.,^EOSTATE . ^ 8. ^qs^8^

r^^ ^^.^^c5

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND


EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

United States Senate 

Washington D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Harkin: 

Thank you for your letter of August 2, 2013, regarding the proposed revisions to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank regulations. Knowing that the majority of our 

regulated entities are small businesses, we agree it is important to recognize potential impacts to this 

sector. This was one of the main reasons why, when drafting the proposal, we made a concerted effort to 

propose provisions which would not require costly retrofits to existing underground storage tank (UST) 

systems, yet would help ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

The EPA carefully evaluated the costs associated with the proposal and explained the agency's analysis 

in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Regarding our cost analysis, there are a number of 

differences in the compliance cost estimates of EPA and those calculated by the Petroleum Marketers 

Association of America (PMAA). For example, PMAA assumed every UST owner/operator would incur 

new costs associated with the EPA's proposal. However, the EPA reviewed all state UST regulations, 

and found that in many instances owner/operators were already complying with similar requirements, 

thus, there would be no additional cost attributed to those similar requirements in EPA's proposal. Our 

analysis determined that the potential costs of the proposal did not reach a level that would require 

convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. Although EPA did not convene a Panel, we 

sought extensive stakeholder input to help inform our rulemaking proposal. 

Prior to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA engaged in a multi-year effort with stakeholders to 

identify appropriate updates and modifications to the UST regulations. Before the EPA started to draft 

regulatory language, the agency reached out to potentially affected parties to ask for their input on what 

changes to make to the UST regulations. Starting in March 2008, the EPA had conference calls, in 

person meetings, and shared emails with stakeholders. The EPA reached out to petroleum marketers and 

other owners and operators of UST systems, equipment manufacturers, vendors and service providers 

who work on the equipment, among others. Specifically, the EPA met with industry representatives of 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), American Petroleum Institute (API), National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), SIGMA, National Association of Truckstop Owners 

(NATSO) and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association (PTSA). In addition to meeting 

with these stakeholders, the EPA also met with several individual marketing, equipment and service 

companies. The EPA held a series of in person meetings with these groups to gain their input on 

potential changes to the UST regulations. The feedback included information about field experience 

with UST system equipment, requests not to require extensive retrofits, and general support for a focus 

on operations and maintenance activities. These meetings were held March 17, 2008, April 17, 2008, 

June 18, 2008 and November 18, 2008.

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
The EPA documented a list of all of the ideas submitted by stakeholders during these meetings as well 

as through email. In January 2009, the EPA emailed this list of potential changes to the UST regulations 

to all stakeholders, and asked for their comments on the ideas. Based on all of the comments received in 

response to the January 2009 email, the EPA narrowed the list of potential changes to the UST 

regulations. In June 2009, the EPA emailed the narrowed list to stakeholders. We invited stakeholders to 

submit their thoughts to us and to let us know if they would like to set up a phone call to discuss any of 

the issues. The EPA met with all industry representatives who asked to do so. Before, during, and since 

the end of the rulemaking comment period, we have held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders. 

From the list that the EPA developed through extensive stakeholder input, we drafted the proposal. 

In addition to meeting with all interested stakeholders, the EPA worked with the Small Business 

Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA) before the proposal was published as well as during the 

public comment period. Following the EPA's rulemaking process, before publishing the proposal in the 

federal register, all other federal agencies were given an opportunity to review and comment on the 

proposal. SBA was an integral part of this process. In addition, we worked with SBA during the public 

comment period. SBA brought to our attention that many small businesses were confused by the 

proposed changes to wastewater treatment tanks. The EPA and SBA worked together to develop 

explanatory materials on these UST systems to provide the clarity sought by small business. 

In order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposal, the EPA 

extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days. The agency takes the comments we receive during 

regulatory comment periods very seriously. After receiving comments, the EPA worked diligently to 

understand industry's cost information comments so that we could thoroughly evaluate our cost analysis. 

The EPA appreciates the detailed response from commenters, and has fully considered the comments 

including the compliance costs submitted by industry representatives. We are currently working to 

determine the appropriate path forward using the comments we received to help inform our decision 

making. Some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the 

final rule. We share your concern about the potential burden on small businesses and are working to 

minimize the costs while we maintain appropriate public health and environmental protection. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Raquel Snyder, in s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at 

Snyder.Raquel(epa. gov or (202) 564-9586. 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator