V

N\ 

## TEDSTAT

B ^^^

ı

# ^^,o

AL PRO 

## TEO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



## ^jji

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Gregg Harper U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Harper:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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

Sn y der.Raquel(epa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.

Mathy Stanislaus

Assistant Administrator.,,TEDSM^

^^^

^1 'r r\°

^ L PROT EC, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable John Barrow U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Barrow:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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 S'tanislaus
Assistant Administrator\ 1 S7q

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Leonard Lance U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Lance:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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 Administrators,.ıT ED ST AT^

. ^ 8

.

^^^^

N ^ A Lp^OTE° UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Marsha W. Blackburn U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Blackburn:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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 AdministratorçD S74.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

(a. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

4 L PRO1

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Mike Simpson U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Simpson:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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

Sny der.Raquel(iiepa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.

Mathy Stanislaus

Assistant AdministratorçO Sq. '3'

Ui UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Steven M. Palazzo U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Palazzo:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 RecyclewRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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 conmTlent 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 AdministratorS1.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

PRO1

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Tim Griffin U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Griffin:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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% Postcorisumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.Rague1epa.govor (202) 

### 564-9586.

Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administrators.ıT

## ED ST

AT^ 8 ^^V



## ^z^SIt^^ ^ nr\

. A Lp^OTE° UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Rick Crawford U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Crawford:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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 coniment 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 coniment 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.govor (202) 564-9586.

Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

4 L PRO1

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Steve Womack U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Womack:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.Rague1(epa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.

Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Gus Bilirakis U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bilirakis:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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 AdministratorS74

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Renee Elimers U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Elimers:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 t00% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.

Matanislaus

Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Lee Terry U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Terry:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.^^,TED STA^^^ 

# ^^^

8 

# ^

% ıp R .T E^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Mark Amodei U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Amodei:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 RecycleWRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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 tanislaus
Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Tom Cotton U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Cotton:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.8 E ° S ^Tg

,

^^^



## ^^^^°^

^^ALp^oTE^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Alan Nunnelee U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Nunnelee:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Mathtanislaus

Assistant Administrator\1 S1q

isa)

o1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Tom Latham U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Latham:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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:f/www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.Raguel(epa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.

Mathtanislaus

Assistant AdministratorS?
'S..

• L PAOt' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND

EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Bill Cassidy U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Cassidy:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.Raguelepa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.

Matanislaus

Assistant AdministratorST
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

PRO

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Adam Kinzinger U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Kinzinger:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.Raque1(epa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.

Maanislaus

Assistant Administrator^,TEOSTA^

^^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Mike Pompeo U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Pompeo:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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 AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Steve Dames U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Dames:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Matanislaus

Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Robert E. Latta U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Latta:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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(iepa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.

Mathy tanislaus

Assistant Administrator^^ ED ST ATg^ 

# ^:^^

'Zr

r

'°

AL PRO

TEC, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Billy Long U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Long:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.s^^ E ° ^ TAr q ^^ 2

^

^LPROT^' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Paul Gosar U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Gosar:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Mattanislaus

Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Chaffetz:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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:Ilwww.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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. govor (202) 

### 564-9586.

Matanislaus

Assistant AdministratorS?47
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

() WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

pRQ1

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Robert Bishop U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bishop:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Matanislaus
Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Walter B. Jones U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Jones:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Oit Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.S^ EO STAT E S' ^ 2 ^ 8

^

^

NA LPROT ES\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Jeff Duncan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Duncan:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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. Raquelc2iiepa. govor (202) 564-9586.

Matanislaus

Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Mick Mulvaney U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Mulvaney:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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 tanis1aus

Assistant AdministratorçEO S. 

# (i4)

•

L PAO1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable David P. Roe U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Roe:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.govor (202) 564-9586.

Mathy anislaus

Assistant AdministratorS741.

'3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

• L PRO

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Cory Gardner U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Gardner:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Matanislaus
Assistant AdministratorST.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

PRO1

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Mathtanislaus

Assistant AdministratorS 

# s4 4

L PRO1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Brett Guthrie U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Gutbrie:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Matanislaus
Assistant Administrator· ·^E OST AT^ ^ ^ 8^

^ Z ^^

G ^

^

s r T

'°

AL PROT EO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Robert B. Aderholt U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Aderholt:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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(2lepa. gov or (202) 564-9586.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Bill Johnson U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Johnson:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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://wwwepa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.

Mathtanis1aus

Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Bill Huizenga U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Huizenga:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 RecycleWRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.Raguelcepa.gov or (202) 564-9586.

Matanislaus

Assistant Administrator^,TEDSM^

Z^ ^

^ Z ^ Z^bp^

^LPROT^°^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Mo Brooks U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Brooks:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 identif' 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 S Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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

Sny der. Raquelepa.gov or (202) 564-9586.

Matanis1aus

Assistant AdministratorWASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 S7q

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Virginia Foxx U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Foxx:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Maanis1aus
Assistant Administratorc oS?q

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Ira. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

1L PRO1

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Greg Walden U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Walden:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Matanis1aus
Assistant Administrator^.,TED STA^^

. ^ 8

.

^^ 7 ^

N ^ Aıp A oTE

C ' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Mike D. Rogers U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Rogers:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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(äepa.govor (202) 

### 564-9586.

Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Daniel Webster U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Webster:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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:I/www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.Raguelepa.gov or (202) 564-9586.

Matanislaus
Assistant Administrator^.,TEDSTA^

^^ G ^^

^^ALp R .TB UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Adrian Smith U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Smith:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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 s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at Snyder.Raguel(2iepa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.^^,TED S TA^^ Z ^ ^^

^ 2 ^^ 

# ^

^^'°

ALp R oTE° UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Ann Wagner U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Wagner:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Mathanislaus

Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Mike J. Rogers U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Rogers:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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 conment 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.Raguelcepa. gov or (202) 564-9586.

Matanislaus

Assistant AdministratorS?q.

L PRO1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Gene Green U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Green:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Mathtanis1aus

Assistant Administrator17 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

PRO1

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Steve Southerland U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Southerland:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Vicky Hartzler U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Hartzler:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Matanislaus
Assistant Administratorv r^ EOSTA T8 ^ 2 ^

z^ ^



## ^ ^

AL PR oT EO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Rodney Davis U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Davis:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Todd Young U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 nianufacturers, 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 Paperresponse 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.Rague1cepa.govor (202) 

### 564-9586.

Matanislaus

Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Markwayne Mullin U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Mullin:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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://wwwepa.gov RecycleWRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperresponse to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list Gf 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.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Jackie Walorski U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Walorski:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Matanis1aus

Assistant AdministratoriD S74,

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Todd Rokita U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Rokita:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.Raque1(epa.govor (202) 564-9586.

Matanislaus
Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Stephen Fincher U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Fincher:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Chtonne Free Recycled Paperresponse 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.Rague1epa.govor (202) 

### 564-9586.

Mathy 'tanis1aus
Assistant Administrator^^,TE D S TA^ 

# Z^^G ^^ 7 ..Vr. ^

A L PR0T E° UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Kevin Cramer U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Cramer:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 vho 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 1OO/ Postconsumer, Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paperresponse 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. govor (202) 564-9586.

Mathanis1aus
Assistant Administrator1 D ST.

pRO10 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Scott Desjarlais U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Desjarlais:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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. govor (202) 

### 564-9586.

Matanis1aus

Assistant Administrator\-c0
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

( PRO1

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Martha Roby U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Roby:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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(2epa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.

Matanislaus
Assistant AdministratorS1.

z UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

PAO1

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Diane Black U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Black:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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(liepa.gov or (202) 

### 564-9586.

Matanis1aus

Assistant AdministratorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Blame Luetkemeyer U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Luetkemeyer:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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.

Matanislaus
Assistant Administrator^^,^EDSTA^^

^ 5 ^^^ 8

^

^ 7 '^A L ^

oT E

C.\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

The Honorable Jim Matheson U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Matheson:

Thank you for your letter of July 24, 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 Paperresponse 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 s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at Snyder.Raqudepa.govor (202) 

### 564-9586.

Mathy Stanislaus

Assistant Administrator