EPA’s Proposal to Change the Clean Air Act Risk Management Program Rule

EPA published a new rule on February 24, 2026, to revise its Section 112r Clean Air Act Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations, withdrawing certain requirements of the Biden Era “Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention” rule (the “2024 SCAAP Rule”). For facilities subject to RMP requirements, the rule, if finalized, will remove or simplify some of the duplicative and onerous requirements. This article will discuss just a few of the general changes proposed.  A full reading of the rule may expose other changes relevant to a particular facility.

RMP regulations are meant to protect employees and communities from accidental releases through prevention, quick and planned response, and public communication. However, many critics of the 2024 SCAAP Rule have emphasized that some of its requirements are already covered by OSHA regulations relating to Process Safety Management (PSM) and thus, are unnecessary and not within EPA’s purview under the Clean Air Act.

If finalized as currently written, the proposed rule would:

• Rescind requirement that facilities perform a Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analyses (STAA) for all programs subject to RMP except for new Program 3 processes (i.e., those processes that (1) have commenced operation three years after the effective date of the proposed rule; (2) affect the public in case of a worst-case release or with releases with offsite consequences in the last five years; and (3) are subject to OSHA’s PSM standard) regardless of the NAICS code associated with the facility;
• Rescind requirement that facilities adopt inherently safer technologies and designs (IST/ISD) or document why they were not adopted even though recommended in the STAA analyses;
• Rescind triggers and the associated requirements for third-party audits or alternatively, apply them only to facilities with two accidents in a five-year period (with a 10-year sunset provision);
• Rescind requirement that Program 2 and Program 3 facilities address “natural hazards” in their reviews and analyses;
• Rescind various hazard evaluations required to address a loss of power and relating to standby or backup power for air pollution control/monitoring equipment;
• Rescind availability of a facility’s chemical hazard information to individuals living or working within 6 miles of the RMP facility who make a request and replacing it with general data on the RMP public portal regarding facilities subject to RMP including regulated substances, accident history, emergency response and scheduled exercises;
• Rescind requirement an analysis be performed to ensure processes are designed and maintained in accordance with Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP), while stating removal does not mean facilities can ignore RAGAGEP nor that EPA cannot enforce this requirement;
• Rescind required employee participation in recommendations and findings of Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs) and employee stop work authority for Program 3 processes;
• Simplify emergency notification requirements, including elimination of certain documentation requirements and replacing them with a one-time notification as part of the regular RMP submission to EPA to include: (1) type of community notification system in place; and (2) whether the facility owner or local emergency responder will notify the community of an accidental release triggering RMP; and
• Rescind requirement that Program 2 and 3 facilities report why they declined PHA recommendations relating to natural hazards, power loss and siting and, for Program 3 facilities only, other recommendations relating to safety gaps.

EPA is pushing to quickly make the proposed rule final. To that end, it held a virtual public hearing on the proposed rule on March 10, 2026, and public comments were originally due before April 10, 2026. However, numerous comments requested a second public hearing and comment period extension. As a result, on April 2, EPA extended the comment period until May 11, 2026.