`^nited ^5tates ^5enate 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS Hl ENTREPRENEURSHIP


WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6350 

July 23, 2013 

Ms. Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environment Protection Agency 

Mail Stop 5401-P 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Re: EPA Proposed Rule: Revisions to Existing Requirements and New Requirements for 

Secondary Containment and Operator Training (EPA—HQ—UST-2011-0301) 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

We are writing you in regards to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 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-201 l-0301), 

published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2011. In light of the regulatory cost impact 

of the proposed rule may have on small businesses, we respectfully request that the EPA convene 

a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel to reanalyze the impact of this rule on small 

business and prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), before finalizing the 

proposed rule. 

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

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires the EPA to convene a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel, prior to the publication of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 

collect input towards determining whether a rule is expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. An agency covered under SBREFA, such as 

the EPA, may circumvent this requirement if it can certify that the proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

After considering the economic impact of the proposed rule on small businesses, as required by 

the RFA, the EPA certified that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact 

and determined small business motor fuel retailers would experience an impact over 1 percent of 

revenues but less than 3 percent of revenues. However, according to some industry experts, 

annual compliance costs may reach as much as approximately $6,900, and may negatively 

impact approximately 60 percent of the convenience store industry comprised of' single-store, 

mom-and-pop, businesses. We are concerned that the Agency's estimated annualized 

compliance costs of $900, included as part of the EPA's certification required under the RFA, 

may be significantly underestimated.
Additionally, the EPA stated in its certification that it conducted extensive outreach in order to 

determine which changes to make to the 1988 regulations and that it worked with representatives 

of owners and operators of underground storage tanks and reached out specifically to small 

businesses. Accordingly, we respectfully request information regarding the extent of that 

outreach, specifically when and in what manner that outreach was conducted. We also request 

information regarding the "representatives of owners and operators" and small businesses with 

which the Agency "worked" as part of this certification. Additionally, given the potential cost 

impact that this proposed rule would have on small businesses, and to maintain the spirit of the 

law as Congress intended, we respectfully request that the Agency form a SBAR Panel with 

small entity representation pursuant to the requirements set forth under the law and prepare an 

IRFA reanalyzing the impact of this rule on the small business community. 

Sincerely, 

^ 

/7M Y L. LA RIEU 

Chair 

Ace,&	• 

MIKE ENZI 

Member 

DEB FISCHER 

Member 

.A

HEIDI HEITKAMP 

Member 

r"4111w^ 

RHNSON 

M er

TAMF.S F._ R1CC;H 

Member 

TIM SCO 

Member 

JEANNE SHAHEEN 

Member 

DAVID VITTER 

Y	_

MARK L. PRYOR 

►^^ "I I i^