January 8, 2013

Carolyn Hoskinson, Director

U.S. EPA

Office of Underground Storage Tanks

Mail Stop 5401-P

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL:

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

Dear Director Hoskinson:

This letter is in reference to the EPA’s proposed rule amending 40 CFR Parts 280 and 281; 

Revisions to Existing Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment and Operator 

Training (EPA–HQ–UST–2011–0301) published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2011. PMAA is 

a national federation of state petroleum marketing associations representing 8,000 petroleum marketers 

nationwide who qualify as “small business” establishments under U.S. Small Business Administration’s

size categories (13 CFR 121.201).

PMAA remains deeply concerned with the overly burdensome compliance costs that proposed 

changes to federal UST regulations will impose on small business petroleum marketers nationwide. 

PMAA believes the EPA significantly underestimated those costs as outlined in the agency’s regulatory 

impact analysis Assessment Of The Potential Costs, Benefits, And Other Impacts Of The Proposed 

Revisions To EPA’s Underground Storage Tank Regulations. In its analysis, the EPA concluded that the 

proposed rule would impose $900 in annualized compliance costs on small business petroleum 

marketers. Yet, multiple estimates from equipment vendors obtained by PMAA reveal that annual 

compliance costs under the proposed rule total $6,100 per site, or more. This five- fold increase in likely 

compliance costs impose a far greater economic impact on small business petroleum marketers than 

anticipated by the EPA’s own regulatory impact analysis. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires EPA to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel for 

most proposed rules in order to pursue less burdensome alternatives unless the agency can certify that a 

rule will not have a “significant” economic impact on a “substantial” number of small entities. The RFA 

requires the SBAR Panel to include participation and input from small entity representatives.

In this case, rather than convening an SBAR, the EPA instead certified that the proposed rule 

would have no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unfortunately, in doing so the 

agency relied on incorrect compliance cost assumptions that skew the overall economic impact of the 

proposed rule in favor of a no significant impact determination.

PMAA believes that had an SBAR been convened, small entity representatives would have 

provided the agency with accurate compliance cost estimates along with additional information resulting 
Page 2.

in a more cost effective and flexible regulatory approach that ensured the same degree of environmental 

protection as envisioned under the proposed rule.

Due to the EPA’s reliance on inaccurate compliance cost assumptions for its economic impact 

determination, PMAA requests the agency to withdraw the proposed rule and form a SBAR Panel with 

small entity representation pursuant to the requirements of Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

additional information. 

Sincerely,

Mark S. Morgan

Regulatory Counsel

Cc:

Mark Barolo, Deputy Director, EPA/OUST

Liz McDermott, Environmental Specialist, EPA/OUST

Sarah Bresolin, Assistant Chief Counsel, SBA Office of Advocacy