# `^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,

^

/7 M Y L. LA RIEU Chair 

# Ac

e 

# ,& •
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^