.

EPA Regulations:
Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
September 15, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41561
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008


.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

Summary
In the two and one-half 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. The House has conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th
Congress, and has approved several bills that would overturn specific regulations or 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 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. Further, the agency and its supporters say that EPA is carrying out
the mandates detailed by Congress in the federal environmental statutes.
This report provides background information on recent EPA rulemaking to help address these
issues. It examines 38 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............................................................................................. 4
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Report ........................................................................................................ 6
Clean Air Act and Climate Change.................................................................................................. 7
Climate Change ......................................................................................................................... 7
Renewable Fuels...................................................................................................................... 10
Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................................... 11
Electric Generating Units ........................................................................................................ 12
Boilers and Incinerators........................................................................................................... 13
Other........................................................................................................................................ 14
Clean Water Act ............................................................................................................................. 16
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).......................................................................................... 21
RCRA/Superfund........................................................................................................................... 22

Tables
Table 1. Recent Rules Proposed, Promulgated, or Under Development, by EPA ......................... 25

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 32
Key Policy and Legal Staff ............................................................................................................ 32

Congressional Research Service

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

Introduction
Is EPA on Target or Overreaching? Conflicting Views
In the two and one-half 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 Most of these
statutes have not been amended for more than a decade, yet 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
greenhouse gas emissions 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 and, regarding proposed regulatory actions
affecting electric generating units, it says “the EPA’s regulatory cascade is a clear and present
danger to the reliability and stability of the U.S. power system and grid.”4 The American
Enterprise Institute has stated that EPA “is engaged in a series of rule-making proceedings of
extraordinary scope and ambition.”5 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,” 6 while the National Mining Association has
said, “… even at a time of great economic stress, EPA is poised to enact a series of back-door
mandates that threaten to cost millions of American jobs, and increase the cost of their electricity
while they’re at it..”7

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 The Wall Street Journal, “An EPA Moratorium,” editorial, August 29, 2011.
5 AEI, “The EPA’s Ambitious Regulatory Agenda,” Conference, November 8, 2010, at http://www.aei.org/event/
100334#doc.
6 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.
7 National Mining Association, “EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck,” 2011, http://www.nma.org/pdf/fact_sheets/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

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.8 Senior Republicans in the House and Senate have stated that they
are committed to vigorous oversight of the agency’s actions during the 112th Congress,9 with
some threatening to withhold funding if the agency continues on its present course.10
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).11
In congressional testimony and other fora, the Administrator has sought to rebut critics’
challenges to EPA’s actions and initiatives.
It’s time for a real conversation about protecting our health and the environment while
growing our economy. EPA’s 40 years of environmental and health protection demonstrate
our nation’s ability to create jobs while we clear our air, water and land…. Telling the truth
about our economy and our environment is about respecting the priorities of the American
people. More than 70 percent of Americans want EPA to continue to do its job effectively.
Those same Americans want to see a robust economic recovery. We have the capacity to do
both things if we don’t let distractions keep us from the real work of creating jobs.12
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.13 Many also fear that recent

(...continued)
epa_tw.pdf.
8 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, CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1
Full-Year FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions
, by Robert
Esworthy, and CRS Report R41979, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations: Overview of
Provisions in H.R. 2584
, by Robert Esworthy.
9 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.
10 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/.
11 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.
12 Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, “Telling the Truth about the Environment and Our Economy,” September 2,
2011, http://blog.epa.gov/administrator.
13 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:
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

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.”14 The President’s September 2,
2011, decision to withdraw revised air quality standards for ozone that EPA had spent two years
developing renewed these concerns.
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
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
actions15 promulgated, proposed, or under development by EPA since January 2009. The report
uses data from EPA’s Spring 2011 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda16 and the list of economically
significant reviews conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)17 to compile a
list of 38 regulatory actions proposed, promulgated, or under development by the agency. The list
includes all EPA rules considered “economically significant” by OMB since January 2009,18 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.

(...continued)
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants, by James E. McCarthy, p. 15.
14 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.
15 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.
16 U.S. EPA, Semiannual Regulatory Agenda: Spring 2011, at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-
HQ-OA-2011-0592-0001.
17 OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Historical Reports at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/
do/eoHistReviewSearch.
18 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?

This is not a complete list of the regulations that EPA has promulgated or proposed during 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 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the MACT rule) fit that
description. Other EPA actions, such as reconsideration of the ozone air quality standard, have
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.19 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

19 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?

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.
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.
In the 112th Congress, criticism of EPA actions has increased, and legislation to prevent or delay
EPA action has passed the House. More legislation is considered likely. Some recent proposals
are broad in nature, targeting EPA generally or a lengthy list of specifics, while others focus more
narrowly on individual rules or actions.
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 and is defending its actions in court.
Opponents of this effort in Congress, who maintain that the agency is exceeding its authority,
have considered various approaches to altering the agency’s course. For example, in February, the
House passed 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 contained more than
20 provisions restricting or prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to implement various
regulatory activities under the EPA’s jurisdiction—many of them focused on GHGs.20 (On March
9, the Senate failed to approve House-passed bill 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.)
The House also approved legislation to restrict EPA authority and to repeal a dozen EPA
regulatory actions dealing with greenhouse gases (H.R. 910), on April 7. In the Senate, an
amendment identical to H.R. 910 (S.Amdt. 183) failed on a vote of 50-50.

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.
Congressional Research Service
5

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

In reporting H.R. 2584, which would provide EPA funding for FY2012, the House Appropriations
Committee included more than 25 provisions that would restrict or preclude the use of funds to
proceed with recent or pending EPA regulatory actions.21
Also in the 112th Congress, a number of bills addressing individual EPA regulations have been
introduced. For example, two bills have been proposed that would prohibit coal combustion waste
from being regulated as hazardous waste—H.R. 1391 (the Recycling Coal Combustion Residuals
Accessibility Act of 2011, or the RCCRA Act) and H.R. 1405 (see the “RCRA/Superfund”
section below). A House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee approved H.R. 1391 in
June. Also, bills that would delay implementation of EPA’s boiler MACT rule (see “Boilers and
Incinerators” section below) have been introduced (H.R. 2250/S. 1392), as has legislation to
delay EPA’s Portland cement emissions rule (H.R. 2681, see “Other” section below).
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, to
increase Congress’s role in approving or disapproving regulatory decisions, or to require analysis
of the cumulative impacts of multiple EPA regulations. One such broad bill is H.R. 2401, the
Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act of 2011. It would
establish a panel of representatives of federal agencies to report to Congress by August 2012 on
the cumulative economic impact of a number of listed EPA rules, guidelines, and actions
concerning clean air and waste management. The House Energy and Commerce Committee
approved this bill on July 13. Similar legislation introduced in the Senate, S. 609, the
Comprehensive Assessment of Regulations on the Economy Act of 2011, would direct the
Department of Commerce to form a panel to review the cumulative energy and economic impacts
of specific rules proposed or finalized by EPA or expected soon. Both bills would cover rules
discussed in this report. Impetus for this type of legislation is the widely expressed concern that
when EPA analyzes impacts of individual regulations, it does not consider costs imposed by
multiple rules taking effect more or less simultaneously.22
Organization of the Report
This report organizes the regulatory actions it describes under five headings: Clean Air Act and
Climate Change; Clean Water Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; and RCRA/Superfund. A
majority of the rules (23 of the 38) are being developed under the regulatory authority of the
Clean Air Act. To help organize the presentation of these 23, 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 (Table 1),
with the rules presented in the same order as in the text.

21 For information, see CRS Report R41979, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations:
Overview of Provisions in H.R. 2584
, by Robert Esworthy.
22 EPA analyses of the impact of new regulations generally construct a baseline of other state and federal regulations
that have been promulgated and court decisions or consent agreements that have been finalized as of the date of a new
regulation’s proposal or promulgation. If other regulations under development at the same time are not yet final, the
agency does not include the potential impact in its analysis, since regulations under development are often modified,
delayed, or withdrawn before promulgation.
Congressional Research Service
6

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

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.23 The rule required 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).24 (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. The original reporting deadline was March 31, 2011.
As that date approached, EPA extended the deadline to September 30. 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.25 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
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 Rules. 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.26 NHTSA is required by the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140) to promulgate CAFE

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule,” 74 Federal
Register
56260, October 30, 2009.
24 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.”
25 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.
26 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.
Congressional Research Service
7

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

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. On July 29, 2011, the White House announced
that it had reached agreement with 13 auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, the State of
California, and other interested parties under which GHG emissions from new cars and light
trucks will be reduced about 50% by 2025, and average fuel economy will rise to nearly 50 miles
per gallon. A formal proposal for these standards is expected by September 30. 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.27 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 17,000 facilities annually) will be the only sources required to obtain permits. Of these,
most will face only an administrative requirement to provide an estimate of their GHG emissions,
but 1,600 will need to address whether they have the best available control technology for
limiting emissions. 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, 2010.28 The
PSD/BACT requirement initially applied 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 was new starting January 2 was the addition of GHGs to

27 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.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “PSD and Title V Permitting
Guidance for Greenhouse Gases,” November 2010 (subsequently revised, March 2011), at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/
ghgdocs/ghgpermittingguidance.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

the list of pollutants that must be addressed by BACT. On July 1, 2011, Step 2 of the
requirements took effect: under Step 2, all new and modified sources emitting more than the
threshold amounts of GHGs will be required to obtain permits, whether or not they would be
required to do so because of emissions of other pollutants.
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 August 9, 2011, EPA and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized integrated GHG emission
standards and fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.29 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 standards will be
phased in between 2014 and 2018. When fully implemented, they will 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 $8.1 billion.
EPA projects benefits of $57 billion over the trucks’ lifetimes, including $50 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 Brent Yacobucci (7-
9662, byacobucci@crs.loc.gov) or Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Two other rules affecting GHG emissions are in the pre-proposal stage of consideration at EPA:
NSPS for GHG emissions from electric generating units (item 15, below) and similar standards
for Portland cement manufacturing facilities (discussed in item 19, below)

29 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; Final Rules,” 76 Federal Register
57106, September 15, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
9

.
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).30 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 2011.31 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.32 The agency delayed a decision on MY2001-2006 vehicles until the
Department of Energy completed testing of those vehicles. On January 21, 2011, EPA announced
that the waiver would be expanded to include MY2001-2006 vehicles.33 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

30 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.
31 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.
32 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.
33 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,” 76
Federal Register 4662, January 26, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
10

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

engine manufacturers. On June 23, 2011, EPA issued final rules, including new labeling
requirements, to prevent the accidental use of E15 in vehicles and engines not approved for its
use. For additional information, contact Brent Yacobucci (7-9662, byacobucci@crs.loc.gov).
Ambient Air Quality Standards
10. Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards. On January 19, 2010, EPA proposed a revision of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.34 At the President’s request, on
September 2, 2011, this proposal was withdrawn, leaving EPA to enforce previously implemented
ozone standards.
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. EPA last completed a review of the ozone NAAQS in 2008, and made the standard more
stringent; but the Obama Administration’s EPA suspended implementation of the 2008 standard in
2009 in order to consider further strengthening it.
The reconsidered ozone NAAQS that was proposed in January 2010 has been among the most
controversial standards under consideration at EPA, because of its wide reach and potential cost.
In the 2010 proposal, EPA identified at least 515 counties that would violate the NAAQS if the
most recent three years of data available at the time of proposal were used to determine
attainment (compared to 85 counties that violated the standard in effect at that time). The agency
estimated that the costs of implementing the reconsidered ozone NAAQS, as proposed, would
range from $19 billion to $90 billion annually in 2020, with benefits of roughly the same amount.
EPA completed its reconsideration of the ozone NAAQS and sent a final decision to the Office of
Management and Budget for interagency review in July 2011. On September 2, 2011, the White
House announced that the President had requested that EPA Administrator Jackson withdraw the
draft ozone standards at this time. The President’s statement noted that work is already underway
to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard
in 2013, and stated that he did not support asking state and local governments to begin
implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered.35 For additional information, contact
Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
11. Particulate Matter (including “Farm Dust”) NAAQS. EPA last completed a review of the
NAAQS for particulate matter in 2006. Thus, the agency is required by the Clean Air Act to
conduct a review of the standards in 2011. EPA considers particulate matter to be among the most
serious air pollutants, responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths annually.

34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Proposed Rule,” 75
Federal Register 2938, January 19, 2010.
35 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the President on the Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,” September 2, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
11

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

The current NAAQS sets standards for both “fine” particulates (PM2.5) and larger, “coarse”
particles (PM10). The PM2.5 standards affect far more people and far more counties than the
standard for PM10, and both sets of standards have affected mostly industrial, urban areas.
Nevertheless, agricultural interests have made substantial efforts over the last year to assail a
supposed EPA plan to regulate emissions of farm dust through the PM10 NAAQS review, and have
urged Congress to prevent the agency from doing so. Thus far, the agency has not proposed any
changes to the existing standards, and it has revised its target date for proposal several times.
Most recently, the agency indicated it hoped to propose revised standards by the summer or fall of
2011. Final standards would not likely be promulgated before the fall of 2012, based on previous
EPA target dates and timelines for this review. For additional information, contact Rob Esworthy
(7-7236, resworthy@crs.loc.gov).
12. Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS. Three other NAAQS reviews (for sulfur dioxide,36 nitrogen
dioxide,37 and carbon monoxide) have been completed in 2010 and 2011. Of these, only the sulfur
dioxide (SO2) NAAQS is considered an economically significant rule.38 EPA estimated the cost of
the more stringent SO2 NAAQS at $1.8 billion to $6.8 billion annually, with benefits 5-6 times
that amount. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Electric Generating Units
13. Cross-State Air Pollution (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 finalized a replacement for the
rule, which it calls the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, July 6, 2011.39 The 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 $3.6 billion in 2015.
The replacement rule also applies to 28 states; it allows unlimited intrastate allowance trading,
but limits interstate trading in response to the D.C. Circuit decision; its annual compliance cost is
estimated at $3.0 billion in 2012 and $2.4 billion in 2014. EPA estimates the benefits of the rule at
$120 billion to $280 billion annually, chiefly the avoidance of 13,000 to 34,000 annual premature
deaths. Because of the earlier CAIR requirements, electric generators have already achieved more
than two-thirds of the pollution reductions necessary to comply with the 2014 standards.
Given the need to meet the more stringent NAAQS that EPA is proposing and promulgating, the
agency stated its intention to propose a further set of requirements in 2011 to address interstate

36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide; Final
Rule,” 75 Federal Register 35520, June 22, 2010.
37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide;
Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 6473, February 9, 2010.
38 The agency concluded that the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, even though it was strengthened, would have no costs or
benefits, since the agency projected no areas to be nonattainment for the revised standard. The agency decided not to
change the carbon monoxide NAAQS, so there were no costs or benefits associated with that review, either.
39 The rule appeared in the Federal Register August 8, 2011. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Federal
Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, “ 76
Federal Register 48208, August 8, 2011. Explanatory material can be found at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/
actions.html. The rule was generally referred to as the Clean Air Transport Rule prior to being finalized.
Congressional Research Service
12

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

transport of air pollution. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225,
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov) or Larry Parker (7-7238, lparker@crs.loc.gov).
14. MACT for Electric Generating Units (“Utility MACT”). 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 uncontrolled 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%. For additional information, contact
Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
15. NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Generating Units. EPA has stated for some time
that it would 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 developed
the electric utility 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 about half of U.S. mercury emissions. 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. The proposal date has since been changed to September
30, 2011, and may be further delayed, but the expected promulgation date remains unchanged.
For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov) or Larry
Parker (7-7238, lparker@crs.loc.gov).
Boilers and Incinerators
16.-17. 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. A final rule was issued February 21, 2011, under a court order by
the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. 40 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.”41

40 The final rule appeared in the Federal Register March 21, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers
and Process Heaters; Final Rule,” 76 Federal Register 15608, March 21, 2011.
41 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/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

The agency initiated a reconsideration on the same day that it released the final rule, and it
subsequently announced that it would propose changes to the rule in October 2011, with
promulgation by April 30, 2012.
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 promulgated what are called “area source” standards for smaller boilers at the same time
as the MACT.42 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).
18. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Standards. A third
regulation promulgated 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.43 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. EPA is also reconsidering
these rules, on the same schedule as the Boiler MACT. For additional information, contact Jim
McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Other
19. 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 cement kilns.44 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

(...continued)
58f5bee5e13c61228525781e007e9881.
42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; Final Rule,” 76 Federal Register 15554, March 21, 2011.
43 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; Final Rule,” 76 Federal
Register
15704, March 21, 2011.
44 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.
Congressional Research Service
14

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

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.45
For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
20.-21. Stationary Internal Combustion Engines. EPA set standards for both compression-
ignition46 (generally diesel) and spark ignition (generally gasoline) stationary engines47 in 2010.
The regulations would affect 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 performing 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).
22.-23. 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 engines48 and it proposed the
establishment of Emission Control Areas extending 200 nautical miles off most U.S. shores.49 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

45 Ibid., p. 54997.
46 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.
47 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.
48 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.
49 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.
Congressional Research Service
15

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

both industry and environmental groups. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-
7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Clean Water Act
24. 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.50 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 propose by December 2, 2011, and to finalize by November 19,
2012. On November 5, 2010, EPA promulgated a direct final rule to stay the effectiveness of the
2009 rule until a revised rule is developed.51 For additional information, contact Claudia
Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
25. 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. 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 court approved a government
request 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. To meet the October 31 deadline,
EPA was expected to publish the final general permit by July 30, providing time for states and
others to review its requirements, but the final permit has been delayed as a result of interagency
review. However, even before July 30, a pre-publication version of the final permit was posted on
EPA’s website.52 Under OMB’s criteria, the permit is not a significant rule, but is “economically

50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Effluent Limitation Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point
Source Category,” 74 Federal Register 62996-63058, December 1, 2009.
51 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.
52 See http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.
Congressional Research Service
16

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

significant.”53 Meanwhile, on March 31 the House passed 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. The Senate Agriculture Committee also has approved H.R. 872.54 For
additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
26. 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
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,
2010.55 In response to criticism of the standards, EPA delayed the effective date of the final rule
for 15 months (until March 2012), to allow local governments, businesses, and the state of Florida
time to review the standards and develop implementation strategies. Further, in June, EPA
informed state officials that the agency could seek extension of deadlines in the consent decree, if
it determines by March 2012 that the state has made substantial progress towards adopting an
approvable rule. Nevertheless, separate legal challenges to the rule have been filed in federal
court by environmental advocates, the state of Florida, and others. At EPA’s request, the National
Academy of Sciences is reviewing the agency’s economic analysis of the costs of state
implementation of the 2010 standards for lakes and flowing waters in Florida.
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).

53 “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.
54 For additional information, see CRS Report RL32884, Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws
Complementary or in Conflict?
, by Claudia Copeland.
55 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.
Congressional Research Service
17

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

27. 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.56 For
additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
28. 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
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).
29. Revised Cooling Water Intake Rule. EPA has proposed a CWA rule to protect fish from
entrainment by cooling water intake structures at existing power plants 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.57 The proposal also responds 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.58 The rule combines cooling water intake
rules that apply to approximately 1,150 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, establishing deadlines for the agency to propose and
finalize a revised cooling water intake rule. EPA proposed the rule on March 28 and, under the
consent decree, is required to take final action by July 27, 2012. Even before release, the
proposed rule was highly controversial. Many in industry feared, while environmental groups

56 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.
57 40 CFR §125.90 and 40 CFR §125.130.
58 Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009).
Congressional Research Service
18

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

hoped, that EPA would require installation of technology that most effectively minimizes impacts
of cooling water intake structures, but also is the most costly option. The EPA proposal declined
to mandate such technology universally and instead favors a less costly, more flexible regulatory
option.59 For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
30. 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 rules60 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.61
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).
31. Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Requirements, including Exemption
for Milk Storage.
To prevent the discharge of oil from onshore and offshore facilities, EPA
issued CWA regulations for spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans in 1973.62
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 2002.63 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,64 EPA (among other actions) eliminated specific
exclusions/exemptions made by a December 2008 rulemaking.65 Under a rule promulgated on

59 The rule was published in the Federal Register on April 20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase 1
Facilities,” 76 Federal Register 22174-22228, April 20, 2011. For information, see CRS Report R41786, Cooling
Water Intake Structures: Summary of EPA’s Proposed Rule
, by Claudia Copeland.
60 40 CFR § 423.10.
61 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.”
62 38 Federal Register 34164, December 11, 1973.
63 67 Federal Register 47041, July 17, 2002.
64 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Rule—Amendments,” 74 Federal Register 58784, November 13, 2009.
65 73 Federal Register 74236, December 5, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
19

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

October 14, 2010,66 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.67 In a 1975 Federal Register notice, EPA clarified that its 1973 SPCC
regulations apply to oils from animal and vegetable sources.68 EPA subsequently stated that “milk
typically contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil” and is thus potentially
subject to SPCC provisions.69 However, in January 2009, EPA proposed a conditional exemption
from SPCC requirements for milk storage units.70 EPA issued a final rule April 18, 2011,
exempting all milk and milk product containers and associated piping from the SPCC
requirements. EPA’s rationale for the exemption is that these units are subject to industry
standards for sanitation and may be regulated by other agencies, including the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.71 In addition, the final rule states that exempted milk storage units are not included in
a facility’s overall oil storage volume, a primary factor for SPCC applicability. For additional
information, contact Jonathan Ramseur (7-7919, jramseur@crs.loc.gov).
32. ‘Waters of the United States’ Interpretive Guidance. From the earliest days, Congress has
grappled with where to set the line between federal and state authority over the nation’s
waterways. Typically, this debate occurred in the context of federal legislation restricting uses of
waterways that impaired navigation and commerce. The phrase Congress often used to specify
waterways over which the federal government had authority was “navigable waters of the United
States.” However, in the legislation that became the CWA of 1972, Congress felt that the term
was too constricted to define the reach of a law whose purpose was not maintaining navigability,
as in the past, but rather preventing pollution. Accordingly, in the CWA Congress retained the
traditional term “navigable waters,” but defined it broadly to mean “waters of the United States.”
That phrase is important in the context of section 404 of the law, a permit program jointly
administered by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers that regulates discharges of dredged and
fill material to U.S. waters, including wetlands. The same phrase also defines the geographic
extent of the other parts of the CWA, including state-established water quality standards, the
discharge permit program in section 402, oil spill liability, and enforcement. Consequently, how
broadly or narrowly “waters of the United States” is defined has been a central question of CWA
law and policy for nearly 40 years.
Controversies increased following two Supreme Court rulings, one in 2001 and one in 2006, on
how “waters of the United States” are defined for purposes of the 404/wetlands permit program.
Those two rulings left many uncertainties about their interpretation, uncertainties that first the
Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration have attempted to clarify through a
series of interpretive guidance documents. Most recently, in April, EPA and the Army Corps
jointly proposed new guidance in an effort to clarify the geographic reach of federal regulation, in
light of the law, the Court’s rulings, and science. Under the new guidance, federal protection of

66 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Rule Compliance Date Amendment ,” 75 Federal Register 63093, October 14, 2010.
67 See CWA Section 311(a) (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)).
68 40 Federal Register 28849, July 9, 1975.
69 74 Federal Register 2461, January 15, 2009.
70 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Rule Requirements—Amendments,” 74 Federal Register 2461, January 15, 2009.
71 76 Federal Register 21652, April 18, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
20

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

water quality would apply to more waters than currently are considered jurisdictional—a
conclusion that has pleased some and alarmed others.72 The proposed guidance was subject to
public comment until July 31, 2011. After the guidance is finalized, the agencies expect to
propose revisions to regulations to further clarify which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction,
consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings, but there is no schedule for when this will occur.73
For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
33. 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
stringent CWA rules to these coal mining operations.74 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 2008.75 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.76 For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland
(7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
34.-36. 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

72 Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers, “Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected
by the Clean Water Act,” April 27, 2011, p. 2, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/
wous_guidance_4-2011.pdf.
73 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33263, The Wetlands Coverage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Is
Revisited by the Supreme Court: Rapanos v. United States
, by Robert Meltz and Claudia Copeland.
74 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Suspension of Nationwide Permit 21,” 75 Federal Register 34711-
34714, June 18, 2010.
75 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.
76 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.
Congressional Research Service
21

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

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).
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.77 A second rule, also proposed in
May 2010 addressed the testing requirements after renovations are complete.78 That rule was
revised and promulgated July 15, 2011, effective October 4, 2011.79 The third rule, promulgated
in May 2010, eliminated 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.80 That rule also revises recordkeeping and disclosure
provisions. EPA has estimated that this third 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 “funds made available by this Act” to levy fines or to hold any person liable for work
performed under the rule. However, P.L. 111-212 provided no funds to EPA for those purposes, so
the provision had no effect on EPA’s use of existing funds that had been appropriated to enforce
the rule by the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-88).81 In June 2010, on its own initiative, 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 have been enrolled in required training classes
before that date and all must have completed 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
37. Coal Combustion Waste. In 2008, coal-fired power plants accounted for almost half of U.S.
electric power, resulting in approximately 136 million 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

77 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.
78 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.
79 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Lead: Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Program,” Final Rule, 76 Federal Register 47918-47946, July 15, 2011.
80 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.
81 Sven-Erik Kaiser, EPA Congressional Liaison, personal communication, Sept. 14, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
22

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

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.82 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 Act (RCRA). The second option would establish regulations applicable to CCW
disposal units under RCRA’s Subtitle D solid waste management requirements. Under Subtitle D,
EPA does not have the authority to implement or enforce its proposed requirements. Instead, EPA
would rely on states or citizen suits to enforce new standards. 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. EPA has
not projected a date to promulgate a final rule.83 Further, on March 3, 2011, in testimony at an
EPA budget hearing before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated that she does not
anticipate a final rule to be promulgated in 2011. The cause of the delay was attributed to the
large number of public comments received. For additional information, contact Linda Luther (7-
6852, lluther@crs.loc.gov).
38. Identification of Materials That Are Solid Wastes. In conjunction with emission standards
for boilers and solid waste incinerators discussed above in items 18, 19, and 20, EPA finalized
regulations intended to clarify when certain materials burned as fuel in a combustion unit would
be considered a “solid waste.”84 The definition of solid waste plays an important role in
implementing the emission standards for both boilers and solid waste incinerators. The 2007 D.C.
Circuit decision that vacated EPA’s previous emission standards for boilers also vacated EPA’s
definition of terms under its “CISWI Definitions Rule.”85 The D.C. Circuit concluded that EPA
erred in defining “commercial and industrial solid waste” to exclude solid waste that is burned at
a facility in a combustion unit whose design provides for energy recovery or which operates with
energy recovery. Instead, the D.C. Circuit stated 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.’”86 The final rule addresses
issues brought up by the D.C. Circuit and, in doing so, significantly narrows 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
solid waste incinerators (item 20 above).87 The final rule also addresses a host of concerns raised

82 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.
83 The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” published on December 10, 2010 (available online at http://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/eAgendaMain), the estimated date of final action on this proposal is listed as “To Be Determined.”
84 Environmental Protection Agency, Final Rule, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid
Waste,” 76 Federal Register 15455, March 21, 2011.
85 Environmental Protection Agency, Final Rule, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units,” 70 Federal Register
55568, September 22, 2005.
86 This and related court finding are discussed in the final rule at 76 Federal Register 15461.
87 See EPA’s web page “Identification of Non-Hazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste: Final Rulemaking” at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
23

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

by various stakeholders during the public comment period for the proposed rule, including those
of several Members of Congress. In particular, the final rule clarifies that the definition of solid
waste would not affect current used oil recycling regulations (which allows burning used oil in
space heaters, under certain conditions) and explicitly excludes from the definition of solid waste
“scrap tires used in a combustion unit that are … managed under the oversight of established tire
collection programs.” EPA states that this regulatory action would not directly invoke any costs or
benefits. Instead, any costs or benefits would be related to the Boiler MACT and CISWI
Standards (see items 18, 19, and 20, above). For additional information, contact Linda Luther (7-
6852, lluther@crs.loc.gov).



(...continued)
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm.
Congressional Research Service
24

.
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. An agreement was required by
SUVs, and light trucks,
Rule for Model
governing standards
the Supreme
beginning in model
Years 2012-2016
for MY 2017-2025
Court decision in
year 2012. EPA
was announced July
Massachusetts v.
estimates the lifetime
29, 2011, and
EPA, April 2,
increased cost for
standards are
2007.
2012-2016 vehicles at
expected to be
$52 billion, with $240
proposed by
billion in expected
September 30.
benefits.
4.
Clean Air Act
GHG Tailoring
Promulgated June 3,
none
Limits to about 1,600
Rule
2010.
the number of facilities
required to obtain
GHG emission permits
over each of 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.
6.
Clean Air Act
Medium- and
Finalized August 9,
Fuel economy
New trucks beginning
Heavy-Duty
2011.
standards were
in model year 2014.
Vehicle GHG
required by
EPA estimates
Rule
Section 102 of
increased costs for
EISA (P.L. 110-
2014-2018 vehicles at
140). GHG
$8.1 billion, with $57
standards were
billion in projected
required once
benefits.
EPA finalized the
endangerment
finding, and were
harmonized with
the fuel economy
proposal.
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
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 for 2010,
required by the
biofuel producers.
Standard (RFS2)
and on December
Energy
21, 2010, for 2011.
Independence and
Security Act of
2007.
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.
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
10.
Clean Air Act
National
Proposed January
In response to
Recent ozone levels in
Ambient Air
19, 2010; withdrawn petitions for
the vast majority of
Quality Standard
September 2, 2011.
review, EPA
the 675 counties with
for Ozone
agreed to
monitors would have
reconsider the
violated the proposed
ozone NAAQS
standard;
promulgated in
implementation of the
March 2008.
proposed standard
could have led to
widespread new
emission controls at a
projected cost of $19
billion to $90 billion
annual y in 2020, with
comparable levels of
benefits, according to
EPA.
11.
Clean Air Act
National
Proposal expected
D.C. Circuit
PM standards affect a
Ambient Air
in late 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
including “farm
in February 2009.
atmosphere.
dust”
Clean Air Act
requires review
by October 2011.
12.
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.
13.
Clean Air Act
Cross-State Air
Promulgated August D.C. Circuit
Affects electric power
Pollution Rule
8, 2011.
remanded the
plants in 28 Eastern
rule to EPA in
states; sets up cap-and-
2008.
trade programs for
SO2 and NOx, at a
projected annual cost
of $2.4 billion, with
benefits of $120 billion
to $280 billion
annual y, according to
EPA.
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
14.
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
(“Utility MACT”)
remanded to EPA
nation’s electricity.
in February 2008.
EPA estimates annual
EPA, under a
cost at $10.9 billion,
consent decree,
with benefits of $59
has agreed to
billion to $140 billion
promulgate
annual y.
standards by
November 16,
2011.
15.
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 #14
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
significantly to air
(subsequently
pollution which
delayed to
may reasonably
September 30,
be anticipated to
2011), and take final
endanger public
action on the
health or
proposal by May 26,
welfare.” EPA has
2012.
already concluded
that GHGs are
such air pollution.
Electric
generating units
account for one-
third of all U.S.
GHG emissions.
16.
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. D.C.
commercial, and
Boilers (”Boiler
The agency began a
District Court set institutional facilities.
MACT”)
reconsideration
deadline for
EPA estimates annual
process the same
promulgation.
cost at $1.4 billion,
day and expects to
with annual benefits of
complete it by April
$22 billion to $54
30, 2012.
billion.
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
17.
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 and expects to
complete it by April
30, 2012.
18.
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 and expects to
complete it by April
30, 2012.
19.
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.
20.
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 al phases
of operation
including periods
of startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction. The
schedule for
completing this
rule was
established by a
consent decree.
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
21.
Clean Air Act
RICE Rule for
Promulgated August Same as Item 20.
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.
22.
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,
23.
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.
24. Clean
Water Construction
Promulgated
Federal court
Affects about 82,000
Act
Site Effluent
December 1, 2009,
ordered EPA to
firms involved in
Limitation
but rule has been
issue a final rule
residential,
Guidelines
stayed for partial
by December 1,
commercial, highways,
reconsideration.
2009.
street, and bridge
EPA expects to
construction.
propose a revised
rule by December
2, 2011.
25. Clean
Water Pesticide
EPA proposed a
2009 federal
Estimated universe of
Act
Application
draft permit in June
court ruling
affected activities is
General Permit
2010. Final permit
invalidated a 2006 approximately 5.6
to be effective
EPA rule.
million applications
October 31, 2011.
annual y, performed by
365,000 applicators.
26. 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 pol ution
standards.
(e.g., agricultural
lands).
27. 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
pol ution control by
by May 1, 2011.
many point and
nonpoint sources
throughout the
Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Congressional Research Service
30

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
28. Clean
Water Revised
EPA expects to
none
Unknown at this time.
Act
Stormwater Rule
propose a rule in
late 2011.
29. Clean
Water Revised Cooling
EPA proposed
EPA rules issued
Proposal applies to
Act
Water Intake
regulations March
in 2004 were
approximately 1,150
Rule
28, 2011. Final rule
remanded by
existing power plants
due by July 27,
order of a federal
and certain other
2012.
court.
manufacturing facilities.
30. Clean
Water Revised Steam
EPA is developing a
November 2010
Proposal wil 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.
31. Clean
Water SPCC Revisions,
Final rule for milk
none Applicable
facilities
Act
including
storage exemption
that store oil, which
Exemption for
was promulgated
includes milk.
Milk Storage
April 18, 2011.
32. Clean
Water ‘Waters of the
Revised guidance
none
Potential y affects a
Act
United States’
proposed April 27,
wide range of entities
Interpretive
2011
and activities subject
Guidance
to CWA
requirements,
including permits
33. 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.
34.-
Toxic
Lead Renovation,
Training, work
August 2009
Workers and firms
36.
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.
37. Resource
Coal
Proposed June 21,
none Coal-fired
electric
Conservation
Combustion
2010.
power plants.
and Recovery
Waste
Act (RCRA)
Congressional Research Service
31

.
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
38. Resource
Identification of
Promulgated March
D.C. Circuit
Boilers/incinerators
Conservation
Materials That
21, 2011
vacated related
that burn discarded
and Recovery
Are Solid Wastes
rules addressing
materials.
Act (RCRA)
boilers and
incinerators in
2007.
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
32