EPA is proposing to rescind or significantly weaken many of the chemical accident prevention and crisis management requirements adopted just two years ago under the 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention ("SCCAP") rule. If finalized, the proposed rule would roll back safer technology analysis obligations, third-party audit requirements, public information-sharing duties, employee participation provisions, and key emergency preparedness and crisis response mechanisms for facilities regulated under the Risk Management Program ("RMP") at 40 CFR Part 68. Owners and operators of RMP-regulated facilities, particularly those in petroleum and coal products manufacturing (NAICS 324) and chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325), should evaluate the impact of the proposed revisions on their ongoing SCCAP compliance efforts, reassess the adequacy of their crisis management and emergency response plans in light of the proposed rollbacks, and consider whether to submit comments before the April 10, 2026 deadline.
The proposed rule, titled "Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention," was published on Feb. 24, 2026, and prompted by Executive Order 14148, "Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions," and Executive Order 14154, "Unleashing American Energy," both issued on Jan. 20, 2025. EPA's stated goals are to eliminate duplicative requirements, realign RMP regulations with OSHA's Process Safety Management ("PSM") standard, and remove regulatory burdens where EPA lacks specific data showing that SCCAP standards have reduced accidental releases.
Who Is Affected by the Proposed RMP Rule Changes?
The proposed rule applies to owners and operators of stationary sources subject to the existing chemical accident prevention requirements at 40 CFR Part 68—facilities holding more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process. Covered facilities span a range of industrial sectors, including petroleum and coal products manufacturing (NAICS 324), chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325), and other sectors identified in the existing RMP regulations.
For example, a chemical manufacturing facility that invested significant resources in 2024 and 2025 to comply with the SCCAP rule's safer technology and alternatives analysis requirements, third-party audit provisions, or enhanced emergency notification and crisis response protocols may find those obligations eliminated if this proposal is finalized. These facilities should carefully assess which compliance investments remain durable and which may be rescinded, and whether rolling back crisis management safeguards, such as stop work authority and anonymous hazard reporting, could increase exposure to accidental release liability or negligence claims in a future incident.
What Are the Most Significant Proposed Changes?
The proposed rule addresses 14 substantive areas. The most significant are summarized below.
Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA). EPA proposes to rescind the STAA implementation and practicability assessment requirements for existing facilities with Program 3 processes in NAICS codes 324 and 325, including the heightened requirements for co-located facilities, HF alkylation processes, and facilities with a prior accident. STAA evaluation requirements would be retained only for new Program 3 processes, regardless of NAICS code.
Third-Party Compliance Audits. EPA is proposing two options: (1) rescind all third-party audit requirements entirely, or (2) modify the requirements to apply only to facilities with two or more RMP-reportable accidents in a five-year period, with a sunset provision after the regulations have been in effect for 10 years.
Information Availability. EPA proposes rescinding the requirement for facility owners or operators to provide chemical hazard information to the public upon request. Instead, EPA would codify the RMP Public Data Tool as the primary mechanism for information dissemination, with search criteria limited to the county level.
Employee Participation and Stop Work Authority. EPA proposes to rescind several 2024 SCCAP employee participation provisions for Program 2 and Program 3 processes, including training requirements on the employee participation plan, anonymous hazard and noncompliance reporting requirements, the requirement to consult employees on process hazard analysis ("PHA") and audit recommendations, and stop work authority provisions. The proposed elimination of stop work authority is particularly notable from a crisis prevention standpoint, as that provision empowered frontline workers to halt operations when they identified imminent hazards, a mechanism widely regarded in process safety and crisis management law as critical to preventing catastrophic incidents.
Stationary Source Siting. EPA proposes to remove the language added by the 2024 SCCAP rule that clarified specified siting considerations, including placement of processes, equipment, and buildings within the facility and hazards posed by proximate stationary sources.
Natural Hazards, Power Loss, and Crisis Preparedness. EPA proposes to rescind the stand-alone natural hazards evaluation provisions and power loss emphasis provisions added by the 2024 SCCAP rule, contending that these hazards were already required to be evaluated under the existing hazard review and PHA frameworks. EPA also proposes to rescind the requirement for backup power for monitoring equipment and associated documentation requirements. From a crisis management perspective, these rollbacks are significant: the 2024 SCCAP rule's natural hazards and power loss provisions were designed to strengthen facility resilience against the types of cascading failures — such as those seen during Hurricane Harvey and the 2021 Texas winter storm — that have historically triggered major accidental releases and emergency response crises.
Declined Recommendations. EPA proposes to rescind the 2024 SCCAP rule's requirements for documenting and reporting declined recommendations for natural hazards, power loss, siting, and RAGAGEP gap analysis.
Hot Work Permit Retention. EPA proposes rescinding the three-year retention period for hot work permits and reinstate the requirement to keep permits on file only until completion of the hot work operations.
Safety Information and RAGAGEP. EPA proposes to retain the "up to date" language for Program 3 process safety information but rescind the 2024 SCCAP rule's RAGAGEP gap analysis requirement under the PHA (40 CFR 68.67(c)(10)).
Retail Facility Definition. EPA proposes to revert the retail facility definition to its pre-2024 form, eliminating clarifications put in place by the 2024 SCCAP rule for determining when a facility is eligible for the flammable substance exclusion.
What SCCAP Provisions Would EPA Retain?
Several provisions from the 2024 SCCAP rule would remain in place under the proposal:
- The requirement for Program 2 facilities to develop employee participation plans and provide annual notice (40 CFR 68.62(a)).
- The "up to date" clarification for Program 3 process safety information (40 CFR 68.65(a)).
- Emergency response exercise requirements from the 2024 SCCAP rule, including the 10-year field exercise frequency.
- The community and emergency responder notification framework, though with modifications to clarify that facility operators should "partner with" local response agencies rather than bear sole responsibility. For facilities with crisis management plans that incorporate these notification protocols, the retained framework provides continuity, but the shift from sole responsibility to a partnership model may require updates to incident command and communication procedures.
- Root cause analysis requirements for incident investigations, with the compliance date retained as May 10, 2027. Root cause analysis remains a cornerstone of effective crisis management, and its retention ensures that post-incident investigations continue to identify systemic failures rather than merely proximate causes.
- The removal of the exemption in Program 2 safety information that allowed compliance with Federal or state industry-specific regulations to demonstrate RAGAGEP compliance.
What Is EPA Asking the Public to Weigh In On?
EPA is soliciting comments on numerous aspects of the proposal. Among the most significant topics for public input:
- Whether STAA requirements should apply to "heightened risk" processes, such as facilities found to have not reported RMP accidents, facilities with one accident resulting in offsite injuries, or facilities with multiple serious violations.
- Whether to adopt co-proposed option one (rescind all third-party audits) or option two (require audits only for facilities with two or more accidents in five years with a 10-year sunset), and what data should be collected during any sunset window.
- Whether modifications to the RMP Public Data Tool should include sharing community notification system data and whether there should be differences in requirements for responding vs. non-responding facilities.
- Whether alternative natural hazard compliance assistance tools should be developed and what codes and standards information should be collected from regulated facilities.
- Whether good faith coordination documentation requirements should be added for emergency response exercises when LEPCs are inactive or unresponsive.
- Any costs already incurred by facilities in complying with the 2024 SCCAP rule.
How to Submit Comments and Key Deadlines
Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2026, and may be submitted via Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2025–0313 at regulations.gov. Given the breadth of co-proposals and alternatives under consideration, particularly on third-party audits, STAA applicability for "heightened risk" processes, and information availability, this rulemaking presents a meaningful opportunity for affected parties to shape the final rule. Facilities that have already incurred costs to comply with the 2024 SCCAP rule should consider submitting comments documenting those expenditures, as EPA has specifically requested that information. Facilities should also consider whether the proposed rollbacks to crisis management and emergency preparedness provisions (including natural hazards evaluation, stop work authority, and community notification) warrant maintaining those protections voluntarily as part of internal crisis management programs, even if the regulatory mandate is rescinded.
For additional background, EPA's Fact Sheet on the proposed rule is available at EPA.gov.
This alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact us with any questions about how this proposed rule may affect your operations.
