1

STATEMENT SUPPORTING THE RENEWAL OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 

REQUIREMENTS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS and 

PETITIONS TO MODIFY THE LIST OF REGULATED SUBSTANCES UNDER SECTION 

112(r) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)

EPA # 1656.14

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title of the Information Collection Request 

Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated 

Substances under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (Renewal)

ICR No. 1656.14, OMB No. 2050-0144

1(b) Short Characterization

This information collection request (ICR) renews a previously approved ICR (1656.13), OMB 

Control No. 2050-0144, expiring July 31, 2012. 

This information collection request (ICR) addresses the following information requirements:

(1) Documenting sources’ risk management programs and submitting a source risk 

management plan (RMP) under CAA Section 112(r)(7)

The regulations include requirements for covered sources to implement and maintain 

documentation for a risk management program and submit a RMP (including information 

on a source’s hazard assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program) 

to EPA. EPA has assumed responsibility for maintaining a database of submitted RMPs, 

which will be made available electronically to the implementing agency, states, local 

governments, and (except for the Offsite Consequence Analysis data) to the public. 

(2) Collecting and submitting information to support petitions to modify the list of regulated 

substances under CAA Section 112(r)(3)

The regulations include requirements for a petitioner to submit sufficient information in 

support of a petition to scientifically support the request to add or delete a chemical from 

the list of regulated substances. The Agency will use this information in making the 

decision to grant or deny a petition. All the information collected requesting 

modification of the chemical listings is stored in a docket created for that purpose.

CAA section 112(r)(7) required EPA to promulgate regulations and appropriate guidance to 

provide for the prevention and detection of accidental releases and for responses to such releases. EPA 

issued the final rule on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668). The regulations include requirements for submittal 

of an RMP, including source registration, to EPA. The RMP includes information on a source’s hazard 

assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program. The RMP requirements have been 

amended few times since the 1996 final rule. The regulations are codified in 40 CFR part 68. The rule 

requires sources to submit their RMPs every five years beginning June 21, 1999. 
2

The final rule establishing the list of regulated substances and threshold quantities under CAA 

section 112r was published on January 31, 1994 (59 FR 4478), which also includes provisions and 

procedures for submitting a petition to add or delete a substance. 

Part 68 provides for tiering of the regulatory requirements to take into consideration differences 

between various types and classes of sources, as well as the risk posed by the different sources. The 

regulatory program consists of three tiers of risk management programs. Sources are classified into 

program tiers based on the degree of risk posed by potential releases and coverage by the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard. Sources with 

processes classified as Program 1 pose little risk and face minimal compliance requirements. Sources 

with processes classified as Program 2 must implement a streamlined list of prevention program 

requirements. Sources with processes classified in Program 3 must complete a prevention program 

identical to that required by the OSHA PSM Standard (29 CFR 1910.119).

The compliance schedule for the Part 68 requirements, established by rule on June 20, 1996, 

requires the implementation of the source risk management programs and the submission of initial RMPs 

by June 21, 1999, and at least every five years after the initial submission. Sources must resubmit earlier 

than their next five-year deadline if they undergo certain changes to their covered processes as specified 

in Part 68. Therefore, after the initial submission, some sources re-submitted their RMPs prior to the 

next 5-year deadline because they had process changes that required an earlier update. These sources 

were then assigned a new five-year resubmission deadline based on the date of their revised plan 

submission. Most covered sources had no significant changes to their covered processes and therefore 

resubmitted their updated RMP on June 21, 2004. This same pattern continued through the next

submission cycle – some sources updated and resubmitted their RMP prior to their next five-year deadline

and were assigned a new (off-cycle) five-year deadline, but a majority of sources submitted their updated 

RMP on or near the next scheduled five-year resubmission deadline (June 2009). Similarly, while most 

sources’ next submission is due in June 2014, because of off-cycle resubmission deadlines assigned to 

sources who have resubmitted RMPs prior to their next 5-year resubmission date, only a portion of the 

RMP-regulated universe has a submission deadline of June 21, 2014. 

Other than the costs for gathering information and filling out the on-line RMP form, the 

regulations require sources to maintain on-site documentation, perform a compliance audit every three 

years, provide refresher training to employees, perform a hazard analysis at least every five years, etc. 

Some of these activities are expected to occur annually or are on-going. Some are required every three 

years or every five years, unless there are changes at the facility. Therefore, the burden and costs incurred 

by sources vary from ICR to ICR. The five-year resubmission deadline set by the regulations or assigned 

by EPA based on the latest RMP resubmission also will cause the burden to vary from ICR to ICR. 

This ICR period is from January 2012 to December 2014. The final year of this ICR period 

considers the burden for the majority of regulated sources that will resubmit their RMP on the 5-year 

resubmission deadline in calendar year 2014. The first two years covered by this ICR will account for the 

burden for sources that have off-cycle RMP resubmission deadlines falling within 2012 or 2013. For the 

three-year period covered by this ICR, 1045 sources have submission deadlines in 2012, 1015 sources 

have submission deadlines in 2013, and 6760 sources have submission deadlines in 2014.

Most sources that will submit RMPs in this ICR period must also comply with prevention 

program activities and on-site documentation of their prevention program (sources with only program 

level 1 processes do not have prevention program obligations under part 68). Sources that have 

resubmitted their RMPs prior to this ICR period will have to comply with updating certain parts of their 

prevention program, which will also be accounted for in this ICR period. This ICR will also estimate new 

sources that may be required to comply with RMP requirements. For new sources, this ICR will account 
3

for rule familiarization, program implementation as well as the submission of the risk management plan.

 

The burden for currently covered sources for initial rule compliance, including rule familiarization and 

program implementation has taken place prior to the period covered by this ICR. Also, there are some 

sources that did not resubmit their RMPs on their scheduled deadline. The burden for these sources will 

be accounted for in this ICR. 

A majority of sources use EPA’s on-line system for RMP submissions, called RMP*eSubmit. A 

few sources that do not have access to an internet-connected computer will submit their RMPs using a 

paper form provided by EPA.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

Risk Management Plans

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 an 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). The list and 

thresholds promulgated under CAA section 112(r)(3) determine which sources must comply with the 

accident prevention regulations; a source must comply with the CAA section 112(r)(7) regulations if it 

holds more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a process. State and local authorities will use 

the information in RMPs to modify and enhance their community response plans. The agencies 

implementing the RMP rule will 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 RMPs to 

assess and address chemical hazards in their communities.

Petitions

This information collection is authorized under CAA section 112(r)(3), which states in relevant 

part that “The Administrator shall establish procedures for the addition and deletion of substances from 

the list established under this paragraph consistent with those applicable to the list in subsection (b).” The 

information collected during the petition process will provide the primary basis for EPA to determine if it 

is appropriate to add or delete a chemical. To be consistent with the petition process under CAA section 

112(b), EPA is required to consider and respond to petitions to modify the list of regulated substances 

within 18 months of submission of the petition; complete data supporting the petition are necessary to 

allow EPA to finish its review within that time period.

2(b) Use/Users of the Data

Risk Management Plans. The information collected in the RMP is critical for assisting 

government agencies in assessing the quality and thoroughness of a source’s hazard assessment, 
4

prevention program, and emergency response program. The information also would be used by state and 

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

community and provide a basis for working with sources to prevent accidents.

Risk Management Programs. Documentation of the implementation of risk management 

programs 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.

Petitions. The information collected in support of a petition to modify the list of regulated 

substances is to be used by EPA to determine whether to grant or deny a petition to add or delete a 

chemical from the list.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication

Risk Management Plans. Some sources may have submitted information to EPA Headquarters or 

Regions under other regulations (i.e., Form R or 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.

EPCRA Section 312 Tier II forms, which also include some information similar to that in the RMP 

registration form, 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.

Confidential Business Information. Some sources may have submitted substantiation of CBI claims for 

chemical identity or other information to EPA Headquarters or 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

Prior to developing this ICR, the Agency contacted several sources to obtain information on the 

number of hours sources spend on collecting data and submitting an RMP. Some of the sources contacted 

have re-submitted their RMP between the three previous reporting periods (June 21, 1999, 2004, and 

2009) for changes in their processes or changes in their worst-case or alternative scenarios. Others had 

re-submitted with only minor changes to their previous RMP. The following sources were contacted:

Castle & Cooke Cold Storage-Hunter Park, Riverside, CA 

Gulf Bayport Chemicals, Pasadena, TX

Hemlock Semiconductor, Clarksville, TN

Nalco. Co, Garyville, LA

Penford Food Ingredients Company, Richland, WA

Sunoco Refinery, Philadelphia PA 

Taylor Farms Retail, Salinas, CA

Weis Markets Distribution Center, Milton, PA
5

York Energy Center, Delta, PA

The sources that were contacted were in various sectors, including petroleum refining, chemical 

manufacturing, agricultural retail, cold storage, etc., and of different sizes (small, medium and large). The 

number of burden hours reported by these sources ranged from 20 to 200 hours. These hours were spent 

to prepare and submit an RMP, as well as to comply with hazard assessment, management, and 

prevention program activities. Although currently covered sources already have a risk management 

program in place, these sources are expected to review and update it for any changes made and to 

resubmit the RMP on their resubmission deadline. For RMP-covered sources that are also covered under 

the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard, which requires virtually identical activities as are 

required under Subparts C and D of Part 68 for Program level 3 sources, the burden associated with

ongoing prevention program activities accrues to OSHA PSM rather than this ICR. Therefore, burden 

hours reported by PSM-covered sources consider only burden hours required to comply with Part 68 

requirements beyond those of OSHA PSM (e.g., hazard assessment, RMP submission, etc.). 

3(c) Public Notice

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

the public through the Federal Register notice on the renewal of this ICR on February 16, 2012 (77 FR

9237). EPA did not receive any comments. 

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.

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, EPA’s implementing rule requires sources to update PHAs 

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 regulation for the risk management plan 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 confidential business information.

(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 information 
6

collection requested 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/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. Based on submissions of RMPs, the rule applies to 

manufacturers (i.e., sources categorized in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes 31-33), as well as some non-manufacturers, 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 April 2012, approximately 12,800 sources are currently subject to 40 CFR part 68 

requirements. RMPs are due every five years. The first submission was June 21, 1999. The second and 

third submissions were received in June 2004 and June 2009, respectively. The fourth five-year 

resubmission deadline is June 21, 2014, which is in the final year covered by this ICR. As mentioned in 

the previous section of this document, some covered sources re-submitted their RMPs for various reasons 

specified in 40 CFR 68.190 prior to the next scheduled five-year submission deadline, therefore, EPA 

assigned to these sources a new five-year deadline, which is not necessarily the original deadline specified 

in part 68 (i.e., June 21). So, for some sources who have made off-cycle resubmissions, their next fiveyear resubmission deadline may fall in the first two years of this ICR period. Of the total universe of 

sources currently covered under the RMP rule , 1,045 have a resubmission deadline in the first year of this 

ICR period (Jan to Dec 2012), 1,015 sources have a resubmission deadline in the second year and 6,760 

sources have a resubmission deadline in the third year covered by this ICR. At the time of the publication 

of this ICR, approximately 380 sources had overdue resubmissions (i.e., these sources had not 

resubmitted their RMPs by their last five-year resubmission deadline, and had not submitted a 

deregistration notice to the Agency). The remaining sources covered under part 68 (3614 sources) have 

resubmission deadlines beyond the period covered by this ICR. EPA estimates that half of the overdue 

sources will resubmit during this ICR period, and that the other half of the overdue sources are in fact no 

longer covered under part 68 and will submit a deregistration notice to the Agency. Based on the number 

of new sources that reported between 2007 and 2009, EPA estimates that approximately 934 new sources

may comply with the regulation during this three-year ICR period, or an average of approximately 311

each year. 

During the period covered by this ICR, approximately 15 State and local agencies will maintain a

delegation of authority from EPA to implement the RMP program. These 15 agencies are expected to 

carry out their implementing functions each year covered by this ICR. 

As mentioned above, although only 9,010 sources have a resubmission deadline in the three years 

covered by this ICR (including half of the sources with a currently overdue resubmission), approximately 

934 new sources are expected to comply with the rule during this ICR period, and approximately 3614 

additional sources (i.e., currently covered sources with resubmission deadlines beyond this ICR period) 
7

will be required to maintain on-site documentation. Most sources will also be required to conduct 

prevention program activities, although for sources covered under the OSHA PSM standard, the burden 

associated with those activities does not accrue to this ICR. 

Therefore, the total number of respondents for this ICR (for three years) is 13,573, which 

includes currently covered sources with resubmission deadlines within this ICR period, covered sources

with resubmission deadlines beyond this ICR period who are required to continue to comply with 

prevention program activities, new sources expected to be in compliance during this ICR period, sources 

that are currently out of compliance but that may be in compliance in this ICR period, and the delegated

implementing agencies. Exhibit 1 shows the number of sources that have resubmission deadlines from 

January 2012 to December 2016. Exhibit 2 shows the number of new sources expected to be in 

compliance this ICR period. 

Petitions

Any person may petition EPA to modify, by addition or deletion, the list of regulated substances. 

Potential petitioners are likely to include environmental groups, industry, and state and local agencies. 

Due to the nature of their activities, the chemical manufacturing sector is likely to be the primary industry 

producing, using, or storing listed regulated substances affected by the petition process. Since the list rule 

was promulgated in January 1994, however, only one petition has been submitted to EPA; this petition 

was withdrawn. Based on this record, EPA assumes that no additional petitions will be submitted in the 

period covered by this ICR.

4(b) Information Requested

Data requirements and respondent activities vary by program level. Program 1 requires the least 

amount of data and time from respondents, while Program 3 requires the most. Sources with Program 3 

processes are those that do not meet Program 1 but are subject to OSHA’s PSM standard, or those with 

any of the ten NAICS codes listed in section 68.10(d)(1). Program 2 processes are those that do not meet 

Program 1 or 3 eligibility requirements. See section 68.10 for more detailed description of each Program. 

All sources are required to update and submit every five years an RMP that includes basic facility 

data, an executive summary, five-year accident history, data on the worst-case release scenarios (at least 

one for toxics and one for flammables), and data on emergency response regardless of their program 

classification. In addition, Program 2 and 3 sources must also submit data on alternative release scenarios 

(one for each toxic and one for flammables) and their prevention programs (by process). If a change at 

the source (e.g., a substantial change in the quantity held, a major modification of a covered process)

meets one or more of the conditions specified in section 68.190(b), the RMP must be revised and 

resubmitted. Depending on the event that triggers the need for an update, the source must resubmit the 

revised RMP either before the change is implemented (e.g., the addition of a new regulated substance) or 

within six months of the change (e.g., a major process modification).

(i) Data Items

Risk Management Plans

Registration. Sources must submit the following information to EPA in the registration section 

of the RMP:

• Name and location of the stationary source, and latitude and longitude, as well as the 
8

method used to determine the latitude and longitude and an indication of the specific 

location at the source that it represents;

• The name, telephone number, and mailing address of the owner/operator of the source;

• Name and title or position of the person responsible for RMP implementation at the 

source;

• Name, title, phone number, 24-hour telephone number and the email address of the 

emergency contact at the source;

• Name, the mailing address, and the telephone number of the contractor who prepared the 

RMP (if any);

• The source’s (and parent company’s, if applicable) Dun and Bradstreet number, which is 

a common identifier for sources and would allow EPA to cross-reference the data with 

other EPA databases;

• For each covered process, the names, CAS numbers, and quantities (to two significant 

digits) of all regulated substances and the applicable NAICS code(s);

• Number of full-time employees at the source;

• Whether the source is covered under the OSHA PSM program and EPCRA 302;

• The sources CAA Title V permit number (if applicable); and

• The type of and reason for any changes being made to a previously submitted RMP;

Voluntary data elements that may be provided as part of the registration include the LEPC for the 

planning district in which the source is located and, to support communication with the public, a public 

contact phone number for the source, the www homepage address of the source or its parent company, 

and the e-mail address of the source.

Program 1. Sources with Program 1 processes are required to prepare an executive summary and 

include a five-year accident history and emergency response data in their RMP. In addition, for Program 

1 processes, owners/operators are required to document the worst-case release in the RMP and certify 

that: 

(1) Their worst-case release would not reach any public receptors; 

(2) The process has had no accidents in the previous five years that resulted in certain 

impacts offsite; and 

(3) No additional measures are necessary to prevent offsite impacts from accidental releases.

(4) In the event of fire, explosion, or a release of a regulated substance from the process(es), 

entry within the distance to the specified endpoints may pose a danger to public

emergency responders. Therefore, public emergency responders should not enter this area 

except as arranged with the emergency contact indicated in the RMP. 
9

Programs 2 and 3. Sources with Program 2 and Program 3 processes are required to submit an 

RMP that includes the following information: 

• An executive summary;

• A five-year accident history for each incident that caused specific on-site or offsite impacts from 

a release of a regulated substance held above its threshold in a covered process; 

• The results of the offsite consequence analysis (OCA) (worst-case and alternative release 

scenarios);

• Information concerning the prevention program and process hazards, controls, mitigation 

systems, and detection systems identified during the PHA or hazard review for each covered 

process;

• Information concerning emergency response steps and coordination with the LEPC plan; and

• Certification of the accuracy of the information submitted.

The requested information in the RMP is critical in assisting government agencies in assessing 

the quality and thoroughness of a source’s prevention, detection, and response program. The information 

will assist agencies in identifying sources that should be visited to ensure safe source operations.

Deregistration. Sources that are no longer subject to Part 68 are required to notify EPA in 

writing within six months of the date on which they are no longer covered.

Risk Management Programs

Prevention Program Documentation

All covered sources with Program 2 or 3 processes will need to conduct and document a 

compliance audit within the three-year period of this ICR. All previously covered sources are assumed to 

incur costs for accident investigation. Other on-going costs for documentation for Program 2 processes 

are for keeping the safety information and operating procedures up-to-date. For Program 3 processes,

most on-going costs of keeping Process Safety Information (PSI) and Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOPs) up-to date, documenting refresher training, training of new employees, maintenance, and 

management of change accrue to the OSHA PSM rule. Any source that has an emergency response plan is 

subject to OSHA HAZWOPER; all costs for updating the plan accrue to the OSHA rule. Only chemical 

wholesalers are expected to change their OCAs over the three-year period. The documentation for those 

costs is considered in the RMP costs.

Program 1. New Program 1 sources will need to maintain only on-site records of their worstcase release analysis, and their simplified RMP. Maintaining copies of these submissions is expected to 

require no additional effort by these sources. 

Program 2. New Program 2 sources will need to maintain on-site records supporting the contents 

of their RMP and compliance with other rule requirements. These sources must also maintain records of 

any compliance audits performed and any accident investigation reports. 

The on-site documentation associated with the risk management program for Program 2 sources 
10

consists of information that will be generated automatically during the development of the hazard 

assessment, the SOPs, compliance audits, and safety information. Each required data item is an integral 

element of a good program; maintenance of these data on site will allow EPA or state or local authorities 

to conduct effective source audits without requiring submittal of sensitive business information. Under 

the requirements, Program 2 sources must maintain the following specific on-site documentation:

 Records of the hazard assessment, including data and assumptions used, and 

descriptions of alternative and worst-case release scenarios (updated once every 

five years);

 Documentation of the source’s management system for implementation of risk 

management program requirements.

 Applicable parameters and other documentation associated with the safety 

information requirements;

 Written operating procedures for each Program 2 process;

 Hazard review report using models, checklists, or What Ifs (updated once every 

five years); 

 Compliance audit reports; 

 The emergency response plan, including procedures for warning employees and 

the public, a list of response personnel and equipment, and response action 

procedures.

Program 3. EPA’s risk management program identifies specific information that Program 3 

sources are required to maintain on site, as well as specific information to be included in the RMP. Most 

Program 3 processes are covered by OSHA’s PSM program. Therefore, these sources are expected to 

incur the costs of maintaining on-site documentation for only those activities performed for processes and 

substances not already covered under OSHA’s PSM program. 

The on-site documentation consists of information that will be generated automatically during the 

development and performance of the hazard assessment, the PHA, safety information, the SOPs, the 

maintenance and training programs, compliance audits, management of change, accident investigations, 

and emergency response. On-site documentation for Program 3 sources will include the following:

Records of the hazard assessment, including data and assumptions used, and descriptions of 

alternative and worst-case release scenarios (updated once every five years);

Documentation of the source’s management system for implementation of risk management 

program requirements.

Chemical and process information, including equipment specifications, and diagrams of 

equipment, piping, pumps, valves, controls, and instrumentation (P&IDs) for each Program 

3 process; 

Process hazard analysis report and management steps to address identified hazards (updated 

once every five years); 
11

Written operating procedures for each Program 3 process; 

Records of all training programs;

Records of the maintenance program, including inspection and testing schedules; 

Procedures for conducting pre-startup reviews; 

Procedures used for managing changes in processes, operations, and procedures; 

Compliance audit reports; 

Accident investigation procedures.

The emergency response plan, including procedures for warning employees and the public, a list 

of response personnel and equipment, and response action procedures.

All information cited above is integral to an efficient and effective risk management program. 

Sources and processes covered by OSHA’s rule are already required to maintain all of this information 

(except the hazard assessment and management system) on site and are assumed to incur only the 

additional costs to maintain on-site records of the hazard assessment and management system. For

example, there are assumed to be no additional costs associated with developing pre-startup review and 

management of change procedures because all Program 3 sources are already required to have such 

procedures in place under the OSHA PSM program. Any source that has an emergency response plan is 

subject to 29 CFR 1910.120, all costs for updating the plan accrue to the OSHA rule. 

Confidential Business Information

Section 68.210 provides that information will be available to the public under CAA section

114(c), which provides for protection of trade secrets. To clarify procedures for submitting RMPs that 

contain confidential business information (CBI), EPA added two sections to the rule. In general, 

however, the rules governing CBI that already exist in 40 CFR part 2 will also apply and provide 

procedures for determining the appropriateness of CBI claims as well as the substantive criteria that must 

be met to assert such claims. Based on the CBI claims that we received for the reporting year 2004, we 

expect only 35 CBI claims for the three years covered by this ICR.

To qualify for CBI protection, the substantive criteria set forth at 40 CFR 2.301 must be met. 

These criteria generally require that the data not be available to the public through other means, that the 

source take appropriate steps to prevent disclosure, and that disclosure of the data would be likely to 

cause substantial harm to the source’s competitive position.

To assert a CBI claim, a source is required to submit a sanitized version of its RMP, which would 

then become part of the RMP database. The sanitized version will identify each data element, except 

chemical identity, claimed as CBI by the notation “CBI” in the data field. For chemical identity, the 

source is required to provide a generic chemical category or class name in lieu of the actual chemical 

name. At the same time, the source is also required to submit to EPA the data claimed as confidential on 

a separate, paper form. The source must also substantiate why each item claimed as CBI meets CBI 

criteria. Substantiation information may be claimed as CBI; if all or part of the substantiation is claimed 

as CBI, a sanitized version of substantiation must also be filed with EPA. Review of the CBI claims will 

be handled as provided for in 40 CFR part 2.
12

Claiming data as CBI must be done at the time of submittal. The source’s owner, operator, or 

senior official is required to certify the accuracy of the CBI substantiation claims.

Petitions

Any person may petition the Administrator to modify, by addition or deletion, the list of regulated 

substances in 40 CFR 68.130. Based on the information presented by the petitioner, EPA may grant or 

deny a petition. Under § 68.120(g), all petitions must contain the following information:

 Name and address of the petitioner and a brief description of the organization(s) that the 

petitioner represents, if applicable;

 Name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for the petition;

 Common chemical name(s), common synonym(s), Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) 

number(s), and chemical formula and structure;

 Action requested (addition or deletion of a substance);

 Rationale supporting the petitioner’s position — how the substance meets the criteria for 

addition or deletion. A short summary of the rationale must be submitted along with a 

more detailed narrative; and

 Supporting data — the petition must include sufficient information to scientifically 

support the request to modify the list. EPA believes that the information required to be 

submitted in support of a petition is the minimum information that would enable the 

Agency to determine whether to grant or deny a petition within the 18-month time frame. 

The information must include:

-- A list of all supporting documents;

-- Documentation of literature searches conducted, including, but not limited to, 

identification of the database(s) searched, the search strategy, dates covered, and 

printed results;

-- Effects data (animal, human, and environmental test data) indicating the potential 

for death, injury, or serious adverse human and environmental impacts from 

acute exposure following an accidental release. Printed copies of the data 

sources, in English, should be provided; and

-- Exposure data or previous release accident history data indicating the potential 

for serious adverse human health or environmental effects from accidental 

releases. These data might include, but are not limited to, physical and chemical 

properties of the substance (such as vapor pressure); modeling results (including 

data and assumptions used and model documentation); and historical accident 

data, citing data sources.

(ii) Respondent Activities
13

Rule Familiarization

All newly affected sources are expected to spend time to read and understand the requirements 

when they first become subject to part 68. Burden for currently covered sources for rule familiarization 

was included in previous ICRs. 

Risk Management Programs and Plans

Deregistration. Any source that is no longer subject to Part 68 is required to notify EPA in 

writing within six months of the date on which they are no longer covered. 

Program 1. Burden for new sources to prepare and submit a RMP is included in this ICR. 

Burden for existing program 1 sources that will be resubmitting their RMP in 2012, 2013, or 2014 is 

included in this ICR. New and existing sources are required to maintain records supporting the 

implementation of the risk management program.

Program 2. Program 2 sources incur the burden of preparing or revising an RMP and 

maintaining specific on-site documentation of the items listed in the previous section. The burden 

estimates for preparing the RMP and maintaining on-site documentation for sources with Program 2 

processes are presented in section 6(a) of this ICR. 

Program 3. Program 3 sources will incur the burden of assembling information for the purpose 

of maintaining on-site documentation (except that already required under OSHA PSM) and preparing and 

submitting an RMP. 

Confidential Business Information

Based on the CBI claims received for reporting years 1999, 2004, and 2009, EPA believes that a 

few sources with processes in Program 2 and Program 3 may seek to claim certain RMP information as 

confidential business information during the June 21, 2014 resubmission deadline. The activities required 

for such sources include the preparation of a sanitized RMP (estimated as described above for all sources) 

and a substantiation of the claim for each data element (and potentially the substantiation itself) claimed 

as confidential, the list of unsanitized data elements and the submission of these documents to EPA at the 

time of the submission of RMP. Burden estimates for these activities are presented in section 6(a) of this 

ICR. 

Petitions

To submit a petition to modify the list of regulated substances, a petitioner would be expected to perform 

the following activities:

 Read EPA guidance document and consult with EPA;

 Plan activities;

 Prepare literature search;

 Conduct literature search;

 Process information;

 Review and focus information;

 Write petition;

 Review and edit petition; and

 Submit petition to EPA and file.
14

The burden estimates developed for these activities are presented in section 6(a) of this ICR.

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

The burden and cost estimates developed for the following state and local government activities 

are presented in section 6(b) of this ICR.

Program Management

Approximately 15 State and local agencies have been approved to serve as the implementing 

agencies for part 68. We do not expect any more agencies seeking delegation to implement the program 

during the period of this ICR. These agencies will be required to implement and enforce the program for 

all or some of the sources in their states. Implementing agencies will need to keep records of reviews, 

audits, and inspections conducted, any administrative and legal actions taken, and other correspondence 

between the agency and sources, other agencies, EPA, and the public. Implementing agencies will also 

need to document their budgets, for internal purposes, and any agreements they reach with other state, 

local, or federal agencies. To receive delegation of the program from EPA, a state must be able to show 

that it has the personnel and other resources to perform these tasks. 

During the period covered by this ICR, we expect that all 15 agencies will be implementing the 

program each year.

Burden to the Federal Government

The burden estimates developed for the following federal government activities are presented in

section 6(c) of this ICR.

Federal Program Management

EPA will serve as the implementing agency for any state that does not seek or is not granted 

delegation. EPA will need to keep records of reviews, audits, and inspections conducted, any 

administrative and legal actions taken, and other correspondence between the agency and sources, other 

agencies, and the public. EPA will also need to document its budgets, for internal purposes, and any 

agreements it reaches with other state, local, or federal agencies.

Risk Management Plans

In 1999, at the RMP program’s inception, EPA developed and made available a suite of software 

applications which perform various functions to assist with the RMP program. They included

RMP*Submit, a software application that created an electronic file for submission of a diskette or CD in 

the mail. In 2009, EPA replaced RMP*Submit with a new RMP submission system named 

RMP*eSubmit that allows sources to submit their RMP directly to EPA over the Internet. RMP*eSubmit

includes pick lists for chemical names, LEPCs, and certain other data elements from which a source may 

choose. EPA has made the system and accompanying documentation available via its web site. EPA also 

accepts RMPs on a paper form, although fewer than 3 % of RMP facilities file on paper. 
15

Other RMP software applications allow processing of the RMPs and creation of a database, 

functions performed by contractors who operate the RMP Reporting Center to which facilities 

electronically submit their RMPs. The suite of applications also includes RMP*Info, a database with 

extracts from the main RMP database and query functions; and RMP*Review, software to assist in 

querying the database. 

The Agency performs the following activities:

• Makes the RMP submission system, database, software and forms available;

• Processes the RMPs submitted by sources into a database and makes the information 

available through various means; 

• Answers any questions from sources concerning the submission process; 

• Processes any claims of confidential business information; 

• Notifies each submitter of the status of their RMP;

• Stores RMP submissions and retrieves information;

• Provides technical assistance to sources; and

• Maintains the RMP database.

RMPs are electronically submitted to a contractor operating the reporting center that EPA has 

established. The reporting center processes electronically submitted RMPs and manually enters RMPs 

submitted on paper. The center also responds to questions from sources and handles any CBI 

information. 

In 2009, EPA made available a new web-based submission tool, RMP*eSubmit, to replace the 

original RMP*Submit downloadable application which allowed mailed diskettes. The web-based system 

reduces burden for facilities by simplifying the RMP submission process. It also has improved data 

quality and security. 

EPA has also provided web-based access to the database by Federal, state and local government 

officials through RMP*Info now available via the Agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). 

Petitions

We do not expect any petitions during this ICR period. However, for any petition submitted 

under 40 CFR 68.120, EPA would perform the following activities:

 Answer respondent’s questions;

 Review petition for completeness; 

 Publish notice of petition receipt and request for comments;

 Review data submissions;

 Record or enter the data submissions;

 Store the data; and 

 Prepare and publish the final decision.
16

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

Respondents complete an RMP electronically or on paper. EPA manages the data as discussed 

above.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The rule includes several measures to reduce the burden to small entities. Most sources subject to 

Program 3 requirements are already required to comply with the OSHA PSM program. These sources 

therefore have already completed the prevention program elements specified in Subpart D of 40 CFR part 

68. 

All other small sources face reduced requirements under Programs 1 and 2. In addition, the 

quantity of information submitted in the RMP and the associated burden varies with the size of the source 

(i.e., smaller sources would generally have a lower burden). EPA has developed industry-specific 

guidance documents to help smaller sources comply with the rule. Therefore, the RMP regulations do not 

impose a disproportionate burden of compliance on small sources.

Also, as mentioned in the end of section 1 of this document, the RMP online reporting system

(RMP*eSubmit) was made available in 2009. This reduced burden for small entities since the 

information reported is more easily available to make any changes and resubmit on-line rather than 

printing and/or mailing in diskettes with the changes. 

5(d) Collection Schedule

 

Risk Management Plans. Sources with more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a 

process were required to be in compliance with the risk management program beginning June 21, 1999. 

Compliance includes, among other things, submitting an RMP to EPA by the initial compliance date and

at least every five years thereafter. After submitting an RMP, a source must update it by the time it adds a 

new (to the source) listed substance in a process above a threshold quantity or for other reasons and 

within the timeframes specified in 40 CFR 68.190. Otherwise, sources are required to resubmit their 

RMP within five years of their last submittal even if no RMP data were to change during the five-year 

period.

Petitions. Each petitioner need only submit information once in support of a petition.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

The unit burden applied to various sectors is based on the complexity of the processes at the 

sources. Exhibits 3 to 6 show the unit burden for currently covered and new sources. 

6(a) Respondent Burden

Because of the schedule for certain activities established in Part 68, some costs do not occur in 

the three-year time period covered by this ICR. In this ICR period, most of the currently covered sources 

(approx. 8,820 sources) will be resubmitting their RMPs according to their scheduled resubmission

deadline. These sources will update their process hazard analyses, hazard reviews, offsite consequence 

analyses, etc. The burden incurred by sources that resubmit their RMPs in the two years after this ICR 

period (3,614 sources) will consist of complying with some of the prevention program, hazard 

assessment, and management system elements during this ICR period. Although these sources submitted 

their RMPs prior to this ICR period, some of the program elements (e.g., compliance audits, refresher 

training for their employees, etc.) will be conducted during this ICR period. Also, as mentioned in 

section 1 of this document, this ICR will also include burden incurred by any new facilities that may 
17

become subject to the regulations. The record keeping and reporting costs for Part 68 will fluctuate 

considerably from ICR to ICR.

Respondent Burden for Rule Familiarization (New Sources)

The burden associated with rule familiarization was estimated in previous ICRs for those sources 

that are currently subject to the regulations. This ICR only estimates rule familiarization burden for any 

new sources that may become subject to the regulations during the period covered by this ICR. Based on 

the data of the new sources submitted from 2007 to 2009 (reporting year), EPA estimates that the number 

of new sources in this ICR period will be 934, or an average of approximately 311 annually. Exhibit 2 

shows the number of new sources expected to be in compliance in this ICR period. The number of new 

sources estimated in each category (manufacturers/non-manufactures, PSM/non-PSM) is calculated based 

on the number of new sources that submitted RMPs from 2007 to 2009. 

The new sources are estimated to be mainly small to medium-sized facilities in the nonmanufacturing sectors. The distribution of new sources among various sectors is similar to previous 

ICRs, and the unit burden is applied to these sectors as in previous ICRs. The unit burden for rule 

familiarization for new sources is estimated to range from 12 to 32 hours for the various sectors covered 

by the regulations. The total annual burden for all new sources to become familiar with the rule is 

estimated to be 3,903 hours at a cost of $206,449 dollars (11,708 hours at a cost of $619,348 for three 

years) (Exhibits 8 and 12).

Respondent Burden for Initial RMP Preparation and Submission (New Sources)

Exhibit 3 presents the estimated unit burden hours for preparing and submitting an RMP for new 

sources that may be subject to the regulations during the period covered by this ICR. As stated above, 

based on the RMPs submitted between 2007 and 2009, about 311 new sources will submit RMPs 

annually. Based on the information provided by some of the sources that EPA contacted and the 

estimates developed in previous ICRs, the average unit burden to prepare and submit an RMP range from 

8.25 to 33 hours for the various sectors covered by the regulations. The total annual burden for new 

sources for preparing and submitting an RMP is estimated to be 7,000 hours at a cost of $179,235 dollars 

(21,000 hours at a cost of $537,705 dollars for three years) (Exhibits 8 and 12).

Respondent Burden for Prevention Program (New Sources)

New sources also have costs for developing documentation for prevention program elements. 

Estimates of the respondent burden hours for maintaining on-site documentation vary, depending on the 

size of the source and the complexity of the on-site processes as well as on whether the source is already 

covered by OSHA PSM rule. As stated in section 4(b)(i) of this document, these sources are expected to 

incur the costs of maintaining on-site documentation for only those activities performed for processes and 

substances not covered under OSHA’s PSM program. EPA developed an estimate based on the number 

of PSM and non-PSM sources currently subject to the regulations to estimate how many new sources will 

be in these categories. The estimated unit burden for prevention program activities for new sources 

ranges from 7 to 188 hours (see Exhibit 4). The total annual burden for the new sources to comply with 

prevention program is estimated to be 27,100 hours at a cost of $403,862 dollars (81,300 hours at a cost 

of $1,211,587 dollars for three years) (Exhibits 8 and 12). 

RMP Submission, Prevention Program Documentation (currently covered sources with 

resubmission deadlines in this ICR period)

Initial RMPs were submitted in June 1999 and second and third submission deadlines were 2004
18

and 2009 (five and ten years after the initial submission) for most facilities. As mentioned in the previous 

sections of this document, many sources re-submitted their RMP in-between the five-year regulatory 

resubmission deadlines. Therefore, these sources were assigned a new off-cycle five-year submission 

deadline. Adding new processes or other changes at these sources resulted in the revision and resubmission of the RMP. Therefore, although the total RMP universe is approximately 12,800, only 

8,820 sources have to resubmit their RMPs during this ICR period.

As mentioned earlier in this document, EPA contacted several sources that resubmitted RMPs for 

the 2009 reporting year regarding the burden imposed to revise and re-submit their RMP. See Section 

3(b) of this document. EPA contacted small, medium and large sources in various sectors. The unit 

burden for RMP submission and prevention program documentation are shown in exhibit 6.

The total number of burden hours for the 8,820 sources to resubmit RMPs in this ICR period is 

21,134 hours annually at a cost of $1,156,531 ( 63,402 hours at a cost of $3,469,593 for three years). 

The total number of hours for the 8,820 sources to comply with prevention program documentation is 

8,215 hours annually at a cost of $2,862,361 (24,646 hours at a cost of $8,587,083 for three years) 

(Exhibits 9 and 13). 

Prevention Program Documentation (currently covered sources with resubmission deadlines in 

2015 and 2016)

These sources have submitted their RMPs prior to this ICR period since they were assigned a 

five-year resubmission deadline based on their last re-submission date. So, these sources are only 

required to conduct certain on-site activities of their prevention program (compliance audits, refresher 

training, etc) in this ICR period. Some of the prevention program elements must be conducted annually 

or every three years. EPA encourages sources to review all the prevention program elements and update 

them periodically even where this is not required to be done on any specific deadline or schedule. 

As above, estimates of the respondent burden hours for conducting prevention program activities 

and maintaining on-site documentation vary, depending upon the size of the source and the complexity of 

on-site processes as well as whether the source is already covered by the OSHA PSM rule. However, 

EPA assumes that sources with resubmission deadlines beyond this ICR period may only use half of the 

time on these activities as compared to the time used by sources with resubmission deadlines within this 

ICR period . 

For the 3,614 sources that have resubmission deadlines in 2015 and 2016, the total number of 

hours for prevention program documentation is 2,977 hours annually at a cost of $1,389,020 ( 8,932 

hours at a cost of $4,167,060 for three years) (Exhibits 9 and 13).

Overdue Sources (expected to be in compliance this ICR period)

There are 381 sources that have not submitted their RMPs on their assigned resubmission

deadline as of the date of this ICR. EPA assumes that approximately half of these may be no longer 

subject to 40 CFR part 68 requirements, and that the other half of these sources (190) will resubmit their 

RMPs in this ICR period. 

The total number of hours estimated for 190 sources to resubmit their RMP is 446 hours at a cost 

of $23,929 annually (1,337 hours at a cost of $71,788 for three years). The total number of hours 

estimated for 190 sources to comply with prevention program and documentation requirements is 297

hours at a cost of $57,063 (891 hours at a cost of $171,191 for three years) (Exhibits 9 and 13).
19

Respondent Burden for Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims

The requirement that substantiation for CBI claims be submitted with the claims will impose 

costs on those sources making the CBI claims. 

Previous ICRs estimated that the time required to develop and submit CBI substantiation is 9.5 

hours per claim. There have been no changes to these requirements, so the same estimates are used for 

this ICR. Exhibit 5 shows the unit burden for this activity. EPA received approximately 30 CBI claims 

for the previous reporting cycle (2009) for about 13,000 sources that submitted an RMP. EPA assumes 

the same for this ICR, which includes a primary reporting year (2014). For the estimated 30 sources 

preparing and submitting CBI claims, the estimated industry annual burden is 95 hours at cost of $6,845

(2,85 hours at a cost of $$20,534 for three years) (Exhibit 14).

Respondent Burden for Petitions

Since the list of chemicals was published in 1994, EPA only received one petition to remove a 

chemical from the list. The Agency does not expect to receive any petitions during the period covered by 

this ICR. Therefore, we did not account for any burden for filing petitions. 

De-registration

Based on the number of deregistration letters we have received in the last three years (1769), we 

estimate that approximately 590 sources may submit de-registration letters to EPA annually. Most of 

these sources are expected to be in the small/medium non-manufacturing sectors. The deregistration form 

letter is available on the RMP information website for download, or sources can create their own letter to 

be sent to EPA. We estimate that it takes 1 hour for the technical staff to produce the letter. The total 

annual burden for this activity is 590 hours at a cost of $24,490 annually (1,769 hours at a cost of $73,470

for three years). 

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs (Sources & State Implementing Agencies)

(i) Estimating Labor Costs

Sources

The estimated unit costs for private firms were based on three categories of labor (legal, 

managerial, and technical) and wage rates reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in its

December 2011 edition of Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. The wage rates include 

benefits, based on BLS data. Exhibit 7 provides the wage rates for various industries affected.

The estimated labor and wage rates for state employees were also based on managerial and 

technical wage rates as reported in Employer Cost for Employee Compensation, December, 2011. Costs 

for federal employees were based on the Federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Salary Table, 

effective January 2012.

Implementing Agency Costs 

Although EPA does not require states to obtain delegation to implement the part 68 program, to 

date, there are 15 state and local agencies that have delegation to implement the program. Since EPA will 

not be granting funds to states as part of the delegation process, the burden and cost that the states will 
20

incur is added to the respondent burden in this ICR. For the states that do not obtain delegation of the 

program, EPA will be the implementing agency. 

The Agency does not expect any new delegations for this ICR period. These 15 state and local 

agencies are expected to carry out the implementation duties during each year covered by this ICR. EPA 

will serve as the implementing agency for all other states. Implementing agencies are expected to review 

RMPs, audit RMPs, inspect sources, provide technical assistance, and conduct standard program 

management activities (e.g., developing budgets, filing administrative orders and enforcement actions). 

Initial reviews, which are first checks of the RMPs to identify any problems (e.g., clear inconsistencies in 

reported data, failure to list obvious hazards such as flammability for a listed flammable) are estimated to 

require one to five hours, depending on the number and complexity of processes covered in the RMP. 

Audits are assumed to be detailed reviews of the RMPs, requiring from two to twelve hours per RMP; 

audits require technical staff capable of identifying data that may indicate safety problems (e.g., failure to 

report chemical or process hazards, which could indicate an inadequate PHA, or lack of normal process 

controls, which could indicate either an incomplete RMP or inadequate safety practices). Audits may be 

totally off-site or may include a site visit to review documentation and other aspects of the program. The 

results of the audits will help select sources that may require inspection to determine whether the source is 

in compliance with the rule and operating safely. Initial reviews are expected to take 1 to 5 hours, audits 

of the RMPs are expected to take 2 to 12 hours. Inspections are site visits to review the activities and 

documentation. Inspections are estimated to take 8 to 50 hours. Report writing is assumed to take 12.5 

percent of the inspections and recordkeeping related to this is assumed to take 10 percent of the 

inspection. There are a total of 2,123 sources under these 15 agencies, averaging each to have 142

sources. The implementing agencies are expected to complete inspections of all sources within their 

jurisdiction in five years which means each will have to review RMPs, inspect the facility, etc., for 

approximately 28 sources per year. This ICR accounts for any reporting and recordkeeping burden and 

costs related to inspection. For each agency, it will take 586 hours annually at a cost of $28,428. The 

total annual hours for the 15 agencies is 8,789 hours at a cost of $426,426 (26,368 hours at a cost of 

$1,279,278 for three years).

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

Capital Costs (State and Local agencies)

Because RMPs will be available electronically and EPA will provide them to anyone who does 

not have Internet access, state and local agencies are expected to incur no capital costs related to RMPs. 

Implementing agencies will incur limited capital costs to maintain documents on program 

implementation. The paper files associated with these programs will be limited and will vary with the 

size of the regulated community overseen. Previous ICRs have calculated the required amount of file 

cabinets for the states. File cabinets are expected to last for at least 15 years. Therefore, the Agency will 

not be accounting costs for any file cabinets in this ICR.

Operating & Maintenance Costs (Sources)

This section considers capital or startup costs, annual operating and maintenance costs, or costs 

for services, such as consultant services, incurred by respondents for the collection of information.

Sources are not required or expected to use consultants to prepare and submit their RMP or their 

on-site documentation. The RMP program has been specifically designed, by simplifying the 

requirements and allowing sources to use prepared forms and models, to eliminate the need for sources to 

use consultants to meet the requirements of this program.
21

Sources are required to submit the data electronically on line. EPA has developed an on-line 

reporting system to submit the RMP, at no cost to the regulated community. Most sources already have 

access to the Internet; therefore, the connection charge associated with Internet access is not applied to 

this ICR. 

In previous ICRs, EPA estimated mailing costs as part of operating costs. However, there are no 

such costs associated with this ICR since EPA requires all sources to submit their RMP on-line. 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

EPA developed a software system for submission of RMPs (RMP*Submit) at the inception of the 

RMP program in 1998. This software could be downloaded from the agency’s website; facilities created a 

file and mailed it on diskette or CD to the contractor-operated reporting center. This software was refined 

in 2004 at the first five-year reporting anniversary of the program, to accommodate regulatory changes 

introduced for that year. In 2009, for the second five-year reporting deadline, EPA introduced a webbased reporting application, RMP*eSubmit, which is the current system for submitting RMPs. Other 

parts of the suite of applications for the RMP system (SRMP) include RMP Maintain, an oracle 

application maintaining a secure database with complete RMP data. RMP*Review allows queries and 

program management for federal, state and local agencies and the public. RMP*Info is a user-friendly 

version of the database now available on the agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) that makes RMPs 

available to the government officials. Extramural costs for the software maintenance and development 

for the RMP program over the three year period covered by this ICR are estimated to be $2,837,250 

($945,750 annually).

To operate the records center, including answering questions from the public, entering paper 

submissions (if any) into the system etc, is estimated to be $2,522,000 over three years ($840,667 

annually).

As stated in section 6(b) of this document, for those states that are not delegated to implement the 

program, EPA will be the implementing agency for those sources in those states. Of the RMP universe, 

approximately 10,650 sources will be managed by EPA. Of these, EPA expects to audit and inspect only

approximately 5 percent of the sources annually during this ICR period. For reviewing an RMP, 

inspecting the source and preparing report, it takes an average of 20.7 hours per source. Total annual 

burden for all 10 Regions to inspect and prepare reports in this ICR period is estimated at 11,023 hours 

(or 33,068 hours for three years) at a cost of $537,080 annually (or $1,611,239 for three years).

The total Agency burden is thus $2,323,496 annually (or $6,970,489 total over the three-year 

period).

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

For this ICR period, there are a total of 13,558 sources and 15 implementing agencies. The 

number of sources change weekly and sometimes daily depending on how many new sources come into 

compliance, the number of RMP revisions and on how many sources de-register. Since the resubmission

deadline is every five years since 1999 and the next deadline is June 2014, the number of annual 

respondents during this ICR period only include new sources, sources that have been assigned a five-year 

resubmission deadline during the period of this ICR, sources that have a resubmission deadline two years 

after this ICR period (since these sources will be complying with certain prevention program activities in 

this ICR period) and the implementing agencies. The total number of annual respondents for this ICR 

period is 4,524.
22

Although not all covered sources will resubmit their RMPs during this ICR period, all sources are 

required to comply with certain documentation requirements. The burden hours and costs are developed 

for new sources to get familiar with the regulations, prepare and submit RMPs, develop prevention 

program documentation, and CBI submissions. For existing sources, we have estimated burden hours and 

costs for revising RMPs (for some sources) and to maintain documentation for the prevention program. 

The total annual burden for sources is 71,757 hours at a cost of $6,309,786 (or 215,270 hours at a cost of 

$18,929,358 for three years). See Exhibit 14.

During the period covered by this ICR, there are 15 state and local agencies to implement the 

RMP program in their states. We assume that these 15 agencies will carry out their functions every year 

covered by this ICR. The total annual burden for 15 agencies to implement the program is 8,789 hours at 

a cost of $426,426 (or 26,368 hours at a cost of $1,279,278 for three years). See section 6(b)(i) of this

document and Exhibit 14.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Exhibits 8, 9, 12 and 13 present the estimated total hours and costs for all sources for the three 

years covered by this ICR. The summary is presented in Exhibit 14.

Annual Respondent Burden & Cost

Sources State Agencies TOTAL

Responses 4,524 15 4,539

Hours 71,757 8,789 80,546

Costs $6,309,786 $426,426 $6,736,212

The total annual estimated cost to EPA for all activities is estimated to be $2,323,496. Most of the 

burden incurred by EPA is for managing RMPs.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

There is a decrease of 13,436 hours for all sources and states from the previous ICR. There are 

two primary reasons for this decrease in burden. First, as explained in section 1 of this document, the 

burden varies from ICR to ICR due to different resubmission deadlines based on the sources’ RMP resubmission deadline and other regulatory deadlines. Therefore, the burden changes each year depending 

on how many sources have to submit their RMP and comply with certain prevention program 

requirements. Second, as mentioned in section 6(d), the number of sources subject to the regulations 

fluctuates regularly, and is lower than in the previous ICR (13,718 sources in the previous ICR vs 13,558 

in this ICR period). 

6(g) Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 18 hours per response. The public reporting burden will depend on the size of 

the sources complying with 40 CFR part 68 requirements. In this ICR, the public reporting burden for 

rule familiarization for new sources is estimated to range from 12 to 32 hours per source. The public 

reporting burden to prepare and submit a RMP for new sources is estimated to range from 8.25 to 33 

hours. The public reporting burden for new sources to develop a prevention program is estimated to 

range from 7 to 188 hours per source. The public reporting burden for those sources that claim CBI is 

estimated to be 9.5 hours per source. The public reporting burden for currently covered sources to 

prepare and submit RMP is estimated to range from 5 to 28 hours. The public record keeping burden to 
23

maintain on-site documentation for currently covered sources is estimated to range from 4.5 to 124 hours. 

The total annual public reporting burden for all sources is 71,757 hours (215,267 hours over three years). 

The total annual burden estimated for 15 implementing agencies is 8,789 hours (26,367 hours for three 

years). Therefore, the total annual burden for all sources and states is estimated to be 80,546 hours 

(241,637 hours 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 control number. The 

OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

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

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

collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPAHQ -OAR-2003-0052, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person 

viewing at the Air & Radiation Docket in 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 Air & Radiation 

Docket is (202) 566-1742. 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-OAR-2003-0052 and OMB Control Number 2050-0144 in 

any correspondence.
24

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT 1

Currently Covered Sources with submission deadlines January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016

Manufacturers Non-Manufacturers

PSM Non-PSM PSM Non-PSM

Year Large S/M Large S/M Large S/M Large S/M Total

2012 53 257 1 22 15 327 0 370 1045

2013 53 243 1 17 23 278 2 398 1015

2014 287 1280 4 134 77 1719 3 3256 6760

2015 106 441 3 39 28 600 0 716 1933

2016 98 427 3 38 32 547 1 535 1681

Total 12434

EXHIBIT 2

Number of New Sources expected to be in compliance this ICR Period

Manufacturers Non-Manufacturers

PSM Non-PSM PSM Non-PSM

Year Large S/M Large S/M Large S/M Large S/M

2012 3 94 0 8 5 97 0 67 

2013 4 116 1 7 9 123 0 95 

2014 3 66 0 9 0 124 0 103 

Total 10 276 1 24 14 344 0 265 

Note: These estimates are based on the number of sources submitted in calendar year 2007 to 2009 (reporting year). This ICR period also includes a 

reporting year (2014).
25

EXIHIBIT 3

RULE FAMILIARIZATION and RMP SUBMISSION – Unit Burden

New Sources

Rule Familiarization RMP Preparation and Submission

Management Technical Management Technical

Small/Medium Manufacturers 4 8 0.25 16

Large Manufacturers 8 24 1 32

Small/Medium Non-Manufacturers 4 8 0.25 8

Large Non-Manufacturers 8 24 0.5 12

EXIHIBIT 4

PREVENTION PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION – Unit Burden

New Sources

Management Technical

Small/Medium Manufacturers 2 48

Large Manufacturers 8 180

Small/Medium Non-Manufacturers 1 6

Large Non-Manufacturers 2 24

EXHITBIT 5

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – Unit Burden

Legal Management Technical

1 3 5.5
26

EXHIBIT 6

RMP SUBMISSION, PREVENTION PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION - Unit Burden

Currently covered sources

RMP Preparation and Submission Prevention Program Documentation

(Non-PSM sources)

Management Technical Management Technical

Small/Medium 

Manufacturers

1 9 1 32

Large Manufacturers 4 24 4 120

Small/Medium NonManufacturers

1 4 0.5 4

Large NonManufacturers

2 6 1 16

Note: Prevention program documentation burden for sources that are covered by the OSHA PSM program is accounted for under OSHA PSM. 

EXHIBIT 7

WAGE RATES 

(including benefits)

Management Technical

Large Manufacturers $ 76.00 $ 71.00

Small/Medium Manufacturers $ 61.00 $ 56.00

Large Non-Manufacturers $ 72.00 $ 60.00

Small./Medium Non-Manufacturers $ 57.00 $ 45.00

State/Local $ 50.00 $ 49.00

Source: Bureau of Labor and Statistics, December, 2011
27

EXIHIBIT 8

TOTAL BURDEN – Three Years

(Hours)

New Sources

New Sources

Rule 

Familiarization

RMP Preparation 

& Submission

Prevention Program 

Documentation

(non-PSM) 

Manufacturers

Small/Medium 3,600 4,875 15,000 

Large 352 9,900 56,400

NonManufacturers

Small/Medium 7,308 2,475 2,100

Large 448 3,750 7,800

Total 11,708 21,000 81,300 114,008
28

EXHIBIT 9 

TOTAL BURDEN – Three Years

(Hours)

Currently Covered Sources, Overdue Sources

Currently Covered Sources 

(resubmission deadline 2012 to 

2014)

Overdue Sources (expected to 

resubmit in this ICR period)

Currently Covered 

Sources 

(resubmission

deadline 2015 and 

2016)

Total 

RMP 

Preparation &

Submission

Prevention 

Program 

documentation

(non-PSM)*

RMP 

Preparation &

Submission 

Prevention 

Program 

documentation 

(non-PSM)*

Prevention 

Program and 

documentation 

(non-PSM)*

Manufacturers

Small/Medium 19,530 5,709 530 462 2,541

Large 11,172 744 140 62 744

NonManufacturers

Small/Medium 31,740 18,108 655 358 5,630

Large 960 85 12 9 17

Total 63,402 24,646 1,337 891 8,932 99,208

*Note: Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program. 
29

EXHIBIT 10

Costs - Unit Burden

New Sources

New Sources

Rule Familiarization RMP Preparation & Submission Prevention Program and 

Documentation

(non-PSM)*

Manufacturers

Small/Medium $692.00 $911.25 $2,810.00

Large $2,312.00 $2,348.00 $13,388.00

NonManufacturers

Small/Medium $588.00 $374.25 $327.00

Large $2,016.00 $756.00 $1,584.00

*Note: Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program. 
30

EXHIBIT 11

Costs – Unit Burden 

Currently Covered Source, Overdue Sources

Currently Covered Sources 

(resubmission deadline 2012 to 

2014)

Overdue Sources (expected to 

resubmit in this ICR period)

Currently Covered 

Sources 

(resubmission

deadline 2015 and 

2016)

RMP 

Preparation &

Submission

Prevention 

Program and 

Documentation

(non-PSM)*

RMP 

Preparation &

Submission 

Prevention 

Program and 

Documentation 

(non-PSM)*

Prevention 

Program and 

Documentation 

(non-PSM)*

Manufacturers

Small/Medium $565.00 $1,853.00 $565.00 $1,853.00 $1,853.00

Large $2,008.00 $8,824.00 $2,008.00 $8,824.00 $8,824.00

NonManufacturers

Small/Medium $237.00 $208.50 $237.00 $208.50 $208.50

Large $504.00 $1,032.00 $504.00 $1,032.00 $1,032.00

*Note: Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program. 
31

EXHIBIT 12

TOTAL COSTS – Three Years

New Sources

Rule 

Familiarization

RMP Preparation 

& Submission

Prevention Program 

and Documentation

(non-PSM)*

Manufacturers

Small/Medium $207,600 $273,375 $843,000

Large $25,432 $25,828 $147,268

NonManufacturers

Small/Medium $358,092 $227,918 $199,143

Large $28,224 $10,584 $22,176

Total $619,348 $537,705 $1,211,587 $2,368,640

*Note: Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program. 
32

EXHIBIT 13

TOTAL COSTS – Three Years

Currently Covered Sources, Overdue Sources

Currently Covered Sources 

(resubmission deadline 2012 to 

2014)

Overdue Sources (expected to 

resubmit in this ICR period)

Currently 

Covered Sources 

(resubmission

deadline 2015 and 

2016)

Total 

RMP 

Preparation 

& 

Submission

Prevention 

Program and 

Documentation

(non-PSM)*

RMP 

Preparation 

& 

Submission 

Prevention 

Program and 

Documentation 

(non-PSM)*

Prevention 

Program and 

Documentation 

(non-PSM)*

Manufacturers

Small/Medium $1,103,445 $3,618,909 $29,945 $98,209 $1,751,085

Large $801,192 $3,520,776 $10,040 $44,120 $1,853,040

NonManufacturers

Small/Medium $1,504,476 $1,323,558 $31,047 $27,314 $499,983

Large $60,480 $123,840 $756 $1,548 $62,952

$3,469,593 $8,587,083 $71,788 $171,191 $4,167,060 $16,466,715

*Note: Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program. 
33

EXHIBIT 14

SUMMARY – TOTAL BURDEN and COSTS (Three Years)

Sources and Implementing Agencies

New 

Sources

Currently 

Covered 

Sources

(resubmission

deadline 2012

to 2014)

Currently 

Covered 

Sources 

(resubmission

deadline 2015, 

2016)

Overdue 

Sources 

expected to 

resubmit in this 

ICR period

CBI Claims De-Registration Implementing 

Agencies

Total

Total 

Burden 

(Hours)

114,008 88,048 8,932 2,228 285 1,769 26,368 241,637

Total Costs 

($)

$2,368,640 $12,056,676 $4,167,060 $242,979 $20,534 $73,470 $1,279,278 $20,208,636.00