Office of Advocacy

Date: March 4, 1998

To: Jere Glover, SBA Advocacy
John Ferris, EPA
Jim Laity, OIRA


From: Kevin Bromberg, SBA Advocacy


Subject: Comments on February 28, 1998 Draft Proposal re: EPCRA 311/312


Preliminarily, I would like to state that I was struck by the very well written and thougthtful preamble. This is not the norm for EPA writing that I get to review. Below are some comments and suggestions:


1. Page 9:

Current version: EPA currently believes that routine reporting of gasoline and diesel fuel at retail gas stations, when stored entirely underground and in compliance with the UST regulations, is not generally necessary nationwide; EPA further believes that the generation of fees is not sufficient justification for requiring such reporting.


Suggested language: EPA currently believes that routine reporting of gasoline and diesel fuel at retail gas stations, when stored entirely underground and in compliance with the UST regulations, is not generally necessary . EPA further believes that the generation of fees is not sufficient justification for requiring such reporting. In our view, only facilities that warrant EPCRA reporting should defray the costs of the EPCRA program. In addition, many UST facilities already pay separate fees to support state UST programs, which are designed more specifically to address accident prevention and emergency response at retail petroleum and other UST facilities. In sum, we prefer to address the issue of EPCRA reporting for these facilities for the value of the reporting for emergency planning and response, rather than consider its incidental impact on fee generation.


2. Page 10:


Current Language: The idea of relieving retail gas stations from routinely reporting gasoline and diesel fuel under EPCRA sections 311 and 312 came from stakeholder suggestions.


Suggested Language: Mention Advocacy in this paragraph, and :

In the docket, we have included the June 18, 1995 letter from Jere Glover, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration, related letters, and a contractor report prepared for the Office of Advocacy, which discusses various regulatory alternatives for providing paperwork relief to retail petroleum stations and possibly other facilities that file UST forms. In addition, the issue of using UST forms to substitute for EPCRA 311/312 forms was addressed in a paperwork notice which appeared in a December 27, 1988 Federal Register notice (Office of Management and Budget Docket No. ).



3. p. 14


Current Language: Examples of substances which might be covered by the proposed infinite threshold may include substances that are OSHA hazardous chemicals solely because of an irritation hazard only to employees regularly exposed in the workplace, but for which there is no other acute health hazard.


Suggestion: Add more examples.


4. p. 38


Current Language:

Information Reported: Tier I information is the minimum information required under EPCRA section 312 and the implementing regulations. In addition, Tier II information must be reported upon request. Note that some States or LEPCs require more than the minimum data that EPA requires. In order for the UST form to meet the routine reporting requirements under EPCRA section 312, it must contain at least the data required for the Tier I information.


Comment: EPA's approach of requiring at least "the same data" apparently does not permit substitution of some readily transferable data elements from the UST form into the EPCRA form. Additional burden relief would be obtained through allowing consolidation of unnecessary data elements.


Suggested language:

Information Reported: Tier I information is the minimum information required under EPCRA section 312 and the implementing regulations. In addition, Tier II information must be reported upon request. Note that some States or LEPCs require more than the minimum data that EPA requires. In order for the UST form to meet the routine reporting requirements under EPCRA section 312, it must contain at least the data required for the Tier I information. Some information on the UST form may substitute for EPCRA information. For example, the size of the tank can substitute for maximum amount on site, and gallons can replace pounds for gasoline. EPA will supply a list of substitutable items.


5. p. 54 Paperwork Act description:


Current language:

EPA anticipates that today's proposed rulemaking will reduce the burden from $5,463,000 to $4,248,000, for a savings of $1,215,000 under ICR No. 1352.04.


Suggested language:

EPA anticipates that today's proposed rulemaking will reduce the burden for Part 370 reporting from $5,463,000 to $4,248,000, for a savings of $1,215,000 under ICR No. 1352.04.


Also recommend using a table of paperwork hours, number of requests, and dollars for each Part (current and proposed).


6. p. 55


Current language:

By proposing to rewrite the regulations at 40 CFR parts 355 and 370 in plain English EPA intends to make the rule clearer and more easy to use, which will decrease the costs of compliance and also promote more meaningful public participation under EPCRA. This will benefit all of the public, including minorities and low-income populations.


Suggested language:

By proposing to rewrite the regulations at 40 CFR parts 355 and 370 in plain English EPA intends to make the rule clearer and more easy to use, which will decrease the costs of compliance and also promote more meaningful public participation under EPCRA. The elimination of unnecessary reporting will help focus emergency prevention and planning on more significant hazards. This will benefit all of the public, including minorities and low-income populations.