January 5, 2012

VIA E-MAIL

Ms. Elizabeth McDermott

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–UST-2011-0301

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 2822T

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 extension 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 service organization of 

the U.S. airline industry. A4A’s member airlines and their affiliates1provide a 

tremendous contribution to the national economy, transporting more than 90 percent of 

all U.S. airline 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. We, therefore, request a sixty-day extension of the comment period 

to allow for a more comprehensive review. This additional time will allow A4A to query

our members and the potentially affected airports and fueling facilities to gain a more 

complete and accurate understanding of the proposal’s scope and potential costs. This 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 Procedure Act’s notice requirements, which the D.C. Circuit has stated 

 

1A4A’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 Holdings, 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 opportunity 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 

Workers 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 Fed. 

Reg. at 71,726-31. Airport hydrant systems are critical to the operations and 

infrastructure of commercial airports. Disruptions to these systems can significantly 

impact airport and airline operations, which can have a ripple effect 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 commercial 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

Based 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 

number of commercial airports that 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 airport 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 infrastructure 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 allotted for public comment. 

A4A also needs to better understand the potential costs and disruptions associated 

with compliance with EPA’s proposal. Significant disruptions at even one major airport 

can have cascading impacts throughout the NAS and the broader economy. Once again, 

this will require consulting with our members and our technical and operational experts

to understand the particular circumstances at relevant airports 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 confirming 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 possibly disrupt access to or the availability of airport aprons,

runways or any key airport infrastructure critical to operations. These are just two of a 

number of examples of the types of technical 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 hydrant 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 understands from the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the associated 

background materials that EPA has conducted its own research on these issues (and has 

already 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, unfortunately, 

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 rule. 

A4A, therefore, respectfully requests that EPA provide the public with an 

additional sixty days for public comment. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Tim A. Pohle

Managing Director – U.S. Environmental 

 Affairs & Assistant General Counsel

Airlines for America