Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 18819 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 04–5877 Filed 4–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 68 

[OAR–2003–0044; FRL–7643–6] 

RIN 2050–AF09 

Accidental Release Prevention 

Requirements: Risk Management 

Program Requirements Under Clean 

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

to the Submission Schedule and Data 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is making several changes 

to the reporting requirements of its 

chemical accident prevention 

regulations under section 112(r) of the 

Clean Air Act. Today’s final rule 

requires that, beginning June 21, 2004, 

chemical facilities subject to the 

accident prevention regulations submit 

information on any significant chemical 

accidents and any changes to emergency 

contact information on a more timely 

basis than previously required. The rule 

also immediately removes the regulatory 

requirement for covered facilities to 

include in the executive summaries of 

their risk management plans (RMPs) a 

brief description of the off-site 

consequence analysis (OCA) for their 

facilities. In addition, the final rule also 

requires that, beginning June 21, 2004, 

covered facilities include three new 

pieces of information in their RMPs: the 

e-mail address for the facility emergency 

contact, the name, address and 

telephone number of the contractor who 

prepared the RMP, and the purpose of 

any RMP submission that changes or 

otherwise affects an earlier RMP 

submission. The rule also clarifies that 

the deadline for updating RMPs that 

were submitted before or on June 21, 

1999, is June 21, 2004, except for those 

facilities required to update their RMPs 

as a result of changes at the facility. 

Finally, EPA is making several related 

and other revisions to the format for 

submitting RMPs (RMP*Submit), 

including expanding the list of options 

for possible accident causes to include 

uncontrolled chemical reactions. The 

modifications promulgated today seek 

to improve the accident prevention and 

reporting programs of covered facilities, 

and to assist federal, state, and local 

RMP implementation in light of new 

homeland security concerns. 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 9, 

2004. 

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section I.B for docket 

addresses. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, contact the 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Hotline at (800) 424–

9346; in the Washington, D.C. 

metropolitan area, contact (703) 412–

9810. The Telecommunications Device 

for the Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is 

(800) 535–7672. You may also access 

general information online at the 

Hotline Internet site, http:// 

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

questions on the contents of this 

document contact Vanessa Rodriguez, 

Chemical Emergency Preparedness and 

Prevention Office, Mail Code 5104A, 

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20004, (202) 564–

7913, Fax (202) 564–8233, 

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 facilities (referred to as 

‘‘stationary sources’’ under the CAA) 

that are subject to the chemical accident 

prevention requirements at 40 CFR part 

68. Affected categories and entities 

include: 

CATEGORY EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES

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

Petroleum ............................................................ Refineries. 

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

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

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

Utilities ................................................................. Electric utilities. 

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

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

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be affected by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be affected. 

To determine whether a stationary 

source is affected by this action, 

carefully examine the provisions 

associated with the list of substances 

and thresholds under 40 CFR 68.130 

and the applicability criteria under 

§ 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 

18820 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the Federal Register listings at 

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

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

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

to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket 

identification number. 

The information in this final rule is 

organized as follows: 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Authority 

B. Background 

II. Discussion of the Final Rule and Public 

Comments 

A. Changes to the RMP Reporting Schedule 

1. Five-Year Accident History 

2. Emergency Contact Information 

B. Changes to Executive Summary 

C. New Data Elements 

1. Emergency Contact’s E-mail address 

2. Purpose of Subsequent RMP 

Submissions 

3. Contractor Information 

D. Revisions to RMP*Submit Format 

Uncontrolled/Runaway Reactions 

III. Other Issues 

Collection of OSHA Occupational Injury 

and Illness Data in Conjunction with the 

RMP Filing Required under 112(r) of the 

CAA. 

IV. Effective Date, Update Clarification and 

Compliance Schedule 

V. Technical Corrections 

VI. Summary of the Final Rule 

VII. Judicial Review 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Authority 

This final rule is being issued under 

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

or Act) (42 U.S.C. 7412). 

B. Background 

The 1990 CAA Amendments added, 

among other things, section 112(r) to 

provide for the prevention and 

mitigation of accidental releases of 

extremely hazardous substances. 

Section 112(r) calls for EPA to list the 

most dangerous substances and a 

threshold quantity for each substance. It 

also directs EPA to issue regulations 

requiring any stationary source with 

more than a threshold quantity of a 

listed substance to develop and 

implement a risk management program 

and to submit a RMP describing its 

program. EPA published a final rule 

creating the list of regulated substances 

and establishing thresholds on January 

31, 1994 (59 FR 4478) (the ‘‘List Rule’’), 

and a final rule establishing the risk 

management program and plan 

requirements on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 

31668) (the ‘‘RMP Rule’’). Together, 

these two rules are codified as part 68 

of title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (40 CFR part 68). 

Sources subject to the RMP rule are 

required to develop and implement a 

risk management program that includes, 

for covered processes, a five-year 

accident history, an offsite consequence 

analysis, a prevention program, and an 

emergency response program. Sources 

must also submit to EPA a RMP 

describing the source’s risk management 

program. The deadline for submitting 

RMPs was June 21, 1999, for sources 

subject to the rule by that date. Sources 

must also update their RMPs at least 

every five years. Approximately 15,000 

sources have submitted RMPs, and a 

significant number of those sources 

have their five-year anniversary date 

coming up in June, 2004. 

Specifically, the RMP rule requires 

sources to update and re-submit their 

RMPs at least every five years or sooner 

if any of the changes specified in 

§ 68.190(b)(2) of the rule occur. Updates 

and re-submissions entail the review 

and revision of all sections of the RMP 

as needed to bring the RMP up to date 

and must be accompanied by a letter 

certifying that the entire RMP is true, 

accurate and complete. The five-year 

anniversary date for resubmitting the 

RMP is reset with any update and resubmission. 

Sources may revise their RMPs for 

reasons other than those that trigger an 

update and re-submission. The Agency 

distinguishes between updates and resubmissions and other types of 

revisions, namely corrections, deregistrations (revised registrations) and 

withdrawals. A correction changes only 

individual data entries in the RMP 

(known as ‘‘RMP data elements’’). 

Corrections may include clerical errors, 

minor administrative changes, or 

changes of ownership when covered 

process operations do not change. 

Corrections do not entail the review and 

revision of all nine sections of the RMP, 

nor do they affect the five-year 

anniversary date for updating and 

resubmitting the RMP. Corrections have 

entailed submission of the corrected 

RMP on a diskette (or in hard copy) 

accompanied by a letter certifying the 

change. EPA is currently working on an 

alternative, Internet-based, secure 

system that would allow corrections of 

administrative data elements within the 

RMP registration to be made more 

easily. 

De-registrations (or revised 

registrations as these are referred to in 

§ 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 deregistration, with the RMP being 

retained in the reporting system 

database for 15 years. Withdrawals 

occur when sources that were never 

subject to the program submit an RMP 

in error. A letter requesting a 

withdrawal is submitted, and the RMP 

is taken out of the reporting system 

database. 

II. Discussion of the Final Rule and 

Public Comments 

With this final rule, EPA is taking 

action to amend several of the reporting 

requirements of the chemical accident 

prevention regulations. EPA is requiring 

any source at which a significant 

accident occurs following the effective 

date of this rule to add information 

about that accident and the resulting 

incident investigation to the source 

RMP within 6 months of the accident. 

EPA is not, however, requiring that a 

source necessarily update and resubmit 

its RMP following such an accident. 

EPA is also requiring sources which 

change emergency contact personnel or 

related information to correct the 

corresponding information in their RMP 

within one month of making the change. 

EPA is removing the regulatory 

requirement to briefly summarize OCA 

in the executive summary of the RMP. 

In addition, EPA is adding three 

mandatory data elements to the RMP: 

(1) The e-mail address for the facility 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 18821 

emergency contact, when available, (2) 

the purpose of any subsequent RMP 

submissions (e.g., correction, update, 

withdrawal), and (3) the name, address 

and telephone number of any contractor 

who helped prepare the RMP. EPA is 

also allowing an optional data element 

for the e-mail address of the facility 

person responsible for the RMP. 

Relatedly, EPA is making several 

revisions to the submission format for 

the RMP (RMP*Submit), including 

expanding the list of options for 

possible accident causes to include 

uncontrolled chemical reactions. 

These changes were proposed on July 

31, 2003 (68 FR 45126). EPA received 71 

comments on the proposal. Summaries 

of all comments and the Agency’s 

responses can be found in the Summary 

and Response to Comments document 

in the docket. 

A. Changes to the RMP Reporting 

Schedule 

1. Five-Year Accident History 

EPA is amending the RMP rule to 

require that facilities who have an 

accident that meets the criteria for the 

five-year accident history revise all 

elements of their RMP accident history 

(§ 68.168) and the date of investigation 

and expected date of completion of 

changes due to an accident 

investigation in their Incident 

Investigation data elements (§§ 68.170(j) 

and 68.175(l)) within six months of the 

date of the accident. 

The five-year accident history section 

of the RMP rule (40 CFR 68.42) requires 

the owner or operator of a covered 

source to record information in their 

RMP on all accidental releases from 

covered processes in the past five years 

that resulted in deaths, injuries, or 

significant property damage on site, or 

known offsite deaths, injuries, 

evacuations, sheltering in place, 

property damage, or environmental 

damage. However, the original RMP rule 

did not require a source to update its 

accident history until it updated and resubmitted its entire RMP, which could 

be as infrequently as every five years. 

One year ago, the U.S. Chemical Safety 

and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), 

created under section 112(r)(6) of the 

CAA, recommended that RMP accident 

histories be updated on a more timely 

basis in view of the valuable 

information they provide for chemical 

accident prevention and preparedness 

efforts by government, industry and the 

public (Joint Chemical Safety Board, 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, and 

EPA Roundtable on Developing 

Improved Metrics on Accidental 

Chemical Process Releases, November 

14, 2002). EPA agreed with that 

recommendation and consequently 

proposed to require that sources update 

and re-submit their RMP within six 

months of an accidental release that 

meets the five-year accident history 

reporting criteria. The Agency also 

requested comment on requiring all 

sources with reportable accidents to 

update and resubmit their RMPs by the 

same date (e.g., June 1 of each year). 

Thirteen comments supported the 

proposal for a full update and resubmission of the RMP after an accident 

that met the accident history reporting 

criteria, while 43 comments opposed all 

or part of the proposal. Comments 

supporting the proposal stated that it 

would not pose a substantial burden to 

the regulated community, and that 

timely submission of accident 

information in RMPs would be 

beneficial in assisting Federal, State, 

and local responders with accident 

prevention and response. These 

comments generally favored requiring 

an update and re-submission within 

some number of months following an 

accident, as opposed to requiring every 

source to update and resubmit their 

RMPs by a fixed date. 

Other comments opposing the 

proposal pointed out that many 

accidents are subject to other reporting 

requirements, making timely RMP 

reporting arguably unnecessary. Many 

comments also disagreed with the need 

to update and re-submit an entire RMP 

following any reportable accident. In 

proposing the update and re-submission 

requirement, EPA explained that it 

sought not only more recent accident 

information in RMPs but also assurance 

that any lessons learned from an 

accident investigation would be applied 

to the source’s risk management 

program and reflected in its RMP. A 

number of comments noted, however, 

that the RMP rule already requires the 

vast majority of RMP facilities to (1) 

investigate incidents that result in, or 

could have resulted in, catastrophic 

releases; (2) prepare a summary or 

report of the investigation, including a 

description of the incident, factors that 

contributed to the incident and any 

recommendations resulting from the 

investigation; (3) address and resolve all 

findings and recommendations; and (4) 

document all resolutions and corrective 

actions taken (see §§ 68.60 and 68.81). 

These comments argued that these 

existing requirements already 

accomplished EPA’s goal of sources 

incorporating lessons learned into their 

risk management programs. The 

comments also noted that to the extent 

sources made changes in light of 

accidents that triggered the update 

requirement of the existing rule, the 

RMP would be updated and resubmitted in that event. 

Several comments also stated that 

RMP reporting is not detailed enough to 

capture many of the changes a source 

might make in response to an accident 

investigation. In addition, some 

comments noted that for a source with 

more than one RMP-covered process, an 

accident involving one process may 

have no implications for other, different 

processes at the source. For such 

sources, a requirement to update and resubmit the RMP for all processes would 

make little sense. There was also 

concern that six months is not a 

sufficient amount of time to update and 

resubmit an entire RMP following an 

accident that may take several months 

or more to fully investigate. Finally, a 

number of comments expressed concern 

with a statement in the preamble to the 

proposed rule suggesting that reporting 

would be required for significant 

releases from covered processes of any 

extremely hazardous substance, not just 

a substance listed under CAA section 

112(r) (‘‘regulated substances’’). A 

number of comments argued that EPA 

had overstated the scope of the existing 

reporting requirement. 

EPA has considered the comments 

and further studied existing 

requirements for accident reporting and 

follow-up. The Agency continues to 

believe that more timely reporting of 

significant accidents in RMPs is 

worthwhile. Although there are a 

number of other Federal, State and local 

requirements for accident reporting, the 

data collected for accident reporting in 

RMPs are uniquely useful and 

accessible. RMP accident history 

reporting provides more than basic 

information about an accident; it also 

covers the cause of the release and 

measures taken to reduce the risk or 

consequences of a reoccurrence. The 

data consequently help in 

understanding the reason(s) for a release 

and safety measures that have been 

taken in response. Moreover, the RMP 

accident histories are available by law to 

Federal, State and local officials and the 

public, including other chemical 

sources. 

EPA believes significant benefits will 

accrue as accident histories are reported 

on a more timely basis, as lessons 

learned are more promptly shared and 

acted upon to prevent similar 

occurrences. Implementing agencies 

will be able to better identify the need 

for technical assistance, and more 

timely accident information will help in 

identifying trends and providing timely 

18822 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

outreach to prevent similar incidents. 

As noted above, more timely reporting 

was also recommended by the CSB. 

Those recommendations were 

particularly aimed at improving our 

understanding of the frequency, nature, 

and causes of reactive chemical 

incidents, and ultimately to promote 

safer management of reactive chemicals. 

EPA believes more timely reporting of 

accident history information, along with 

other modifications made in today’s 

final rule, will allow the Agency, other 

government agencies, members of the 

public, and other interested parties to 

better understand and prevent chemical 

accidents, including those resulting 

from reactive chemicals. 

While EPA is establishing a 

requirement for more timely reporting of 

significant accidents, it is not adopting 

the proposed requirement that RMPs be 

fully updated and resubmitted within 

six months of an accident. The Agency 

understands the concern that a full 

update of an RMP may not be possible 

within six months of an accident, as a 

thorough investigation of a major 

accident, implementation of any new 

safety measures and updating of the 

entire RMP could take longer, 

particularly for larger sources. EPA also 

agrees with the comments that existing 

requirements for incident investigations 

already accomplish the Agency’s 

primary purpose in proposing a full 

update and re-submission 

requirement—assurance that lessons 

learned are applied. EPA further 

recognizes that updating an RMP in full 

may make little sense where an accident 

involves only one process at sources 

with other, different processes. The 

Agency has accordingly decided not to 

require a full update and re-submission 

of an RMP following an accident. 

At the same time, EPA is requiring 

that information about reportable 

accidents be added to RMPs within six 

months of the accident (unless an RMP 

update is required sooner). The Agency 

continues to believe that facilities will 

be more likely to recall and report 

accurate accident history information if 

that information is recorded within six 

months of an accident. Under the 

previous reporting requirement facilities 

were asked to include in their RMPs 

detailed information about an accident 

that occurred as long as five years ago. 

While some comments expressed 

concern that accident investigations and 

implementation of corrective actions 

could take longer than six months in 

some cases, the existing accident history 

data elements take into account that a 

source may not have complete 

information at the time a report is made. 

Section 68.42(b) of the RMP rule 

requires information about weather 

conditions, offsite impacts, initiating 

event and contributing factors ‘‘if 

known’’ and only an ‘‘estimate’’ of the 

quantity of chemical released. To the 

extent complete information about these 

matters is not available six months after 

a reportable accident occurs (or by the 

time an RMP update is due, if earlier), 

the source need only provide the 

information it does have. When the 

source is next required to update and 

resubmit its entire RMP, it can and must 

provide any additional or more accurate 

information at that time. 

The Agency recognizes that 

§ 68.42(b)(11) as originally drafted 

required a source to report ‘‘operational 

or process changes that resulted from 

investigation of the release,’’ and that a 

source may not have made all such 

changes by the time it must submit 

information about the accident. EPA is 

thus revising that data element to 

require reporting of only those changes 

the source has made by the time it 

submits the accident information as part 

of accident reporting or an RMP update. 

EPA recognizes that providing a longer 

time frame for accident reporting would 

make it more likely that complete 

information would always be available 

at the time a report is made. But the 

Agency believes it is important to 

collect accident information as soon as 

reasonably practicable, even if that 

information is not always complete, in 

view of the benefit such information 

may provide to other entities that could 

learn from the accident. A six-month 

deadline for reporting accident 

information is a reasonable compromise 

between the time facilities generally 

need to investigate and learn from an 

accident and the public interest in 

obtaining accident information quickly. 

Sources that make additional accidentrelated changes after submitting 

accident information can and must 

report on those changes when the their 

next scheduled RMP update is 

submitted. 

Relatedly, the Agency is requiring that 

the addition of new accident history 

information to an RMP be accompanied 

with corrections to two other RMP data 

elements: the date of the source’s most 

recent incident investigation and the 

expected date of completion of any 

changes resulting from the investigation 

(§§ 68.170(j) and 68.175(l)). As noted 

above, a number of comments pointed 

out that requiring a full update and resubmission of an RMP was not 

necessary to ensuring that lessons 

learned from an accident were applied, 

given the existing requirement that 

sources investigate and learn from any 

incident that ‘‘resulted in or could 

reasonably have resulted in a 

catastrophic release.’’ EPA agrees with 

this comment and its premise—that 

accidents subject to the reporting 

requirement of the RMP rule trigger the 

incident investigation requirements of 

the rule. As described above, those 

requirements ensure that significant 

incidents are thoroughly investigated 

and documented, and any lessons 

learned identified and applied. EPA 

therefore expects that a source 

experiencing a reportable accident will 

follow-up with an incident investigation 

that may in turn lead to changes that 

address the cause or consequences of 

the accident. Six months following the 

accident, the source should be able to 

provide accident history information as 

well as the date of its incident 

investigation and the expected date of 

completion of any changes. A source 

need not be sure of when changes will 

be complete or even if particular 

changes will ultimately be made to 

provide a reasonable ‘‘expected’’ date for 

completion of ‘‘any’’ changes. 

The Agency also agrees with the 

comment that an incident investigation 

may well trigger existing requirements 

for an update and re-submission of the 

RMP under § 68.190 of the rule, and that 

this would then be the appropriate route 

for a facility update in the aftermath of 

an accidental release. Other avenues or 

types of reporting that were suggested 

(i.e., 8-hour reporting, accident reports, 

accident fact sheets, separate accident 

databases, attachments to current RMPs) 

where all focused on avoiding a full 

RMP update and re-submission. The 

Agency believes that by not requiring a 

full update and instead requiring only 

submission of new accident 

information, it has addressed the 

concern behind those suggestions. 

The Agency also agrees with the 

comments preferring a specified time 

frame (such as six months) following an 

accident over a fixed date for sources to 

submit new accident information. A 

fixed calendar date could result in 

sources being required to submit 

information shortly after an accidental 

release, before they have had time to 

investigate or make any changes in 

response to the accident. That approach 

would not be advantageous either for 

the sources or for those interested in the 

accident data. 

The Agency acknowledges the 

concerns raised about the preamble 

statement that accident history reporting 

is required for significant releases from 

covered processes for all extremely 

hazardous chemicals, not just chemicals 

listed under CAA section 112(r). EPA 

notes that the relevant regulatory 

language can be interpreted to reach 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 18823 

accidents involving extremely 

hazardous substances in addition to 

those listed. Section 68.42 of the RMP 

rule requires reporting of ‘‘accidental 

releases’’ meeting certain criteria, and 

section 112(r)(2)(A) of the CAA and 

§ 68.3 of the rule define an ‘‘accidental 

release’’ as a release of a substance 

regulated under CAA section 112(r) ‘‘or 

any other extremely hazardous 

substance.’’ The Agency recognizes, 

however, that its ‘‘General Guidance’’ for 

meeting RMP rule requirements has 

specified that reportable accidents are 

those involving regulated substances. 

Interpreting the rule to require reporting 

of all releases of extremely hazardous 

substances from covered process would 

allow the Agency and others to look at 

trends with respect to chemicals, and 

provide information that could be useful 

in amending the list of regulated 

substances. An example of how broader 

reporting could be useful was 

highlighted by a comment that 

concerned catastrophic reactive/dust 

explosion accidents, not currently 

covered by the RMP rule because the 

involved substances are not listed. 

However, in light of the guidance 

provided previously and in order to 

avoid confusion, the Agency agrees it is 

best to retain for now the current 

interpretation for reporting only 

accidents involving regulated 

substances. EPA, however, may revisit 

this issue in a future rulemaking. 

This final rule establishes a new 

schedule for any source experiencing a 

reportable accident to include in its 

RMP information for all the elements of 

the five-year accident history as set forth 

in § 68.42 of the RMP rule, as well as the 

date of an incident investigation and the 

expected date of completion of any 

changes triggered by an incident 

investigation as required by §§ 68.170(j) 

and 68.175(l) of the RMP rule. Because 

the Agency is no longer requiring a full 

update and re-submission of the RMP, 

these requirements should not 

significantly change the associated 

burden. If a source had a reportable 

accident, it would need to revise those 

elements of its RMP within six months; 

the source would not need to update its 

entire RMP unless the accident led to a 

change triggering the existing update 

requirement. 

2. Emergency Contact Information 

EPA is amending the RMP rule to 

require that facilities correct their 

emergency contact information within 

one month of a change in the 

information. 

The RMP database has become an 

important source of information for 

Federal, State and local government 

efforts in the homeland security area. 

Many RMP sources are considered part 

of the nation’s critical infrastructure or 

are otherwise important to protecting 

homeland security. All levels of 

government use the database to help 

assess security needs and to obtain 

emergency contact information. 

Under current requirements, a change 

may occur in a facility’s emergency 

contact information (for example, the 

emergency contact’s phone number is 

changed or the emergency contact 

leaves the position), and the facility may 

have up to five years to report these 

changes in its RMP. Implementing 

agencies that have audited RMPs report 

that much of the information for 

emergency contacts is outdated or 

otherwise inaccurate. In light of the 

importance of this information, EPA 

proposed to require that facilities 

correct their emergency contact 

information within one month of a 

change in the information. 

Seventeen comments indicated 

support for this proposal, while 12 

comments opposed all or part of it. 

Supporters argued that keeping 

emergency contact information current 

was valuable to ensuring a timely 

response to an accidental release, and 

was particularly critical to emergency 

planning and response. Some comments 

also suggested similar correction 

requirements for other administrative 

information in the RMP. Comments 

highlighted how emergency responses 

are less efficient without current 

emergency contact information, how 

any delay in access to current facility 

information can have catastrophic 

impacts on first responders, and how 

this requirement would not pose an 

undue burden on reporting facilities. 

While some comments opposing this 

requirement argued that corrections to 

contact information were unnecessary, 

most were focused on the timing of 

these corrections, arguing for the most 

part for a longer period of time. These 

comments stated that it can take longer 

than 30 days to assign new staff to 

vacancies, that the proposal would be 

unduly burdensome and would subject 

facilities to possible non-compliance 

with every personnel change, and that 

the facility contact person can actually 

change routinely based on employee 

turnovers, promotions, and relocations, 

making the administrative burden and 

potential liability of the current 

proposal outweigh its benefits. 

Arguments were made for alternative 

means of correcting this information, for 

example through a secure internet-based 

site. Some comments also urged that 

EPA require reporting of only the 

emergency contact position versus the 

name of the individual filling that 

position. 

The Agency agrees with comments 

that RMP emergency contact 

information is important to emergency 

planning and response efforts at the 

Federal, State and local levels, 

particularly for facilitating the work of 

first responders and safeguarding the 

community. It is therefore important 

that the information be kept as up-todate as possible. 

The Agency appreciates that, 

currently, even small corrections of 

RMPs require sources to send EPA a 

diskette containing the entire RMP (with 

the corrected information) and a 

certification letter attesting to the 

accuracy of the corrected information. 

To ease the burden of making such 

changes, including changes to 

emergency contact information, EPA is 

working to make available a secure 

means for making administrative 

corrections over the Internet. Sources 

that need to make such corrections will 

be allowed secured access to nonsensitive pieces of RMP information, 

including much of the information in 

the registration part of the RMP (section 

1). 

As this electronic system for making 

corrections to emergency contact 

information is made available, the time 

and resources needed to make a 

correction should not be significant. 

Although timely updates to all basic 

registration information would be 

beneficial as well, the need for updates 

is most urgent in the case of emergency 

contact information. EPA encourages 

sources to update all of the information 

in their RMPs as changes are made, but 

the Agency does not want to add unduly 

to the reporting burden of the program. 

Sources’ efforts are best focused on 

maintaining the accuracy of key 

information in their RMPs, so EPA is 

not adding other data elements to the 

requirement to correct emergency 

contact information. 

The Agency disagrees with the 

comment that some emergency contact 

information, including the name of the 

emergency contact person, need not be 

reported at all. The Agency believes that 

action at the local level is most 

important in preparing for, preventing, 

and responding to accidents, and that 

the name of the emergency contact 

person, as opposed to the name of the 

position or more general corporate 

information, is a key piece of 

information for such local efforts. 

Common sense suggests that it is easier 

to reach a named individual than an 

unknown person filling a particular 

position. Unless whoever answers the 

phone or e-mail at a source knows who 

18824 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

fills the emergency contact position, it 

could take several more phone calls to 

reach the emergency contact person 

himself. In the event of an accidental 

release or other emergency, the extra 

time required to reach the emergency 

contact person could be costly. EPA is 

thus retaining the requirement that 

sources supply the name of the 

emergency contact person and is 

requiring the correction of that name 

within one month of a change. The 

Agency recognizes that personnel 

changes may sometimes take longer 

than a month, but in that event it 

expects the source to have assigned the 

responsibility to someone in the 

interim. Given the electronic means of 

correcting such information expected to 

be available, EPA believes it is 

reasonable to require facilities to keep 

this information relatively current, even 

if that means supplying the name of an 

interim emergency contact person until 

a permanent person is in place. 

Even with a requirement to correct 

emergency contact information within 

one month of a change, that still leaves 

RMP emergency contact information 

potentially outdated for as much as a 

month. EPA is concerned that the 24- 

hour emergency phone number 

provided in the RMP is a key element 

of emergency contact information that 

should be corrected as soon as possible 

after it changes. The Agency strongly 

encourages sources to ensure that their 

24-hour emergency number continues to 

reach someone able to address 

emergencies even after an emergency 

contact person leaves that position. 

Ideally, the 24-hour emergency number 

would remain the same indefinitely, 

regardless of who fills the emergency 

contact position or any other position at 

the facility. 

This final rule establishes a new 

requirement to correct the emergency 

contact information within one month 

of a change in the information. The 

Agency expects that while changes are 

ongoing at the facility, the basic phone 

number information provided should 

continue to be available, routed as 

appropriate, so that facilities always 

have a current 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-aweek means for emergency contact. 

B. Changes to Executive Summary 

EPA is amending the RMP rule to 

remove the requirement for sources to 

briefly describe the off-site consequence 

analysis (i.e., worst-case accidental 

release scenario(s) and the alternative 

accidental release scenario(s)) within 

the executive summary of the RMP. 

CAA section 112(r)(7) and the 

chemical accident prevention 

regulations require sources subject to 

the RMP rule to conduct an off-site 

consequence analysis (OCA) for one or 

more hypothetical accidental worst case 

and alternative release scenarios and 

report the results of the analysis in the 

RMP. The Chemical Safety Information, 

Site Security and Fuels Regulatory 

Relief Act (CSISSFRRA) of 1999 governs 

the distribution of ‘‘off-site consequence 

[OCA] information,’’ defined as those 

portions of an RMP, excluding the 

executive summary, that contain the 

results of the OCA for the source 

submitting the RMP. Under 

CSISSFRRA, EPA and the Department of 

Justice jointly issued regulations at 40 

CFR part 1400 restricting public access 

to OCA information and certain related 

information to government reading 

rooms. 

Section 68.155(c) of the RMP rule as 

originally drafted required sources to 

briefly describe in their RMP executive 

summary ‘‘the worst-case release 

scenario(s) and the alternative release 

scenario(s), including administrative 

controls and mitigation measures to 

limit the distances for each reported 

scenario.’’ EPA, along with federal law 

enforcement agencies, now believes that 

due to its sensitive nature, this 

information should no longer be 

included in executive summaries, 

which are not subject to the access 

restrictions of the CSISSFRRA 

regulations. Consequently, EPA 

proposed to remove the requirement to 

summarize OCA results in the executive 

summary. 

Forty comments supported removing 

this requirement, several noting national 

and facility security concerns. Several 

comments opined that the information 

is too sensitive to be easily accessible to 

the public. Four comments opposed the 

proposal as written, noting that more 

ready public access to OCA information 

would help stimulate greater safety 

efforts on the part of facilities and the 

communities in which they are located. 

Eight comments presented 

recommendations, requested 

clarification, or had other comments 

about the proposed changes. 

The Agency continues to believe that 

the requirement for briefly describing 

OCA in executive summaries should be 

removed in the face of ongoing concerns 

about the potential misuse of such 

information by terrorists, particularly if 

the information can be easily and 

anonymously accessed. Removing this 

requirement will not affect the 

controlled public access currently 

available to OCA information under the 

CSISSFRRA regulations. Sources must 

continue to provide details of their OCA 

in sections 2 through 5 of the RMP, and 

the public will continue to have the 

access to OCA information afforded by 

the regulations at 40 CFR part 1400. The 

Agency also agrees with the comment 

that removing OCA data from executive 

summaries would reduce or eliminate 

any risk that Internet posting of 

executive summaries might pose. 

The Agency agrees that OCA 

information provides a context for each 

RMP submission by providing a rough 

estimate of the risk the facility could 

pose to the community in the event of 

an accidental release. But EPA disagrees 

that this information would be lost over 

the years if it is removed from executive 

summaries. Complete OCA results are 

reported in sections 2 through 5 of 

facilities’ RMPs, and the Agency 

maintains a database including all RMPs 

submitted since 1999 (except for RMPs 

submitted and then withdrawn by 

facilities that were never subject to the 

program). As noted above, the public 

will continue to have access to OCA 

information in RMPs in the manner 

provided by the CSISSFRRA 

regulations. 

The Agency disagrees with the 

comment that executive summaries are 

not available to the public. CSISSFRRA 

and its implementing regulations 

impose restrictions on sections 2 

through 5 of the RMP only, and 

expressly exclude executive summaries 

from the portions of RMPs that can be 

restricted. CSISSFRRA was enacted 

several years after EPA issued the RMP 

regulations requiring a brief description 

of OCA in executive summaries, so 

Congress was presumably aware that 

executive summaries would contain 

some OCA data when it excluded 

executive summaries from the 

information that CSISSFRRA 

regulations could restrict. At the same 

time, EPA disagrees that Congress’

decision to exclude executive 

summaries from coverage by 

CSISSFRRA precludes EPA from 

removing the regulatory requirement to 

include a brief description of OCA in 

executive summaries. Congress’

exclusion of executive summaries from 

CSISSFRRA restrictions does not 

amount to a congressional directive for 

EPA to continue requiring OCA 

descriptions in executive summaries. 

CSISSFRRA was enacted prior to the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 

which heightened concerns about the 

potential misuse of detailed OCA data 

found in some executive summaries. 

The Departments of Justice and 

Homeland Security have advised against 

the continued inclusion of OCA data in 

executive summaries, and EPA agrees 

that recent events make it imperative to 

remove the requirement for including 

this information. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 18825 

One comment suggested that instead 

of removing the requirement altogether, 

EPA provide guidance on how to briefly 

describe OCA in executive summaries 

without including sensitive information. 

EPA agrees that such guidance could 

help, but believes that removing the 

requirement altogether will be more 

effective in removing sensitive 

information from the summaries. Any 

guidance EPA could issue would not 

necessarily come to the attention of, or 

be followed by, every RMP facility, thus 

risking the continued inclusion of OCA 

data in executive summaries. Another 

comment suggested including a 

summary of OCA results in the 

restricted OCA sections of the RMP, but 

EPA believes little would be 

accomplished by including a summary 

there. The OCA sections of the RMP are 

designed to be easily understood and 

reviewed, so providing a summary 

within those sections would serve little 

purpose. EPA intended executive 

summaries to provide an overview of 

the entire RMP, including the OCA 

sections. Since EPA has judged OCA 

descriptions in executive summaries to 

be unwise, there is no point in 

including a summary of OCA results in 

any other part of the RMP. 

EPA is not forbidding sources from 

including OCA data in executive 

summaries, as some comments 

suggested. The Agency expects, 

however, that in view of the concerns 

cited, sources will not include any OCA 

data in their executive summaries. 

The Agency agrees with comments 

that the OCA information should 

continue to be made readily available to 

covered persons, an important group of 

which are state and local emergency 

responders. This information will 

continue to assist in developing 

effective plans for accident prevention 

and emergency response. The Agency 

continues to work closely with the 

Department of Justice and with the 

Department of Homeland Security to 

ensure the best balance between 

providing public information and 

protecting national security. 

This final rule removes the 

requirement for sources to briefly 

describe the OCA conducted for their 

facilities in the executive summary of 

the RMP. 

C. New Data Elements 

1. Emergency Contact’s E-mail Address 

EPA is amending the RMP rule by 

adding a mandatory data element to the 

RMP for sources to provide the e-mail 

address (if any) for the emergency 

contact. 

Under § 68.160(b)(6) of the RMP rule 

as originally drafted, sources were 

required to provide the name, title, 

telephone number, and a 24-hour 

telephone number of the person who 

serves as the source’s emergency 

contact, with no provision, optional or 

otherwise, for sources to provide an email address for that person. Having an 

e-mail address for the emergency 

contact would allow the Agency to 

quickly and directly communicate 

hazard information, improving sources’

access to critical process safety 

information. Additionally, it might 

become necessary for an RMP 

implementing agency to communicate 

directly and on short notice with 

sources subject to the RMP program, or 

with a portion of that universe, as RMPs 

have become a critical source of 

information for the federal government’s 

homeland security efforts. For these 

reasons EPA proposed that sources 

provide the e-mail address for the 

source’s emergency contact when 

available, and that any change to the email address be followed by a correction 

to the source’s RMP within a month of 

the address change. 

Twenty-two comments supported 

adding a mandatory data element for 

emergency contact e-mail addresses. A 

number of comments noted that this 

requirement would enhance 

communication between implementing 

agencies and reporting facilities and 

facilitate coordination and training with 

first responders without posing an 

undue burden on the reporting facilities. 

Comments suggested that similar access 

to the e-mail address of the person at the 

source with overall risk management 

program responsibility would also be 

helpful to agencies. Ten comments 

opposed adding this as a mandatory 

data element. Arguments included the 

fact that not all facilities have e-mail; 

that e-mail may not be the most reliable 

means of communicating with a facility, 

particularly in emergency situations; 

and that this field would be very 

cumbersome to maintain as an updated 

distribution list. 

The Agency believes that access to 

emergency contact e-mail information 

will provide an advantage to the 

regulated community, implementing 

agencies, and emergency planners and 

responders alike. Improved 

communications, and a variety of 

avenues to facilitate them, will allow for 

improved exchange of critical 

emergency planning and accident 

prevention and hazard information of 

benefit to all. E-mail is an excellent tool 

for distributing information to a large 

audience quickly. Although keeping email address information up-to-date will 

require some effort from all parties 

involved, the benefits of having that 

information will outweigh the effort. 

The Agency agrees with comments that 

e-mail should not be the only vehicle 

that the Agency relies upon, particularly 

in cases of emergencies. However, it is 

certainly one of the most immediate and 

common means of communications 

used today, and will serve as an 

important component for information 

dissemination, along with mail and 

telephone communications. Since not 

every source has e-mail, the Agency is 

requiring only those sources with 

existing e-mails to submit this 

information. It is not the intent of this 

requirement to allow for unnecessary 

use of the e-mail address. To guard 

against the use of the address for 

distribution of spam or junk mail, the 

Agency does not plan to issue a list of 

facilities’ e-mails. 

The Agency agrees that e-mail to a 

single emergency contact may not be 

appropriate for all communications; 

other forms of communications, such as 

mail, phone, or through trade groups, 

will continue to be used by the Agency 

and other implementing agencies. The 

current RMP rule also requires the email address for the source or parent 

company. This address, in conjunction 

with the emergency contact e-mail 

address and the optional RMP 

responsible person e-mail address, will 

provide additional means to quickly 

contact RMP facilities. In response to 

suggestions that EPA obtain the e-mail 

address for the person responsible for 

the source’s RMP as a better choice for 

receiving e-mailed information, the 

Agency will provide a field in 

RMP*Submit for facilities that have 

such an e-mail address to provide that 

information at their option. 

This final rule, therefore, requires that 

RMP facilities provide the e-mail 

address for the facility emergency 

contact, and that this information is 

corrected within one month of a change. 

The e-mail address for the person 

responsible for the facility RMP will be 

an optional field in RMP*Submit. As 

with the other emergency contact 

information correction requirements, 

the Agency intends to implement a 

system that would allow facilities to 

correct this and other administrative 

information via a secure web site, and 

is working to implement such a system 

as soon as practicable. 

2. Purpose of Subsequent RMP 

Submissions 

EPA is amending the RMP rule to add 

a mandatory data element for sources to 

identify the purpose of submissions that 

18826 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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, 

the RMP electronic submission program 

has not had an entry that provides the 

reason for the submission. To assist EPA 

and other implementing agencies in 

understanding the reason for a 

submission, EPA proposed a new data 

element in the RMP for sources to 

indicate what they are submitting and 

why. The Agency also requested 

comment on whether to replace the term 

revised registrations with deregistration, which more clearly conveys 

the action being taken and is the term 

used in the implementation materials 

for the RMP rule. 

Twenty-five comments indicated 

support for the proposal, and four 

comments raised objections to it. 

Comments in support argued this data 

element would streamline the 

submission process by expediting the 

review and evaluation of the RMP by 

both EPA and state and local 

implementing agencies. Comments in 

support argued this requirement would 

enable all users of RMP data to 

understand and track information in the 

system for trends while posing little in 

the way of additional costs to registered 

parties. Comments also supported the 

idea of menu options provided as part 

of RMP*Submit, to ease data entry and 

ensure consistency of reporting, and 

were generally in support of changing 

the term revised registration to deregistration. Comments questioning the 

proposed data element argued that the 

proposal fell short of explaining how it 

would enable EPA to know if facilities 

had adopted inherently safer or 

alternative technologies because it failed 

to distinguish between facilities that 

actually reduce hazards and facilities 

that merely recalculate vulnerabilities 

using different methodologies. 

The Agency has decided to adopt the 

proposed data element because it will 

result in expedited review and 

evaluation of submitted RMP data, as 

well as better understanding and 

tracking of industry trends in the area of 

accident prevention and process safety, 

at very little cost to RMP sources. 

Certainly sources submitting a change to 

their RMP know the reason for the 

change; the new data element only 

requires them to specify that reason so 

implementing agencies need not review 

all the changes themselves to infer the 

reason. EPA also plans to develop a 

pop-up menu listing the typical reasons 

for RMP changes (e.g., new submission; 

correction of the emergency contact or 

facility ownership data elements; 

update triggered by revised process 

hazards analysis; de-registration as a 

result of no longer using regulated 

substances at all or above threshold 

quantities) so that sources can easily 

indicate the reason for their change. To 

the extent the pop-up menu does not 

include a source’s particular reason for 

a change, the source need only briefly 

state the reason for the change. In 

developing the pop-up menu, EPA plans 

to incorporate some of the specific 

suggested elements to better reflect the 

reasons behind RMP submissions and 

changes. In addition, EPA is changing 

the term revised registration to deregistration as comments agreed that 

this would be a useful clarification. 

Although the Agency believes 

information about the reasons for 

changes will help identify and track 

industry trends, it does not intend to 

pressure industries to adopt particular 

changes. Facilities are in the best 

position to assess their hazards and how 

to address them. The Agency may 

choose to provide industry with 

analyses of the data so that it can be 

taken into account as individual 

facilities determine their best approach 

to process safety. 

3. Contractor Information 

EPA is amending the RMP rule by 

adding a mandatory data element for 

sources that use a contractor to prepare 

their RMPs to so indicate. 

Through RMP audits, implementing 

agencies have learned that many RMPs 

have been prepared in large part by 

contractors. Use of contractors for this 

purpose is allowed under the RMP rule. 

However, some implementing agencies 

have noted potential systemic errors in 

the way some contractors prepare RMPs. 

Concern has also been raised that, in 

some cases, sources whose RMPs are 

largely prepared by contractors have not 

properly implemented accident 

prevention program elements at the 

source and are not sufficiently familiar 

with the contents of their RMPs. EPA 

proposed to require an additional data 

element in the RMP for sources who use 

a contractor to prepare their RMP to 

provide the name, address and phone 

number of that contractor, so that 

implementing agencies can more easily 

identify potential issues and provide 

appropriate follow-up. 

Twelve comments indicated support 

for the proposal, while 16 opposed it. 

Supportive comments stated that this 

element would provide additional 

information that may help identify 

systematic or recurring errors in risk 

management programs and plans. A few 

state and local implementing agencies 

commented that they were aware of 

some contractors completing RMPs and 

supplying information to the facility 

without fully explaining the accident 

prevention program requirements or 

failing to even provide the facility with 

all of the required plan information. 

These agencies argued that knowing 

whether a contractor had assisted in 

RMP preparation and the name of that 

contractor would assist auditors in 

prioritizing inspections. 

Other comments urged that 

enforcement actions related to RMP 

errors should be directed to the facility 

and not the contractor since facilities 

are responsible for the content of their 

RMPs whether the program is developed 

‘‘in-house’’ or through use of a 

contractor. Concerns were also raised 

that EPA would assess and advertise the 

Agency’s judgement of specific 

technical consultants, or that somehow 

facility information or business 

relationships would be compromised if 

the Agency came between a client 

facility and its contractor. 

The Agency agrees that adding the 

contractor information data element will 

provide valuable information to 

implementing agencies in identifying 

possible systemic errors without 

imposing significant burden on the 

reporting facility. The Agency also 

agrees with the comments that the 

facility owner or operator is ultimately 

responsible for the RMP, whether or not 

it has been prepared by a contractor. 

However, implementing agencies have 

seen cases where contractors have been 

used to develop RMPs where no 

accident prevention program actually 

existed at the facility, or was not 

understood by personnel responsible for 

its implementation. Implementing 

agencies have also seen systemic errors 

in RMP submissions that can be linked 

to the same contractor. EPA believes it 

is important to require this piece of 

information to facilitate the review of 

RMPs by the implementing agencies, as 

well as to provide another measure of 

accountability on the part of the facility. 

The Agency is therefore adopting its 

proposal to require sources that use a 

contractor prepare their RMP to provide 

the name, address and phone number of 

that contractor. EPA recognizes that 

some sources utilize contract services to 

assist in developing portions of their 

risk management program, such as the 

process hazards analysis. The 

requirement to supply contractor 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 18827 

information does not apply to such 

services; it applies only to contractors 

that prepare RMP submissions. 

Contractor information will be used 

by implementing agencies to conduct 

further outreach and compliance 

assistance efforts. To the extent EPA 

identifies systemic errors or other 

problems potentially associated with a 

contractor, the Agency plans to contact 

the affected sources to alert them to the 

problem. EPA may also contact the 

contractor to discuss systemic problems 

and how to correct them; such 

discussions would focus not on 

particular RMP facilities but on the 

contractor’s understanding and 

implementation of RMP requirements 

generally. The Agency would not 

enforce RMP requirements against a 

contractor, since those requirements 

apply only to owners and operators of 

covered sources. Also, EPA has no 

intention of listing or rating contractors 

in any way. The Agency considered the 

suggestion of making contractor 

information an optional element, but it 

believes that a mandatory requirement 

will ensure the availability of useful 

information for program 

implementation, data quality, outreach 

and compliance assistance. 

D. Revisions to RMP*Submit Format 

Uncontrolled/Runaway Reactions 

EPA is revising the RMP submission 

format (RMP*Submit) to expand the list 

of possible causes of accidental releases 

reported as part of a source’s five-year 

accident history so an owner or operator 

can indicate whether an accident 

involved an uncontrolled/runaway 

reaction. 

In its report, Improving Reactive 

Hazard Management (December 2002), 

the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board (CSB) recommended 

that EPA 

‘‘[m]odify the accident reporting 

requirements * * * to define and record 

reactive incidents. Consider adding the term 

‘‘reactive incident’’ to the four existing 

‘‘release events’’ in EPA’s current 5-year 

accident reporting requirements (Gas Release, 

Liquid Spill/Evaporation, Fire, and 

Explosion). Structure this information 

collection to allow EPA and its stakeholders 

to identify and focus resources on industry 

sectors that experienced the incidents; 

chemicals and processes involved; and 

impact on the public, the workforce, and the 

environment’’ (CSB recommendation 2001–

01–H–R4). 

EPA, in agreement with the Board’s 

recommendation, proposed to revise 

RMP reporting of the five-year accident 

history (40 CFR 68.42) to allow the 

owner or operator to indicate whether 

the accident involved an uncontrolled/ 

runaway reaction. 

A total of 16 comments indicated 

support for expanding the list of 

possible causes of accidental releases 

included in a source’s five-year accident 

history so an owner or operator could 

indicate whether an accident involved 

an uncontrolled/runaway reaction. 

Comments suggested that the proposed 

change would allow sources to more 

accurately characterize an accident and 

would allow for a more detailed 

analysis of accident data. Comments 

supporting this data collection argued 

that not enough attention is being given 

to reactive chemical hazards and that 

the additional element would be an 

important, low-cost step towards 

accident prevention. 

Twenty-three comments supported 

expanding the list of possible causes but 

recommended that EPA use a term other 

than uncontrolled/runaway reaction 

because the term could be subjectively 

interpreted, leading to inconsistent 

reporting and irrelevant data. Comments 

also recommended that the term be 

added to the drop-down menu already 

available under RMP*Submit. Two 

comments opposed the proposed 

change, arguing that the proposed term 

is not consistent with the current list. 

Overall, the comments confirm EPA’s 

view that adding a new term for 

uncontrolled reactions will provide 

sources with an additional choice to 

more accurately report information 

about accidents and that this new 

information will provide a better 

understanding of the types of accidents 

occurring at regulated sources. This 

information will help the Agency 

identify incidents involving reactive 

chemicals and offer insights on how 

best to address that hazard category. 

The Agency disagrees with comments 

that the new term is inconsistent with 

the current ones (gas release, liquid 

spill/evaporation, fire, and explosion), 

but does acknowledge that more than 

one term may describe a particular 

incident. In an effort to capture more 

specific accident cause information, the 

Agency will modify RMP*Submit to 

allow sources reporting accident 

information to select more than one of 

the categories from the list of accident 

causes. 

The Agency recognizes the concern 

that the term uncontrolled/runaway 

reaction may perhaps be open to 

subjective interpretations. In response to 

this comment, the Agency will include 

a help function for this menu, with 

examples of the types of incidents that 

the Agency expects to be reported as 

uncontrolled/runaway chemical 

reactions. This revision to the 

RMP*Submit format will provide the 

opportunity to gather more data on 

reactive incidents, in that way 

informing any future actions the Agency 

may take. 

III. Other Issues 

Collection of OSHA Occupational Injury 

and Illness Data in Conjunction With 

the RMP Filing Required Under 112(r) of 

the CAA 

EPA and others use the information 

reported in RMP accident histories in 

combination with other data to better 

understand accident risks and to gauge 

the trends with respect to risk and 

accident prevention across various 

industry sectors. Health and safety 

indicators could also provide 

information to industry, government, 

and other researchers in understanding 

the factors that affect chemical accident 

prevention. Under 29 CFR part 1904, the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) requires 

employers to maintain logs of employee 

reportable injury and illness statistics 

(OII) for every calendar year. EPA 

considered of special interest three of 

these records: (1) Total Incidence Rate, 

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

Illness and Workdays Under Restricted 

Duties. EPA requested comments on the 

practicability and burden of future RMP 

submissions if including data for these 

three records, aggregated for five most 

recent calendar years should be 

required. EPA did not propose this 

element. 

Four comments indicated that they 

would support such a proposal, while 

48 comments indicated that they would 

oppose it. Those in support of the 

additional elements argued that this 

information would enable EPA to better 

understand accident risks and to gauge 

the trends with respect to risk and 

accident prevention across various 

industry sectors, and that the ability to 

link employee illness with risks at the 

facility can lead to better prevention 

programs as well as providing data on 

safety standards. The comments 

opposing the collection of this data in 

conjunction with the RMP questioned 

both EPA’s need for, and use of, the 

data. Comments argued that these 

OSHA reportable injuries are not 

necessarily or typically related to RMP 

chemicals or processes, and that 

because of this, misrepresentations and 

errors would result when trying to apply 

this data to EPA risk factors. The 

comments explained that injury and 

illness rates at a facility mostly involve 

ergonomic conditions, slips, trips and 

falls, hand lacerations, and automobile 

work-related accidents, which have no 

18828 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1Any source that has submitted an update prior 

to issuance of today’s rule may request to have its 

update returned and may use the June 21, 2004, 

date as the deadline for its update. An update that 

is returned upon such a request would not be 

retained as part of EPA’s official records. 

relation to RMP-listed chemicals. In 

short, OSHA data covers all accidents 

and illnesses, not just those related or 

located near an RMP-covered chemical 

process. Comments argued that the 

OSHA data would thus not aid in 

identifying safety trends or in statistical 

analyses of use to EPA. The argument 

was also made that OII data is already 

reported to the Federal government and 

available to EPA and further, that the 

collection of OSHA data does not fall 

within EPA’s jurisdiction or authority 

under CAA section 112(r). Issues 

regarding the implementation of the 

proposed changes were also raised, 

including concerns that OII data may 

not be readily available for all facilities, 

that it would be time-consuming and 

that it would impose an undue burden 

on facilities. 

The Agency recognizes the multiple 

issues that are associated with the 

collection of OSHA injury and illness 

data in conjunction with the RMP and 

appreciates the very detailed comments 

received. As this was not a proposed 

element, the Agency will reserve 

judgement on whether and how to 

gather additional data, and will consider 

all comments if at a later time, it decides 

to propose additional RMP data 

elements for such information. 

IV. Effective Date, Update Clarification 

and Compliance Schedule 

Today’s rule is being made effective 

immediately in order to relieve sources 

of the requirement to include an OCA 

description in the executive summaries 

of their RMPs. As explained previously, 

homeland security and law enforcement 

concerns have been raised about 

continuing to include OCA data in RMP 

executive summaries, which are not 

subject to the public access restrictions 

under CSISSFRRA. Some sources may 

be in the process of updating or 

otherwise revising their RMPs, and EPA 

wants every source to be able to remove 

the OCA data in their executive 

summaries as soon as possible. The 

Agency finds good cause to make the 

rule effective upon promulgation 

because the rule relieves regulated 

entities from a requirement that has 

become problematic—describing OCA 

results in RMP executive summaries. 

The rule’s new reporting requirements 

apply as of June 21, 2004, the five-year 

anniversary for RMPs initially 

submitted by June 21, 1999. As an 

initial matter, EPA wants to make clear 

that sources that submitted their initial 

RMPs before the original June 21, 1999 

deadline are required to submit the 5- 

year update of their RMPs by June 21, 

2004, not before. (Sources that 

previously updated their RMPs as a 

result of a change at the facility will not 

be required to update their RMPs again 

until five years from the last update.) 

The 5-year update requirement in the 

RMP rule was written with the 

expectation that sources would submit 

their initial RMPs on or shortly before 

June 21, 2004. In reality, hundreds of 

sources submitted their initial RMPs 

months early, and may now be 

proceeding to update their RMPs by the 

five-year anniversary of their original 

submission. EPA applauds early 

compliance with its requirements. 

However, in this instance, sources that 

complied early would be put at a 

disadvantage if their five-year update 

requirement were based on the date of 

their initial submission. Such sources 

could be faced with submitting an 

updated RMP that still includes OCA 

data and that lacks some of the newly 

required data elements. If these sources 

submitted such an RMP, they would 

have to submit revised RMPs that 

removed the OCA data (unless they 

chose to retain it) and included the new 

data under the today’s rule. Any OCA 

data that had been submitted as part of 

the update, moreover, would remain 

part of EPA’s official records. The 

Agency is therefore clarifying that the 

rule’s 5-year update provision requires 

that RMPs initially due on June 21, 1999 

be updated by June 21, 2004, not before. 

Early filers that received an EPA letter 

acknowledging receipt and indicating 

an update deadline prior to June 21, 

2004, should disregard that date, which 

was calculated without consideration of 

potential early filings, and instead 

submit their 5-year update by June 21, 

2004.1

In light of the clarification above, EPA 

anticipates that the vast majority of 

RMPs initially submitted by June 21, 

1999 will be updated and submitted to 

the Agency on or close to June 21, 2004. 

EPA has therefore selected June 21, 

2004, as the start date for complying 

with the new reporting requirements 

established by today’s rule. 

Accordingly, as of June 21, 2004, all 

current RMPs on file with EPA must 

include the new emergency contact, 

contractor, and RMP submission 

information required by today’s rule. 

EPA therefore recommends that RMP 

updates now being prepared include 

this information by the time they are 

submitted on or before June 21, 2004. 

RMP updates submitted prior to June 

21, 2004, without this information will 

have to be corrected to include this 

information by June 21, 2004. RMPs not 

being updated by June 21, 2004, will 

also have to be corrected to include this 

information by the June 21, 2004, 

deadline. As discussed above, EPA 

plans to have in place an Internet-based 

system for adding this information that 

should reduce the burden of having to 

supply the information separate from 

any RMP update. 

The June 21, 2004, start date also 

applies to the new requirement to 

include in RMP accident histories 

information about reportable accidents 

within six months of the accident. Any 

accidental release meeting accident 

history reporting criteria and occurring 

after promulgation of this rule will need 

to be added to the source’s RMP 

accident history within six months of 

the accident or by the time the source 

is required to update its RMP (which 

requires an update of the source’s 

accident history), whichever is earlier. 

V. Technical Corrections 

The original RMP rule published in 

January of 1994 contains a provision, 

§ 68.2, effectively staying the rule for 

several years for certain types of 

sources. EPA later amended the rule to 

exclude these types of sources from the 

rule’s coverage altogether. See 61 FR 

31731 (June 20, 1996), and 64 FR 29170 

(May 28, 1999). The time period of the 

stay lapsed in 1997 and 1999 

(depending on the type of source 

affected). Moreover, the need for a stay 

was eliminated with the rule changes. 

EPA is therefore rescinding § 68.2, since 

its presence in the regulations continues 

to cause confusion about their 

applicability. 

Several provisions of the original 

RMP rule refer to June 21, 1999 for 

purposes of identifying the correct 

method and format for submitting RMPs 

to EPA (see §§ 68.150(a) and 68.190(a)). 

That date was appropriate for initial 

RMPs that were due on June 21, 1999, 

but with today’s rule it no longer makes 

sense. EPA is thus changing those 

provisions to reflect that sources should 

use the method and format for 

submitting RMPs that EPA has specified 

by the date of submission. 

VI. Summary of the Final Rule 

EPA is amending several sections of 

part 68 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Section 68.2 is deleted as the period 

for these stayed provisions has expired 

and final actions on these were taken at 

61 FR 31731 on June 20, 1996, and at 

64 FR 29170 on May 28, 1999. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 18829 

Section 68.150, Submission, is 

amended to reflect the new reporting 

schedule requirements. 

Section 68.155, Executive Summary, 

is amended to remove the requirement 

for sources to briefly describe the offsite consequence analysis (i.e., worstcase accidental release scenario(s) and 

the alternative accidental release 

scenario(s)) within the executive 

summary of the RMP. 

Section 68.160, Registration, is 

amended to require reporting of (1) the 

e-mail address for the emergency 

contact, if such an address exists, (2) the 

name, address and phone number of any 

contractor who helped in preparing the 

source’s RMP; and (3) the type of and 

reason for any RMP submission 

changing or otherwise affecting the 

previously submitted RMP. The section 

is also amended to allow for optional 

reporting of the e-mail address of the 

person responsible for the RMP 

elements and implementation. 

Section 68.190 is amended to clarify 

that sources that submitted their RMPs 

prior to June 21, 1999 (the initial 

deadline for submitting RMPs) are not 

required to submit a five-year update of 

their RMPs before June 21, 2004; to 

reflect the periodic nature of the fiveyear update requirement; and to change 

the revised registration reference to deregistration. 

Section 68.195, Corrections, is added. 

This new section requires sources to 

submit revised RMP accident history 

and incident investigation elements 

within six months of an accidental 

release that meets the five-year accident 

history reporting criteria. Sources are 

also required to submit a correction to 

the RMP emergency contact information 

within one month of any changes. 

VII. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, judicial review of the actions 

taken by this final rule is available only 

on the filing of a petition for review in 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of 

today’s publication of this action. Under 

section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 

requirements that are the subject of 

today’s action may not be challenged 

later in civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

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

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, OMB notified EPA that it 

considered this a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ within the meaning of the 

Executive Order. EPA submitted this 

action to OMB for review. Changes 

made in response to OMB suggestions or 

recommendations are documented in 

the public record. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 1656.11. 

EPA is modifying the re-submission 

schedule under the risk management 

program for sources who have 

significant accidents and for those who 

change the information for the 

emergency contacts. EPA is adding three 

mandatory data elements and an 

optional data element to the RMP. EPA 

is removing the regulatory requirement 

to discuss the off-site consequence 

analysis (OCA) data in the executive 

summary of the RMP. 

Two commenters opposed Agency’s 

estimates in the ICR (1656.10) 

developed for the proposed rule (68 FR 

45124). Commenters argued that EPA 

underestimated the burden associated 

with one of the elements proposed, the 

re-submission of the RMP within six 

months of the date of the accident. 

Based on the data included in the 1999 

RMP submissions from 15,000 facilities, 

only 55 facilities have reported multiple 

accidents in the five-year accident 

history section of their RMPs. EPA 

assumed that only these facilities will 

be affected by the re-submission 

schedule due to frequent accidents. 

Most of these 55 are facilities with 

Program 3 processes, which are already 

covered by the OSHA Process Safety 

Management (OSHA PSM) Program. 

OSHA already requires facilities under 

the PSM program to conduct accident 

investigation. There is no additional 

burden under the risk management 

program for conducting accident 

investigations for these facilities, except 

for reporting the accident history 

elements specified in the risk 

management plan. The recent ICR 

renewal approved by OMB (ICR No. 

1656.09) already accounted burden 

estimates for resubmitting RMP in June 

2004. The estimates in the ICR 

developed for this final rule is only for 

the changes made to the regulations. 

EPA has made reasonable estimates 

for the changes made in this final rule. 

To become familiar with this rule, it is 

estimated that it will take only 2.0 hours 

for each facility. To report new data 

elements, EPA estimates that it will take 

0.25 hours for each facility. To report 

accident history elements within six 

months of the accident, the burden is 

estimated to range from 3.0 hours for 

wholesale to 9.0 hours for large 

chemical manufacturers. For those 

facilities that may have changes in their 

emergency contact information, the 

reporting burden is estimated to be 0.10 

hours for each facility. For 14,930 

facilities that are currently subject to 

part 68, this rule change will increase a 

burden of 33,943 hours annually 

(101,829 hours for three years) at a cost 

of $992,400 annually ($2,997,200 for 

three years). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

18830 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

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

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is defined by the Small Business 

Administration by category of business 

using North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) and 

codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

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

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

Since today’s rule only revises several 

reporting requirements of the RMP rule, 

its economic impact on regulated 

entities is addressed by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section of this document. 

After considering the relatively minor 

economic impacts of the final rule on 

small entities, we have concluded that 

this action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result 

in expenditures to State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most 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 final 

rule would not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

The nationwide capital cost for these 

rule amendments is estimated to be zero 

and the annual nationwide costs for 

these amendments are estimated to be 

less than $1 million. Thus, today’s rule 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Act. EPA has determined that 

this final rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

new data elements and submission 

requirements would impose only 

minimal burden on these entities. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has 

federalism implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by State and 

local governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the regulation. 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It would not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

National government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The final rule 

focuses on requirements for regulated 

facilities without affecting the 

relationships between governments in 

its implementation. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

Although section 6 of Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA 

did consult with State and local officials 

and implementing agencies in 

developing this rule. EPA held a RMP 

Implementing Agency meeting in 

Atlanta, October 21 and 22, 2002. State 

and local implementing agencies in 

attendance included representatives 

from Alabama, California, Colorado, 

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 

Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. 

Participants were invited to provide 

feedback regarding the program and 

related software, as well as suggestions 

for improvements. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. The final rule 

focuses on requirements for all 

regulated sources without affecting the 

relationships between tribal 

governments in its implementation, and 

applies to all regulated sources, without 

distinction of the surrounding 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 18831 

populations affected. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

The Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be economically 

significant under Executive Order 

12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. EPA 

interprets Executive Order 13045 as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Order has 

the potential to influence the regulation. 

This final rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not involve regulatory decisions that are 

based on public health or safety risks, 

nor would it establish environmental 

standards intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

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

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

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

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

final rule does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective April 9, 2004. 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: March 31, 2004. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 68 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 68—CHEMICAL ACCIDENT 

PREVENTION PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 68 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

7661–7661f. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 68.2 is removed. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 3. Section 68.42 is amended to revise 

paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 68.42 Five-year accident history. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(11) Operational or process changes 

that resulted from investigation of the 

release and that have been made by the 

time this information is submitted in 

accordance with § 68.168. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

■ 4. Section 68.150 is amended to 

redesignate paragraphs (c) through (e) as 

paragraphs (d) through (f), to add a new 

paragraph (c), and to revise paragraph 

(a) and newly designated paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 68.150 Submission. 

(a) The owner or operator shall submit 

a single RMP that includes the 

information required by §§ 68.155 

through 68.185 for all covered 

processes. The RMP shall be submitted 

in the method and format to the central 

point specified by EPA as of the date of 

submission. 

* * * * * 

(c) The owner or operator of any 

stationary source for which an RMP was 

submitted before June 21, 2004, shall 

revise the RMP to include the 

information required by § 68.160(b)(6) 

and (14) by June 21, 2004 in the manner 

specified by EPA prior to that date. Any 

such submission shall also include the 

information required by § 68.160(b)(20) 

(indicating that the submission is a 

correction to include the information 

required by § 68.160(b)(6) and (14) or an 

update under § 68.190). 

(d) RMPs submitted under this section 

shall be updated and corrected in 

accordance with §§ 68.190 and 68.195. 

* * * * * 

§ 68.155 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 68.155 is amended to 

remove paragraph (c) and redesignate 

paragraphs (d) through (g) as paragraphs 

(c) through (f). 

■ 6. Section 68.160 is amended to revise 

paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6), redesignate 

paragraphs (b)(14) through (b)(18) as 

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

to add new paragraphs (b)(14) and 

(b)(20) to read as follows: 

§ 68.160 Registration. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) The name and title of the person 

or position with overall responsibility 

for RMP elements and implementation, 

and (optional) the e-mail address for 

that person or position; 

(6) The name, title, telephone number, 

24-hour telephone number, and, as of 

June 21, 2004, the e-mail address (if an 

e-mail address exists) of the emergency 

contact; 

* * * * * 

(14) As of June 21, 2004, the name, 

the mailing address, and the telephone 

18832 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 69 / Friday, April 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

number of the contractor who prepared 

the RMP (if any); 

* * * * * 

(20) As of June 21, 2004, the type of 

and reason for any changes being made 

to a previously submitted RMP; the 

types of changes to RMP are categorized 

as follows: 

(i) Updates and re-submissions 

required under § 68.190(b); 

(ii) Corrections under § 68.195 or for 

purposes of correcting minor clerical 

errors, updating administrative 

information, providing missing data 

elements or reflecting facility ownership 

changes, and which do not require an 

update and re-submission as specified 

in § 68.190(b); 

(iii) De-registrations required under 

§ 68.190(c); and 

(iv) Withdrawals of an RMP for any 

facility that was erroneously considered 

subject to this part 68. 

■ 7. Section 68.190 is amended to revise 

paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 68.190 Updates. 

(a) The owner or operator shall review 

and update the RMP as specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section and submit 

it in the method and format to the 

central point specified by EPA as of the 

date of submission. 

(b) * * * 

(1) At least once every five years from 

the date of its initial submission or most 

recent update required by paragraphs 

(b)(2) through (b)(7) of this section, 

whichever is later. For purposes of 

determining the date of initial 

submissions, RMPs submitted before 

June 21, 1999 are considered to have 

been submitted on that date. 

* * * * * 

(c) If a stationary source is no longer 

subject to this part, the owner or 

operator shall submit a de-registration to 

EPA within six months indicating that 

the stationary source is no longer 

covered. 

■ 8. Section 68.195 is added to subpart 

G to read as follows: 

§ 68.195 Required corrections. 

The owner or operator of a stationary 

source for which a RMP was submitted 

shall correct the RMP as follows: 

(a) New accident history 

information—For any accidental release 

meeting the five-year accident history 

reporting criteria of § 68.42 and 

occurring after April 9, 2004, the owner 

or operator shall submit the data 

required under §§ 68.168, 68.170(j), and 

68.175(l) with respect to that accident 

within six months of the release or by 

the time the RMP is updated under 

§ 68.190, whichever is earlier. 

(b) Emergency contact information—

Beginning June 21, 2004, within one 

month of any change in the emergency 

contact information required under 

§ 68.160(b)(6), the owner or operator 

shall submit a correction of that 

information. 

[FR Doc. 04–7777 Filed 4–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 2 

[DA 04–687] 

Non-Substantive Revision to the Table 

of Frequency Allocation 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document revises the 

Commission’s Table of Frequency 

Allocations. Specifically, it reinstates a 

revised version of footnote US269. The 

reinstated footnote serves a valuable 

informational purpose in that it will 

alert the public as to the locations of 

radio astronomy observatories and will 

provide contact information so that 

reasonable steps may be taken to protect 

these observatories from harmful 

interference. 

DATES: Effective April 9, 2004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Mooring, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–2450. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order, 

DA 04–687, adopted March 15, 2004, 

and released March 16, 2004. The full 

text of this document is available on the 

Commission’s Internet site at 

www.fcc.gov. It is also available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text of this document also may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplication contractor, Qualex 

International, Portals II, 445 12th St., 

SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 

20554; telephone (202) 863–2893; fax 

(202) 863–2898; e-mail 

qualexin@aol.com. 

Summary of the Order 

1. On November 4, 2003, the 

Commission released a Report and 

Order in ET Docket No. 02–305, FCC 

03–269, 68 FR 74322, December 23, 

2003, that removed in its entirety 

footnote US269 from the Table of 

Frequency Allocations in the 

Commission’s rules (47 CFR 2.106, 

footnote US269). The National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce requested, in 

a letter dated March 12, 2004, that we 

reinstate a revised version of footnote 

US269 in the Commission’s rules. We 

agree with NTIA that reinstatement of 

the footnote, as amended, serves a 

valuable informational purpose; that is, 

the footnote would alert the public as to 

the locations of radio astronomy 

observatories that observe in the band 

2655–2690 MHz on a secondary basis 

and would provide contact information 

so that reasonable steps may be taken to 

protect these observatories from harmful 

interference. 

2. Consequently, footnote US269 is 

added to the United States Table of 

Frequency Allocations for the band 

2655–2690 MHz, as described in the 

rules. This change is informational, and 

not substantive, in nature. 

3. Pursuant to sections 0.31 and 0.241 

of the Commission’s rules on delegated 

authority, 47 CFR 0.31 and 0.241, 

footnote US269 is added to the Table of 

Frequency Allocations, 47 CFR 2.106, as 

stated in the Order, effective April 9, 

2004. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 2 

Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

William F. Caton, 

Deputy Secretary. 

Rule Changes 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 2 as 

follows: 

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 

336, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 2.106, the Table of 

Frequency Allocations, is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. Revise page 53. 

■ b. In the list of United States (US) 

Footnotes, add footnote US269. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P