28696 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 26, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[FRL–6348–2]

Accidental Release Prevention

Requirements: Risk Management

Programs Under Clean Air Act Section

112(r)(7); Amendments to the WorstCase Release Scenario Analysis for

Flammable Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This direct final action

amends the Chemical Accident

Prevention Provisions, also known as

the Risk Management Program (RMP)

regulations, codified in 40 CFR part 68.

The revisions concern the worst-case

release scenario analysis for regulated

flammable substances in 40 CFR 68.25.

EPA is issuing these revisions so that

the regulated community can treat

regulated flammable substances in the

same manner as regulated toxic

substances for determining the quantity

released when conducting a worst-case

release scenario analysis. EPA is taking

this direct final action pursuant to a

settlement agreement with the American

Petroleum Institute (API).

EPA is also clarifying its

interpretation of Clean Air Act sections

112(l) and 112(r)(11), as they relate to

Department of Transportation (DOT)

requirements under the Federal

Hazardous Materials Transportation

Law under a settlement agreement with

the Chlorine Institute (CI).

DATES: This rule is effective on June 21,

1999 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse comment by June 16,

1999 or, pursuant to CAA section

113(g), declines to finalize the

settlement agreement. If we receive such

comment, or decide to withdraw from

the settlement agreement, we will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Docket and Comments.

Docket No. A–99–15, containing

supporting information used to develop

these amendments, is available for

public inspection and copying from 8:00

a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday (except government holidays)

from EPA’s Air Docket, at Waterside

Mall, Room M1500, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, D.C., 20460, telephone

202–260–7548. Written comments

should be submitted to the same

address. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy

Jacob or John Ferris, Chemical

Emergency Preparedness and

Prevention Office, Environmental

Protection Agency (5104), 401 M Street

SW, Washington, D.C., 20460, (202)

260–7249 or (202) 260–4043,

respectively; or the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to-Know Hotline

at 800–424–9346 (in the Washington,

DC metropolitan area, (703) 412–9810).

You may wish to visit the Chemical

Emergency Preparedness and

Prevention Office (CEPPO) Internet site,

at www.epa.gov/ceppo.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are those stationary sources that

have more than a threshold quantity of

a regulated substance in a process.

Regulated categories and entities

include:

Category Example of regulated

entities

Petrochemical ........... Refineries, Plastics,

Resins.

Chemical Manufacturing.Organics.

This table is not meant to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers to indicate some of those

entities likely to be regulated by this

action. The table lists entities EPA is

aware of that could potentially be

regulated by this action. Other entities

not listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether a

stationary source is regulated by this

action, carefully examine the provisions

associated with the list of substances

and thresholds under § 68.130 and the

applicability criteria under § 68.10. If

you have questions regarding

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the hotline or

persons listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background

A. Statutory Authority

B. Background

C. RMP Rule Litigation

II. Discussion of Revisions to § 68.25

III. Clarification of Section 112(l) and

112(r)(11)

IV. Judicial Review

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Executive Order 12875

D. Executive Order 13045

E. Executive Order 13084

F. Regulatory Flexibility

G. Paperwork Reduction

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Introduction and Background

A. Statutory Authority

These amendments are being

promulgated under sections 112(r) and

301(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as

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

B. Background

The 1990 CAA Amendments added

section 112(r) to provide for the

prevention and mitigation of accidental

chemical releases. Section 112(r)

mandates that EPA promulgate a list of

‘‘regulated substances,’’ with ‘‘threshold

quantities’’. Processes at stationary

sources that contain a threshold

quantity of a regulated substance are

subject to accidental release prevention

regulations promulgated under CAA

section 112(r)(7). EPA promulgated the

list of regulated substances on January

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

and the accidental release prevention

regulations creating the risk

management program requirements on

June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668) (the ‘‘RMP

Rule’’). Together, these two rules are

codified at 40 CFR part 68. EPA has

since revised the rules in several

respects, and these revisions are

reflected in the most recent codification

of 40 CFR part 68.

Part 68 requires that any source with

more than a threshold quantity of a

regulated substance in a process

develop and implement a risk

management program that includes a

five-year accident history, offsite

consequence analyses, a prevention

program, and an emergency response

program. In part 68, processes are

divided into three categories (Programs

1 through 3). Processes that likely have

no potential impact on the public in the

case of accidental releases have minimal

requirements (Program 1). Processes in

Programs 2 and 3 have additional

requirements based on their potential

for offsite consequences as indicated by

worst-case accidental release analysis

and their accident history. Program 3 is

also triggered if the processes are subject

to OSHA’s Process Safety Management

(PSM) Standard. By June 21, 1999, any

source with more than a threshold

quantity of a regulated substance in a

process must submit to EPA a risk

management plan (RMP) that

summarizes their implementation of the

risk management program.

C. RMP Rule Litigation

The American Petroleum Institute

(API) and the Chlorine Institute (CI)

filed petitions for judicial review of the
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 26, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 28697

RMP Rule (The Chlorine Institute v.

EPA, No. 94–1279 (D.C. Cir.) and

consolidated cases (Nos. 96–1284, 96–

1288, 96–1289 & 96–1290)). In court

filings, API raised issues related to

worst-case release scenario analysis

(§ 68.25 of the rule) for flammables.

In the final RMP rule issued on June

20, 1996, § 68.25(e) states that when

conducting a worst-case scenario

analysis for flammables, the owner or

operator shall assume that the quantity

of the substance, as determined under

paragraph (b) of § 68.25, vaporizes,

resulting in a vapor cloud explosion.

This approach applies to all listed

flammable substances regardless of

whether the flammable substance is

normally a liquid or liquefied by

refrigeration. API suggested that

flammable liquids and those liquefied

by refrigeration should be treated, for

modeling purposes, in the same manner

as for toxic liquids or those liquefied by

refrigeration, as stated in § 68.25 (c) and

(d). EPA agreed that flammable liquids

(including those liquified by

refrigeration) could be appropriately

treated in that manner. Accordingly,

EPA and API signed a proposed

settlement agreement in May 1999. This

settlement agreement is awaiting

finalization pursuant to section 113(g) of

the CAA.

CI’s primary litigation concern related

to CAA sections 112(l) and 112(r)(11), as

they relate to Department of

Transportation (DOT) requirements

under the Federal Hazardous Materials

Transportation Law (‘‘Federal Hazmat

Law’’). EPA and CI reached an

agreement on this issue and signed a

proposed settlement agreement in May

1999. This settlement agreement is

awaiting finalization pursuant to section

113(g) of the CAA.

II. Discussion of Revisions to § 68.25

40 CFR 68.25 requires each stationary

source subject to the RMP rule to

analyze at least one worst-case release

scenario for regulated flammables and at

least one for regulated toxic substances

that are present in a process at the

stationary source above the threshold

quantity. A worst-case release means the

release of the largest quantity of a

regulated substance from a vessel or

process line failure that results in the

greatest distance to an endpoint defined

in § 68.22(a).

In the final rule promulgated on June

20, 1996, EPA established a framework

for the worst-case scenario analysis that

considers the physical state of the

substance and the way in which it is

stored or handled (see 40 CFR 68.25):

(1) For toxic gases and gases liquefied

by pressure, the worst-case release

scenario assumes that the largest

quantity is released in 10 minutes and

the rate of release to the air is the

quantity divided by 10 minutes. Upon

loss of containment (e.g. a catastrophic

vessel failure), a gaseous substance will

be completely released to the air within

10 minutes. Although gases liquefied by

pressure will behave initially like a

liquid, they will rapidly become gases

upon catastrophic release because of the

sudden release of pressure and because

the storage temperature of the liquid is

often much higher than the boiling

point of the substance. The rate of

flashing and volatilization is generally

great enough to vaporize the entire

quantity within 10 minutes.

(2) For toxic liquids, the worst-case

scenario assumes an instantaneous spill;

the release rate to the air is the

volatilization rate from a pool that

spreads out to a 1 centimeter (cm) depth

unless passive mitigation (e.g., a diked

area) contains the substance in a smaller

area. The rate of volatilization to the air

depends on the surface area of the

liquid pool and it may be adjusted to

account for the smaller surface in a

contained area.

(3) For toxic substances liquefied by

refrigeration, the scenario assumes an

instantaneous liquid spill followed by

volatilization of the pool at the

substance’s boiling point but only if the

spilled liquid is contained by passive

mitigation at a liquid depth greater than

1 cm. If passive mitigation is not present

or is of such large capacity that the

refrigerated liquid spill can spread out

to a depth of 1 cm, then the quantity of

refrigerated liquid is assumed to

completely volatilize within 10 minutes.

Gases liquefied by refrigeration need

time to vaporize and become a gas

because the storage temperature of the

liquid is less than its boiling point.

Therefore, the rate of release to the air

is less than the total quantity released in

10 minutes. The liquid must be

contained by passive mitigation at a

depth greater than 1 cm; otherwise, the

rate of warming and volatilization is

great enough to completely vaporize the

spill within 10 minutes.

For all listed flammables however, the

worst case assumes that the quantity in

the largest vessel or pipeline vaporizes

to form a vapor cloud, followed by a

vapor cloud explosion. No

consideration was given for liquids or

substances liquefied by refrigeration,

primarily because EPA assumed that

passive mitigation or containment was

typically not used under flammable

storage due to fire safety reasons. The

American Petroleum Institute (API)

argued that, in many cases, spilled

flammable liquids are, in fact contained,

but in a way that prevents a liquid fire

from impacting storage vessels and

prevents release to the environment.

Such containment serves to reduce the

quantity available for a vapor cloud

explosion in the same way that liquid

toxics generate a smaller toxic vapor

cloud than gases. If the flammable

worst-case scenario were revised to

account for liquids in the same way as

toxics, then the flammable worst-case

scenario could distinguish flammable

gases from liquids to avoid generating a

technically incorrect and overly

conservative result.

EPA agrees that the worst-case

assessment for flammable liquids and

flammables liquefied by refrigeration is

not consistent with the approach for

toxic liquids or toxics liquefied by

refrigeration. EPA is thus taking direct

final action to revise § 68.25(e) so that

flammables may be treated in a manner

consistent with the treatment of toxics.

Specifically, EPA is making the

following changes to § 68.25 for

flammables: (1) For regulated flammable

substances that are normally gases at

ambient temperature and handled as a

gas or as a liquid under pressure, the

owner or operator shall assume that the

quantity in the vessel or pipe, as

determined under § 68.25(b), is released

as a gas over 10 minutes. The total

quantity shall be assumed to be

involved in the vapor cloud explosion.

(2) For regulated flammable substances

that are normally liquids at ambient

temperature, the owner or operator shall

assume that the entire quantity in the

vessel or pipe, as determined under

§ 68.25(b), is spilled instantaneously to

form a liquid pool. For liquids at

temperatures below their atmospheric

boiling point, the volatilization rate

shall be calculated at the conditions

specified in § 68.25(d). The owner or

operator shall assume that the quantity

which becomes vapor in the first 10

minutes is reported as the quantity

released. (3) For flammable gases

handled as refrigerated liquids at

ambient pressure, the owner or operator

may assume that the total quantity of

the substance determined in § 68.25(b)

instantaneously spills followed by

volatilization of the liquid pool at the

substance’s boiling point and under the

conditions specified in § 68.25(d),

provided the spilled liquid would be

contained by passive mitigation at a

liquid depth greater than 1 cm. The

quantity of substance that becomes

vapor in the first 10 minutes is involved

in the vapor cloud explosion. If passive

mitigation is not present or is of such

large capacity that the refrigerated

liquid spill can spread out to a depth of

1 cm, then the quantity of refrigerated
28698 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 26, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

liquid is assumed to completely

volatilize within 10 minutes and the

total quantity is involved in the vapor

cloud explosion.

This modification allows stationary

sources to account for volatilization of

the liquid pool if flammables are

liquefied by refrigeration; however,

sources are not required to use this

added assumption. Sources can still use

the quantity determined under

§ 68.25(b) as the quantity released.

Sources that have already submitted

their RMP may choose to use this

revised approach, but are not required

to do so. Sources that choose to use this

revised approach, must revise and resubmit their RMP to EPA by June 21,

1999.

EPA will not be modifying

RMP*SubmitTM (the computer database

used to report the RMPs) as a result of

this rule at this time. Instead, stationary

sources reporting for flammables

liquefied by refrigeration would need to

calculate the total quantity of the gas

generated (taking the volatilization rate

into account) from the pool in a 10-

minute period. This value would be

reported as ‘‘Quantity released’’ in

section 4.4 of RMP*SubmitTM. The

passive mitigation (dikes, berms, etc.)

considered would be specified at

‘‘Other’’ in section 4.10. EPA also

suggests that stationary sources utilize

the Executive Summary section of

RMP*SubmitTM to explain how they

calculated the quantity released for the

refrigerated flammable substances.

Section 68.25(e) will be revised by

adding (i) and (ii) and adding a new (f);

existing (f), (g), and (h) will become (g),

(h), and (i).

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because we view this as

consistent with the original rule as

promulgated and as a noncontroversial

amendment. No adverse comment is

anticipated. The sole regulatory change

contemplated under the settlement

agreement represents a narrow technical

amendment designed to make the

treatment of flammables consistent with

that of toxics. This amendment merely

adjusts the way in which releases of

these substances are modeled and does

not alter the number of sources subject

to RMP or the basic obligations under

the RMP. In light of the foregoing and

the need to promulgate the revision

prior to the rule’s June 21, 1999

compliance date, the Agency believes a

direct final rule is the most appropriate

vehicle for implementation of the

settlement agreement.

In the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of

today’s Federal Register publication, we

are publishing a separate document that

will serve as the proposal to revise

§ 68.25 for flammables if adverse

comments are filed. This rule will be

effective on June 21, 1999, without

further notice unless we receive adverse

comment by June 16, 1999. If EPA

receives adverse comment, we will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect. We will

address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. We will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

must do so at this time.

III. Clarification of CAA Sections 112(l)

and 112(r)(11)

Pursuant to the settlement agreement

with CI, EPA is clarifying its

interpretation of CAA sections 112(l)

and 112(r)(11), as they relate to DOT

requirements under the Federal

Hazardous Materials Transportation

Law, 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127.

In our amendments to 40 CFR part 68

(63 FR 640, January 6, 1998) we dealt

with the issue of the relationship

between part 68 and statutes

administered by and regulations

promulgated by the Department of

Transportation (DOT), such as the

Federal Hazardous Materials

Transportation Law (‘‘Federal Hazmat

Law’’) and the Hazardous Materials

Regulations (‘‘HMR’’). We noted therein

that: ‘‘EPA’s regulations do not

supersede or limit DOT’s authorities

and, therefore, are in compliance with

CAA section 310.’’

The definition of stationary source

finalized in that rule generally provides

that containers that are in transportation

or storage incident to transportation are

not part of a stationary source or a

process at the stationary source. On the

other hand, the definition of stationary

source does provide that such

containers are part of a stationary source

under certain circumstances, most

notably when they are being loaded,

unloaded or on site for storage not

incidental to transportation. Because a

transportation container may at times

function as a storage container or a

process at a stationary source, or may

function as part of operations at a

stationary source, EPA is specifically

directed by statute to address these

activities (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i))

(‘‘The regulations shall cover storage, as

well as operations’’). To the extent that

DOT is also authorized under the

Federal Hazmat Law to regulate

activities that are at a stationary source,

nothing in the CAA prohibits both

agencies from exercising concurrent

jurisdiction over these activities. As

EPA has said in the context of the RMP

Rule, compliance with Federal Hazmat

Law and HMR requirements may satisfy

parallel requirements of part 68. This

approach to implementation reflects the

coordination between the agencies that

is called for under CAA section

112(r)(7)(D). The exercise of concurrent

jurisdiction preserves the applicability

of the Federal Hazmat Law and HMR

and does not supersede or limit DOT’s

jurisdiction. CAA section 310 provides

that the CAA shall not be construed as

superseding or limiting the authority or

responsibilities of any Federal agency.

Thus, neither CAA section 112(r)(11)

(which provides that section 112(r) does

not preempt state regulations that are

more stringent than EPA’s) nor section

112(l) (which allows EPA to delegate the

accident prevention regulations to a

state if the state’s program is no less

stringent than EPA’s) can be read to

authorize a state to regulate in a manner

that would otherwise be preempted

under the Federal Hazmat Law. A state

that, for purposes of obtaining

delegation under section 112(l), adopts

Part 68 or a program that is

substantively the same as Part 68 will

not be considered by EPA to regulate in

a manner that would otherwise be

preempted under the Federal Hazmat

Law.

IV. Judicial Review

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

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this

rule is available only by filing a petition

for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit

within 60 days of this notice, unless

EPA withdraws this rule as described

earlier in this notice. Under section

307(b)(2) of CAA, the requirements that

are the subject of today’s document may

not be challenged later in civil or

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to

enforce these requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the

development of this rulemaking. The

docket is a dynamic file, because it

allows members of the public and

industries involved to readily identify

and locate documents so that they can

effectively participate in the rulmaking

process. Along with the proposed and

promulgated rules and their preambles,

the contents of the docket serve as the

record in the case of judicial review.

(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.)

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, has been established for this
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 26, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 28699

rulemaking under Docket No. A–99–15,

and is available for inspection from 8:00

a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The

official rulemaking record is located at

the address in ADDRESSES at the

beginning of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58

Federal Register 51,735 (October 4,

1993)) the Agency must determine

whether the regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

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

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) Create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

Materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.’’

It has been determined that today’s

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under the terms of E.O. 12866

and is, therefore, not subject to OMB

review.

C. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments.

If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget a description of the extent

of EPA’s prior consultation with

representatives of affected State, local

and tribal governments, the nature of

their concerns, any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected officials and

other representatives of State, local and

tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded

mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create a

mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. This rule change does not

impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Instead, it merely provides an

alternative approach for calculating the

quantity released in the worst-case

scenario. Stationary sources already

subject to the rule may use this

approach for conducting worst-case

release scenarios for flammable

substances in the same manner as toxic

substances. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 1(a) of

Executive Order 12875 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This action is not subject to the E.O.

13045 because it is not ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined in E.O. 12866,

and because it does not involve

decisions based on environmental

health or safety risks.

E. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments.

If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget, in a separately identified

section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected tribal governments, a summary

of the nature of their concerns, and a

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This rule

change merely provides an alternative

approach for calculating the quantity

released in the worst-case scenario.

Stationary sources already subject to the

rule may use this approach for

conducting worst-case release scenarios

for flammable substances in the same

manner as toxic substances.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this direct final rule and that this rule

will not have a significant negative

economic impact on small entities. This

rule change does not require any

stationary source to report additional

elements in the risk management plan.

It merely provides an alternative

approach for stationary sources already

subject to the rule to use for conducting

worst-case release scenarios for

flammable substances.

G. Paperwork Reduction

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this rule under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB

control number 2050–0144.

This rule does not include any new

information collection requirements for

OMB review under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act. This revision

of the rule does not impose any new

reporting, recordkeeping, or third party

reporting requirements on stationary

sources, it merely provides an

alternative approach for sources to

calculate the quantity released in the

worst-case scenario for flammables. The

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this rule under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB

control number 2050–0144.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons
28700 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 26, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

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. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR

part 9 of currently approved ICR control

numbers issued by OMB for various

regulations to list the information

requirements contained in this final

rule.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for state, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year.

Today’s action is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Act.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

state, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. This rule change does not

require any stationary sources to report

additional elements in the risk

management plan. It merely provides an

alternative approach for stationary

sources already subject to the rule to use

for conducting worst-case release

scenarios for flammable substances.

In addition, for the same reasons, EPA

has determined that this rule contains

no regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note), directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA requires

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This action is not

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This rule will be effective on

June 21, 1999.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Chemical accident prevention.

Dated: May 17, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, subchapter

C, part 68 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended to read as

follows:

PART 68—CHEMICAL ACCIDENT

PREVENTION PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 68

continues to read as follows:

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

7661–7661f.

Subpart B—Hazard Assessment

2. Section 68.25 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (f), (g), and (h)

as (g), (h), and (i), and by revising

paragraph (e) and adding a new

paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 68.25 Worst-case release scenario

analysis.

* * * * *

(e) Worst-case release scenario—

flammable gases. The owner or operator

shall assume that the quantity of the

substance, as determined under

paragraph (b) of this section and the

provisions below, vaporizes resulting in

a vapor cloud explosion. A yield factor

of 10 percent of the available energy

released in the explosion shall be used

to determine the distance to the

explosion endpoint if the model used is

based on TNT equivalent methods.

(1) For regulated flammable

substances that are normally gases at

ambient temperature and handled as a

gas or as a liquid under pressure, the

owner or operator shall assume that the

quantity in the vessel or pipe, as

determined under paragraph (b) of this

section, is released as a gas over 10

minutes. The total quantity shall be
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 26, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 28701

assumed to be involved in the vapor

cloud explosion.

(2) For flammable gases handled as

refrigerated liquids at ambient pressure:

(i) If the released substance is not

contained by passive mitigation systems

or if the contained pool would have a

depth of one centimeter or less, the

owner or operator shall assume that the

total quantity of the substance is

released as a gas in 10 minutes, and the

total quantity will be involved in the

vapor cloud explosion.

(ii) If the released substance is

contained by passive mitigation systems

in a pool with a depth greater than 1

centimeter, the owner or operator may

assume that the quantity in the vessel or

pipe, as determined under paragraph (b)

of this section, is spilled

instantaneously to form a liquid pool.

The volatilization rate (release rate)

shall be calculated at the boiling point

of the substance and at the conditions

specified in paragraph (d) of this

section. The owner or operator shall

assume that the quantity which becomes

vapor in the first 10 minutes is involved

in the vapor cloud explosion.

(f) Worst-case release scenario—

flammable liquids. The owner or

operator shall assume that the quantity

of the substance, as determined under

paragraph (b) of this section and the

provisions below, vaporizes resulting in

a vapor cloud explosion. A yield factor

of 10 percent of the available energy

released in the explosion shall be used

to determine the distance to the

explosion endpoint if the model used is

based on TNT equivalent methods.

(1) For regulated flammable

substances that are normally liquids at

ambient temperature, the owner or

operator shall assume that the entire

quantity in the vessel or pipe, as

determined under paragraph (b) of this

section, is spilled instantaneously to

form a liquid pool. For liquids at

temperatures below their atmospheric

boiling point, the volatilization rate

shall be calculated at the conditions

specified in paragraph (d) of this

section.

(2) The owner or operator shall

assume that the quantity which becomes

vapor in the first 10 minutes is involved

in the vapor cloud explosion.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99–12936 Filed 5–24–99; 10:57 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P