ç'EO ST.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

( o1

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

NOW THE


OFFICE OF LAND AND
 The Honorable Fred Upton EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Thank you for your May 6, 2016, letter requesting an extension of the comment deadline for the 

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act 

proposed rule. I appreciate your interest in ensuring adequate review of EPA's Risk Management 

Program proposal. As outlined below, the EPA conducted extensive outreach on the proposed rule, 

therefore I am respectfully denying the request. 

In August 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13650, Improving Chemical Facility 

Safety and Security, to reduce risks associated with hazardous chemical incidents. The EO Working 

Group held webinars and several public listening sessions throughout the country [from November 2013 

through February 2014] to discuss EO progress, provide updates on specific initiatives, and listen to 

specific concerns and suggestions from those directly involved with, and potentially impacted by, 

chemical facility safety and security incidents. The EO Working Group also published a preliminary list 

of options for improving chemical facility safety and security for stakeholder comment. Based on input 

from stakeholders, a Report for the President was developed. In the June 2014 Report for the President 

entitled Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security A Shared Commitment, modernizing 

the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule was identified as one of the top priorities to improve 

chemical facility safety and security. The EPA followed up on July 31, 2014, with a request for 

information (RFI), seeking comment on potential revisions to modernize its regulations, guidance, and 

policies. 

In addition to publishing the RFI in the summer of 2014, the EPA has held numerous outreach meetings 

with state and local governments, including the National Association of SARA Title III Program 

Officials, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the Environmental 

Council of States, the National League of Cities, the National Governors Association, and the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors. I also spoke at the National League of Cities Annual Congressional City 

Conference in March 2014. We have also engaged with EPA's Local Government Advisory Committee, 

a federal advisory committee made up of state, local and tribal elected and appointed officials. Under 

EPA's policy for implementing Executive Order 13132, formal Federalism consultation is triggered only 

if a rule is projected to reach $25 million in state and local implementation costs, nationally, in any 

given year, or if current or future state or local law/regulation is preempted. While neither of these 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted with Vegetable OI Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
conditions was determined to exist for the RMP proposal, the EPA actively sought input from state and 

local governments. 

With respect to specific engagement on the proposed RMP rule elements, the EPA fully briefed on all 

elements of the rule through the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel starting in November 

2015, which included representatives from the American Water Works Association, Manitowoc Public 

Utilities Water Department, Nebraska Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Ag Cooperative Safety 

Directors of Iowa, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Louisiana Chemical Association, 

and the City of Troy. We also have engaged the National Fire Protection Association. Finally, the EPA 

held a public hearing on March 29, 2016. 

In addition to the proposed rule's 60-day comment period, the EPA made available a pre-publication 

version on EPA's website 18 days prior to that on February 25, 2016, along with many critical 

supporting documents, including the regulatory impact analysis, the technical background document, 

and the SBAR Panel final report and executive summary. Additionally, the pre-publication copy of the 

proposed rule contained numerous footnote references to supporting documents that have long been 

available, including reports of the Chemical Safety Board, EPA accident investigation reports, specific 

public comments on the RFI, technical reports, and journal articles. 

Given the significant outreach efforts, we believe that EPA's RMP proposal reflects substantial input 

from state and local governments, as well as stakeholders, on the elements of the proposed rule to 

improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to 

accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated facilities. As such, we believe 

that the comment period's current closing date allowed sufficient time for all interested parties to 

develop and submit comments on the proposal, while also recognizing the important public health and 

safety needs that lead to this rulemaking proposal in the first place. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any questions you can contact me, or your staff may 

contact Carolyn Levine in EPA' s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

levine.carolyn@epa.gov or 202-564-1859.

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Land and Emergency Management
OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

NOW THE


OFFICE OF LAND AND


EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

The Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Thank you for your May 6, 2016, letter requesting an extension of the comment deadline for the 

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act 

proposed rule. I appreciate your interest in ensuring adequate review of EPA' s Risk Management 

Program proposal. As outlined below, the EPA conducted extensive outreach on the proposed rule, 

therefore I am respectfully denying the request. 

In August 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order (EU) 13650, Improving Chemical Facility 

Safety and Security, to reduce risks associated with hazardous chemical incidents. The EU Working 

Group held webinars and several public listening sessions throughout the country [from November 2013 

through February 2014] to discuss EU progress, provide updates on specific initiatives, and listen to 

specific concerns and suggestions from those directly involved with, and potentially impacted by, 

chemical facility safety and security incidents. The EU Working Group also published a preliminary list 

of options for improving chemical facility safety and security for stakeholder comment. Based on input 

from stakeholders, a Report for the President was developed. In the June 2014 Report for the President 

entitled Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security - A Shared Commitment, modernizing 

the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule was identified as one of the top priorities to improve 

chemical facility safety and security. The EPA followed up on July 31, 2014, with a request for 

information (RFI), seeking comment on potential revisions to modernize its regulations, guidance, and 

policies. 

In addition to publishing the RFI in the summer of 2014, the EPA has held numerous outreach meetings 

with state and local governments, including the National Association of SARA Title III Program 

Officials, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the Environmental 

Council of States, the National League of Cities, the National Governors Association, and the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors. I also spoke at the National League of Cities Annual Congressional City 

Conference in March 2014. We have also engaged with EPA's Local Government Advisory Committee, 

a federal advisory committee made up of state, local and tribal elected and appointed officials. Under 

EPA's policy for implementing Executive Order 13132, formal Federalism consultation is triggered only 

if a rule is projected to reach $25 million in state and local implementation costs, nationally, in any 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
given year, or if current or future state or local law/regulation is preempted. While neither of these 

conditions was determined to exist for the RMP proposal, the EPA actively sought input from state and 

local governments. 

With respect to specific engagement on the proposed RMP rule elements, the EPA fully briefed on all 

elements of the rule through the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel starting in November 

2015, which included representatives from the American Water Works Association, Manitowoc Public 

Utilities Water Department, Nebraska Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Ag Cooperative Safety 

Directors of Iowa, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Louisiana Chemical Association, 

and the City of Troy. We also have engaged the National Fire Protection Association. Finally, the EPA 

held a public hearing on March 29, 2016. 

In addition to the proposed rule's 60-day comment period, the EPA made available a pre-publication 

version on s website 18 days prior to that on February 25, 2016, along with many critical 

supporting documents, including the regulatory impact analysis, the technical background document, 

and the SBAR Panel final report and executive summary. Additionally, the pre-publication copy of the 

proposed rule contained numerous footnote references to supporting documents that have long been 

available, including reports of the Chemical Safety Board, EPA accident investigation reports, specific 

public comments on the RH, technical reports, and journal articles. 

Given the significant outreach efforts, we believe that EPA's RMP proposal reflects substantial input 

from state and local governments, as well as stakeholders, on the elements of the proposed rule to 

improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to 

accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated facilities. As such, we believe 

that the comment period's current closing date allowed sufficient time for all interested parties to 

develop and submit comments on the proposal, while also recognizing the important public health and 

safety needs that lead to this rulemaking proposal in the first place. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any questions you can contact me, or your staff may 

contact Carolyn Levine in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

levine.carolynepa.gov or 202-564-1859.

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Land and Emergency Management