From: Cogliano, Gerain 

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:48 PM

To: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Farber, Glenn <Farber.Glenn@epa.gov>

Subject: EPA's response to "Last set of comments on RMP NPRM"

Hi Danielle,

Below are EPA’s responses which have been included in the redline-strikeout version of preamble:

A. Page 1 – Prefer 90 Day Comment Period to 60 Days

B. Page 30 – OGC comments precluding use of regulatory text – is counterproductive.

EPA needs to explain the actual words in definitions – this makes the preamble harder to read and 

follow. Can EPA work around whatever this rule is to discuss the actual regulatory text so that the 

reader can understand the discussion? See other comments with the same problem – including 

discussion of catastrophic release on page 32. How do we explain the definition change, without citing 

the words of the definition – and making the case that this is just a clarification? EPA needs to return to 

the earlier words to make this understandable. Also – page 42 – root cause. 

EPA response: The Office of Federal Register does not allow regulatory text to be quoted in the 

preamble.

C. Page 106 – Before “Guidance on Evaluating Safer Technologies”

EPA also seeks comment on whether facilities can be exempted from STAA evaluations for a given 

chemical and process, if there was a previous STAA evaluation that applied to the facility or industry 

wide which was still applicable. The pulp and paper industry has cited the analysis performed for the 

industry with regard to the use of chlorine dioxide, which recommended that the industry continue use 

of that chemical for the bleaching process. It could be unnecessary for the facility to repeat that analysis 

in this case. CITATION

EPA response: EPA added preamble language asking for comment on whether to limit applicability of 

this provision to a specific process.

D. Page 107 and Later: Tables 9, 11 And 17

In the “when to complete column” for the LEPC information – EPA writes “Develop by June 5, 2021 and 

provide upon request” 

Suggest revision to “Provide upon request on June 5, 2021 or later” This information should not be 

required until it is requested.

However, if EPA goes with the annual updating – then it would say Complete on “June 5, 2021 and 

annually thereafter”

Incidentally – I don’t recommend that EPA use “June 5” as a compliance date. Should be June 1 or 

something else that can be remembered.

EPA response: These examples are intended to demonstrate the current rule requirements, which 

include developing summaries annually and then providing upon request. EPA is asking for comment on 

this approach in the section on LEPC information availability.
Furthermore, the June 5th date is a hypothetical date based on the example scenario which includes a 

rule effective date of June 5th (see footnote to table). 

Thanks,

Gerain

From: Jones, Danielle [mailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:23 AM

To: Cogliano, Gerain <Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov>

Subject: Last set of comments

Hi Gerain,

Below are the last set of comments on the RMP rule.

A. Page 1 – Prefer 90 Day Comment Period to 60 Days

B. Page 30 – OGC comments precluding use of regulatory text – is counterproductive.

EPA needs to explain the actual words in definitions – this makes the preamble harder to read and 

follow. Can EPA work around whatever this rule is to discuss the actual regulatory text so that the 

reader can understand the discussion? See other comments with the same problem – including 

discussion of catastrophic release on page 32. How do we explain the definition change, without citing 

the words of the definition – and making the case that this is just a clarification? EPA needs to return to 

the earlier words to make this understandable. Also – page 42 – root cause. 

C. Page 106 – Before “Guidance on Evaluating Safer Technologies”

EPA also seeks comment on whether facilities can be exempted from STAA evaluations for a given 

chemical and process, if there was a previous STAA evaluation that applied to the facility or industry 

wide which was still applicable. The pulp and paper industry has cited the analysis performed for the 

industry with regard to the use of chlorine dioxide, which recommended that the industry continue use 

of that chemical for the bleaching process. It could be unnecessary for the facility to repeat that analysis 

in this case. CITATION

D. Page 107 and Later: Tables 9, 11 And 17

In the “when to complete column” for the LEPC information – EPA writes “Develop by June 5, 2021 and 

provide upon request” 

Suggest revision to “Provide upon request on June 5, 2021 or later” This information should not be 

required until it is requested.

However, if EPA goes with the annual updating – then it would say Complete on “June 5, 2021 and 

annually thereafter”

Incidentally – I don’t recommend that EPA use “June 5” as a compliance date. Should be June 1 or 

something else that can be remembered.
Danielle Y. Jones

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

Phone: (202) 395-1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov