STATEMENT
SUPPORTING
THE
REVISION
OF
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
#
1656.10
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
(
Proposed
Rule).

1(
b)
Short
Characterization
This
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
amends
a
previously
approved
ICR
(
1656.09),
OMB
No.
2050­
0144,
expiring
October
31,
2005,
for
97,160
annual
burden
hours.

This
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
is
submitted
for
the
revision
of
the
Final
Risk
Management
Programs
Rule
(
June
20,
1996),
for
registering
sources,
documenting
risk
management
programs,
and
submitting
a
risk
management
plan
(
RMP)
under
section
112(
r)(
7)(
B)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
amended
(
CAA)
or
the
"
the
Act".
CAA
section
112(
r)(
7)
required
EPA
to
promulgate
reasonable
regulations
and
appropriate
guidance
to
provide
for
the
prevention
and
detection
of
accidental
releases
and
for
responses
to
such
releases.
The
regulations
include
requirements
for
submittal
of
an
RMP,
including
source
registration,
to
EPA.
The
RMP
includes
information
on
a
source's
hazard
assessment,
prevention
program,
and
emergency
response
program.
The
RMP
requirements
have
been
amended
few
times
since
the
1996
final
rule.
The
regulations
are
codified
in
40
CFR
part
68.
The
first
submissions
of
RMP
were
received
in
June
1999.

EPA
has
proposed
to
revise
40
CFR
part
68
(
Chemical
Accident
Prevention
Provisions)
to:

(
1)
Add
three
new
data
elements
to
the
risk
management
plan;

(
2)
Remove
the
requirement
to
discuss
the
off­
site
consequence
analysis
in
the
executive
summary
of
the
RMP;
and
(
3)
Modify
the
RMP
re­
submission
schedule
for
sources
who
have
significant
accidents,
and
for
those
sources
that
have
changes
for
their
emergency
contacts.

EPA
is
proposing
to
add
three
new
data
elements
to
the
risk
management
plan:
Emergency
Contact(
s)
Email
address,
Reason
for
subsequent
RMP
submissions,
and
Contractor
Information.
Section
68.160(
b)(
6)
currently
requires
facilities
to
provide
the
name,
title,
telephone
number,
and
a
24­
hour
telephone
number
of
the
emergency
contact.
Similarly,
paragraph
68.160(
b)(
14)
allows
facilities
to
optionally
provide
an
email
address
for
the
source
or
parent
company.
Providing
an
email
address
in
the
RMP,
serves
a
new
avenue
of
communication
between
EPA
and
or
implementing
agencies
with
the
facilities.
In
our
new
environment
of
heightened
security,
it
may
become
necessary
to
communicate
directly
and
on
short
notice
with
sources
subject
to
the
RMP
program.
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
add
this
data
element,
Emergency
Contacts
E­
mail
address
to
the
risk
management
plan.

A
second
data
element
that
is
being
proposed
is
for
sources
to
provide
the
reason
for
subsequent
RMP
submissions
(
correction,
update,
de­
registration,
or
withdrawal).
Sources
are
required
to
update
their
RMP
by
the
schedule
specified
in
section
68.190.
Since
the
June
1999
reporting
deadline,
EPA
has
received
several
RMPs
reflecting
corrections,
updates,
de­
registrations
or
withdrawals
from
sources.
This
additional
element
is
intended
to
assist
the
Agency
and
other
implementing
agencies
understand
the
reason
a
source
is
submitting
a
new
RMP,
or
asking
to
remove
an
existing
one.

The
third
data
element
that
is
being
proposed
in
the
RMP
is
for
sources
that
use
a
contractor
to
fill
out
the
RMP
to
provide
the
name
of
individual/
contractor,
and
a
phone
number
to
contact
the
contractor.
This
new
data
would
allow
the
implementing
agencies
to
measure
to
what
extent
the
contractors
are
preparing
RMPs
for
facilities.
It
would
also
allow
auditors
to
contact
the
contractor
directly
on
any
questions
regarding
the
RMPs
they
filled
out.

EPA
is
also
proposing
some
change
to
the
Executive
Summary
section
of
the
RMP,
that
is,
to
remove
the
requirement
to
discuss
the
off­
site
consequence
analysis.
Section
112(
r)(
7)
of
the
CAA
requires
sources
subject
to
the
risk
management
program
requirements
to
conduct
an
off­
site
consequence
analysis
(
OCA)
for
one
or
more
hypothetical
accidental
worst
case
and
alternative
release
scenarios
and
report
the
results
of
the
analysis
in
the
RMP.
In
1999,
Congress
passed
the
Chemical
Safety
Information,
Site
Security
and
Fuels
Regulatory
Relief
Act
(
CSISSFRRA),
governing
the
distribution
of
"
off­
site
consequence
[
OCA]
information".
This
regulation
(
40
CFR
1400)
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
August
4,
2000
(
65
FR
48108).
Promulgated
prior
to
the
passage
for
CSISSFRRA,
section
68.155(
c)
of
the
RMP
rule
currently
requires
sources
to
briefly
describe
in
their
RMP
executive
summary
"
the
worstcase
release
scenario(
s)
and
the
alternative
release
scenario(
s),
including
the
administrative
controls
and
mitigation
measures
to
limit
the
distances
for
each
reported
scenario."
EPA,
along
with
federal
law
enforcement
agencies,
believes
that
due
to
its
sensitive
nature,
this
information
should
not
be
in
the
executive
summaries,
which
are
available
to
the
public
without
restriction.
For
this
reason,
EPA
is
proposing
to
remove
the
requirement
to
summarize
the
OCA
information
and
requests
that
sources
not
voluntarily
provide
this
specific
information,
in
the
executive
summary.
Facilities
must
continue
to
provide
details
of
the
OCA
in
sections
2
through
5
of
the
RMP
and
the
public
would
continue
to
have
access
to
this
information
in
the
manner
required
by
the
regulation
at
40
CFR
1400.

EPA
is
also
proposing
to
change
the
RMP
submission
schedule
for
those
sources
that
meet
the
criteria
for
the
five
year
accident
history
and
for
those
sources
that
change
the
emergency
contact
information.
Currently,
the
rule
requires
sources
to
submit
RMPs
every
five
years
from
June
21,
1999,
unless
sources
have
other
reasons
to
update
RMPs
as
specified
in
section
68.190(
b)(
2)
to
(
7).
Since
these
reasons
for
updates
do
not
include
a
reason
to
update
the
RMP
for
sources
that
have
accidents,
until
a
regular
update
is
required
(
within
five
years
of
initial
submission),
EPA
is
proposing
that
sources
update
their
RMP
within
six
months
of
the
date
of
the
accident.
EPA
believes
that
requiring
an
update
of
the
RMP
submission
within
six
months
of
the
date
of
new
accidents
that
triggers
the
criteria
will
provide
a
significant
improvement
in
the
accident
prevention
and
reporting
programs
for
such
sources.
EPA
believes
that
providing
the
details
of
the
accident
soon
after
the
accident
takes
place
rather
than
wait
five
years
in
their
regular
update,
will
allow
the
source
to
provide
more
complete
and
accurate
information
in
their
accident
reporting.

The
RMP
has
become
a
primary
source
of
information
for
the
federal
government's
efforts
in
homeland
security.
In
this
manner,
the
emergency
contact
information
is
not
only
important
to
state
and
local
responders,
but
also
for
the
federal
government.
Under
current
requirements,
if
the
information
for
the
emergency
contact
becomes
outdated
(
e.
g.
change
of
emergency
contact's
phone
number,
emergency
contact
leaves
the
position,
etc),
the
source
may
take
up
to
five
years
to
report
these
changes.
Through
the
auditing
programs,
implementing
agencies
report
that
a
large
amount
of
the
information
for
emergency
contacts
is
outdated
or
otherwise
inaccurate.
For
these
reasons,
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
that
facilities
correct
their
emergency
contact
information
within
one
month
of
a
change
in
the
information.
The
additional
email
address
data
element
that
is
being
proposed
will
also
fall
under
this
new
requirement
to
correct
emergency
info
within
one
month
of
a
change.
These
updates
of
emergency
contact
information
will
be
considered
corrections
and
will
not
require
a
complete
re­
submission
of
the
RMP.

2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
Risk
Management
Plans
The
information
collection
for
registration
of
RMPs
with
EPA
is
authorized
under
CAA
section
112(
r)(
7)(
iii),
which
states
in
relevant
part
that
"
The
owner
or
operator
of
each
stationary
source....
shall
register
a
risk
management
plan....
with
the
Administrator
before
the
effective
of
the
regulations...
in
such
form
and
manner
as
the
Administrator
shall,
by
rule,
require."
All
sources
potentially
covered
by
this
rule
are,
therefore,
required
to
register
a
risk
management
plan
with
EPA.
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.

2(
b)
Use/
Users
of
the
Data
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
sources
to
prevent
accidents.

3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Nonduplication
Risk
Management
Plans
­
New
Data
Elements.
The
Agency
believes
that
this
amendment
is
not
a
duplication
of
information
requested
by
other
EPA
programs.
For
instance,
one
of
the
new
data
elements
that
EPA
is
proposing,
emergency
contacts
email
address,
is
critical
information
for
the
federal
government's
efforts
under
homeland
security.
In
our
new
environment
of
heightened
security,
it
may
also
become
necessary
for
an
implementing
agency
to
communicate
directly
and
on
short
notice
with
sources
subject
to
the
RMP
program.
Changes
on
the
submission
schedule
of
RMP
that
the
Agency
is
proposing
is
unique
to
this
program,
which
will
provide
important
information
on
the
changes
occurring
in
industry
and
better
understanding
on
the
types
of
accidents
occurring
at
sources.
3(
b)
Consultations
Most
of
the
elements
that
the
Agency
is
proposing
have
been
suggested
by
implementing
agencies
(
updates
on
facility
emergency
contact
information,
email
address,
contact
information
for
contractor
that
filled
out
the
RMP)
or
law
enforcement
agencies
(
to
remove
off­
site
consequence
analysis
information
from
executive
summary).

3(
c)
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.
The
next
submission
is
due
June
21,
2004.
From
then
on,
if
sources
have
significant
accident
that
meets
the
five
year
accident
history
criteria,
then
EPA
is
proposing
that
sources
update
their
RMP
within
six
months
of
the
date
of
the
accident.
If
the
source's
emergency
contact
information
changes,
EPA
is
proposing
that
sources
correct
the
information
within
one
month
of
a
change
in
the
information.
The
change
for
the
emergency
contact
information
does
not
require
sources
to
update
their
entire
RMP.

3(
d)
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(
e)
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.
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.

The
most
recent
data
shows
that
approximately
14,930
sources
have
submitted
RMPs
and
are
potentially
subject
to
this
proposed
rule.

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
new
data
elements
the
Agency
is
proposing
will
most
likely
affect
all
14,930
sources.
The
six
month
reporting
requirement
may
only
affect
those
sources
that
may
have
two
or
more
accidents
in
a
year.
The
reporting
schedule
due
to
the
change
in
emergency
contact
information
may
only
affect
few
of
the
sources
that
have
submitted
RMP.
The
change
in
the
Executive
Summary
section,
that
is,
to
remove
the
requirement
for
sources
to
discuss
the
off­
site
consequence
analysis,
will
affect
all
14,930
sources.

(
i)
Data
Items
Data
Requirements
for
Risk
Management
Plans
The
Act
requires
that
sources
be
registered
with
EPA.
The
first
submission
for
RMP
was
June
21,
1999,
and
sources
are
required
to
resubmit
RMP
within
five
years
(
by
June
21,
2004).
After
the
first
submission,
some
sources
have
updated
their
RMP,
in
which
case
these
sources
obtained
a
new
five­
year
anniversary
date.
Updates
or
re­
submissions
are
revisions
of
all
nine
sections
of
the
RMP,
also
requiring
a
new
certification
letter.

There
are
other
reasons
for
a
source
to
revise
an
RMP:
corrections,
de­
registrations
or
resubmissions
and
withdrawals.
A
correction
is
a
change
only
to
those
data
elements
that
need
to
be
changed
or
corrected,
and
requires
a
new
certification
letter.
Corrections
may
be
required
if
the
implementing
agency
or
the
EPA
reporting
center
discovers
the
submission
was
incomplete
based
on
a
validation/
error
report.
The
source
may
initiate
a
correction
if
it
discovers
an
error,
needs
to
make
minor
administrative
changes
(
e.
g.,
correction
of
a
phone
number
or
contact
name),
or
change
owners
but
the
covered
processes
operations
do
not
change.
Corrections
do
not
affect
the
five­
year
anniversary
date
for
updating
the
RMP
As
mentioned
earlier,
updates
are
required
by
law
to
occur
no
later
than
5
years
after
the
postmark
date
of
the
source's
last
submission,
or
sooner
if
any
of
the
changes
specified
in
section
68.190(
b)(
2)
occur.

In
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
is
proposing
to
add
three
new
data
elements
to
the
risk
management
plan
and
remove
the
requirement
to
discuss
the
off­
site
consequence
analysis
information
in
the
executive
summary
of
the
RMP.
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
modify
the
submission
schedule
under
the
risk
management
program
for
sources
who
have
significant
accidents,
and
for
those
who
change
the
information
for
the
emergency
contacts.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
Rule
Familiarization
All
sources
currently
subject
to
the
risk
management
program
requirements
have
to
familiarize
with
this
proposed
rule.

New
Data
Elements
(
1)
Emergency
Contacts
E­
mail
address
­
All
sources
(
14,930
sources)
may
have
to
comply
with
this
requirement
if
EPA
takes
final
action.

(
2)
Reason
for
Subsequent
RMP
Submissions
­
Since
the
June
1999
reporting
deadline,
EPA
has
received
thousands
of
RMPs
reflecting
corrections,
updates,
de­
registrations
or
withdrawals
from
sources.
However,
at
this
time
the
RMP
does
not
require
an
entry
that
provides
the
reason
the
source
is
sending
the
new
version.
To
be
conservative,
EPA
assumes
that
all
sources
(
14,930)
that
have
submitted
RMP
may
have
to
comply
with
this
requirement
if
EPA
takes
final
action.

(
4)
Contractor
Information
­
Through
the
auditing
program,
the
implementing
agencies
have
learned
that
many
RMPs
have
been
prepared
by
contractors,
and
not
by
personnel
at
RMP
sources.
EPA
is
proposing
to
add
this
data
element
(
contractor
name,
phone
number)
to
the
RMP,
so
that
the
implementing
agency
can
contact
the
person
on
any
questions
regarding
the
RMP.
EPA
assumes
that
all
sources
(
14,930)
may
have
to
comply
with
this
requirement
if
EPA
takes
final
action.

Submission
Schedule
EPA
is
proposing
that
facilities
that
have
an
accident
that
meets
the
criteria
for
the
five
year
accident
history
be
required
to
update
their
RMP
within
six
months
of
the
date
of
the
accident.
For
those
facilities
that
have
a
change
in
the
information
in
their
emergency
contact
information,
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
that
facilities
update
this
information
within
one
month
of
a
change
in
information.

5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Federal,
State
and
Local
Agencies
Activities
Burden
to
State
and
Local
Agencies
This
proposed
rule
does
not
impose
any
burden
on
state
and
local
agencies.
The
elements
proposed
are
useful
to
these
entities,
to
carry
out
the
responsibilities
of
implementing
the
program.

Burden
to
Federal
Government
In
order
to
add
the
new
data
elements
to
the
RMP,
the
Agency
has
to
modify
the
software
that
facilities
use
for
reporting.
There
will
be
some
burden
on
the
federal
government
to
modify
the
software
for
the
new
data
elements,
for
software
maintenance,
collecting
and
processing
additional
RMPs
received
due
to
the
proposed
changes
in
the
rule.
The
Agency
will
be
able
to
study
the
new
information
received
on
accident
data
soon
after
an
accident
occurs
rather
than
waiting
for
the
information
for
five
years.
The
Agency
will
make
the
RMP
information
available
to
the
implementing
agencies.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
Respondents
complete
an
RMP
electronically
or
on
paper.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
RFA)
of
1980
requires
federal
agencies
to
determine
whether
a
regulation
will
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
and
make
their
analyses
available
for
public
comment.
The
RFA
applies
to
small
businesses,
not­
for­
profit
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
In
addition,
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
requires
analysis
of
rules
that
impose
significant
burdens
on
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments.

The
total
estimated
annual
burden
incurred
by
all
small
entities
is
15,859
hours;
the
total
estimated
annual
cost
incurred
by
all
small
entities
is
$
485,380.
Average
per
facility
costs
to
small
entities
for
each
new
requirement
are:
$
61.07
for
rule
familiarization;
$
190.29
for
the
six
month
reporting
requirement;
$
2.89
for
changes
in
emergency
contact
information;
and,
$
7.63
for
new
data
elements.
As
the
result
of
these
relatively
low
costs
for
the
proposed
rule,
no
detailed
analysis
of
the
impact
on
small
entities
was
conducted.
EPA
certified
that
no
significant
impact
to
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
will
be
incurred
following
implementation
of
the
proposed
rule.

The
proposed
rule
imposes
some
new
costs
on
large
and
small
state
and
local
governmental
entities,
primarily
water,
wastewater,
and
electric
utility
authorities
or
special
districts.
However,
the
analysis
indicates
that
these
costs
are
not
significant.
The
annualized
cost
of
the
proposed
rule
discounted
at
7%
over
30
years
for
all
potentially
affected
government
entities
is
estimated
to
be
$
605,527.

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.).
This
proposed
rule
is
revising
section
68.190(
b)(
2)
to
require
facilities
to
submit
an
updated
RMP
within
six
months
of
the
date
of
an
accident
that
meets
the
criteria
for
the
five
year
accident
history.
This
requirement
may
change
the
submission
schedule
for
some
facilities.

6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
6(
a)
Respondent
Burden
Rule
Familiarization
All
respondents,
14,930
sources,
are
estimated
to
spend
2.0
hours
to
familiarize
themselves
with
this
proposed
rule.
The
total
annual
burden
for
rule
familiarization
is
29,864
hours.

Respondent
Burden
for
New
Data
Elements
It
is
estimated
that
all
respondents
(
14,930
sources)
will
take
0.25
hours
(
technical
staff)
to
report
the
new
data
elements
that
EPA
is
proposing
to
add
to
the
risk
management
plan.
The
total
annual
burden
for
new
data
elements
is
3,733
hours.

Respondent
Burden
for
Six
Month
Reporting
Requirement
(
Five
Year
Accident
History)

Based
on
the
number
of
accidents
reported
in
the
RMPs
received
by
EPA,
only
55
facilities
(
actual
count
based
on
RMP
database)
may
resubmit
their
RMP
because
of
the
six
month
reporting
requirement.
EPA
estimates
that
the
reporting
burden
for
each
facility
ranges
from
3.0
to
9.0
hours
(
wholesale
to
large
chemical
manufacturers)
for
resubmitting
RMP
due
to
the
proposed
six
month
reporting
requirement.
The
total
annual
burden
for
six
month
reporting
requirement
for
the
estimated
55
sources
is
259
hours.

Respondent
Burden
for
Change
in
Emergency
Contact
Information
The
Agency
is
proposing
that
any
facility
that
will
have
a
change
in
their
emergency
contact
information
to
submit
the
correct
information
within
one
month
of
the
change.
It
is
estimated
that
out
of
14,930
sources
that
have
submitted
RMP,
only
872
may
have
a
change
in
their
emergency
contact
information.
Total
annual
burden
is
87.2
hours.

6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
Unit
(
hourly)
costs
for
private
legal,
managerial,
and
technical
labor
for
each
facility
category
were
obtained
from
the
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics.
The
total
cost
of
complying
with
the
revised
submission
schedule
and
new
data
requirements
was
calculated
(
based
on
the
estimated
burden
for
each
new
element)
and
upon
the
potentially
affected
universe
of
facilities.
This
burden
estimate
was
then
multiplied
by
the
current
private
wage
rates
(
for
the
appropriate
facility
type),
resulting
in
an
estimated
annual
cost.
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
To
modify
the
software,
the
estimated
Agency
cost
(
one­
time)
is
$
100,000.
For
the
second
and
third
year
covered
by
this
ICR,
the
cost
to
maintain
the
software
$
50,000
each
year.
To
collect
and
process
the
additional
RMPs
(
since
the
proposed
rule
changes
the
submission
schedule
for
some
sources
as
described
in
previous
sections
in
this
ICR),
the
estimated
cost
is
$
150,000
per
year.

6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Cost
Universe.
The
proposed
rule
to
add
new
data
elements,
change
submission
schedule
due
to
accidents
and
emergency
contact
information
is
expected
to
affect
14,930
sources.
A
recent
count
on
the
number
of
sources
that
have
submitted
RMPs
to
EPA
is
14,930
sources.
This
is
a
decrease
in
the
universe
from
the
previous
ICR
(
1656.09)
since
few
sources
have
de­
registered.

Total
Burden
and
Cost.
The
total
annual
burden
for
rule
familiarization,
addition
of
new
data
elements,
six
month
reporting
requirement
for
accidents
and
one
month
reporting
requirement
for
change
in
emergency
contact
information
is
33,943
hours
at
a
cost
of
$
992,400.

6(
e)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
The
proposed
rule
imposes
some
burden
to
the
respondents
(
14,930
sources),
due
to
the
addition
of
new
data
elements,
rule
familiarization,
six
month
reporting
requirement
for
those
sources
that
have
accidents
frequently
and
one
month
reporting
requirement
for
those
sources
that
have
changes
in
their
emergency
contact
information.
There
is
an
increase
in
the
annualized
burden
of
33,943
hours
at
a
cost
of
$
992,400
to
the
previous
approved
burden.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
public
reporting
burden
for
rule
familiarization
is
2.0
hours
for
each
source.
For
the
addition
of
new
data
elements,
EPA
estimates
that
it
will
take
0.25
hours
for
each
source.
For
those
sources
that
have
accidents
that
meet
the
five­
year
accident
history
criteria
which
are
required
to
update
their
RMP
within
six
month
of
the
date
of
the
accident,
the
reporting
burden
is
estimated
to
range
from
3.0
hours
for
wholesale
to
9.0
hours
for
large
high
chemical
manufacturers.
For
those
sources
that
may
have
changes
in
their
emergency
contact
information,
the
reporting
burden
is
estimated
to
be
0.10
hours
for
each
source.

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
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.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0052,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742).
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0052
and
OMB
control
number
2050­
0144
in
any
correspondence.
