 

January 8, 2013

Carolyn Hoskinson, Director

U.S. EPA

Office of Underground Storage Tanks

Mail Stop 5401-P

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL:

RE: Proposed Changes to Federal UST Regulations
(EPA–HQ–UST–2011–0301) 

Dear Director Hoskinson:

	This letter is in reference to the EPA’s proposed rule amending 40
CFR Parts 280 and 281; Revisions to Existing Requirements and New
Requirements for Secondary Containment and Operator Training
(EPA–HQ–UST–2011–0301) published in the Federal Register on
November 18, 2011. PMAA is a national federation of state petroleum
marketing associations representing 8,000 petroleum marketers nationwide
who qualify as “small business” establishments under U.S. Small
Business Administration’s size categories (13 CFR 121.201).

	PMAA remains deeply concerned with the overly burdensome compliance
costs that proposed changes to federal UST regulations will impose on
small business petroleum marketers nationwide. PMAA believes the EPA
significantly underestimated those costs as outlined in the agency’s
regulatory impact analysis Assessment Of The Potential Costs, Benefits,
And Other Impacts Of The Proposed Revisions To EPA’s Underground
Storage Tank Regulations. In its analysis, the EPA concluded that the
proposed rule would impose $900 in annualized compliance costs on small
business petroleum marketers. Yet, multiple estimates from equipment
vendors obtained by PMAA reveal that annual compliance costs under the
proposed rule total $6,100 per site, or more. This five- fold increase
in likely compliance costs impose a far greater economic impact on small
business petroleum marketers than anticipated by the EPA’s own
regulatory impact analysis. 

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires EPA to convene a
Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel for most proposed rules in
order to pursue less burdensome alternatives unless the agency can
certify that a rule will not have a “significant” economic impact on
a “substantial” number of small entities. The RFA requires the SBAR
Panel to include participation and input from small entity
representatives.

	In this case, rather than convening an SBAR, the EPA instead certified
that the proposed rule would have no significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Unfortunately, in doing so the agency relied
on incorrect compliance cost assumptions that skew the overall economic
impact of the proposed rule in favor of a no significant impact
determination.

	PMAA believes that had an SBAR been convened, small entity
representatives would have provided the agency with accurate compliance
cost estimates along with additional information resulting 

Page 2.

in a more cost effective and flexible regulatory approach that ensured
the same degree of environmental protection as envisioned under the
proposed rule.

	Due to the EPA’s reliance on inaccurate compliance cost assumptions
for its economic impact determination, PMAA requests the agency to
withdraw the proposed rule and form a SBAR Panel with small entity
representation pursuant to the requirements of Regulatory Flexibility
Act.

 

	Please do not hesitate to contact me at 202 364-6767 should you have
any questions or require additional information. 

Sincerely,

 

Mark S. Morgan

Regulatory Counsel

Cc:

Mark Barolo, Deputy Director, EPA/OUST

Liz McDermott, Environmental Specialist, EPA/OUST

Sarah Bresolin, Assistant Chief Counsel, SBA Office of Advocacy

