Fact Sheet: Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention – Risk Management Program Proposed Rule

On this page:

• Overview
• What the RMP Rule Regulates
• The Proposed Changes in the Common Sense Proposed Rule
• The Estimated Cost Savings for the Proposed Risk Management Plan Common Sense Rule
• How to Comment on the Proposed Rule
• Where to Get More Information
• The RMP Common Sense Rule Proposed Revisions
• Proposed Compliance Dates for the Proposed Changes

Overview

The EPA is proposing to amend its Risk Management Plan Program regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 68) following a review of the existing RMP program requirements, as codified by the 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention rule. These proposed amendments, the Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention (Common Sense) Proposed Rule, seek to improve chemical process safety by avoiding duplicative requirements, realigning RMP program requirements with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Process Safety Management requirements, and eliminating unnecessary burdens.

What the RMP Program Regulates

Currently, approximately 11,500 facilities are subject to RMP program regulations throughout the country such as agricultural supply distributors, water and wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturers and distributors, food and beverage manufacturers, chemical warehouses, oil refineries, and other RMP program facilities. RMP facilities are facilities where specifically-identified hazardous substances are present above regulated thresholds (codified at 40 CFR Section 68.130) and are required to develop a RMP which:

• Identifies the potential effects of a chemical accident.
• Identifies steps the facility is taking to prevent an accident.
• Specifies emergency response procedures should an accident occur.

The Agency’s RMP program protects public health and the environment by requiring industrial facilities with large amounts of toxic and flammable chemicals to prepare and implement a RMP to detect and prevent or minimize accidental air releases of those chemicals that could cause deaths and injuries, damage to property or the environment, or require evacuations in surrounding communities.

The Proposed Changes in the Common Sense Proposed Rule

EPA is proposing to amend its RMP program regulations to maintain protection of human health and the environment from chemical hazards while reducing regulatory burden. The proposed rule includes the removal of duplicative and burdensome requirements where data may not be available to show that such requirements would result in a reduction of accidental chemical releases.

The RMP Common Sense Rule proposes the following changes to the RMP Program:

• Rescinding or modifying most accident prevention program changes to the RMP SCCAP final rule (i.e., safer technologies and alternatives analysis, third-party audits, employee participation, documentation of declined recommendations, safety information and recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, and other minor changes to the prevention program).
• Rescinding most of the public information availability provisions of the RMP SCCAP rule and providing limited RMP information through the RMP Data Tool to satisfy both community emergency response needs and security concerns.
• Clarifying community and emergency responder notification responsibilities and seeking comment to inform EPA of whether changes are needed to allow owners or operators to indicate an inability to coordinate with Local Emergency Planning Committees despite making good faith efforts to do so.

If finalized, EPA expects the proposed provisions will provide clarity, remove redundant or unnecessary regulatory requirements, and realign the Risk Management Program with OSHA’s PSM standard. Additionally, the proposed revisions would ensure long-term information access to the public to promote community response planning and preparedness while balancing site security concerns.

For a general summary of the proposed revisions, refer to the “RMP Common Sense Rule Proposed Revisions” section below.

The Estimated Cost Savings for the Proposed RMP Common Sense Rule

The proposed rule is deregulatory, and, if finalized, the EPA estimates annualized cost savings from the proposal of $234.7-240.3 million at a 3% discount rate and $236.2-241.9 million at a 7% discount rate.

How to Comment on the Proposed Rule

EPA welcomes comments from all stakeholders during the comment period. The public may comment on the proposed rule at Regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0313) through April 10, 2026. EPA will also hold a virtual public hearing on the proposed rule on March 10, 2026. Visit EPA’s RMP Common Sense proposal webpage for more information and for the link to register.

Where to Get More Information

• Common Sense Proposed Rule Federal Register Notice.
• Common Sense Proposed Rule Docket.
• EPA RMP Common Sense Proposal webpage.
• EPA RMP webpage.

The RMP Common Sense Rule Proposed Revisions

Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analysis

• Rescind STAA evaluation requirements for all North American Classification System 324/325 processes.
• Rescind STAA implementation and practicability requirements which currently apply to processes:
  • In North American Industry Classification System 324/325 within one (1) mile of another stationary source with a covered process in NAICS 324/325;
  • In NAICS 324 with HF alkylation covered processes; and
  • In NAICS 324/325 that have had one (1) accident since most recent process hazard analysis.
• Require STAA evaluation for new covered processes:
  • New = newly designed and built processes at existing or newly operating facilities which would commence operation three (3) years after the effective date of this rule, if finalized.

Information Availability

• Provide chemical hazard information (40 CFR Section 68.210(d)(1)-(6)) through the RMP Public Data Tool.
• Rescind requirements for facilities to provide chemical hazard information upon request and related requirements that mandate how and when such information should be provided, including: notification of availability of information, timeframe to provide requested information, declined recommendations, access in multiple languages, recordkeeping, and reporting of the method of communication and location of the notification that information is available.

Third-Party Audits

• Co-proposing two options:

1. Rescind all third-party audit provisions added by the 2024 SCCAP rule.
2. Modify provisions – require third-party audits for sources that have had two (2) accidents within a five-year period; require data on third-party audits to be submitted to EPA; put in place a sunset provision after regulations have been in effect for 10 years.

Employee Participation

• For Program 2 & 3 processes, rescind requirements related to:
  • training on the employee participation plan.
  • developing a process for employees to report unaddressed hazards/noncompliance.
  • retaining a record of noncompliance reports for three (3) years.
• For Program 3 processes, rescind requirements related to:
  • Consultation with employees on addressing PHA, compliance audit, and incident investigation recommendations.
  • Stop work authority.
• Retain:
  • Requirement for Program 2 to develop employee participation plan and provide access to hazard reviews and other prevention program information.
  • Requirement for Programs 2 and 3 to provide annual notice of plan.

Emergency Response

Community and Emergency Responder Notification

• Modify requirements to clarify who is responsible for community notification – emphasize that owners or operators are responsible for coordinating with local officials.

Emergency Response Exercises

• Retain 10-year field exercise frequency but seeking comment on changes needed to address lack of mechanism for owners or operators to indicate an inability to coordinate with Local Emergency Planning Committees despite good faith efforts.

Stationary Source Siting, Natural Hazards, and Power Loss Evaluation

• Rescind amplifying text related to stationary source siting.
• Rescind amplifying text related to natural hazards.
• Rescind amplifying text related to standby or emergency power systems.
• Rescind requirement for emergency or backup power for monitoring equipment.

Declined Recommendations Documentation

• Rescind requirement to document justifications for declining hazard evaluation and PHA recommendations from natural hazards, power loss, and siting recommendations for Programs 2 & 3.
• Rescind requirement to document declined recommendations from Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices gap analysis.

Process Safety Information & Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices

• Retain “up to date” language in process safety information.
• Rescind clarifying text related to ensuring and documenting Program 2 and 3 processes are designed and maintained in compliance with RAGAEP.
• Retain change in Program 2 safety information to remove phrase related to Federal and State regulations.
• Rescind RAGAGEP gap analysis for Program 3 in the PHA.

Collection of Deregistration Information

• Retain voluntary nature of information collection upon deregistration.
• Request additional information related to the use of safer technologies and alternatives in deregistration form.

Other Technical Changes

Hot Work Permit Retention

• Rescind three-year retention requirement.

Retail Facility Definition

• Amend definition to include alternate timeframes for sales to determine exemption.

Proposed Compliance Dates for the Proposed Changes

EPA is proposing to require regulated sources to comply with the modified or new provisions in this proposed rule three years after the effective date of the final rule (i.e., from the date of publication in the Federal Register). Those proposed provisions include STAA and third-party compliance audits requirements. The 2024 SCCAP provision for backup power for monitoring equipment is proposed to be rescinded, so EPA also proposes to have the corresponding compliance date requirements removed from 40 CFR Section 68.10(g)(1). The compliance date for availability of information at 40 CFR Section 68.10(g)(7) is also proposed to be deleted, because the modified requirement, as proposed, in 40 CFR Section 68.210 would shift responsibility from owners or operators to the Agency. The compliance dates for the 2024 SCCAP rule provisions for root cause analysis, employee participation, and emergency response at 40 CFR Section 68.10(g)(3), (5), and (6) would remain as is, as May 10, 2027, because all or some portion of each provision is proposed to be retained.