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 semi-
annual reports containing the
information specified in paragraphs
(e)(l) 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)(l)
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
40CFRPart68
[FRL-5997-2]
RIN2050-AE46
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under Clean Air Act Section
112(rX7); 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-R-
pOCKET@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
Chemical Manufac-
turers.
Petroleum '. ,
Other-Manufactur-
ing.
Agriculture
Public Sources
Utilities
Other ...
Federal Sources ....
Examples of regulated
entities .
Basic chemicat manu-
facturing, petrochemi-
cals, resins, agricul-
tural chemicals, Phar-
maceuticals, paints,
cleaning compounds..
Refineries. '
Paper, electronics,
semiconductors, fab-
ricated metals, indus-
trial machinery, food
processing.
Agricultural retailers.
Drinking water, and
wastewater treatment
systems. '
Electric and gas utilities.
Propane retailers and
users, cold storage,
warehousing and
wholesalers.
Military and energy in-
stallations.
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 f>erson
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. Optlona^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),
B. Background
The 1990 CAA Amendments revised
section 1 12 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)
(Prograrti 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
^anagement 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/acc-
preJitml) 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 "user-
friendly PC-based submission system
(RMP*Submit) and a searchable
database of RMPs, available on the
Internet (RMP*Submit). 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 1-7. 1998/Proposed Rules
Section 68.10(d)(l) 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 (nee)), 2821 (plastics and
resins), 2865 (cyclic crudes and
intermediates), 2869 (industrial organic
chemicals, nee), 2873 (nitrogen
fertilizers), 28/9 (agricultural chemicals,
nee), 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
ado;:, 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 chemi-
, cals
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,
nee) 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
rhanufacturirig).
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 IJst 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 nfeet 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 cod? 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,
1 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 code_s ,
would no longer be subject to Program
3 oh 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.,
fluoVocarbon 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 N AICS
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*Submit 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 Agencyrwide
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 die 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, die work group recommended
that EPA include die 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.
fa. 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 additiorial
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 widi the latter.
d. Phone number at the source for
public inquiries. The source may want
to provide a phone number for. public
inquiries. Currently die RMP data
elements list die owner/operator and die
emergency contact phone numbers, but
no odier 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'f VPP status, In addition to the four
optional data elements recommended by
die workgrbup, EPA also plans to give
sources an opportunity to indicate
whether diey 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 diey 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 diese
blank.
C. Clarification of Prevention Program
Reporting
EPA is proposing to revise die
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.
QSHA 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 rriay 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*Submit 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
1 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 claimsrTo .
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 hot 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 b)e
"emission data" and-, therefore, not b.e
CBI under 40 GFR 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 o/ 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 !s 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*Info. 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
2.30l(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 of local law and by
."procedures which w.ill 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 wpuld 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 iocal laws
may require the LEPC to make such . ;
informatipn public. Furthermore, once
that information is requested by the
LEPC and available to the public, that
information \yould no longer be subject
to CBI protection under Federal CBI
rules.
>E. Other Changes
When part 68 was promulgated,
§68.79(a), which was ad.opted 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 6f 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 68.1.50, 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
oodes 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 iri ADDRESSES at the beginning
of this document.
Electronic comments can be sent'
directly to EPA's Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center at: "A-
and-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov".
Electronic comments must besubmitted
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 6Jrfile format or ASCII '
file format. .All comments and data.iri
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,Cleah 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 safely, 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 die Clean Air Act requires that
facilities submit risk management plans
containing certain essential information.
.This rulemaking, togetiier 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 die .
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 die impacts of
rules on small entities. EPA has
examined diis 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 diat very few small
entities (approximately 500) will claim
CBI and that diese few entities represent
a small fraction of the small entities
(less than 5 percent) affected by the
RMP rule. Finally, EPA estimates that
diose 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 die
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 erseq. 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 die
CAA and demonstrates compliance widi
part 68. The information collected also
will be made available to state and local
governments and the public to enhance
dieir preparedness, response, and
prevention activities. Information in die
RMP may be claimed as confidential.
business information under 40 CFR part
2 and part 68.
EPA estimates dial the new data
elements will impose little burden on
sources; latitude and longitude method
and description will be selected fromi 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 uieir 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
die 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 waysHo 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
is. y ' .-.'..
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 QMB 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 cost-
effective, or least burdensome
alternative for State,'local, and tribal
governments and the private sector dial
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-diis rule is estimated to result
in die 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 PreambleData Elements That May Not Be Claimed As CBI
Rule element
Comment .
68.160(b)(t). 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 num-
ber of the corporate parent company; 68.160(b)(4) The name, tele^
phone number, and mailing address of the owner/operator.
68.160(b)(5) Thte name and title of the person or position with overall
responsibility for RMP elements and implementation.
68.160(b)(6) The name, title, telephone number, and 24-hour telephone
number of the emergency contact.
68.160(b)(7) Program level and NAICS code
68.160(b)(8) The stationary source EPA identifier
68.160(b)(9) The number of full time employees ...
68.160(b)(10) Whether the source is subject to 29 CFR 1910.119
This information is filed with EPA and other agencies under other regu-
lations and is made available to the'public and, therefore, doe's not
meet the criteria for CBI claims. It is also available in business and
other directories. ''-.'.
This information provides no information that would affect a source's
competitive position. ; ,
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. , ,
This information provides no information that would affect a source's
competitive position'. .
This information provides no information that would affect a source's
competitive position. , ' -.._.' ' '
This information is available for-many sources from public directories.
This-information provides no information that would affect a source's
'competitive position. ."
This information provides no information that would affect a source's
competitive position.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 74/Friday, April 1-7, 1998/Proposed Rules
19225
Rule element
Comment
68.160(b)(11) Whether the source is subject to 40 CFR part 355
68.160{b){12) Whether the source has a CAA Title V operating permit
68.160(b){13) The date of the last safety inspection and identity of the
Inspecting agency.
68.165(b){3) Basis of the results (give model name if used)
68.165(b)(9) Topography (toxics only)
68,165(b)(10) Distance to an endpoint
68.165(b){11) Public and environmental receptors within the distance ...
68.168 Rve-year accident history
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.
68.180 Emergency response program
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.
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.
This information provides no information that would affect a source's
competitive position.
Without the chemical name and quantity, this reveals no business in-
formation.
Without the chemical name and quantity, this reveals no business in-
formation.
By itself, this information provides no confidential information. Other
elements that would reveal chemical identity or quantity may be
claimed as CBI.
By itself, this information provides no confidential information. Other
elements that would reveal chemical identity or quantity may be
claimed as CBI.
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.
NAICS codes and the prevention program compliance dates and infor-
mation provide no information that would affect a source's competi-
tive position.
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
an.d 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 68CHEMICAL ACCIDENT -
PREVENTION PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 68
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r), 7601(a)(l)/
7661-7661 f. . .
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)(l) to
read as follows:
§68.10 Applicability.
****** '
(d) * * * . '
(1) The process is in NAICS code
32211, 32411, 32511, 325181, 325188,
325192, 325199, 32521 1, 32531 1, or
32532; or
**,***
4. Section 68.42 is proposed to be '
amende'd by revising paragraph (b)(3),
redesignating paragraphs (b)(4) through
(b)(10) as paragraphs (b)(5) through
(b)(ll) and by adding a new paragraph
(b) (4) to read as follows:
§ 68.42 Five-year accident history.
* * * * *
, (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)(l) 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
(3) Accident history data set forth in
§68.168;
-------
19226
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 74/Friday. April 17; 1=998 / Proposed Rules
(4) Prevention program data set forth
in §68.170(b), (d), (e)(l), (f) through (k);
(5) Prevention program data set forth
in §68.175(b), (d), (e)(l), (f) through (p);
(6) Emergency response program data
set forth in §68.180.
(c) Notwithstanding the prpcedures
' 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 ';d unsanitized
document substar.uating each claim of
co?>T";rifvial business information. -
;. 3; .hon 68.152 is proposed to be
aadfed 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 mee.ts
the substantive criteria set forth in 40
CFR-2.301I
(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)(l),
(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 ofthe 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 Offstte consequence analysis.
*..* *"' * *
(b) The owner or operator shall.
submit the following data:
(1) Chemical name;-
(2) Percentage weight ofthe 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) arid
(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 ofthe
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 ami
BILLING CODE 6580-50-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
-------
------- |