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

James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
April 5, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41561
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

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

Summary
Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, 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 conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th Congress, and approved
several bills that would overturn specific regulations or limit the agency’s authority. Similar
action may occur in the 113th. 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 also
addressed emissions of conventional pollutants from a number of industries; congressional
scrutiny has focused as well on other environmental statutes and regulations implemented by
EPA.
Environmental groups and others 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. It maintains that pollution control is an important source of economic
activity, exports, and American jobs, as well. 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 regulatory activity to help address
these issues. It examines 46 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 includes tables that show which rules have been finalized and which
remain under development.
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
Congressional Activity .............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Report ........................................................................................................ 8
Clean Air Act and Climate Change .................................................................................................. 8
Climate Change ......................................................................................................................... 8
Renewable Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 11
Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................................... 13
Electric Generating Units ........................................................................................................ 15
Boilers and Incinerators ........................................................................................................... 17
Other ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Clean Water Act ............................................................................................................................. 21
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) .......................................................................................... 29
Solid Waste/Underground Storage Tanks (RCRA) ........................................................................ 30

Tables
Table 1. Major EPA Rules and Modifications Expected to Be Proposed or Promulgated,
April-June 2013 ............................................................................................................................ 6
Table 2. Major or Controversial Rules Promulgated by EPA Since January 2009 ........................ 33
Table 3. Major Rules and Modifications Under Development at EPA .......................................... 40

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 43
Key Policy and Legal Staff ............................................................................................................ 43

Congressional Research Service

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

Introduction
Is EPA on Target or Overreaching? Conflicting Views
Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States in 2009, 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, while also addressing newly emerging pollution
problems and issues. The statutes also mandate that EPA conduct periodic reviews of many of the
standards it issues, and the agency is doing these reviews, as well.
Although supporters would say that EPA is just doing its job, the agency’s regulatory actions over
the last four years 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 scale of EPA regulatory actions “unprecedented,” stated that the agency “has turned a
regulatory firehose on U.S. business”3 and, regarding proposed regulatory actions affecting
electric generating units, it said “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
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 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 committed to
vigorous oversight of the agency’s actions during the 112th Congress,9 with some threatening to
withhold funding if the agency continued on its present course.10 Vigorous oversight may
continue in the 113th Congress—a senior Senate Republican referred recently to a “frightening
flood” of new EPA rules.11
EPA 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, then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson 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).12
In congressional testimony and other fora, Administrator Jackson 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.13

(...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; 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 as Reported
, 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 See “Oil Industry, GOP Criticize EPA’s New Gasoline Rules,” Washington Post, March 30, 2013, p. 3.
12 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.
13 Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, “Telling the Truth about the Environment and Our Economy,” September 2,
2011, http://blog.epa.gov/administrator.
Congressional Research Service
2

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

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.14 Many also fear that recent
decisions to delay the issuance or implementation of several standards are bad omens.
Commenting on EPA’s December 2010 request to delay the issuance of standards for boilers, for
example, Clean Air Watch stated, “there is an unfortunate appearance here that political pressure
from Congress is affecting the situation. That EPA is running scared.”15 These concerns were
renewed following the President’s September 2011 decision to withdraw revised air quality
standards for ozone that EPA had spent two years developing (see “Ambient Air Quality
Standards” section, below) and the agency’s delay in implementation of standards for cement
kilns and other industries.
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 and statutory authorities that Congress has provided. 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
actions16 promulgated, proposed, or under development by EPA since January 2009. The report
uses data from EPA’s Semiannual Regulatory Agendas17 and the list of economically significant
reviews conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)18 to compile a list of 46
regulatory actions proposed, promulgated, or under development by the agency. The list includes
all EPA rules considered “economically significant” by OMB since January 2009,19 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

14 See, for example, comments of Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the
Sierra Club on the proposed emission standards for boilers, as cited in CRS Report R41459, EPA’s Boiler MACT:
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants
, by James E. McCarthy, p. 15.
15 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.
16 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.
17 U.S. EPA, Semiannual Regulatory Agenda: Fall 2012, December 24, 2012, at http://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OA-2012-0987-001.
18 OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Historical Reports, at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/
do/eoHistReviewSearch.
19 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?

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, but related, regulations under one heading.
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 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.20 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 known deadlines, we have attempted to provide EPA’s estimate of
the schedule for promulgation. In some cases, EPA has not estimated a proposal
or 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 or re-
evaluate technical information.
• 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. EPA has also, in several cases,

20 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?

reconsidered rules after promulgation, changing what were announced as “final”
standards, and, in some cases, granting additional time for compliance.
• In many cases, EPA rules must be adopted by states to which the program has
been delegated. Moreover, many states require that the legislature review new
regulations before the new rules would take effect.
• Standards for stationary sources under the air, water, and solid waste laws are
generally implemented through permits, which would be individually issued by
state permitting authorities after the standards take effect. When finalized, a
permit would generally include a compliance schedule, typically giving the
permittee several years for installation of required control equipment. Existing
sources generally will have several years following promulgation and effective
dates of standards, therefore, to comply with any standards.
In short, the road to EPA regulation is rarely a straight path. There are numerous possible causes
of delay. It would be unusual if the regulatory actions described here were all implemented on the
anticipated schedule, and even if they were, existing facilities would often have several years
before being required to comply. That said, Table 1 identifies rules that are likely to be proposed
or promulgated by mid-2013.
Congressional Activity
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 increased, and several bills to prevent or delay
EPA action passed the House. More legislation is considered likely in the 113th Congress. Some
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 has been particularly contentious for regulatory actions involving greenhouse gases.
Although former Administrator Jackson and President Obama 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 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
2011, 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
Congressional Research Service
5

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

various regulatory activities under the EPA’s jurisdiction—many of them focused on GHGs.21 (On
March 9, 2011, the Senate failed to approve the House-passed bill and the enacted appropriation,
H.R. 1473, generally omitted the EPA regulatory provisions in the House-passed bill.)
Table 1. Major EPA Rules and Modifications Expected to Be Proposed or
Promulgated, April-June 2013
Item Number in
This Report
Name of Rule
Type of Rule
Expected Date
16.
New Source Performance
Final
April 13 Statutory Deadline
Standard for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Electric
Generating Units
37.
Revised Steam Electric
Proposal April
19
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines
35. “Post-Construction”
Proposal June
Stormwater
36.
Revised Cooling Water
Final June
Intake
Source: Compiled by CRS.
Note: Expected dates are tentative.
The House also approved legislation to restrict EPA authority and to repeal a dozen EPA
regulatory actions dealing with greenhouse gases (H.R. 910), in April 2011. In the Senate, an
amendment identical to H.R. 910 (S.Amdt. 183) failed on a vote of 50-50.
In reporting H.R. 2584, which would have provided EPA funding for FY2012, the House
Appropriations Committee included more than 25 provisions intended to restrict or preclude the
use of funds to proceed with recent or pending EPA regulatory actions.22 These provisions were
not included in the final appropriation, however (P.L. 112-74, enacted in December 2011). Also,
in July 2012, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 6091, providing EPA funding
for FY2013, which similarly included more than a dozen provisions to limit funding for EPA
regulatory actions. Many were similar to provisions in H.R. 2584.23 These also were generally not
included in the agency’s final appropriation.
In September 2012, the House passed H.R. 3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act, which includes
H.R. 910 and three other bills previously passed by the House (H.R. 2401, described below, H.R.
2273, and H.R. 2018).

21 For information, see CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions
, by Robert Esworthy.
22 For information, see CRS Report R41979, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations:
Overview of Provisions in H.R. 2584 as Reported
, by Robert Esworthy.
23 For information, see CRS Report R42520, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2013,
coordinated by Robert Esworthy. Congress has not completed action on FY2013 appropriations bills, but it has enacted
legislation providing continuing appropriations generally at FY2012 levels through March 27, 2013 (P.L. 112-175). It
does not include provisions that address EPA regulatory actions.
Congressional Research Service
6

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

Besides legislation addressing greenhouse gas regulations, or addressing multiple EPA
regulations, a number of bills addressing individual EPA regulations were introduced and
considered in the 112th Congress. Five of these bills (H.R. 1633, H.R. 2250, H.R. 2273, H.R.
2401, and H.R. 2681) passed the House. None of them passed the Senate. The five bills would
have prevented, revoked, or directed EPA actions on rural dust, boilers and incinerators, coal
combustion waste, electric power plants, and cement kilns, respectively. Resolutions of
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act were also introduced for specific EPA
regulations, but have not passed. S.J.Res. 27, which would have struck EPA’s Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule, was rejected by the Senate in November 2011, and S.J.Res. 37, which would have
struck the agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for electric generating units, was rejected
by the Senate in June 2012.
Beyond the criticism of specific regulations, there also were calls for broad regulatory reforms in
the 112th Congress, 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
was H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which in
general provides that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a
joint resolution of approval is enacted into law.24 The bill passed the House in December 2011.
The House also passed H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act,25 and H.R. 527, the
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, in December 2011. Among other provisions, the first of
these bills would require agencies to adopt the least costly rule that meets relevant statutory
objectives unless the benefits justify additional costs, would provide for judicial review of certain
requirements and determinations for which judicial review is not currently available, and would
impact existing case law on judicial deference to agency interpretations of rules. The second bill,
among other provisions, would require agencies to provide the Chief Counsel of the Small
Business Administration with all materials prepared or utilized in making a proposed rule and
information on the potential adverse and beneficial economic impacts of the proposed rule on
small entities, and it would require the Chief Counsel to convene a panel to review such
materials. On July 26, 2012, the House passed H.R. 4078, to place a moratorium on regulations
that impose costs of more than $50 million until the unemployment rate is 6% or less, and to bar
the President from proposing or promulgating regulations beginning on Election Day of his final
term (so-called “midnight rules”). Similar bills may be considered in the 113th Congress: on
March 20, 2013, the re-introduced REINS Act (H.R. 367) was approved by a House Judiciary
Subcommittee.
Another broad bill, H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation
(TRAIN) Act of 2011, passed the House in September 2011. The House also passed this bill as
part of H.R. 3409 in September 2012. Besides revoking regulations on electric power plants that
EPA has promulgated, H.R. 2401 would have established a panel of representatives of federal
agencies to report to Congress on the cumulative economic impact of a number of listed EPA
rules, guidelines, and actions concerning clean air and waste management, and it would have
required the EPA Administrator to take feasibility and costs into consideration in setting National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, reversing a Supreme Court decision that found EPA could not

24 For information, see CRS Report R41651, REINS Act: Number and Types of “Major Rules” in Recent Years, by
Maeve P. Carey and Curtis W. Copeland.
25 For information, see CRS Report R42104, An Overview and Analysis of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability
Act of 2011
, by Maeve P. Carey.
Congressional Research Service
7

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

consider costs in setting health-based ambient air quality standards. Among the motivations for
the TRAIN Act was 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.26
A number of other House and Senate bills from the 112th Congress could be re-introduced in the
113th Congress.
Organization of the Report
This report organizes the regulatory actions it describes under four headings: Clean Air Act and
Climate Change; Clean Water Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; and Solid Waste (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act). A majority of the rules (29 of the 46) are being developed or
implemented under the regulatory authority of the Clean Air Act. To help organize the
presentation of these 29, 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 two tables. Table 2 shows which rules have been
finalized, and Table 3 shows rules which remain under development.
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.27 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).28 (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, 2011. The first data
submitted under the rule were released January 11, 2012. For additional information, contact Jim
McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).

26 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.
27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule,” 74 Federal
Register
56260, October 30, 2009.
28 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.”
Congressional Research Service
8

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

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.29 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, and on June 26, 2012, the court upheld the regulations. The court’s decision
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) or Rob Meltz (7-7891, rmeltz@crs.loc.gov).
3. Light Duty Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards, Model Years 2012-2016.
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.30 NHTSA is required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA, P.L. 110-140) to promulgate CAFE standards so that by 2020, new cars and light trucks
reach a combined average fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon (mpg). EPA simultaneously issued
vehicle greenhouse gas standards in response to directives from the Supreme Court in
Massachusetts v. EPA. The EPA regulations require a reduction in emissions to an estimated
combined emission level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile by model year 2016, about a 21%
reduction in emissions when fully implemented. The Administration estimates that complying
with the regulations 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 are
being 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. This rule was also upheld by the D.C. Circuit in
the June 26, 2012 Coalition for Responsible Regulation decision. For additional information,
contact Brent Yacobucci (7-9662, byacobucci@crs.loc.gov).
4. Light Duty Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards, Model Years 2017-2025.
Using the same authority described in Item 3 above, EPA and NHTSA finalized joint GHG/fuel
economy rules for 2017-2025 model year vehicles, on August 28, 2012. 31 Under these standards,
GHG emissions from new cars and light trucks will be reduced about 50% by 2025 compared to

29 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.
30 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. Information on benefits and costs are summarized in an April 2010 EPA Fact Sheet, at
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f10014.pdf.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, “2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule,” 77 Federal Register
62624, October 15, 2012. A link to the rule and other information, including a Fact Sheet, is available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-light-duty.htm#new1.
Congressional Research Service
9

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

2010 levels, to an expected fleet average of 163 grams per mile; average fuel economy will rise to
nearly 50 miles per gallon. The agencies estimated that the new technology to comply with the
standards as proposed will cost roughly $1,800 per vehicle in 2025, although lifetime fuel savings
would total roughly $5,700 to $7,400. For additional information, contact Brent Yacobucci (7-
9662, byacobucci@crs.loc.gov).
5. 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.32 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: from 2011 through 2016, 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 EPA estimated that 1,600 new or modified facilities will need to address whether they have
the best available control technology for limiting emissions.33 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 are shielded from permitting requirements
by this rule. This rule was also challenged in Coalition for Responsible Regulation. The D.C.
Circuit dismissed the challenge June 26, 2012. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy
(7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
6. 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, 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 determine what technologies qualify as BACT on a case-
by-case basis, using generic guidance issued by EPA on November 10, 2010.34 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, 2011, was the addition of GHGs to
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 are required to obtain permits, whether or not they would be required
to do so because of emissions of other pollutants.

32 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.
33 In the first 11 months of the program, however, EPA reports that only 68 permit applications were received. See U.S.
EPA, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3, GHG Plantwide
Applicability Limitations and GHG Synthetic Minor Limitations, Proposed Rule, 77 Federal Register 14233, March 8,
2012.
34 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
10

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

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 for GHG emissions, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
7. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule. On September 15, 2011, EPA and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgated integrated GHG
emission standards and fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.35 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).
8. 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. Under the settlement, the agency 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. However, as of this writing (April
2013), the standards have not been proposed. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy
(7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Two other rules affecting GHG emissions are under consideration at EPA: NSPS for GHG
emissions from electric generating units (Item 16, below) and similar standards for Portland
cement manufacturing facilities (discussed in Item 20, below).
Renewable Fuels
9. 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).36 For 2013, the RFS requires the use of 16.55 billion

35 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.
36 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.
Congressional Research Service
11

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

gallons of ethanol and other biofuels in transportation fuel. Within that mandate, the statute
requires the use of 2.75 billion gallons of advanced biofuels (fuels other than corn starch ethanol),
including 1 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels. Because no commercial-scale cellulosic biofuel
refineries have begun operation, EPA has proposed reducing the mandated 2013 level for these
fuels from 1 billion gallons to 14 million ethanol-equivalent gallons (roughly 11 million actual
gallons).37
Similar shortfalls have occurred since 2010 when EISA first required the inclusion of cellulosic
biofuels in the RFS, prompting EPA to revise downward the cellulosic mandate each year.
However, through 2012 no commercial-scale cellulosic biofuel plants had begun operation, and
only about 20,000 gallons of cellulosic biofuel had been registered under the RFS, as opposed to
the 10.45 million ethanol-equivalent gallons (8.65 ethanol-equivalent gallons) required by EPA.
Because of this shortfall in production capacity, in January 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit vacated the 2012 cellulosic mandate.38 In response, in February EPA revised the
2012 cellulosic standard to zero.
Because of the (vacated) requirement to use fuels that are not available in the market (“phantom
fuels”), EPA’s process for determining annual cellulosic volumes has become controversial.
Legislation introduced in the House and Senate, H.R. 550 and S. 251, would amend the Clean Air
Act to set cellulosic fuel requirements based on the prior years’ average monthly production as
opposed to the current statutory requirement for EPA to project production capacity for the year.
For additional information, contact Brent Yacobucci (7-9662, byacobucci@crs.loc.gov).
10. Ethanol Blend Wall Waiver. Section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act effectively limits the
amount of oxygen in gasoline unless EPA issues a waiver. Since ethanol contains oxygen, an
increase in the ethanol content of gasoline offered for sale can only occur if EPA issues such a
waiver. EPA may issue a waiver if the agency determines that the fuel or fuel additive will not
cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system used by vehicle
manufacturers to achieve compliance with emission standards under the act.
On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy (on behalf of 52 U.S. ethanol producers) applied to EPA for a
waiver from the then-current regulation limiting the ethanol content in gasoline to a maximum of
10% (E10). The application requested an increase in the maximum concentration to 15% (E15). A
complete 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.39 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

37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards;
Proposed Rule,” 78 Federal Register 9282-9306, February 7, 2013.
38 API v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
39 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.
Congressional Research Service
12

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

that the waiver would be expanded to include MY2001-2006 vehicles.40 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 engine manufacturers, although that case was dismissed because
none of the petitioners had been injured in fact.41 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.
Because of various factors, expansion of E15 supply has been slow. As of late March 2013, only
13 stations in three states (Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska) had begun selling E15 for use in
conventional vehicles. Further, only three automakers have affirmed that E15 may be used in their
vehicles without voiding warranties.42
In the first quarter of 2013, prices for RFS blending credits (Renewable Identification Numbers,
or RINs) increased dramatically (from roughly $0.08 per gallon in early January to over $1.00 per
gallon in mid-March). The causes of this increase are unclear, but may be driven in part by
concerns from fuel suppliers that the industry is approaching the blend wall and that RINs may be
in short supply. After the mid-March high, RIN prices dropped somewhat, to roughly $0.70 per
gallon in early April. For additional information, contact Brent Yacobucci (7-9662,
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov).
Ambient Air Quality Standards
11. Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards. On January 19, 2010, EPA proposed a revision of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.43 At the President’s request, on
September 2, 2011, this proposal was withdrawn, leaving EPA to implement previously
promulgated 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,

40 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.
41 Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 693 F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
42 For example, General Motors has approved the use of E15 in its model year (MY) 2012 and later vehicles, while
Ford has approved E15 for MY2013 and later vehicles. Porsche approves the use of E15 in MY2001 and later cars.
Robert L. Darbelnet, President and CEO, American Automobile Association, “Suspend Sale of E15 Gasoline,” The
Hill
, December 13, 2012.
43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Proposed Rule,” 75
Federal Register 2938, January 19, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
13

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

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 was 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 $25 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, since work was already underway to update a review of the science that
would result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013.44 EPA expects to propose any
changes resulting from this review by the end of 2013, with promulgation late in 2014. For
additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
12. Particulate Matter (including “Farm Dust”) NAAQS. EPA considers particulate matter
(PM) to be among the most serious air pollutants, responsible for tens of thousands of premature
deaths annually. 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.
EPA completed a review of the PM NAAQS in 2006. The agency is required by the Clean Air Act
to review NAAQS at five-year intervals, so another review was due in 2011. As the review
process was getting underway, in February 2009, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
2006 standard for PM2.5 to EPA, saying that the standard was “contrary to law and unsupported by
adequately reasoned decisionmaking.”45 As a result, EPA combined the statutory five-year review
of the standard and its response to the D.C. Circuit decision, completing a review of the PM
standard that served both purposes in January 2013.46 The review left the standard for coarse
particles unchanged, as well as the standard for 24-hour exposures to PM2.5. But it lowered the
standard for annual exposures to PM2.5, as suggested by the agency’s outside scientific advisers,
from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to 12.

44 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the President on the Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,” September 2, 2011.
45 American Farm Bureau Fed'n v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final
Rule,” 78 Federal Register 3086, January 15, 2013. A link to the standards and other supporting materials can be found
at http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html.
Congressional Research Service
14

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

Although this appears to be a significant strengthening of a standard that potentially affects a
wide array of mobile and stationary sources, EPA projects the incremental cost of the revision at a
relatively modest $53 million to $350 million annually. The cost of compliance with the PM
NAAQS is moderated by the fact that other EPA standards (for various emission sources) are
reducing exposures to PM2.5 even without a strengthening of the ambient standard. Annual
benefits of the more stringent NAAQS were estimated to range from $4.0 billion to $9.1 billion.
In the 112th Congress, attention to PM issues focused on the larger, coarse particles, PM10, even
though EPA did not propose to change them. Members of the House and Senators discussed the
need to prevent a supposed EPA plan to use the revision of the PM10 standard to impose controls
on “farm dust.” The House passed legislation to prevent EPA from tightening standards for PM10
for one year and to permanently limit EPA’s authority to regulate dust in rural areas. EPA stated
early in the PM review process that it did not intend to change the PM10 standard, and the final
revision made no change. For additional information, contact Rob Esworthy (7-7236,
resworthy@crs.loc.gov).
13. Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS. Three other NAAQS reviews (for sulfur dioxide,47 nitrogen
dioxide,48 and carbon monoxide) were completed in 2010 and 2011. Of these, only the sulfur
dioxide (SO2) NAAQS is considered an economically significant rule.49 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
14. 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 promulgated a replacement, the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, August 8, 2011.50 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 was 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. Numerous
parties petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the Cross-State rule, and the court stayed its
implementation pending the completion of the court’s proceedings. On August 21, 2012, the court

47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide; Final
Rule,” 75 Federal Register 35520, June 22, 2010.
48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide;
Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 6473, February 9, 2010.
49 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.
50 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
15

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

vacated the standards and remanded them to EPA. Because of the earlier CAIR requirements,
which remain in effect pending their replacement and, more recently, because power companies
have replaced substantial amounts of coal-fired generation with cheaper (and cleaner) natural-
gas-fired units, electric generators have already achieved more than two-thirds of the pollution
reductions necessary to comply with the 2014 standards. For additional information, contact Jim
McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
15. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards / 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 and promulgate Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards by the end of 2011. EPA states that the standards for existing units,
promulgated February 16, 2012,51 can be met by 56% of coal- and oil-fired electric generating
units using pollution control equipment already installed; the other 44% would be required to
install technology that will reduce uncontrolled mercury and acid gas emissions by about 90%, at
an annual cost of $9.6 billion. Standards for new facilities are more stringent, and many
(including the industry that manufactures pollution control and monitoring equipment), doubted
whether compliance with the mercury portion of these standards could be measured. In response
to industry petitions, EPA reconsidered the mercury limit for new facilities, and announced
changes to the standards for new facilities on March 29, 2013.
EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the Utility MACT, including the avoidance of up to
11,000 premature deaths annually, will be between $37 billion and $90 billion. Following
promulgation of these standards in 2012, 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).
16. NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Generating Units. EPA has stated for some time
that it would undertake 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. In a settlement agreement with 11 states and
other parties, EPA agreed to propose the NSPS for power plants by July 26, 2011, and take final
action on the proposal by May 26, 2012. This schedule encountered delays: proposed standards
were not released until March 27, 2012,52 and the final standards have been delayed as well. The
agency faces a statutory deadline of April 13, 2013, for promulgation, but the rule had not yet
gone to OMB for interagency review as of April 1.

51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility,
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units,” 77
Federal Register 9304, February 16, 2012.
52 The standards appeared in the Federal Register on April 13, 2012. The standards and supporting materials are
available at http://www.epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/actions.html.
Congressional Research Service
16

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

EPA set the proposed GHG emission standards at a level achievable by uncontrolled natural-gas-
fired units or by coal-fired units using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Although
the components of CCS technology have been demonstrated, no existing power plant combines
them all in an operating unit, and the electric power industry has generally concluded that a CCS
requirement would effectively prohibit the construction of new coal-fired plants, other than those
already permitted. EPA maintains otherwise, but it also says that, because of low natural gas
prices and abundant existing generation capacity, it believes no new coal-fired units subject to the
proposed standards will be constructed between now and 2020. For additional information,
contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Boilers and Incinerators
17.-18. 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.53 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 initiated a reconsideration after it released the final rule, and it
promulgated changes to the rule on January 31, 2013.54 In addition to adjusting the rule’s
emission standards, the January 2013 rule reset the clock for compliance, effectively giving
industry almost two additional years to install control equipment.
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 January
2013 rule will set more stringent standards. It will affect about 14,000 boilers, according to the
agency, with annual costs estimated at $1.2 billion and benefits of $25 billion to $67 billion
annually, including the avoidance of 3,100 to 7,900 premature deaths.
EPA also promulgated what are called “area source” standards for smaller boilers at the same time
as the MACT.55 The area source standards would affect 183,000 boilers, most of which would
only be required to perform a tune-up every two to five years to comply with the regulations. EPA
estimated the net cost of the area source rule to be $490 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).

53 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.
54 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; Final Rule; Notice of Final Action on Reconsideration,” 78
Federal Register 7138, January 31, 2013.
55 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.
Final action on reconsideration appeared in the February 1, 2013, Federal Register (78 FR 7488).
Congressional Research Service
17

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

19. Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Standards. A third
regulation promulgated and reconsidered at the same time as the boiler MACT and area source
boiler rules sets standards for emissions from commercial and industrial solid waste
incinerators.56 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 106, with annual costs
of $271 million, according to EPA, and benefits of $380 million-$1 billion annually. For
additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Other
20. 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 (MACT) standards for hazardous air pollutants from both
existing and new cement kilns.57 When fully implemented in late 2013, the standards would have
required a 92% reduction in emissions of both particulate matter and mercury and a 97%
reduction in emissions of acid gases, according to EPA, as well as controlling other pollutants.
EPA had previously issued emission standards for this industry in 1999, but the standards were
challenged in court and remanded to the agency by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The new
rules reflect EPA’s reconsideration of the standards.
The agency estimated that it would cost the industry $350 million annually to comply with the
2010 standards, but that benefits (including the avoidance of 960 to 2,500 premature deaths in
people with heart disease) would be worth $6.7 billion to $18 billion annually. The trade
association representing the industry said the standards would cause some facilities to close. On
December 9, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the 2010 standards to EPA for the
agency to reconsider emission standards for kilns that use solid waste as fuel. The court did not
stay implementation of the 2010 standards, but EPA, in proposing changes to the particulate
portion of the standards on June 25, 2012, announced its intention to give the industry an
additional two years to comply, with a third year available if needed. The changes are estimated
to reduce industry costs by $52 million annually, compared to the 2010 rule. EPA finalized these
changes, February 12, 2013.58
Further regulation of this industry, which is the third highest stationary U.S. source of carbon
dioxide emissions, has been under consideration: when EPA promulgated the rule in September
2010, it stated in the rule’s preamble to the rule that it is “working towards a proposal for GHG
standards” for these plants.59 It is uncertain when such a rule might be proposed. For additional
information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).

56 The 2011 standards were: 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. The notice of final action on reconsideration is at 78 Federal
Register
9112, February 7, 2013.
57 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.
58 78 Federal Register 10006, February 12, 2013.
59 Ibid., p. 54997.
Congressional Research Service
18

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

21.-22. Stationary Internal Combustion Engines. EPA set standards for both compression-
ignition60 (generally diesel) and spark ignition (generally gasoline) stationary engines61 in 2010.
The agency subsequently amended the rules on January 30, 2013.62 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
estimated that 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 were estimated to be $626 million in 2013. EPA
states that the 2013 amendments will reduce the annualized costs by $139 million (to $487
million). The amendments were issued in response to a suit by the Engine Manufacturers
Association. The most controversial of the amendments allows backup generators to operate for
up to 100 hours per year during emergency or peak power use periods without being subject to
emission limits, although they will need to use low sulfur fuel beginning in 2015. For additional
information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
23.-24. 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 engines63 and it proposed the
establishment of Emission Control Areas (ECAs) extending 200 nautical miles off most U.S.
shores.64 In the ECAs, which received final approval in March 2010, both U.S. and foreign ships
were required to use low sulfur fuel, beginning in 2012. 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 ECAs and the new standards were supported by both
industry and environmental groups, and have been extended to cover the U.S. Caribbean,
beginning in 2014. In July 2012, however, controversy arose over the requirement that ships in
Alaskan waters use low sulfur fuel, with the state of Alaska filing suit to block implementation of
the fuel requirement. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225,
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
25. Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution Standards. In February 2010, EPA signed a consent
agreement under which it was to promulgate revisions of the New Source Performance Standards
and Hazardous Air Pollutant standards for oil and gas production by November 30, 2011. The

60 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.
61 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.
62 78 Federal Register 6674, January 30, 2013.
63 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.
64 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
19

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

agency promulgated these rules on August 16, 2012.65 Under the CAA, EPA is required to review
New Source Performance Standards every eight years; the revisions update NSPS rules for VOCs
and SO2 that were promulgated in 1985. Similarly, EPA had a statutory obligation to review
hazardous air pollutant standards for oil and natural gas production, which were issued in 1999,
by 2007. Additionally, the 2012 rules are the first regulations to address emissions from natural
gas wells that use hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). The new standards, which will be fully
implemented by 2015, will require companies to capture natural gas and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) that escape when hydraulically fractured gas wells are prepared for
production. The rules affect production, processing, transmission, and storage, but not distribution
to customers. EPA estimates that the rules will result in the capture of 95% of the VOCs and
methane otherwise emitted. Although there are costs associated with the use of equipment to
capture the emissions, EPA estimates that the rules will produce a net annual savings of $11
million to $19 million for the industry, because the captured gas and condensate can be sold.
Some states already require similar measures, and EPA estimates that about half of fracked
natural gas wells already meet the standards. For additional information, contact Rick Lattanzio
(7-1754, rlattanzio@crs.loc.gov).
26. Tier 3 Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks and Gasoline
Standards.
In February 2011, EPA began to scope out new emissions standards for conventional
pollutants (i.e., non-greenhouse gases) from passenger cars and light trucks. In a May 2010
memorandum from the White House to the EPA and NHTSA Administrators, President Obama
had directed EPA to review the adequacy of the current “Tier 2” emissions standards for these
vehicles, which EPA finalized in February 2000, and were phased in between MY2004 and
MY2009.66 EPA announced proposed standards March 29, 2013. As with the Tier 2 standards, the
proposed Tier 3 standards include changes to both vehicle emission limits and fuel formulation
rules, lowering allowable sulfur content to facilitate the use of new technology. The proposal
would lower allowable sulfur from 30 parts per million to a maximum of 10, and would require
reductions in vehicle emissions of 70%-80%. In letters to the EPA Administrator, several Senators
have asked EPA to delay its rulemaking over concerns that the new fuel standards would raise the
price of gasoline,67 but EPA maintains that the rule as proposed would add less than a penny a
gallon to the price of gasoline, while reducing emissions by the equivalent of removing 33 million
cars from the road. For additional information, contact Brent Yacobucci (7-9662,
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov) or Rick Lattanzio (7-1754, rlattanzio@crs.loc.gov).
27. Flares and Process Heaters at Petroleum Refineries. On September 12, 2012, EPA
promulgated amendments to New Source Performance Standards for flares and process heaters at
petroleum refineries.68 The amendments are the result of the agency’s reconsideration of
standards it promulgated on June 24, 2008. The agency estimates that the reconsidered rules will

65 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews; Final Rule,” 77 Federal Register 49490, August
16, 2012. For information, see http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html.
66 For more information on the Tier 2 standards, see CRS Report RS20247, EPA's Tier 2 Emission Standards for New
Motor Vehicles: A Fact Sheet
, by David M. Bearden.
67 Jeremy P. Jacobs, “Bipartisan Senate Group Seeks Delay in EPA Tailpipe Rules,” E&E News PM, January 12, 2012.
Also, “Four Democratic Senators Urge EPA to Issue Advance Notice on Proposed Rule for Tier 3,” Daily Environment
Report
, March 22, 2013.
68 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries; Performance Standards
for Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Began After May 14, 2007,” 77
Federal Register, 56422, September 12, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
20

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

have capital costs of $460 million, but will result in savings to the industry of $79 million per
year, while resulting in monetized benefits of $240 million to $580 million annually, principally
from the avoided health impacts caused by reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
28. Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali MACT Standards. In December 2003, EPA promulgated
MACT standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants from plants that manufacture chlorine
using the mercury cell chlor-alkali process. This is an old technology that has been phased out by
95% of the chlorine industry. At the time of the rule’s promulgation, there were 12 plants still
using the technology; but as of late 2012, there were only four, two of which were expected to
close by early 2013.
EPA was asked to reconsider the 2003 standards by the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), and it agreed to do so. NRDC argues that EPA should have required the remaining
chlor-alkali plants to switch to newer technology that does not use mercury. After developing new
data on the costs of converting plants to non-mercury technology, EPA proposed revised
standards on June 11, 2008. The revised standards would not have required the technology
switch, but would have required more stringent work practice requirements.
As a result of comments on the June 2008 proposal, the agency proposed a supplement to that
proposal on March 14, 2011.69 The 2011 supplement contains two options: the first would require
the elimination of mercury emissions, effectively requiring conversion to non-mercury-cell
technology. The second option would require a strengthening of work practices (as proposed in
2008) to reduce (but not eliminate) emissions. EPA estimated the annual compliance costs of
Option 1 at $13 million, with benefits ranging from $21 million to $43 million, but it conceded
that there is still uncertainty regarding numerous facets of the cost analysis, and it requested
further comments. Option 2 was estimated to have annual costs of $25,000, with no monetized
benefits. For additional information, contact Jim McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
29. Brick and Clay MACT. EPA promulgated Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards for hazardous air pollutants emitted by manufacturers of bricks, structural clay
products, and clay ceramics in 2003, but the standards were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals in 2007. The agency has not taken action since that time, and was sued by the Sierra
Club for its failure to act. Under a proposed consent decree published December 7, 2012, the
agency has agreed to sign proposed standards in place of the vacated rule by August 30, 2013,
and to sign a final rule for promulgation by July 31, 2014. For additional information, contact Jim
McCarthy (7-7225, jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov).
Clean Water Act
30. Construction Site Effluent Limitations Guidelines. On December 1, 2009, EPA
promulgated regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA), called effluent limitations guidelines
(ELGs), to limit pollution from stormwater runoff at construction sites based on Best Available

69 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury
Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants; Supplemental Proposed Rule,” 76 Federal Register 13852, March
14, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
21

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

Technology.70 The rule, called the Construction and Development, or C&D, 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 nationwide
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.
In November 2010, EPA promulgated a direct final rule to stay the effectiveness of the numeric
turbidity limit in the 2009 rule; other portions of the rule remain in effect.71 To resolve industry
challenges, on April 1, EPA proposed modifications of the 2009 rule, including changes specific
to the non-numeric portions and withdrawal of the numeric turbidity effluent limitations in the
2009 rule. If more data on numeric discharge standards for construction sites become available,
EPA could initiate a new rulemaking in the future.72 For additional information, contact Claudia
Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
31. Pesticide Application General Permit. EPA has developed 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 was issued on October 31, 2011, 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.73 The estimated universe of affected activities is approximately 5.6 million
applications annually, which are performed by 365,000 applicators, in four use patterns: mosquito
and other flying insect pest control, aquatic weed and algae control, aquatic nuisance animal
control, and forest canopy pest control. The permit requires all operators covered by the permit to
minimize pesticide discharges to waters by practices such as using the lowest amount of pesticide
product that is optimal for controlling the target pest. It also requires operators to prepare plans to
document their pest management practices. Under OMB’s criteria, the permit is not a significant
rule, but is “economically significant.”74 Meanwhile, in the 112th Congress, the House passed

70 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Effluent Limitation Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point
Source Category,” 74 Federal Register 62996-63058, December 1, 2009.
71 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.
72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and
Development Point Source Category,” 78 Federal Register 19434-19442, April 1, 2013.
73 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides; Notice of final permit,” 76 Federal Register
68750-68756, November 7, 2011.
74 “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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22

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

legislation (H.R. 872) intended to overturn the court’s 2009 ruling by exempting aerial pesticide
application activities from clean water permit requirements. The Senate Agriculture Committee
also approved H.R. 872, and the text of the bill also was included as a provision of 2012 farm bill
legislation approved by the House Agriculture Committee (H.R. 6083) and in other bills (S. 1720
and S. 2365).75 Similar legislation has been introduced in the 113th Congress (H.R. 935 and S.
175). For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
32. 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, called the “inland
waters rule,” on December 5, 2010. 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. The rule would not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated
entities or other sources of nutrient pollution.
The 2010 rule has not yet gone into effect, because, in response to criticism of the standards, EPA
delayed the effective date of the rule to allow local governments, businesses, and the state of
Florida time to review the standards and develop implementation strategies. While few dispute
the need to reduce nutrients in Florida’s waters, EPA’s 2010 rule has been controversial, involving
disputes about the data underlying the proposal, potential costs of complying with numeric
standards when they are incorporated by the state into discharge permit limitations, and disputes
over administrative flexibility. EPA has said all along that it prefers that Florida implement its
own numeric nutrient water quality criteria, and in June 2012 the state submitted revised
standards with numeric nutrient criteria. In response, EPA indicated to the state that the agency
likely would approve the standards, at which time the agency would initiate administrative action
to repeal the 2010 federal rule. EPA’s deadline for issuing the second phase of standards, for
estuaries, coastal waters, and flowing waters in the South Florida Region, also was extended
several times to allow the state to develop its own standards.
In March 2013, EPA and the state reached agreement in principle on steps that will put the state in
charge of determining numeric limits on nutrient pollution in Florida waterways. Groundwork for
the agreement was laid in November when EPA approved the state’s June 2012 submission for
lakes, rivers, streams, and some estuaries. Under the March agreement, Florida will move forward
with rulemaking and legislation this year to complete the job of setting numeric nutrient criteria
for Florida waterways. The proposed state legislation would require completion of nutrient

(...continued)
Order 12866.
75 For additional information, see CRS Report RL32884, Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws
Complementary or in Conflict?
, by Claudia Copeland.
Congressional Research Service
23

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

criteria rulemaking for remaining coastal and estuarine waters by December 1, 2014, and
establishment of interim nutrient standards until then. EPA issued a statement saying that the
agency is prepared to withdraw federal rules for any waters that become covered by state law that
meets requirements of the CWA.76 For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227,
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
33. 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 jurisdictions 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.77 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 jurisdictions 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.78 Pursuant to the schedule of steps in the TMDL,
jurisdictions are now developing specific plans called Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs),
which outline the types of controls and best management practices that will be used to reduce
pollution in the Bay. EPA approved the first phase WIPs in December 2010, and also has
reviewed the jurisdictions’ Phase II WIPs, which provide greater detail about pollutant reductions
planned through the year 2017. The TMDL has been controversial with agricultural and other
groups that are concerned about the likely mandatory nature of many of EPA’s and states’
upcoming actions. A lawsuit challenging EPA’s authority to set pollution limits under the
multistate TMDL was filed by the American Farm Bureau Federation in January 2011. For
additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
34. Airport Deicing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards
. In April 2012, EPA promulgated regulations under the CWA to limit water pollution
from aircraft and airport runway deicing operations.79 The rule is intended to limit runoff of
deicing fluid, because it contains urea and other contaminants that contribute to low oxygen
levels in streams, which can cause fish kills, algal blooms, and contamination of surface water or
groundwater. The rule, which had been under development for several years and was proposed in
2009, is part of ongoing EPA activities under the CWA to regulate wastewater discharges from
categories of industries through new and revised effluent limitations guidelines. EPA estimated
that the final rule will reduce the volume of deicing-related pollutants by 16.4 million pounds at a
cost of $3.5 million annually. Those estimates are substantially less than the 44.6 million pounds
of pollutants estimated in the proposed rule, which was projected to cost the industry $91.3

76 For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/florida_index.cfm.
77 For additional information, see CRS Report R42752, Clean Water Act and Pollutant Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs)
, by Claudia Copeland.
78 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.
79 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Airport Deicing Category; Final rule,” 77 Federal Register 29168-29205, May 16, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
24

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

million annually. EPA estimates that the final rule will apply to 198 existing airports. For
additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
35. “Post-Construction” 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 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. Under a consent agreement
with environmental groups, EPA expects to propose a rule by June 10, 2013, and to issue a final
rule by December 10, 2014. For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227,
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
36. 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.80 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.81 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, 2011, and, under
the consent decree, is required to take final action by June 30, 2013. Even before release, the
proposed rule was highly controversial. Many in industry feared, while environmental groups
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. In addition, in June 2012, EPA announced that it is considering options for revising
portions of the proposed rule.82 For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227,
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
37. Revised Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines. Under authority of CWA Section
304, EPA establishes national technology-based regulations, called effluent limitations guidelines

80 40 CFR §125.90 and 40 CFR §125.130.
81 Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009).
82 The rule was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2011. 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.
Congressional Research Service
25

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

(ELGs), to reduce pollutant discharges from industries directly to waters of the United States and
indirectly to municipal wastewater treatment plants based on Best Available Technology. These
requirements are incorporated into discharge permits issued by EPA and states. The current steam
electric power plant rules83 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.84
Pursuant to a consent decree with environmental litigants, EPA agreed to propose the revised
power plant ELG by April 19, 2013, and to finalize the rule by May 22, 2014. For additional
information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
38. Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Requirements, including deadline
extension for farms and 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 1973.85 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 2002.86 However, EPA has both extended the
2002 rule’s compliance date (on multiple occasions) and made further amendments to the 2002
rule. On one occasion, amendments offered by the Bush Administration’s EPA in 2008 were
eliminated by the Obama Administration’s EPA the following year.87
For most types of facilities subject to SPCC requirements, the deadline for complying with the
changes made in 2002 was November 10, 2011.88 However, in a November 2011 rulemaking,
EPA extended the compliance date for farms to May 10, 2013.89
Pursuant to the CWA definition of oil, the SPCC requirements apply to petroleum-based and non-
petroleum-based oil.90 In a 1975 Federal Register notice, EPA clarified that its 1973 SPCC
regulations apply to oils from animal and vegetable sources.91 EPA subsequently stated that “milk

83 40 CFR §423.10.
84 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.”
85 38 Federal Register 34164, December 11, 1973.
86 67 Federal Register 47041, July 17, 2002.
87 A November 13, 2009 rule (74 Federal Register 58784) eliminated specific exclusions/exemptions made by a
December 5, 2008 rulemaking (73 Federal Register 74236).
88 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Rule Compliance Date Amendment,” 75 Federal Register 63093, October 14, 2010.
89 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Rule—Compliance Date Amendment for Farms,” 76 Federal Register 72120, November 22, 2011.
90 See CWA Section 311(a) (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)).
91 40 Federal Register 28849, July 9, 1975.
Congressional Research Service
26

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

typically contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil” and is thus potentially
subject to SPCC provisions.92 However, in January 2009, EPA proposed a conditional exemption
from SPCC requirements for milk storage units.93 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.94 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).
39. “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 could impair 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 2011, 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
water quality would apply to more waters than currently are considered jurisdictional—a
conclusion that has pleased some and alarmed others.95 The proposed guidance was subject to
public comment until July 31, 2011, and revised guidance was sent to OMB for review on
February 21, 2012. At some point—either after the guidance is finalized or in lieu of final
guidance—the agencies expect to propose revisions to their regulations to further clarify which
waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings, but there is

92 74 Federal Register 2461, January 15, 2009.
93 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Rule Requirements—Amendments,” 74 Federal Register 2461, January 15, 2009.
94 76 Federal Register 21652, April 18, 2011.
95 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.
Congressional Research Service
27

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

no schedule for when this will occur.96 For additional information, contact Claudia Copeland (7-
7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
40. 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 improve regulation and strengthen environmental reviews of
permit requirements under the CWA and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA). Viewed broadly, the Administration’s combined actions on mountaintop mining
displease both industry and environmental advocates. The additional scrutiny of permits and more
stringent requirements have angered the coal industry and many of its supporters. At the same
time, while environmental groups support EPA’s steps to restrict the practice, many favor tougher
requirements or even total rejection of mountaintop mining in Appalachia. Many of the actions
have been highly controversial in Congress.
EPA is a key participant in several of the actions. In 2009 EPA and the Corps began conducting
detailed evaluations of 79 pending CWA permit applications for surface mining activities in order
to limit environmental impacts of the proposed activities under a process called Enhanced
Coordination Procedures (ECP). Coal industry groups and coal state officials contended that the
ECP process resulted in costly delay in issuance of permits. They challenged the process in
federal court, and in October 2011, the court struck down the ECP as an unlawful transfer of legal
authority from the Corps to EPA. The agencies are continuing to review permit applications for
surface coal mining projects in Appalachia under existing rules, but not the vacated ECP. In July
2012, the same federal court invalidated a 2011 EPA guidance document intended to help assess a
mine’s water quality impacts, ruling that EPA had overstepped its statutory authority. The
government has appealed both of these rulings.
In June 2010, the Army Corps suspended the use of a particular CWA general permit for surface
coal mining activities in Appalachia. In February 2012, the Corps reissued all of its CWA general
permits, including one (nationwide permit 21) to replace the suspended permit with a permit
containing more stringent CWA rules applicable to these coal mining operations.97
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
that affects surface coal mining operations, called the stream buffer zone rule, which was
promulgated in December 2008.98 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. Since then, OSM officials have been working on
developing a new rule and an accompanying draft environmental impact statement (EIS), which

96 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33263, The Wetlands Coverage of the Clean Water Act (CWA):
Rapanos and Beyond
, by Robert Meltz and Claudia Copeland.
97 For information see CRS Report 97-223, The Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program: Issues and
Regulatory Developments
, by Claudia Copeland.
98 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.
Congressional Research Service
28

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

are expected to be proposed in 2014. The revised stream buffer rule, when promulgated, is
expected to apply nationwide, not just in Appalachia. Potential changes to the 2008 rule have
drawn controversy and criticism. In the 112th Congress, the House passed H.R. 3409, to prevent
the Secretary of the Interior from proposing or issuing regulations under SMCRA prior to
December 31, 2013, that would designate areas as “unsuitable” for surface coal mining, adversely
affect coal mine employment, or reduce the size of the coal market. For additional information,
contact Claudia Copeland (7-7227, ccopeland@crs.loc.gov).
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
41.-43. Lead: Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Rules. EPA has revised a 2008 final
rule implementing Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA; enacted as the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.) The rule aims to reduce human
health hazards associated with exposure to lead-based paint. It established requirements for
training and certifying workers and firms that remodel, repair, or paint homes or child-occupied
public or commercial buildings likely to contain lead-based paint (generally built before 1978).
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. In May 2010, EPA published an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking that addressed public and commercial buildings that are not child-
occupied.99 A final version of that rule was expected in 2015, according to the Unified Regulatory
Agenda issued for fall 2011. However, on Dec. 31, 2012, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register
stating:
EPA is in the process of determining whether these activities [renovation, repair, and
painting of public and commercial buildings] create lead-based paint hazards, and, for those
that do, developing certification, training, and work practice requirements as directed by the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This document opens a comment period to allow for
additional data and other information to be submitted by the public and interested
stakeholders. This document also provides advance notice of EPA’s plan to hold a public
meeting on June 26, 2013.100
The comment period for this phase of rulemaking ended April 1, 2013. A second rule, proposed
in May 2010, addressed the testing requirements after renovations are complete.101 That rule was
revised and promulgated July 15, 2011, effective October 4, 2011.102 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

99 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.
100 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Meetings: Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and
Commercial Buildings,” 77 Federal Register 76996, Dec. 31, 2012.
101 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.
102 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.
Congressional Research Service
29

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

significant amounts of time there.103 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 2010, Congress included a provision in P.L. 111-212, a supplemental
appropriations act, which 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 in P.L. 111-88 to enforce the rule.104 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. In the 112th Congress, H.R.
5911/S. 2148 would have amended provisions of TSCA imposing these requirements, but neither
chamber acted on this proposal. For additional information, contact Linda-Jo Schierow (7-7279,
lschierow@crs.loc.gov)
Solid Waste/Underground Storage Tanks (RCRA)
44. 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
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.105 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.

103 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.
104 Sven-Erik Kaiser, EPA Congressional Liaison, personal communication, September 14, 2011.
105 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and
Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities,” 75 Federal Register
35127-35264, June 21, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
30

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

EPA has not projected a date to promulgate a final rule. However, on April 5, 2012, a coalition of
environmental groups filed suit to compel EPA to finalize its proposed rulemaking.106 For
additional information, contact Linda Luther (7-6852, lluther@crs.loc.gov).
45. Identification of Non-Hazardous Materials That Are Solid Wastes When Burned. In
conjunction with emission standards for boilers and solid waste incinerators discussed above in
Items 17, 18, and 19, in February 2011, EPA finalized regulations intended to clarify when certain
materials burned as fuel in a combustion unit would be considered a “solid waste.”107 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.”108 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.’”109 The 2011 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.110 EPA anticipates that boiler operators that
burn materials newly-identified as a solid waste would switch to a non-waste fuel, rather than
being subject to the more stringent emission standards applicable to solid waste incinerators (Item
19, above). The final rule also addresses a host of concerns raised 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 17, 18,
and 19, above). On February 7, 2013, EPA amended the 2011 rule to clarify specific elements of
the regulations. The amendments were jointly promulgated with EPA’s reconsideration of the
CISWI proposed rule (Item 19, above). For additional information, contact Linda Luther (7-6852,
lluther@crs.loc.gov).
46. Underground Storage Tanks. In November 2011, EPA proposed revisions to the agency’s
1988 Underground Storage Tank (UST) technical regulations, financial responsibility
requirements, and state program approval regulations promulgated under Subtitle I of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (SWDA).111 The proposed revisions address changes made in the Energy

106 Appalachian Voices et al. v. Lisa P. Jackson, Case No. 1:12-cv-00523 (D.D.C.), April 5, 2012.
107 Environmental Protection Agency, Final Rule, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are
Solid Waste,” 76 Federal Register 15455, March 21, 2011.
108 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.
109 This and related court finding are discussed in the final rule at 76 Federal Register 15461.
110 See EPA’s web page “Identification of Non-Hazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste: Final Rulemaking” at
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm.
111 Environmental Protection Agency, “Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations-Revisions to Existing
Requirements for Secondary Containment and Operator Training,” 76 Federal Register 71708, November 18, 2011.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
31

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

Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58)112 and also update UST leak prevention and detection
technologies and requirements.113 The revisions are intended to improve leak prevention and
detection of releases from USTs, which EPA and states report as a leading source of groundwater
contamination. Proposed revisions to UST technical regulations include (1) secondary
containment requirements for new and replaced tanks and piping, (2) training requirements for
UST owners and operators, (3) new operation and maintenance requirements, (4) new release
prevention and detection technologies, and (5) updated codes of practice.
EPAct 2005 amended the SWDA to require states that receive federal funding under Subtitle I to
meet certain requirements (such as operator training and secondary containment requirements).
The proposed rule would expand on EPAct and further apply these requirements in Indian country
and in states that do not receive Subtitle I funds. EPA’s stated goal is to make UST requirements
similar in all states and in Indian Country. Additionally, the proposed rule would expand the
scope of certain requirements beyond those established in law. For example, EPAct requires states
receiving Subtitle I money to require secondary containment for new or replaced tanks if they are
installed within 1,000 feet of a community water system or drinking water well. EPA proposes to
require secondary containment for new or replaced tanks in all locations.
Among the updates to the 1988 UST rules, the proposal would modify the requirement that UST
systems must be compatible with stored substances, by adding options for owners and operators
to demonstrate that UST systems are compatible with fuel containing more than 10% ethanol
(E10) or 20% biodiesel (B20).114 The public comment period for the proposal closed on April 16,
2012. EPA plans to issue a final rule in late 2013. For additional information, contact Mary
Tiemann (7-5937, mtiemann@crs.loc.gov.)

Two tables follow. In the first, Table 2, we identify major or controversial rules promulgated by
EPA since January 2009. In the second, Table 3, we identify rules still under development at the
agency. The latter table includes rules not yet proposed, rules that have been proposed but not yet
promulgated, and in several cases rules already promulgated but now being reconsidered by the
agency.

(...continued)
The Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) is commonly referred to as the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act.
112 P.L. 109-58, Title XV, Subtitle B, comprises the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act (USTCA) which
broadly amended the UST leak prevention and provisions of SWDA Subtitle I (42 U.S.C. §6991-6991m).
113 Technical regulations are located at 40 C.F.R. §280. EPA also proposes to revise state program approval
requirements in 40 C.F.R. §281 to incorporate changes to the technical regulations.
114 A comparison of the key differences between the 1988 rule and the proposed rule is available at
http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/Crosswalk.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32

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

Table 2. Major or Controversial Rules Promulgated by EPA Since January 2009
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 were
November 8, 2010.
subsequently added.
First data were
released 1/11/12.
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,
May 7, 2010; these, in
2007.
turn, triggered GHG
permit requirements
for stationary sources.
3.
Clean Air Act
Light Duty Motor Promulgated May 7,
Required by
New cars, minivans,
Vehicle GHG
2010.
Section 202 of
SUVs, and light trucks,
Rule for Model
the Clean Air Act
beginning in model
Years 2012-2016
once the agency
year 2012. EPA
found
estimates the lifetime
endangerment of
increased cost for
public health or
2012-2016 vehicles at
welfare from
$52 billion, with $240
GHG emissions.
billion in expected
benefits.
4.
Clean Air Act
Light Duty Motor Promulgated August Same as 3.
New cars, minivans,
Vehicle GHG
28, 2012.
SUVs, and light trucks,
Rule for Model
beginning in model
Years 2017-2025
year 2017. EPA
estimates that the
technology to comply
with the standards will
add roughly $1,800 to
the cost of new
vehicles in 2025,
although lifetime fuel
savings would total
roughly $5,700 to
$7,400.
5.
Clean Air Act
GHG Tailoring
Promulgated June 3,
None
Limits to an estimated
Rule
2010.
1,600 the number of
facilities required to
obtain GHG emission
permits over each of
the years 2011-2013.
Congressional Research Service
33

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

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
6.
Clean Air Act
PSD and Title V
Effective January 2,
Required once
Applies only to large
Permit
2011.
the Light Duty
stationary sources
Requirements for
Motor Vehicle
identified by the
GHG Emissions
Rule was
Tailoring Rule.
promulgated.
7.
Clean Air Act
Medium- and
Promulgated
Fuel economy
New trucks beginning
Heavy-Duty
September 15,
standards were
in model year 2014.
Vehicle GHG
2011.
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.
9.
Clean Air Act
Expanded
Promulgated March
Decisions
Petroleum refiners,
Renewable Fuel
26, 2010 for 2010;
required by the
biofuel producers.
Standard (RFS2)
on December 21,
Energy
2010 for 2011; and
Independence and
on January 9, 2012
Security Act of
for 2012.
2007.
10.
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
34

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

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
11.
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
EPA is near
agreed to
monitors would have
completion of its
reconsider the
violated the proposed
next review, with
ozone NAAQS
2010 standard;
proposal of any
promulgated in
implementation of the
changes in the
March 2008.
proposed standard
standards expected
Court chal enge
could have led to
by late 2013, and
to the 2008
widespread new
promulgation in late
standards
emission controls at a
2014.
(Mississippi v. EPA) projected cost of $19
was stayed
billion to $25 billion
pending the
annual y in 2020, with
reconsideration,
comparable levels of
but is now
benefits, according to
proceeding. Clean EPA.
Air Act required
review of the
2006 standards by
March 2013.
12.
Clean Air Act
National
Promulgated January D.C. Circuit
PM standards affect a
Ambient Air
15, 2013.
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
required review
by October 2011.
13.
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.
14.
Clean Air Act
Cross-State Air
Promulgated August The rule would
Affects electric power
Pollution Rule
8, 2011.
replace the Clean
plants in 28 eastern
Implementation was
Air Interstate
states; sets up cap-and-
stayed by the D.C.
Rule, which the
trade programs for
Circuit Court of
D.C. Circuit
SO2 and NOx, at a
Appeals, December
remanded to EPA
projected annual cost
30, 2011, and the
in 2008.
of $2.4 billion, with
standards were
benefits of $120 billion
vacated and
to $280 billion
remanded to EPA
annual y, according to
August 21, 2012.
EPA.
Congressional Research Service
35

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

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
15.
Clean Air Act
Mercury and Air
Promulgated
Clean Air
Coal-fired electric
Toxics Standards
February 16, 2012.
Mercury Rule was generating units, which
/ MACT for
EPA reconsidered
vacated and
currently generate
Electric
the standards for
remanded to EPA
more than one-third of
Generating Units
new facilities and
in February 2008.
the nation’s electricity.
(“Utility MACT”) promulgated
EPA, under a
EPA estimates annual
changes March 29,
consent decree,
cost at $9.6 billion,
2013.
agreed to
with benefits of $37
promulgate
billion to $90 billion
MACT standards
annual y.
by November 16,
2011.
17.
Clean Air Act
MACT to
Finalized February
D.C. Circuit
Would affect a broad
Control Air
21, 2011, The
vacated the rule
array of industrial,
Toxics from
agency began
in 2007. D.C.
commercial, and
Boilers (”Boiler
reconsideration of
District Court set institutional facilities.
MACT”)
elements of the rule
deadline for
EPA estimates annual
the same day.
promulgation.
cost at $1.2 billion,
Revisions were
with annual benefits of
promulgated January
$25 billion to $67
31, 2013. In addition
billion.
to changing the
standards, EPA gave
the affected units
extra time to
comply.
18.
Clean Air Act
Area Source
Finalized February
D.C. Circuit
Boilers at thousands of
Standards for
21, 2011. The
vacated the boiler smaller commercial,
Boilers
agency began
and related
industrial, and
reconsideration of
incinerator rules
institutional facilities.
elements of the rule
in 2007.
the same day.
Revisions were
promulgated
February 1, 2013.
19.
Clean Air Act
CISWI
Finalized February
D.C. Circuit
106 boilers that qualify
Incinerator
21, 2011, (along
vacated the rule
as incinerators because
Standards
with RCRA rules to
in 2007.
they burn solid waste.
identify non-
hazardous materials
that are solid wastes
when burned—see
Item 45). The
agency began
reconsideration of
elements of the rule
the same day, and
revisions were
promulgated
February 7, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
36

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

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
20.
Clean Air Act
Portland Cement
Promulgated
Earlier standards,
Portland cement
Manufacturing
September 9, 2010.
promulgated in
manufacturing
MACT and NSPS
Portions of the rule
1999, were
industry. About 158
were remanded to
remanded to the
cement kilns operating
the agency in
agency by the
at nearly 100 locations
December 2011,
D.C. Circuit
are affected by the
Revised standards
Court of Appeals. rules.
were promulgated
EPA promulgated
February 12, 2013,
a replacement in
In addition to
2006, but
changing the 2010
subsequently
standards, EPA gave
agreed to
the industry an
reconsider the
additional two years
replacement
to comply.
rules.
21.
Clean Air Act
RICE Rule for
Promulgated March
The standards
900,000 engines used
Stationary Diesel
3, 2010. EPA
respond in part
as backup generators
Engines
revised several
to a December
or to power
aspects of the rules,
2008 DC. Circuit
compressors and
January 30, 2013.
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.
After
promulgation,
EPA reached
another
settlement
agreement in
January 2012,
which required
the rule’s
reconsideration.
22.
Clean Air Act
RICE Rule for
Promulgated August Same as Item 21.
330,000 engines used
Stationary Spark-
20, 2010. EPA
as backup generators
Ignition Engines
revised several
or to power
aspects of the rules,
compressors and
January 30, 2013.
pumps by industrial,
agricultural, or oil and
gas industry sources.
Congressional Research Service
37

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

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
23.
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,
24.
Clean Air Act
Emission Control International
None
The measure, which is
Areas for Ocean-
Maritime
generally supported by
Going Ships
Organization gave
the maritime industry,
final approval to
will require use of low
EPA’s proposal in
sulfur fuels within 200
March 2010. At U.S.
nautical miles of most
request, the IMO
of the U.S. coast.
added U.S.
Caribbean waters to
the list of covered
areas in July 2011.
25.
Clean Air Act
Oil and Natural
Promulgated August EPA acted under
About 11,000 new
Gas Air Pollution
16, 2012.
a consent
natural gas wells will
Standards
agreement signed
be affected annually.
in February 2010
The standards are the
to revise existing
first national air
NSPS and
emission standards for
hazardous
hydraulically fractured
pollutant rules.
wells.
27.
Clean Air Act
Flares and
Promulgated
None. In
Petroleum refineries.
Process Heaters
September 12,
response to
2012.
petitions, EPA
agreed to
reconsider rules
it had
promulgated in
June 2008.
31. Clean
Water Pesticide
Final permit issued
2009 federal
Estimated universe of
Act
Application
October 31, 2011.
court ruling
affected activities is
General Permit
invalidated a 2006 approximately 5.6
EPA rule.
million applications
annual y, performed by
365,000 applicators.
Congressional Research Service
38

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

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
32. Clean
Water Florida Nutrient
Numeric nutrient
2009 federal
Would likely affect a
Act
Water Quality
standards for
consent decree
broad array of
Standards
Florida inland
establishing a
industrial and
waters promulgated
schedule for EPA
municipal dischargers
December 5, 2010.
to issue numeric
and possibly sources of
EPA and Florida
nutrient
nonpoint pol ution
announced
standards.
(e.g., agricultural
agreement in
lands).
principle March 15,
2013, on plan for
state to adopt
numeric nutrient
criteria in lieu of
federal rules.
33. Clean
Water Chesapeake Bay
TMDL finalized by
Consent decrees
Potentially could
Act
TMDL
EPA December 29,
required EPA to
require additional
2010. Bay
develop a TMDL
pol ution control by
jurisdictions are
by May 1, 2011.
many point and
developing
nonpoint sources
Watershed
throughout the
Implementation
Chesapeake Bay
Plans.
watershed.
34. Clean
Water Airport Deicing
Promulgated April
None
198 existing airports.
Act
Effluent
25, 2012.
Limitations
Guidelines and
NSPS
38. Clean
Water SPCC Revisions,
Final rule extending
None
Farms subject to SPCC
Act
including
compliance date to
provisions and
Compliance Date May 10, 2013, was
applicable facilities that
Extension for
promulgated
store oil, which
Farms and
November 22,
includes milk.
Exemption for
2011. Final rule for
Milk Storage
milk storage
exemption was
promulgated April
18, 2011.
45. Resource
Identification of
Finalized February
In 2007 D.C.
Combustion units that
Conservation
Non-Hazardous
21, 2011 (along with Circuit vacated
burn non-hazardous
and Recovery
Materials That
CAA boiler MACT
the CISWI
secondary materials.
Act (RCRA)
Are Solid Wastes and area source
definitions rule in
When Burned
rules and CISWI
a decision that
standards—see
also addressed
Items 17-19). The
CISWI and boiler
agency began a
MACT standards.
reconsideration of
elements of the rule
the same day.
Revisions were
promulgated
February 7, 2013.
Source: Compiled by CRS.

Congressional Research Service
39

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

As noted earlier, Table 3 identifies rules still under development at the agency. The latter include
rules not yet proposed, rules that have been proposed but not yet promulgated in final form, and
in several cases rules already promulgated but now being reconsidered by the agency.
Table 3. Major Rules and Modifications Under Development at EPA
Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority
Rule
Status
Requirement?
Affected Entities
8.
Clean Air Act
NSPS to Control
On December 23,
EPA has been
Petroleum refineries,
GHG Emissions
2010, EPA released
sued by numerous which EPA concludes
from Petroleum
the text of a
parties for its
are the second-largest
Refineries
settlement
failure to issue
direct stationary
agreement with 11
NSPS for GHG
source of GHGs in the
states, two
emissions from
United States.
municipalities, and
refineries
three environmental
(American
groups, under which
Petroleum Institute
it agreed to propose v. EPA). Section
the NSPS by
111(b) of the
December 10, 2011,
Clean Air Act
and take final action
requires NSPS for
on the proposal by
a category of
November 10, 2012. sources if it
As of April 2013, the “causes, or
standards had not
contributes
been proposed.
significantly to air
pollution which
may reasonably be
anticipated to
endanger public
health or
welfare.”
9.
Clean Air Act
Expanded
Standards for use of
Decisions
Petroleum refiners,
Renewable Fuel
cellulosic biofuels in
required by the
biofuel producers.
Standard (RFS2)
2013 (revising
Energy
downward the
Independence and
amount that would
Security Act of
otherwise be
2007.
required by statute)
were proposed
February 7, 2013,
and the 2012
requirement was
revised to zero.
Congressional Research Service
40

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

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
16.
Clean Air Act
NSPS to Control
EPA proposed
EPA was sued by
Primarily coal-fired
GHG Emissions
standards April 13,
numerous parties
electric generating
from Electric
2012. Under a
for its failure to
units, which generate
Generating Units
settlement
issue NSPS for
more than one-third of
agreement with 11
GHG emissions
the nation’s electricity.
states and other
from power
parties, EPA had
plants (State of
agreed to take final
New York v. EPA).
action on the
Section 111(b) of
proposal by May 26,
the Clean Air Act
2012. The Clean Air
requires NSPS for
Act requires
a category of
promulgation one
sources if it
year after proposal.
“causes, or
contributes
significantly to air
pollution which
may reasonably be
anticipated to
endanger public
health or
welfare.” EPA has
already concluded
that GHGs are
such air pollution.
Electric generating
units account for
one-third of all
U.S. GHG
emissions.
26.
Clean Air Act
Tier 3 Motor
EPA signed
None
New car and light
Vehicle Emission
proposed standards
truck manufacturers;
and Fuel
March 29, 2013.
petroleum refiners.
Standards
28.
Clean Air Act
Mercury Cel
EPA proposed
None
Four facilities that
Chlor-Alkali
revised standards
produce chlorine using
MACT Standards
June 11, 2008, and
the mercury cell chlor-
March 14, 2011.
alkali process. Most of
the industry has
converted to a more
efficient process that
does not use mercury.
Congressional Research Service
41

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

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
29.
Clean Air Act
Brick and Clay
EPA has agreed to
D.C. Circuit
Brick and clay product
Product MACT
sign proposed
Court of Appeals
manufacturers.
standards by August
vacated and
30, 2013, and final
remanded
standards by July 31,
standards for this
2014.
category of
sources in 2007.
EPA reached a
consent
agreement in
November 2012
on a schedule for
replacement
standards.
30.
Clean Water Act Construction Site Rule was
Federal court
Affects about 82,000
Effluent
promulgated
ordered EPA to
firms involved in
Limitations
December 1, 2009.
issue the final rule
residential, commercial,
Guidelines
A portion of the
by December 1,
highways, street, and
rule was stayed for
2009.
bridge construction.
reconsideration.
EPA proposed
amendments to the
2009 rule on April 1.
35.
Clean Water Act “Post-
EPA expects to
May 2010 consent Unknown at this time.
Construction”
propose a rule in
decree, as
Stormwater Rule
June 2013 and issue
amended.
a final rule in
December 2014.
36.
Clean Water Act Revised Cooling
EPA proposed
EPA rules issued
Proposal applies to
Water Intake
regulations March
in 2004 were
approximately 1,150
Rule
28, 2011. Final rule
remanded by
existing power plants
is due by June 27,
order of a federal
and certain other
2013.
court.
manufacturing facilities.
37.
Clean Water Act Revised Steam
A proposed rule is
Consent decree,
Proposal wil apply to
Electric Effluent
due by April 19,
as amended,
existing and new steam
Limitations
2013.
requires EPA to
electric power plants.
Guidelines
promulgate a final
rule by May 22,
2014.
39.
Clean Water Act ‘Waters of the
Revised guidance
None
Potentially affects a
United States’
proposed April 27,
wide range of entities
Guidance
2011.
and activities subject to
CWA requirements,
including permits.
40.
Clean Water Act Mountaintop
Various short-term
None
Surface coal mining
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 agencies
to strengthen
environmental
reviews and revise
regulations.
Congressional Research Service
42

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

Court or
Item
Statutory
Legislative
No.
Authority Rule
Status
Requirement? Affected
Entities
41-
Toxic Substances Lead Renovation,
Final rule eliminating
August 2009
Workers and firms
43.
Control Act
Repair, and
the opt-out
settlement
that remodel, repair,
Painting
provision was
agreement set
or paint homes and
promulgated May 6,
numerous
some commercial
2010. Final rule
deadlines for
buildings.
regarding clearance
revisions of a
testing requirements 2008 lead rule.
was promulgated
July 15, 2011. An
advanced notice of
proposed
rulemaking for work
in public and
commercial buildings
is being revised as
announced Dec. 31,
2012, and is
expected to be
finalized in 2015.
44. Resource
Coal Combustion Proposed June 21,
None Coal-fired
electric
Conservation
Waste
2010.
power plants.
and Recovery
Act (RCRA)
46. Resource
Underground
Proposed
Proposal
States and owners and
Conservation
Storage Tanks
November 18, 2011. addresses
operators of
and Recovery
provisions of the
underground storage
Act (RCRA)
Energy Policy Act
tanks containing either
of 2005 (P.L. 109-
petroleum or
58).
hazardous chemicals.
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
CRS analysts, listed below, contributed to this report.
Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Regulatory reform
Maeve Carey
7-7775
mcarey@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
43

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

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Clean Water Act
Claudia Copeland
7-7227
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov
Clean Air Act, oil and natural gas
Rick Lattanzio
7-1754
rlattanzio@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
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 and
Mary Tiemann
7-5937
mtiemann@crs.loc.gov
underground storage tanks
Clean Air Act, mobile sources, CAFE
Brent Yacobucci
7-9662
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov

Congressional Research Service
44