1
STATEMENT
SUPPORTING
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
RISK
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
and
PETITIONS
TO
MODIFY
THE
LIST
OF
REGULATED
SUBSTANCES
UNDER
SECTION
112(
r)
OF
THE
CLEAN
AIR
ACT
EPA
#
1656.09
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
Request
Risk
Management
Program
Requirements
and
Petitions
to
Modify
the
List
of
Regulated
Substances
under
section
112(
r)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
This
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
renews
a
previously
approved
ICR,
OMB
No.
2050­
0144
approved
through
September
30,
2002,
for
173,000
annual
burden
hours,
which
was
corrected
in
November
1,
2000,
to
reflect
the
removal
of
propane
retailers
and
users
from
the
universe
of
regulated
entities.
The
revised
annual
burden
hours
after
the
correction
was
109,800.

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

(
1)
Documenting
sources=
risk
management
programs
and
submitting
a
source
risk
management
plan
(
RMP)
under
CAA
Section
112(
r)(
7)

The
regulations
include
requirements
for
covered
sources
to
implement
and
maintain
documentation
for
a
risk
management
program
and
submit
an
RMP
(
including
information
on
a
source's
hazard
assessment,
prevention
program,
and
emergency
response
program)
to
EPA.
EPA
has
assumed
responsibility
for
maintaining
a
database
of
submitted
RMPs.
EPA
has
developed
an
electronic
submission
system
(
RMP*
Submit)
that
is
available
to
facilities
on
diskette
and
is
available
on
EPA=
s
internet.

(
2)
Collecting
and
submitting
information
to
support
petitions
to
modify
the
list
of
regulated
substances
under
CAA
Section
112(
r)(
3)

The
regulations
include
requirements
for
a
petitioner
to
submit
sufficient
information
in
support
of
a
petition
to
scientifically
support
the
request
to
add
or
delete
a
chemical
from
the
list
of
regulated
substances.
The
Agency
will
use
this
information
in
making
the
decision
to
grant
or
deny
a
petition.
All
the
information
collected
requesting
modification
of
the
chemical
listings
is
stored
in
a
docket
created
for
that
purpose.

As
described
below,
EPA
developed
and
promulgated
these
regulations
through
several
rulemakings.
The
rules
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
68.
2
The
final
rule
establishing
the
list
of
regulated
substances
and
threshold
quantities
under
CAA
section
112(
r)
was
published
on
January
31,
1994
(
59
FR
4478),
which
also
includes
provisions
and
procedures
for
submitting
a
petition
to
add
or
delete
a
substance.
On
January
6,
1998
(
63
FR
940),
EPA
issued
a
final
rule
modifying
the
listing
of
regulated
substances
and
threshold
quantities.
As
part
of
this
modification,
EPA
revised
the
definition
of
stationary
source
to
clarify
the
exemption
of
transportation
and
storage
incident
to
transportation
after
consultation
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation.
EPA
also
finalized
exclusions
of
explosives
and
naturally
occurring
hydrocarbons
prior
to
processing
and
clarified
coverage
of
flammables.
In
accordance
with
the
Chemical
Safety
Information,
Site
Security
and
Fuels
Regulatory
Relief
Act
(
CSISSFRRA)
(
P.
L.
106­
40),
EPA
revised
the
list
of
regulated
flammable
substances
to
exclude
those
substances
when
used
as
a
fuel
or
held
for
sale
as
a
fuel
at
a
retail
facility
(
March
13,
2000
(
65
FR
13243)).

EPA
issued
a
final
Risk
Management
Program
rule
on
June
20,
1996
(
61
FR
31668).
Part
68
provides
for
tiering
of
the
regulatory
requirements
to
take
into
consideration
differences
between
various
types
and
classes
of
sources,
as
well
as
the
risk
posed
by
the
different
sources.
The
regulatory
program
consists
of
three
tiers
of
risk
management
programs.
Sources
are
classified
into
program
tiers
based
on
the
degree
of
risk
posed
by
potential
releases
and
coverage
by
OSHA=
s
Process
Safety
Management
(
PSM)
standard.
Sources
with
processes
classified
as
Program
1
pose
little
risk
and
face
minimal
compliance
requirements.
Sources
with
processes
classified
as
Program
2
must
implement
a
streamlined
list
of
prevention
program
requirements.
Sources
with
processes
classified
in
Program
3
must
complete
a
prevention
program
identical
to
that
required
by
the
OSHA
PSM
Standard
(
29
CFR
1910.119).

On
January
6,
1999
(
64
FR
964),
EPA
further
revised
Part
68
to
(
1)
reflect
the
new
industrial
classification
system
that
the
U.
S.
government
has
adopted;
(
2)
respond
to
recommendations
on
RMP
data
elements
provided
by
the
Electronic
Submission
Work
Group
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Advisory
Committee
and
clarify
other
elements;
and
(
3)
establish
specific
requirements
for
the
submission
of
confidential
business
information
in
RMPs.

The
compliance
schedule
for
the
Part
68
requirements,
established
by
rule
on
June
20,
1996,
requires
the
implementation
of
source
risk
management
programs
and
the
submission
of
RMPs
by
June
21,
1999,
for
sources
meeting
the
rule=
s
applicability
criteria.
As
a
result,
the
burden
to
facilities
for
initial
rule
compliance,
including
rule
familiarization
and
program
implementation,
is
assumed
to
have
taken
place
prior
to
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR;
these
costs
were
accounted
for
in
ICR
1656.03.
Therefore,
in
this
ICR,
EPA
has
accounted
for
only
ongoing
program
implementation
costs
and
resubmissions
of
RMPs
for
currently
covered
facilities
(
as
well
as
rule
familiarization
and
program
implementation
costs
for
new
facilities
that
become
subject
to
these
regulations
after
June
1999).
Specifically,
the
costs
to
sources
in
this
ICR
include
the
following:

!
Compliance
costs
for
new
sources.

!
Submissions
of
revised
RMPs
for
all
sources
by
2004,
as
required
by
rule,
including
any
CBI
claims.

!
Updates
of
process
hazard
analysis
or
hazard
reviews
by
2004.

!
Documentation
of
on­
going
implementation
activities.

Because
of
the
schedule
for
certain
activities
established
in
Part
68,
some
costs
that
occur
in
the
three­
year
time
period
covered
by
this
ICR
did
not
occur
during
the
previous
three­
year
period.
Most
sources
will
have
to
revise
their
RMPs
and
update
their
process
hazard
analyses,
hazard
reviews,
and
3
offsite
consequence
analyses
in
2004,
5
years
after
submitting
their
initial
RMPs
(
see
40
CFR
68.190(
b)(
1).
Consequently,
the
record
keeping
and
reporting
costs
for
Part
68
fluctuate
considerably
from
ICR
to
ICR.

2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
Risk
Management
Plans
Information
collection
for
on­
site
documentation
is
authorized
by
CAA
sections
112(
r)(
7)(
B)(
i)
and
(
ii),
which
state
that
"
The
Administrator
shall
promulgate
reasonable
regulations
and
appropriate
guidance
to
provide
...
for
the
prevention
and
detection
of
accidental
releases
of
regulated
substances....@
and
AThe
regulations
...
shall
require
the
owner
or
operator
...
to
prepare
and
implement
a
risk
management
plan
to
detect
and
prevent
or
minimize
accidental
releases...@
Information
collection
for
submitting
an
RMP
is
authorized
under
CAA
section
112(
r)(
7)(
B)(
iii),
which
states
in
relevant
part
that
AThe
owner
or
operator
of
each
stationary
source...
shall
register
a
risk
management
plan...
with
the
Administrator
before
the
effective
date
of
the
regulations...
in
such
form
and
manner
as
the
Administrator
shall,
by
rule,
require...
and
shall
be
available
to
the
public
under
section
114(
c)."
Information
collection
for
on­
site
documentation
and
submittal
of
RMPs
is
also
authorized
by
CAA
114(
a)(
1).
The
list
and
thresholds
promulgated
under
CAA
section
112(
r)(
3)
determine
which
sources
must
comply
with
the
accident
prevention
regulations;
a
source
must
comply
with
the
CAA
section
112(
r)(
7)
regulations
if
it
holds
more
than
a
threshold
quantity
of
a
listed
substance
in
a
process.
State
and
local
authorities
will
use
the
information
in
RMPs
to
modify
and
enhance
their
community
response
plans.
The
agencies
implementing
RMP
rule
will
use
RMPs
to
evaluate
compliance
with
part
68
and
identify
sources
for
inspection
because
they
may
pose
significant
risks
to
the
community.
Citizens
may
use
RMPs
to
assess
and
address
chemical
hazards
in
their
communities.

Petitions
This
information
collection
is
authorized
under
CAA
section
112(
r)(
3),
which
states
in
relevant
part
that
"
The
Administrator
shall
establish
procedures
for
the
addition
and
deletion
of
substances
from
the
list
established
under
this
paragraph
consistent
with
those
applicable
to
the
list
in
subsection
(
b).@
The
information
collected
during
the
petition
process
will
provide
the
primary
basis
for
EPA
to
determine
if
it
is
appropriate
to
add
or
delete
a
chemical.
To
be
consistent
with
the
petition
process
under
CAA
section
112(
b),
EPA
is
required
to
consider
and
respond
to
petitions
to
modify
the
list
of
regulated
substances
within
18
months
of
submission
of
the
petition;
complete
data
supporting
the
petition
are
necessary
to
allow
EPA
to
finish
its
review
within
that
time
period.

2(
b)
Use/
Users
of
the
Data
Risk
Management
Plans.
The
information
collected
in
the
RMP
is
critical
for
assisting
government
agencies
in
assessing
the
quality
and
thoroughness
of
a
source's
hazard
assessment,
prevention
program,
and
emergency
response
program.
The
information
also
would
be
used
by
state
and
local
emergency
planners
to
prepare
or
modify
community
response
plans
and
to
identify
hazards
to
the
community
and
provide
a
basis
for
working
with
sources
to
prevent
accidents.
4
Risk
Management
Programs.
Documentation
of
the
implementation
of
risk
management
programs
is
necessary
to
assist
government
agencies
in
determining
whether
a
source
has
complied
with
the
regulations.
In
some
cases
(
e.
g.,
safety
information
and
operating
procedures),
the
documentation
is
a
critical
requirement
of
the
rule,
providing
the
basis
for
other
rule
elements.

Petitions.
The
information
collected
in
support
of
a
petition
to
modify
the
list
of
regulated
substances
is
to
be
used
by
EPA
to
determine
whether
to
grant
or
deny
a
petition
to
add
or
delete
a
chemical
from
the
list.

3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Nonduplication
Risk
Management
Plans.
Some
sources
may
have
submitted
information
to
EPA
Headquarters
or
Regions
under
other
regulations
(
i.
e.,
Form
R
or
RCRA
Biennial
Reports)
that
is
similar
to
the
information
requested
in
the
registration
form
under
these
regulations.
(
EPCRA
Section
312
Tier
II
forms,
which
include
similar
information,
are
submitted
only
to
states
and
local
planning
authorities,
not
EPA.)
The
information
available
through
Form
R
and
RCRA
Biennial
Reports
is
scattered,
unorganized,
and
incomplete
for
the
requirements
of
the
Act.
In
addition,
most
sources
covered
by
this
rule
are
neither
manufacturers
(
Form
R)
nor
are
permitted
under
RCRA
(
Biennial
Report),
and
thus
have
not
previously
submitted
this
information.
For
EPA
to
best
comply
with
the
Act,
it
is
most
beneficial
if
the
information
requested
for
registration
is
submitted
in
a
concise
and
organized
format,
using
the
RMP
form.

Confidential
Business
Information.
Some
sources
may
have
submitted
substantiation
of
CBI
claims
for
chemical
identity
or
other
information
to
EPA
Headquarters
or
Regions
under
other
regulations
that
is
similar
to
the
information
requested
under
these
regulations.
For
EPA
to
best
comply
with
the
Act
and
most
effectively
evaluate
such
claims,
it
is
most
beneficial
if
the
CBI
substantiation
accompanies
the
submission
of
the
RMP.

3(
b)
Consultations
As
discussed
in
previous
ICRs,
EPA
conducted
substantial
consultations
with
all
stakeholders
during
the
original
rulemaking
process
and
all
the
amendments
EPA
published.
In
January
2002,
EPA
held
the
Accident
Prevention
Subcommittee
meeting
to
discuss
various
issues
including
RMP
compliance.
The
committee
members
include
industry
groups,
state
and
local
governments,
EPA
and
other
federal
government
agencies.
State
representatives
reported
90
to
95
percent
compliance
in
most
of
the
states.

3(
c)
Public
Notice
In
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.),
the
Agency
notified
the
public
through
the
Federal
Register
notice
on
the
resubmission
of
this
ICR
on
April
16,
2002
(
67
FR
18603).
No
comments
were
received.
5
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Sources
are
required
to
register
and
submit
an
RMP
only
once
every
five
years,
unless
there
are
significant
changes
in
the
information
provided.
There
is
a
statutory
requirement
for
sources
to
register,
submit,
and
update
an
RMP.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
CAA
section
112(
r)(
7)(
B)(
iii)
requires
that
sources
update
their
RMPs
periodically.
To
maintain
consistency
with
OSHA
PSM
requirements,
EPA=
s
implementing
rule
requires
sources
to
update
PHAs
and
hazard
assessments
every
five
years.
Thus,
sources
are
required
to
maintain
such
documentation
for
five
years,
which
is
greater
than
the
three
years
specified
in
OMB's
general
guidelines.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
and
Sensitive
Questions
(
i)
Confidentiality
Some
of
the
elements
mandated
in
the
regulation
for
the
risk
management
plan
may
require
the
submittal
of
data
viewed
as
proprietary,
trade
secret,
or
confidential.
As
described
above,
EPA
has
adopted
procedures
for
sources
to
claim
certain
information
as
confidential
business
information.

(
ii)
Sensitive
Questions
No
questions
of
a
sensitive
nature
are
included
in
any
of
the
information
collection
requirements.
The
information
submitted
in
an
RMP
includes
information
on
a
source's
hazard
assessment,
prevention
program,
and
emergency
response
program,
and
the
information
submitted
in
support
of
a
petition
to
modify
the
list
of
regulated
substances
includes
toxicity
data
and
accident
history
data.
This
information
is
not
private.
The
information
collection
requested
under
the
EPA
rulemaking
is
in
compliance
with
the
Privacy
Act
of
1974
and
OMB
Circular
A­
108.

4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
Risk
Management
Programs
and
Plans
The
accidental
release
prevention
program
under
the
CAA
was
developed
for
sources
that
manufacture,
react,
mix,
store,
or
use
regulated
substances
in
processes
that
require
equipment
designed,
constructed,
installed,
operated,
or
maintained
in
specific
ways
to
prevent
accidental
releases
and
ensure
safe
operations.
The
CAA
requires
sources
to
comply
with
the
regulations
if
they
have
more
than
a
threshold
quantity
of
a
listed
regulated
substance.
Based
on
submissions
of
RMPs,
the
rule
applies
to
manufacturers
(
i.
e.,
sources
categorized
in
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
31­
33),
as
well
as
some
non­
manufacturers,
including
federal
facilities,
utilities
(
NAICS
code
221:
electric
utilities,
drinking
water
systems,
wastewater
treatment
works),
warehouses,
large
ammonia
refrigeration
systems
(
e.
g.
food
processors
and
distributors),
wholesalers,
ammonia
retailers,
and
gas
processors.

Petitions
6
Any
person
may
petition
EPA
to
modify,
by
addition
or
deletion,
the
list
of
regulated
substances.
Potential
petitioners
are
likely
to
include
environmental
groups,
industry,
and
state
and
local
agencies.
Due
to
the
nature
of
their
activities,
the
chemical
manufacturing
sector
is
likely
to
be
the
primary
industry
producing,
using,
or
storing
listed
regulated
substances
affected
by
the
petition
process.
Since
the
list
rule
was
promulgated
in
January
1994,
however,
only
one
petition
has
been
submitted
to
EPA;
this
petition
was
withdrawn.
Based
on
this
record,
EPA
assumes
that
no
additional
petitions
will
be
submitted
in
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
Data
requirements
and
respondent
activities
vary
by
program
level.
Program
1
requires
the
least
amount
of
data
and
time
from
respondents,
while
Program
3
requires
the
most.
All
sources
are
required
to
update
and
submit
every
five
years
an
RMP
that
includes
basic
facility
data,
an
executive
summary,
fiveyear
accident
history,
data
on
the
worst­
case
release
scenarios
(
at
least
one
for
toxics
and
one
for
flammables),
and
data
on
emergency
response
regardless
of
their
program
classification.
In
addition,
Program
2
and
3
sources
must
also
submit
data
on
alternative
release
scenarios
(
one
for
each
toxic
and
one
for
flammables)
and
their
prevention
programs
(
by
process).
If
a
change
at
the
source
(
e.
g.,
a
substantial
change
in
the
quantity
held,
a
major
modification
of
a
source)
leads
to
a
change
in
certain
data
submitted
in
the
previous
RMP
or
requires
an
update
to
add
a
new
process,
the
RMP
must
be
revised
and
resubmitted.
Depending
on
the
event
that
triggers
the
need
for
an
update,
the
source
must
resubmit
the
revised
RMP
either
before
the
change
is
implemented
(
e.
g.,
the
addition
of
a
new
regulated
substance)
or
within
six
months
of
the
change
(
e.
g.,
a
major
process
modification).

The
ICR
assumes
that
all
previously
covered
sources
submitted
RMPs
on
schedule.
Because
RMPs
must
be
revised
within
five
years
of
initial
submission,
the
ICR
assumes
that
all
RMPs
will
be
revised
during
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR.
This
assumption
is
conservative
because
some
RMPs
may
not
need
to
be
updated
until
a
later
period.

(
i)
Data
Items
Risk
Management
Plans
Registration.
Sources
must
submit
the
following
information
to
EPA
in
the
registration
section
of
the
RMP:

°
Name
and
location
of
the
stationary
source,
and
latitude
and
longitude,
as
well
as
the
method
used
to
determine
the
latitude
and
longitude
and
an
indication
of
the
specific
location
at
the
source
that
it
represents;
°
The
name,
telephone
number,
and
mailing
address
of
the
owner/
operator
of
the
source;

°
Name
and
title
or
position
of
the
person
responsible
for
RMP
implementation
at
the
source;

°
Name,
title,
and
phone
number
of
the
emergency
contact
at
the
source;

°
The
source's
(
and
parent
company=
s,
if
applicable)
Dun
and
Bradstreet
number,
which
is
a
common
identifier
for
sources
and
would
allow
EPA
to
cross­
reference
the
data
with
other
7
EPA
databases;

°
For
each
covered
process,
the
names,
CAS
numbers,
and
quantities
(
to
two
significant
digits)
of
all
regulated
substances
and
the
applicable
NAICS
code(
s);

°
Number
of
full­
time
employees
at
the
source;

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

°
The
sources
CAA
Title
V
permit
number
(
if
applicable);
and
°
Date
of
the
last
safety
inspection
and
the
inspecting
entity.

Voluntary
data
elements
that
may
be
provided
as
part
of
the
registration
include
the
LEPC
for
the
planning
district
in
which
the
source
is
located
and,
to
support
communication
with
the
public,
a
public
contact
phone
number
for
the
source,
the
WWW
homepage
address
of
the
source
or
its
parent
company,
and
the
e­
mail
address
of
the
source.

Program
1.
Sources
with
Program
1
processes
are
required
to
prepare
an
executive
summary
and
include
a
five­
year
accident
history
and
emergency
response
data
in
their
RMP.
In
addition,
for
Program
1
processes,
owners/
operators
are
required
to
document
the
worst­
case
release
in
the
RMP
and
certify
that:

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

(
2)
The
process
has
had
no
accidents
in
the
previous
five
years
that
resulted
in
certain
impacts
offsite;
and
(
3)
Public
emergency
responders
will
not
enter
within
certain
distances
except
as
previously
arranged.

Programs
2
and
3.
Sources
with
Program
2
and
Program
3
processes
are
required
to
submit
an
RMP
that
includes
the
following
information:
°
An
executive
summary;

°
A
five­
year
accident
history
for
each
incident
that
caused
specific
on­
site
or
offsite
impacts
from
a
release
of
a
regulated
substance
held
above
its
threshold
in
a
covered
process;

°
The
results
of
the
offsite
consequence
analysis
(
OCA)
(
worst­
case
and
alternative
release
scenarios);

°
Information
concerning
the
prevention
program
and
process
hazards,
controls,
mitigation
systems,
and
detection
systems
identified
during
the
PHA
or
hazard
review
for
each
covered
process;

°
Information
concerning
emergency
response
steps
and
coordination
with
the
LEPC
plan;
and
8
°
Certification
of
the
accuracy
of
the
information
submitted.

The
documentation
of
changes
in
the
offsite
consequence
analysis
is
considered
in
the
RMP
costs.

Risk
Management
Programs
Prevention
Program
Documentation
All
covered
sources
with
Program
2
or
3
processes
will
need
to
conduct
and
document
a
compliance
audit
within
the
three­
year
period
of
this
ICR.
All
covered
sources
are
assumed
to
update
their
PHA
or
hazard
review
and
document
the
revisions
during
the
year
before
June
2004.
Based
on
accident
data
in
the
RMPs,
only
chemical
manufacturers
are
assumed
to
incur
costs
for
accident
investigation
and
to
have
reportable
accidents
during
the
period.
Other
facilities
may
have
such
accidents,
but
the
number
of
such
reports
is
very
low
and
is
not
included
in
the
burden
estimation.

The
only
other
on­
going
costs
for
documentation
for
Program
2
processes
are
for
keeping
the
safety
information
and
operating
procedures
up­
to­
date.
For
Program
3
processes,
the
on­
going
costs
include
keeping
Process
Safety
Information
(
PSI)
and
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
up­
to
date,
documenting
refresher
training,
training
of
new
employees,
maintenance,
and
management
of
change.

Program
1.
Program
1
processes
have
no
prevention
programs
and,
therefore,
no
documentation
requirements.

Program
2.
The
prevention
program
documentation
associated
with
Program
2
processes
consists
of
information
that
will
be
generated
automatically
during
the
development
of
the
SOPs,
compliance
audits,
and
safety
information.
Program
2
sources
must
maintain
the
following
specific
on­
site
documentation:

°
Records
of
the
hazard
assessment,
including
data
and
assumptions
used,
and
descriptions
of
alternative
and
worst­
case
release
scenarios
(
updated
once
every
five
years);

°
Written
operating
procedures
for
each
Program
2
process;

°
Hazard
review
report
using
models,
checklists,
or
What
Ifs
(
updated
once
every
five
years);

°
Compliance
audit
reports.

Program
3.
Most
Program
3
processes
are
covered
by
OSHA's
PSM
program.
Therefore,
only
those
sources
and
processes
subject
to
Program
3
only
under
the
RMP
rule
incur
the
costs
of
maintaining
prevention
program
documentation.
The
documentation
consists
of
information
that
will
be
generated
automatically
during
the
development
and
performance
of
the
hazard
assessment,
the
PHA,
safety
information,
the
SOPs,
the
maintenance
and
training
programs,
compliance
audits,
management
of
change,
accident
investigations,
and
emergency
response.
Documentation
for
Program
3
sources
will
include
the
following:

°
Records
of
the
hazard
assessment,
including
data
and
assumptions
used,
and
descriptions
of
alternative
and
worst­
case
release
scenarios
(
updated
once
every
five
years);
9
°
Chemical
and
process
information,
including
equipment
specifications,
and
diagrams
of
equipment,
piping,
pumps,
valves,
controls,
and
instrumentation
(
P&
IDs)
for
each
Program
3
process;

°
The
process
hazard
analysis
report
and
management
steps
to
address
identified
hazards
(
updated
once
every
five
years);

°
Written
operating
procedures
for
each
Program
3
process;

°
Records
of
all
training
programs;

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

°
Procedures
for
conducting
pre­
startup
reviews;

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

°
Compliance
audit
reports;

°
Accident
investigation
procedures.

Sources
and
processes
covered
by
OSHA's
rule
are
already
required
to
maintain
all
of
this
information
(
except
the
hazard
assessment)
on
site
and
are
assumed
to
incur
only
the
additional
costs
to
maintain
on­
site
records
of
the
hazard
assessment.
There
are
assumed
to
be
no
additional
costs
associated
with
developing
pre­
startup
review
and
management
of
change
procedures
because
all
Program
3
sources
are
already
required
to
have
such
procedures
in
place
under
the
OSHA
PSM
program.

Emergency
Response
Program.
Any
source
that
has
an
emergency
response
plan
is
subject
to
OSHA
29
CFR
1910.120(
q);
all
costs
for
updating
the
plan
accrue
to
the
OSHA
rule.

Confidential
Business
Information
Section
68.210
provides
that
information
will
be
available
to
the
public
under
CAA
section
114(
c),
which
provides
for
protection
of
trade
secrets.
To
clarify
procedures
for
submitting
RMPs
that
contain
confidential
business
information
(
CBI),
EPA
added
two
sections
to
the
rule.
In
general,
however,
the
rules
governing
CBI
that
already
exist
in
40
CFR
part
2
will
also
apply
and
provide
procedures
for
determining
the
appropriateness
of
CBI
claims
as
well
as
the
substantive
criteria
that
must
be
met
to
assert
such
claims.

To
assert
a
CBI
claim,
a
source
is
required
to
submit
a
sanitized
version
of
its
RMP,
which
would
then
become
part
of
the
RMP
database.
The
sanitized
version
will
identify
each
data
element,
except
chemical
identity,
claimed
as
CBI
by
the
notation
CBI
in
the
data
field.
For
chemical
identity,
the
source
is
required
to
provide
a
generic
chemical
category
or
class
name
in
lieu
of
the
actual
chemical
name.
At
the
same
time,
the
source
is
also
required
to
submit
to
EPA
the
data
claimed
as
confidential
on
a
separate,
paper
form.
The
source
must
also
substantiate
why
each
item
claimed
as
CBI
meets
CBI
criteria.
Substantiation
information
may
be
claimed
as
CBI;
if
all
or
part
of
the
substantiation
is
claimed
as
CBI,
a
10
sanitized
version
of
substantiation
must
also
be
filed
with
EPA.
Review
of
the
CBI
claims
will
be
handled
as
provided
for
in
40
CFR
part
2.

Claiming
data
as
CBI
must
be
done
at
the
time
of
submittal.
The
source=
s
owner,
operator,
or
senior
official
is
required
to
certify
the
accuracy
of
the
CBI
substantiation
claims.

Petitions
Any
person
may
petition
the
Administrator
to
modify,
by
addition
or
deletion,
the
list
of
regulated
substances
in
40
CFR
68.130.
Based
on
the
information
presented
by
the
petitioner,
EPA
may
grant
or
deny
a
petition.
Under
section
68.120(
g),
all
petitions
must
contain
the
following
information:

Name
and
address
of
the
petitioner
and
a
brief
description
of
the
organization(
s)
that
the
petitioner
represents,
if
applicable;

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

°
Common
chemical
name(
s),
common
synonym(
s),
Chemical
Abstract
Service
(
CAS)
number(
s),
and
chemical
formula
and
structure;

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

°
Rationale
supporting
the
petitioner=
s
position
­
how
the
substance
meets
the
criteria
for
addition
or
deletion.
A
short
summary
of
the
rationale
must
be
submitted
along
with
a
more
detailed
narrative;
and
°
Supporting
data
­
the
petition
must
include
sufficient
information
to
scientifically
support
the
request
to
modify
the
list.
EPA
believes
that
the
information
required
to
be
submitted
in
support
of
a
petition
is
the
minimum
information
that
would
enable
the
Agency
to
determine
whether
to
grant
or
deny
a
petition
within
the
18­
month
time
frame.
The
information
must
include:

­­
A
list
of
all
supporting
documents;

­­
Documentation
of
literature
searches
conducted,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
identification
of
the
database(
s)
searched,
the
search
strategy,
dates
covered,
and
printed
results;

­­
Effects
data
(
animal,
human,
and
environmental
test
data)
indicating
the
potential
for
death,
injury,
or
serious
adverse
human
and
environmental
impacts
from
acute
exposure
following
an
accidental
release.
Printed
copies
of
the
data
sources,
in
English,
should
be
provided;
and
­­
Exposure
data
or
previous
release
accident
history
data
indicating
the
potential
for
serious
adverse
human
health
or
environmental
effects
from
accidental
releases.
These
data
might
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
physical
and
chemical
properties
of
the
substance
(
such
as
vapor
pressure);
modeling
results
(
including
data
and
11
assumptions
used
and
model
documentation);
and
historical
accident
data,
citing
data
sources.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
Rule
Familiarization
All
newly
affected
sources
are
expected
to
spend
time
to
read
and
understand
the
rule
requirements
when
they
first
become
subject
to
part
68.
For
sources
subject
to
the
rule
prior
to
September
2002,
rule
familiarization
was
estimated
in
previous
ICRs.
As
a
result,
only
new
sources
are
expected
to
undertake
rule
familiarization
under
this
ICR.

Risk
Management
Programs
and
Plans
Program
1.
Because
no
new
Program
1
sources
are
included
in
the
estimates
for
this
ICR,
no
burden
estimates
are
provided;
existing
sources
with
Program
1
processes
are
not
expected
to
incur
any
recordkeeping
burden
during
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR.

Program
2.
Program
2
sources
incur
the
burden
of
preparing
or
revising
their
RMP
and
maintaining
specific
prevention
program
documentation
of
the
items
listed
in
the
previous
section.
The
burden
estimates
for
preparing
the
RMP
and
maintaining
documentation
for
sources
with
Program
2
processes
are
presented
in
section
6(
a)
of
this
ICR.

Program
3.
Program
3
sources
will
incur
the
burden
of
assembling
information
for
the
purpose
of
maintaining
documentation
and
preparing
and
revising
their
RMP.
The
burden
estimates
for
sources
submitting
an
RMP
for
Program
3
processes
are
presented
in
section
6(
a)
of
this
ICR.

Confidential
Business
Information
A
limited
number
of
sources
with
processes
in
Program
2
and
Program
3
may
seek
to
claim
certain
RMP
information
as
confidential
business
information.
The
activities
required
for
such
sources
include
the
preparation
of
a
sanitized
RMP
(
estimated
as
described
above
for
all
sources)
and
a
substantiation
of
the
claim
for
each
data
element
(
and
potentially
the
substantiation
itself)
claimed
as
confidential,
the
list
of
unsanitized
data
elements
and
the
submission
of
these
documents
to
EPA
at
the
time
of
the
submission
of
RMP.
Burden
estimates
for
these
activities
are
presented
in
section
6(
a)
of
this
ICR.

Petitions
As
noted
above,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
any
petitions
during
the
period
that
this
ICR
covers,
based
on
the
experience
of
the
past
eight
years.
Therefore,
no
burden
estimates
for
petitions
are
included.

5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
C
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
12
The
burden
and
cost
estimates
developed
for
the
following
state
and
local
government
activities
are
presented
in
section
6(
c)
of
this
ICR.
The
burden
estimates
developed
for
the
following
federal
government
activities
are
presented
in
section
6(
c)
of
this
ICR.

State/
Local
Program
Management
State
or
local
agencies
may
seek
approval
from
EPA
to
serve
as
the
implementing
agency
for
Part
68.
Based
on
current
delegations
and
applications,
EPA
projects
that
by
the
end
of
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR,
approximately
15
states
will
have
been
granted
delegation.
These
states
will
be
required
to
implement
and
enforce
the
program
for
all
or
some
of
the
sources
in
their
states.
Implementing
agencies
will
need
to
keep
records
of
reviews,
audits,
and
inspections
conducted,
any
administrative
and
legal
actions
taken,
and
other
correspondence
between
the
agency
and
sources,
other
agencies,
EPA,
and
the
public.
Implementing
agencies
will
also
need
to
document
their
budgets,
for
internal
purposes,
and
any
agreements
they
reach
with
other
state,
local,
or
federal
agencies.
To
receive
delegation
of
the
program
from
EPA,
a
state
must
be
able
to
show
that
it
has
the
personnel
and
other
resources
to
perform
these
tasks.

Federal
Program
Management
EPA
will
serve
as
the
implementing
agency
for
any
state
that
does
not
seek
or
is
not
granted
delegation.
EPA
will
need
to
keep
records
of
reviews,
audits,
and
inspections
conducted,
any
administrative
and
legal
actions
taken,
and
other
correspondence
between
the
agency
and
sources,
other
agencies,
and
the
public.
EPA
will
also
need
to
document
its
budgets,
for
internal
purposes,
and
any
agreements
it
reaches
with
other
state,
local,
or
federal
agencies.

Risk
Management
Plans
EPA
will
provide
RMP
submission
software
on
diskette
and
paper
forms,
and
will
process
the
data
from
submitted
RMPs
into
a
database.
(
Note:
RMPs
are
required
in
electronic
format.
A
waiver
may
be
obtained
for
filing
on
paper
if
necessary.)
The
Agency
expects
to
perform
the
following
activities:

°
Make
the
RMP
software
and
forms
available;
°
Process
the
RMPs
submitted
by
sources
into
a
database
and
make
the
information
available
through
various
means;
°
Answer
any
questions
from
sources
concerning
the
process;
°
Process
any
claims
of
confidential
business
information;
°
Notify
each
submitter
of
the
status
of
their
RMP
(
complete
or
incomplete);
°
Store
RMP
submissions
and
retrieve
information;
and
°
Provide
technical
assistance
to
facilities.

EPA
has
developed
and
made
available
RMP*
Submit,
a
software
package
that
creates
an
electronic
file
for
submission.
RMP*
Submit
includes
pick
lists
for
certain
data
elements,
chemical
names,
LEPCs
from
which
a
source
may
choose).
EPA
has
posted
the
software
and
accompanying
documentation
on
its
web
site.
The
material
is
also
available
from
the
EPCRA
hotline.

RMPs
are
mailed
on
disks
to
a
contractor
operated
reporting
center
that
EPA
has
established.
The
records
center
processes
RMPs
submitted
on
disks
and
manually
enters
RMPs
submitted
on
paper.
The
13
center
also
responds
to
questions
from
facilities
and
handles
any
CBI
information.
The
reporting
center
is
not
responsible
for
the
development
of
the
software
but
uses
its
various
applications
to
create,
maintain
and
transmit.
EPA
has
created
a
database
of
RMPs,
RMP*
Info
and
a
program
RMP*
Review
to
help
users
of
the
database
search
and
sort
data.
The
database
is
updated
periodically.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
Respondents
complete
an
RMP
electronically
or
on
paper.
EPA
manages
the
data
as
discussed
in
section
5(
a).

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
rule
includes
several
measures
to
reduce
the
burden
to
small
entities.
Most
sources
subject
to
Program
3
requirements
are
already
required
to
comply
with
the
OSHA
PSM
program.
All
other
sources
face
reduced
requirements
under
Programs
1
and
2.
In
addition,
the
quantity
of
information
submitted
in
the
RMP
and
the
associated
burden
varies
with
the
size
of
the
source
(
i.
e.,
smaller
sources
would
have
a
lower
burden).
EPA
has
developed
industry­
specific
guidance
documents
to
help
smaller
facilities
comply
with
the
rule.
Therefore,
the
RMP
regulations
do
not
impose
a
disproportionate
burden
of
compliance
on
small
sources.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
Sources
with
more
than
a
threshold
quantity
of
a
listed
substance
in
a
process
were
required
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
risk
management
program
and
submit
an
RMP
by
June
21,
1999.
After
submitting
an
RMP,
a
source
must
update
it
by
the
time
it
adds
a
new
(
to
the
source)
listed
substance
in
a
process
above
threshold
quantity.
Also,
if
certain
other
information
provided
in
the
RMP
becomes
inaccurate
at
any
time
after
submission,
the
source
is
required
to
submit
an
amended
RMP
within
six
months
of
the
change.
Otherwise,
sources
are
required
to
resubmit
their
RMP
within
five
years
of
their
last
submittal
even
if
other
RMP
data
change
during
the
five­
year
period
(
e.
g.,
RMPs
need
not
be
updated
in
cases
such
as
change
in
number
of
employees,
contact
names
etc.).

6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
Because
the
burden
for
many
of
the
activities
varies
based
on
the
size
and
complexity
of
the
source,
the
respondents
were
divided
into
five
categories:
small/
medium
chemical
manufacturers,
high
complexity
chemical
manufacturers,
other
manufacturers,
non­
manufacturers,
and
chemical
wholesalers.
For
each
category
and
each
activity,
a
weighted
average
for
unit
burden
was
developed.
Where
the
activities
would
be
performed
by
people
in
several
labor
categories
(
legal,
management,
technical,
and
clerical),
burden
estimates
are
divided
into
those
categories.
Exhibit
1
provides
the
estimated
number
of
respondents
in
each
category
and
the
estimated
number
of
respondents
in
each
category
who
are
not
subject
to
the
OSHA
PSM
standard.
Exhibit
2
provides
the
wage
rates
used
and
the
source
of
each
rate.
Exhibits
3
through
6
provide
the
unit
burden
estimates.
All
exhibits
are
at
the
end
of
this
document.

6(
a)
Respondent
Burden
Respondent
Burden
for
New
Facilities
14
Rule
familiarization,
which
applies
only
to
facilities
newly
subject
to
the
RMP
rule,
is
estimated
to
take
35.0
hours.
Based
on
the
number
of
new
RMPs
submitted
between
June
2000
and
January
2002
(
735),
EPA
estimates
that
there
will
be
approximately
490
new
facilities
annually.
The
total
burden
for
one
year
is
estimated
to
be
17,640
hours;
the
cost
is
estimated
to
be
$
374,250.

New
facilities
also
have
costs
for
developing
documentation
for
prevention
program
elements.
For
facilities
not
subject
to
the
OSHA
PSM
standard,
these
costs
include
collection
of
safety
information
and
development
of
standard
operating
procedures.
Based
on
recent
new
RMPs
received,
EPA
estimates
that
only
55
of
the
new
facilities
a
year
will
not
be
subject
to
the
PSM
standard.
The
unit
burden
hours
are
shown
in
Exhibit
3.
The
estimated
burden
for
the
55
new
facilities
for
developing
prevention
program
documentation
is
609
hours
and
$
12,900
(
see
Exhibit
7).

Respondent
Burden
for
RMP
Each
respondent
is
expected
to
revise
and
submit
an
RMP
by
the
June
21,
2004.
Although
some
facilities
have
revised
their
RMPs
and
have
new
submission
dates,
most
of
those
dates
will
fall
within
the
three­
year
period
covered
by
this
ICR.
To
be
conservative,
the
ICR
assumes
that
all
RMPs
will
be
revised
within
the
time
covered
by
this
ICR.
The
unit
burden
hours
for
each
industry
group
are
shown
in
Exhibit
6.
Total
burden
hours
for
preparing
and
submitting
revised
RMPs
is
estimated
to
be
107,480
at
a
cost
of
$
3,287,000
(
see
Exhibits
9
and
10)

Respondent
Burden
for
Documentation
Each
respondent
not
subject
to
the
OSHA
PSM
standard
is
assumed
to
incur
costs
to
update
prevention
program
documentation.
Operating
procedures
and
safety
information
must
be
revised
as
necessary;
EPA
assumes
that
facilities
spend
about
one
tenth
the
time
needed
to
create
the
documents
to
check
and
revise
them
each
year.
Facilities
also
must
document
an
audit
every
three
years.
In
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR,
facilities
will
also
need
to
update
their
hazard
review
or
process
hazard
analysis,
which
EPA
estimates
will
take
half
the
time
of
the
original
analysis.
Finally,
the
few
chemical
facilities
not
subject
to
PSM
but
covered
by
Program
3
need
to
document
training,
maintenance,
accident
investigation,
and
management
of
change
procedures.
See
Exhibit
5
for
unit
burden
hours.
The
total
three­
year
burden
hours
for
the
on­
going
documentation
are
110,600
hours
and
$
2,966,000
(
see
Exhibit
11).

Respondent
Burden
for
Confidential
Business
Information
Claims
The
requirement
that
substantiation
for
CBI
claims
be
submitted
with
the
claims
will
impose
costs
on
those
sources
making
the
CBI
claims.
In
this
ICR,
EPA
estimates
that
only
the
21
facilities
who
have
already
submitted
CBI
claims
will
do
so
when
they
submit
their
next
RMPs.

Based
on
professional
judgement,
EPA
estimates
that
the
time
required
to
develop
and
submit
CBI
substantiation
is
9.5
hours
per
claim;
EPA
assumes
that
approximately
5.5
technical
hours,
3
managerial
hours,
and
1
legal
hour
will
be
spent
in
the
preparation
of
each
CBI
claim.
Other
ICRs
and
ICR
proposals,
combined
with
the
changes
to
the
method
of
documenting
CBI
claims,
indicate
that
a
burden
estimate
between
5.21
and
9.5
hours
per
facility
is
appropriate
for
this
rule.
EPA
has
selected
the
most
conservative
of
these,
9.5
hours.
As
a
result,
for
the
21
sources
preparing
and
submitting
CBI
claims,
the
estimated
industry
burden
is
200
hours
and
the
total
cost
is
estimated
to
be
$
11,000
(
see
Exhibits
4,
7,
and
10).
The
CBI
costs
are
assumed
to
occur
in
the
second
year
of
this
ICR
period,
with
the
submission
of
the
RMP.
15
Respondent
Burden
for
Petitions
As
noted
above,
because
the
Agency
has
received
only
one
petition
since
the
publication
of
the
final
list
of
regulated
substances
in
January
1994,
for
the
purposes
of
this
ICR,
EPA
is
not
estimating
any
further
petitions.

6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
Labor
costs
are
estimated
by
multiplying
the
burden
hours
by
the
applicable
wage
rates
shown
in
Exhibit
2.
Wage
rates
are
based
on
data
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
on
wage
rage
and
fringe
benefits
for
general
manufacturing
and
non­
manufacturing
and
for
the
chemical
industry.
Total
three­
year
costs
and
costs
per
year
are
presented
in
Exhibits
10
through
12.

(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
Respondents
are
not
expected
to
incur
any
capital
costs
to
implement
this
rule.
At
present,
RMPs
are
submitted
on
disk
or
paper.
In
accordance
with
the
Government
Paperwork
Elimination
Act,
EPA
is
developing
a
system
to
accept
submissions
electronically
by
the
GPEA
deadline
of
October
2003.
EPA,
therefore,
anticipates
that
the
RMP
update
submissions
in
2004
will
be
made
electronically
and
impose
no
additional
costs
on
respondents.
If
all
submissions
were
still
mailed,
costs
would
total
only
$
6,150
(
see
Exhibit
11).

Sources
are
not
required
or
expected
to
use
consultants
to
prepare
and
submit
their
RMP
or
their
documentation.
The
RMP
program
has
been
specifically
designed,
by
simplifying
the
requirements
and
allowing
sources
to
use
prepared
forms
and
models,
to
eliminate
the
need
for
sources
to
use
consultants
to
meet
the
requirements
of
this
program.

6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
The
risk
management
program
rule
is
implemented
by
both
EPA
and
state
and
local
governments
who
have
sought
and
been
granted
delegation.

Implementing
Agency
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
15
states
will
have
obtained
delegation
during
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR.
EPA
will
serve
as
the
implementing
agency
for
all
other
states.
Implementing
agencies
are
expected
to
review
RMPs,
audit
RMPs,
inspect
sources,
provide
technical
assistance,
and
conduct
standard
program
management
activities
(
e.
g.,
developing
budgets,
filing
administrative
orders
and
enforcement
actions).

Initial
reviews,
which
are
first
checks
of
the
RMPs
to
identify
any
problems
(
e.
g.,
clear
inconsistencies
in
reported
data,
failure
to
list
obvious
hazards
such
as
flammability
for
a
listed
flammable)
are
estimated
to
require
one
to
five
hours,
depending
on
the
number
and
complexity
of
processes
covered
in
the
RMP.
Audits
are
assumed
to
be
detailed
reviews
of
the
RMPs,
requiring
from
two
to
twelve
hours
per
16
RMP;
audits
require
technical
staff
capable
of
identifying
data
that
may
indicate
safety
problems
(
e.
g.,
failure
to
report
chemical
or
process
hazards,
which
could
indicate
an
inadequate
PHA,
or
lack
of
normal
process
controls,
which
could
indicate
either
an
incomplete
RMP
or
inadequate
safety
practices).
Audits
may
be
totally
offsite
or
may
include
a
site
visit
to
review
documentation
and
other
aspects
of
the
program.
The
results
of
the
audits
will
help
select
sources
that
may
require
inspection
to
determine
whether
the
source
is
in
compliance
with
the
rule
and
operating
safely.
Inspections
are
site
visits
to
review
the
activities
and
documentation.
Inspections
are
estimated
to
take
8
to
50
hours.
Implementing
agencies
are
expected
to
review
all
RMPs
over
five
years.
Frequency
of
audits
varies
by
sector,
with
chemical
companies
being
audited
every
five
to
ten
years
and
all
others
audited
every
10
years.
Inspections
are
estimated
to
occur
every
five
to
fifteen
years,
depending
on
the
sector.

Program
management
is
assumed
to
involve
two
experienced
staff
for
a
larger
state
and
per
region,
one­
fifth
of
an
FTE
for
an
attorney,
and
one­
tenth
of
an
FTE
of
clerical
time.
Of
the
15
states
that
have
or
are
seeking
delegation,
five
have
fewer
than
42
RMP
facilities;
these
smaller
states
are
assumed
to
have
a
single
manager
who
spends
only
a
quarter
of
his
or
her
time
on
the
RMP
program.

Recordkeeping
related
to
management
and
reviews/
audits/
inspections
is
assumed
to
take
10
percent
of
the
total
time
required,
except
for
inspection
reports,
which
are
assumed
to
take
12.5
percent
of
the
total
time
for
inspections.
The
estimated
burden
for
recordkeeping
related
to
these
activities
is
11,000
hours
(
6,160
for
states
and
4,840
for
EPA
annually).
The
total
annual
cost
is
estimated
to
be
$
556,000
($
221,000
for
states
and
$
335,000
for
EPA)
(
see
Exhibits
13
and
14).

EPA
assumes
that
states
will
maintain
files
electronically
and
will
not
incur
additional
capital
costs.

6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Cost
Universe.
The
estimates
of
the
universe
used
in
the
previous
ICRs
have
been
revised
to
reflect
the
actual
number
of
RMPs
submitted
to
EPA,
adjusted
for
non­
compliance
based
on
reports
from
the
EPA
Regions
and
state
implementing
agencies.
As
a
result,
there
has
been
a
decrease
in
the
estimate
of
the
number
of
facilities
subject
to
these
requirements
to
about
16,635
respondents.

EPA
has
not
estimated
any
change
in
the
size
of
the
regulated
universe
over
the
three
years
covered
by
this
ICR.
Based
on
its
experience
with
similar
regulatory
programs
and
the
experience
of
states
with
their
own
risk
management
program
laws,
EPA
believes
that
a
certain
number
of
facilities
will
choose
to
reduce
their
inventory
of
regulated
substances
to
a
level
below
the
threshold
quantity,
or
switch
to
a
nonregulated
substitute,
and
thus
reduce
the
size
of
the
regulated
universe.
As
a
result,
and
based
on
current
industry
growth
trends,
EPA
believes
that
a
decrease,
rather
an
increase
occurred
in
the
number
of
facilities
covered
by
these
regulations
is
more
likely
to
occur,
although
no
such
decrease
has
been
estimated.
To
account
for
new
sources
entering
the
universe,
this
ICR
uses
the
number
of
new
facilities
who
filed
RMPs
from
June
2000
to
January
2002.
(
EPA
assumes
that
the
RMPs
submitted
between
the
required
submission
date
of
June
1999
and
June
2000
reflect
late
submissions
rather
than
facilities
who
were
newly
subject
to
the
rule.)

Total
Burden
and
Cost
17
The
total
burden
hours
for
respondents
(
including
states)
is
estimated
to
be
97,160
annually.
Because
of
the
timing
of
the
five­
year
submission
of
the
RMPs
and
update
of
the
hazard
reviews,
the
burden
hours
vary
significantly
over
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR.
In
the
first
and
third
year
of
this
ICR,
the
burden
hours
for
sources
are
estimated
to
be
45,000
(
combined
90,000
hours);
in
the
second
year,
they
are
estimated
to
be
183,000.

The
total
annualized
cost
to
respondents
(
states
and
facilities)
is
estimated
to
be
$
2.7
million.
As
with
burden
hours,
these
costs
vary
considerably
across
the
years,
with
respondents
costs
of
$
1.1
million
in
the
first
and
third
years
and
$
5.9
million
in
the
second
year.
The
three­
year
burden
and
costs
are
estimated
to
be
291,480
hours
and
$
8.1
million.

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
Tables
Bottom
line
burden
and
cost
tables
are
Exhibit
11
and
12.

6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
This
ICR
estimates
a
total
decrease
in
the
facilities
burden
of
$
2.5
million
from
$
9.9
million
to
$
7.4
million
for
the
ICR
period.
The
burden
hours
would
decrease
from
98,100
annually
to
91,000
annually.
The
decrease
in
cost
reflects
the
revised
estimate
of
the
number
of
facilities
based
on
the
actual
number
of
RMPs
filed,
adjusted
for
non
compliance,
and
a
change
in
the
mix
of
facilities
estimated,
again
based
on
actual
RMPs
filed;
the
actual
universe
has
proportionately
fewer
manufacturers,
who
incur
higher
costs
because
of
more
complex
processes,
and
more
lower
cost
facilities.
State
agency
costs
are
projected
to
decrease
from
35,000
hours
and
$
1.25
million
for
the
ICR
period
to
18,480
hours
and
$
664,000.
States
costs
have
declined
because
they
have
been
adjusted
to
reflect
the
actual
number
of
implementing
agencies
(
15
rather
than
20)
and
a
lower
projected
level
effort
based
on
the
actual
number
of
respondents
in
the
15
states.
Wage
rates
for
both
facilities
and
states
have
been
adjusted
upward
to
2001
dollars
and
reflect
current
levels
of
benefits.
Because
no
on­
going
activities
are
expected
to
require
consultant
help,
wages
rates
are
not
loaded
for
overhead.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
public
reporting
burden
will
depend
on
the
regulatory
program
tier
into
which
sources
are
categorized.
In
this
ICR,
the
respondent
burden
for
rule
familiarization
is
estimated
as
35
hours
per
source
and
other
initial
compliance
at
11
hours.
The
respondent
to
prepare
and
submit
an
RMP
is
estimated
to
take
5.0
hours
for
retailers
to
28
for
complex
chemical
manufacturers.
The
respondent
burden
to
maintain
on­
site
documentation
is
estimated
to
range
from
4.5
hours
for
retailers
to
355
hours
for
complex
chemical
manufacturers.
The
reporting
burden
for
CBI
claims
is
estimated
to
be
9.5
hours
for
certain
chemical
manufacturing
sources.
The
total
respondent
burden
to
become
familiar
with
the
rule,
complete
and
submit
(
or
revise)
the
risk
management
plan,
maintain
on­
site
documentation,
and
substantiate
claims
for
confidential
business
information
is
estimated
to
be
about
273,000
hours
over
three
years,
or
an
annual
burden
of
91,000
hours.
The
three­
year
burden
estimated
for
15
states
that
may
be
implementing
Part
68
program
is
18,480
hours,
or
an
annual
burden
of
6,160
hours.
Therefore,
the
total
burden
for
all
facilities
and
states
is
estimated
to
be
291,480
hours
for
three
years,
or
an
annual
burden
of
97,160
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,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
18
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.

Send
comments
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
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Include
the
EPA
ICR
number
and
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.

APPENDIX
EXHIBIT
1
NUMBER
OF
FACILITIES
Total
Facilities
Facilities
Not
Subject
to
OSHA
PSM
Small/
medium
chemical
1666
258
Large
high
complexity
chemical
457
11
Other
manufacturers
2319
332
Non
manufacturer
11448
7410
Wholesale
744
276
Total
16634
8287
EXHIBIT
2
WAGE
RATES
­
RESPONDENTS
Legal
Management
Technical
Clerical
Source
Chemical
Manufacturers
$
100.00
$
58.92
$
46.20
$
17.08
OES
2000/
SIC
28
median
wage
for
engineering
manager,
chemical
engineer,
and
office
clerk
general
multiplied
by
fringe
load
from
BLS
Table
12
executive,
technical,
and
clerical
in
manufacturing
section
Other
Manufacturers
$
100.00
$
47.00
$
29.40
BLS
Table
12
Non
Manufacturers
$
100.00
$
21.22
$
21.22
BLS
Table
10
B
40%
retail,
60%
trans/
utility
Wholesale
$
100.00
$
22.83
$
22.83
BLS
Table
10
19
WAGE
RATES
­
STATE
AND
FEDERAL
State
Wage
Source
Loaded
Rate
Fringe
Rate
Source
Attorney
$
30.86
OES
state
$
41.09
BLS
Table
4
professional
Environmental
Engineer
$
25.58
OES
state
$
36.39
BLS
Table
4
management
Clerical­
office
clerk
general
$
11.94
OES
state
$
17.87
BLS
table
4
clerical
Federal
Attorney
$
44.85
GS
15­
5
$
64.07
Assume
30%
load
Environmental
Engineer
$
32.36
GS
13­
5
$
46.23
Assume
30%
load
Clerical­
office
clerk
general
$
12.35
GS
5­
5
$
17.64
Assume
30%
load
BLS
=
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation
B
March
2001
OES
=
Occupational
Employment
Statistics
B
Specific
Occupational
Employment
and
Wage
Estimates
EXHIBIT
3
RESPONDENT
UNIT
BURDEN
HOURS
B
NEW
FACILITIES
New
Facilities
Management
Technical
Rule
Familiarization
12
24
Safety
Information
3
SOPs
8
EXHIBIT
4
RESPONDENT
UNIT
BURDEN
HOURS
B
CBI
Legal
Management
Technical
1
3
5.5
EXHIBIT
5
UNIT
BURDEN
FOR
PREVENTION
PROGRAM
DOCUMENTATION
BY
SECTOR
(
Technical
Hours)
PSI
PHA
SOPs
Training
Refresher
Training
Maintenanc
e
Audit
Accident
Investigation
Management
of
Change
Small/
medium
chemical
2.5
40
5
3
Large
high
complexity
chemical
5
100
28
23
8
140
12
23
16
Other
1
12
2
3
20
manufacturers
Non
manufacturer
0.5
2
1
1
Wholesale
0.5
2
0.5
1
EXHIBIT
6
UNIT
BURDEN
FOR
RMP
BY
SECTOR
Technical
Management
Small/
medium
chemical
9
2
Large
high
complexity
chemical
24
4
Other
manufacturers
5
1
Non
manufacturer
4
1
Wholesale
6
1
EXHIBIT
7
TOTAL
BURDEN
HOURS
­
NEW
FACILITIES
AND
CBI
Legal
Management
Technical
Total
CBI
claims
­
3
year
21
63
115.5
200
New
Facilities­
Annual
Rule
Familiarization
5,880
11,760
17,640
Safety
Information
166
166
SOPs
443
443
EXHIBIT
8
TOTAL
BURDEN
HOURS
­
PREVENTION
PROGRAM
­
ANNUAL
PSI
PHA
SOPs
Training
Refresher
Training
Maintenance
Audit
AI
MOC
TOTAL
Small/
medium
chemical
644
10,311
1,289
773
13,018
Large
high
complexity
chemical
56
1,111
311
256
89
1556
133
256
178
3,944
Other
manufacturers
332
3,987
664
997
5,980
Non
3,705
14,820
7,410
7,410
33,345
21
manufacturer
Wholesale
138
551
138
276
1,102
TOTAL
4,875
30,780
9,812
256
89
1,556
9,589
256
178
57,389
EXHIBIT
9
TOTAL
BURDEN
HOURS
FOR
RMP
BY
SECTOR
­
THREE
YEAR
Technical
Management
Small/
medium
chemical
14,990
3,331
Large
high
complexity
chemical
10,968
1,828
Other
manufacturers
11,594
2,319
Non
manufacturer
45,791
11,448
Wholesale
4,467
744
TOTAL
87,810
19,670
EXHIBIT
10
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
THREE­
YEAR
BURDEN
COSTS
RMP
Prevention
CBI
Initial
Compliance
Total
Small/
medium
chemical
$
888,845
$
851,561
$
1,740,405
Large
high
complexity
chemical
$
614,454
$
278,050
$
11,148
$
903,653
Other
manufacturers
$
449,864
$
293,020
$
742,884
Non
manufacturer
$
1,214,380
$
1,493,500
$
1,161,491
$
3,869,372
Wholesale
$
118,970
$
50,327
$
169,297
TOTAL
$
3,286,514
$
2,966,458
$
11,148
$
1,161,491
$
7,425,611
EXHIBIT
11
TOTAL
BURDEN
HOURS
AND
COSTS
B
THREE
YEAR
Labor
Hours
Labor
Costs
Other
Costs
Total
Costs
RMP
107,480
$
3,286,514
$
6,154
$
3,292,668
Prevention
110,608
$
2,966,458
$
2,966,458
CBI
200
$
11,148
$
7.77
$
11,156
22
Initial
Compliance
54,746
$
1,161,491
$
544
$
1,162,035
Total
273,034
$
7,425,611
$
6,706
$
7,432,318
EXHIBIT
12
TOTAL
COSTS
FOR
ALL
FACILITIES
BY
YEAR
Initial
Compliance
RMPs
Prevention
Program
Documentation
CBI
O&
M
TOTAL
COSTS
Year
1
$
387,164
$
664,838
$
181
$
1,052,183
Year
2
$
387,164
$
3,286,514
$
1,636,782
$
11,148
$
6,342
$
5,327,950
Year
3
$
387,164
$
664,838
$
181
$
1,052,183
COSTS
$
1,161,491
$
3,286,514
$
2,966,458
$
11,148
$
6,704
$
7,432,316
EXHIBIT
13
TOTAL
ANNUAL
HOURS
AND
COSTS
OF
PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
DOCUMENTATION
(
States)

Reviews
RMP
Audits
Inspections
Program
Management
Total
Hours
Hours
106
175
519
5,356
6,157
Costs
$
3,854
$
6,376
$
18,898
$
192,048
$
221,176
EXHIBIT
14
TOTAL
ANNUAL
HOURS
AND
COSTS
OF
PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
DOCUMENTATION
(
EPA)
23
Reviews
RMP
Audits
Inspections
Program
Management
Total
Hours
Hours
320
530
1,570
2,420
4,840
Costs
$
14,801
$
24,488
$
72,580
$
222,634
$
334,504
EXHIBIT
15
TOTAL
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
EPA­
ONLY
PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES
(
Hours
and
1998
dollars)

Annual
Hours
Documentation
Hours
Three­
Year
Hours
Three­
Year
Costs
EPA
Records
Center
18,800
­­
56,400
$
2,100,000
Entering
RMPs
6,300
­­
19,000
$
237,500
Maintaining
RMP*
Info
and
RMP*
Submit
7,000
­­
21,000
$
1,500,000
TOTALS
32,100
2,300
103,200
$
3,837,500
