Page 1 of 16

EPA # 2537.01

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title of the Information Collection Request (ICR) 

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Program Modernization Under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 112(r)(7) (Proposed Rule)

EPA ICR No. 2537.01, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) No. 2050-NEW.

1(b) Short Characterization

This ICR would amend a previously approved ICR (1656.15), OMB Control No. 2050-0144. 

That ICR covers the Risk Management Program rule, originally promulgated on June 20, 1996; the 

current rule, including previous amendments, is codified as 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

68. This 2537.01 package represents the new information collection requirements imposed by the 

proposed rule and does not embody the past 1656.15 collection. 

Part 68 provides a tiering approach of the regulatory requirements to take into consideration 

differences between various types and classes of stationary sources (also referred to as “sources” or 

“facilities”), as well as the risk posed by the different sources. The regulatory program consists of three 

tiers with sources being classified into program tiers based on the degree of risk posed by potential 

accidental releases and coverage by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s 

Process Safety Management (PSM) standard. Sources with covered processes classified as Program 1

(P1) pose less risk and face minimal compliance requirements. Sources with covered processes classified 

as Program 2 (P2) must implement a streamlined list of prevention program requirements. Sources with 

covered processes classified in Program 3 (P3) must complete a prevention program nearly identical to 

that required by the OSHA PSM Standard (29 CFR 1910.119). The rule also imposes emergency 

response program requirements only on facilities that use their own employees and resources to respond 

in whole or in part to releases of regulated substances.

This ICR addresses the following proposed information requirements associated with the

proposed rule: 

Improve information availability (applies to all facilities)

1. Make certain information related to the risk management program available to the local 

community.

2. Provide the local emergency planning committee (LEPC) and local responders with summarized 

information of certain activities under the risk management program.

3. Hold a public meeting within 30 days of an accident subject to reporting under §68.42 (i.e., an 

RMP reportable accident).

Revise accident prevention program requirements (applies to P2 and P3 facilities unless otherwise 

specified)

4. Hire a third party to conduct the compliance audit after an RMP reportable accident.

5. Conduct and document a root cause analysis after an RMP reportable accident or a near miss.

6. Conduct and document a safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA) for a subset of 

Program 3 facilities in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 322 

(paper manufacturing), 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing), and 325 (chemical 

manufacturing).

Improve emergency preparedness (applies to P2 and P3 facilities)
Page 2 of 16

7. Meet and coordinate with local responders annually to ensure adequate emergency response 

capability exists.

8. Conduct an annual notification drill to verify emergency contact information.

9. Responding facilities conduct and document emergency response exercises including:

a. Field exercises every five years and within one year of an RMP reportable accident, and

b. Annual tabletop exercises in the interim years.

This ICR also reflects the recent revisions to OSHA’s interpretation of the PSM standard. In July 

2015, OSHA issued a new interpretation of its retail exemption, a policy that exempted certain employers 

under OSHA’s 1992 definition of “retail facility.” Prior to this change, most facilities that classified 

themselves as agricultural chemical distributors and many other wholesalers listed themselves as P2, 

because they were exempt from the OSHA PSM standard. The effect of the change in interpretation will 

make all of these facilities subject to the PSM standard and, therefore, subject to Program 3 of the RMP 

rule. To take that into account for this ICR, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reclassified 

all P2 facilities that listed themselves in NAICS 11, 12, 15, 424 (wholesalers), and 493 (warehouses) as 

P3. As a consequence almost 85 percent of all RMP facilities will be subject to P3 requirements.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

Information collection for on-site documentation is authorized by CAA sections 112(r)(7)(B)(i) 

and (ii), which state that “The Administrator shall promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate 

guidance to provide ... for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of regulated substances....” 

and “The regulations ... shall require the owner or operator ... to prepare and implement a risk 

management plan to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases...” Information collection for 

submitting a Risk Management Plan (RMP) is authorized under CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii), which 

states in relevant part that “The owner or operator of each stationary source...shall register a risk 

management plan...with the Administrator before the effective date of the regulations...in such form and 

manner as the Administrator shall, by rule, require...and shall be available to the public under section 

114(c).” Information collection for on-site documentation and submittal of RMPs is also authorized by 

CAA 114(a)(1). State and local authorities use the information in RMPs to modify and enhance their 

community response plans. The agencies implementing the Risk Management Program rule use RMPs to 

evaluate compliance with part 68 and to identify sources for inspection because they may pose significant 

risks to the community. Citizens may use the information to assess and address chemical hazards in their 

communities and to respond appropriately in the event of a release of a regulated substance.

2(b) Use/Users of the Data

Risk Management Plans/Public Information. The information collected in the RMP is critical 

for assisting government agencies in assessing the quality and thoroughness of a source’s hazard 

assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program. The information is also used by state 

and local emergency planners to prepare or modify community response plans; to identify hazards to the 

community; and provide a basis for working with sources to prevent accidents. The public uses the 

information to understand the risks posed by accidental releases and to respond to warnings and advice 

should a release occur.

Risk Management Programs. DocumentingRisk Management Program implementation is 

necessary to assist government agencies in determining whether a source has complied with the 

regulations. In some cases (e.g., safety information and operating procedures), the documentation is a 

critical requirement of the rule, providing the basis for other rule elements. The documentation is also 

important to provide a basis for the facility’s ability to ensure implementation (e.g., training and 

maintenance records), to audit compliance, and to review past activities. Furthermore, records of past 
Page 3 of 16

analyses can limit the burden of updates by reducing the need to repeat analyses for elements that are 

unchanged since the previous review.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication

RMPs. Some sources may have submitted information to EPA Headquarters or the Regions 

under other regulations (e.g., Form R or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Biennial 

Reports) that appears similar to the information requested in the registration form under these regulations. 

However, not all of the information in the RMP registration section, and almost none of the information 

in the prevention program and hazard assessment sections of the RMP are submitted to EPA under other 

regulations. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Section 312 Tier II 

forms, include some information similar to that in the RMP registration form, but are submitted only to 

states and local planning authorities, not EPA. Therefore, for EPA to best comply with the Act, it is most 

beneficial if the information requested for registration is submitted in a concise and organized format, 

along with prevention program, hazard assessment, and emergency response program information, using 

the RMP form.

Public Information. Most of the information that facilities would be required to make available 

to the public is part of the RMP or required to be available to employees under OSHA standards. Some 

of the information is also available on the Internet through non-governmental websites, though not in a 

single location. Much of the information is also submitted to LEPCs under both the Risk Management 

Program rule and the EPCRA rule. The information relating to emergency response exercises is new 

information associated with proposed new requirements for exercises.

Confidential Business Information (CBI). Some sources may have submitted substantiation of 

CBI claims for chemical identity or other information to EPA Headquarters or the Regions under other 

regulations that is similar to the information requested under these regulations. For EPA to best comply 

with the Act and most effectively evaluate such claims, it is most beneficial if the CBI substantiation 

accompanies the submission of the RMP.

3(b) Consultations

EPA published a request for information (RFI) on potential regulatory amendments on July 31, 

2014 (79 FR 44604). EPA received a total of 579 public comments on the RFI.

3(c) Public Notice

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Agency will notify

the public through a Federal Register notice of the proposed rule.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Sources are required to register and submit an RMP only once every five years, unless there are 

significant changes in the information provided. There is a statutory requirement for sources to register, 

submit, and update an RMP. Under the proposed rule, information would be made available to the public 

annually, but if the basic information does not change, little or no effort would be required to update it. 

The summary information that would be provided to the LEPCs would reflect the required schedule of 

activities and would be provided only upon request and updated only when the activity being summarized 

occurred. Coordination with the local responders would occur annually; less frequent coordination could 

result in new responders being unaware of hazards at the facility and current responders being uninformed 

about changes at the facility. For responding facilities, notification and tabletop exercises would occur 

annually, with field exercises to replace the tabletop exercise once every five years (and within one year 
Page 4 of 16

of an RMP reportable accident). Less frequent exercises could result in outdated emergency response 

contact information; personnel unacquainted with emergency response requirements; and poor response 

capability at the time of an accidental release.

3(e) General Guidelines

CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii) requires that sources update their RMPs periodically. To maintain 

consistency with OSHA PSM requirements, the Risk Management Programrule requires sources to 

update process hazard analyses (PHA) and hazard assessments every five years. Thus, sources are 

required to maintain such documentation for five years (and in the case of the PHA, for the life of the 

covered process), which is greater than the three years specified in OMB’s general guidelines.

3(f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

(i) Confidentiality

Some of the elements mandated in the Risk Management Program rule may require the submittal 

of data viewed as proprietary, trade secret, or confidential. As described above, EPA has adopted 

procedures for sources to claim certain information as CBI.

(ii) Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements. 

The information submitted in an RMP includes information on a source’s hazard assessment, prevention 

program, and emergency response program, and the information submitted in support of a petition to 

modify the list of regulated substances includes toxicity data and accident history data. The ICR under 

the EPA rulemaking is in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes

Risk Management Programs and Plans

The accidental release prevention program under the CAA was developed for sources that 

manufacture, react, mix, store, or use regulated substances in processes that require equipment designed, 

constructed, installed, operated, or maintained in specific ways to prevent accidental releases and ensure 

safe operations. The CAA requires sources to comply with the regulations if they have more than a 

threshold quantity of a listed regulated substance in a process. Based on submissions of RMPs, the rule 

applies to manufacturers (i.e., sources categorized in NAICS codes 31-33), as well as some nonmanufacturers, including federal sources, utilities (NAICS code 221: electric utilities, drinking water 

systems, wastewater treatment works), warehouses, large ammonia refrigeration systems (e.g.,food 

processors and distributors), wholesalers, ammonia retailers, and gas processors. 

As of December 2015, approximately 12,500 sources are currently subject to 40 CFR part 68 

requirements. All sources would be respondents for one or more of the provisions of the proposed rule. 

4(b) Information Requested

Data requirements and respondent activities would vary by program level and NAICS code. P1 

sources would require the least amount of data and time from respondents, while P3 sources in NAICS 

322 (paper manufacturing), 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing), and 325 (chemical 

manufacturing) would have the most requirements. Responding facilities (i.e., those that have complied 

with the emergency response program requirements of §68.95) would incur higher burdens than those that 
Page 5 of 16

rely on public responders.

(i) Data Items

All sources would need to become familiar with the rule and provide information to the public. 

All P2 and P3 sources would be required to meet with public response agencies to coordinate emergency 

response plans and would have to check the information on their emergency notification lists annually. 

All sources would also have to prepare summary information on chemical hazards at the source and on

certain activities as they occur (e.g., audits, incident investigations, STAA, etc.), update the information 

annually, and provide it to LEPCs upon request. Sources would be required to hold a public meeting 

within 30 days of any RMP-reportable accident. Sources that experience an RMP reportable accident

would also need to conduct and document a root cause analysis and hire a third-party to conduct the next 

scheduled compliance audit. Sources that experience a near miss are required to conduct and document 

an incident investigation – required under current regulations but often not implemented - and would be 

required to conduct a root cause analysis. Responding sources would be required to conduct and 

document emergency response exercises annually. The P3 sources with processes in NAICS 322, 324, 

and 325 would be required to conduct and document a STAA as part of the PHA (once every 5 years).

Sources that convert to being responders, either because the local responders are not capable of

responding to releases of the regulated substances held or because the local response agencies request that 

the owner or operator respond, would have to develop an emergency response program, conduct 

emergency response exercises, and provide information to the local authorities on the exercises.

(ii) Respondent Activities

Rule Familiarization

All sources are expected to spend time to read and understand the new requirements when the 

rule is promulgated. 

Prevention Program Activities

Third Party Audits. P2 and P3 sources that have an RMP reportable accident would be required 

to hire an independent third party to conduct the next compliance audit. The burden for source staff to 

prepare for and support the auditor is covered in the existing ICR for Part 68. The burden for staff to draft 

a contract with an auditor is accounted for in this ICR. In addition, this ICR includes the actual contract 

value with the third party auditor.

Root Cause and Near Miss Investigations. P2 and P3 sources that have an RMP reportable 

accident would be required to conduct a root cause analysis as part of the incident investigation already 

required by Part 68. Sources that experience a near miss are required to conduct and document an 

incident investigation – required under current regulations but often not implemented - and would be 

required to conduct a root cause analysis and document findings and actions taken in response to findings. 

Some sources would need to hire an expert trained in the root cause analysis methodology to conduct 

these analyses.

STAA. P3 sources in NAICS 322, 324, and 325 would be required to conduct a STAA and assess 

the feasibility of implementing any inherently safer technologies considered. Sources would be required 

to document the analyses and feasibility determinations.

Emergency Response Activities

Coordination Activities. All P2 and P3 sources would be required to coordinate with local 

response agencies annually to share information and coordinate emergency response plans.
Page 6 of 16

Notification Drills. All P2 and P3 sources would be required to verify the accuracy of the contact 

information on the emergency notification lists (e.g., local responders, State and Federal agencies, mutual 

aid groups) to ensure that the information is current and correct.

Emergency Response Exercises. All P2 and P3 responding facilities would be required to plan for

and conduct an annual emergency response exercise, including developing any materials that the response 

team would use, carrying out the exercise, documenting lessons learned and recommendations in an after 

action report, and documenting a schedule to resolve recommendations.

Information Disclosure Activities

Disclosure to the Public. All sources would be required to collect basic chemical hazard

information (mostly from the RMP) and safety data sheets used to inform employees of hazards and

annually make the information available to the public through websites, other publications, posting at 

public locations, etc.

Disclosure to the LEPC. All sources would be required to draft summaries of certain activities as 

they occur (compliance audits, incident investigations, STAA, exercises), update the information

annually, and make the information available to the LEPC upon request.

Public Meeting. Sources would be required to hold a public meeting within 30-days of any RMPreportable accident.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED — AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Federal, State, and Local Government Activities

Burden to State and Local Agencies and Others

LEPCs and other local responders would incur some burden for rule familiarization and to review 

information submitted to them by regulated sources. Also, 14 State and local agencies that have received 

a delegation of authority from EPA to oversee implementation of 40 CFR part 68 requirements in their 

jurisdiction would incur a burden for rule familiarization. The burden for these activities is accounted for 

in section 6(a) of this ICR.

Burden to the Federal Government

EPA is not expected to incur any additional burden as a result of the proposed rule (see section 

6(c) for additional discussion).

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

The proposed rule would not dictate how information must be provided or maintained. Sources 

may create and maintain required information electronically.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The burden of the proposed rule requirements generally would increase as the size and 

complexity of the covered source increases, but the proposed rule would not specifically provide relief for 

small entities. The existing rule, which the proposed rule will modify, already includes several measures 

to reduce the burden to small entities. For example, EPA has developed industry-specific guidance 

documents to help smaller sources comply with the rule, and these documents will be updated to 

incorporate any provisions of the proposed rule that are finalized.

Also, the RMP online reporting system (RMP*eSubmit) reduces burden for small entities since 
Page 7 of 16

the information reported is easily available to make any changes and resubmit online rather than printing 

and/or mailing information with changes.
Page 8 of 16

5(d) Collection Schedule

The information provided would vary based on the provision.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

The unit burden applied to various sectors is based on the size of the sources and on the number 

and complexity of the processes at the sources in each sector. 

6(a) Respondent Burden

This section provides estimates of the respondent hourly burden associated with the information 

collected requirements covered in this ICR. The section includes burden hours by labor type per 

respondent, as well as the overall burden hours for all respondents.

Respondent Burden for Rule Familiarization

This analysis assumes that rule familiarization will only occur in year 1.

Table 1: Rule Familiarization (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total # of 

Affected 

Facilities

Mgr. Corp 

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

Simple 10921 2 0 0 0 0 0 21,842

P1 and 2 Complex 145 2 0 0 0 0 0 290

P3 Complex 1476 4 0 0 0 0 0 5,904

Local Government 1724 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,724

Implementing 

Agencies 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 56

Total 14,280 29,816

Respondent Burden for Third Party Audits

This analysis assumes that 10% of the overall burden hours 1 are devoted to information 

collection.

Table 2: Third-Party Audits (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total # of 

Affected 

Facilities

Mgr. Corp

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

Simple <20 FTE 19 32 0 4 0 0 0 684

Simple 20-99 FTE 15 44 0 4 18 0 0 990

Simple 100+ FTE 39 30 0 4 56 0 0 3,510

Complex < 20 3 32 0 4 0 0 0 108

Complex 20-99 13 44 0 4 18 0 0 858

Complex 100+ 53 30 0 4 56 0 0 4,770

Small Government 3 30 0 0 25 0 0 165

Large Government 4 60 0 0 39 0 0 396

Total 149 11,481

 1 As reported in the regulatory impact analysis for the RMP modernization rule. See Regulatory Impact Analysis –

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Section 

112(r)(7), December 2015.
Page 9 of 16

Respondent Burden for Incident Investigation and Root Cause Analysis

This provision assumes that 10% of the overall hours are devoted to information collection.

Table 3: Incident Investigation and Root Cause Analysis (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total # of 

Affected 

Facilities

Mgr. Corp 

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

P2 Near Miss - simple

5 0.6 0 0 0.4 0.4 7

P2 Near Miss - complex 1 1.2 0 0 3.6 2.4 7

P3 Near Miss - simple 75 0.6 0 0 0.4 0.4 105

P3 Near Miss - complex 68 1.2 0 0 3.6 2.4 490

P2 Accidents - simple 5 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 4

P2 accidents - complex 1 0 0 0 4.8 0 5

P3 accidents - simple 75 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 60

P3 accidents - complex 68 0 0 0 4.8 0 326

Total 298 1,004

Respondent Burden for STAA

This provision assumes that 10% of the overall hours are devoted to information collection. 

Facilities are estimated to complete a STAA every five years.

Table 4: STAA (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total # of 

Affected 

Processes

Mgr. Corp 

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

Paper and 

Small/Medium Complex 1783 0 1.6 0 25.2 0 0 8,986

Large Complex 2514 0 2.4 0 60.8 0 0 30,570

Total 4,297 39,557

Respondent Burden for Coordination Activities

Table 5: Coordination Activities (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total # of 

Affected 

Facilities

Mgr. Corp 

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

Simple 10345 4 0 0 0 0 4 82,760

Complex 1555 4 0 0 0 0 4 12,440

Total 11900 95,200
Page 10 of 16

Respondent Burden for Notification Drills

Table 6: Notification Drills (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total #of 

Affected 

Facilities

Mgr. Corp 

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

Simple 10345 0 0 0 2 0 0 20,690

Complex 1555 0 0 0 2 0 0 3,110

Total 11900 23,800

Respondent Burden for Exercises

This provision assumes that only management time will be considered information collection, in 

order to develop the exercise plan and after action report. The analysis estimates that facilities will 

conduct a tabletop exercise in four out of five years and a field exercise in one out of five years.

Table 7: Exercises (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total # of 

Affected 

Facilities

Mgr. Corp 

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

Simple Responding <20 

FTE 1640 25.2 0 0 0 0 0 41,328

Simple Responding 20-

99 FTE 880 32.8 0 0 0 0 0 28,864

Simple Responding 

100+ FTE 1467 64.4 0 0 0 0 0 94,475

Complex Responding 

<20 141 25.2 0 0 0 0 0 3,553

Complex Responding 

20-99 459 32.8 0 0 0 0 0 15,055

Complex Responding 

100+ 533 94.4 0 0 0 0 0 50,315

Total 5120 233,590

Respondent Burden for Public Disclosure

Table 8: Public Disclosure (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total # of 

Affected 

Facilities

Mgr. Corp 

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

Small Complex 565 2 0 0 2 0 2 3,390

Large Complex 1056 8 0 0 8 0 4 21,120

Simple 10921 1 0 0 1 0 1 32,763

Total 12542 57,273
Page 11 of 16

Respondent Burden for LEPC Disclosure

This provision requires information to be prepared and updated annually, and submitted to the 

LEPC upon request. The analysis assumes that all regulated facilities will incur an information collection 

burden for preparing and updating the information, whether or not they receive a request for it from their 

LEPC or local emergency response officials.

Table 9: LEPC Disclosure (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total # of 

Affected 

Facilities

Mgr. Corp 

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

Accident History -

Simple 372 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 930

Accident History -

Complex 350 1 1 1 1 0 0 1,400

Audit Report - Simple 3448 2 2 2 4 0 0 34,483

Audit Report - Complex 518 4 4 4 8 0 0 10,367

Investigation Reports -

Simple 372 4 4 2 4 0 0 5,208

Investigation Reports -

Complex 350 8 4 8 12 0 0 11,200

STAA – Simple

(processes) 357 4 4 4 4 0 0 5,706

STAA – Complex

(processes) 503 8 4 8 16 0 0 18,101

Exercises - Simple 3987 2 1 1 4 0 0 31,896

Exercises - Complex 1133 2 2 2 8 0 0 15,862

LEPC Review – Simple 10,921 0 0 0 0 0 1 10,921

LEPC Review – Small 

Complex 565 0 0 0 0 0 1 565

LEPC Review – Large 

Complex 1,056 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,056

Total 147,694

Respondent Burden for Public Meetings

The ICR estimates that affected facilities will conduct a public meeting within 30-days of an 

RMP reportable accident.

Table 10: Public Meetings (in Hours)

Facility Type

Total 

Affected 

Facilities

Mgr. Corp 

Mgr. Atty. Eng. Prod. Staff LEPC

Total 

Labor 

Burden

Simple 82 8 0 0 8 4 0 1,636

Complex 70 16 0 0 16 8 0 2,796

Total 152 4,432

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs (Sources & LocalResponders)

Exhibit 1 provides estimates of the annual respondent costs associated with the information 

collection requirements covered in this ICR. These costs are based on the cost of labor and equipment.
Page 12 of 16

(i) Estimating Labor Costs

The Agency used the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) May 2014 Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates 2 to construct a weighted wage rate for different occupation categories. For all rule 

provisions, labor hours were assumed to be distributed across six general labor categories: Management, 

Corporate Management, Attorneys, Engineers, Production Staff, and Local Responders. The weighted 

wage rates for complex facilities (NAICS codes 324 and 325) were estimated separately from simple 

facilities because wages paid by these facilities are higher than in wholesale and government sectors, 

which dominate the simple facilities category. For each of the NAICS codes representing industries in 

the simple facilities category that are affected by the proposed rule provisions (Food and Beverage, 

Agricultural Facilities, etc.), standardized BLS Occupation Titles were identified to match the general 

labor categories (Management, Corporate Management, Attorneys, Engineers, Production Staff, and 

Local Responders). The wage rates for each BLS Occupation Title were multiplied by a fringe benefits 

factor of 1.5 to create a loaded wage rate. 3

After loaded wage rates were established for each industry, they were combined to form a 

weighted average based on how prominent each industry was within its universe of facilities, either 

simple or complex. Table 11 presents the wage rates.

Table 11: Weighted-Average Loaded Hourly Wage Rates (2014 Dollars)

Labor Category Simple Facilities Complex Facilities

Management $74.99 $99.64

Corporate Management $82.47 $100.71

Attorneys $101.81 $113.33

Engineers $55.22 $76.21

Production Staff $28.51 $41.56

Local Responders $53.43 $53.43

Using the total burden hours discussed in Section 6(a) and the hourly labor costs outlined in this 

section, Exhibit 1 illustrates the labor costs associated with the information collection requirements 

covered in this ICR.

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to provide the needed 

information, such as machinery, computers, and other equipment. EPA does not anticipate that 

respondents will incur capital costs in carrying out the information collection requirements covered in this 

ICR.

O&M costs are those costs associated with a paperwork requirement incurred continually over the 

life of the ICR. They are defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “the recurring dollar 

amount of costs associated with O&M or purchasing services.” For this ICR, EPA estimates that simple 

facilities would need to spend $1,000 on contracting with a consultant to conduct the incident 

investigation. Further, EPA estimates that facilities would need to expend $550 to rent a meeting room to 

host the public meeting.

Respondent Costs for Third Party Audits

The existing rule requires P2 and P3 facilities to conduct a compliance audit at least once every 

 2 See http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. 3 The benefits multiplier is based on an average for the sectors as estimated by BLS in its Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation. BLS includes items such as sick leave and vacation as benefits.
Page 13 of 16

three years. The proposed provision requires facilities that have had RMP reportable accidents to contract 

with an independent third party to conduct the audit. The analysis estimated the cost of hiring a third 

party to conduct the audit based on the public comments that EPA received through the July 31, 2014, 

RFI. Of the 14 comments providing input on the economic impacts of the legislation, several comments 

specifically provided point estimates for the cost of hiring a third-party auditor. 4 These estimates ranged 

between $10,000 and $20,000 for simpler facilities and up to $40,000 for larger facilities. The cost 

estimate calculations assumed $15,000 for simple and small government facilities and $40,000 for 

complex and large government facilities. These cost calculations are presented in Table 12.

Table 12: Third Party Audit Contract Costs (2014 Dollars)

Facility Category Affected 

Facilities Cost Facility Total

Simple <20 FTE 19 $15,000 $285,000

Simple 20-99 FTE 15 $15,000 $225,000

Simple 100+ FTE 39 $15,000 $585,000

Complex < 20 3 $40,000 $120,000

Complex 20-99 13 $40,000 $520,000

Complex 100+ 53 $40,000 $2,120,000

Small Government 3 $15,000 $45,000

Large Government 4 $40,000 $160,000

Total 149 $4,060,000

These expenses are considered incremental to the costs for compliance audits that are covered in the 

original rule, as similar levels of facility staffing would be required to work with the third-party auditor 

(i.e., EPA does not expect the cost of the third-party auditor to be offset by cost savings from reduced 

staff levels of effort related to auditing). 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

Information relating to certain proposed rule provisions would be incorporated into sources’ 

RMPs, which are submitted to the Agency at least every five years. The information collection burden 

and costs associated with Agency operations and maintenance of the RMP reporting system and RMP 

database, and with review of sources’ RMPs and on-site documentation are accounted for in the existing 

approved ICR. Therefore, the Agency is not expected to incur any additional information collection 

burden or cost as a result of the proposed rule.

The burden associated with State and local implementing agencies’ review of sources’ RMPs and 

on-site documentation is accounted for in the existing approved ICR. State and local implementing 

agencies will incur some burden for rule familiarization. This burden has been included in the rule 

familiarization row in Table1.

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

In this section, EPA first describes the respondent universe affected by the information collection 

requirements under the proposed rule. 

 4 See comments 0638 and 0667 – These two comments from industry specifically provided point estimates on the 

costs of third party audits. One comment placed the cost of the audit between $36,000 and $40,000 and the other 

placed the estimates at approximately $10,000 based on membership experience.
Page 14 of 16

Respondent Universe

Table 13 presents the annual number of respondents subject to the new information collection 

requirements under the proposed rule.

Table 13: Annual Number of Respondents Subject to New Information Collection Requirements 

under the Proposed Rule

Sector P1 P2 P3 Totals

NAICS 311 Food Manufacturer 3 11 1,371 1,385

NAICS 312 Beverage/Ice 0 0 91 91

NAICS 322 Pulp and Paper 1 1 68 70

NAICS 324 Petroleum 13 3 140 156

NAICS 325 Chemical 53 64 1,349 1,465

Other Manufacturing 62 73 249 384

NAICS 4246 Chemical Distributors 6 0 327 333

NAICS 4247 Petroleum Distributors 14 0 262 276

NAICS 11, 12, 15, 42491 Agricultural 10 0 3,657 3,667

NAICS 211 Oil and Gas Exploration 310 41 390 741

NAICS 2213 Water/Wastewater* 1 10 91 102

NAICS 221, 222 Utilities 38 72 233 343

NAICS 493 Warehousing 70 0 986 1,056

NAICS 423, 424 Other Wholesale 5 0 297 302

NAICS 92 Governments 15 935 973 1,923

Other 41 62 144 248

Total 642 1,285 10,615 12,542

State and local agencies (for Rule 

Familiarization)

1,738

*Except government owned which appear as NAICS 92 Government.
Page 15 of 16

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Table 14 presents the bottom line burden hours and costs. The total number of respondents 

includes all regulated facilities (12,542), all LEPCs associated with a regulated facility (1,724), and 14 

delegated state and local implementing agencies or 14,280 total respondents.

Table 14: Yearly Total for Labor Burden, Labor Costs, and Other Costs

Provision Total 

Respondents

Total Labor 

Burden

Labor Costs Other Costs

Rule Familiarization 14,280 29,816 $2,351,330

Third-party Audit 149 11,481 $759,795 $4,060,000

Root Cause Analysis 298 1,004 $68,263 $160,000

STAA 325 39,557 $3,014,706

Coordination Activities 13,624 95,200 $6,265,952

Notification Drills 11,900 23,800 $1,379,540

Exercises 5,120 233,590 $22,671,083

Public Disclosure 14,266 57,273 $3,975,883

LEPC Disclosure 14,266 147,694 $11,741,335

Public Meeting 152 4,432 $314,448 $83,435

Year 1 Total 643,847 $52,542,334 $4,303,435

Year 2 Total 614,031 $50,191,005 $4,303,435

Year 3 Total 614,031 $50,191,005 $4,303,435

Yearly Average 623,970 $50,974,781 $4,303,435

Annual Respondents Responses Non-labor Cost Hours

Private 12,542 59,109 $4,303,435 546,959

States 1,738 5,751 $0 77,010

Total 14,280 64,860 $4,303,435 623,969

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average about 10 hours per response. Burden means the total time, 

effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 

applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and 

transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 

valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 

CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 
Page 16 of 16

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the 

use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725, which is available for online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 

number for the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) Docket is (202) 566-0276. 

An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be 

used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public 

docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 

When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, 

you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk 

Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725 and 

OMB Control Number 2050-NEW in any correspondence.