB disagrees with all of these interpretations.
    The CSB's enabling legislation does not mandate that all reports be 
filed with NRC.
    The language in 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(iii) does not require CSB 
reports to be filed with NRC. Rather, the language simply provides the 
CSB with the option of having reports submitted to the NRC instead of 
to the CSB directly. The statutory language does not confer a right to 
owner/operators. The CSB's interpretation is confirmed by the 
legislative history, which provides, in pertinent part:

    The regulations of the Board for accident reporting may provide 
that any person directed to make a report contact the National 
Response Center rather than the Board directly. . . . If the 
National Response Center is to be the initial point of contact under 
such rules, then the Board shall assure that officials at the 
National Response Center promptly notify the Board or its officers 
whenever an accidental release requiring an investigation has 
occurred.

    S. Rep. No. 101-228 at 236 (1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 
3385, 3620. (Emphasis added.)
    The use of the word ``may'' in the first sentence plainly indicates 
that the CSB has the option of requiring that reports be filed with the 
NRC. The phrase ``If the National Response Center is to be the initial 
point of contact,'' demonstrates that the use of the NRC in that role 
is an option, not a requirement.
    The submission of a report to the NRC under other laws does not 
satisfy the CSB's reporting requirement.
    The CSB does not interpret section C(iii) to mean that any report 
filed with NRC automatically satisfies any reporting obligation to the 
CSB. As explained above, the information provided to NRC under other 
laws may not include all accidental releases within the CSB's 
particularized jurisdiction.
    Moreover, when the CSB receives information from the NRC, the NRC 
reports do not indicate whether or not the report was submitted 
pursuant to a specific law. Without this information, the CSB cannot 
quickly determine why the particular release was reported to the NRC 
and, the CSB has no way of determining whether a report relates to an 
accidental release within the CSB's jurisdiction. In addition, not all 
reporting laws require the same information or have the same deadline 
for reporting as the CSB rule. Thus, the CSB cannot simply rely on NRC 
reports to learn of accidental releases within its jurisdiction.
    The CSB was able to identify one exception to the above problem. If 
an owner/operator reports an ``event'' to the NRC based on 40 CFR 
302.6(a) and notifies the CSB with the pertinent NRC identification 
number, the CSB can quickly identify the pertinent NRC report and use 
that information to satisfy its own requirements. The reporting 
requirement at 40 CFR 302.6(a) provides, in pertinent part, that any 
person in charge of a vessel or an offshore or an onshore facility 
shall, as soon as he or she has knowledge of any release (other than a 
federally permitted release or application of a pesticide) of a 
hazardous substance from such vessel or facility in a quantity equal to 
or exceeding the reportable quantity determined by this part in any 24-
hour period, immediately notify the National Response Center (1-800-
424-8802; in Washington, DC 202-267-2675; the facsimile number is 202-
267-1322).
    When a person contacts the NRC to report under the above provision, 
an NRC operator asks a set of questions according to the type of 
``event'' that is being reported. For example, if the report is based 
on a release from an onshore facility, the caller will be asked a set 
of standard questions used when there is a release from an onshore 
facility. Prior to completing the call, the NRC operator will provide 
the caller with an identification number. The NRC will subsequently 
provide information submitted by the caller to various Federal 
agencies, including the CSB.
    When the CSB reviewed the data that would be transmitted by the NRC 
based upon this type of report, it determined that the caller would be 
asked for information substantially similar to the information required 
under Sec.  1604.4 of this rule. If the person who submitted the report 
to the NRC knows that the same information should be reported to the 
CSB, then there is no requirement that the caller file a separate 
report to the CSB with the same information. If the caller supplies the 
CSB promptly with the NRC identification number, the CSB will have 
sufficient time to locate the pertinent NRC report and review the 
information in the time frame required under this rule. If the owner/
operator does not supply the NRC number to CSB, the CSB will not know 
that the owner/operator has submitted a report to the NRC.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Although not required, this approach is also consistent 
with 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(iii) and the CSB's legislative history. 
The pertinent legislative history provides, in pertinent part, that 
the CSB's ``reporting requirements may be coordinated with other 
reporting requirements established by the Agency [EPA] (for 
instance, under section 103 of CERCLA).'' S. Rep. No. 101-228 at 236 
(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NRC Identification Number

    The CSB received several comments which argued that the CSB lacked 
authority to compel an owner/operator to provide the CSB with the NRC 
identification number associated with a report filed with NRC under 40 
CFR 302.6. The CSB also received comments that the CSB lacked authority 
to compel an owner/operator to provide the CSB an NRC identification 
number.
    As explained above, the CSB included the option of providing a NRC 
ID number in an effort to avoid duplicative reporting. Moreover, the 
rule does not require an owner/operator to file a report to NRC and 
supply the NRC identification number with the CSB. Rather, the rule 
provides an owner/operator with an option to avoid dual reporting. 
Under the CSB rule, the owner/operator has the option to (a) file a 
separate report to CSB for the same event under the authority of this 
rule, or (b) inform the CSB that it has filed a report with NRC 
pursuant to 40 CFR 302.6.
    Some commenters interpreted a sentence in 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(6)(C)(iii) to mean that CSB could not require an owner/operator 
to supply the CSB with an NRC identification number because it was the 
NRC's duty to do that. The pertinent sentence reads: ``The National 
Response Center shall promptly notify the Board of any releases which 
are within the Board's jurisdiction.'' As explained above, the CSB rule 
does not require an owner/operator to file an NRC identification number 
with CSB. That approach is merely a simpler alternative to filing a 
complete, separate report with CSB.

``Immediately''

    A commenter argued that the term ``immediately'' in Sec.  1604.3(b) 
should be revised so it is self-defining, or replaced with a specific 
time deadline, preferably the same as the one in Sec.  1604.3(c). In an 
effort to avoid confusion, the CSB has replaced the word 
``immediately'' with a specific time limit of 30 minutes.

SERCs and LEPCs

    A commenter suggested that the CSB should revise Sec.  1604.3(b) 
and (c) to encourage State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) and 
Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to notify the CSB of any 
releases that are within the CSB's jurisdiction. The CSB appreciates 
the suggestion and plans to do more to encourage reports from such 
state and local bodies. However, the CSB lacks authority to mandate a 
SERC or LEPC to promptly notify the CSB.

[[Page 10090]]

    Sec.  1604.3(d): In response to the 2009 ANPRM, the American 
Chemistry Council suggested that the CSB's reporting rule include a 
provision for a reporting party to correct unintentionally incorrect 
information within a reasonable period of time following an accidental 
release. The CSB agreed with this comment and Sec.  1604.3(d) of the 
proposed rule included language providing that an owner or operator of 
a stationary source, without penalty, may revise and/or update 
information reported to the NRC or CSB by sending a notification with 
revisions by email to: [email protected], or by correspondence to: 
Chemical Safety Board (CSB) 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 910, 
Washington, DC 20006, within 30 days following the submission of a 
report to the NRC or CSB. If applicable, the notification must 
reference the original NRC identification number. No update or 
revisions should be sent to the NRC.
    Many commenters supported this provision but several suggested 
modifications. For example, ACC suggested a revision to clarify that 
updates under Sec.  1604.3(d) are voluntary, not mandatory. The CSB 
believes that the use of the word ``may'' Sec.  1604.3(d) clearly 
indicates that an update is not mandatory. However, the CSB hopes that 
an owner/operator will revise and update incorrect information as a 
matter of course.
    Another commenter urged the CSB to clarify that an owner/operator 
can ``pull back'' a report where it turns out the incident did not 
warrant reporting, with a subsequent written response by the CSB. In 
the event an owner/operator believes that the incident did not warrant 
reporting, the owner/operator may contact the CSB to explain its 
position.
    Another commenter suggested that an owner/operator be required to 
correct an initial report within 24 hours of learning that the initial 
report was faulty. The CSB does not agree that this is required. As the 
preamble to the proposed rule states, this reporting requirement ``is 
not intended to create a trap for any owner/operator submitting a 
report on short notice.'' Of course, the CSB will monitor compliance 
with the rule. If necessary, the CSB will amend the rule in the future 
to address problem areas.
    One commentator suggested that the CSB allow for corrected reports 
even after 30 days, and another agreed on the ground that 30 days may 
not be enough and provides insufficient safe harbor from penalties. The 
CSB believes that the 30-day period would be most useful for it, 
because after 30 days, the Board would likely have made its 
determination as to whether to pursue an investigation. However, the 
Board does recognize that in some circumstances an owner/operator might 
in good faith have learned about a qualifying serious injury or 
substantial property damage (especially damage outside the facility) 
after the 30-day period. In other instances, an owner/operator may wish 
to supplement its initial reports. Therefore the Board has added a 
provision to paragraph (d) that allows owner/operators to submit 
revised or updated reports to the Board within 90 days if the submitter 
explains why the revised report could not have been submitted within 30 
days.
    Another commenter suggested that the CSB develop a web-based form 
to allow easier and quicker reporting. The CSB agrees and has prepared 
a screen-fillable pdf form for reporting purposes.

Sec.  1604.4 Information Required in an Accidental Release Report

    Section 1604.4 of the proposed rule details the information that 
must be submitted by an owner/operator in a report. The information 
required is consistent with information that the CSB has collected for 
years from various public sources, and has attempted to verify, through 
phone calls or email exchanges with the representatives of an owner/
operator in the immediate aftermath of an accidental release. This 
approach has not always been ideal for either the CSB or an owner/
operator because the CSB must make multiple phone calls or send 
multiple emails to an owner/operator over a period of hours and days.
    In this section, the CSB has attempted to balance its need for 
prompt information with the desirable goal of obtaining as much 
pertinent information as reasonable. As reflected in the purpose of the 
rule (Sec.  1604.1), the CSB has determined that the prompt reporting 
of basic information is its highest priority. While additional, 
detailed information is desirable, the CSB concluded that it would need 
to further extend the reporting deadline if it added additional 
information requirements beyond those set out in the proposed rule. 
Some additional requirements would arguably require additional hours, 
or even days, for compliance. At some point, the primary purpose of the 
rule--prompt notification of an accidental release--would be undermined 
by the quest for more information.
    The CSB also considered the need of an owner/operator to focus on 
numerous matters in the immediate aftermath of an accidental release. 
Accordingly, the proposed accidental release reports will require only 
information that is already known or should be available to an owner/
operator soon after an accidental release. The required information is 
also limited in scope to critical information required for the CSB to 
make informed decisions about its jurisdiction, interagency 
coordination, and deployment decision-making. For example, paragraphs 
(a) through (e) require only minimal contact information and a basic 
description of the accidental release. Paragraph (g) requests the 
relevant CAS Registry Number associated with the chemical(s) involved 
in the accidental release.\34\ The CAS information will help the CSB in 
making informed decisions about deploying investigators and initiating 
an investigation. Paragraphs (h), (i), (j), and (l)(1) through (3) 
include an important qualifier, ``if known.'' This qualifier recognizes 
that some or all of this information may not be known within eight 
hours of an accidental release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ A CAS Registry Number is assigned by an organization called 
CAS (a division of the American Chemical Society). See https://www.cas.org/support/documentation/chemical-substances/faqs#2. It is 
a unique numeric identifier that is well known to the companies who 
produce, handle, or ship chemicals and will require minimal effort 
to include in a report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSB received a number of comments suggesting revisions to the 
proposed language. Other comments opined that this section of the 
proposed rule failed to require certain information deemed important by 
the commenters. The CSB addresses both types of comments below.

Sec.  1604.4(a) Pertaining to Ownership Information

    A commenter suggested that the CSB require an owner/operator to 
provide information concerning a parent company. The CSB agrees that 
that information would be helpful. However, the information is 
typically not going to be needed in the hours following notification. 
If it is, the CSB can generally obtain sufficient information about it 
on its own.

Sec.  1604.4(c) Pertaining to Location Information

    A commenter suggested the need for clarification on what is meant 
by ``facility identifier.'' At this time, compliance with the rule can 
be met by supplying the EPA facility identification number. Over time, 
terminology can change or new government identification systems may 
develop. Using the generic description of facility identifier provides 
flexibility to adapt the rule to changing circumstances

[[Page 10091]]

without an amendment. If needed, the CSB can issue guidance information 
to ensure that there is no confusion.
    Another comment suggested that the CSB require the owner/operator 
to report the latitude and longitude of its facility. The CSB declines 
to add this requirement to the rule because the CSB is confident that 
an owner/operator can provide an accurate location description, or if 
necessary, the CSB can pinpoint a location using other sources.

Sec.  1604.4(f)(3) & (4) Pertaining to Deaths and Serious Injuries

    One commenter suggested that fatalities or serious injuries 
occurring more than 30 days after the release should be excluded from 
coverage. The CSB disagrees that there is a need to categorically 
exclude such occurrences. The rule already makes clear that owner/
operators may revise or update reports ``within 30 days following the 
submission of a report (and even 90 days in some circumstances).''

Sec.  1604.4(g) Pertaining to the Name of the Materials Involved in the 
Release

    One commenter opined that the names of chemicals involved may not 
be known within four hours if the cause of the event is unknown, and 
that the CSB should add an ``if known'' qualifier for this item as it 
has for some of the others. First, the CSB has now increased the 
reporting window to eight hours. Moreover, in the experience of CSB 
investigators, facilities are very aware of the chemicals and other 
materials used in their processes and can readily identify the ones 
potentially involved in an accidental release. In addition, there is an 
opportunity to file a corrected or updated report.

Sec.  1604.4(h) Pertaining to the Amount of the Release

    A commenter suggested that ``the amount of the release'' may not be 
known even within 24 hours. The same commenter suggested that the 
information is not really necessary for CSB initial screening decision 
but can be better addressed later. The CSB respectfully disagrees that 
the information would not be useful for its decision as to whether to 
deploy resources to the site. CSB understands the concern that the 
information might not be readily available at the time the report is 
due. That is why paragraph (h) includes the qualifier, ``if known.'' 
The rule also allows supplementing the report up to 30 days after 
initial submission (and 90 days in some circumstances), by which time 
that information should be available in most cases.
    That commenter also suggested that it would be better to frame the 
request as whether the release exceeds an RQ or reportable quantity 
rather than requiring a release amount. The CSB agrees that it would be 
generally helpful to know whether a release exceeds an applicable 
threshold quantity. If an owner/operator has that information, it would 
be helpful for the owner/operator to supply that information as part of 
its response to this question. However, the CSB has not revised the 
rule to require that information within eight hours.

Sec.  1604.4(k) Pertaining to the Estimate of the Property Damage at or 
Outside the Stationary Source

    One commenter opined that the value of the property damage, 
especially outside the plant may not be known within four hours if the 
cause of event is unknown, and that the CSB should add an ``if known'' 
qualifier for this item as it has for some of the others. First, the 
CSB has now increased the reporting window to eight hours. Secondly, 
the requested information is an estimate. As the preamble to the 
proposed rule explained: ``The owner is required to make an estimate 
only, not report an exact figure, or to state whether or not the amount 
of property damage meets or exceeds the definition for `substantial 
property damages.' '' There will be certain instances when an owner or 
operator may need to assess whether a report is required at all by 
reference to the definition of ``substantial property damages.'' 
However, for purposes of including a number in the report, the owner/
operator may simply include the best available estimate, regardless of 
whether the amount falls above or below the threshold for reporting. 
Moreover, there is an opportunity to file a corrected or updated 
report.
    Another commenter suggested that this reporting item would be 
better framed as ``estimated property damage exceeds $X threshold.'' 
The CSB disagrees that such a check-box approach would be better; it 
can be beneficial for the agency to have an estimated figure even if it 
is below some sort of threshold to help it decide whether to 
investigate a particular accidental release.

Sec.  1604.4(l) Pertaining to Evacuation Orders

    Section 1604.4(l), as proposed, asks an owner/operator whether the 
accidental release has resulted in an evacuation order impacting 
members of the general public and others, and, if known: (1) The number 
of people evacuated; (2) approximate radius of the evacuation zone; and 
(3) the type of individuals subject to the evacuation order (i.e., 
employees, members of the general public, or both).
    A comment suggested that a definition of ``evacuation order'' be 
added. The CSB has not adopted the proposed change because it believes 
that the term ``evacuation order'' is easily understood without 
detailed elaboration.
    Another commenter pointed out that Sec.  1604.4(l)(1) through (3) 
used three overlapping terms, ``general public,'' ``people,'' and 
``individuals.'' For clarity, the words ``people'' and ``individuals'' 
have both been replaced by the word ``persons.'' The commenter also 
suggested there was a potential for confusion and double counting 
because the definition of ``general public'' in Sec.  1604.2 excludes 
employees and contractors. For purpose of counting people under Sec.  
1604.4(l)(1), the owner/operator should include all people impacted by 
an evacuation order-- employees, contractors, members of the public and 
anyone else subject to the order.
    Another commenter said that the report on evacuation orders should 
not be a required item, because evacuation of employees may be ordered 
by owner/operators simply as a precaution and that owner/operators 
would not likely know the number of persons affected by a public 
evacuation. The CSB disagrees; this information is important and should 
be reported.
    Another comment suggested that all of paragraph l should be 
preceded by an ``if known'' qualifier. The CSB disagrees. The 
components of the evacuation order are preceded by such a qualifier, 
and the agency believes that the vast majority of evacuation orders are 
well enough known to be reportable. And in any event, there is an 
opportunity to file a corrected or updated report.

Union Information

    A comment prepared by a group of labor organizations recommended 
that the rule require an owner/operator to report the names and contact 
information of any union representing workers at the facility where the 
accidental release has occurred.
    The CSB already collects this information pursuant to its own 
investigative procedures:

    Promptly after a facility is notified of a CSB investigation 
deployment, the Executive Director of Investigations and 
Recommendations (``Executive Director''), or his designee, shall 
determine if the employees at the facility are represented by one or 
more unions, and shall identify relevant local and national union 
health and

[[Page 10092]]

safety officials. Notice of deployment shall be provided to 
appropriate local and national union health and safety officials. If 
there is no union representation, the Executive Director should 
determine whether the facility has a health and safety committee 
with employee members, and, if so, should ask management to provide 
the CSB with a committee member contact.

    Worker Participation in Investigations-Board Order Addendum 40a 
(October 24, 2018) section 7.4.
    CSB Board Order 40a also largely addresses a related comment which 
urged that the rule require CSB to notify the representative of any 
union representing employees of the facility as soon as any initial or 
follow-up report of an accidental release is received by the CSB.\35\ 
Under the order, the CSB's Executive Director of Investigations and 
Recommendations is required to provide notice of any deployment to 
appropriate local and national union health and safety officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ https://www.csb.gov/assets/record/bo40a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the same commenter proposed that the rule require that 
every appropriate union supply to the CSB the contact information for 
the person to be notified within 30 days of the effective date of this 
regulation. Presumably, this proposed requirement would help ensure 
that the CSB had someone at the appropriate union to notify in a timely 
manner. The CSB appreciates the suggestion, but the statute and this 
rule establish reporting requirements for owner/operators, not unions. 
The suggested revision is outside the CSB's authority. In any event, 
the CSB has not typically encountered any issue with identifying 
appropriate union officials.

Collection of Other Reports

    A comment by Air Alliance argued that the proposed rule was 
deficient because it failed to require facilities to submit accident 
investigation reports ``already generated'' as required by the Process 
Safety Management (PSM) rule (29 CFR 1910.119) or RMP (40 CFR part 68). 
According to the comment, ``such reports contain a wealth of detailed 
information on accident risks and causes--already prepared at 
significant expense to industry--but currently not collected together 
by any federal agency.'' Id. The CSB appreciates the comment, but it 
has declined to revise the rule because accident information generated 
by an owner/operator under PSM (or RMP) that pertains to a reported 
release will not be available during the deployment window. If needed, 
CSB can use its investigative authority to obtain information generated 
by the owner/operator or seek such information from the EPA and OSHA, 
if required.

Sec.  1604.5 Failure to Report an Accidental Release

    As stated in the proposed rule, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec.  
1604.5 implement the enforcement provisions authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(6)(O), which provides, in pertinent part, that after the 
effective date of any reporting requirement promulgated pursuant to 
subparagraph (C)(iii), it shall be unlawful for any person to fail to 
report any release of any extremely hazardous substance as required by 
such subparagraph. The Administrator is authorized to enforce any 
regulation or requirements established by the Board pursuant to 
subparagraph (C)(iii) using the authorities of sections 7413 and 7414 
of the title.
    The CSB is confident that most matters will come to its attention 
through its ongoing surveillance of accident activity. During the 
period of one year following the effective date of the rule, the CSB 
will contact any owner/operator who the agency believes has failed to 
file a required a report. If a report is filed immediately following 
notification, the CSB will not refer the failure to report under Sec.  
1604.5.
    A significant number of accidental releases are concentrated within 
certain industries. The CSB anticipates that firms within these sectors 
will be the focus of CSB's compliance and educational outreach efforts 
during the first year following the issuance of the rule. The remainder 
of accidental releases occur in a range of other sectors. The CSB 
anticipates that additional time may be required to adequately educate 
all sectors. If appropriate, the CSB will extend the grace period for 
such sectors. Similarly, the CSB may extend the grace period for all 
facilities with very few employees.
    The CSB intends to issue compliance guidance periodically and 
welcomes comments that address unusual circumstances. For example, the 
CSB is interested in comments on what exceptions should be made for 
owner/operators with small operations and few employees.
    Several commenters were concerned about complying with the four-
hour deadline set out in the proposed rule. The CSB has revised the 
deadline from four to eight hours. The grace period described above 
will resolve such issues in a reasonable fashion for at least one year 
following the date of adoption. The CSB will consider a longer-term 
approach to any unique situations and propose appropriate compliance 
guidance and/or amendments to the final rule before the grace period 
has expired.
    Another comment suggested that CSB memorialize, in the rule itself, 
the statement from the preamble concerning a one-year grace period. The 
CSB disagrees with this comment. The preamble to this final rule 
clearly states the following: ``For one year following the effective 
date of the rule, the CSB will refrain from referring violations for 
enforcement, unless there is a knowing failure to report. This policy 
is required to allow adequate time for compliance education.'' The CSB 
stands by its stated intention, and believes it would be inefficient to 
include an automatically expiring provision in the rule itself.
    The CSB has no interest in seeing owners/operators referred to the 
Administrator for enforcement unnecessarily, and the agency would much 
rather focus its resources in the year after promulgation of this final 
rule on education and outreach.
    Another comment suggested that a final rule should include a 
provision penalizing ``false reporting.'' The CSB has not added such a 
provision to the final rule. The CSB is not an enforcement agency, and 
the statute already provides an enforcement provision for any violation 
of the reporting requirement. See 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(O). In 
addition, Federal law already addresses the issue of false statements. 
See e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1001(a).
    Finally, a comment requested that the CSB rule ``prohibit the 
agency from forwarding suspected violations to the EPA for 
enforcement.'' The CSB disagrees with this comment. Such a provision 
would be contradicted by the plain language of 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(O), 
which provides that after the effective date of any reporting 
requirement promulgated pursuant to subparagraph (C)(iii), it shall be 
unlawful for any person to fail to report any release of any extremely 
hazardous substance as required by such subparagraph. The Administrator 
is authorized to enforce any regulation or requirements established by 
the Board pursuant to subparagraph (C)(iii) using the authorities of 
sections 7413 and 7414 of the title.
    The CSB understands that its independence from criminal and civil 
enforcement authorities is important to its ability to accomplish its 
safety mission. As noted in the preamble, the CSB's focus will be on 
education and compliance, not on creating traps for the unwary. 
Accordingly, the final language of Sec.  1604.5 should pose no threat 
to the special place the CSB has historically held with industry and 
other

[[Page 10093]]

stakeholders as a non-regulatory and non-enforcement agency. The CSB 
looks forward to working with owner/operators and other stakeholders to 
help ensure compliance.

Sec.  1604.6 Public Availability of Accidental Release Records

    This section was included to clarify that the procedure for seeking 
records obtained pursuant to the rule is governed by the Freedom of 
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, (FOIA); the CSB's procedural regulations 
for disclosure of records under the FOIA, 40 CFR part 1601; and other 
pertinent Federal laws governing the disclosure of Federal records 
information.
    As noted in the proposed rule, neither 42 U.S.C. 7612(r)(6)(C)(iii) 
nor 42 U.S.C. 7612(r)(6)(Q),\36\ alone or in combination, authorize the 
immediate disclosure of accidental release record information apart 
from the requirements of the FOIA. Importantly, neither of these 
provisions, alone or in combination, authorize the immediate disclosure 
of accidental release report information in order to support emergency 
response and public safety operations. Such a reading would potentially 
conflict with the implementation of other existing public information 
and safety laws, such as EPCRA (see section 303), which are directly 
focused on emergency response, the protection of public health and 
safety, and the public release of information. The interpretation is 
also inconsistent with the National Response Framework (NRF) and the 
National Incident Management System (NIMS) \37\ The CSB must respect 
pertinent principles of the NRF and NIMS regarding public 
communications during the early stages of an emergency response to a 
disaster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The CSB does not interpret subsection Q as in any manner 
amending the FOIA.
    \37\ https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1572366339630-0e9278a0ede9ee129025182b4d0f818e/National_Response_Framework_4th_20191028.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the CSB is not an alerting authority that participates 
in the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), the nation's 
public alert and warning infrastructure.\38\ During an emergency, 
certain agencies and officials need to provide the public with 
lifesaving information quickly through established channels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ https://www.fema.gov/integrated-public-alert-warning-system 
IPAWS provides public safety officials with an effective way to 
alert and warn the public about serious emergencies using the 
Emergency Alert System (EAS), Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Weather 
Radio, and other public alerting systems from a single interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the immediate release of initial, uncorroborated 
accidental release information would be inconsistent with OMB and CSB's 
Data Quality Guidelines. The interest in the transparency of the CSB's 
data and methods shall not override other compelling interests such as 
national security, privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and 
other confidentiality protections. OMB Guidelines, para. 
V.b.3.ii.B.i.'' https://www.csb.gov/investigations/data-quality-/.
    One comment supported this proposed section saying that ``[s]uch 
report information is by nature both (i) sensitive and (ii) subject to 
error, due to the confusion associated with significant releases and 
the short reporting window. Disclosure via FOIA request should help 
minimize the propagation of erroneous reports through the news or 
social media and promote more accurate accounts of developments.'' 
Another commenter expressed concerns about data security even under a 
FOIA-based disclosure policy.
    On the other hand, two commenters criticized the proposed rule for 
not making the reports available proactively. One suggested that 
``making reporting information available to the public only through 
FOIA requests severely undermines the utility of the rule to inform 
workers, unions, affected communities and other interested parties of 
the existence and nature of accidental releases in a timely fashion.'' 
The commenter argued that some interested parties would lack enough 
information to make a FOIA request, and that the FOIA review process 
takes too long, citing the CSB's own statistics on the backlog of FOIA 
requests. It urged that all ``accidental release records collected by 
the CSB under this rule shall immediately be placed in a publicly-
available, searchable database'' on the CSB's website. Another 
commenter similarly argued that the CSB should ``put at least the 
initial reports, and any corrections, in a searchable, publically 
[sic.] available database.'' It also suggested that ``making the 
records available on-line would also be easier and cheaper for 
agency.'' In support of its argument, one of the commenters relies on 
42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(Q) (``Subsection Q''), which provides that any 
records, reports or information obtained by the Board shall be 
available to the Administrator, the Secretary of Labor, the Congress 
and the public, except that upon a showing satisfactory to the Board by 
any person that records, reports, or information, or particular part 
thereof (other than release or emissions data) to which the Board has 
access, if made public, is likely to cause substantial harm to the 
person's competitive position.
    According to this comment, Subsection Q requires immediate 
disclosure of any accidental release report.
    However, the comment misinterprets the basic purposes of this 
regulation and of Subsection Q. This is a reporting rule, not a 
disclosure rule. The CSB has been delegated specific authority to issue 
this reporting rule by 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(iii). That provision 
authorizes the CSB to ``establish by regulation requirements binding on 
persons for reporting accidental releases into the ambient air subject 
to the Board's investigatory jurisdiction.'' The provision does not 
authorize the CSB to disclose accidental release reports 
notwithstanding other laws governing the disclosure of Federal records. 
That is why the CSB final rule reiterates the applicability of its 
normal FOIA-based disclosure process for these records.
    The commenter's reliance on Subsection Q is mistaken for several 
reasons. First, Subsection Q is not linked to the rulemaking 
authorization. Second, while the subsection indicates that reports and 
other information are ``available'' to the public unless they cause 
substantial harm to a person's competitive position, it does not 
require or authorize the CSB to publicly disclose any information, let 
alone incident notifications to be obtained via a reporting rule 
mandated by a separate subsection. Indeed, one purpose of this 
provision is to describe when documents cannot be released. Third, 
Subsection Q does not by its terms supersede the FOIA or exempt the CSB 
from other statutes governing sensitive information, such as the 
Privacy Act. This point is reinforced by 5 U.S.C 559, which provides 
that ``Subsequent statute [sic] may not be held to supersede or modify 
this subchapter . . . . except to the extent that it does so 
expressly.'' Because the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552 is in the same subchapter 
of Title 5 as section 559, and was enacted in 1966, this provision 
means that a subsequent statute like Subsection Q may not supersede or 
modify the FOIA unless it does so expressly--which it clearly does not.
    Another flaw in the commenter's reasoning is that interpreting 
Subsection Q as a mandatory disclosure provision would also require the 
CSB to immediately disclose other types of sensitive documents it may 
have in its possession, such as those that contain (a) classified 
national security information shared by sister agencies,

[[Page 10094]]

(b) confidential business information, or (c) information that might 
invade privacy interests.
    Finally, the commenter's interpretation of Subsection Q contradicts 
a recent decision of the DC District Court that denied access to 
plaintiffs who had filed a FOIA action which turned on the 
interpretation of the same key language that is in Subsection Q, 
Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 177 F. Supp. 3d. 36 (D.D.C. 
2016). In that case, plaintiffs argued that a provision of the Clean 
Water Act (CWA), which includes the phrase ``shall be available to the 
public,'' entitled them to full disclosure of certain information 
collected by the EPA pursuant to the CWA, and that pertinent FOIA 
exemptions were inapplicable. The court disagreed, holding that the 
provision is not a comprehensive, freestanding scheme that replaces the 
FOIA exemption of confidential business information from release to the 
public. For all of the above reasons, the CSB disagrees with the 
commenter's interpretation of Subsection Q, and has not made revision 
to the final rule.
    As discussed above, the CSB is obligated to comply with a number of 
Federal information disclosure laws. At the same time, the CSB has 
opposed efforts to use such laws to improperly shield such information 
from public disclosure. For example, the CSB successfully resisted such 
an attempt during the course of its investigation at Bayer Crop 
Sciences.\39\ The CSB's efforts led to a congressional oversight 
hearing, and soon thereafter, Congress passed the ``American 
Communities' Right to Public Information Act,'' which amended the 
disclosure law that had been at issue during the Bayer 
investigation.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ CSB Investigation Report: Pesticide Chemical Runaway 
Reaction Pressure Vessel Explosion (2011) at pp. 11-13. https://www.csb.gov/bayer-cropscience-pesticide-waste-tank-explosion/.
    \40\ The Act amended title 46 Section 70103(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, the CSB successfully opposed Excel Energy's effort to 
delay publication of the CSB's Investigation Report into the Cabin 
Creek disaster in Georgetown, Colorado, in which a fire claimed five 
lives. U.S. v. Excel Energy, Inc., 2010 WL 2650460 (D. Colo. 2010).\41\ 
More recently, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 
favor of the CSB in its lengthy effort to obtain information from Exxon 
regarding the use of Hydrofluoric Acid at a refinery formerly owned by 
Exxon in Torrance, California. U.S. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 943 F.3d 1283 
(9th Cir. 2019).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ https://www.csb.gov/xcel-energy-company-hydroelectric-tunnel-fire/.
    \42\ CSB Investigation Report: ExxonMobil Torrance Refinery 
Electrostatic Precipitator Explosion Torrance, California (2015) at 
pp. https://www.csb.gov/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the CSB's commitment to seek the facts and to report on them 
remains strong. The CSB's primary methods of sharing information with 
the public will remain investigation reports, videos, and safety 
recommendations. In particular, the CSB has often made recommendations 
to improve emergency preparedness and to promote the welfare of those 
living near facilities. However, the CSB recognizes the public interest 
in learning from initial accidental release information. The CSB 
occasionally receives FOIA requests for incident screening information. 
After appropriate review, the CSB has disclosed this information and 
will continue to do so. Moreover, as part of this rulemaking process, 
the CSB disclosed 10 years of information on 1,923 incidents.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The CSB has also collected and published information on 
laboratory accidents spanning the years 2001 to 2018, which is 
available at www.csb.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSB understands commenters' concerns about FOIA processing 
delays. The CSB's Chief FOIA Officer has acknowledged the backlog of 
FOIA requests, and the CSB is improving its response process, including 
by devoting additional personnel to the task. With the adoption of this 
final rule, the CSB will also devote additional resources to the 
collection and processing of initial accidental release information. In 
light of this, the CSB will proactively disclose, subject to any 
Federal statutory prohibitions on such disclosure, initial incident 
information, as defined in this rule at Sec.  1604.4, at least once per 
year.

Effective Date

    Two commenters suggested that the CSB delay the effective date of 
the rule to allow compliance education to take place. One suggested a 
delay of six months and the other of one year. The CSB understands and 
agrees with the intent of the comment. However, the CSB is concerned 
that a delayed effective date could be viewed as inconsistent with the 
court-ordered deadline for the rule. For this reason, the CSB has 
determined that it will not delay the effective date beyond the 30 days 
required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Instead, as discussed in 
the preamble to the proposed rule, to allow adequate time for 
compliance education and to address any other compliance issues raised 
in the comments, the CSB will provide a one-year grace period.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1604

    Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Chemical Safety and 
Hazard Investigation Board adds part 1604 to title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 1604--REPORTING OF ACCIDENTAL RELEASES

Sec.
1604.1 Purpose.
1604.2 Definitions.
1604.3 Reporting an accidental release.
1604.4 Information required in an accidental release report.
1604.5 Failure to report an accidental release.
1604.6 Public availability of accidental release records.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(iii); 42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)(6)(N).


Sec.  1604.1  Purpose.

    The enabling legislation of the Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board (CSB) provides that the CSB shall establish by 
regulation requirements binding on persons for reporting accidental 
releases into the ambient air subject to the Board's investigative 
jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(iii). This part establishes the 
rule required by the enabling legislation. The purpose of this part is 
to require prompt notification of any accidental release within the 
CSB's investigatory jurisdiction.


Sec.  1604.2  Definitions.

    As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
    Accidental release means an unanticipated emission of a regulated 
substance or other extremely hazardous substance into the ambient air 
from a stationary source.
    Ambient air means any portion of the atmosphere inside or outside a 
stationary source.
    Extremely hazardous substance means any substance which may cause 
death, serious injury, or substantial property damage, including but 
not limited to, any ``regulated substance'' at or below any threshold 
quantity set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator 
under 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(5).
    General public means any person except for:
    (1) Workers, employees, or contractors working for (or on behalf 
of) the owner or operator of a stationary source from which an 
accidental release has occurred; and

[[Page 10095]]

    (2) Any person acting in the capacity of an emergency responder to 
an accidental release from a stationary source.
    Inpatient hospitalization means a formal admission to the inpatient 
service of a hospital or clinic for care.
    Owner or operator means any person or entity who owns, leases, 
operates, controls, or supervises a stationary source.
    Property damage means damage to or the destruction of tangible 
public or private property, including loss of use of that property.
    Regulated substance means any substance listed pursuant to the 
authority of 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(3).
    Serious injury means any injury or illness that results in death or 
inpatient hospitalization.
    Stationary source means any buildings, structures, equipment, 
installations, or substance-emitting stationary activities which belong 
to the same industrial group, which are located on one or more 
contiguous properties, which are under the control of the same person 
(or persons under common control), and from which an accidental release 
may occur.
    Substantial property damage means estimated property damage at or 
outside the stationary source equal to or greater than $1,000,000.


Sec.  1604.3   Reporting an accidental release.

    (a) The owner or operator of a stationary source must report in 
accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, any accidental 
release resulting in a fatality, serious injury, or substantial 
property damage.
    (b) If the owner or operator has submitted a report to the National 
Response Center (NRC) pursuant to 40 CFR 302.6, the CSB reporting 
requirement may be satisfied by submitting the NRC identification 
number to the CSB within 30 minutes of submitting a report to the NRC.
    (c) If the owner or operator has not submitted a report to the NRC 
and notified the CSB under paragraph (b) of this section, the owner/
operator must submit a report directly to the CSB within eight hours of 
the accidental release and must include the required information listed 
in Sec.  1604.4. A report may be made by email to: [email protected], or 
by telephone at 202-261-7600.
    (d) For the purpose of efficiency, multiple owner/operators may 
agree in advance or at the time of release to a single, consolidated 
report on behalf of one or more parties who are responsible for 
reporting an accidental release from a stationary source. However, any 
consolidated report must include all pertinent information required 
under Sec.  1604.4.
    (e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, an 
owner or operator of a stationary source, without penalty, may revise 
and/or update information reported to the NRC or CSB by sending a 
notification with revisions by email to: [email protected], or by 
correspondence to: Chemical Safety Board (CSB) 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006, within 30 days following the 
submission of a report to the NRC or CSB. If applicable, the 
notification must reference the original NRC identification number. No 
update or revisions should be sent to the NRC. In addition to the 
opportunity to revise and/or update information within 30 days, an 
owner or operator may also submit a revised report to the Board within 
60 additional days if the submitter explains why the revised report 
could not have been submitted within the first 30 days.


Sec.  1604.4  Information required in an accidental release report.

    The report required under Sec.  1604.3(c) must include the 
following information regarding an accidental release as applicable:
    (a) The name of, and contact information for, the owner/operator;
    (b) The name of, and contact information for, the person making the 
report;
    (c) The location information and facility identifier;
    (d) The approximate time of the accidental release;
    (e) A brief description of the accidental release;
    (f) An indication whether one or more of the following has 
occurred:
    (1) Fire;
    (2) Explosion;
    (3) Death;
    (4) Serious injury; or
    (5) Property damage;
    (g) The name of the material(s) involved in the accidental release, 
the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number(s), or other appropriate 
identifiers;
    (h) If known, the amount of the release;
    (i) If known, the number of fatalities;
    (j) If known, the number of serious injuries;
    (k) Estimated property damage at or outside the stationary source; 
and
    (l) Whether the accidental release has resulted in an evacuation 
order impacting members of the general public and others, and, if 
known:
    (1) The number of persons evacuated;
    (2) Approximate radius of the evacuation zone; and
    (3) The type of person subject to the evacuation order (i.e., 
employees, members of the general public, or both).


Sec.  1604.5  Failure to report an accidental release.

    (a) It is unlawful for any person to fail to make reports required 
under this part, and suspected violations of this part will be 
forwarded to the Administrator of the EPA for appropriate enforcement 
action.
    (b) Violation of this part is subject to enforcement pursuant to 
the authorities of 42 U.S.C. 7413 and 42 U.S.C. 7414, which may 
include--
    (1) Administrative penalties;
    (2) Civil action; or
    (3) Criminal action.


Sec.  1604.6  Public availability of accidental release records.

    Accidental release records collected by the CSB under this part may 
be obtained by making a request in accordance with 40 CFR part 1601, 
the CSB's procedures for the disclosure of records under the Freedom of 
Information Act. The CSB will process requests, and if appropriate, 
disclose such records, in accordance with 40 CFR part 1601 and relevant 
Federal information disclosure laws.

    Dated: February 3, 2020.
Kristen Kulinowski,
Interim Executive Authority, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 
Board.
[FR Doc. 2020-02418 Filed 2-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6350-01-P