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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[OAR-2003-0044; FRL-7536-9]

RIN 2050-AF09

Accidental Release Prevention

Requirements: Risk Management

Program Requirements Under Clean

Air Act Section 112(r)(7); Amendments

to the Submission Schedule and Data

Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On June 20, 1996, EPA

published risk management planning

regulations mandated under the

accidental release prevention provisions

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These

regulations require owners and

operators of stationary sources to submit

risk management plans (RMPs) to be

made available to federal, state and local

emergency planning and response

agencies and to the public though a

central location. The first submissions

were received in early 1999. EPA is now

proposing to modify the re-submission

schedule under the risk management

program for sources who have

significant accidents and for those who

change the information for the

emergency contacts. EPA is also

proposing to add three data elements to

the RMP, make several revisions to the

submission format for the RMP, and

remove the regulatory requirement to

discuss the off-site consequence

analysis in the executive summary of

the RMP. EPA intends to issue a final

rule addressing all of these proposed

changes in time for the majority of

facilities to complete their 5-year

anniversary re-submissions by June 21,

2004. The modifications proposed today

seek to improve the accident prevention

and reporting programs of regulated

sources, and to assist federal, state, and

local RMP implementation in light of

new homeland security concerns.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before September 15, 2003. If

requested within 7 days from

publication date, EPA will hold a public

hearing on August 15, 2003 to discuss

the modifications in this proposed rule.

Consult the sources of information in

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for

the time and location of the hearing, if

such hearing is requested.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to

a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention

Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0044. Submit

comments by postal mail to: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

West (Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Room B108, Mail Code

6102T, Washington, DC 20460,

Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-

0044. Follow the detailed instructions,

and find more options, provided in

section I.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Hotline at (800) 424-

9346; in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area, contact (703) 412-

9810. The Telecommunications Device

for the Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is

(800) 535-7672. You may also access

general information online at the

Hotline Internet site, http://

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/. For

questions on the contents of this notice

contact Vanessa Rodriguez, Chemical

Emergency Preparedness and

Prevention Office, Mail Code 5104A,

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20004, (202) 564-

7913, Fax (202) 564-8233,

rodriguez.vanessa@epa.gov. You may

also wish to visit the Chemical

Emergency Preparedness and

Prevention Office (CEPPO) Internet site

at http://www.epa.gov/ceppo.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What Are the Affected or Regulated

Entities?

Entities potentially affected by this

action are those stationary sources that

are subject to the chemical accident

prevention requirements at 40 CFR part

68. Affected categories and entities

include:

CATEGORY EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES

Chemical Manufacturers ................. Basic chemical manufacturing, petrochemicals, resins, agricultural chemicals, pharmaceuticals, paints,

cleaning compounds.

Petroleum ........................................ R efineries.

Other Manufacturing ....................... Paper, electronics, semiconductors, fabricated metals, industrial machinery, food processors.

Agriculture ....................................... Agricultural retailers.

Public Sources ................................ Drinking water and waste water treatment systems.

U tilitie s ............................................. E lectric utilitie s.

Other ............................................... Cold storage, warehousing, and wholesalers.

Federal Sources .............................. Military and energy installations.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be affected by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be affected.

To determine whether a stationary

source is affected by this action,

carefully examine the provisions

associated with the list of substances

and thresholds under 40 CFR 68.130

and the applicability criteria under

§ 68.10. If you have questions regarding

the applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This

Document and Other Related

Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an

official public docket for this action

under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0044.

The official public docket consists of the

documents specifically referenced in

this action, any public comments

received, and other information related

to this action. Although a part of the

official docket, the public docket does

not include Confidential Business

Information (CBI) or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

The official public docket is the

collection of materials that is available

for public viewing at the Air Docket in

the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA

Docket Center Public Reading Room is

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The telephone number for the

Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744,

and the telephone number for the Air

Docket is (202) 566-1742.

45124
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 147/Thursday, July 31, 2003/Proposed Rules

2. Electronic Access. You may access

this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet

under the "Federal Register" listings at

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public

docket is available through EPA's

electronic public docket and comment

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket

to submit or view public comments,

access the index listing of the contents

of the official public docket, and to

access those documents in the public

docket that are available electronically.

Once in the system, select "search,"

then key in the appropriate docket

identification number.

Certain types of information will not

be placed in the EPA Dockets.

Information claimed as CBI and other

information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute, which is not

included in the official public docket,

will not be available for public viewing

in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's

policy is that copyrighted material will

not be placed in EPA's electronic public

docket but will be available only in

printed, paper form in the official public

docket. To the extent feasible, publicly

available docket materials will be made

available in EPA's electronic public

docket. When a document is selected

from the index list in EPA Dockets, the

system will identify whether the

document is available for viewing in

EPA's electronic public docket.

Although not all docket materials may

be available electronically, you may still

access any of the publicly available

docket materials through the docket

facility identified in section I.B.

For public commenters, it is

important to note that EPA's policy is

that public comments, whether

submitted electronically or in paper,

will be made available for public

viewing in EPA's electronic public

docket as EPA receives them and

without change, unless the comment

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or

other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. When EPA

identifies a comment containing

copyrighted material, EPA will provide

a reference to that material in the

version of the comment that is placed in

EPA's electronic public docket. The

entire printed comment, including the

copyrighted material, will be available

in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on

computer disks that are mailed or

delivered to the docket will be

transferred to EPA's electronic public

docket. Public comments that are

mailed or delivered to the Docket will

be scanned and placed in EPA's

electronic public docket. Where

practical, physical objects will be

photographed, and the photograph will

be placed in EPA's electronic public

docket along with a brief description

written by the docket staff.

For additional information about

EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA

Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May

31, 2002.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit

Comments?

You may submit comments

electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or

through hand delivery/courier. To

ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify

the appropriate docket identification

number in the subject line on the first

page of your comment. Please ensure

that your comments are submitted

within the specified comment period.

Comments received after the close of the

comment period will be marked "late."

EPA is not required to consider these

late comments. If you wish to submit

CBI or information that is otherwise

protected by statute, please follow the

instructions in section I.D. Do not use

EPA Dockets (EPA's electronic public

docket and comment system) or e-mail

to submit CBI or information protected

by statute.

1. Electronically. If you submit an

electronic comment as prescribed

below, EPA recommends that you

include your name, mailing address,

and an e-mail address or other contact

information in the body of your

comment. Also include this contact

information on the outside of any disk

or CD ROM you submit, and in any

cover letter accompanying the disk or

CD ROM. This ensures that you can be

identified as the submitter of the

comment and allows EPA to contact you

in case EPA cannot read your comment

due to technical difficulties or needs

further information on the substance of

your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA

will not edit your comment, and any

identifying or contact information

provided in the body of a comment will

be included as part of the comment that

is placed in the official public docket,

and made available in EPA's electronic

public docket. If EPA cannot read your

comment due to technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification,

EPA may not be able to consider your

comment.

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's

electronic public docket to submit

comments to EPA electronically is

EPA's preferred method for receiving

comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket and

follow the online instructions for

submitting comments. To access EPA's

electronic public docket from the EPA

Internet Home Page, select "Information

Sources," "Dockets," and "EPA

Dockets." Once in the system, select "search," and then key in Docket ID No.

OAR-2003-0044. The system is an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will not know your identity,

e-mail address, or other contact

information unless you provide it in the

body of your comment.

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by

electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-rDocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID

No. OAR-2003-0044. In contrast to

EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an "anonymous

access" system. If you send an e-mail

comment directly to the Docket without

going through EPA's electronic public

docket, EPA's e-mail system

automatically captures your e-mail

address. E-mail addresses that are

automatically captured by EPA's e-mail

system are included as part of the

comment that is placed in the official

public docket, and made available in

EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit

comments on a disk or CD ROM that

you mail to the mailing address

identified in section I.C.2. These

electronic submissions will be accepted

in WordPerfect or ASCII file format.

Avoid the use of special characters and

any form of encryption.

2. By Mail. When mailing comments

through the U.S. Postal Service, send 2

copies of your comments to: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

West (Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Room: B108, Mail Code

6102T, Washington, DC 20460,

Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-

0044.

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. When

mailing comments through Federal

Express, UPS, or other courier services,

deliver 2 copies of your comments to:

EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1301

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room: B108,

Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC

20004, Attention Docket ID No. OAR2003-0044. Such deliveries are only

accepted during the Docket's normal

hours of operation as identified in Unit

I.B.

4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments

to: 202-566-1741, Attention Docket ID.

No. OAR-2003-0044.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the

Agency?

Do not submit information that you

consider to be CBI electronically

through EPA's electronic public docket

or by e-mail. Send or deliver

information identified as CBI only to the

45125
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 147/Thursday, July 31, 2003/Proposed Rules

following address: Dorothy Mcmanus,

Mail Code 5104A, U.S. EPA, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue. NW.,

Washington, DC 20460, Attention

Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0044. You

may claim information that you submit

to EPA as CBI by marking any part or

all of that information as CBI (if you

submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark

the outside of the disk or CD ROM as

CBI and then identify electronically

within the disk or CD ROM the specific

information that is CBI). Information so

marked will not be disclosed except in

accordance with procedures set forth in

40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of

the comment that includes any

information claimed as CBI, a copy of

the comment that does not contain the

information claimed as CBI must be

submitted for inclusion in the public

docket and EPA's electronic public

docket. If you submit the copy that does

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM,

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM

clearly that it does not contain CBI.

Information not marked as CBI will be

included in the public docket and EPA's

electronic public docket without prior

notice. If you have any questions about

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,

please consult the person identified in

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare

My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following

suggestions helpful for preparing your

comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as

possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you

used.

3. Provide any technical information

and/or data you used that support your

views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or

costs, explain how you arrived at your

estimate.

5. Provide specific examples to

illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternatives.

7. Make sure to submit your

comments by the comment period

deadline identified.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,

identify the appropriate docket

identification number in the subject line

on the first page of your response. It

would also be helpful if you provided

the name, date, and Federal Register

citation related to your comments.

The information in this proposed rule

is organized as follows:

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

B. Background

II. Discussion of Proposed Changes

A. Changes to Reporting Schedule

1. Five-Year Accident History

2. Emergency Contact Information

B. Changes to Executive Summary

C. New Data Elements

1. Emergency Contacts E-mail Address

2. Reason for Subsequent RMP

Submissions

3. Contractor Information

D. Revisions to RMP Submit Format

Uncontrolled/Runaway Reactions

III. Other Issues

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health and

Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

This notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) is being issued under section

112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7601).

B. Background

The 1990 CAA Amendments added,

among other things, section 112(r) to

provide for the prevention and

mitigation of accidental releases of

extremely hazardous substances.

Section 112(r) calls for EPA to list the

most dangerous substances and a

threshold quantity for each substance. It

also directs EPA to issue regulations

requiring any stationary source with

more than a threshold quantity of a

listed substance to develop and

implement a risk management program.

EPA published a final rule creating the

list of regulated substances and

establishing thresholds on January 31,

1994 (59 FR 4478) (the "List Rule"), and

a final rule establishing the accidental

release prevention regulations on June

20, 1996 (61 FR 31668) (the risk

management program regulations or

"RMP Rule"). Together, these two rules

are codified as part 68 of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR

part 68).

Sources subject to the RMP rule are

required to develop and implement a

risk management program that includes,

for covered processes, a five-year

accident history, an offsite consequence

analysis, a prevention program, and an

emergency response program. Sources

must also submit to EPA a risk

management plan (RMP) describing the

source's risk management program. The

deadline for submitting RMPs was June

21, 1999, for sources subject to the

program by that date. Approximately

15,000 sources have submitted RMPs.

The RMP rule requires sources to

update and re-submit their RMPs at

least every five years or sooner if any of

the changes specified in section

68.190(b)(2) of the rule occur. The

specified changes currently include the

following conditions: (1) No later than

three years after the date on which a

regulated substance is first listed under

§ 68.130, (2) no later than the date on

which a new regulated substance is first

present in an already covered process

above a threshold quantity, (3) no later

than the date on which a regulated

substance is first present above a

threshold quantity in a new process, (4)

within 6 months of a change that

requires a revised PHA or hazard

review, (5) within 6 months of a change

that requires a revised off-site

consequence analysis as provided in

§ 68.36, and (6) within six months of a

change that alters the Program level that

applied to any covered process. Updates

and re-submissions entail the review

and revision of all sections of the RMP

as needed to bring the RMP up to date.

They must be accompanied by a new

certification letter for the entire RMP. If

a source re-submits its RMP for any of

the aforementioned reasons, the fiveyear anniversary date for resubmitting

the RMP is reset.

Sources may wish to revise their

RMPs for other reasons, as well. The

Agency distinguishes among the resubmissions discussed above and other

various types of revisions, namely

corrections, de-registrations (revised

registrations) and withdrawals. A

correction is a change only to individual

data elements that a source wishes to

change or correct, and requires a new

certification letter covering that change.

Corrections may be required if the

implementing agency or the reporting

center discovers the submission was

incomplete based on a validation/error

report. The source may initiate a

correction if it discovers an error, needs

to make minor administrative changes

(e.g., correction of a phone number or

contact name), or changes owners but

covered process operations do not

change. Corrections do not entail the

review and revision of all nine sections

of the RMP, nor do they affect the fiveyear anniversary date for updating and

resubmitting the RMP.

De-registrations (or revised

registrations as these are referred to in

45126
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 147/Thursday, July 31, 2003/Proposed Rules

section 68.190(c)) occur when the

source is no longer covered by the

program (e.g., the source no longer uses

any regulated substances or no longer

holds regulated substances in amounts

that exceed the threshold quantities).

The source submits a letter requesting

de-registration, with the RMP being

retained in the reporting system

database for 15 years.

A withdrawal occurs when a source

that was never subject to the program

submits an RMP in error. Such a source

submits a letter requesting a

withdrawal, and its RMP is taken out of

the reporting system database

altogether.

Sources subject to the rule on June 21,

1999, were required to submit an RMP

by that date. For those sources that

submitted an RMP on June 21, 1999,

their five-year anniversary date will be

June 21, 2004. Other sources that

submitted an RMP before the original

deadline, have re-submitted an RMP

since, or have become subject to the

RMP rule since June 21, 1999, will have

different anniversary dates.

II. Discussion of Proposed Changes

A. Changes to RMP Submission

Requirements

1. Five-Year Accident History

EPA proposes that facilities who have

an accident that meets the criteria for

the five-year accident history be

required to update and re-submit their

RMP within six months of the date of

the accident.

The five-year accident history element

for the RMP (40 CFR 68.42) requires the

owner or operator of a stationary source

to record information in their RMP on

all accidental releases from covered

processes in the past five years that

resulted in deaths, injuries, or

significant property damage on site, or

known offsite deaths, injuries,

evacuations, sheltering in place,

property damage, or environmental

damage. This requirement includes the

release of any chemical from a covered

process, not just the release of a

regulated substance from that covered

process. During the first year of RMP

submissions, approximately 1,150

sources reported in their five-year

history that their facility had an

accidental release that met the criteria

for including information on these

releases in their RMP.

The regulations require that each time

a source re-submits its RMP, the fiveyear accident history is updated.

Information on accidental releases in

the previous RMP submission that are

now outside the five-year time frame is

removed while information on recent

accidental releases is added. However,

unless a source re-submits its RMP

sooner than the five-year anniversary

date, information on more recent

accidental releases will not be

submitted in an RMP for potentially 5

years. The five-year accident history is

valuable information for chemical

accident prevention and preparedness

efforts by not only industry but by many

stakeholders, including emergency

responders. Consequently, EPA is

proposing to require that sources update

and re-submit their RMP within six

months of an accidental release that

meets the five-year accident history

reporting criteria.

EPA believes this proposed

requirement would help spur significant

improvements in the accident

prevention and reporting programs of

sources at which reportable releases

occur. Accidents can be caused by

failures in a source's accident

prevention program. This new resubmission trigger would require the

source to review its accident prevention

program in light of the accident, and to

update its RMP with any changes to the

program. While all physical or

procedural improvements may not be

finished and completely implemented

within the 6-month accident reporting

deadline, the Agency believes that

review of the process hazard analysis

and other elements of the program can

be completed within six months. The

Agency also believes that sources would

benefit greatly from the prompt scrutiny

of the accident, allowing the findings of

an accident investigation to better

influence any safety recommendations.

EPA also believes the proposed

requirement would have the additional

benefit of improving reporting of

accidental releases. By providing the

details of the accident soon after the

accident takes place, the source would

be likely to provide more complete and

accurate information in its accident

reporting. Current requirements allow

sources to compile an accident report

for the RMP up to 5 years after the

accident occurs.

The proposed submission

requirement would also allow EPA and

interested stakeholders to determine on

an annual basis if the rate of accidents

is increasing or decreasing, rather than

waiting five years to see such data. It

would also enable all involved in

chemical accident prevention to identify

trends in accident causes, examine if

there are problem areas or a need for

assistance in specific industry sectors,

and identify effective prevention

measures that could be shared so that

other sources may avoid similar

accidents.

This change would modify the

schedule for updating and re-submitting

an RMP, but it should not significantly

change the associated burden. If a

source had a reportable accident, it

would need to update and re-submit an

RMP within 6 months. However, the

source would not need to resubmit

again, provided there are no other

accidents or major changes, for another

5 years.

An alternative that was also

considered would require sources with

new accidents that meet the criteria for

reporting in the 5-year accident history

to update their RMP on a fixed date

every year. This option would have the

Agency receiving RMPs at the same time

from all of the sources who have had

accidents that meet the criteria during

the previous 12 months. This option

would provide EPA with an annual

report of all of the significant accidents

that have occurred at reporting sources,

and the changes that were made due to

these accidents. EPA is not proposing

this option at this time, because the

Agency prefers to give the same amount

of time for reporting (six months) to all

sources. For example, if the fixed date

for annual accident reporting was

established as June 21, a source having

an accident on June 15 would have no

time to significantly investigate the

accident and provide a meaningful

report. Nonetheless, EPA is requesting

comment on this option and whether it

is preferable to requiring the resubmissions within six months of a

significant accident.

2. Emergency Contact Information

EPA proposes to require that facilities

correct their emergency contact

information within one month of a

change in the information.

The RMP has become a primary

source of information for the federal

government's efforts in the homeland

security area. The emergency contact

information is important not only to

state and local responders, but also for

the federal government. Under current

requirements, if the information for the

emergency contact becomes outdated

(e.g., change of emergency contact's

phone number, emergency contact

leaves the position, etc.), the source may

take up to five years to report these

changes. Implementing agencies that

have audited RMPs report that much of

the information for emergency contacts

is outdated or otherwise inaccurate. For

these reasons, EPA is proposing to

require that facilities correct their

emergency contact information within

one month of a change in the

information. Explained in the following

section in detail is also a proposal for an

45127
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 147/Thursday, July 31, 2003/Proposed Rules

additional email address data element;

this would also trigger the requirement

to correct emergency information within

one month of a change. These changes

to emergency contact information would

be considered corrections and would

not require a complete updating and resubmission of the RMP. EPA requests

comment on this proposal.

B. Changes to Executive Summary

EPA proposes to remove the

requirement for sources to briefly

describe the off-site consequence

analysis (i.e, worst-case accidental

release scenario(s) and the alternative

accidental release scenario(s) within the

executive summary of the RMP.

Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act

requires sources subject to the risk

management program requirements to

conduct an off-site consequence

analysis (OCA) for one or more

hypothetical accidental worst case and

alternative release scenarios and report

the results of the analysis in the RMP.

In 1999, Congress passed the Chemical

Safety Information, Site Security and

Fuels Regulatory Relief Act

(CSISSFRRA), governing the

distribution of "off-site consequence

[OCA] information." The statute defines

"OCA information" as the OCA sections

of the RMP (sections 2 through 5) and

any EPA database derived from those

sections, but expressly excludes the

executive summary section of the RMP.

Under CSISSFRRA, EPA and the

Department of Justice jointly issued

regulations restricting access to OCA

information and certain related

information. This regulation (40 CFR

part 1400) was published in the Federal

Register on August 4, 2000 (65 FR

48108).

Promulgated prior to the passage of

CSISSFRRA, § 68.155(c) of the RMP rule

currently requires sources to briefly

describe in their RMP executive

summary "the worst-case release

scenario(s) and the alternative release

scenario(s), including administrative

controls and mitigation measures to

limit the distances for each reported

scenario." EPA, along with federal law

enforcement agencies, believes that due

to its sensitive nature, this information

should not be included in executive

summaries, which are available to the

public without restriction under 40 CFR

part 1400. For this reason, EPA is

proposing to remove the requirement to

summarize OCA results, and requests

that sources not voluntarily provide this

specific information, in the executive

summary. Facilities must continue to

provide details of the OCA in sections

2 through 5 of the RMP. The public

would continue to have restricted access

to OCA information in the manner

required by the regulations at 40 CFR

part 1400. EPA requests comment on

this proposed change.

C. New Data Elements

1. Emergency Contacts E-Mail Address

EPA proposes to add a mandatory

data element to the RMP for sources to

provide the e-mail address (if any) for

the emergency contact.

Section 68.160(b)(6) of the RMP rule

currently requires facilities to provide

the name, title, telephone number, and

a 24-hour telephone number of an

emergency contact person. Similarly,

§ 68.160(b)(14) allows facilities to

optionally provide an e-mail address for

the source or parent company. From

time to time, EPA is made aware of

specific hazards. For example, in the

Hazardous Materials Accident Report:

Hazardous Materials Release From

Railroad Tank Car With Subsequent Fire

at Riverview, Michigan, July 14, 2001,

the National Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB) included the following

recommendation:

"[EPA should] notify all facilities that are required to submit risk management plans to

the Environmental Protection Agency that

tank car excess flow valves cannot be relied

upon to stop leaks that occur during tank car loading and unloading operations and that

those companies that have included reliance on such valves in their risk management

plans should instead identify and implement

other measures that will stop the

uncontrolled release of product in the event

of a transfer line failure during tank car

loading or unloading." (NTSB, R-02-17)

Having an e-mail address for the

emergency contact would allow the

Agency to quickly and directly

communicate hazard information such

as that provided above by the NTSB.

Providing such notifications in a timely

manner to all sources subject to RMP

requirements would improve sources

access to critical process safety

information.

Additionally, RMPs have become a

critical source of information for the

federal government's homeland security

efforts. In our new environment of

heightened security, it may become

necessary for an RMP implementing

agency to communicate directly and on

short notice with sources subject to the

RMP program, or with a portion of that

universe. The e-mail address for a

source's emergency contact would be a

necessary piece of information for this

to occur.

As noted above, EPA is also proposing

that any change to the email address for

a source's emergency contact be

followed by a corresponding change to

the source's RMP within a month of the

address change. This requirement

would trigger a correction; a resubmission would not be required for

this particular change. The Agency

requests comments on this proposal and

also on the extent to which sources may

not have an e-mail address. Some

sources, such as small agricultural

retailers or fertilizer warehouses, may

not have e-mail capability.

2. Reason for Subsequent RMP

Submissions

EPA is proposing to add a mandatory

data element to the RMP for sources to

identify the purpose of submissions that

revise or otherwise affect their

previously filed RMPs.

As noted above, sources are required

to submit, update and resubmit their

RMP by the schedule specified in

section 68.190 of the RMP rule. Since

the initial June 1999 reporting deadline,

EPA has received thousands of

submissions containing corrections, resubmissions, de-registrations (revised

registrations) or withdrawals of

previously submitted RMPs. However,

at this time the RMP electronic

submission program does not have an

entry that provides the reason for the

submission, making it difficult at times

for RMP implementing agencies to

determine their purpose.

This proposal would add a new data

element in the RMP for sources to

indicate what they are submitting and

why. For example, a source that

modifies its RMP to correct minor

technical errors, make minor

administrative changes (i.e., updates to

contact names, addresses, telephone

numbers, e-mail addresses), fill in

missing data elements, or reflect facility

ownership changes, would indicate that

it was making such a correction.

Similarly, a source that revised the RMP

for its update and re-submission as

required every five years or when

certain changes are made, such as

introducing a regulated substance in a

process, would indicate that it was

sending an RMP re-submission and

why. A source that was previously

required to submit an RMP, but due to

changes in operations was no longer

required to report, would indicate why

it was submitting a de-registration

(revised registration) of the chemical or

process. Sources that had originally

submitted an RMP in error (i.e. they

were never subject to RMP regulation)

would indicate why they were

withdrawing their RMP from the

national database. To help sources

provide this information, we would

anticipate adding to the RMP electronic

submission program a pop-up menu of

typical reasons for submissions. Sources

45128
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 147/Thursday, July 31, 2003/Proposed Rules

would simply click on the appropriate

menu item or, if none is appropriate,

briefly state the reason for the change.

This additional reporting element is

intended to assist the Agency and other

implementing agencies in

understanding the reason a source is

submitting a revised RMP or asking to

remove an existing one. This

information would also provide a check

on the RMP submission to ensure that

information is provided accurately.

Further, this proposed reporting

requirement would provide important

information on changes occurring in

industry, providing insight into

chemical usage and process safety

management. For example, monitoring

the number of sources de-registering

their RMPs because they have

substituted the regulated substance for a

non-regulated substance, or decreasing

the quantity of a regulated substance in

a process, would provide some

indication of the extent to which

inherently safer or alternative

technologies are being utilized by the

sources subject to the RMP. This

information would be of interest to

sources that could learn from identified

trends and industry practices in the area

of chemical process safety management.

The Agency is requesting comments on

this proposal.

The Agency also recognizes that the

terminology used to identify the various

types of submissions may cause some

confusion, and is requesting comments

that may help clarify those terms.

Specifically, the Agency is considering

changing the term revised registrations

to de-registrations, which more clearly

conveys the action being taken and is

the term used in the implementation

materials for the RMP.

3. Contractor Information

EPA is proposing to add a mandatory

data element in the RMP for sources that

use a contractor to help prepare their

RMPs to so indicate.

Through RMP audits, implementing

agencies have learned that many RMPs

have been prepared in large part by

contractors. Use of contractors for this

purpose is allowed under the RMP rule.

However, some implementing agencies

have noted potential systemic errors in

the way some contractors prepare RMPs.

Concern has also been raised that, in

some cases, sources whose RMPs are

largely prepared by contractors are not

sufficiently familiar with the contents of

their RMPs. EPA is proposing to require

an additional data element in the RMP

for sources who use a contractor to help

develop and fill out the RMP. Those

sources would be required to provide

the name of the contractor who helped

prepare the RMP and a phone number

to contact the contractor.

This new data would allow the

implementing agencies to monitor the

use of contractors for RMP preparation

and provide appropriate follow-up. For

example, RMP auditors could use the

information to more easily identify

systemic errors linked to a particular

contractor, and could then share this

information with the source submitting

the RMP, thus improving the overall

quality of the sources' safety

management programs. Ultimate

responsibility for RMP implementation

would continue to reside on the

stationary source's owner or operator.

EPA requests comments on this new

requirement.

D. Revisions to RMP Submit Format

Uncontrolled/Runaway Reactions

EPA is proposing to expand the list of

possible causes of accidental releases to

the reporting of sources' five-year

accident history so an owner or operator

can indicate whether an accident

involved an uncontrolled/runaway

reaction.

In its report, Improving Reactive

Hazard Management (December 2002),

the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard

Investigation Board (CSB) recommended

that EPA "[m]odify the accident

reporting requirements in RMP*Info to

define and record reactive incidents.

Consider adding the term 'reactive

incident' to the four existing 'release

events' in EPA's current 5-year accident

reporting requirements (Gas Release,

Liquid Spill/Evaporation, Fire, and

Explosion). Structure this information

collection to allow EPA and its

stakeholders to identify and focus

resources on industry sectors that

experienced the incidents; chemicals

and processes involved; and impact on

the public, the workforce, and the

environment" (CSB recommendation

2001-01-H-R4).

Based on this recommendation, EPA

is proposing to revise RMP reporting of

the five-year accident history (40 CFR

68.42) to allow the owner or operator to

indicate whether the accident involved

an uncontrolled/runaway reaction.

The new element would provide

sources with an additional choice to

more accurately report accidents that

involved uncontrolled or runaway

reactions. This information is important

when measuring whether the accidents

involved simple releases of the chemical

(e.g., broken valve, broken pipe) or were

the result of a process upset. This new

information would provide a better

understanding of the types of accidents

occurring at regulated sources.

III. Other Issues

Collection of OSHA Occupational Injury

and Illness Data in Conjunction With

the RMP Filing Required Under 112(r) of

the CAA

EPA and others use the information

reported in the RMP accident history in

combination with other data to better

understand accident risks and to gauge

the trends with respect to risk and

accident prevention across various

industry sectors. Health and safety

indicators could also provide

information to industry, government,

and other researchers in understanding

the factors that affect chemical accident

prevention. Under 29 CFR part 1904, the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) requires

employers to maintain logs of employee

reportable injury and illness statistics

(OII) for every calendar year. Employers

need to have these records available for

compliance officers to review upon

inspections, and the records for each

year must be kept for 5 years.

Three of these records are of special

interest to EPA: (1) Total Incidence Rate,

(2) Workdays Lost to Injuries, and (3)

Illness and Workdays under Restricted

Duties. EPA is considering whether

future RMP submissions should be

required to include data for these three

records, aggregated for five most recent

calendar years. With renewed emphasis

on quantifying the risks and benefits

related to chemical accidents, and on

the trends in key sectors covered by

existing regulations, these data, if

collected, would allow an objective

analysis of any statistical relationship

between levels of reported injuries and

illnesses, accidental releases and a

variety of other elements driving

chemical industry preparedness and

prevention activities. The ability to link

to injury and illness data and the

indicators they provide on health and

safety at chemical facilities could

provide extremely valuable information

both to EPA and to industry for

understanding the factors that underlie

chemical process safety. Given that

RMPs are submitted by a large number

of chemical facilities, providing OSHA

OII data in RMPs would greatly

facilitate analysis of trends in the U.S.

chemical industry on accidental releases

and the relationship of these, if any, to

facility safety levels.

RMP submitters could provide the

aggregate statistics requested with only

minimal additional effort in filling out

the RMP. For the government to obtain

this data by other means would require

significant effort. The Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS) only collects this data

from a representative sample of

45129
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 147/Thursday, July 31, 2003/Proposed Rules

companies/facilities and not from the

entire set of facilities covered under

RMP; linking BLS data to the RMP

records outside of the RMP data

collection would require a significant

expenditure of time and resources even

though it would lack a complete data

set. EPA would expect little additional

burden on industry for the collection of

this information since OSHA already

requires that it be maintained. EPA is

requesting comments on the

practicability and burden of adding

these data elements to RMP reporting

requirements, and on the potential value

they may yield. EPA is also requesting

comments with respect to other data

elements that may serve this purpose.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is "significant" and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines "significant

regulatory action" as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order." It has been determined that this

proposal is not considered to be a "significant regulatory action" within

the meaning of the Executive Order and

is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document prepared by EPA has been

assigned EPA ICR number 1656.10.

EPA is proposing to add three data

elements to the Risk Management Plan

(RMP), to modify one data element, and

to remove the obligation to discuss the

off-site consequence analysis in the

executive summary of the RMP. EPA is

also proposing to modify the submission

schedule under the risk management

program for sources who have

significant accidents, and for those who

change the information for the

emergency contacts. This action may

increase some burden on facilities that

currently submit risk management plans

to EPA.

The most recently recorded number of

sources subject to this proposed action,

if adopted, is 14,930. The public

reporting burden estimated for

familiarizing with this rule amendment

is 2.0 hours for each source. Estimated

unit burden for the new RMP data

elements is 0.25 hours. The burden for

change in submission schedule for RMP

due to significant accidents ranges from

3.0 hours for wholesale to 9.0 hours for

large chemical manufacturers. The

burden for change in submission

schedule for RMP due to change in

emergency contact information is 0.1

hour for each source.

The total annual burden for rule

familiarization, addition of new

elements to the RMP, and for the change

in RMP submission schedule is 33,943

hours (101,829 hours for 3 years), with

an annual cost of $992,400 ($2,977,200

for 3 years).

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA's regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for

this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including the use of

automated collection techniques, EPA

has established a public docket for this

ICR under Docket ID number OAR2003-0052. The public docket is

available for viewing at the Air Docket

in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),

EPA West, Room B102, 1301

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,

DC. The EPA Docket Center Public

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The telephone

number for the Reading Room is (202)

566-1744, and the telephone number for

the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. An

electronic version of the public docket

is available through EPA Dockets

(EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.govl

edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or

view public comments, access the index

listing of the contents of the public

docket, and to access those documents

in the public docket that are available

electronically. Once in the system,

select "search," then key in the docket

ID number OAR-2003-0052. Also, you

can send comments to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60

days after July 31, 2003, a comment to

OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it by September

2, 2003. The final rule will respond to

any OMB or public comments on the

information collection requirements

contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq,

generally requires an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today's rule on small entities, a small

entity is defined as: (1) A small business

that is defined by the Small Business

Administration by category of business

using North American Industrial

Classification System (NAICS) and

codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-for45130
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 147/Thursday, July 31, 2003/Proposed Rules

profit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today's proposed rule on

small entities, we have concluded that

this action would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with "Federal mandates" that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this

proposed rule would not contain a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditures of $100 million or more

for state, local, and tribal governments,

in the aggregate, or the private sector in

any one year. The nationwide capital

cost for these rule amendments is

estimated to be zero and the annual

nationwide costs for these amendments

are estimated to be less than $1 million.

Thus, today's rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Act. EPA has

determined that this proposed rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. The new data

elements and submission requirements

would impose only minimal burden on

these entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have "substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government."

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA

may not issue a regulation that has

federalism implications, that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs, and

that is not required by statute, unless

the Federal government provides the

funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed rule does not have

federalism implications. It would not

have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. The proposed

rule focuses on requirements for

regulated facilities without affecting the

relationships between governments in

its implementation. Thus, Executive

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

Although section 6 of Executive Order

13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA

did consult with State and local officials

and implementing agencies in

developing this rule. EPA held a RMP

Implementing Agency meeting in

Atlanta, October 21 and 22, 2002. State

and local implementing agencies in

attendance included representatives

from Alabama, California, Colorado,

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,

Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,

New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.

Participants were invited to provide

feedback regarding the program and

related software, as well as suggestions

for improvements.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,

and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA

and State and local governments, EPA

specifically solicits comment on this

proposed rule from State and local

officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications." This proposed rule does

not have tribal implications, as specified

in Executive Order 13175. The proposed

rule focuses on requirements for all

regulated sources without affecting the

relationships between tribal

governments in its implementation, and

applies to all regulated sources, without

distinction of the surrounding

populations affected. Thus, Executive

Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

EPA specifically solicits additional

comment on this proposed rule from

tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health &

Safety Risks

The Executive Order 13045, entitled

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be economically

significant under Executive Order

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. EPA

interprets Executive Order 13045 as

applying only to those regulatory

actions that are based on health or safety

risks, such that the analysis required

under section 5-501 of the Order has

the potential to influence the regulation.

This proposal is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

regulatory decisions that are based on

45131
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 147/Thursday, July 31, 2003/Proposed Rules

public health or safety risks, nor would

it establish environmental standards

intended to mitigate health or safety

risks.

H. Executive Order 13211:Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, "Actions Concerning

Regulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is

not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

L National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law

104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards. This

proposed rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is

not considering the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Chemicals,

Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: July 23, 2003.

Marianne L. Horinko,

Acting Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 68 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended to read as

follows:

PART 68-CHEMICAL ACCIDENT

PREVENTION PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for part 68

continues to read as follows:

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

7661-7661f.

2. Section 68.155 is amended by

removing paragraph (c) and

redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g)

as paragraphs (c) through (f).

3. Section 68.160 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(6), redesignating

paragraphs b(14) through b(18) as

paragraphs b(15) through b(19), and

adding a new paragraph b(14) as

follows:

§68.160 Registration.

(b) * * *

(6) The name, title, telephone number,

24-hour telephone number, and the email address (if an e-mail address exists)

of the emergency contact;

(14) The name, the mailing address,

and the telephone number of any

contractor who helped prepare the RMP;

5. Section 68.190 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7), by

adding a new paragraph (b)(8), by

redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph

(d), and by adding new paragraphs (c)

and (e) to read as follows:

§68.190 Updates.

(b) * * *

(6) Within 6 months of a change that

requires a revised offsite consequence

analysis as provided in § 68.36;

(7) Within 6 months of a change that

alters the Program level that applied to

any covered process; and

(8) Within 6 months of the date of an

accidental release of any chemical from

a covered process, where the accidental

release meets the criteria for reporting in

the 5-year accident history as provided

in § 68.42(a).

(c) The owner or operator of a

stationary source shall submit a

correction to the RMP for any change in

the emergency contact information

required by § 68.160 (b)(6) within one

month of the change.

(e) Following submission of an initial

RMP, an owner or operator submitting

any subsequent version or revision of

the RMP shall identify the type of

submission being made and the reason

for it. The types of submission include:

(1) Corrections (e.g., changes to fix

minor technical errors, update

administrative information, provide

missing data elements or reflect facility

ownership changes) which do not

require an update and revision of the

RMP under this section;

(2) Re-submissions under paragraph

(b) of this section;

(3) De-registrations (revised

registrations) under paragraph (c) of this

section; and

(4) Withdrawals of an RMP for any

facility that was erroneously considered

subject to part 68.

[FR Doc. 03-19281 Filed 7-30-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

45132
Thursday,

July 31, 2003

Part VI

Federal Trade

Commission

16 CFR Part 310

Telemarketing Sales Rule Fees; Final Rule

................