~- R INSTITUTE FOR 

ENERGY RESEARCH 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Assistant Administrator 

May 23,2013 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: Request for an Extension of the Public Comment Period for Tier 3 Motor 

Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards Rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0135 

Dear Ms. McCarthy: 

The Institute for Energy Research is deeply concerned about EPA's proposed Tier 3 

rulemaking. The public comment period deadline· has been set for June 13th, and yet 

EPA only published the_proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 21st. This 

allows the pubiic leis than a month,-s time examine the significant econom1c · 

implications of the rule. Moreover, questions remain about the data used by EPA to 

derive th~ costs and benefits of the Tier 3 proposal, and the rule has also included 

several non-germane regillatioi).s such as the E15 certification fuel. Given these 

complexities and unanswered questions, we request at ieast a 90-day extension for 

the comment period. 

Closlng the public comment. period on June 13, 201~ i~ 'likely in violation of the 

Clean Air: Act that requires "notice-of proposed rul~making shall be published in the 

Federal Regi_ster"l and that "[the AdmiD;i~trator] shall ensure a reasoriab.le period 

for public participation of at least 30 d;iy~ .:·z The abbreyiated pt;!ri~d of ~4 _days does 

not gi:v~ the A~¢r~c rfpeople suffi'cH~nt time' tc) c·omrtient ·aii.tljis complex and ' 

expensive regulation, which will impact each and every American. 

Second, EPA is required to publish key pieces of information when it proposes a new 

rule. Specifically, EPA shall provide a summary of "the factual data on which the 

prop.o,s.ed. rule is a~ed"_ ancl "t~e me_thod_ology_ use~ in obtaining the data and in 

anhlyzing the data."3 EPA)i~s failE~d to comply',\vith\his requirement. For examp~e, 

th'e vast majority ofbe.nefits from this'rule come from redi.tctions.in particulate . 

matter,4'but EPA has consistently re.fused to ~elease the data upon whi.ch it reHes for 

tlJ_ese benefits calcula~ions to th~ publi~. This failure 1s in clear violation of P_resident 

Obama's claim that his administration is ,;the ·most transparent administration in 

history/'S 

Third.; th~ impact of Tie~ 3 will be wid~spr~ad and detrimental to the U.S. economy, 

and as such, the rule warrants greater consideration. A study by Baker & O'Brien 

· '11 00 H ·str~et NW-: Suite 400 · Wa~hington, DC 20005 · 'Phone 202.621.2950 · Fax 202.637.2420 ~ . ' ' , • ~ ' ' .- ' • i • ' 1 • • - • , , ' • 

. · , , . · · '. . www:instituteforenergyresearch.org . 
Inc., prepared for the American Petroleum Institute, estimated that Tier 3 would 

impose initial compliance costs to oil refineries of $9.7 billion dollars. The ongoing 

costs associated with this rule would also increase the price paid for gasoline at the 

pump by 6-9 cents per gallon, which does not capture what the full "ripple effect" 

would be on the greater economy. 6 Given the large costs, and the fact that EPA has 

failed to conduct whole-economy modeling for the rule, an extension of 90 days 

does not seem unreasonable. 

We appreciate EPA's concern and actions to ensure legal and transparent public 

participation in the rulemaking process. Strict legal compliance with rule making 

procedures as outlined in the Clean Air Act will ensure this rule is fully evaluated 

and given proper consideration by all concerned parties in an effort to identify and 

craft legislation that best serves the public interest of this country. It is therefore 

critical that EPA extend the comment period and release all of the data upon which 

it relies. Such an action would be in keeping with the President's pledge to foster 

openness and transparency in the workings of the federal government, particularly 

when they affect the public so profoundly. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas J. Pyle 

President 

Institute for Energy Research 

CC: Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for EPA 

1 Clean Air Act §307(d)(3). 

2 Clean Air Act §307(h). 

3 Clean Air Act §307(d)(3). 

4 Table VIII-1. 

s See e.g. Jonathan Easley, Obama says his is 'most transparent administration' ever, The 

Hill, Feb. 14, 2013, http:/ /thehill.comjblogsjblog-briefing-roomjnews/283335-obamathis-is-the-most-transparent-administration-in-history. 

6 Tamm, David C. and Milburn, Kevin P. (2012) Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost 

Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline. Houston, TX. Retrieved May 17th, 2013 from 

http:/ japi.orgjnews-and-mediajnewsjnewsitems/2012/mar2012/-/media/FilesjNews/2012/12-March/Addendum-Potential-Impacts-of-LowerSulfur-Lower-RVP-Gasoline-Reportashx 

2 
INSTITUTE FOR 

ENERGY RESEARCH 

e 400 • Washington, DC 20005 REC'D MAY 2 8 

I 47 

)-

-PITNEY BOWES 

OL p $000.46° 

00026821':7 3 MAV 22 201 j 

. . • MAILED FRC'ol ZIP CODE 

loJ0/11 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Assistant Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/1 

FCL 10064129 

2 ·C•4r;·c: II' I' tl "l Jlllln•iu '''IIi 1 iJI i 1111''11 '1111 PI 11 Jill' l!ll•,lrh