From: Cogliano, Gerain

Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 1:19 PM

To: 'Jones, Danielle' < Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov >
Cc: Jutras, Nathaniel < Jutras.Nathaniel@epa.gov >; Farber, Glenn < Farber.Glenn@epa.gov > Subject: Response to Interagency Comments on RMP rule

Attachments:

Hi Danielle, The following RMP

- related file s are attached:

 The two interagency comment documents with responses included following each comment;

 A copy of RFI comments submitted by NASTTPO and the OK SERC in response to Interagency Comments #71 and #106; and

 A redline copy of the preamble and reg t ext with interagency comments and responses inserted in the margins.

EPA’s OGC weighed in on select issues (OSHA feasibility vs. practicability comment and the attorney

client privilege comment) and also gave us some minor edits to clarify the revised LEP C disclosure provision.

We are working on revising the RIA to remove the five

- year requirement for periodic public meetings and only require them after an RMP reportable accident. Most of the costs have been updated, but we are now revising the analysis o n impacts to small entities and this will take a few additional days to complete. We expect to have a revised version of the RIA by the end of this week. We will likely need to revise the RFA section of the preamble to reflect RIA revisions, once complete.

Additionally, we will incorporate revisions to the preamble/reg. text to reflect Federal Register format edits while the interagency reviewers review these responses.

Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions on these responses

.

Thanks!Attachment: EO 12866 Interagency C omments RMP 2 EPA r esponse



## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under
EO12866 /13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 1. EPA Guidance entitled “Guidance for Implementing Agencies (February 1998, >http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013

- 10/documents/iguidfnl.pdf<)” states: “EPA expects that the rule will cover all petroleum refineries, many chemical manufacturers (mostly manufacturers of basic chemicals), food processors and distributors who have ammonia refrigeration systems, other manufacturers such as pulp and paper mills and primary and

secon dary metal manufacturers, propane and agricultural retailers, chemical wholesalers, drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, electric utilities, and Federal installations, such as military bases and Department of Energy facilities.” EPA’s proposed rule currently does not discuss the applicability of the rule to Federal installations, and it would be useful to clarify the applicability. At this time, the only mention of Department of Defense or other Federal agencies is with respect to disclosure o f information: “The disclosure of information classified by the Department of Defense or other Federal agencies or contractors of such agencies shall be controlled by applicable laws, regulations, or executive orders concerning the release of
classified in formation.”

Change incorporated.

2. Page 25, recommended edit: (chaired by EPA, OSHA, and Department of Homeland Security [ ( DHS ] ) )

Change incorporated.

3. Page 78, insert comma after (ISD) in the following sentence: “STAA includes concepts known as
IST or inhere ntly safer design (ISD)

, which are those strategies that reduce or eliminate the hazards associated with materials and operations used in a process.

Change incorporated.

4. Page 90, recommended edit: Numerous trade associations (ACC, SOCMA, Independent

Petr oleum Association of America [ ( IPAA ] ) and American Exploration & Production Council [ ( AXPC ] )

, Change incorporated.