19216 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

air pollution control equipment. The

plan shall be submitted to the

Administrator for review and approval

no later than the compliance date given

in § 63.1545 of this subpart.

(ii) As required by § 63.10(d)(5)(i) of

subpart A, if actions taken by an owner

or operator during a startup, shutdown,

or malfunction of an affected source

(including actions taken to correct a

malfunction) are consistent with the

procedures specified in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan, the

owner or operator shall state such

information in a semiannual report. The

report, to be certified by the owner or

operator or other responsible official,

shall be submitted semiannually and

delivered or postmarked by the 30th day

following the end of each calendar half;

and

(iii) Any time an action taken by an

owner or operator during a startup,

shutdown, or malfunction (including

actions taken to correct a malfunction)

is not consistent with the procedures in

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan, the owner or operator shall

comply with all requirements of

§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A.

(e) Subpart TTT Reports. In addition

to the information required under

§ 63.10 of the General Provisions, the

owner or operator shall provide semiannual reports containing the

information specified in paragraphs

(e)(1) through (e)(4) of this section to the

Administrator or designated authority.

(1) The reports shall include records

of all alarms from the bag leak detection

system specified in § 63.1547(e).

(2) The reports shall include a

description of the procedures taken

following each bag leak detection

system alarm pursuant to § 63.1547(f)(1)

and (2).

(3) The reports shall contain a

summary of the records maintained as

part of the practices described in the

standard operating procedures manual

for baghouses required under

§ 63.1547(a), including an explanation

of the periods when the procedures

were not followed and the corrective

actions taken.

(4) The reports shall contain a

summary of the fugitive dust control

measures performed during the required

reporting period, including an

explanation of any periods when the

procedures outlined in the standard

operating procedures manual required

by § 63.1544(a) were not followed and

the corrective actions taken. The reports

shall not contain copies of the daily

records required to demonstrate

compliance with the requirements of the

standard operating procedures manuals

required under §§ 63.1544(a) and

63.1547(a).

§ 63.1550 Delegation of Authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a state under

section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities

contained in paragraph (b) of this

section shall be retained by the

administrator and not transferred to a

state.

(b) Authorities which will not be

delegated to States: no restrictions.

[FR Doc. 98–10011 Filed 4–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[FRL–5997–2]

RIN 2050–AE46

Accidental Release Prevention

Requirements: Risk Management

Programs Under Clean Air Act Section

112(r)(7); Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On June 20, 1996, EPA

published risk management program

regulations, mandated under the

accidental release prevention provisions

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These

regulations require owners and

operators of stationary sources subject to

the regulations to submit risk

management plans (RMPs) by June 21,

1999, to a central location specified by

EPA. EPA is proposing amendments to

these rules to reflect the government’s

adoption of a new industrial

classification system, to add some data

elements to the RMP, to establish

explicit procedures for protecting

confidential information, and to clarify

certain items. These changes will bring

the rule up to date with the new

industrial classification system, provide

information in the RMP that will make

the data more useful, and clarify

procedures and requirements. The

proposed amendments in this rule

address the submission of RMP

information to EPA; the amendments do

not address the means by which the

public could access RMP information.

DATES: Comments are due on June 1,

1998. Anyone requesting a public

hearing must contact EPA no later than

May 4, 1998. If a hearing is held, EPA

will publish the date, time and location

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Attn: Docket A–98–

08, Room 1500, 401 M St. SW,

Washington, DC 20460. E-mail

comments should be sent to: A-AND-RDOCKET@epamail.epa.gov; if comments

are filed as an attachment to an e-mail,

the attachment must be in WordPerfect

6.1 or an ASCII file. Paper comments

should be submitted in triplicate;

comments may be submitted on disk in

WordPerfect 6.1 or an ASCII file.

Persons interested in presenting oral

testimony or inquiring as to whether a

hearing is to be held should notify the

person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy

Jacob, Chemical Engineer, Chemical

Emergency Preparedness and

Prevention Office, Environmental

Protection Agency (5101), 401 M Street

SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–

7249, or the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Hotline at 1–

800–424–9346 (in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area, (703) 412–9810).

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 Examples of regulated

entities

Chemical Manufacturers.Basic chemical manufacturing, petrochemicals, resins, agricultural chemicals, pharmaceuticals, paints,

cleaning compounds.

Petroleum .............. Refineries.

Other Manufacturing.Paper, electronics,

semiconductors, fabricated metals, industrial machinery, food

processing.

Agriculture .............. Agricultural retailers.

Public Sources ....... Drinking water and

wastewater treatment

systems.

Utilities ................... Electric and gas utilities.

Other ...................... Propane retailers and

users, cold storage,

warehousing and

wholesalers.

Federal Sources .... Military and energy installations.

This table is not meant to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. The table lists

the types of entities that EPA is aware
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19217

of that could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed on 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 person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The following table of contents is

provided to aid in reading this

preamble:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background

A. Statutory Authority

B. Background

II. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. NAICS Codes

B. RMP Data Elements

1. New RMP Data Elements

2. Optional RMP Data Elements

C. Clarification of Prevention Program

Reporting

D. Confidential Business Information (CBI)

E. Other Changes

III. Section-by-Section Discussion of the

Proposed Rule

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Public Hearing and Written Comments

C. E.O. 12866

D. E.O. 12875

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

G. Unfunded Mandates

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Introduction and Background

A. Statutory Authority

These amendments are being

proposed under sections 112(r) and

301(a)(1) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r),

7601(a)(1)).

B. Background

The 1990 CAA Amendments revised

section 112 by adding a paragraph (r), to

prevent accidental releases to the air

and mitigate any accidents that occur.

Section 112(r) mandates that EPA

promulgate a list of regulated

substances, with threshold quantities.

This list defines the processes at

stationary sources that are subject to

accidental release prevention

regulations that EPA is mandated to

promulgate under section 112(r)(7). EPA

promulgated the list of substances on

January 31, 1994 (59 FR 4478) (the ‘‘List

Rule’’) and the accident release

prevention regulations, the risk

management program rule, on June 20,

1996 (61 FR 31668) (the ‘‘RMP rule’’).

Together, these two rules are codified as

part 68 of title 40 of the CFR. On

January 6, 1998 (63 FR 640), EPA

amended the listing requirements to

adopt provisions related to certain

flammables that had previously been

stayed.

The list of regulated substances covers

77 acutely toxic substances and 62

flammable gases and highly volatile

flammable liquids. The accidental

release prevention regulations require

stationary sources with one or more

processes with more than a threshold

quantity of a regulated substance to

develop and implement a risk

management program that includes an

offsite consequence analysis, a five-year

accident history for covered processes, a

prevention program, and an emergency

response program. Sources must

summarize this program and submit a

risk management plan (RMP) to a

central location specified by EPA prior

to June 21, 1999. The risk management

program rule includes a tiered approach

to requirements. Processes that pose low

risk of offsite consequences from a

worst-case release are subject to

minimal requirements (Program 1).

Processes in industry sectors that have

significant accident histories are

required to implement the process

safety management (PSM) standard,

which EPA adopted, with minor

changes, from the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration’s (OSHA)

PSM standard (29 CFR 1910.119)

(Program 3). To eliminate inconsistent

requirements, EPA also requires

processes already subject to the OSHA

PSM standard to implement Program 3.

All other processes are subject to a

streamlined prevention program

(Program 2). (Program eligibility

requirements are provided at 40 CFR

68.10.)

When EPA promulgated the risk

management program rule, the Agency

stated that it intended to work toward

electronic submission of RMPs. The

final rule provided that RMPs shall be

submitted in a method and format to a

central location as specified by EPA

prior to the submission date. To provide

advice to the Agency on deciding issues

related to electronic submission, the

Accident Prevention Subcommittee of

the CAA Advisory Committee created

the Electronic Submission Workgroup

in October 1996 to examine the

technical and practical issues associated

with creating a national electronic

repository of risk management plans.

The Workgroup was charged with

recommending how the regulated

community should submit their risk

management plans, and how EPA, State

and local governments, and the public

should have access to this information.

The Workgroup included 35

representatives from State and local

government, industry, environmental

and public interest groups, and EPA.

The Workgroup, with the approval of

the Accident Prevention Subcommittee,

concluded its work in June of 1997 with

a Final Report. The Final Report, all

meeting summaries and meeting

materials can be obtained from the EPA

homepage (www.epa.gov/ceppo/accpre.html) under ‘‘Accident Prevention

Subcommittee’’ and the ‘‘Electronic

Submission Workgroup.’’

Based on the Workgroup’s

recommendations, EPA is in the process

of developing two systems, a userfriendly PC-based submission system

(RMP∗SubmitTM) and a searchable

database of RMPs, available on the

Internet (RMP∗SubmitTM). RMPs must

be submitted electronically (on

diskette), with a provision for an

‘‘electronic waiver’’ for sources that lack

the resources to file electronically.

II. Discussion of Proposed Rule

The purpose of today’s proposed

amendments is to revise part 68 to:

• Reflect the new industrial

classification system that the U.S.

government has adopted;

• Respond to recommendations on

RMP data elements provided by the

Electronic Submission Workgroup and

clarify other elements;

• Provide explicit requirements for

the submission of confidential business

information; and

• Make technical corrections and

clarifications to the rule.

This proposed rulemaking addresses

only these subjects. The Agency is not,

by this proposal, reconsidering any

aspects of part 68, except as explicitly

noted below. The proposed

amendments in this rule address the

submission of RMP information to EPA;

the amendments do not address the

means by which the public could access

RMP information. EPA discourages any

comments not addressed to these

specific amendments.

A. NAICS Codes

On January 1, 1997, the U.S.

Government, in cooperation with the

governments of Canada and Mexico,

adopted a new industrial classification

system, the North American Industrial

Classification System (NAICS) to

replace the Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) codes. Because the

applicability of Program 3 is driven, in

part, by SIC codes and because part 68

requires the reporting of SIC codes in

the RMP, EPA proposes to revise the

rule to reflect the new NAICS codes.
19218 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Section 68.10(d)(1) provides that

processes in the following four-digit SIC

codes are subject to Program 3

requirements (unless they are eligible

for Program 1): 2611 (pulp mills), 2812

(calor-alkali manufacturing), 2819

(industrial inorganics, not elsewhere

classified (nec)), 2821 (plastics and

resins), 2865 (cyclic crudes and

intermediates), 2869 (industrial organic

chemicals, nec), 2873 (nitrogen

fertilizers), 2879 (agricultural chemicals,

nec), and petroleum refineries (2911).

As explained in the March 13, 1995,

supplemental notice (60 FR 13526) and

June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668), final rule,

these SIC codes were selected because

these industrial sectors have significant

accident histories, based on data in

EPA’s Accidental Release Information

Program (ARIP) database and on data on

accidental releases involving

flammables. In each case, a substantial

percentage of the sector (usually more

than 20 percent) had reported releases

of regulated substances and many of

those releases had impacts (deaths,

injuries, hospitalizations, evacuations,

and shelterings). In selecting NAICS

codes, EPA has used the same criteria to

the extent possible; in some cases, the

accident data for sectors are not detailed

enough to make it possible to allocate

the accidents among the new codes.

Five of the listed SIC codes have been

assigned NAICS codes that include all

of the sources covered by the SIC codes

and no others. EPA is proposing to

adopt these five NAICS codes in place

of the SIC codes. (NAICS codes are

either five or six digits, depending on

the degree to which the sector is

subdivided.)

SIC NAICS Sector

2812 325181 Alkalies and chlorine

2821 325211 Plastics and resins

2873 325311 Nitrogen fertilizer

2879 32532 Pesticide and other

agricultural chemicals

2911 32411 Petroleum refineries

The remaining four SIC codes listed

in § 68.10 (2611, 2819, 2865, and 2869)

have been subdivided as follows.

SIC Code 2611 (pulp mills) has been

split into three NAICS codes:

32211 Pulp mills only

322121 Pulp mills producing paper

(includes part of old 2621)

32213 Pulp mills producing paperboard

(includes part of old 2631)

EPA has examined the accident

history of these groups. Neither paper

mills (NAICS code 322121) nor

paperboard mills (NAICS code 32213)

meet the accident history criteria EPA

used to select industry sectors. EPA,

therefore, is proposing to list only

NAICS code 32211.

SIC Code 2819 (industrial inorganics,

nec) has been divided into four NAICS

codes:

325998 Activated carbon and charcoal,

which has moved to miscellaneous

chemical products (old 2899)

331311 Alumina, moved to alumina

refining in primary metals

manufacturing

325131 Inorganic dyes, moved to

inorganic dyes and pigments (old

2816)

325188 Other, in ‘‘all other inorganic

chemical manufacturing’’

Activated carbon and charcoal

(NAICS code 325998) have been placed

in a sector with a very limited accident

history. In addition, there are no

releases in the ARIP database that

appear to be related to the manufacture

of these substances. Alumina refining

(NAICS code 331311) is a new NAICS

code. Research indicates that alumina is

produced at approximately 19 locations;

three of these companies reported

releases, but none were impact releases.

There were no reported releases for dyes

(NAICS code 325131). Consequently,

EPA is proposing to list only NAICS

code 325188, all other inorganic

chemical manufacturing, as it includes

almost all of the releases that led to the

original listing of SIC code 2819.

SIC Code 2865 (cyclic crudes and

intermediates) has been split into three

NAICS codes:

32511 Aromatics have been combined

with aliphatics from SIC code 2869 to

form a new petrochemical

manufacturing code

325132 Organic dyes and pigments is a

new code

325192 Other covers the cyclic crude

and intermediate manufacturing

Organic pigments are manufactured at

about 30 locations. These sources

reported three releases, one of which

was an impact release. There were no

reported releases from dye

manufacturers. NAICS code 325132,

therefore, does not meet the eligibility

criteria. Although it is difficult to

determine with any certainty into which

of the other two NAICS codes the

sources reporting releases in old SIC

code 2865 will fall, both of these sectors

have a significant accident history, as

demonstrated both by the ARIP data and

by accidents involving flammables,

which are generally not reported in

ARIP. EPA, therefore, is proposing to

list both NAICS codes 32511

(petrochemicals) and 325192 (other

cyclic crude and intermediate

manufacturing).

SIC Code 2869 (industrial organic

chemicals) has been divided into five

NAICS codes:

32511 Aliphatics, joined with aromatics

in petrochemical manufacturing

325188 Carbon bisulfide, moved to all

other inorganic chemical

manufacturing

325193 Ethyl alcohol, a new separate

code

32512 Fluorocarbon gases, moved to

industrial gases with what used to be

SIC code 2813

325199 Other, moved to all other basic

organic chemical manufacturing with

fatty acids from old SIC code 2899

As explained above, EPA is proposing

to list NAICS codes 32511 and 325188,

which draw sectors from SIC code 2869.

Ethyl alcohol is produced at

approximately 27 locations, mostly from

grains. Two of these locations reported

releases, one of which led to an

evacuation. This sector, therefore, does

not meet the criteria and is not being

proposed for listing. Fluorocarbon gases

are produced at about 15 locations; only

one release was reported. These gases

are being merged into a sector with

more than 500 sources that reported 21

releases, 4 with impacts. Neither

fluorocarbon gases themselves nor the

combined sector meet the criteria and,

therefore, EPA is not proposing them for

listing. As with SIC code 2865, it is

difficult to determine from the existing

data whether the remaining sources in

SIC code 2869 that reported releases

will be classified in petrochemicals or

other basic organic chemical

manufacturing. Nonetheless, the release

history of the remaining sources for

flammables and toxics is significant

enough that EPA is proposing to list

both. EPA recognizes that including

NAICS code 325199 will extend

coverage to fatty acids, which were

previously not included. EPA, however,

does not believe that the fatty acid

processes involve regulated substances,

and, therefore, does not expect them to

be subject to the rule.

In summary, EPA is proposing to

replace the list of nine SIC codes with

the following ten NAICS codes: 32211,

32411, 32511, 325181, 325188, 325192,

325199, 325211, 325311, and 32532.

Some processes originally subject to

Program 3 because of the SIC codes

would no longer be subject to Program

3 on that basis. EPA expects that most

of the processes that were part of listed

SIC codes, but are not in the proposed

list of NAICS codes, will either continue

to be subject to Program 3 because they

are subject to OSHA PSM (e.g.,

fluorocarbon gases) or are not subject to

the rule at all because they do not
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19219

include regulated substances above the

thresholds. In its review of the NAICS

codes, EPA also considered whether any

newly created NAICS codes might meet

the accident criteria; no such codes

were identified. For the most part,

manufacturing sectors have been

assigned codes that cover the same

industries as were covered by the SIC

code. (A full list of the new NAICS

codes and further information is

available from the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, www.census.gov.)

At every point in part 68 where

sources are required to report the SIC

code for a process (registration and both

prevention programs), the rule would

instead be changed to require sources to

report the NAICS code for the process.

B. RMP Data Elements

1. New RMP Data Elements

The Electronic Submission Work

Group recommended that EPA add three

mandatory data elements that it

believed are important for the success of

RMP*InfoTM. In addition, the group

recommended that some optional data

elements be included in the final RMP

format. Consequently, EPA is proposing

to add the following mandatory data

elements: The method and description

for latitude and longitude, the Title V

permit number, and the percentage

weight of regulated toxic substances in

mixtures reported in both the offsite

consequence analyses and accident

history. EPA also is proposing to add

the NAICS code for the process that had

the release to the five-year accident

history section.

a. Latitude/Longitude method and

description. As a matter of Agency

policy, EPA requires that when latitude

and longitude are reported, the method

of determining latitude/longitude be

stated and a description of what

location the numbers represent (e.g.,

center of the site, fenceline) be

provided. The RMP*SubmitTM will

include check lists that sources will be

able to use to indicate the method and

location description.

The State/EPA Data Management

Program is a successful multi-year

initiative linking State environmental

regulatory agencies and EPA in

cooperative action. The Program’s goals

include improvements in data quality

and data integration based on location

identification. Reliable and consistent

location identification data are critical

to support the Agency-wide

development of environmental risk

management strategies, methodologies,

and assessments. Documentation of the

method and description of the location

will permit other users to evaluate

whether those coordinates can support

secondary uses, thus addressing EPA

data sharing and integration objectives.

b. Title V permit number. Listing a

Title V permit number will make it

easier for EPA, states, and local agencies

to identify sources that are also subject

to Title V. Including this number will

impose a minimal burden on sources;

those who have Title V permits will

have permit numbers readily available.

c. Percentage weight of a toxic

substance in a mixture. The percentage

weight of a regulated toxic substance in

a mixture would provide useful

information to those trying to

understand how worst-case and

alternative release scenarios have been

modeled. Released in their pure forms,

substances will generally travel greater

distances before the concentration falls

below the toxic endpoint (toxic

endpoints are listed in Appendix A to

40 CFR part 68) than they will travel if

the substance is released as part of a

mixture. Without reporting on whether

a substance was modeled as being

released as part of a mixture, users of

the database may assume that a

substance would be released in its pure

form. The distances reported for mixture

releases would then appear to be

understated because they are likely to

travel far less than the distances that

would be derived for the same

substance quantity released in its pure

form. This information will make it

easier for users of the data to understand

what a source has done without needing

to seek additional information from the

source. On accident history, it is

important to know the physical state

and concentration of a substance that

was released. With such data, it is

possible to determine whether certain

concentrations pose a substantial hazard

to the public and to help validate

models.

d. NAICS code. Including the NAICS

code for the process that had a release

in the five-year accident history section

will make it possible for EPA and others

to identify industry sectors that have

specific types of accidents and have a

significant accident history. The ability

to search its ARIP database by SIC code

made it possible for EPA to identify

industry sectors with significant

accident histories. This information is

particularly important for the chemical

industry and a few other industry

sectors where multiple NAICS codes

may be represented at the source.

2. Optional RMP Data Elements

In addition to proposed data elements

that sources would be required to

report, the work group recommended

that EPA include the following data

elements, on a optional basis:

a. Local Emergency Planning

Committee (LEPC). A source would

enter its LEPC name (from a pick list

tied to the source county and zip code).

The LEPC data element would provide

a way for LEPCs to quickly search all of

the facilities in their jurisdiction. The

LEPC data element would also allow

EPA to determine which LEPC(s) to

notify when it receives an updated

RMP.

b. Source (or Parent Company) E-mail

address. The source may want to

provide its E-mail address to make it

easier for the public to send an inquiry

to the source. Including an E-mail

address will aid communication efforts

between industry, local government,

and interested community members.

c. Source Homepage address. The

source may want to provide additional

graphics and information on its

homepage. The database could either

list the address as any other data

element or set up a hyperlink to the

source homepage, depending on the

technical issues involved with the latter.

d. Phone number at the source for

public inquiries. The source may want

to provide a phone number for public

inquiries. Currently the RMP data

elements list the owner/operator and the

emergency contact phone numbers, but

no other phone numbers. A source

could enter the phone number for their

public liaison office or the technical

contact who filled out the RMP. This

data element would provide sources

another option for directing public

inquiries.

e. VPP status. In addition to the four

optional data elements recommended by

the workgroup, EPA also plans to give

sources an opportunity to indicate

whether they have achieved Star or

Merit status under OSHA’s Voluntary

Protection Program (VPP). These

sources are exempt from audits under

§ 68.220(b)(2) and (b)(7). Including this

information will help implementing

agencies as they develop audit plans.

EPA seeks comments on whether

these items should be included on the

form. EPA emphasizes that these items

would be optional; a space would be

provided, but sources would not be

required to complete the items. EPA

recognizes that many smaller sources

will not have e-mail addresses or home

pages and, therefore, will leave these

blank.

C. Clarification of Prevention Program

Reporting

EPA is proposing to revise the

language in §§ 68.170 and 68.175 to

clarify how prevention program
19220 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

information must be reported. The

definition of process, which EPA

adopted verbatim from the OSHA PSM

standard, is very broad. EPA believes it

is important that its interpretation of

process be consistent with OSHA’s.

That interpretation, particularly when

applied to interconnected or co-located

production and storage units, is so

inclusive that multiple production units

and, in some cases, entire sources will

be considered to be a single process.

OSHA and EPA have always recognized

that prevention program

implementation is likely to involve

dividing these aggregated units into

their components. For example, because

all units at petroleum refineries are

usually interconnected, they will count

as a single process for threshold

determination, but each production unit

will require a separate process hazard

analysis (PHA), different operating and

maintenance procedures, different

process safety information, and different

training. OSHA included a PHA

implementation schedule in its standard

to recognize that large sources, such as

refineries and large chemical production

sources, needed time to conduct

multiple PHAs even if the source is

technically a single process under the

definition of process.

Throughout its part 68 rulemakings

and associated economic analyses, EPA

has always considered that RMP

reporting would be done based on the

units that require separate

implementation of prevention program

elements, particularly the PHA and

hazard review. In the preamble to the

final part 68 rule, EPA stated that large

chemical companies and refineries

could be reporting on 30 or more

processes (61 FR 31694). EPA’s

Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for the

part 68 rules explicitly assumed that the

chemical industry, refineries, utilities,

POTWs, and even drinking water

systems would be implementing the

prevention program elements and

reporting on multiple production and

storage units. In the case of the chemical

industry and refineries, the EIA

assumed that data on up to 25 to 30

prevention programs would be reported

in the RMP.

To ensure that prevention program

data are reported on the parts of larger

processes that require separate program

implementation, EPA is proposing to

clarify the basis for prevention program

reporting. The rule would be revised to

make it explicit that RMP data for both

Program 2 and Program 3 prevention

programs would be submitted on each

part of the process for which a separate

hazard review or PHA was conducted.

For example, a propane distribution

source that conducted one hazard

review on its two storage tanks would

submit data on one prevention program.

A refinery that conducted 25 PHAs on

its 25 production units would submit

information on 25 prevention programs.

Separate hazard reviews or PHAs means

analyses that are conducted by different

people or at different times. This change

is consistent with EPA’s original

intention. EPA believes this approach

also will be more straightforward for

sources. Reporting on processes that

aggregate multiple production and

storage units would have required

collecting all of the data on individual

prevention programs and merging them

into a single report, increasing the

likelihood of errors.

Sources are still required to determine

threshold quantity and Program level

using the definition of process; that is,

if units are considered to be

interconnected or co-located, all of the

regulated substances in the aggregated

units must be included in the threshold

determination. EPA is not proposing to

change reporting on the registration

section of the RMP. Sources may report

chemical identities, quantities, NAICS

codes, and Program levels by process

even if those processes represent

multiple prevention programs. Sources

may elect to list the separate units in the

registration section to parallel their

prevention programs, but they are not

required to do so.

EPA is also proposing to drop the

second sentence in paragraph (a) of both

§§ 68.170 and 68.175. This sentence—

‘‘If the same information applies to more

than one covered process, the owner or

operator may provide the information

only once, but shall indicate to which

processes the information applies’’—

does not impose a regulatory

requirement on sources, but is advisory

in nature. At this time, the

RMP*SubmitTM system is not being

designed to allow sources to enter

prevention program data once and

indicate to which reported prevention

programs the answers apply.

Consequently, EPA is proposing to

remove this sentence.

The data required for the RMP are

specified in §§ 68.155–180. To make a

searchable database possible, some of

the items will be required to be reported

from checklists, which are not in the

rule. For example, the rule requires that

the source list the major hazards

identified during the hazard review or

process hazard analysis; the RMP format

will provide a list of potential hazards

that sources must use when filing.

During the process of developing the

electronic format, some of these

checklists may change to provide more

options for sources and to ensure that

the data give the needed information

(e.g., on-site deaths and injuries will be

reported for employees/contractors,

public responders, and others). The

current version of the draft format is

available at: http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/

rules/dataelem.html or from the EPCRA

hotline.

D. Confidential Business Information

(CBI)

Members of the Electronic

Submission Work Group and others

have asked how EPA plans to handle

information within the RMP that is

‘‘confidential business information.’’

Part 68 provides protection for

‘‘classified’’ information, but this

applies only to Federal agencies and

their contractors. Part 68 does provide,

in § 68.210, that information will be

available to the public under CAA

section 114(c), which limits how the

Administrator must handle certain

confidential or proprietary information.

In response to these questions and to

clarify procedures for submitting RMPs

that contain confidential business

information (CBI), EPA is proposing to

add two sections to the rule to govern

CBI claims with regard to RMP data.

The rules governing CBI that already

exist in 40 CFR part 2 will continue to

provide the substantive criteria that

must be met to assert such claims. To

qualify for CBI protection, the

substantive criteria set forth at 40 CFR

2.301 require that the data be

commercial or financial, that they 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. In new § 68.151,

EPA would provide a list of RMP data

elements that are not claimable as CBI

and specify procedures and timing for

submission of claims and

substantiation.

In the following paragraphs, EPA

discusses those RMP data elements that

the Agency proposes are not CBI and

are, therefore, not claimable as such.

EPA solicits comment on these

assessments. EPA also notes that certain

of the data elements that would be

claimable as CBI under the proposed

rule (release rate and release duration,

among others) would appear to be

‘‘emission data’’ and, therefore, not be

CBI under 40 CFR 2.301, considering

the Agency’s existing policy regarding

‘‘emission data.’’ See 56 FR 7042 (Feb.

21, 1991). EPA specifically requests

comment on the appropriateness of

applying this policy to the RMP data

elements for purposes of the final rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19221

EPA is proposing that the following

Registration data elements could not be

claimed as CBI:

• Source identification information

(name, address, telephone numbers,

Dun & Bradstreet numbers, emergency

contact data);

• Name or title of the person

responsible for risk management

program implementation;

• The Program level and NAICS

codes of the processes registered;

• Number of employees;

• Whether the source is subject to

other rules; and

• Date of the last safety inspection.

These data elements are generally

available from other filings with

Federal, state, or local agencies, and

from other sources and, therefore, do

not meet the criteria for CBI claims.

Source identification data and NAICS

codes are filed with EPA, states, and

local entities and are publicly available

under EPCRA, among other

requirements, and are available from

many other public sources, including

industrial directories. Number of

employees is submitted to the Census

Bureau and is available for many

facilities from industrial directories.

Whether a source is subject to other

rules and the date of safety inspections

can be obtained from public agencies

and are unlikely to affect a source’s

competitive position. The name or title

of the person responsible for program

implementation will not be available

elsewhere, but would not affect a

source’s competitive position. The

program level of the process also is not

available elsewhere, but, by itself,

reveals no confidential business

information. Therefore, none of these

elements is eligible for protection.

EPA is proposing that the following

offsite consequence analysis data could

not be claimed as CBI:

• Basis of the results (model used).

• Topography.

• Distance to an endpoint; and

• Public and environmental receptors

(including population potentially

affected) within the distance to the

endpoint.

EPA believes that certain offsite

consequence analysis data may be

eligible for CBI protection, specifically,

chemical identity and quantity released.

Because of the ability to derive chemical

identity and quantity released from

other data included in the offsite

consequence analysis (e.g., release rate

and duration), EPA is also proposing

that sources may claim CBI for those

other data elements. However, EPA is

proposing that some offsite consequence

analysis items are not CBI. Without the

information on the chemical identity,

quantity, release rate, and duration, the

model used and topography could not

be used to derive the chemical identity

or quantity and, therefore, by

themselves provide no confidential

information. Further, EPA believes

distance to an endpoint and public and

environmental receptors are of most

interest to the public, and, their

disclosure reveals no source business

data.

EPA is proposing that CBI treatment

may not be claimed for any accident

history data. The date, time, and

duration of the release, the chemicals

and quantities released, type of event,

source, and impacts will be reported to

EPA or other agencies under existing

laws before the RMP is submitted; more

importantly, databases with this

information are publicly available.

Moreover, the initiating event and

contributing factors are generic enough

that reporting them will reveal no

confidential business information.

EPA is proposing that all dates

reported for prevention program

elements could not be claimed as CBI.

These dates reveal no confidential

business information. They are merely

evidence of having complied with EPA

rules and would not affect a source’s

competitive position. Similarly, because

all emergency response information

must be available to public responders

and because it reveals no data that

would affect a source’s competitive

position, EPA proposes that it be

excluded from CBI claims.

EPA believes that only a limited

number of sources, primarily chemical

manufacturers, will have a basis for

claiming the remaining RMP data

elements as CBI. EPA’s justifications for

its specific CBI findings appear in an

appendix to this preamble. An even

more detailed analysis of all RMP data

elements and proposed CBI

determinations is available in the docket

(see the ADDRESSES section).

To assert a CBI claim, a source would

be required to submit to EPA its RMP

in two versions: (1) a redacted

(‘‘sanitized’’), electronic version, which

would become part of the RMP

database, and (2) an unredacted

(‘‘unsanitized’’), paper copy. The

redacted version would identify each

data element, except chemical identity,

claimed as CBI by entering ‘‘CBI’’ into

the data field or leaving the field blank.

For chemical identity, the source would

be required to provide a generic

chemical category or class name in lieu

of the actual chemical name. At the time

of RMP submission, the source would

also be required to submit to EPA its

substantiation for each item claimed.

Information contained in a

substantiation may be claimed as CBI in

accordance with 40 CFR 2.301. If all or

part of the substantiation is claimed as

CBI, a redacted version of substantiation

must also be filed with EPA. This

approach of submitting dual

substantiations is the same as that used

for trade secret claims filed under the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right to Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA).

Review of these CBI claims will be

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR

part 2 and the present rulemaking.

EPA will make the redacted

(sanitized) versions of the RMPs

available to the public, States, and local

governments by including them in

RMP*InfoTM. Should States or LEPCs

want to obtain the unsanitized version

from EPA, they may do so by filing a

written request with EPA for the

information. EPA will respond to such

requests consistent with 40 CFR

2.301(h)(3), which governs disclosures

to States and local agencies having

duties or responsibilities under the

Clean Air Act and its implementing

regulations. A State or local government

may, under this provision, obtain CBI

from EPA under two circumstances: (1)

it provides EPA a written opinion from

its chief legal officer or counsel stating

that the State or local agency has the

authority under applicable State or local

law to compel the business to disclose

the information directly; or (2) the

businesses whose information is

disclosed are informed and the State or

local government has shown to an EPA

legal office’s satisfaction that its use and

disclosure of the information will be

governed by State or local law and by

‘‘procedures which will provide

adequate protection to the interests of

affected businesses.’’

Notwithstanding the foregoing

process, State and local governments

may always obtain the unsanitized

versions of the RMP by enacting

regulations to require sources in their

jurisdiction to submit the CBI directly to

State and local entities. EPA encourages

those State and local authorities wishing

to receive the unsanitized RMPs to use

their own authority to require such

information, rather than seeking it

under EPA’s disclosure regulations.

EPA is also proposing to amend part

68 by adding § 68.152. This section

would reference the substantive criteria

set forth at 40 CFR 2.301 and require

sources to claim, and substantiate, CBI

at the time RMP data are submitted.

Failure to do so would be considered a

waiver of CBI by the source, and the

data would be disclosed to the public

and made part of the RMP*Info

database. Section 68.152 also would

require the source’s owner, operator, or
19222 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

senior official to certify the accuracy of

its CBI substantiation claims. Adopting

the § 2.301 criteria without change

ensures that there will be no conflicting

interpretations between existing CBI

criteria and the proposed set of rules.

Because the existing CBI criteria are

used under many environmental

statutes, they are familiar to industry.

It should be noted that information

properly claimed as CBI in accordance

with this regulation may nevertheless be

disclosed to the public pursuant to the

community right-to-know provisions of

other environmental laws. Under

EPCRA section 303, local emergency

planning committees (LEPCs) must

prepare and make publicly available

comprehensive emergency response

plans for their jurisdictions. These plans

must address, among other things,

facilities that are subject to the

emergency planning and notification

requirements of EPCRA sections 302

and 303 (‘‘EPCRA Planning facilities’’).

Accordingly, section 303(d)(3) permits

an LEPC to compel an owner or operator

of an EPCRA Planning facility to

provide any information (except trade

secret information properly withheld

pursuant to section 322 of EPCRA)

necessary to enable the LEPC to develop

and implement the emergency plan. An

EPCRA Planning facility which receives

from its LEPC a proper section 303(d)(3)

request for information contained in its

RMP must therefore provide the

information promptly, irrespective of a

valid CBI claim under this rule.

Similarly, a proper CBI claim under this

part will bind only the Administrator

and will not prevent an LEPC from

disclosing certain confidential

information collected under EPCRA

section 303(d)(3), because information

included in an emergency plan must be

made public under EPCRA section

324(a) and because State or local laws

may require the LEPC to make such

information public. Furthermore, once

that information is requested by the

LEPC and available to the public, that

information would no longer be subject

to CBI protection under Federal CBI

rules.

E. Other Changes

When part 68 was promulgated,

§ 68.79(a), which was adopted from the

OSHA PSM standard, was not revised to

reflect the different structure of EPA’s

rule. The OSHA PSM standard is

contained in a single section; EPA’s

Program 3 prevention program is

contained in a subpart, with OSHA

paragraphs handled as separate sections.

Rather than referencing ‘‘this section,’’

the paragraph should have referenced

the ‘‘subpart.’’ The section would be

changed to correct this error and ensure

that the compliance audit covers the

entire prevention program.

Under § 68.180(b), EPA intended that

all covered sources report the name and

telephone number of the agency with

which they coordinate emergency

response activities, even if the source is

not required to have an emergency

response plan. However, the rule refers

only to coordinating the emergency

plan. EPA is proposing to revise the rule

to include both the plan and response

activities.

III. Section-by-Section Discussion of the

Proposed Rule

In Section 68.3, Definitions, the

definition of SIC would be removed and

the definition of NAICS added.

Section 68.10, Applicability, would

be revised to replace the SIC codes with

NAICS codes, as discussed above.

Section 68.42, Five-Year Accident

History, would be revised to require the

percentage concentration by weight of

regulated toxic substances released in a

mixture and NAICS code for the process

that had the release.

Section 68.79, Compliance Audits, the

word ‘‘section’’ in paragraph (a) would

be replaced by ‘‘subpart.’’

Section 68.150, Submission, would be

revised by adding a paragraph to state

that procedures for asserting CBI claims

and determining the sufficiency of such

claims are provided in new §§ 68.151

and 68.152 and in 40 CFR part 2.

Section 68.151 would be added, as

discussed above.

Section 68.152 would be added, as

discussed above.

Section 68.160, Registration, would be

revised by adding the requirements for

the method and description of latitude

and longitude, replacing SIC codes with

NAICS codes, and adding the

requirement to report a Title V permit

number, when applicable.

Section 68.165, Offsite Consequence

Analysis, would be revised by adding

the requirement that the percentage

weight of a regulated toxic substance in

a mixture be reported.

Section 68.170, Prevention Program/

Program 2 would be revised to clarify

the basis for reporting to make it clear

that RMP data for prevention programs

must be submitted for each part of the

process for which a separate hazard

review is conducted and to replace SIC

codes with NAICS codes.

Section 68.175, Prevention Program/

Program 3 would be revised to clarify

the basis for reporting to make it clear

that RMP data for prevention programs

must be submitted for each part of the

process for which a separate PHA is

conducted and to replace SIC codes

with NAICS codes.

Section 68.180 would be revised to

clarify paragraph (b) as discussed above.

Section 68.210, Availability of

information to the public, would be

revised to include references to

§§ 68.150 through 68.152 and to replace

the reference to CAA section 114 with

a reference to 40 CFR part 2.

IV. 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 proposed

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 rulemaking process. Along with

the proposed and promulgated

standards and their preambles, the

contents of the docket will serve as the

record in the case of judicial review.

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

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, has been established for this

rulemaking under Docket No. A–98–08

(including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to

4 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.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center at: ‘‘Aand-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov’’.

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 6.1 file format or ASCII

file format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number A–98–08. Electronic

comments on this proposed rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

B. Public Hearing and Written

Comments

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to discuss the proposed

amendments in accordance with section

307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act. If a

public hearing is requested and held,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19223

the EPA will ask clarifying questions

during the oral presentation but will not

respond to the presentations or

comments. Written statements and

supporting information will be

considered with equivalent weight as

any oral statement and supporting

information subsequently presented at a

public hearing, if held. Persons wishing

to present oral testimony or to inquire

as to whether a hearing is to be held

should contact the EPA (see

ADDRESSES). To provide an opportunity

for all who may wish to speak, oral

presentations will be limited to 15

minutes each.

Any member of the public may file a

written statement on or before June 1,

1998. Written statements should be

addressed to the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (see

ADDRESSES), and refer to Docket No. A–

98–08. A verbatim transcript of the

hearing and written statements will be

placed in the docket and be available for

public inspection and copying, or

mailed upon request, at the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center.

C. E.O. 12866

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,

EPA must determine whether a

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,

therefore, subject to OMB review and

the requirements of the E.O. 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 government 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 E.O.

It has been determined that today’s

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

E.O. 12866 and is, therefore, not subject

to OMB review.

D. E.O. 12875

To reduce the burden of Federal

regulations on States and small

governments, President Clinton issued

Executive Order 12875 on October 26,

1993, entitled ‘‘Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership.’’ Under

Executive Order 12875, EPA may not

issue a regulation which is not required

by statute unless the Federal

Government provides the necessary

funds to pay the direct costs incurred by

the State and small governments or EPA

provides to the Office of Management

and Budget a description of the prior

consultation and communications the

agency has had with representatives of

State and small governments and

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of State and small

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

The present proposed rule satisfies

the requirements of Executive Order

12875 because it is required by statute

and because it does not contain a

significant unfunded mandate. Section

112(r) of the Clean Air Act requires that

facilities submit risk management plans

containing certain essential information.

This rulemaking, together with the rule

it amends, implements that statutory

command. In addition, this rule

contains no mandate binding upon State

or small governments. Nevertheless,

EPA has taken independent efforts to

involve such entities in this regulatory

effort; specifically, much of the rule

responds to issues raised by the

Electronic Submission Workgroup

discussed above, which included State

and local government stakeholders.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act, Federal

agencies must evaluate the impacts of

rules on small entities. EPA has

examined this proposed rule’s potential

effects on small entities as required.

EPA has determined that this proposed

rule will have a negligible effect on

small entities because the proposed rule

would, if promulgated, only impose real

costs on those small businesses that

claim CBI when submitting the RMP.

EPA estimates that very few small

entities (approximately 500) will claim

CBI and that these few entities represent

a small fraction of the small entities

(less than 5 percent) affected by the

RMP rule. Finally, EPA estimates that

those small businesses filing CBI will

experience a cost which is significantly

less than one percent of their annual

sales. Therefore, I certify that today’s

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities. For a more detailed

analysis of the small entity impacts of

this proposed rulemaking, see

Document Number II–B–03, available in

the docket for this rulemaking (see

ADDRESSES section).

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 1656.04) and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M St, SW, Washington, DC

20460, by e-mail at

farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov or by

calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also

be downloaded off the Internet at http:/

/www.epa.gov/icr.

The submission of the RMP is

mandated by section 112(r)(7) of the

CAA and demonstrates compliance with

part 68. The information collected also

will be made available to state and local

governments and the public to enhance

their preparedness, response, and

prevention activities. Information in the

RMP may be claimed as confidential

business information under 40 CFR part

2 and part 68.

EPA estimates that the new data

elements will impose little burden on

sources; latitude and longitude method

and description will be selected from a

list of options. The Title V permit

number is available to any source to

which it applies. Percentage weight of a

toxic substance in a mixture is usually

provided by the supplier of the mixture.

The NAICS code is simply a change

from one code to another; sources will

have determined their NAICS codes for

the 1997 Census of Manufacturers prior

to RMP submission.

The public reporting burden for CBI

claims is estimated to be 15 hours for

chemical manufacturers with Program 3

processes. EPA estimates that

approximately 20 percent of the 4000

chemical manufacturers may file CBI

claims (800 sources). The total annual

public reporting burden for filing CBI

claims is estimated to be about 12,000

hours over three years, or an annual

burden of 4,000 hours. 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,
19224 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division, 2137,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW, Washington D.C.

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

D.C. 20503, ‘‘Attn: Desk Officer for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after April 17,

1998, a comment to OMB is best assured

of having its full effect if OMB receives

it by May 18, 1998. The final rule will

respond to any OMB and public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposed

notice.

G. Unfunded Mandates

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995 (109 Stat.

48), requires that the Agency prepare a

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, before promulgating a rule that

includes a Federal mandate that may

result in expenditure by State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. Where the rule

might significantly affect small

governments, section 203 requires the

Agency to establish a plan for obtaining

input from small governments and

informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with the requirements of

the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the Agency must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

statement must be prepared. The

Agency must select from those

alternatives the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative for State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector that

achieves the objectives of the rule,

unless the Agency explains why this

alternative is not selected or unless the

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

The EPA has determined that the total

nationwide capital cost for these rule

amendments is approximately zero and

the annual nationwide cost for these

amendments is less than $1 million.

Because this rule is estimated to result

in the expenditure by State and local

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector of less than $100 million

in any one year, the Agency has not

prepared a statement or engaged in an

alternatives analysis pursuant to

sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act.

Because small governments will not

be significantly or uniquely affected by

this rule, the Agency is not required to

develop a plan with regard to small

governments in accordance with section

203 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub L. 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, etc.) 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 proposed regulatory action does

not involve any technical standards that

would require Agency consideration of

voluntary consensus standards pursuant

to section 12(d) of the NTTAA. EPA

invites public comment on this analysis.

Appendix to Preamble—Data Elements That May Not Be Claimed As CBI

Rule element Comment

68.160(b)(1). Stationary source name, street, city, county, state, zip

code, latitude, and longitude; 68.160(b)(2) Stationary source Dun and

Bradstreet number; 68.160(b)(3) Name and Dun and Bradstreet number of the corporate parent company; 68.160(b)(4) The name, telephone number, and mailing address of the owner/operator.

This information is filed with EPA and other agencies under other regulations and is made available to the public and, therefore, does not

meet the criteria for CBI claims. It is also available in business and

other directories.

68.160(b)(5) The name and title of the person or position with overall

responsibility for RMP elements and implementation.

This information provides no information that would affect a source’s

competitive position.

68.160(b)(6) The name, title, telephone number, and 24-hour telephone

number of the emergency contact.

This information is filed with state and local agencies under EPCRA

and is made available to the public and, therefore, does not meet

the criteria for CBI claims.

68.160(b)(7) Program level and NAICS code .......................................... This information provides no information that would affect a source’s

competitive position.

68.160(b)(8) The stationary source EPA identifier ................................... This information provides no information that would affect a source’s

competitive position.

68.160(b)(9) The number of full time employees ..................................... This information is available for many sources from public directories.

This information provides no information that would affect a source’s

competitive position.

68.160(b)(10) Whether the source is subject to 29 CFR 1910.119 ......... This information provides no information that would affect a source’s

competitive position.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19225

Rule element Comment

68.160(b)(11) Whether the source is subject to 40 CFR part 355 .......... Sources are required to notify the state and local agencies if they are

subject to this rule; this information is available to the public and,

therefore, does not meet the criteria for CBI claims.

68.160(b)(12) Whether the source has a CAA Title V operating permit This information will be known to state and federal air agencies and is

available to the public and, therefore, does not meet the criteria for

CBI claims.

68.160(b)(13) The date of the last safety inspection and identity of the

inspecting agency.

This information provides no information that would affect a source’s

competitive position.

68.165(b)(3) Basis of the results (give model name if used) ................... Without the chemical name and quantity, this reveals no business information.

68.165(b)(9) Topography (toxics only) ..................................................... Without the chemical name and quantity, this reveals no business information.

68.165(b)(10) Distance to an endpoint ..................................................... By itself, this information provides no confidential information. Other

elements that would reveal chemical identity or quantity may be

claimed as CBI.

68.165(b)(11) Public and environmental receptors within the distance ... By itself, this information provides no confidential information. Other

elements that would reveal chemical identity or quantity may be

claimed as CBI.

68.168 Five-year accident history ............................................................ Sources are required to report most of these releases and information

(chemical released, quantity, impacts) to the federal, state, and local

agencies under CERCLA and EPCRA; these data are available to

the public and, therefore, do not meet the criteria for CBI claims.

Much of this information is also available from the public media.

68.170(b), (d), (e)(1), and (f)-(k); 68.175(b), (d), (e)(1), and (f)-(p);

NAICS code, prevention program compliance dates and information.

NAICS codes and the prevention program compliance dates and information provide no information that would affect a source’s competitive position.

68.180 Emergency response program ..................................................... This information provides no information that would affect a source’s

competitive position.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Chemicals,

Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 9, 1998.

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 proposed to be

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.

2. Section 68.3 is proposed to be

amended by removing the definition of

SIC and by adding in alphabetical order

the definition for NAICS to read as

follows:

§ 68.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

NAICS means North American

Industrial Classification System.

* * * * *

3. Section 68.10 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to

read as follows:

§ 68.10 Applicability.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) The process is in NAICS code

32211, 32411, 32511, 325181, 325188,

325192, 325199, 325211, 325311, or

32532; or

* * * * *

4. Section 68.42 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (b)(3),

redesignating paragraphs (b)(4) through

(b)(10) as paragraphs (b)(5) through

(b)(11) and by adding a new paragraph

(b)(4) to read as follows:

§ 68.42 Five-year accident history.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) Estimated quantity released in

pounds and, for mixtures of regulated

toxic substances, percentage

concentration by weight of the released

regulated substance in the mixture;

(4) NAICS code for the process;

* * * * *

5. Section 68.79 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 68.79 Compliance audits.

(a) The owner or operator shall certify

that they have evaluated compliance

with the provisions of this subpart at

least every three years to verify that

procedures and practices developed

under this subpart are adequate and are

being followed.

* * * * *

6. Section 68.150 is proposed to be

amended by adding paragraph (e) to

read as follows:

§ 68.150 Submission.

* * * * *

(e) Procedures for asserting and

determining that some of the

information submitted in the RMP is

entitled to protection as confidential

business information are set forth in

§§ 68.151 and 68.152 and in 40 CFR part

2.

7. Section 68.151 is proposed to be

added to read as follows:

§ 68.151 Assertion of claims of

confidential business information.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, a claim of

confidential business information may

be made for any data elements that meet

the criteria provided in 40 CFR 2.301.

(b) Notwithstanding the procedures

specified in 40 CFR part 2, the following

data elements shall not be claimed as

confidential business information for

the purposes of complying with this

part:

(1) Registration data set forth in

§ 68.160(b)(1) through (b)(6) and (b)(8)

through (b)(13) and NAICS code and

Program level of the process set forth in

§ 68.160(b)(7);

(2) Offsite consequence analysis set

forth in § 68.165(b)(3), (b)(9), (b)(10) and

(b)(11);

(3) Accident history data set forth in

§ 68.168;
19226 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(4) Prevention program data set forth

in § 68.170(b), (d), (e)(1), (f) through (k);

(5) Prevention program data set forth

in § 68.175(b), (d), (e)(1), (f) through (p);

(6) Emergency response program data

set forth in § 68.180.

(c) Notwithstanding the procedures

specified in 40 CFR part 2, to assert a

claim that one or more data elements are

entitled to protection as confidential

business information, the owner or

operator shall submit to EPA the

following:

(1) An unsanitized (unredacted) paper

copy of the RMP that clearly identifies

each data element that is being claimed

as confidential business information;

(2) A sanitized (redacted) copy of the

RMP that shall be identical to the

unsanitized copy of the RMP except that

the submitter shall replace each data

element, except chemical identity,

claimed as confidential business

information with the notation ‘‘CBI’’ or

a blank field. For chemical identities

claimed as CBI, the submitter shall

substitute a generic category or class

name; and

(3) At the time of submission of the

RMP, a sanitized and unsanitized

document substantiating each claim of

confidential business information.

8. Section 68.152 is proposed to be

added to read as follows:

§ 68.152 Substantiating claims of

confidential business information.

(a) Claims of confidential business

information must be substantiated by

providing documentation that

demonstrates that the information meets

the substantive criteria set forth in 40

CFR 2.301.

(b) The submitter may claim as

confidential information submitted as

part of the substantiation. To claim

materials as confidential, the submitter

shall clearly designate those portions of

the substantiation to be claimed as

confidential by marking them as

confidential business information.

Information not so marked will be

treated as public and may be disclosed

without notice to the submitter.

(c) The owner, operator, or senior

official with management responsibility

shall sign a certification that the signer

has personally examined the

information submitted and that based

on inquiry of the persons who compiled

the information, the information is true,

accurate, and complete, and that those

portions of substantiation claimed as

confidential business information

would, if disclosed, reveal trade secrets

or other confidential business

information.

9. Section 68.160 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1),

(b)(7), and (b)(12) to read as follows:

§ 68.160 Registration.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Stationary source name, street,

city, county, state, zip code, latitude and

longitude, method for obtaining latitude

and longitude, and description of

location that latitude and longitude

represent;

* * * * *

(7) For each covered process, the

name and CAS number of each

regulated substance held above the

threshold quantity in the process, the

maximum quantity of each regulated

substance or mixture in the process (in

pounds) to two significant digits, the

NAICS code of the process, and the

Program level of the process;

* * * * *

(12) If the stationary source has a CAA

Title V operating permit, the permit

number; and

* * * * *

10. Section 68.165 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 68.165 Offsite consequence analysis.

* * * * *

(b) The owner or operator shall

submit the following data:

(1) Chemical name;

(2) Percentage weight of the chemical

in a mixture (toxics only);

(3) Physical state (toxics only);

(4) Basis of results (give model name);

(5) Scenario (explosion, fire, toxic gas

release, or liquid spill and evaporation);

(6) Quantity released in pounds;

(7) Release rate;

(8) Release duration;

(9) Wind speed and atmospheric

stability class (toxics only);

(10) Topography (toxics only);

(11) Distance to endpoint;

(12) Public and environmental

receptors within the distance;

(13) Passive mitigation considered;

and

(14) Active mitigation considered.

11. Section 68.170 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraphs (a) and

(b) to read as follows:

§ 68.170 Prevention program/Program 2.

(a) For each part of a Program 2

process for which a separate hazard

review was conducted, the owner or

operator shall provide in the RMP the

information indicated in paragraphs (b)

through (k) of this section.

(b) The NAICS code for the part of the

process.

* * * * *

12. Section 68.175 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraphs (a) and

(b) to read as follows:

§ 68.175 Prevention program/Program 3.

(a) For each part of a Program 3

process for which a separate process

hazard analysis was conducted, the

owner or operator shall provide in the

RMP the information indicated in

paragraphs (b) through (p) of this

section.

(b) The NAICS code for the part of the

process.

* * * * *

13. Section 68.180 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 68.180 Emergency response program.

* * * * *

(b) The owner or operator shall

provide the name and telephone

number of the local agency with which

emergency response activities or the

emergency response plan is

coordinated.

* * * * *

14. Section 68.210 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 68.210 Availability of information to the

public.

(a) The RMP required under subpart

G of this part shall be available to the

public except as provided in §§ 68.150

through 68.152 and 40 CFR part 2.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–10145 Filed 4–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98–43; FCC 98–57]

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review—

Streamlining of Mass Media

Applications, Rules, and Processes

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to

streamline broadcast application and

licensing procedures and reduce

licensee administrative and filing

requirements. The Commission also

proposes to eliminate rules and

procedures that no longer advance key

objectives. In addition, the Commission

seeks comment on whether to mandate

electronic filing for certain broadcast

application and reporting forms. By

these proposals, the Commission seeks