^,TED STA^

. 

^ 

8. ^ ^~^^

z^5^w^^

N T

'°

AL pRoTE

'

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Landrieu: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA' s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raguehepa.gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator
• o Si7. 

-. -)I(e: 

'<'4, 4>0 

'L pRO1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Mike Enzi 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Enzi: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 andNovember 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raquel(epa.gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Fischer: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raguel(epa.gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator
S74,.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

c'

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Heitkamp: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epagov 


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raquelepa.gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator
S1. 

(ia)


4L PRO1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Ron Johnson 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Johnson: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raguel(epa.gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator
çD S7q 

1L PRO1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Mark Pryor 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Pryor: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


RecycledlRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has filly considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA' s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raquel(epa.gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator
^^

v^EOSTAB

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable James E. Risch 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Risch: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raquel(epa.gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Marco Rubio 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Rubio: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raguel(epa.gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Tim Scott 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Scott: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raquel(epa.gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator
S7q. 

( PRO

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Shaheen: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raquelciepa.gov or (202) 564-9586.
ç O S1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

( PRO1

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable David Vitter 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Vitter: 

Thank you for your letter of July 23, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Our analysis determined that the potential costs of the 

proposal did not reach a level that would require convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 

Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our 

rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008. 

The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in EPA' s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raquel(epa.gov or (202) 564-9586.