Posted on 05/10/2013 8:29:57 AM PDT by thackney
The American Petroleum Institute urged the US Environmental Protection Agency to use a full Clean Air Act rulemaking process for its proposed Tier 3 rule instead of a rushed review process API says the agency is contemplating.
The proposal to reduce gasoline sulfur limits and tailpipe emissions further is so controversial that it requires publication in the Federal Register, a comment period, and a properly scheduled public hearing, API Senior Downstream Policy Advisor Patrick Kelley told reporters in a May 7 teleconference.
“Respecting the statutory rulemaking process in this case is particularly important because the proposal is hard to justify and potentially very harmful,” he maintained. “The massive refinery investments it would require could drive up the cost of making gasoline and weaken the nation’s energy security without producing much, if any, environmental benefit.”
Kelly said, “Most sulfur in gasoline has already been removed. There’s 90% less in gasoline today than a decade ago, and the current Tier 2 standards are still generating environmental benefits as the US vehicle fleet turns over.”
The proposal is not the only one EPA is considering that could have a negative impact on US refining, he indicated. The agency also is considering gasoline vapor pressure reductions, which could increase costs 16¢/gal beyond Tier 3 costs, according to Kelly. He said it is also contemplating increasingly burdensome federal Renewable Fuel Standard requirements, which, according to NERA Economic Consulting, could increase gasoline costs by 30% and result in rationing and other serious disruptions.
“On top of that, other regulations affecting refineries—rules whose costs have not yet been fully analyzed—could add substantially to this burden,” he declared. “They include greenhouse gas rules, new source performance standards, and more stringent ozone standards. As the studies show, this is a recipe for disaster for American consumers.”
Kelly said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget has urged federal agencies to take the costs of cumulative regulations into account. “If ever there was a moment for EPA to take this advice to heart, it is now,” he said.
EPA must follow the Clean Air Act’s procedural requirements in proposing and adopting any fuels regulations. Specifically, Section 307 sets forth the requirements for the rulemaking process, which EPA has seemingly violated. Clean Air Act section 307(d)(3) states: “A notice of proposed rulemaking [must] be published in the Federal Register.” That basic, but fundamental, action has not occurred to date. Only the Proposed Rule that is published in the Federal Register “shall specify the period available for public comment.” To wit, EPA cannot set a deadline for public comments on a proposal that has not yet been published in the Federal Register. The publication of a two page notice in the Federal Register that merely identifies EPA’s hearing dates and locations and sets a date deadline for receipt of comments is contrary to the procedural requirement that a properly published proposal in the Federal Register must establish the public comment period.
Publishing proposed rules in the Federal Register provides the public with the requisite notice. To achieve this objective, EPA is required to “state the docket number, the location or locations of the docket, and the times will be open to public inspection.” Without a published proposed rule, obviously this objective has not been achieved. EPA must include the following information when it publishes a proposed rule:
(A) The factual data on which the proposed rule is based;
(B) The methodology used in obtaining the data and in analyzing the data; and
(C) The major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed rule
This requirement means that, at the time of the proposed rule’s publications, EPA must include everything on which it relies. All of this information must be available for public review. Without a published proposal and a complete docket, EPA once again is violating the clear procedural requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Another public hearing must be scheduled, and it must be held long enough after publication of the proposed rule to allow for public review of all of EPA’s data and analyses. EPA must also “keep the record of such proceeding open for thirty days after completion of the proceeding to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information.”
EPA should have a 90-day public comment period for the Tier 3 proposed rulemaking, beginning on the date when the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. The Clean Air Act states: “It is the intent of Congress that . . . the Administrator . . . shall ensure a reasonable period for public participation of at least 30 days” [emphasis added.] Given the complexity of this proposed regulation and its underlying data and analyses, and especially in light of the two years it took EPA to develop this proposal, a 90-day comment period would be reasonable. A 37-day comment period, assuming the proposal was published today, would not be enough, and would subvert our statutory procedural rights.
More at:
Tier 3 Rulemaking: API Request for an Extension of the Public Comment Period, and Publication of Sulfur Credit Data
http://www.api.org/news-and-media/news/newsitems/2013/may-2013/~/media/Files/Policy/Alternatives/13-May-Tier3/API-Tier3-Request-Letter.pdf
May 7, 2013
I assume this will increase the cost of gasoline enough to restore the price advantage of ULSD that went away when they went to 15ppm?
I have a better idea. Anything and everything that has major cost or bull$!t effects to the public should be approved by congress. Make them do their jobs and not use federal gangster agencies to do their political dirty work.
Actually, since this "process" is unconstitutional, it should get no respect at all.
The point is not clean air, but to control us.
Meanwhile, get a head start on horse tailpipe emissions. That’s what we will have for transportation.
It is way past the time to defund and dismantle (terminate) the EPA.
AMEN!
My assumption as well. They are applying the same requirement to the gasoline that drove up the cost of producing the clean diesel. More hydrotreating will be required.
Precisely. When did We the People authorize Congress to delegate their authority to unelected busy-bodies that can write rules/regulations with the force of Law??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.