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: 

NATTSPO comments 

0679.pdf

OK MERC 

comments 0641.pdf

EO 12866 

Interagency Comments RMP_EPA response.docx

EO 12866 

Interagency Comments RMP 2_EPA response.docx

EO12866_RMP 

Modernization 2050-AG82 NPRM Proposal&

Hi Danielle, 

The following RMP-related files 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 text with interagency comments and responses inserted 

in the margins.

EPA’s OGC weighed in on select issues (OSHA feasibility vs. practicability comment and the attorneyclient privilege comment) and also gave us some minor edits to clarify the revised LEPC 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 on 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 Comments RMP 2 EPA response

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 

secondary 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 of 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 information.”

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 inherently 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 

Petroleum Association of America [(IPAA]) and American Exploration & Production Council 

[(AXPC]),

Change incorporated.