January 8, 2013

Carolyn Hoskinson, Director U.S. EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Mail Stop 5401 - P 1200 Penns yl vania Avenue, N. W. Wa shington, D.C. 20460 **VI A U.S. M**  **AIL AN**  **D EM AI**  **L: RE: Proposed Changes to Federal UST Regulations**  **(EPA –**  **HQ –**  **UST –** **201 1**  **– 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 u nder U.S. Small Business Admin istration’s size categories (13 CFR 121 .201 ). PMAA remains deeply concerned with the overly burdensome com pliance costs th at proposed changes to federal UST regulations will im pose on sma ll business petroleum ma rketers nationwide. PMAA believes the EPA s ignificantly underestimated those costs as outlined in the agency’s regulatory im pact 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 ma rk eters. Yet, multiple estimates from equipment vendors obtained by PMAA reveal that annual com pliance costs under the proposed rule total $6,10 0 per site , or more . This five - fold increase in likely com pliance costs impose a far greater economic im pact on small business petroleum marketers than anticipated by the EPA ’s own regulatory impact analysis
. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as am ended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires EPA to convene a Small Business Advocac y Review (SBAR) Panel for mo st proposed rules in order to pursue less burdensome alternatives unless the agenc y can certify that a rul e 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 instea d certified that the proposed rule would have no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unfortunately, in doing so the agenc y 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 agenc y with accurate comp liance cost estimates along with additional information resulting**Page 2.**

in a more cost effective and flexible regulatory approach that ensured the same d egree of environmental protection as envisioned under the proposed rule. Due to the EPA’s reliance on inaccurate compliance cost assumptions for its economic impact determinat ion , P MAA requests the agenc y to withdraw the proposed rule and form a SBAR Panel with sm all 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 quest ions 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