EPA proposes revisions to the prescriptive Risk Management Program

On February 24, 2026, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule (Proposed Rule) outlining a “common sense approach” to the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) Risk Management Program (RMP).

The RMP regulations, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and promulgated under Section 112(r) of the CAA, are among EPA’s primary tools for evaluating chemical accident prevention and response following releases of hazardous chemicals. The program requires owners and operators of “stationary sources” to implement measures intended to prevent accidental releases and to mitigate the operational, community, and regulatory consequences when releases occur.

If finalized, the Proposed Rule would significantly revise several prescriptive RMP requirements adopted in EPA’s "Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention" (SCCAP) rule. EPA states that the proposal is intended to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and eliminate requirements it views as duplicative of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Process Safety Management standards.

While the Proposed Rule could reduce federal compliance obligations for RMP-regulated industries and provide increased flexibility in developing accident prevention and response programs, facilities may remain subject to applicable state process safety laws and emergency response planning obligations.

EPA has also indicated that it will continue to prioritize chemical accident prevention in enforcement, including a focus on higher-risk operations and facilities in proximity to communities. As a result, entities could face heightened scrutiny and pressure to justify risk-management decisions following a chemical release.

EPA will accept public comments until April 10, 2026. Comments on information collection provisions must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget by March 26, 2026. EPA will also hold a virtual public hearing on the Proposed Rule on March 10, 2026.

Our alert highlights key aspects of the Proposed Rule and potential implications for regulated entities.

EPA’s proposed reframed approach to chemical incident prevention and response

The Proposed Rule reflects a longstanding policy debate across presidential administrations regarding how chemical risk at industrial and commercial facilities should be assessed, documented, and enforced, particularly following an accidental release.

Over the past decade, several major RMP rulemakings have been litigated in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Litigation challenging the 2024 RMP rule has been held in abeyance while EPA proceeds with the current rulemaking in State of Oklahoma, et al. v. EPA, et al. (DC Circuit, Docket No. 24-1125).

Proposed revisions to SCCAP requirements

If finalized, the Proposed Rule would rescind or significantly revise several requirements introduced by the 2024 SCCAP rule, including those addressing:

• The Safer Technology and Alternatives analysis, including requirements to evaluate inherently safer technologies, make practicability determinations, and, in some cases, implement selected alternatives for certain categories of facilities
  
  
• Third-party compliance audit requirements, under which the SCCAP rule required certain facilities to engage independent auditors, rather than relying solely on internal compliance reviews
  
  
• Employee participation and training requirements, as well as accident and noncompliance reporting procedures intended to increase workforce involvement and information flow
  
  
• Gap analysis requirements comparing facility practices with current Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices, which were designed to formalize comparisons between existing programs and evolving industry standards
  
  
• Evaluation of natural hazards and power loss scenarios, including mandates related to backup power requirements for emissions monitoring equipment

The Proposed Rule does not address a provision that was proposed as part of the 2024 SCCAP rule, but ultimately excluded from the final SCCAP rule. That provision would have narrowed the CAA’s “storage incident to transportation” exemption by altering the definition of “stationary source” to include transportation containers disconnected from motive power for more than 48 hours.

This exemption has long been relied upon by the chemical transportation industry to exempt temporary storage operations – otherwise subject to oversight by the US Department of Transportation – from RMP compliance. In the absence of additional regulatory authority, EPA regional enforcement actions and recent litigation have increasingly challenged the in-transit exemption. This includes the enforcement action underlying the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Multistar Industries, Inc., which held that the exemption did not apply to railcars disconnected from motive power for more than one month.

Risk management in a less prescriptive regulatory environment

If finalized, the Proposed Rule would reduce certain prescriptive compliance obligations. However, it would not reduce the legal, operational, or reputational consequences that may follow a chemical release.

Federal regulatory rollbacks do not preempt or diminish state-level chemical safety requirements. Several states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Delaware, have adopted process safety and accident prevention programs that include obligations beyond EPA's RMP requirements. As prescriptive federal requirements are reduced, state air regulators may become more active in filling perceived regulatory gaps through robust inspection programs, enforcement actions, and new or revised state-level chemical safety mandates.

Facilities may wish to evaluate program compliance in light of evolving federal RMP requirements, applicable state process safety laws, emergency response planning obligations, and any state-specific chemical reporting or notification requirements. In the event of a significant chemical release, state environmental agencies often play a central role in incident response, investigation, and enforcement.

In addition, post-incident investigations by EPA and the US Department of Justice frequently assess whether a facility’s controls, training, and hazard analyses were commensurate with the risks presented by its operations, rather than whether the facility satisfied minimum regulatory requirements. Following a significant chemical release, these assessments often intersect with broader incident response, investigative, and litigation considerations.

Accordingly, while a shift from more prescriptive RMP requirements may provide regulated entities with greater flexibility in designing and implementing accident prevention programs, that flexibility could increase the importance of documented decision-making and demonstrable performance in the event of a chemical release.

Facilities operating under less prescriptive rules may face increased scrutiny and pressure to justify risk management decisions, particularly those with higher-risk processes, proximity to communities, or transportation-adjacent storage operations.

EPA enforcement priorities under the 2024–2027 National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives

While EPA’s proposal reflects an intent to reduce certain compliance obligations for RMP-regulated industries, the Agency has stated that it will continue to focus enforcement resources on chemical accident prevention.

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) finalized the National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives (NECI) for fiscal years 2020–2023 and 2024–2027, elevating chemical accident risk-reduction and response as an enforcement priority. The NECI directs EPA to prioritize inspecting and addressing RMP noncompliance at facilities that utilize substances that pose a “high risk to communities,” including anhydrous ammonia and hydrogen fluoride. EPA’s enforcement posture may therefore remain focused on facilities with higher risk profiles, such as those with accident histories, proximity to communities, or process complexity.

In the Preamble to the Proposed Rule, EPA stated that it would pursue a "compliance- and performance-driven approach" to accident prevention. Consistent with the NECI and recent OECA guidance, EPA has indicated that it intends to prioritize inspections and enforcement actions on facilities with less effective release prevention programs and those located in higher-risk areas. As a result, even if third-party audit requirements are relaxed, facilities with accident histories may remain under enhanced scrutiny, particularly after a release that implicates worker safety or nearby communities.

EPA regional offices are also pursuing enforcement actions concerning RMP applicability, including matters involving the in-transit exemption for certain temporary chemical storage operations. Because the Proposed Rule does not revise the regulatory definition of “stationary source," facilities relying on this exemption may continue to face uncertainty absent additional regulatory action or guidance.

Next steps

Given the substantive nature of the Proposed Rule, regulated industries that store or handle hazardous chemicals may wish to assess how compliance obligations could change and how their accident-prevention and response programs may be evaluated following a significant chemical release.

Facilities with higher risk operations, accident histories, or proximity to communities may also wish to consider whether current risk management practices would withstand post incident regulatory scrutiny in a less prescriptive regulatory environment.

Learn more

DLA Piper’s Environment, Health, and Safety attorneys routinely advise businesses on regulatory and policy developments affecting the chemical sector, including EPA’s RMP regulations under the CAA. Additionally, DLA Piper’s Environmental and Catastrophic Events team assists businesses in preparing for, responding to, and managing the legal and regulatory consequences of significant environmental incidents.

For questions or more information regarding these developments, please contact the authors.