January 5, 2012

VIA E

- MAIL

Ms. Elizabeth McDermott

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– UST

- 2011

- 0301 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 2822 T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

RE: Request for Extension of the Public Comment Period for EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the Underground Storage Tank Regulations

, Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- UST

- 2011

- 0301

Dear Ms. McDermott :
Airlines for America (“A4A”) respectfully requests an exten sion of the public comment period for EPA’s proposed revisions to the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Regulations. See 76 Fed. Reg. 71,708 (November 18, 2011). A4A, formerly the Air Transport Association of America, Inc., is the principal trade and servic e organization of the U.S. airline industry. A4A ’ s member airlines and their affiliates 1 provide a tremendous contribution to the national economy, transporting more than 90 percent of

all U.S. airlin e passenger and cargo traffic. A4A frequently comments on regulatory activities that affect the airline industry and the safety and efficiency of air travel in the

United States.

As is more fully explained herein, A4A’s initial review of the proposed revisions to the UST regulations indicates that the proposal’s scope may be broader than anticipated and could have significant implications for commercial airlines, airports, and public air transport. W e , therefore, request a sixty

- day extension of the comment period

to allow for a more comprehensive revi ew. This additional time will allow A4A to que ry

our member s and the potentially affected airports and fueling facilities to gain a more complete and accurate understanding of the proposal’s scope and potential costs. T his in

turn will allow the airline industry to provide EPA with the best information available regarding potential economic, operational

, and infrastructure impacts to inform the final

rule

. An additional sixty days will also ensure the rulemaking is consistent with the

Administrative Pro cedure Act’s notice requirements, which the D.C. Circuit has stated

1 A4A’s members are: AirTran Airways, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, ASTAR Air Cargo, Atlas Air, Delta Air Lines, Evergreen International Airlines, Federal Express Corporation, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, United Continental H oldings, UPS Airlines, and US Airways; Air Canada is an associate member

.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

January 5, 2012 Page 2

“are designed (1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment, (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties

an oppor tunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.” Environmental Integrity Project v.

EPA , 425 F.3d 992, 996 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ( quoting International Union, United Mine

Work ers of America v. Mine Safety & Health Administration , 407 F.3d 1250, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

In particular

, A4A needs additional time to evaluate EPA ’s proposal to remove
the deferral from regulation for airport hydrant fuel distribution systems. See 76 F ed. Reg. at 71,726

- 31. Airport hydrant systems are critical to the operations and

infrastructure of commercial airports. Disruptions to these systems can significant ly impact airport and airline operations, which can have a ripple effec t throughout the National Airspace System (NAS) and the national economy

. To provide some perspective

, A4A notes that an August 2011 study prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Organization (ATO) found that commerc ial aviation was ultimately responsible for 4.9 to 5.2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), helping generate $1.2

- $1.3 trillion in annual economic activity, $370

- $405 billion in annual personal earnings and 9.7 to 10.5 million jobs. 2

B ased on the configuration

- specific distinctions EPA appears to make in the Proposed Rule between airport hydrant systems that may or may not be covered by it, A4A’s preliminary review and analysis suggests that EPA may have underestimated the

nu mber of commercial airp orts t hat might be covered

. However, to confirm the results of its initial investigation, A4A needs additional time to work with our members and technical experts

. This is not a simple task because , based on our review of the Proposed
Rule and EPA’s apparent interpretations in the Preamble, it will require evaluating each individual airpo rt hydrant system to determine its precise configuration (e.g., whether

there are intermediary tanks, what are the relative underground

- to

- aboveground volumes, etc.) and how operations and infra structure may be affected

. In light of the complex and varied ownership and operation issues for hydrant systems at different airports across the
country, A4A does not have this information readily available and has been able to obtain only preliminary data at this point. A4A

, therefore, does not believe that it can complete

this investigation during the time currently allot t ed for public comment

.

A4A also need s t o better understand the potential costs and disruptions a ssociated with compliance with EPA’s proposal. Significant disruptions at even on e major airport

can have cascading impacts throughout the NAS and the broader economy. Once again, this will require consulting with our members and our te chnical and operational experts
to understand the particular circumstances at relevant ai r port s and to provide meaningful

comments on how best to achieve standards that are technically and economically

feasible

. For example, while EPA appears to believe that a number of existing airport hydrant systems may already meet the proposed design standards, A4A is in the process

2 See FAA Air Traffic Organization, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, August 2011.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

January 5, 2012 Page 3

of confirm ing whether this is the case at the commercial airports affected by the proposal

. A4A also needs to understand whether any of the proposed upgrade requirements might

entail work that could possib l y disrupt access to or the availability of airport aprons,

runways or any key airport infrastructure critical to operations

. These are just two o f a number of examples of the types of techn ical information that A4A needs to gather to fully evaluate EPA’s proposal. A4A has already initiated this work and has been diligently pursuing this information. However, the magnitude of the effort is such that

A4A cannot practically accomplish all of it during the current public comment period in a manner that will properly inform the Agency’s rulemaking process

.

In addition, EPA has requested public comment on a number of highly technical questions that relate to the proposed standards for airport h ydrant systems. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 71,731. A4A needs additional time to evaluate all of the complicated issues raised by these questions and to determine whether and how to respond to each one

. Finally, A4A needs time to fully analyze whether any of the remaining elements of the proposal could significantly impact our members.

A4A understand s from the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the associated background materials that EPA has conducted its own research on these issues (and has

al ready consulted with at least some members of the regulated community) . However,

A4A believes that meaningful comments from the perspective of the commercial airlines

will contribute to a better informed final rule . A4A further believes that the Agency’s interest in a sound and useful record would be best served by A4A’s thorough and complete review and analysis of affected airlines

, airports and facilities to complement EPA’s findings and assumptions

. The current public comment period, unfor tunately,

does not provide sufficient time for A4A and our members to obtain, analyze and submit the information that will be most useful to the Agency in crafting a final r ule

.

A4A , therefore, respectfully request s that EPA provid e the public with an

ad ditional sixty days for public comment.

Respectfully Submitted,

Tim A. Pohle Managing Director

– U.S. Environmental

Affairs & Assistant General Counsel

Airlines for America