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.
It is way past the time to defund and dismantle (terminate) the EPA.