EPA Regulations:
Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
March 21, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41561
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Summary
In the two years since Barack Obama was sworn in as President, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution
control statutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress
and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress
and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated
rules. Republican leaders have promised vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th Congress,
and the House has already voted to overturn specific regulations and to limit the agency’s
authority. Particular attention is being paid to the Clean Air Act, under which EPA has moved
forward with the first federal controls on emissions of greenhouse gases and addressed
conventional pollutants from a number of industries.
Environmental groups disagree that the agency has overreached, and EPA itself maintains that its
pace of regulation under the Clean Air Act is actually slower than the pace during the first years
of the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations. The agency states that critics’ focus on the
cost of controls obscures the benefits of new regulations, which, it estimates, far exceed the costs;
and it maintains that pollution control is an important source of economic activity, exports, and
American jobs.
This report provides background information on recent EPA rulemaking to help address these
issues. It examines 43 major or controversial regulatory actions taken by or under development at
EPA since January 2009, providing details on the regulatory action itself, presenting an estimated
timeline for completion of the rule (including identification of related court or statutory
deadlines), and, in general, providing EPA’s estimates of costs and benefits, where available.
The report also discusses factors that affect the timeframe in which regulations take effect,
including statutory and judicial deadlines, public comment periods, judicial review, and
permitting procedures, the net results of which are that existing facilities are likely to have several
years before being required to comply with most of the regulatory actions under discussion.
Unable to account for such factors, which will vary from case to case, timelines that show dates
for proposal and promulgation of EPA standards effectively underestimate the complexities of the
regulatory process and overstate the near-term impact of many of the regulatory actions.
Congressional Research Service
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Is EPA on Target or Overreaching? Conflicting Views ........................................................... 1
What This Report Does ......................................................................................................... 3
A Few Caveats Regarding Timing ......................................................................................... 3
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Report .................................................................................................... 6
Clean Air Act and Climate Change .............................................................................................. 6
Climate Change .................................................................................................................... 6
Renewable Fuels ................................................................................................................... 9
Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................................................ 10
Electric Generating Units .................................................................................................... 10
Boilers and Incinerators ...................................................................................................... 11
Other .................................................................................................................................. 13
Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................................ 14
Safe Drinking Water Act ........................................................................................................... 19
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ...................................................................................... 19
RCRA/Superfund...................................................................................................................... 20
Tables
Table 1. Recent Rules Proposed, Promulgated, or Under Development, by EPA ........................ 22
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 30
Key Policy and Legal Staff........................................................................................................ 30
Congressional Research Service
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Introduction
Is EPA on Target or Overreaching? Conflicting Views
In the two years since Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations
under the 11 pollution control statutes Congress has directed it to implement.1 Although most of
these statutes have not been amended for more than a decade, the agency is still addressing for the
first time numerous directives given it by Congress. The statutes also mandate that EPA conduct
periodic reviews of many of the standards it issues, and the agency is doing so.
Although supporters would say that EPA is just doing its job, the agency’s recent regulatory
actions have drawn attention for several reasons. In some cases, such as regulation of greenhouse
gas emissions, they represent a new departure; based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the
emissions in question are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act’s definition of that term,2 the
agency has undertaken numerous regulatory actions setting emission standards or laying the
framework for a future regulatory structure. In other cases, the agency is revisiting emissions,
effluent, and waste management regulatory decisions made during earlier Administrations and
proposing more stringent standards to address pollution that persists as long as 40 years after
Congress directed the agency to take action. These actions are being driven by statutory
requirements to reexamine regulations, by court decisions, or because of changing technologies or
new scientific information.
EPA’s actions, both individually and in sum, have generated controversy. The Wall Street Journal,
calling the current scale of EPA regulatory actions “unprecedented,” says that the agency “has
turned a regulatory firehose on U.S. business….”3 Affected parties, such as the National
Petrochemical & Refiners Association, have labeled the agency’s actions “overreaching
government regulation” and “a clear distortion of current environmental law.”4 The American
Enterprise Institute has stated that EPA “is engaged in a series of rule-making proceedings of
extraordinary scope and ambition.”5
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns, through bipartisan letters
commenting on proposed regulations and through introduced legislation that would delay, limit,
or prevent certain EPA actions.6 Senior Republicans in the House and Senate have stated that they
1 For a summary of each of the 11 statutes and their principal requirements, see CRS Report RL30798, Environmental
Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by David M.
Bearden.
2 See CRS Report R40984, Legal Consequences of EPA’s Endangerment Finding for New Motor Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, by Robert Meltz.
3 The Wall Street Journal, “The EPA Permitorium,” editorial, November 22, 2010.
4 NPRA, “NPRA Says Court Decision on GHGs Bad for Consumers,” December 10, 2010, at http://www.npra.org/
newsRoom/?fa=viewCmsItem&title=Latest%20News&articleID=5980.
5 AEI, “The EPA’s Ambitious Regulatory Agenda,” Conference, November 8, 2010, at http://www.aei.org/event/
100334#doc.
6 For a discussion of some of these congressional actions, see CRS Report R41212, EPA Regulation of Greenhouse
Gases: Congressional Responses and Options, by James E. McCarthy and Larry Parker.
Congressional Research Service
1
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
are committed to vigorous oversight of the agency’s actions during the 112th Congress,7 with
some threatening to withhold funding if the agency continues on its present course.8
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has not been silent as the agency’s actions have come under
attack. In a November 2010 letter to the ranking members of the Energy and Commerce
Committee and its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, she stated:
The pace of EPA’s Clean Air Act regulatory work under this administration is actually not
faster than the pace under either of the two previous administrations. In fact, EPA has
finalized or proposed fewer Clean Air Act rules (87) over the past 21 months than in the first
two years of either President George W. Bush’s administration (146) or President Clinton’s
administration (115).9
Furthermore, addressing only the costs of prospective EPA regulations presents an incomplete
picture, according to the Administrator: the benefits of recent Clean Air Act rules exceed their
cost by 13 to 1, according to EPA documents.10 The November letter also argued that EPA
regulations have a positive impact on employment in the United States. The pollution control
industry is a major source of economic activity, exports, and American jobs, according to
Commerce Department data cited in the Administrator’s letter.11
Environmental groups generally believe that the agency is moving in the right direction, but in
several cases they would like the regulatory actions to be stronger.12 Many also fear that recent
decisions to delay the issuance or implementation of several standards are bad omens.
Commenting on EPA’s December 2010 request to delay the issuance of standards for boilers,
Clean Air Watch stated, “… there is an unfortunate appearance here that political pressure from
Congress is affecting the situation. That EPA is running scared.”13
It is not this report’s purpose to render a verdict on whether EPA is overreaching, running scared,
or following the directions and using the authorities given it by Congress. Statements
characterizing EPA’s actions, such as those cited above, depend on judgments as to whether the
agency has correctly determined the level of stringency needed to address an environmental
7 See, for example, Letter of Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman-elect, House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Hon.
James Inhofe, Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, to EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson, December 9, 2010, at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=
d596d5fb-593c-4c99-b0c1-41aab15887b0. See also “A Coming Assault on the E.P.A.,” New York Times, editorial,
December 24, 2010.
8 See letter of Hon. Jerry Lewis to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, November 29, 2010, p. 2, at http://op.bna.com/
env.nsf/id/jstn-8bnt7t/.
9 Letter of Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, to Hon. Joe Barton and Hon. Michael C. Burgess, November 8, 2010,
p. 1. According to the letter, “All three counts include all Clean Air Act rules that amend the Code of Federal
Regulations and that require the EPA Administrator’s signature.” Administrator Jackson’s letter was written in
response to an October 14 letter from Reps. Barton and Burgess in which they expressed concern regarding the
cumulative impacts of new regulations being proposed under the Clean Air Act.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., p. 2.
12 See, for example, comments of Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the
Sierra Club on the proposed emission standards for boilers, as cited in CRS Report R41459, EPA’s Boiler MACT:
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants, by James E. McCarthy.
13 Clean Air Watch, “EPA Seeks Big Delay in Final Toxic Rule for Boilers,” December 7, 2010, at
http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2010/12/epa-seeks-big-delay-in-final-toxic-rule.html.
Congressional Research Service
2
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
problem, and whether the agency’s actions are justified by the legislative mandates that Congress
has imposed. Congress and the courts may render these judgments.
What This Report Does
This report provides a factual basis for discussion of these issues, which must ultimately be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The report identifies and briefly characterizes major regulatory
actions14 promulgated, proposed, or under development by EPA since President Obama’s
inauguration in January 2009. The report uses data from EPA’s Spring 2010 Semiannual
Regulatory Agenda15 and the list of economically significant reviews conducted by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)16 to compile a list of 43 regulatory actions proposed,
promulgated, or under development by the agency. The list includes all EPA rules considered
“economically significant” by OMB from January 2009 to December 2010,17 as well as some
others that were not so designated but have been widely discussed.
Each entry in this report (1) gives the name or, where appropriate, the common name of the
regulatory action (e.g., the “Tailoring Rule,” or the “Endangerment Finding”); (2) explains what
the action does; (3) states the current status of the rule or action (e.g., proposed July 6, 2010); (4)
explains the significance of the action, often providing information on estimated costs and
benefits; (5) discusses the timeline for implementation, and whether there is a non-discretionary
congressional deadline or a court order or remand driving its development; and (6) identifies a
CRS analyst who would be the contact for further information. To simplify presentation, in some
cases, we have summarized several separate regulations under one heading.
This is not a complete list of the regulations that EPA has promulgated or proposed during the
first two years of the Obama Administration. Rather, it is an attempt to identify the most
significant and most controversial. A complete list would be substantially longer.
A Few Caveats Regarding Timing
Not all of these rules are Obama Administration initiatives. Many began development under the
Bush Administration, including several that were promulgated under that Administration and
subsequently were vacated or remanded to EPA by the courts. Within the Clean Air Act group, for
example, most of the major rules, including the agency’s boiler rules and two of the major rules
affecting electric power plants (the Clean Air Transport Rule and the MACT rule) fit that
description. Other EPA actions, such as the reconsideration of the ozone air quality standard, have
14 This report uses the terms “regulatory action,” “regulation,” “rule,” “standard,” and “guidelines” for the actions it
describes. There are slight differences among these terms, which are explained, if necessary to understand how the
regulatory action will be implemented. In general, “regulatory action” is the broadest of the terms and includes each of
the others.
15 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, Spring 2010, at http://www.epa.gov/regulations/
documents/regagendabook-spring10.pdf.
16 OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Historical Reports at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/
do/eoHistReviewSearch.
17 OIRA (the regulatory affairs staff within OMB) considers a rule to be “economically significant” if it is “likely to
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities.” OMB, FAQs/Resources, at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/faq.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
3
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
actually delayed for several years implementation of Bush Administration rules that would have
strengthened existing standards. All of these are described in detail below.
Several other generalizations are worth underlining:
• Many proposed and “pre-proposal” rules linger for years without being
promulgated; thus, many of the EPA actions described here may not take effect
for some time.18 For those rules not yet promulgated, we have focused on rules
that have statutory or court-ordered deadlines and/or that have already been the
subject of significant discussion.
• If there are no deadlines, we have attempted to provide EPA’s estimate of the
schedule for promulgation. In some cases, EPA has not estimated a promulgation
date. In those instances, we have either provided dates reported in press accounts
or we have discussed the general outlook for promulgation. Experience suggests
that proposal or promulgation may take longer than estimated in cases that do not
have a court-ordered deadline.
• Although they are the most likely deadlines to be met, even court-ordered dates
for proposal or promulgation may change. It is not uncommon for EPA to request
extensions of time, often due to the need to analyze extensive comments.
• Promulgation of standards is not the end of the road. Virtually all major EPA
regulatory actions are subjected to court challenge, frequently delaying
implementation for years. As noted earlier, many of the regulatory actions
described here are the result of courts remanding and/or vacating rules
promulgated by previous administrations.
• In many cases, EPA rules must be adopted by states to which the program has
been delegated. Moreover, many states require that the legislature review new
regulations before the new rules would take effect.
• Standards for stationary sources under the air, water, and solid waste laws are
generally implemented through permits, which would be individually issued by
state permitting authorities after the standards take effect. When finalized, a
permit would generally include a compliance schedule, typically giving the
permittee several years for installation of required control equipment. Existing
sources generally will have several years following promulgation and effective
dates of standards, therefore, to comply with any standards.
In short, the road to EPA regulation is rarely a straight path. There are numerous possible causes
of delay. It would be unusual if the regulatory actions described here were all implemented on the
anticipated schedule, and even if they were, existing facilities would often have several years
before being required to comply.
18 They may also be substantially altered before they become final, as a result of the proposal and public comment
process, and/or judicial review.
Congressional Research Service
4
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Conclusions
In the 111th Congress, a number of EPA’s regulatory actions were the subject of legislative
proposals, including stand-alone bills that would have delayed or prohibited EPA actions,
resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, and potential riders on EPA’s
FY2010 appropriation. None of these measures passed. One (Senator Murkowski’s S.J.Res. 26, a
resolution to disapprove—and thus overturn—EPA’s greenhouse gas [GHG] endangerment
finding) was voted on.19
Notwithstanding the absence of congressional enactments, criticism of EPA actions grew as the
number and scope of agency proposals increased: especially toward the end of the last Congress,
EPA was on the receiving end of numerous letters from the House and Senate, many of them
bipartisan in nature, asking the Administrator to delay or reconsider proposed agency actions. In
the wake of the November elections, the number of members critical of EPA’s regulatory agenda
has grown.
The situation is particularly contentious for regulatory actions involving greenhouse gases.
Although Administrator Jackson and President Obama have repeatedly expressed their preference
for Congress to take the lead in designing a GHG regulatory system, EPA maintains that, in the
absence of congressional action, it must proceed to regulate GHG emissions using existing
authority: a 2007 Supreme Court decision (Massachusetts v. EPA) compelled EPA to consider
whether GHGs are air pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, and if it so determined,
to embark on a regulatory course that is prescribed by the Clean Air Act. Having made an
affirmative decision on the endangerment question, EPA is now proceeding on that regulatory
course.
Opponents of this effort in Congress, who maintain that the agency is exceeding its authority, are
considering various approaches to alter the agency’s course. This situation is likely to result in
numerous oversight hearings and specific legislative proposals in the 112th Congress. These
criticisms are reflected, for example, in House passage on February 19 of H.R. 1, a continuing
resolution (CR) providing FY2011 full-year funding for EPA and other federal agencies and
departments. As passed by the House, the bill included specific funding levels for a number of
EPA accounts and activities. It also contained more than 20 provisions restricting or prohibiting
the use of appropriated funds to implement various regulatory activities under the EPA’s
jurisdiction—including many discussed in this report.20 The House Energy and Commerce
Committee has also approved legislation to restrict EPA authority and to repeal a dozen EPA
regulatory actions dealing with greenhouse gases (H.R. 910). A Senate counterpart (S. 482) was
debated as an amendment to S. 493 during the week of March 14. Beyond the criticism of
individual regulations, there also are calls for broad regulatory reforms, for example to reinforce
the role of economic considerations in agency decision making or to increase Congress’s role in
approving or disapproving regulatory decisions.
19 On June 10, 2010, the Senate voted 47-53 not to proceed to debate the resolution.
20 For information, see CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions, by Robert Esworthy. On March 9, the Senate failed to approve
House-passed H.R. 1 and subsequently also did not agree to a substitute text (S.Amdt. 49) that contained different
funding levels and generally omitted the EPA regulatory provisions in the House-passed bill.
Congressional Research Service
5
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Organization of the Report
This report organizes the regulatory actions it describes under five headings: Clean Air Act and
Climate Change; Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; and
RCRA/Superfund. A majority of the rules (26 of the 43) are being developed under the regulatory
authority of the Clean Air Act. To help organize the presentation of these 26, we have grouped
rules addressing specific issues (e.g., climate change, ambient air quality standards, etc.) together
under subheadings. Following the text, the information is summarized in the form of a table, with
the rules presented in the same order as in the text.
Clean Air Act and Climate Change
Climate Change
1. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. On October 30, 2009, in response to a congressional
mandate in EPA’s FY2008 appropriation (P.L. 110-161), EPA promulgated the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule.21 The rule will require 31 categories of sources to report their emissions of
greenhouse gases to EPA annually, beginning in 2011, if the sources emit 25,000 tons or more of
carbon dioxide or the equivalent amount of five other greenhouse gases (GHGs).22 (Eleven other
categories of sources have since been added to the rule.) By itself, the rule imposes little cost
($867 per facility, according to EPA’s estimate) because it only requires reporting; but the sources
who are required to report are expected to be the focus of EPA efforts as the agency develops
regulations to control emissions of GHGs. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-
7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
2. Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. On December 15, 2009, EPA issued findings that
six greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and
welfare.23 The action was taken in response to an April 2007 Supreme Court decision
(Massachusetts v. EPA) that required the agency to decide the issue or to conclude that climate
change science is so uncertain as to preclude making such findings. These findings do not
themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, the action was a
prerequisite to finalizing EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light duty trucks,
which were jointly promulgated by EPA with fuel economy standards from the Department of
Transportation, on May 7, 2010. These, in turn, triggered permit requirements for stationary
sources of GHGs, beginning January 2, 2011. On December 10, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit denied industry and state motions to stay the endangerment finding and
related regulations. The court’s order applied to 84 cases filed by a variety of industry groups and
21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule,” 74 Federal
Register 56260, October 30, 2009.
22 GHG emissions consist of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and two
categories of gases—hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Since each of these substances has a
different global warming potential, the emissions of each are converted to the equivalent amount of CO2 emissions,
based on how potent the substance is as compared to CO2, giving rise to the term “CO2-equivalent.”
23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” 74 Federal Register 66496, December 15, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
6
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
states (Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA). For additional information, contact Jim
McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
3. Light Duty Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule. On May 7, 2010, EPA and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgated integrated GHG emission
standards and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new cars and light trucks, a
category that includes SUVs and minivans, as well as pickup trucks.24 NHTSA is required by the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140) to promulgate CAFE
standards so that by 2020, new cars and light trucks reach a combined average fuel economy of
35 miles per gallon (mpg). EPA simultaneously issued vehicle greenhouse gas standards in
response to directives from the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. The regulations would
require an increase in fuel economy to as much as 35.5 mpg by model year 2016, four years
ahead of the deadline set in EISA. The Administration estimates that complying with the proposal
will add $1,100 to the cost of an average vehicle, although this additional purchase cost is
expected to be paid back through lifetime fuel savings. The new standards will be phased in
beginning with the 2012 model year. EPA estimates that the additional lifetime cost of 2012-2016
model year vehicles under the regulations will be about $52 billion; benefits are expected to be
approximately $240 billion. EPA and NHTSA have also begun consideration of joint GHG/fuel
economy rules for 2017-2025 model year vehicles. For additional information, contact Brent
Yacobucci (7-9662, byacobucci@crs.loc.gov).
4. Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. On June 3, 2010, EPA promulgated a rule that defines which
stationary sources will be required to obtain Clean Air Act permits for GHG emissions and how
the requirements will be phased in.25 The threshold set by the rule (annual emissions of 75,000-
100,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents) will limit which facilities will be required to obtain
permits: for the next three years, the nation’s largest GHG emitters, including power plants,
refineries, cement production facilities, and about two dozen other categories of sources (an
estimated 1,450 facilities annually) will be the only sources required to obtain permits. Smaller
businesses, almost all farms, and large residential structures (about 6 million sources in all these
categories), which would otherwise be required to obtain permits once GHGs became regulated
pollutants under the act, are excluded by the rule’s threshold limits and thus would be shielded
from permitting requirements by this rule. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-
7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
5. PSD and Title V Permit Requirements for GHG Emissions. Beginning on January 2, 2011,
new and modified major stationary sources that emit more than 75,000 tons per year of CO2-
equivalent greenhouse gases were required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permits addressing their GHG emissions. These permits, which are mandated under
Section 165 of the Clean Air Act, will require the applicants to install the Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) in order to construct or operate new and modified major sources of
emissions. State permitting authorities will determine what technologies qualify as BACT on a
case-by-case basis, using generic guidance issued by EPA on November 10, 2010.26 The
24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 25324-25728,
May 7, 2010.
25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 31514, June 3, 2010.
26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “PSD and Title V Permitting
Guidance for Greenhouse Gases,” November 2010, at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/epa-hq-oar-2010-0841-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
PSD/BACT requirement will initially apply only to facilities such as power plants large enough to
already be required to obtain PSD permits as a result of their emissions of other pollutants such as
sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides. What is new starting January 2 is the addition of GHGs to the
list of pollutants that must be addressed by BACT.
Existing sources that are already required to obtain operating permits under Title V of the act will
also have to provide information on their GHG emissions. EPA notes that the Title V requirement
will generally be satisfied by referencing information already provided to EPA under the GHG
reporting rule (item 1, above). Title V permits do not impose emission control requirements
themselves; they simply summarize emission control requirements mandated by other sections of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the only change to Title V permits will be the addition of GHGs to the
list of pollutants that the facilities are allowed to emit. For additional information on PSD and
Title V permits, contact Larry Parker (7-7238, lparker@crs.loc.gov).
6. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule. On November 30, 2010, EPA and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed integrated GHG
emission standards and fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.27 EPA’s
endangerment finding (item 2, above) specifically referenced medium- and heavy-duty trucks as
among the sources that contribute to the GHG emissions for which it found endangerment. In
addition, NHTSA was required by Section 102 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140) to promulgate fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty
trucks, reflecting the “maximum feasible improvement” in fuel efficiency. The proposed
standards would be phased in between 2014 and 2018. When fully implemented, they would
require an average per vehicle reduction in GHG emissions of 17% for diesel trucks and 12% for
gasoline-powered trucks. The expected cost increase for the 2014-2018 vehicles affected by the
rule is $7.7 billion. EPA projects benefits of $49 billion over the trucks’ lifetimes, including more
than $40 billion in fuel savings. For additional information, contact Brent Yacobucci (7-9662,
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov).
7. NSPS for Petroleum Refineries. On December 23, 2010, EPA announced that it was settling a
lawsuit filed by 11 states, two municipalities, and three environmental groups over its 2008
decision not to establish New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for GHG emissions from
petroleum refineries. According to the agency, refineries are the second largest direct stationary
source of GHGs in the United States and there are cost-effective strategies for reducing these
emissions. The agency has agreed to propose NSPS for new refinery facilities and emissions
guidelines for existing facilities by December 10, 2011, and to make a final decision on the
proposed actions by November 10, 2012. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-
7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Two other rules affecting GHG emissions are in the pre-proposal stage of consideration at EPA,
and are discussed below in items 17 and 22.
(...continued)
0001.pdf.
27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, Proposed Rule,” 75 Federal
Register 74152-74456, November 30, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
8
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Renewable Fuels
8. Expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2). On March 26, 2010, EPA promulgated new
rules for the renewable fuel standard (RFS) that was expanded by the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140).28 In 2010, the RFS required the use of 12.95 billion
gallons of ethanol and other biofuels in transportation fuel. Within that mandate, the statute
required the use of 0.95 billion gallons of advanced biofuels (fuels other than corn starch
ethanol), including 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels. EISA also requires that advanced
biofuels (as well as conventional biofuels from newly built refineries) meet certain lifecycle
greenhouse gas reduction requirements. Because no commercial-scale cellulosic biofuel refineries
have begun operation, the March 2010 rules reduced the mandated 2010 level for these fuels from
100 million gallons to 6.5 million gallons. The final rule also modified EPA’s proposed
methodology for measuring lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. On December 21, 2010, EPA
finalized the mandate for 2011.29 Because of a similar shortfall in projected cellulosic production
capacity for 2011, the mandate was waived from 250 million gallons to 6.6 million gallons. The
overall mandate of 13.95 billion gallons for 2011 was maintained. For additional information,
contact Brent Yacobucci (7-9662, byacobucci@crs.loc.gov).
9. Ethanol Blend Wall Waiver. On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy (on behalf of 52 U.S. ethanol
producers) applied to EPA for a waiver from the current Clean Air Act limitation on ethanol
content in gasoline. Ethanol content in gasoline has been capped at 10% (E10); the application
requested an increase in the maximum concentration to 15% (E15). A waiver would allow the use
of significantly more ethanol in gasoline than has been permitted under the Clean Air Act.
Limiting ethanol content to 10% leads to an upper bound of roughly 15 billion gallons of ethanol
in all U.S. gasoline. This “blend wall” could limit the fuel industry’s ability to meet the Energy
Independence and Security Act’s future requirements to use increasing amounts of renewable
fuels (including ethanol) in transportation.
On November 4, 2010, EPA granted a partial waiver allowing the use of E15 in Model Year (MY)
2007 vehicles and newer.30 The agency delayed a decision on MY2001-2006 vehicles until the
Department of Energy completes testing of those vehicles. On January 21, 2011, EPA announced
that the waiver would be expanded to include MY2001-2006 vehicles.31 EPA determined that data
were insufficient to address concerns that had been raised over emissions from MY2000 and
older vehicles, as well as heavy-duty vehicles, motorcycles and nonroad applications, and thus a
waiver for these vehicles/engines was denied. EPA has noted that granting the waiver eliminates
only one impediment to the use of E15—other factors, including retail and blending
infrastructure, state and local laws and regulations, and manufacturers’ warranties, would still
need to be addressed. Because of concerns over potential damage by E15 to equipment not
designed for its use, this partial waiver has been challenged in court by a group of vehicle and
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel
Standard Program; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 14670-14904, March 26, 2010.
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Renewable Fuel
Standard Program; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 79964, December 21, 2010.
30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Clean Air Act Waiver Application
Submitted by Growth Energy to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the
Administrator; Notice,” 75 Federal Register 68094-68150, November 4, 2010.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Partial Grant of Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth
Energy to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator,” signed
January 21, 2011 (awaiting publication in the Federal Register).
Congressional Research Service
9
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
engine manufacturers. For additional information, contact Brent Yacobucci (7-9662,
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov).
Ambient Air Quality Standards
10.-14. Ozone, Particulates, and Other Ambient Air Quality Standards. On January 19, 2010,
EPA proposed a revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.32
This standard is expected to be finalized by the end of July 2011. Two other NAAQS (for sulfur
dioxide33 and nitrogen dioxide34) were finalized in 2010 and EPA expects to propose revised
NAAQS for particulate matter in 2011. The agency has also reviewed its carbon monoxide
NAAQS, but proposed not to change the standard. NAAQS are the cornerstone of the Clean Air
Act, in effect defining what EPA considers to be clean air. They do not directly limit emissions,
but they set in motion a process under which “nonattainment areas” are identified and states and
EPA develop plans and regulations to reduce pollution in those areas. Nonattainment designations
may also trigger statutory requirements, including that new major sources offset certain emissions
by reducing emissions from existing sources. Currently, there are NAAQS for six pollutants
(ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead). The
Clean Air Act requires that these standards be reviewed every five years, and all of the standards
have been under court-ordered deadlines for review.
The standards with the broadest impact are those for ozone and particulate matter (PM). EPA has
identified at least 515 counties that would violate the proposed ozone NAAQS if the most recent
three years of data currently available were used to determine attainment (compared to 85
counties that violate the currently implemented standard). EPA is prohibited by the statute from
considering costs in the setting of a NAAQS, but it does prepare cost and benefit estimates for
information purposes. The agency estimates that the costs of implementing the revised ozone
NAAQS would range from $19 billion to $90 billion annually in 2020, with benefits of roughly
the same amount. The PM NAAQS decision, to be proposed in 2011, and the sulfur dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS promulgated in June 2010 could also impose costs in the billions of dollars, although the
monetized benefits of PM and SO2 controls (primarily the avoidance of premature death) have
generally far outweighed the cost estimates. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-
7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Electric Generating Units
15. Clean Air Transport Rule. EPA’s major clean air initiative under the Bush Administration,
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), was vacated and remanded to the agency by the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008. EPA proposed a replacement for the rule, which it is calling the
Clean Air Transport Rule, August 2, 2010,35 and expects to finalize the rule in June 2011. The
32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Proposed Rule,” 75
Federal Register 2938, January 19, 2010.
33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide; Final
Rule,” 75 Federal Register 35520, June 22, 2010.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide;
Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 6473, February 9, 2010.
35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,” 75 Federal Register 45210, August 2, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
10
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
original rule, designed to control emissions of air pollution that causes air quality problems in
downwind states, established cap-and-trade programs for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
emissions from coal-fired electric power plants in 28 Eastern states, at an estimated annual cost of
$6.1 billion in 2020. Benefits were estimated to be at least $120 billion annually, with an annual
22,000 premature deaths avoided. The replacement rule proposed in July 2010 applies to 31
states; its annual cost is estimated at $2.2 billion, with benefits of $120 billion to $290 billion
annually.
Given the need to meet the more stringent NAAQS (especially those for ozone and PM) that EPA
is proposing and promulgating, the agency stated its intention to propose a further set of
requirements addressing interstate transport of air pollution in 2011. For additional information,
contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov) or Larry Parker (7-7238,
lparker@crs.loc.gov).
16.-17. NSPS and MACT for Coal-Fired Power Plants. In 2005, EPA promulgated regulations
establishing a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants.
The rules were challenged, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated them in 2008. Rather
than appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, EPA agreed to propose Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards by March 2011 and promulgate final standards by
November 2011. The proposed standards, released March 16, are already being met by 56% of
coal- and oil-fired electric generating units; the other 44% would be required to install technology
that will reduce mercury and acid gas emissions by 91%, at an annual cost of $10.9 billion. EPA
estimates that the annual benefits, including the avoidance of up to 17,000 premature deaths
annually, will be between $59 billion and $140 billion. Following promulgation of these
standards, existing power plants will have three years, with a possible one-year extension, to meet
the standards. About 20 states have already established mercury emission control standards for
coal-fired power plants, and other major sources have been controlled for as long as 15 years,
reducing their emissions as much as 95%.
EPA has stated that it will coordinate a review of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
to consider greenhouse gas emission standards for electric generating units at the same time as it
develops the MACT standards. Electric generating units are the largest U.S. source of both
greenhouse gas and mercury emissions, accounting for about one-third of all GHG emissions in
addition to nearly half of U.S. mercury emissions. Thus, these rules are expected to be among the
most controversial rules to be issued by EPA this year. On December 23, 2010, EPA released the
text of a settlement agreement with 11 states, two municipalities, and three environmental groups,
under which it agreed to propose the NSPS for power plants by July 26, 2011, and take final
action on the proposal by May 26, 2012. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-
7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov) or Larry Parker (7-7238, lparker@crs.loc.gov).
Boilers and Incinerators
18.-19. MACT and Area Source Standards for Boilers. EPA proposed Maximum Achievable
Control Technology standards to control emissions of toxic air pollutants from commercial and
industrial boilers in June 2010.36 A final rule was issued February 21, 2011, under a court order by
36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major
Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; Proposed Rule,” 75 Federal Register
32006, June 4, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
11
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Because of voluminous comments and new information
received from industry during a public comment period, EPA had asked the court to extend the
deadline for promulgating final standards to April 2012. Having been denied that extension, the
agency issued a statement saying, “The standards will be significantly different than what EPA
proposed…. The agency believes these changes still deserve further public review and comment
and expects to solicit further comment through a reconsideration of the rules.”37 The agency
initiated a reconsideration on the same day that it released the final rule.
Boilers are used throughout industry and in many commercial and institutional facilities. The
D.C. Circuit vacated EPA’s previous MACT rule for this category in 2007, saying EPA had
wrongly excluded many industrial boilers from the definition of solid waste incinerators, which
have more stringent emissions requirements under the Clean Air Act. The vacated rule had
estimated annual costs of $837 million, with a benefit-cost ratio of about 20 to 1. The February
2011 rule would set more stringent standards. It would affect 13,840 boilers, according to the
agency, with annual costs estimated at $1.4 billion and benefits of $22 billion to $54 billion
annually, including the avoidance of 2,500 to 6,500 premature deaths.
EPA also proposed what are called “area source” standards for smaller boilers at the same time as
the MACT.38 The area source standards would affect 187,000 boilers, most of which would only
be required to perform a tune-up every two years to comply with the regulations. EPA estimated
the net cost of the area source rule to be $487 million annually, with partial benefits ranging from
$210 million to $520 million annually. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-
7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
20. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Standards. A third
regulation proposed at the same time as the boiler MACT and area source boiler rules would set
standards for emissions from commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators.39 These
standards are related to the D.C. Circuit’s remand of the boiler rules in 2007, and also faced a
judicial deadline of February 21, 2011. The rules would expand the number of existing facilities
subject to the more stringent CISWI standards from 20 to 88, with annual costs of $232 million,
according to EPA, and benefits of $360 million-$870 million annually. For additional
information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
21. Standards for Sewage Sludge Incinerators. On October 14, 2010, EPA proposed emission
standards for sewage sludge incinerators (SSI).40 SSI units, typically located at wastewater
treatment facilities, burn dewatered sludge. The standards would limit emissions of mercury and
four other hazardous air pollutants, as well as particulates and other conventional pollutants.
There are currently 218 SSI units, according to EPA, and the total cost of compliance could be as
37 U.S. EPA, “EPA Announces Next Steps on Emissions Standards for Boilers, Certain Incinerators,” Press Release,
January 20, 2011, at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6424ac1caa800aab85257359003f5337/
58f5bee5e13c61228525781e007e9881.
38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; Proposed Rule,” 75 Federal Register 31896, June 4, 2010.
39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule,” 75
Federal Register 31938, June 4, 2010.
40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units; Proposed Rule,” 75 Federal Register 63260,
October 14, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
12
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
much as $105 million annually, with benefits ranging from $130 million to $320 million annually.
For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Other
22. Emission Standards for Portland Cement Manufacturing. On September 9, 2010, EPA
promulgated New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for conventional pollutants from new
cement kilns and Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards for hazardous air
pollutants from both existing and new sources in the Portland cement manufacturing industry.41
When fully implemented in 2013, the standards will require a 92% reduction in emissions of both
particulate matter and mercury and a 97% reduction in emissions of acid gases, according to EPA,
as well as controlling other pollutants. EPA had previously issued emission standards for this
industry in 1999, but the standards were challenged in court and remanded to the agency by the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The new rules reflect EPA’s reconsideration of the standards.
The agency estimates that it will cost the industry $350 million annually to comply with the
standards, but that benefits (including the avoidance of 960 to 2,500 premature deaths in people
with heart disease) will be worth $6.7 billion to $18 billion annually. The trade association
representing the industry says the standards will cause some facilities to close.
Further regulation of this industry, which is the third highest U.S. source of carbon dioxide
emissions, is under consideration: when EPA announced the revised rules, it stated in the
preamble to the rule that it is “working towards a proposal for GHG standards” for these plants.42
For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
23.-24. Stationary Internal Combustion Engines. EPA set standards for both compression-
ignition43 (generally diesel) and spark ignition (generally gasoline) stationary engines44 in 2010.
The regulations would affect piston-driven (reciprocating) stationary engines, such as emergency
power generators used by hospitals and other sources and electric power generators used for
compressors and pumps by a wide array of industrial, agricultural, and oil and gas industry
sources. The rules are referred to as the RICE (Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine) rules.
They apply to engines that meet specific siting, age, and size criteria (generally engines of 500
horsepower or less). EPA estimates that more than 1.2 million engines will be affected by the
regulations. Depending on the type of engine, owners will have to install pollution control
equipment or follow certain work practice standards, such as burning low sulfur fuel or
conducting oil changes and inspections. EPA estimates the health benefits of the two rules will be
between $1.45 billion and $3.5 billion annually by 2013. Annualized costs for the rules are
estimated to be $626 million in 2013. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225,
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Final Rule,” 75
Federal Register 54970, September 9, 2010.
42 Ibid., p. 54997.
43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 9648, March 3, 2010.
44 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 51570, August 20, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
13
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
25.-26. Ocean-Going Ships. EPA took two steps to control emissions from ocean-going ships in
2009 and 2010. It promulgated emission standards for new marine engines45 and it proposed the
establishment of Emission Control Areas extending 200 nautical miles off most U.S. shores.46 In
the Emission Control Areas (ECAs), which received final approval in March 2010, both U.S. and
foreign ships would be required to use low sulfur fuel. In both cases, the actions reflect
international standards that the United States and other maritime nations have agreed to under the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). EPA estimated
the cost of these two initiatives at over $3 billion annually by 2030, mostly attributable to the
cleaner fuel requirement. The agency also estimated that monetized benefits of the requirements
will exceed costs by more than 30 to 1. The proposal and the new standards were supported by
both industry and environmental groups. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-
7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Clean Water Act
27. Construction Site Effluent Limitation Guidelines. On December 1, 2009, EPA promulgated
regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA), called effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs), to
limit pollution from stormwater runoff at construction sites.47 The rule, called the Construction
and Development ELG, took effect February 1, 2010. OMB determined that it is an economically
significant rule. It requires construction sites that disturb one or more acres of land to use erosion
and sediment control best management practices to ensure that soil disturbed during construction
activity does not pollute nearby waterbodies. For construction sites disturbing 10 acres or more,
the rule established, for the first time, enforceable numeric limits on stormwater runoff pollution.
EPA issued the rule in response to a 2004 lawsuit filed by an environmental group; in 2006, a
federal court ordered EPA to issue a final rule by December 1, 2009. The rule affects about
82,000 firms involved in residential, commercial, highway, street, and bridge construction. EPA
has issued effluent guidelines for 56 industries that include many types of discharges, such as
manufacturing and service industries. These guidelines are implemented in discharge permits
issued by states and EPA. Several industry groups challenged the Construction and Development
ELG. In response, EPA examined the data set underlying a portion of the rule and concluded that
it improperly interpreted the data. In August 2010, a federal appeals court granted EPA’s request
for remand of a portion of the rule to conduct a rulemaking to correct the numeric effluent
limitation, which EPA expects to promulgate early in 2011 with an effective date of June 29,
2011. On November 5, 2010, EPA promulgated a direct final rule to stay the effectiveness of the
2009 rule until a revised rule is developed.48 For additional information, contact Claudia
Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at
or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 22896, April 30, 2010.
46 International Maritime Organization, Marine Environmental Protection Committee, “Proposal to Designate an
Emission Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides and Particulate Matter, Submitted by the United States
and Canada,” April 2, 2009, at http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/mepc-59-eca-proposal.pdf.
47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Effluent Limitation Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point
Source Category,” 74 Federal Register 62996-63058, December 1, 2009.
48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Direct Final Rule Staying Numeric Limitation for the Construction and
Development Point Source Category,” 75 Federal Register 68215-68217, November 5, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
14
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
28. Airport Deicing Effluent Limitation Guidelines. In August 2009, EPA proposed regulations
under the CWA to limit water pollution from aircraft and airport runway deicing operations.49 The
proposed rule would apply to 218 airports and would require them to recover at least a specified
portion of available deicing/anti-icing fluid after it is sprayed on aircraft, meet a specified effluent
limit for wastewater collected and discharged, and certify that they use pavement deicers that do
not contain urea. In general, it would require large airports to collect 60% of deicing fluid and
treat or reuse it. The estimated cost of the rule is $91 million, making it a significant but not
“economically significant” rule. The proposed rule has been under development for several years
and is part of ongoing EPA activities under the CWA to regulate wastewater discharges from
categories of industries through new and revised effluent limitation guidelines. There is no legal
deadline, but EPA expects to promulgate a final rule by March 2011. For additional information,
contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
29. Pesticide Application General Permit. EPA is developing a CWA general permit to control
pesticides that are applied to waters of the United States, such as aerial application of insecticide
to control mosquitoes. The general permit will be issued in response to a 2009 federal court
decision that invalidated a 2006 EPA rule, which had codified the agency’s long-standing view
that pesticide applications that comply with federal pesticides law do not require CWA permits.
The federal court’s order requiring EPA to issue permits takes effect April 9, 2011. EPA proposed
a draft permit June 4, 2010.50 The estimated universe of affected activities is approximately 5.6
million applications annually, which are performed by 365,000 applicators. EPA was expected to
finalize the permit by December 2010. However, on March 3, the government asked the court to
grant an additional stay—until October 31—of the effective date of the court’s ruling, because the
agency is still completing work on the final permit. Under OMB’s criteria, it is a significant rule,
but “economically significant.”51 Meanwhile, two House committees have approved legislation
(H.R. 872) that is intended to overturn the court’s 2009 ruling by exempting aerial pesticide
application activities from clean water permit requirements. For additional information, contact
Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
30. Florida Nutrient Water Quality Standards. The CWA directs states to adopt water quality
standards for their waters and authorizes EPA to promulgate new or revised standards if a state’s
actions fail to meet CWA requirements. Water quality standards consist of designated uses,
criteria to protect the designated uses, and an antidegradation statement. They serve as the
framework for pollution control measures specified for individual sources. Because of severe
water quality impairment of Florida waters by nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from diverse
sources including agriculture and livestock, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, and
urban stormwater runoff, EPA determined in 2009 that Florida’s existing narrative water quality
standards for nutrients must be revised in the form of numeric criteria that will enable Florida to
49 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for
the Airport Deicing Category; Proposed rule,” 74 Federal Register 44676-44718, August 28, 2009.
50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide
General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the Application of Pesticides,” 75 Federal Register 31775-31785,
June 4, 2010.
51 “Significant” rules are a broader OMB category that includes not only the economically significant (i.e., primarily
those with an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more), but also rules that “create a serious inconsistency
or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency”; “materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof”; or “raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth” in Executive
Order 12866.
Congressional Research Service
15
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
better control nutrient pollution. In 2009 EPA entered into a consent decree with environmental
litigants requiring the agency to promulgate numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida.
To meet the legal deadline, EPA promulgated the first phase of these standards on December 5,
2010.52 In response to criticism of the standards, EPA delayed the effective date of the final rule
for 15 months, to allow local governments, businesses, and the state of Florida time to review the
standards and develop implementation strategies. Nevertheless, separate legal challenges to the
rule have been filed in federal court by environmental advocates, the state of Florida, and others.
The second phase of standards is due to be issued by October 2011. Water quality standards do
not have the force of law until the state translates them into permit limits or otherwise imposes
pollution control requirements on dischargers in the state. The rule will not establish any
requirements directly applicable to regulated entities or other sources of nutrient pollution. While
few dispute the need to reduce nutrients in Florida’s waters, EPA’s rule has been controversial,
involving disputes about the data underlying the proposal, potential costs of complying with
numeric standards when they are incorporated into discharge permit limitations, and disputes over
administrative flexibility. EPA estimated that the potential incremental costs associated with the
rule range from $16 million to $25 million per year, and monetized benefits of $28 million per
year. Many stakeholders contend that EPA has greatly underestimated costs. The rule was
determined by OMB to be a significant regulatory action, but not “economically significant.” For
additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
31. Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Pursuant to a court-ordered schedule, EPA has developed a plan,
called a Total Maximum Daily Limit (TMDL), to restore nutrient-impaired waters of the
Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL is required because states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have
failed to meet deadlines to attain water quality goals for the Bay, thus triggering Clean Water Act
requirements that the federal government must develop a plan to do so. The TMDL is not a
regulation. A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water may
receive and still meet its water quality standards. Individual actions needed to meet the overall
pollutant limits specified in the TMDL, such as discharge permit limits or other controls, are to be
developed by the Chesapeake Bay states in Watershed Implementation Plans. The Chesapeake
Bay TMDL is the largest ever developed by EPA or any state, since it will apply to all impaired
waters of the 64,000 square miles of the six states in the Bay watershed. On December 29, 2010,
EPA issued the TMDL, thus meeting its self-imposed December 31 deadline to do so.53 For
additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
32. Revised Stormwater Rule. EPA is exploring regulatory options to strengthen the existing
regulatory program for managing stormwater, which is a significant source of water quality
impairments nationwide. Under the current program, large cities and most industry sources are
subject to CWA rules issued in 1990; smaller cities, other industrial sources, and construction
sites are covered by rules issued in 1999. EPA is considering options to strengthen stormwater
regulations, including establishing post-construction requirements for stormwater discharges from
new development and redevelopment, which currently are not regulated. The agency has not
proposed specific regulatory changes, but it is expected to issue a proposed rule late in 2011, to be
finalized in 2012. The rule is expected to focus on stormwater discharges from developed, or
52 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing
Waters; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 75762-75807, December 5, 2010.
53 Notice of the TMDL appeared in the Federal Register January 5, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
“Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Notice for the Establishment of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the
Chesapeake Bay,” 76 Federal Register 549-550, January 5, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
16
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
post-construction sites such as subdivisions, roadways, industrial facilities and commercial
buildings, or shopping centers. In early 2010, EPA held a series of listening sessions across the
country as part of a process seeking public comments on potential considerations for regulatory
changes. For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
33. Revised Cooling Water Intake Rule. EPA is expected to propose a CWA rule to protect fish
from entrainment by cooling water intake structures at existing powerplants and certain other
industrial facilities. The proposed rule will revise EPA regulations issued in 2004 that were
challenged in federal court by electric utility companies and others and were remanded to EPA by
court order in 2007 and rules issued in 2006 that also apply to new offshore oil and gas facilities
and existing manufacturing facilities, which EPA asked a court to remand to the agency for
modification.54 The proposal will also respond to a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which said
that, in developing the revised cooling water intake structure rule, EPA can consider the costs and
benefits of protecting fish and other aquatic organisms.55 The rule, when proposed, will combine
cooling water intake rules that apply to approximately 1,200 existing electric generating and
manufacturing plants. On December 3, 2010, a federal court issued an order endorsing terms of a
settlement agreement between EPA and environmental groups, which establishes a March 14,
2011, deadline for the agency to propose a revised cooling water intake rule and a July 27, 2012,
deadline for promulgating a final rule. On March 15 EPA said that it is delaying its planned
released of the proposed rule until March 28 and that the parties to the litigation have agreed to
the extension. For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227,
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
34. Revised Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines. Under authority of CWA Section 304, EPA
establishes national technology-based regulations, called effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs), to
reduce pollutant discharges from industries directly to waters of the United States and indirectly
to municipal wastewater treatment plants. These requirements are incorporated into discharge
permits issued by EPA and states. The current steam electric power plant rules56 apply to about
1,200 nuclear- and fossil-fueled steam electric power plants nationwide, 500 of which are coal-
fired. In a 2009 study, EPA found that these regulations, which were promulgated in 1982, do not
adequately address the pollutants being discharged and have not kept pace with changes that have
occurred in the electric power industry over the last three decades. Pollutants of concern include
metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic, and selenium), nutrients, and total dissolved solids. The
rulemaking will address discharges from coal ash storage ponds and flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) air pollution controls, as well as other power plant waste streams.57
Pursuant to a November 8, 2010 consent decree that it entered into with environmental litigants,
EPA agreed to propose the revised power plant ELG by July 23, 2012, and to finalize the rule by
January 31, 2014. For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227,
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
35. Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Requirements. To prevent the
discharge of oil from onshore and offshore facilities, EPA issued CWA regulations for spill
54 40 CFR §125.90 and 40 CFR §125.130.
55 Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009).
56 40 CFR § 423.10.
57 Separately, EPA also is considering regulation of coal ash disposal sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, as discussed in this report under “Coal Combustion Waste.”
Congressional Research Service
17
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans in 1973.58 SPCC plans apply to owners or
operators of certain non-transportation-related facilities. In general, SPCC plans focus on oil spill
prevention, requiring, for example, secondary containment (e.g., dikes or berms) for oil-storage
equipment.
Following the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the agency proposed substantial changes
and clarifications that were not made final until July 2002.59 However, EPA has both extended the
2002 rule’s compliance date (on multiple occasions) and made further amendments to the 2002
rule. In a November 2009 rule,60 EPA (among other actions) eliminated specific
exclusions/exemptions made by a December 2008 rulemaking.61 Under a rule promulgated on
October 14, 2010,62 the current deadline for complying with SPCC requirements for most
facilities is November 10, 2011.
Pursuant to the CWA definition of oil, the SPCC requirements apply to petroleum-based and non-
petroleum-based oil.63 In a 1975 Federal Register notice, EPA clarified that its 1973 SPCC
regulations apply to oils from animal and vegetable sources.64 EPA has subsequently stated that
“milk typically contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil” and is thus
subject to SPCC provisions.65 However, in 2009, EPA proposed a conditional exemption from
SPCC requirements for milk storage units.66 This exemption has not been finalized, but in its
October 14, 2010 rule, EPA provided a specific extension for facilities subject to milk storage
SPCC provisions, delaying compliance for one year from the effective date of the relevant final
rule. For additional information, contact Jonathan Ramseur (7-7919, jramseur@crs.loc.gov).
36. Mountaintop Mining in Appalachia. EPA and other federal agencies (the Office of Surface
Mining and Reclamation, in the Department of the Interior; and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) are developing a series of actions and regulatory proposals to reduce the harmful
environmental and health impacts of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal mining,
in Appalachia. The actions, announced in a June 2009 interagency Memorandum of
Understanding, are intended to tighten regulation and strengthen environmental reviews of permit
requirements under the CWA and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).
EPA is a key participant in several of the actions. EPA and the Corps are conducting detailed
evaluations of 79 pending CWA permit applications for surface mining activities in order to limit
environmental impacts of the proposed activities. In June 2010, the Army Corps suspended the
use of a particular CWA general permit for surface coal mining activities in Appalachia and
proposed a rule to prohibit its use entirely; a finalized rule, expected in 2012, would apply more
58 38 Federal Register 34164, December 11, 1973.
59 67 Federal Register 4704, July 17, 2002.
60 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Rule—Amendments,” 74 Federal Register 58784, November 13, 2009.
61 73 Federal Register 74236, December 5, 2008.
62 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Rule Compliance Date Amendment ,” 75 Federal Register 63093, October 14, 2010.
63 See CWA Section 311(a) (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)).
64 40 Federal Register 28849, July 9, 1975.
65 74 Federal Register 2461, January 15, 2009.
66 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Rule Requirements—Amendments,” 74 Federal Register 2461, January 15, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
18
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
stringent CWA rules to these coal mining operations.67 In addition, in November 2009, the
Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM) issued an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) describing options to revise a SMCRA rule, called the stream
buffer zone rule, which was promulgated in December 2008.68 The Obama Administration
identified the 2008 rule, which exempts so-called valley fills and other mining waste disposal
activities from requirements to protect a 100-foot buffer zone around streams, for revision as part
of the series of actions concerning surface coal mining in Appalachia. In June 2010, OSM said it
will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the buffer zone rule; it will propose a revised
rule later, but there is no known timetable.69 For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland
(7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
Safe Drinking Water Act
37. Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide. Completing an initiative of the Bush
Administration, EPA promulgated regulations on December 10, 2010, to create a nationally
consistent framework for managing the underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for
geologic sequestration purposes, to mitigate emissions of this greenhouse gas.70 EPA proposed the
rule in July 2008. The rule creates a new class of underground injection wells (Class VI) for
geologic sequestration, and establishes national requirements that would apply to these wells to
ensure that CO2 injection does not endanger underground sources of drinking water. The rule
builds on the existing Underground Injection Control (UIC) program under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, including requirements for well owners and operators to ensure that wells are
appropriately located, constructed, tested, monitored, and ultimately closed. Well owners or
operators must maintain financial assurance so that wells can be plugged and abandoned properly.
EPA’s stated regulatory goal is to have effective permitting regulations in place to ensure that
geologic sequestration can occur in a safe and effective manner in order to enable commercial-
scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to move forward. For additional information,
contact Mary Tiemann (7-5937, mtiemann@crs.loc.gov).
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
38.-40. Lead: Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Rules. EPA has revised a 2008 final
rule implementing Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA; enacted as the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.) The rule aims to reduce human
health hazards associated with exposure to lead-based paint. It established requirements for
training and certifying workers and firms that remodel, repair, or paint homes or child-occupied
public or commercial buildings likely to contain lead-based paint (generally built before 1978).
67 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Suspension of Nationwide Permit 21,” 75 Federal Register 34711-
34714, June 18, 2010.
68 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Stream Buffer Zone and
Related Rules; Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental
impact statement (SEIS),” 74 Federal Register 62664-62668, November 30, 2009.
69 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Stream Protection Rule;
Environmental Impact Statement,” 75 Federal Register 34666-34669, June 18, 2010.
70 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program:
Carbon Dioxide (CO) Geologic Sequestration Wells; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 77230, December 10, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
19
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Shortly after promulgation of the 2008 version of the rule, several petitions were filed challenging
it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit consolidated the petitions and,
in August 2009, EPA signed a settlement agreement with the petitioners. The agreement set legal
deadlines for a number of EPA rulemaking actions. One rule proposed May 6, 2010, addresses
public and commercial buildings that are not child-occupied.71 A second rule, also proposed in
May 2010, addresses the testing requirements after renovations are complete.72 A third rule
promulgated in May 2010 eliminates an opt-out provision that would have exempted a renovation
firm from training and work practice requirements if certification were obtained from the
property owner that no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides in a facility and no children
spend significant amounts of time there.73 That rule also revises recordkeeping and disclosure
provisions. EPA has estimated that this rule would add $500 million to the cost of the 2008
renovation, repair, and painting program in the first year and $300 million per year starting with
the second year. In May 2010, Congress adopted an amendment to H.R. 4899, a bill providing
supplemental appropriations which later became P.L. 111-212. The amendment prohibited the use
of appropriated funds to levy fines or to hold any person liable for work performed under the rule.
In June 2010, EPA published a memorandum informing enforcement division directors in the
regional offices that the Agency would not enforce certain requirements for certification of firms
or for individual training until after October 1, 2010. However, individual renovators must be
enrolled in required training classes before that date and all must complete required training prior
to December 31, 2010, according to the memorandum. For additional information, contact Linda-
Jo Schierow (7-7279, lschierow@crs.loc.gov).
RCRA/Superfund
41. Coal Combustion Waste. In 2008, coal-fired power plants accounted for almost half of U.S.
electric power, resulting in approximately 136 millions tons of coal combustion waste (CCW). On
December 22, 2008, national attention was turned to risks associated with managing CCW when
a breach in a surface impoundment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston, TN, plant
released 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash slurry, covering hundreds of acres and damaging or
destroying homes and property. In addition to the risk of a sudden, catastrophic release such as
that at Kingston, EPA has determined that CCW disposal in unlined landfills and surface
impoundments presents substantial risks to human health and the environment from releases of
toxic constituents (particularly arsenic and selenium) into surface and groundwater. To establish
national standards intended to address risks associated with potential CCW mismanagement, on
June 21, 2010, EPA proposed two regulatory options to manage the waste;74 the agency has not
yet promulgated a final rule and has not projected a date for doing so. The first option would
draw on EPA’s existing authority to identify a waste as hazardous and regulate it under the waste
management standards established under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
71 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and
Commercial Buildings; Proposed Rule,” 75 Federal Register 24848-24862, May 6, 2010.
72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program: Lead; Proposed Rule,” 75 Federal Register 25038-25073, May 6, 2010.
73 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program: Lead; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 24802-24819, May 6, 2010.
74 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing
of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities,” 75 Federal Register 35127-35264,
June 21, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
20
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Act (RCRA). The second option would establish regulations applicable to CCW disposal units
under RCRA’s Subtitle D solid waste management requirements. In its Regulatory Impact
Analysis, EPA estimated the average annualized regulatory costs to be approximately $1.5 billion
a year under the Subtitle C option or $587 million a year under the Subtitle D option, but there
could be additional costs or benefits depending on how the rule affects the recycling of coal ash.
For additional information, contact Linda Luther (7-6852, lluther@crs.loc.gov).
42. Identification of Materials That Are Solid Wastes. In conjunction with the proposed boiler
and incinerator emission standards discussed above in items 18, 19, and 20, EPA proposed
regulations intended to clarify when certain materials burned as fuel in a combustion unit would
be considered a “solid waste.”75 The proposed definition of solid waste plays an important role in
the regulations for boilers and incinerators because the 2007 D.C. Circuit decision vacating EPA’s
boiler standards concluded that the Clean Air Act “requires any unit that combusts ‘any solid
waste material at all’—regardless of whether the material is being burned for energy recovery—to
be regulated as a ‘solid waste incineration unit.’”76 EPA states that this regulatory action would
not directly invoke any costs or benefits. However, the agency acknowledges that the proposal
would significantly narrow the current universe of non-hazardous secondary materials that could
be burned in boilers—simultaneously expanding the number of combustion units subject to the
more stringent emission standards applicable to incinerators (item 20 above).77 Concerns have
been expressed about the impact that the proposed rule would have on existing state and federal
requirements applicable to the use of used tires and off-specification used oil that are burned as
fuel. There is no court order setting a deadline for this rule, but given its role in determining
whether units will be subject to boiler or incinerator standards, it needs to be finalized within
roughly the same time period as those standards, early in 2011. For additional information,
contact Linda Luther (7-6852, lluther@crs.loc.gov).
43. Guidance for Cleanup of Dioxin in Surface Soils. On January 7, 2010, EPA proposed
interim guidance that would make the goals for cleanup of dioxins in soil more stringent.78
Although the guidance would not have the force of regulation, it would establish new
“preliminary remediation goals” that would serve as EPA’s recommended baseline for making
cleanup decisions at contaminated sites addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). For residential soil, the current goal of 1,000 parts per
trillion (ppt) would be tightened to 72 ppt. For soil at commercial or industrial sites, the proposed
guidance would tighten the goal from the current 5,000-20,000 ppt level to 950 ppt. For
additional information, contact David Bearden (7-2390, dbearden@crs.loc.gov).
75 Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Rule, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are
Solid Waste,” 75 Federal Register 31843, June 4, 2010.
76 Cited in the proposed rule at 75 Federal Register 31848.
77See EPA’s web page “Identification of Non-Hazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste: Proposed Rule” at
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm.
78 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Draft Recommended Interim Preliminary Remediation Goals for Dioxin in
Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites,” 75 Federal Register 984, January 7, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
21
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Table 1. Recent Rules Proposed, Promulgated, or Under Development, by EPA
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
1.
Clean Air Act
Greenhouse Gas
Promulgated
Required by
About 10,000 facilities
(GHG) Reporting October 30, 2009.
FY2008 EPA
in 31 categories were
Rule
Other categories of
appropriation
affected by the original
sources have
(P.L. 110-161).
rule. Eleven categories
subsequently been
with about 3,000 more
added, the latest on
facilities have
November 8, 2010.
subsequently been
added.
2.
Clean Air Act
GHG
Promulgated
A determination
Prerequisite to
Endangerment
December 15, 2009. was required by
finalizing EPA’s GHG
Finding
the Supreme
emission standards for
Court decision in
cars and light-duty
Massachusetts v.
trucks, promulgated
EPA, April 2,
April 1, 2010; these, in
2007.
turn, trigger GHG
permit requirements
for stationary sources.
3.
Clean Air Act
Light Duty Motor Promulgated May 7,
A determination
New cars, minivans,
Vehicle GHG
2010.
was required by
SUVs, and light trucks,
Rule
the Supreme
beginning in model
Court decision in
year 2012. EPA
Massachusetts v.
estimates the lifetime
EPA, April 2,
increased cost for
2007.
2012-2016 vehicles at
$52 billion, with $240
billion in expected
benefits.
4.
Clean Air Act
GHG Tailoring
Promulgated June 3,
none
Limits to about 1,450
Rule
2010.
the number of facilities
required to obtain
GHG emission permits
over the next three
years.
5.
Clean Air Act
PSD and Title V
Effective January 2,
Required once
Applies only to large
Permit
2011.
Light Duty Motor
stationary sources
Requirements for
Vehicle Rule was
identified by the
GHG Emissions
promulgated.
Tailoring Rule. EPA
estimates increased
costs for 2014-2018
vehicles at $7.7 billion,
with $49 billion in
projected benefits.
Congressional Research Service
22
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement?
Affected Entities
6.
Clean Air Act
Medium- and
Proposed
Fuel economy
New trucks beginning
Heavy-Duty
November 30,
standards were
in model year 2014.
Vehicle GHG
2010.
required by
Rule
Section 102 of
EISA (P.L. 110-
140). GHG
standards were
required once
EPA finalized the
endangerment
finding, and were
harmonized with
the fuel economy
proposal.
7.
Clean Air Act
NSPS to Control
On December 23,
EPA has been
Petroleum refineries,
GHG Emissions
2010, EPA released
sued by
which EPA concludes
from Petroleum
the text of a
numerous parties
are the second largest
Refineries
settlement
for its failure to
direct stationary
agreement with 11
issue NSPS for
source of GHGs in the
states, two
GHG emissions
United States.
municipalities, and
from power
three environmental plants (American
groups, under which Petroleum Institute
it agreed to
v. EPA). Section
propose the NSPS
111(b) of the
by December 10,
Clean Air Act
2011, and take final
requires NSPS for
action on the
a category of
proposal by
sources if it
November 10,
“causes, or
2012.
contributes
significantly to air
pollution which
may reasonably
be anticipated to
endanger public
health or
welfare.”
8.
Clean Air Act
Expanded
Promulgated March
Decisions
Petroleum refiners,
Renewable Fuel
26, 2010.
required by the
biofuel producers.
Standard (RFS2)
Energy
Independence and
Security Act of
2007.
Congressional Research Service
23
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement?
Affected Entities
9.
Clean Air Act
Ethanol Blend
EPA granted a
The Energy
Gasoline refiners and
Wall Waiver
partial waiver for
Independence and blenders, auto
E15 use in 2007 and
Security Act of
manufacturers, and
newer passenger
2007 mandates
manufacturers of
cars and light
increased use of
engines for outdoor
trucks, November
renewable fuels.
equipment of al types.
4, 2010. On January
Unless EPA
21, 2011, EPA
grants a Clean Air
announced that the
Act waiver to
waiver would be
allow increased
expanded to include use of ethanol in
MY2001-MY2006
gasoline, it will be
vehicles.
difficult to meet
this mandate.
10.
Clean Air Act
National
Promulgated
EPA settled a law
Only Cook County, IL
Ambient Air
February 9, 2010.
suit in 2007,
(Chicago) violates the
Quality Standard
agreeing to
new standard using
for Nitrogen
review the
current monitoring,
Dioxide
existing standard
but many areas have
by January 2010.
no monitors.
11.
Clean Air Act
National
Promulgated June
D.C. Circuit
Principal effects would
Ambient Air
22, 2010.
remanded the
be to require
Quality Standard
SO2 standard to
additional controls on
for Sulfur
EPA in 1998; EPA
coal-fired electric
Dioxide (SO2)
acted under a
power plants; EPA
consent decree.
estimates costs at $1.8
billion to $6.8 billion
annual y, with benefits
5-6 times that amount.
12.
Clean Air Act
National
Proposed January
In response to
Recent ozone levels in
Ambient Air
19, 2010; expected
petitions for
the vast majority of
Quality Standard
to be promulgated
review, EPA
the 675 counties with
for Ozone
by July 29, 2011.
agreed to
monitors would violate
reconsider the
the proposed
ozone NAAQS
standard;
promulgated in
implementation could
March 2008.
lead to widespread
new emission controls
at a projected cost of
$19 billion to $90
billion annually in 2020,
with comparable levels
of benefits, according
to EPA.
Congressional Research Service
24
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement?
Affected Entities
13.
Clean Air Act
National
EPA proposed to
Under court
Emissions of CO come
Ambient Air
retain the current
order, EPA is to
largely from motor
Quality Standard
standard January 31, complete this
vehicles, and have
for Carbon
2011.
review by August
decreased substantially
Monoxide
12, 2011.
in recent years.
14.
Clean Air Act
National
To be proposed by
D.C. Circuit
PM standards affect a
Ambient Air
June 2011.
remanded the
wide range of sources
Quality Standard
2006 fine
because they address
for Particulate
particulate (PM2.5) all kinds of particles
Matter (PM)
standards to EPA
and aerosols in the
in February 2009.
atmosphere.
15.
Clean Air Act
Clean Air
Proposed August 2,
D.C. Circuit
Affects electric power
Transport Rule
2010. Expected to
remanded the
plants in 31 Eastern
be promulgated
rule to EPA in
states; sets up cap-and-
and a second
2008.
trade programs for
transport rule to be
SO2 and NOx, at a
proposed in
projected annual cost
summer 2011.
of $2.2 billion, with
benefits of $120 billion
to $290 billion
annual y, according to
EPA.
16.
Clean Air Act
MACT for
EPA proposed the
Clean Air
Coal-fired electric
Electric
standards March 16,
Mercury Rule was generating units, which
Generating Units
2011.
vacated and
generate about half the
remanded to EPA nation’s electricity.
in February 2008.
EPA, under a
consent decree,
has agreed to
promulgate
standards by
November 16,
2011.
Congressional Research Service
25
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement?
Affected Entities
17.
Clean Air Act
NSPS to Control
EPA is coordinating
EPA has been
Primarily coal-fired
GHG Emissions
this review with the
sued by
electric generating
from Electric
development of
numerous parties
units, which generate
Generating Units
MACT standards
for its failure to
about half the nation’s
described in #16
issue NSPS for
electricity.
above. On
GHG emissions
December 23, 2010, from power
EPA released the
plants (State of
text of a settlement
New York v. EPA).
agreement with 11
Section 111(b) of
states, 2
the Clean Air Act
municipalities, and 3 requires NSPS for
environmental
a category of
groups, under which sources if it
it agreed to
“causes, or
propose the NSPS
contributes
by July 26, 2011, and significantly to air
take final action on
pollution which
the proposal by May may reasonably
26, 2012.
be anticipated to
endanger public
health or
welfare.” EPA has
already concluded
that GHGs are
such air pollution.
Electric
generating units
account for one-
third of all U.S.
GHG emissions.
18.
Clean Air Act
MACT to
Promulgated under
D.C. Circuit
Would affect a broad
Control Air
court order
vacated the rule
array of industrial,
Toxics from
February 21, 2011.
in 2007.
commercial, and
Boilers
The agency began a
institutional facilities.
reconsideration
process the same
day.
19.
Clean Air Act
Area Source
Promulgated under
D.C. Circuit
Boilers at thousands of
Standards for
court order
vacated the boiler smaller commercial,
Boilers
February 21, 2011.
and related
industrial, and
The agency began a
incinerator rules
institutional facilities.
reconsideration
in 2007.
process the same
day.
20.
Clean Air Act
CISWI
Promulgated under
D.C. Circuit
88 boilers that qualify
Incinerator
court order
vacated the rule
as incinerators because
Standards
February 21, 2011.
in 2007.
they burn solid waste.
The agency began a
reconsideration
process the same
day.
Congressional Research Service
26
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement?
Affected Entities
21.
Clean Air Act
Sewage Sludge
Proposed October
Court deadline as 218 units at
Incinerator
14, 2010. Under
the result of a
wastewater treatment
Standards
court order, was to
March 31, 2006
facilities.
be promulgated by
decision of the
February 21, 2011.
D.C. Circuit,
Sierra Club v.
Johnson.
22.
Clean Air Act
Portland Cement Promulgated
Earlier standards,
Portland cement
Manufacturing
September 9, 2010.
promulgated in
manufacturing
MACT and NSPS
1999, were
industry. About 158
remanded to the
cement kilns operating
agency by the
at nearly 100 locations
D.C. Circuit
are affected by the
Court of Appeals. rules.
EPA promulgated
a replacement in
2006, but
subsequently
agreed to
reconsider the
replacement
rules.
23.
Clean Air Act
RICE Rule for
Promulgated March
The standards
900,000 engines used
Stationary Diesel
3, 2010.
respond in part
as backup generators
Engines
to a December
or to power
2008 DC. Circuit
compressors and
Court of Appeals
pumps by industrial,
ruling that EPA’s
agricultural, or oil and
air toxics
gas industry sources.
standards must
address emissions
during all phases
of operation
including periods
of startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction. The
schedule for
completing this
rule was
established by a
consent decree.
24.
Clean Air Act
RICE Rule for
Promulgated August Same as Item 21.
330,000 engines used
Stationary Spark-
20, 2010.
as backup generators
Ignition Engines
or to power
compressors and
pumps by industrial,
agricultural, or oil and
gas industry sources.
Congressional Research Service
27
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement?
Affected Entities
25.
Clean Air Act
Emission
Promulgated April
None, but EPA
The standards, which
Standards for
30, 2010.
had committed to affect new marine
New Marine
promulgate the
engines for ocean-
(C3) Engines
standards when
going ships beginning in
issuing earlier
2011, were general y
standards in 2003. supported by the
shipping industry,
26.
Clean Air Act
Emission Control International
none
The measure, which is
Areas for Ocean-
Maritime
supported by the
Going Ships
Organization gave
maritime industry, will
final approval to
require use of low
EPA’s proposal in
sulfur fuels within 200
March 2010.
nautical miles of most
of the U.S. coast.
27. Clean
Water Construction
Promulgated
Federal court
Affects about 82,000
Act
Site Effluent
December 1, 2009.
ordered EPA to
firms involved in
Limitation
issue a final rule
residential,
Guidelines
by December 1,
commercial, highways,
2009.
street, and bridge
construction.
28. Clean
Water Airport Deicing
Proposed August
Ongoing EPA
Proposed rule applies
Act
Effluent
28, 2009. A final
activity to
to 218 airports.
Limitation
rule is expected in
regulate
Guidelines
March 2011.
wastewater
discharges from
categories of
industry.
29. Clean
Water Pesticide
EPA proposed a
2009 federal
Estimated universe of
Act
Application
draft permit June 4,
court ruling
affected activities is
General Permit
2010. Final permit
invalidated a 2006 approximately 5.6
was expected
EPA rule.
million applications
December 2010;
annual y, performed by
EPA has asked for a
365,000 applicators.
delay until October
31, 2011.
30. Clean
Water Florida Nutrient
EPA promulgated
2009 federal
Would likely affect a
Act
Water Quality
numeric nutrient
consent decree
broad array of
Standards
standards for
establishing a
industrial and
certain Florida
schedule for EPA
municipal dischargers
waters on
to issue numeric
and possibly sources of
December 5, 2010.
nutrient
nonpoint pollution
standards.
(e.g., agricultural
lands).
31. Clean
Water Chesapeake Bay
EPA finalized a
Consent decrees
Potentially could
Act
TMDL
TMDL on
required EPA to
require additional
December 29, 2010. develop a TMDL
pollution control by
by May 1, 2011.
many point and
nonpoint sources
throughout the
Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Congressional Research Service
28
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement?
Affected Entities
32. Clean
Water Revised
EPA expects to
none
Unknown at this time.
Act
Stormwater Rule
propose a rule in
late 2011.
33. Clean
Water Revised Cooling
EPA is developing a
EPA rules issued
Proposal will apply to
Act
Water Intake
proposed rule,
in 2004 were
existing power plants
Rule
which is expected
remanded by
and certain other
by March 28, 2011.
order of a federal
manufacturing facilities.
court.
34. Clean
Water Revised Steam
EPA is developing a
November 2010
Proposal will apply to
Act
Electric Effluent
proposed rule.
consent decree
existing and new steam
Guidelines
requires EPA to
electric power plants.
propose revised
rule by July 2012
and promulgate
final rule by
January 2014.
35. Clean
Water SPCC Revisions,
Latest revisions
none Applicable
facilities
Act
including
promulgated
that store oil, which
Exemption for
October 14, 2010.
includes milk.
Milk Storage
36. Clean
Water Mountaintop
Various short-term
none Surface
coal
mining
Act and Surface
Mining in
and long-term
operations in the
Mining Control
Appalachia
actions are
Appalachian region.
and Reclamation
underway by EPA
Act
and other federal
agencies to revise
regulations.
37. Safe
Drinking Geologic
Final rule was
none Sources
of
carbon
Water Act
Sequestration of
promulgated
dioxide, most likely
Carbon Dioxide
December 10, 2010.
coal-fired electric
power plants, if they
choose sequestration.
38.-
Toxic
Lead Renovation, Training, work
August 2009
Workers and firms
40.
Substances
Repair, and
practice,
settlement
that remodel, repair,
Control Act
Painting
recordkeeping, and
agreement sets
or paint homes and
disclosure
numerous
some commercial
requirements
deadlines.
buildings.
proposed or
promulgated in May
2010; other rules to
be proposed in
2011.
41. Resource
Coal
Proposed June 21,
none Coal-fired
electric
Conservation
Combustion
2010.
power plants.
and Recovery
Waste
Act (RCRA)
Congressional Research Service
29
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement?
Affected Entities
42. Resource
Identification of
Proposed June 4,
D.C. Circuit
Boilers/incinerators
Conservation
Materials That
2010.
vacated related
that burn discarded
and Recovery
Are Solid Wastes
rules addressing
materials.
Act (RCRA)
boilers and
incinerators in
2007.
43. Superfund/RCRA
Guidance
for Interim guidance
none
Responsible parties at
Cleanup of
proposed January 7,
Superfund and other
Dioxin in Surface
2010.
contaminated sites,
Soils
including the
Department of
Defense.
Source: Compiled by CRS.
Author Contact Information
James E. McCarthy
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7225
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov, 7-7227
Key Policy and Legal Staff
Other CRS analysts, listed below, contributed to this report.
Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Superfund David
Bearden
7-2390
dbearden@crs.loc.gov
Clean Water Act
Claudia Copeland
7-7227
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov
Solid Waste
Linda Luther
7-6852
l uther@crs.loc.gov
Clean Air Act
Jim McCarthy
7-7225
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov
Environmental law
Rob Meltz
7-7891
rmeltz@crs.loc.gov
Clean Air Act, electric generating units Larry Parker
7-7238
lparker@crs.loc.gov
Oil Spill Prevention
Jonathan Ramseur 7-7919
jramseur@crs.loc.gov
Toxic Substances Control Act
Linda-Jo Schierow
7-7279
lschierow@crs.loc.gov
Safe Drinking Water Act
Mary Tiemann
7-5937
mtiemann@crs.loc.gov
Clean Air Act, mobile sources, CAFE
Brent Yacobucci
7-9662
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
30