EPA's Proposed Rule Signals Rollback of Chemical Safety Requirements as Key Questions Remain

The Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require facilities using certain toxic or flammable substances to develop and submit a risk management plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These regulations have been marked by regulatory oscillation across administrations. The Obama Administration's 2017 amendments introduced new accident prevention provisions, the first Trump Administration's 2019 rule rolled back many requirements, the Biden Administration restored and expanded them through the 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) rule, and, now, the second Trump Administration proposes a near-complete reversal.

As discussed in a previous Holland & Knight blog, the Trump Administration's EPA signaled early on that it would reconsider the SCCAP rule. On March 12, 2025, EPA formally announced it was reconsidering the 2024 rule. EPA on February 24, 2026, published a proposed rule that would rescind or significantly scale back many requirements introduced in the SCCAP.

Key Proposed Changes

EPA frames this proposal as a "common sense approach" aimed at avoiding duplicative requirements and realigning RMP with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) standard. EPA cites data showing that RMP-reportable accidents declined from 147 in 2014 to 81 in 2023 as evidence that the rolled-back programs were sufficiently effective prior to the SCCAP rule. The proposed rule addresses 14 substantive areas, with key changes including:

• Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA). The rule would rescind the SCCAP requirement for Program 3 processes in petroleum, coal and chemical manufacturing sectors to conduct STAA. Instead, STAA would be required only for newly covered Program 3 processes.
• Third-Party Compliance Audits. EPA has advanced two alternative approaches to third-party compliance in its proposal. First, the SCCAP third-party audit requirement would be rescinded entirely. Second, third-party audits would be required only for facilities with two or more RMP-reportable accidents within a five-year period, with a 10-year sunset provision.
• Information Availability. The rule would rescind requirements to provide chemical hazard information to the public upon request, instead relying on a modified RMP Public Data Tool with limited search capabilities. EPA cites security concerns as justification.
• Employee Participation. EPA would scale back expanded employee participation requirements, including consultation provisions and stop-work authority, and retain the requirement for a written employee participation plan and an annual notice.
• Natural Hazards and Climate Change. The rule would remove explicit requirements to evaluate natural hazards, including climate change impacts, in process hazard analyses, reverting to the pre-2024 approach. EPA notes that only about 3 percent of RMP-reportable accidents involved natural hazards.
• Other Provisions. The rule would also modify requirements related to community notification, emergency response exercises, stationary source siting, power loss and the "retail facility" definition.

Implications for Chemical Transporters

The chemical transportation industry has been closely watching the evolution of EPA's RMP regulations, particularly as they relate to the scope of the "storage incident to transportation" exemption under the CAA and Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). A May 2024 Holland & Knight alert discussed how the 2024 SCCAP rule removed the proposed 48-hour limit on how long a chemical container could be disconnected from motive power before being considered a "stationary source" but nonetheless pointed to case law – particularly United States v. Multistar Industries – that could narrow the in-transit exemption. A January 2025 Holland & Knight blog analyzed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's December 2024 affirmance of the Multistar decision and discussed what the incoming Trump Administration might do to address the resulting uncertainties for the industry.

Notably, the new proposed rule does not address the definition of "stationary source" or revise the regulatory framework for the in-transit exemption. This means that the uncertainties created by the Multistar decision – including the Ninth Circuit's suggestion of a brightline one-month threshold for when stationary transportation containers are no longer "in transportation" and its reliance on EPA's "motive power" standard – remain unresolved. Chemical transporters, transloaders and depot facilities continue to face questions about how long containers may sit disconnected from motive power at their facilities before they are deemed stationary sources subject to RMP requirements.

The proposed rule's broader deregulatory thrust may nonetheless signal that the Trump Administration is less likely to pursue aggressive enforcement of the in-transit exemption's boundaries. However, as the Multistar litigation demonstrated, there can be a disconnect between EPA headquarters policy and regional enforcement activity. Facilities that rely on the in-transit exemption should continue to evaluate their operations in light of the four-factor framework identified in Multistar – length of time at the facility, connection to motive power, the primary purpose of the facility's operations and status of shipping papers – and take steps to document their compliance posture.

Early Comments to the Docket

Comments are due by April 10, 2026. Substantive public input to the docket has been limited so far. The most notable submission comes from a group of labor, environmental and public health organizations that submitted a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin requesting at least two public hearings and a 60-business-day extension of the comment period, characterizing the proposed rule as a rollback of "long-awaited, life-saving protections" and urging EPA to implement the 2024 SCCAP rule rather than proceed with the proposed changes.

Other early commenters have offered a range of perspectives, from support for the proposed rule's alignment with OSHA PSM standards and reduction of regulatory duplication to calls for EPA to demonstrate through data that rescinded provisions were, in fact, unnecessary rather than serving as essential safety barriers.

Looking Ahead

The proposed rule represents a significant pendulum swing in RMP regulation and is likely to generate substantial additional public comment before the April 10, 2026, deadline. If finalized, the rule would mark a major reduction in prescriptive compliance obligations for RMP-regulated facilities – though it would not eliminate facilities' underlying obligations under the CAA's General Duty Clause at 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r) to identify hazards and operate safely to avoid accidental releases.

It is also worth noting that litigation challenging the 2024 SCCAP rule remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of ColumbiaCircuit (State of Oklahoma, et al. v. EPA, et al., Docket No. 24-1125) and has been held in abeyance while EPA proceeds with this rulemaking. Additional litigation challenging any final rule is also possible, if not likely, given the strong opposition expressed by labor, environmental and public health groups.

For chemical transporters and depot operators, the proposed rule's silence on the stationary source definition and in-transit exemption means that the Multistar framework continues to define the regulatory landscape. Until EPA or the U.S. Congress acts to provide greater clarity or the courts further refine the scope of the exemption, chemical transport companies should continue to assess their operations against the Multistar factors and ensure they have a full understanding of their potential compliance obligations under the CAA's RMP regulations and EPCRA.

Holland & Knight's environmental and transportation attorneys continue to monitor these developments and can assist regulated entities with evaluating the impacts of the proposed rule, preparing comments for submission to the docket and developing comprehensive compliance plans.

For more information, contact the authors or another member of the firm's Environmental Team or Transportation Team.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.