EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68)vsEPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know)
See exactly how EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) controls map to EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) maps to EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know) with 2% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 61 EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) controls identifies 69 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Subpart D: Program 3 prevention program – EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 61 controls analysed | 849 frameworks | 314K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 1 of 1 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 314K+ mappings across 849 frameworks.
Superseded batch representation – EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68)(1 mappings)
A EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) to EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know) controls your existing EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 2% in the header counts how many EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know) controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) comparisons
Other EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 849 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 849 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (314K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) and EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know)?
EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) has 61 controls across its framework, while EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know) covers 4 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 1 overlapping controls (2% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Subpart D: Program 3 prevention program – EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68), where 14 EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) controls have no direct EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know) equivalent.
How many controls map between EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) and EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know)?
Of 61 total EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) controls, 1 map directly to EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know) controls, representing 2% coverage. The remaining 69 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) to EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know)?
69 EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) controls have no direct equivalent in EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know). The highest concentration of gaps is in Subpart D: Program 3 prevention program – EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) with 14 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) and EPA EPCRA / SARA Title III (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Subpart D: Program 3 prevention program – EPA Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68) (14 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.