GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property,

and Nuclear Safety, Committee on

Environment and Public Works, U. S.

Senate

April 2000 AIR POLLUTION

Status of

Implementation and

Issues of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of

1990

GAO/RCED-00-72

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Title I—National Ambient Air Quality Standards 22

Appendix II: Titles I and II—Mobile Sources 29

Appendix III: Title III—Hazardous Air Pollutants 34

Appendix IV: Title IV—Acid Deposition Control 38

Appendix V: Title V—Permit Program 41

Appendix VI: Title VI—Stratospheric Ozone Protection 48

Appendix VII: Selected Organizations Included in GAO’s Review 51

Appendix VIII: Comments From the Environmental Protection

Agency 53

Tables Table 1: Status of Requirements Designed for National Ambient

Air Quality Standards 23

Table 2: Long-Term Percent Changes in National Air Quality

Concentration 24

Table 3: Status of Requirements Designed for Mobile Sources 30

Table 4: Status of Requirements Designed for Hazardous

Air Pollutants 35

Table 5: Status of Requirements Designed for Acid Rain Deposition 39

Table 6: Status of Requirements Designed for the Permit Program 42

Table 7: Status of Requirements Designed for Stratospheric Ozone

Protection 49

Figures Figure 1: U.S. Population, Vehicle Miles Traveled, U.S. Gross

Domestic Product, and Aggregate Pollution Emissions, 1970-97 8

Figure 2: Number of People Living in Counties With Air Quality

Concentrations Above the Level of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards in 1997 (numbers in millions) 9

Figure 3: Status of Requirements 10
Contents

Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Abbreviations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide
Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284843 Letr

April 17, 2000

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Chairman, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands,

Private Property, and Nuclear Safety

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Clean Air Act,1 last reauthorized and amended by the Congress in 1990,

provides for a number of related programs designed to protect health and

control air pollution. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established

new programs and made major changes in the ways that air pollution is

controlled. The amendments require the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to take a number of actions—such as issuing new regulations and

guidance documents, undertaking research studies, and preparing reports

to the Congress—and specify a deadline for many of them. The majority of

these requirements are found in the amendments’ first six titles; EPA has

identified 538 such requirements, 361 of which have a statutory deadline.

Additionally, the amendments specify deadlines for states and local air

pollution control agencies—who play a pivotal role in implementing the

act—to respond to the rules promulgated by EPA.

1

42 U.S.C. 7401-7626. Unless otherwise stated, in this report “the act” refers to the Clean Air

Act as amended in 1990.
B-284843

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

With reauthorization of the Clean Air Act impending, you asked us to

provide information on the implementation of the first six titles of the 1990

Clean Air Act amendments.2 Specifically, you asked us to (1) provide

information on the status of EPA’s implementation of the requirements

established by the 1990 amendments and (2) obtain views from state

governments, local programs, industries that are regulated under the act,

and environmental advocacy groups (collectively referred to as

stakeholders) on the issues that have either helped or hindered the

implementation of the 1990 amendments.3

Results in Brief As of February 2000, EPA had identified 538 requirements under the 1990

amendments’ first six titles, of which 409 have been met. Of the

requirements that have been met, 162 had no statutory deadlines, and the

remaining 247 had statutory deadlines before the end of February 2000.

EPA missed the statutory deadline for 198 of these 247 requirements with a

deadline. Of the 129 requirements that the agency has not met, 6 had a

statutory due date prior to February 2000, 108 have a statutory due date

after February 2000, and 15 do not have a statutory due date. EPA will likely

miss 62 of the 108 future statutory requirements, which are related to

establishing new standards for hazardous air pollutants. EPA officials

attributed the agency’s missing of statutory deadlines to several reasons,

including (1) an increased emphasis on stakeholders’ review and

involvement during the development of regulations, which added to the

time needed to issue regulations; (2) the setting of priorities to manage the

workload resulting from the 1990 amendments, which created a

tremendous number of new responsibilities for EPA; and (3) complications

associated with the startup and effective implementation of new programs,

including technical, policy, or legal issues that were not fully anticipated in

1990.

Stakeholders provided a variety of views on the issues that have helped or

hindered the implementation of the six titles. The following were the most

commonly cited issues:

2

This report does not address the implementation of requirements established prior to the

1990 amendments.

3

A list of the specific stakeholders contacted for this report is in appendix VII.
B-284843

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

• The degree of flexibility allowed for states and regulated pollution

sources to determine how they will achieve required air quality

improvements. A number of stakeholders expressed the view that

flexibility in the act has helped implementation. For example, according

to stakeholders, the emissions allowance-trading system−under which

utilities that reduce their emissions below required levels can sell their

allowances to other utilities to help them meet their requirements−

established by the title dealing with acid rain is a good example of

flexibility. This allows electric utilities to achieve required sulfur dioxide

emissions reductions at a lower-than-expected cost. One of the

challenges facing the Congress in considering the reauthorization of the

Clean Air Act is determining the appropriate balance between

traditional command and control approaches and more flexible

approaches that allow states and local air pollution control agencies and

other stakeholders to implement the most cost-effective strategies,

while meeting national air quality goals.

• The extent to which goals and requirements are clearly specified in the

statute or regulations. For example, stakeholders cited the specificity in

the act’s title dealing with stratospheric ozone depletion, which listed

the affected chemicals and the dates for their eventual phase-out, as

contributing to the successful implementation of that title.

• The adequacy of resources at the state and local level to effectively

implement and enforce the statute. Stakeholders cited inadequate

resources as an example of where the implementation of the 1990

amendments has been hindered.

Background The Clean Air Act, enacted in 1963 and substantially overhauled in 1970, is

a comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary

and mobile sources. This law authorizes EPA to, among other things,

establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect

public health and welfare. The goal of the 1970 amendments was to set and

achieve the standards in every state by 1975. The setting of pollutant

standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state

implementation plans applicable to appropriate sources in the state. The

Congress amended the statute again in 1977 primarily to set new goals or

dates for attaining the standards, since many areas of the country had

failed to meet the deadlines.

In large part, the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act were intended to

meet unaddressed or insufficiently addressed problems. The major

provisions of the amendments are contained in the first six titles. Each of
B-284843

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

these titles requires EPA to, among other things, promulgate regulations,

publish final guidance for state air pollution control programs, and issue

various research reports to the Congress. Most of the requirements involve

promulgating regulations to implement the act. Once the regulations are

promulgated, it is generally up to state and local air pollution control

agencies to enforce their provisions, with oversight from EPA.

• Title I of the 1990 amendments establishes a more comprehensive

approach for states to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.

• Title II contains provisions for controlling air pollution from motor

vehicles, engines, and their fuel.

• Title III establishes new requirements to reduce the emissions of

hazardous air pollutants (often called “air toxics”).

• Title IV establishes the acid deposition control program to reduce the

adverse effects of acid rain by reducing the annual emissions of

pollutants that are precursors of acid rain.4

• Title V establishes a national permit program to ensure compliance with

all applicable requirements of the act and to enhance EPA’s and the

states’ ability to enforce the act. Title V requires the states to establish

permit programs.

• Title VI establishes provisions to protect the stratospheric ozone layer.

Although the Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country, the

states are responsible for carrying out much of the statute. Under the law,

EPA sets limits on how much of certain pollutants can be in the air

anywhere in the United States. This ensures that all Americans have the

same basic environmental protections. The 1990 amendments set deadlines

for EPA, states, local governments, and businesses to reduce air pollution.

These deadlines were designed to be more realistic than the deadlines in

previous versions of the law.

4

Acid deposition is caused mainly by coal that is burned in large electrical utility plants in

the Midwest. When the coal is burned, large amounts of sulfur dioxide are released. It is

then carried by winds toward the East Coast of the United States and Canada, where the

acids become part of rain, snow, or fog in the area, or remain in gas or particle form and

settle onto land as dry deposition. Falling to earth, acid rain can damage plant and animal

life as well as lakes and streams.
B-284843

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

According to EPA, by many measures, the quality of the nation’s air has

improved in recent years. Great strides have been made in combating

urban air pollution, toxic air pollution, depletion of the stratospheric ozone

layer, and acid rain. Specifically, ground- level ozone, particulate matter,

and carbon monoxide emissions have been reduced; the emissions of toxic

air pollution are expected to decrease by 1.5 million tons a year; production

of the most harmful ozone depleting chemicals has ceased; sulfur dioxide

emissions have been cut by more then 5 million tons from the 1980 level;

and motor vehicles and fuels are far cleaner than in 1990 as a result of

revised emissions standards. As shown in figure 1, while the United States

enjoyed major increases in population, gross domestic product, and vehicle

miles traveled, the aggregate emissions of the six criteria pollutants

decreased by 31 percent from 1970 through 1997.5

5

The six criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxide, and lead. They are called criteria pollutants because the agency set

permissible levels for them on the basis of “criteria” or information on the effects on public

health or welfare that may be expected from the presence of such pollutants.
B-284843

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Figure 1: U.S. Population, Vehicle Miles Traveled, U.S. Gross Domestic Product,

and Aggregate Pollution Emissions, 1970-97

Source: EPA’s National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report (1997)

Although changes in the economy and other factors affect emissions

trends, according to EPA, the emissions of air pollutants would be much

higher without the Clean Air Act. EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation has stated that the implementation of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 has substantially cut air pollution over the past 9

years.6 The stakeholders we interviewed—including environmental groups,

industrial groups, and state and local governments—also agreed that the

1990 amendments have had a positive effect on the environment.

6

Testimony of the Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental

Protection Agency, before the U. S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works,

Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety (Oct. 14, 1999).

1970 1980 1990 2000 1997

Vehicle miles traveled increased 127%

U.S. Gross Domestic Product 

increased 114%

U.S. Population increased 31%

Aggregate emissions 

decreased 31%

(Six principal pollutants)

Percentage
B-284843

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

However, according to EPA’s Assistant Administrator, the nation still has a

long way to go to reach the agency’s goal of clean air nationwide. For

example, as shown in figure 2, in 1997, approximately 107 million people

lived in counties with air pollutant concentrations that exceeded national

ambient air quality standards.

Figure 2: Number of People Living in Counties With Air Quality Concentrations

Above the Level of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 1997 (numbers in

millions)

Source: EPA’s National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report (1997).

9.1

2.4

101.6

107

CO

Pb

47.9(pre-existing NAAQS)

(revised NAAQS)

7.9 (pre-existing NAAQS)

0

9.7 (revised NAAQS)

Millions of persons

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

CO Carbon monoxide

Pb Lead

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

O3 Ozone

PM-10 Particulate matter 10 microns

PM-2.5 Particulate matter 2.5 microns

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

NAAQS National ambient air quality standards

NO2

O3

PM-10

0.1

PM-2.5

NAAQS

Data not yet available

52.6(pre-existing NAAQS)

SO2

(revised NAAQS)
B-284843

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Status of EPA’s

Implementation

of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990

As of February 2000, EPA had completed the majority of the actions

required by the 1990 amendments. As shown in figure 3, the bulk of the

future requirements relate to establishing new standards for hazardous air

pollutants under title III, which will be completed in 2002, according to EPA

officials’ estimates. However, not all the requirements were met within the

statutory deadline, and EPA officials indicated that additional requirements

may be met after the specified statutory deadline, particularly those for the

hazardous air pollutants. The status of implementing each of the

amendments’ six major titles is detailed in appendixes I through VI.

Figure 3: Status of Requirements

Note: There are six unmet requirements (one in title I, three in title III, and two in title IV) that had a

statutory due date prior to February 2000. These six requirements are not included in figure 3.

Source: GAO’s analysis of EPA’s data.

It is important to recognize that in terms of their ultimate impact on the

environment, all requirements are not equal. For example, a requirement

that EPA issue a rule on monitoring a limited number of stationary sources

in a single industry has neither the complexity nor the impact of a provision

that requires dozens of states to submit implementation plans to attain a

major national ambient air quality standard. The latter is inherently more

difficult to accomplish and often requires states and local agencies to pass

0

50

100

150

200

250

Title I Title II Title III Title IV Title V Title VI

Met

Future requirements
B-284843

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

legislation and issue, adopt, and implement rules. Certain programs are

implemented largely by states and require extensive, continuing interaction

between EPA and the nation’s governors, state legislators, county officials,

state and local regulators, and others on numerous complex requirements.

Other programs are implemented by EPA.

Overall, as of February 2000, EPA had fulfilled 409 of the 538 requirements

that it identified to implement the amendments’ first six titles. Of the 409

requirements that have been met, 247 had a statutory due date and 162 did

not. The majority of actions required for five of the six titles have been

completed. For example, EPA has completed 126 of 141 requirements

implementing the NAAQS under title I.

The 129 remaining requirements include promulgating regulations for

states and local air pollution control agencies to enforce, as well as other

requirements described in the amendments. Of the 129 requirements that

are unmet, 6 had a statutory due date prior to February 2000, 108 have a

statutory due date after February 2000, and 15 do not have a statutory

deadline. About one-half of these unmet requirements are for establishing

standards for hazardous air pollutants: EPA is to promulgate 62 Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards due by the statutory

deadline of November 15, 2000.7

EPA missed the deadline for 198 of the 247 statutory requirements with a

deadline through February 2000.8 According to EPA officials, it is unlikely

that the agency will meet the deadline for 62 of the 108 remaining statutory

requirements. Specifically, the officials do not believe they will meet the

November 15, 2000, deadline for establishing standards for hazardous air

pollutants.

EPA officials cited several factors explaining why the agency has missed

deadlines, including the following: (1) increased emphasis on stakeholders’

7

These technology-based standards require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions

that EPA determines achievable for new and existing sources, taking into consideration the

cost of achieving such reduction, health and environmental impacts, and energy

requirements.

8

EPA has historically been tardy in meeting statutory deadlines. We previously

recommended that EPA implement a rulemaking tracking system to aid the agency in

meeting statutory deadlines, but EPA has not taken action on this recommendation. See

Clean Air Rulemaking: Tracking System Would Help Measure Progress of Streamlining

Initiatives (GAO/RCED-95-70, Mar. 2, 1995).
B-284843

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

review and involvement during regulatory development, which added to

the time needed to issue regulations; (2) the setting of priorities to manage

the workload resulting from the 1990 amendments, which created a

tremendous number of new responsibilities for EPA; (3) complications

associated with the startup and effective implementation of new programs

(e.g., operating permits and air toxics), which posed technical, policy, or

legal issues that were not fully anticipated in 1990; (4) competing demands

caused by the workload associated with EPA’s response to lawsuits

challenging some of its rules; and (5) the emergence of new scientific

information and other factors that led to major Clean Air Act activities that

did not arise from the 1990 amendments, such as the effort to reduce

regional transport of ozone pollution throughout the East.

EPA officials stated that they do not believe they will meet the November

15, 2000, deadline for all of the remaining 62 MACT standards. (The agency

took over 9 years to promulgate 92 existing MACT standards. According to

EPA, these 92 MACT standards included some of the largest and most

contentious categories.) The 1990 amendments require that if EPA fails to

finalize the regulations within 18 months after the statutory deadline date,

states must develop their own standards. According to EPA officials, this

would be very expensive and cumbersome. However, the officials estimate

that they can promulgate the required standards within 18 months after the

deadline, noting that while the agency has missed previous MACT

deadlines, it has virtually always issued the standards within 18 months of

the deadline. According to EPA, in no case has any state had to develop its

own case-by-case MACT determinations.

Views of Key

Stakeholders on Major

Issues Affecting

Implementation of the

Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990

The stakeholders we interviewed from environmental groups, industrial

groups, and state and local governments stated that the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 have had positive effects on the environment by

reducing pollutant emissions. However, the stakeholders had differing

views on the issues that either helped or hindered the effective

implementation of the specific provisions. Key stakeholders’ views on the

major issues affecting the implementation of each of the amendments’ first

six titles is detailed in appendixes I through VI.

The stakeholders we interviewed from environmental groups, industrial

groups, and state and local governments identified three areas that affected

the implementation of the specific provisions of the amendments: (1) the

extent to which flexibility is allowed in meeting the requirements, (2) the
B-284843

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

specificity of requirements, and (3) the adequacy of funding at the state and

local levels.

Extent of Flexibility in

Meeting Requirements

One of the overarching issues affecting implementation cited by

stakeholders is the tension between allowing states and sources of

pollution the flexibility to develop their own approaches for achieving air

quality improvements and using a more prescriptive “command and

control” approach. For example, the title IV acid rain program, as designed

by the Congress and implemented by EPA, attempted to strike a balance

between traditional command and control principles—which specify

where and how emissions reductions must be achieved—and the flexibility

of market-based measures for reducing air pollution. Stakeholders from

environmental and industrial groups and state and local governments told

us that the flexibility provided by the acid rain program’s sulfur dioxide

emissions allowance-trading system enabled the required emissions

reductions to be achieved at a lower cost than that estimated at the time

the amendments were passed.9 Other stakeholders pointed out that

because the legislation specified the reduction goals and identified the

power plants that were required to achieve these reductions, the program

was administratively more efficient to implement.

According to some stakeholders, adopting more market-based approaches

like the acid rain program is a particularly effective way of achieving

greater flexibility. In their view, this program has shown that an aggregate

“cap” on emissions, which permits individual sources to trade allowances,

can lead to lower-cost emissions reductions than those under the

traditional command and control approach used by EPA in other programs.

EPA officials agreed that the “cap and trade” approach can lead to lowercost emissions reductions (and, in some cases, reduced pollution levels as

well) than those under a traditional command and control approach.

However, they pointed out that to work effectively, cap and trade programs

traditionally require a well-known population of sources with extremely

well characterized emissions and control costs. According to EPA, other

forms of economic incentive programs and approaches (e.g., open market

trading and emission fee programs), in some circumstances, can be added

to the existing regulatory structure and can provide incentives for

9

Title IV of the amendments uses a market-based approach to allow electric utilities to trade

SO2 allowances with other utilities. Utilities that reduce their emissions below the required

level can sell their extra allowances to other utilities to help them meet their requirements.
B-284843

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

reductions from other source categories when accountability is adequate.

For this reason, EPA has issued rules and guidance that allow states and

other stakeholders to consider a variety of economic incentive approaches

to both reduce costs and gain improved environmental quality.

Concerned that future emissions reductions may be more expensive and

difficult to accomplish, a state and local government organization official

and other stakeholders cited a need for EPA and the states to provide

flexibility in achieving further emissions reductions. According to one state

official, allowing the states more creativity and flexibility is a way to get a

better “bang for the buck” in emission reductions. He added that EPA

should provide oversight but give the states the flexibility and incentive to

meet the requirements themselves. We have reported several times in

recent years on EPA’s evolving efforts to provide states with more

flexibility and to “reinvent” environmental regulation, under the Clean Air

Act and other statutes, by incorporating more flexible approaches and a

greater focus on environmental results.10

An industrial stakeholder observed that the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 allow EPA to use innovations such as trading mechanisms that would

provide needed flexibility but that EPA had not used these innovations

except in the acid rain program. However, EPA officials cited several

examples that, in their view, illustrate the use of more flexible approaches.

10See Environmental Protection: Challenges Facing EPA’s Efforts to Reinvent Environmental

Regulation (GAO/RCED-97-155, July 2, 1997), Environmental Protection: EPA’s and States’

Efforts to Focus State Enforcement Programs on Results (GAO/RCED-98-113, May 27,

1998), and Environmental Protection: Collaborative EPA-State Effort Needed to Improve

New Performance Partnership System (GAO/RCED-99-171, June 21, 1999).
B-284843

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

• The Ozone Transport and Assessment Group—a national work group

consisting of representatives of EPA, the Environmental Council of the

States, and various industry and environmental groups—identified

flexible and cost-effective strategies to address the long-range transport

of ozone. These strategies, including emissions trading programs, were

incorporated in the agency’s 1998 rule requiring 22 states and the

District of Columbia to revise their state implementation plans to

mitigate the transport of ozone through a reduction in nitrogen oxides.

The rule allows states flexibility to choose the best mix of controls to

meet statewide emissions budgets.11 EPA also published as guidance for

states a “model rule” for achieving these emissions reductions through a

cap-and-trade program.

• On the basis of the experience with the acid rain trading program, the

Ozone Transport Commission developed a nitrogen oxides trading

program for states in the Northeast, with EPA’s assistance.

• In developing measures to be included in state implementation plans to

improve visibility, EPA gave states the option of applying the best

available retrofit technology on a source-by-source basis or developing

an emissions trading program. EPA also cited the regional planning

bodies that have been formed to address visibility impairment and

regional haze issues as another example of flexibility.

• EPA’s recent rule to reduce emissions from cars and light-duty trucks

allows averaging, banking, and trading to provide additional flexibility

to both vehicle manufacturers and gasoline refiners.

According to one stakeholder, the state implementation plan process—

under which each state develops a plan for implementing, maintaining, and

enforcing air quality standards—needs to be better coordinated and more

flexible in order to address situations in which pollution from one state

contributes to the air pollution problems in another.

EPA officials also noted that the agency worked with states and regions to

design guidance on economic initiative programs that can be adopted to

provide for the cost-effective implementation of the national ambient air

quality standards. EPA believes that this guidance provides states with a

great deal of flexibility in developing their implementation plans for

achieving the air quality standards.

1163 Fed. Reg. 57, 356 (1998). This rule has been the subject of litigation. On March 3, 2000, a

federal appeals court rejected most challenges to the rule, upholding EPA’s authority to

promulgate it. Michigan v. EPA, No. 98-1497 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 3, 2000).
B-284843

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Specificity of Requirements Several stakeholders identified the specificity in the act or in implementing

regulations as an important factor affecting implementation. According to

an environmental group stakeholder, statutory provisions that specified the

expected quantity of emissions reductions and identified the categories of

sources that were expected to achieve the reductions have been more

successfully implemented. For example, according to a state and local

government organization, specifying the amount of sulfur dioxide

emissions reductions to be achieved and the specific power plants where

the reductions were to come from made it easier to achieve the required

reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions. The stratospheric ozone provisions

of title VI—which specify the affected chemicals and the time frames for

the eventual phase-out of their use—were also cited by stakeholders as an

example of successful implementation.

Adequacy of Funding The states, state organizations, and environmental groups that we

interviewed all commented that state and local governments need

additional funding to more effectively implement the requirements of the

act. According to a director of an organization that represents all state and

local governments, there is currently a $140 million annual shortfall in

funds at the state and local government levels.

EPA awards grants to the states and local government agencies to help

them implement the Clean Air Act. The agency has reduced this funding

over the last several years by 25 percent to $120 million annually.

According to a state and local government organization, EPA justified the

decrease by considering the funding available to states and local air

pollution control agencies through permit fees (which are assessed on

regulated sources for permits required by the Clean Air Act). However,

according to a stakeholder representing an environmental group, there is a

scarcity of funds from permits because states have been under pressure to

keep the fees low. EPA officials stated that they work jointly with states

and local agencies to establish priorities on the basis of available funding

and, through work plan negotiations for grants, have been successful in

directing grant funds toward agreed-upon priorities.
B-284843

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

One state government stakeholder commented that much of the burden of

implementing the Clean Air Act has now shifted from EPA to the states. For

example, EPA provides grant funds for the purchase of equipment, but

states are expected to provide a matching share of the money needed to

operate it. Such a problem may surface in the case of the new monitors for

particulate matter. EPA paid for the monitors, and, as we reported in 1999,

is funding their operation and maintenance .12 However, future funding for

operation and maintenance was uncertain. According to EPA, the Clean Air

Act recognizes that the states are principally responsible for its

implementation, and through the appropriations of grant funds, the federal

government participates in aiding the states in meeting their obligations.

Observations The Clean Air Act is a large and complex statute. The nature of the

pollutants covered by specific titles varies greatly in terms of, among other

things, the distances they travel once airborne and how they interact with

other pollutants in different climates and weather conditions. Moreover,

the numbers of sources vary greatly depending upon the pollutant. One of

the challenges facing the Congress in considering the Clean Air Act’s

reauthorization is determining the appropriate balance between traditional

command and control approaches and more flexible approaches that allow

state and local air pollution control agencies and other stakeholders to

implement the most cost-effective strategies, while meeting national air

quality goals. In this regard, the acid rain provisions in title IV could offer a

worthwhile model for some other air quality problems by setting national

emissions reduction goals and, at the same time, encouraging market-based

approaches to achieve the national goals.

Agency Comments We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. The

agency stated that presenting a broad account of the status of its

implementation of the Clean Air Act in a single report was difficult and

offered several suggestions for framing the implementation status in a

broader contextual perspective. We agree with the general thrust of these

comments and have made changes to the report where appropriate.

12See Air Pollution: EPA’s Actions to Resolve Concerns With the Fine Particulate Monitoring

Program (GAO/RCED-99-215, Aug. 12, 1999).
B-284843

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Specifically, EPA emphasized that an assessment of the act should focus on

results such as emissions reductions, air quality improvements, and the

increased protection of public health and the environment and emphasized

that these improvements can be achieved through cost-effective methods

that allowed for economic growth. We added information in the report on

emissions reductions, national air quality improvements, and the increased

protection of public health and the environment. The agency also pointed

out that the report focuses on the 1990 amendments’ implementation

without discussing related activities resulting from requirements

established in prior clean air statutes, such as the requirement for periodic

review and, if appropriate, revision to the national ambient air quality

standards. Our objective was to review only the status of requirements

added by the 1990 amendments. We made it clear that the report does not

provide information on other requirements. EPA also stated that given the

act’s ambitious agenda and the reality of finite resources, the agency gave

priority to implementing requirements that offered the greatest impact,

which resulted in missed statutory deadlines for other requirements. We

added this statement to the discussion of why EPA has missed deadlines.

Lastly, we made changes to include EPA’s views that the agency endeavored

to implement the 1990 amendments in a flexible manner that best achieves

air pollution reductions and that while the market-based cap and trade

program has been highly effective in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions, it

may not be the best tool for every environmental problem. The agency

provided technical comments that updated and clarified information in the

report; we incorporated these comments where appropriate. Appendix VIII

contains the full text of the agency’s written comments.

Scope and

Methodology

To obtain information on the status of EPA’s implementation of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990, we held discussions with the EPA officials

who manage EPA’s work load under the amendments’ first six titles. As

agreed with your staff, we did not review the status of implementing the

1990 amendments’ remaining titles. We also did not address the status of

implementing the requirements established prior to the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. We also obtained and reviewed EPA documentation

entitled Implementation Strategy for the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990. This document is updated periodically, provides an overview of the

regulatory framework envisioned by the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990, and provides information on what EPA has accomplished and what is

left to be accomplished. We analyzed this documentation, including the

most recent update in March 1999, and prepared a table of the

requirements under each title, the requirements met by and after the
B-284843

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

established deadlines, and the unmet requirements. In order to ensure an

accurate-as-possible count of the requirements, we asked EPA to review

our table of requirements, and EPA suggested changes, which we have

incorporated. For the requirements that were late in being met, we

obtained agency officials’ reasons for the delay. This analysis provides the

extent to which EPA has met its requirements under the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 but does not show the extent to which the states and

industry have actually implemented the requirements promulgated by EPA.

We recognize that a tabulation of the requirements is only the first step in

determining the status of implementation because of the relative

complexities of the different provisions in the act. For example, certain

titles require extensive, continuing interaction among EPA and state and

local regulators, while others do not.

To obtain the views of key stakeholders on the major issues affecting the

implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, we interviewed

and received information from organizations that were interested and

affected parties, including environmental groups, manufacturing

associations, and state and local government agencies. (See app. VII for a

listing of the organizations selected.) We coordinated our selection of

organizations with EPA to ensure the representation of a good cross

section of the key stakeholders involved with the implementation and

oversight of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. We asked

representatives from these associations for their views on the

implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, including

factors that could either help or hinder effective implementation. We also

obtained documentation of the National Governors Association’s

comments on the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990. We did not independently verify the information provided by the

stakeholders. For each issue presented by the stakeholders, we asked for

examples to support the points they were making. In some cases, examples

were provided. We also asked EPA officials with responsibility for

implementing the act to review and comment on the issues raised by the

stakeholders.

We performed our work from May 1999 through February 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we

plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this

letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Honorable
B-284843

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Carol M. Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, and

other interested parties. We will make copies available to others on request.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

6111 or William F. McGee at (919) 899-3781. Key contributors to this report

were Gregory P. Carroll; Hamilton C. Greene, Jr.; Karen Keegan; and

Everett O. Pace.

Sincerely yours,

David G. Wood

Associate Director,

Environmental Protection Issues
Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Appendix I

Title I—National Ambient Air Quality Apendxies

Standards ApendxiI

The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

to set national standards to protect human health and welfare from

emissions that pollute ambient air. As a first step in this process, EPA is

required to list harmful pollutants that are discharged in relatively large

quantities by a variety of sources across broad regions of the country. The

act requires EPA to determine National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for these so-called “criteria pollutants.”1 NAAQS are currently in

place for six air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2),

nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter. EPA has been regulating

these criteria pollutants since the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments were

enacted. However, title I of the 1990 amendments established a more

comprehensive approach for states to implement, maintain, and enforce

the NAAQS to further help reduce criteria pollutants.

Status of Requirements To accomplish the objectives of title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990, EPA identified 141 requirements. These requirements included

promulgating new regulations, such as enhanced monitoring for ozone,

nitrogen dioxide, and volatile organic compounds; publishing final

guidance for state plans to implement the NAAQS; and issuing reports to

the Congress on volatile organic compounds emissions from the use of

consumer and commercial products. The status of these requirements is

shown in table 1.

1

These pollutants are called criteria pollutants because the agency sets permissible levels

for them on the basis of “criteria” or information on the effects on public health or welfare

that may be expected from the presence of such pollutants.
Appendix I

Title I—National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Table 1: Status of Requirements Designed for National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

a

EPA has met all 62 requirements.

EPA’s most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet

64 of the 79 title I requirements established with a specific statutory

deadline in the legislation. However, in 48 instances, the agency completed

the required action after the statutory deadline had passed. According to

EPA, it missed deadlines in the 1990 amendments owing in part to

competing demands placed on the agency and other stakeholders by Clean

Air Act issues not arising from the 1990 amendments. For example, in the

development of new air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter,

an extensive scientific consultation process occurred. The emergence of

new scientific information documenting the importance of regional ozone

transport led to EPA’s extending the deadlines for state submittal of ozone

plans for many areas, and engaged states and EPA in a 2-year process to

conduct modeling studies and to study potential solutions. That process led

to EPA’s nitrogen oxides State Implementation Plan call, which was

another major effort. In addition, many of the title I requirements were

delayed because of litigation. EPA has recently been delayed in

implementing recent revisions to the NAAQS for ozone and particulate

matter and in implementing its plan to mitigate the interstate transport of

ozone because of two recent court rulings in May 1999. As a result, several

requirements planned for completion in 1999 and 2000 have been put on

hold.

According to EPA officials, the ongoing litigation on particulate matter and

ozone is the largest obstacle preventing EPA from successfully completing

the requirements of title I of the 1990 amendments. EPA has implemented

the bulk of title I requirements.

Require Requirements with statutory deadlines Number

Met on time 16

Met late 48

Unmet—deadlines prior to February 2000 1

Deadlines after February 2000 14

Subtotal 79

Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 62

Total 141
Appendix I

Title I—National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Views of Key

Stakeholders on Major

Issues Affecting

Implementation of

Title I of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of

1990

The stakeholders we spoke with from environmental and industrial groups

and state and local governments recognize the benefits of title I and

acknowledge that cleaner air has resulted from it. As shown in table 2, the

concentration of criteria pollutants affecting national air quality has

decreased significantly from 1978 to 1997.

Table 2: Long-Term Percent Changes in National Air Quality Concentration

Source: EPA’s National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report (1997).

However, stakeholders, including environmental groups and states,

expressed concern with the process of implementing title I and gave

several suggestions on how to improve the requirements or change the

legislation. In particular, stakeholders support making improvements—

such as better coordination between states and EPA and more flexibility−to

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) process, which is required by all states

to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. In addition, stakeholders

expressed their concern with the inconsistency in the way that states

implement NAAQS, which is generally allowed by the act, and suggested

that the act provide for better coordination between EPA and the states to

address these inconsistencies on a regional basis. Lastly, other

stakeholders expressed their concerns with specific provisions in title I of

the act that exempt older facilities from the emissions standards that apply

to newer facilities.

State Implementation Plans

Process

Several stakeholders, including the environmental and state groups we

spoke with, support making changes to the SIP process required by all

states when they implement the NAAQS. According to one stakeholder we

Numbers in percentages

Pollutant

Air quality concentration

percent change, 1978-97

Carbon monoxide -60

Lead -97

Nitrogen dioxide -25

Ozone -30

Particular matter Data not available

Sulfur dioxide -55
Appendix I

Title I—National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

met with, the SIP process needs to be coordinated better, more flexible,

and based on performance. The stakeholder added that more flexibility

was needed in the SIP process so that coordination between state and local

entities and EPA can be more effective, especially when pollution from one

state contributes to the air pollution problems in another. According to

EPA officials, under section 126 of the Clean Air Act, any state may petition

EPA to set emissions limits for specific sources of pollution in other states

that significantly contribute to its air quality problem. Petitions were filed

by eight states in 1997 and three additional states and the District of

Columbia in 1999. In December 1999, EPA granted final approval of four of

the eight petitions filed in 1997. By granting these four petitions, EPA found

that certain large electric utilities and large industrial boilers and turbines

violated a Clean Air Act prohibition against significantly contributing to air

pollution in other states.

According to an independent research organization we met with, a late SIP

puts a state transportation agency in a bind because EPA can automatically

withhold federal funds. As a result, state planners must plan for two

scenarios−one with federal funds and one without them. Using two

scenarios results in additional planning time. According to EPA officials,

the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act direct EPA to apply certain

sanctions to areas that fail to comply with the act’s requirements. These

officials stated that one of these sanctions−the withholding of federal

highway funds−takes effect only after a state or nonattainment area is 2

years late in submitting the required SIP revision. Before such sanctions

are invoked, the Governor’s office and other government officials are made

aware of the pending action and also are advised of what must occur to

remove the sanction.

According to the independent research organization we met with, a change

to the current SIP process is supported. Under the change, credit will be

given not only for planned programs, but also for going back and validating

information through actual performance. For example, states are currently

receiving SIP credits for instituting inspection and maintenance programs,

but the credits are based solely on EPA’s model−not on validating actual

emissions testing. According to EPA officials, EPA does not discourage a

state or area from validating its reduction credits. EPA reviews state

validations by assessing the rate at which a state is reducing its total

emissions.
Appendix I

Title I—National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Regional Solutions for

Ozone

Several stakeholders expressed their concern with the inconsistency in

states’ approaches for implementing NAAQS, which are generally allowed

by the Clean Air Act, and suggested that the act provide for better

coordination between EPA and the states to address these inconsistencies

on a regional basis. One stakeholder stated that the differences in states’

approaches for implementing NAAQS need to be addressed, particularly in

regions with ozone problems because ozone is a regional problem−not just

a state problem. The stakeholder recommended that EPA be granted more

authority to impose regional solutions to solve the interstate transport of

ozone pollution. According to this stakeholder, one solution would be for

the SIP process to be run on a regional basis. Another stakeholder

suggested that in the area of ozone transport, there is a need for better

coordination between states because none of them has the authority to

require the others to take any particular action.

According to EPA, the agency has taken significant steps toward reducing

ground-level ozone in the eastern half of the United States. Through a 2-

year effort with the Ozone Transport Assessment Group, EPA worked in

partnership with the 37 easternmost states and the District of Columbia,

industry representatives, and environmental groups to address the regional

transport of ozone. According to EPA, the process resulted in a

comprehensive analysis of technical information related to ozone

transport, including modeling and monitoring data. The Ozone Transport

Assessment Group recommended flexible and cost-effective strategies for

reducing the long-range transport of ozone and ozone precursors, including

the development of trading and market-based incentives.
Appendix I

Title I—National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

The solution to the ozone problem, however, has not been realized. In

September 1998, EPA promulgated the nitrogen oxide State

Implementation Plan call, a final rule requiring 22 states and the District of

Columbia to mitigate the interstate transport of ozone through reductions

in nitrogen oxides.2 The final rule required the affected states to submit

their State Implementation Plan revisions by September 1999, but on May

25, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit indefinitely stayed

the deadline for submission of the required plans.3 According to EPA, this

court ruling delayed actions that would result in the reduction of actual

nitrogen oxide emissions. On March 3, 2000, however, the federal appeals

court rejected most challenges to the rule, upholding EPA’s authority to

promulgate it.4 The court ruled, however, that EPA had improperly included

3 of the 22 states in the State Implementation Plan call.

In another ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, remanded EPA’s

rules revising NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone.5 EPA is seeking a

review of the Court of Appeals decision in the Supreme Court.

Grandfather Clause for Old

Power Plants

According to one environmental stakeholder, the most ineffective

provision of the Clean Air Act is the grandfather language in section 111

(b)(6), which exempts coal-fired power plants existing at the time the act

was amended in 1977 from the emissions standards that apply to newer

facilities unless changes are made requiring permit modifications.

According to this stakeholder, when this exemption—which covers most

coal-fired power plants in the United States−was adopted, it was expected

that these plants would be retired after approximately 30 years of

operations and that the entire fleet of power plants would be replaced with

lower-emitting, more-efficient facilities. According to this stakeholder, in

practice, this provision has created an incentive for the owners of these

older, dirtier power plants to continue to operate them long after their

expected retirement dates and has slowed the development of cleaner

replacement capability.

2

63 Fed. Reg. 57, 356 (1998).

3

Michigan v. EPA, No. 98-1497 (D.C. Cir. May 25, 1999).

4

Michigan v. EPA, No. 98-1497 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 3, 2000).

5

American Trucking Ass’ns. v. U.S. EPA, No. 175 F. 3d 1027, on rehearing 195 F. 3d 4 (D.C.

Cir. 1999).
Appendix I

Title I—National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

This stakeholder added that the grandfather provision in title I imposes

significant costs on society in terms of human health effects (e.g., medical

costs for respiratory ailments and premature deaths) and environmental

impacts (e.g., forest productivity losses, contaminated water bodies, and

reduced visibility). According to this stakeholder, as the electric industry is

deregulated, it is also increasingly clear that this provision has

anticompetitive effects—making it difficult or impossible for new power

plants to enter markets dominated by grandfathered plants, and

consequently, limiting electric consumers’ choice in the market. Any

change in this provision would require a change in legislation.

In November 1999, the Department of Justice and EPA took enforcement

actions against 32 coal-fired power plants, charging the companies with

illegally releasing massive amounts of air pollutants for years. Because of

the Clean Air Act grandfather provision, utility companies were not

required to retrofit those existing plants with new air pollution equipment

unless the utilities undertook major modifications of those plants. The

government asserts that the utilities made major modifications to their

plants in order to extend their life and to avoid the costs of building new

plants, without installing new pollution control equipment, which resulted

in tons of illegal emissions of pollutants. According to the EPA

Administrator, the companies that owned the power plants had illegally

retooled old, pollution-spewing coal plants without notifying regulators,

without getting the necessary permits, and without installing new

equipment to reduce emissions and meet pollution standards that apply to

new plants. Most of these enforcement actions are still pending.
Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Appendix II

Titles I and II—Mobile Sources ApendxiI

Provisions for controlling air pollution from motor vehicles, engines, and

their fuels are contained in both title I and title II of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990.1 Mobile sources include cars, trucks, buses, trains,

aircraft, motorcycles, construction and farm equipment, boats and marine

vessels, and lawn and garden equipment. The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 provides for emissions reductions from transportation sources by

emphasizing the following:

• Title II, emission standards for motor vehicles: Develop more stringent

emissions standards for cars, buses, trucks, and nonroad vehicles and

engines, such as construction equipment, boats, lawn and garden

equipment, and locomotives.

• Title II, clean fuels: Develop reformulated gasoline, diesel fuel, and

oxygenated fuels to reduce carbon monoxide emissions.

• Titles I and II, inspection and maintenance and onboard diagnostics:

Develop programs to identify faulty emission controls and ensure that

vehicles remain clean in actual customer use.

• Title I, clean transportation alternatives: Develop strategies to

encourage transportation alternatives to address vehicle travel growth.

Status of Requirements To accomplish the mobile source objectives of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, EPA identified 89 requirements.2 These requirements

include promulgating new regulations to establish federal programs that

resulted in cleaner passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses and cleanerburning gasoline and diesel fuel. The amendments also authorized EPA for

the first time to set national emissions standards for non road vehicles and

engines, such as locomotives, boats, and marine vessels; lawn and garden

equipment; and engines used in construction and agricultural equipment.

The status of the implementation of these requirements is shown in table 3.

1

In this report, we have included the discussion of major issues affecting the implementation

of mobile sources programs from both title I and title II in this appendix. EPA’s Office of

Transportation and Air Quality and state and local air pollution control agencies operate

their mobile source programs as one program.

2

The number of requirements identified in this section relates to title II requirements only.
Appendix II

Titles I and II—Mobile Sources

Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Table 3: Status of Requirements Designed for Mobile Sources

a

EPA has met 51 of the 62 requirements.

EPA’s most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet

all 27 of the mobile source requirements established by the legislation.

However, as indicated in table 3, EPA was late in meeting 21 of its

requirements. According to EPA officials, there were several reasons why

the rules were late. One reason for the rules’ lateness was that EPA began

to operate differently in the early 1990s by bringing in more people to get

their input and comments before issuing the rules. As a result, according to

EPA, the process took longer but, in the end, turned out better because by

the time the requirements were completed, most stakeholders were in

agreement.

EPA officials believe that one of its greatest challenges will be to find ways

to reduce emissions from motor vehicles, whose numbers and miles

traveled continued to increase every year. According to EPA, despite the

tremendous success of the federal program to reduce motor vehicle

emissions over the past 25 years, they still represent the single largest

category of air pollution in most cities around the country. An example of

this challenge is the potential for an increase in the number of dieselpowered passenger vehicles that may enter the market in the coming years.

The trend to more diesels is driven in part by their better fuel efficiency

compared with gasoline engines. Diesels, however, produce significantly

greater amounts of particular matter and nitrogen oxide than gasoline

counterparts, according to EPA. Working with manufacturers of diesel

engines to develop clean diesels for the future is one of the great challenges

facing EPA in meeting the nation’s clean air goals.

Requirements with statutory deadlines Numbers

Met on time 6

Met late 21

Deadlines prior to February 2000 0

Deadlines after February 2000 0

Subtotal 27

Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 62

Total 89
Appendix II

Titles I and II—Mobile Sources

Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Views of Key

Stakeholders on Major

Issues Affecting

Implementation of

Titles I and II of the

Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990

Several stakeholders from environmental and industrial groups agree that

titles I and II of the 1990 amendments have made a significant impact on

reducing pollution from mobile sources. For example, one environmental

group stated that the emissions requirements for new vehicles have been

quite effective in reducing emissions, as have the reformulated gasoline

fuels programs. EPA estimates that oxygenated fuels reduced ambient

carbon monoxide concentrations 7 to 14 percent overall for the winter

seasons from 1986 to 1994. These groups, however, believe that

improvements can and should be instituted in two areas involving mobile

sources: (1) the inspection and maintenance programs and (2) considering

and regulating pollution control devices and fuel requirements as one

system.

Inspection and Maintenance

Program

According to some state and local government stakeholders, and an

independent research organization, although the inspection and

maintenance program for in-use motor vehicles has resulted in significant

reductions in emissions in the past, they are concerned that public support

for the program may not remain. One state agency commented that

improvements in the inspection and maintenance program, such as

including the use of technology to lessen the program’s costs, are needed if

it is to continue receiving public support. In addition, the cost of the

inspection and maintenance program has already led to declining support.

Opposition to EPA’s enhanced inspection and maintenance regulation—

including the reluctance of some state legislatures to provide the legislative

authority and funding needed to implement these programs—caused many

states to delay implementation several years after the required start date of

1995.3

Opposition to what they view as the stringent requirements of the program

led to the reluctance of some state legislatures to authorize and fund it. In

order to decrease the cost, some stakeholders believe that there must be

increased emphasis put on using new state-of-the-art technology, such as

roadside testing using remote sensors, that is available to identify vehicles

in need of repair. A stakeholder commented that these high-tech solutions

to the identification of high-pollution-emitting vehicles are available but

that they are not being used to the degree that they should. This

3

See Air Pollution: Delays in Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs Jeopardize Attainment of

the Ozone Standard (GAO/RCED-98-175, June 15, 1998).
Appendix II

Titles I and II—Mobile Sources

Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

stakeholder added that other types of in-use testing, such as remotesensing devices, should be used instead of relying solely on inspection and

maintenance facilities to identify vehicles needing repair. According to EPA

officials, the agency currently allows states to use remote-sensing

technology in their inspection and maintenance program as a form of

“clean screening.” These same officials said that a state might elect to use

remote sensing to identify clean vehicles, whose owners would then be

informed that it was unnecessary to bring their vehicles to an inspection

and maintenance facility. In EPA’s opinion, however, remote-sensing

technology has not yet been demonstrated as a reliable alternative to

replace standard inspection and maintenance testing. A stakeholder

believes that the on-board diagnostic equipment, which is required in 1996

and newer model vehicles, should be used to identify problems in

pollution-emitting vehicles instead of relying solely on inspection and

maintenance equipment. According to EPA officials, on-board diagnostic

equipment has been proven to be accurate in identifying high-emitting

vehicles, on the basis of a recently completed 2-year test program. Onboard diagnostic equipment has also been proven to reliably identify

malfunctioning components and allow for more accurate diagnosis of

vehicles’ emission control systems than was possible with previous

technology. EPA is currently working on a plan that will incorporate onboard diagnostic checks as part of state inspection and maintenance

programs, and according to the agency, it will be implemented as soon as

practical.

Vehicle Pollution Control

Devices

According to one industrial stakeholder, the effectiveness of vehicle

pollution control devices depends upon the types of fuels that are used in

engines. The use of inferior fuels leads to less than desirable results in

emissions reductions. Therefore, when one system is adopted without the

other, opportunities for improving air quality are lost. The stakeholder is

concerned that this interrelationship is sometimes overlooked. For

example, according to this stakeholder, several northeastern states decided

to require vehicles sold there to meet the pollution control requirements

applicable to vehicles sold in California. The industrial group we

interviewed commented that these states required California’s vehicle

standards but did not require California’s fuels standards, and, thus, the

effectiveness of the control devices was diminished. In addition, this group

stated that the Clean Air Act should be changed to make it clear that

advanced-technology vehicles like those required under the California

standards should be used with cleaner-burning fuels like those required

under the state’s standards. EPA officials pointed out that in its recently
Appendix II

Titles I and II—Mobile Sources

Page 33 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

announced vehicle program rulemaking, the agency, for the first time,

considered vehicles and fuels as an integrated system and regulated each in

a single rulemaking.
Page 34 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Appendix III

Title III—Hazardous Air Pollutants ApendxiI

Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established a new

regulatory program to reduce the emissions of hazardous air pollutants,

specifying 189 air toxics whose emissions would be controlled under its

provisions. The list includes organic and inorganic chemicals, compounds

of various elements, and numerous other toxic substances that are

frequently emitted to the air. Title III was intended to reduce the

population’s exposures to these pollutants, which can cause serious

adverse health effects such as cancer and reproductive dysfunction.

Under the hazardous air pollutant program prior to title III, EPA identified

only seven hazardous pollutants in 20 years and then developed emission

standards for those pollutants using a risk-based approach. The approach

of the new program differs from this in that, as a first step, title III identifies

the pollutants to be regulated and directs that EPA impose technologybased standards, or Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

standards, on industry to reduce emissions. As a second step, once EPA

finishes the technology-based standards, it is to consider the remaining

risks to the public and issue health-based standards to address such risk.

The act requires EPA to publish the technology-based emissions standards

for both major and area sources from 1992 to 2000. The act also required

EPA to publish a list of source categories by November 15, 1991, for these

hazardous pollutants, but the agency did not do so until July 16, 1992. At

that time, EPA listed 174 source categories. The Clean Air Act established

milestones for issuing the MACT regulations as follows:

• ⋅Twenty-five percent of the MACTs to be issued by November 15, 1994.

• ⋅Fifty percent of the MACTs to be issued by November 15, 1997.

• ⋅One hundred percent of the MACTs to be issued by November 15, 2000.

Status of Requirements To accomplish the objectives of title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, EPA has identified 221 requirements. The implementation

status of these requirements is shown in table 4.
Appendix III

Title III—Hazardous Air Pollutants

Page 35 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Table 4: Status of Requirements Designed for Hazardous Air Pollutants

a

EPA has met all seven requirements.

b

The numbers in table 4 do not include the requirement for EPA to conduct residual risk determinations

for each of the final MACT standards.

EPA’s most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet

117 of the title III requirements established by the legislation, although 102

of these were met late. As shown in table 4, EPA has 94 unmet requirements

with statutory deadlines after February 2000. Ninety-two of the 94

requirements are to be addressed with the promulgation of 62 MACT

standards. EPA took more than 9 years to promulgate the first 92 MACT

standards. However, according to EPA, over that time period, it has taken

much initiative in expediting the MACT development process. Nonetheless,

EPA officials do not believe they will meet the November 15, 2000, deadline

for all of the remaining MACT standards but estimate that they will do so

for about three MACT standards. While they do not anticipate meeting the

deadline for 59 MACT standards, they do believe they can promulgate the

rules within 18 months after the deadline. This is significant in that the

Clean Air Act requires that if EPA fails to finalize the rules within 18 months

of the deadline, the states themselves must develop their own standards.

According to EPA, this would be very expensive and cumbersome. EPA

officials point out that while the agency has missed previous deadlines, it

has virtually always issued the standards within 18 months of the deadline,

and in no case has any state had to develop its own case-by-case MACT

determinations.

According to EPA officials, the development of the MACT standards

requires a significant amount of time and money. They explained that many

previous requirements were met late because of the need to prioritize,

given resource limitations, the time needed to develop the policy

framework and infrastructure of the MACT program, and the complexity

Requirements with statutory deadlines Number

Met on time 15

Met late 102

Deadlines prior to February 2000 3

Deadlines after February 2000 94

Subtotal 214

Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 7

Total 221
Appendix III

Title III—Hazardous Air Pollutants

Page 36 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

and stakeholder participation involved with some industrial source

categories. EPA noted that the successful completion of the remaining

MACT requirements is contingent upon adequate resources.

Views of Key

Stakeholders on Major

Issues Affecting

Implementation of

Title III of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of

1990

Although EPA has not finished the technology-based standards, the

stakeholders from an industrial group, environmental group, and state

governments we interviewed stated that the program has been very

effective, resulting in the reduction of millions of tons of air toxics and

smog-forming volatile organic compounds from the air.

In the second step in the program to control hazardous air pollutants, EPA

will assess the risk remaining to the public from these pollutants once the

technology-based standards are in place. If necessary, the agency would

then publish health-based standards to address that risk. It is in this second

phase that some stakeholders from environmental and industrial groups,

and state and local governments believe EPA will have the most difficulty.

For example, one of the problems mentioned is that EPA will lack the

necessary data to do the residual risks assessments.

Stakeholders are concerned that the second step−involving residual risk

assessments− will be problematic. This second step will involve the

evaluation of the risks remaining after the technology-based standards are

in place and setting standards that are based on the risks to the public’s

health from air toxics remaining in the air. One industrial stakeholder

commented that the “residual risk” program will be more difficult for EPA

to implement, since it will involve defining what “risk” is, and “how clean is

clean,” as well as modeling issues. According to EPA officials, the agency is

mandated to set a residual risk standard if the existing MACT standard

does not protect the public health with an ample margin of safety. EPA

outlined the general approach that it will use to make decisions whether to

set residual risk standards in its peer-reviewed 1999 Report to Congress

(EPA-453/R-99-001). The report states that, for carcinogens, EPA will

continue to apply the 1989 Benzene National Emission Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants, commonly referred to as the Benzene rule, which

laid out EPA’s approach for making decisions under the ample margin of

safety language. Given that residual risk assessments will assess noncancer

risks as well as cancer risks, EPA stated that it will use the best available

models to assess residual risk and plans to apply them consistently.

In developing an overall approach to the residual risk program, EPA

believes it may be able to learn from several states that have had risk-based
Appendix III

Title III—Hazardous Air Pollutants

Page 37 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

programs. For example, over the last 15 years, Georgia has addressed

residual risk by doing its own screening and modeling of the health effects

of air toxics and set its own standards for allowable concentrations of

toxins in the air. In addition, according to an industrial stakeholder, the

upcoming residual risk program will require EPA to know a lot about

individual industries and require an intensive data collection effort.

According to EPA officials, they recognize that in many cases, conducting

residual risk assessments will require the agency to expand upon the data

collected for the development of the MACT standards. EPA states that it

can gather these additional data from several sources, including EPA’s

National Toxics Inventory, state databases and permits, compliance

reports, and industry. According to EPA, it will use the best available data

to conduct residual risk assessment.

Insufficient data have caused data collection efforts in the past to be

deemed unsuccessful. As a result, industrial stakeholders believe that

problems with residual risk assessments will occur. According to one

industrial stakeholder, because of time pressures and the lack of resources,

EPA may be forced to make decisions using inadequate data. An

environmental group stakeholder also commented that EPA would find it

difficult to amass the information that will be necessary to develop the

residual risk assessments. According to EPA officials, as with any risk

assessment, there will be gaps in some data bases used and uncertainties in

the results of the residual risk assessments. EPA stated that it would make

every effort to collect the necessary data for these assessments and will

clearly articulate the uncertainties that exist in the data as well as the

assumptions used.
Page 38 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Appendix IV

Title IV—Acid Deposition Control ApendxiIV

Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establishes the acid

deposition control program to reduce the adverse effects of acid rain

deposition through reductions in the annual emissions of pollutants—

mainly sulfur dioxide. It provides an alternative to traditional “command

and control” regulatory approaches by using a market-based approach to

allow electric utilities to trade SO2 allowances with other utilities to

achieve cost-effective reductions. After setting the overall reductions in

SO2 emissions to be achieved, the act defined each source’s specific

emissions limits and directed the allocation of allowances to sources in

amounts equal to the emissions limits. These emissions limits for all

sources are combined to meet a total emissions cap. The sources that emit

SO2 must install continuous emissions monitors and keep records in

accordance with regulations issued by EPA. The utilities that reduce their

emissions below the required levels can sell their extra allowances to other

utilities to help them meet their requirements. The utilities that exceed

their emissions allowances forfeit allowances to cover the excess

emissions and must pay fines that are set at several times the estimated

average cost of complying with SO2 emissions limits.

In July 1997, we reported that the acid rain program, including the use of

emissions trading, has been successful in achieving greater-than-planned

reductions in the emissions of SO2 from facilities and projected significant

cost savings compared with a traditional command-and-control regulatory

approach.1 More recently, we reported on trends in emissions and their

effects.2

Status of Requirements To accomplish the objectives of title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, EPA identified 44 requirements. These requirements

included promulgating new regulations for an allowance-trading system,

continuous emissions monitoring, and an acid rain permit program and

issuing a report to the Congress on an acid deposition standard feasibility

study. The status of these requirements is shown in table 5.

1

See Air Pollution: Overview and Issues on Emissions Allowance Trading Programs (GAO/TRCED-97-183, July 9, 1997).

2

See Acid Rain: Emission Trends and Effects in the Eastern United States (GAO/RCED-00-

47, Mar. 9, 2000).
Appendix IV

Title IV—Acid Deposition Control

Page 39 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Table 5: Status of Requirements Designed for Acid Rain Deposition

a

EPA has met all of the 18 requirements.

EPA’s most recent data show that it has met 24 of 26 of the title IV

requirements established by legislation, although it was late in 15 instances.

According to EPA officials, the agency was late with some of the

requirements because interagency review and consultation with the Acid

Rain Advisory Committee added time to the process. Officials consider that

the time spent was worthwhile because it allowed for more stakeholders’

input in the rules process, thereby making them less controversial.

According to officials of EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs, Acid Rain

Division, the program has been much more successful than initially

envisioned—both in terms of emissions reductions and in terms of the cost

to implement the program. Furthermore, they said the use of continuous

emissions monitoring and the cap and trade program, which limits the

amount of pollutants while allowing industry the flexibility to determine

how best to reach those limits, can be considered as contributors to the

overall success of the program. Also, EPA officials stated that both

approaches might have applications to other pollutants and problems in

addition to SO2 for acid rain.

Requirements with statutory deadlines Number

Met on time 9

Met late 15

Unmet—deadlines prior to February 2000 2

Deadlines after February 2000 0

Subtotal 26

Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 18

Total 44
Appendix IV

Title IV—Acid Deposition Control

Page 40 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Views of Key

Stakeholders on Major

Issues Affecting

Implementation of

Title IV of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of

1990

Stakeholders from both the industrial sector and from state governments

whom we spoke with agree that, overall, title IV is one of the most effective

titles of the Clean Air Act. Title IV serves as an example of a title that

provides sources with the flexibility to reduce emissions cost-effectively—

through the allowance-trading program−while establishing clearly defined

objectives, firm deadlines, mandatory monitoring, and significant penalties

for noncompliance. For example, one environmental stakeholder

commented that the SO2 emissions reduction-trading program has been

implemented in a timely and efficient way and that emissions reductions

are well documented as a result of acid rain reporting through the

emission/allowance tracking system.

Currently, the control of nitrogen oxide under title IV does not include a

cap on emissions nor provisions for nitrogen oxide trading. Stakeholders

from an industrial group and a state would like to see the trading program’s

focus expanded, believing it could have beneficial applications to other

pollutants associated with acid rain, such as nitrogen oxides, and also

those not associated with acid rain. One of the stakeholders commented

that if the trading program is employed for these pollutants, the program

should provide the ability to trade emissions between sectors. For

example, the mobile source component would be allowed to trade with the

stationary source components. EPA agrees that a cap and trade approach

could be applied to more air pollution problems and sectors, but emissions

monitoring and accounting as well as administrative feasibility are

important considerations in such expansion. EPA suggests that the

approach should be extended to other stationary sources before

considering its application to mobile sources.
Page 41 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Appendix V

Title V—Permit Program ApendxiV

The principal purpose of title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is

to establish a national permit program to ensure compliance with all

applicable regulations of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA, the program

will enhance the agency’s and the public’s ability to enforce the act by

making it easier to detect noncompliance and by requiring sources to take

certain actions to demonstrate compliance. The program requires major

stationary sources to obtain operating permits that contain all existing

federal clean air requirements applicable to the source in one document.

Title V was not intended to impose new substantive requirements. It

requires industry to pay permit fees to cover the costs incurred by state air

pollution control agencies in approving and administering these permits.

According to EPA officials, over 18,000 sources have submitted permit

applications. Of this number, approximately 7,000 permits have been

issued.

EPA is responsible for promulgating regulations establishing the minimum

elements of a title V permit program; reviewing, approving, and overseeing

state programs; and reviewing permits issued by the states. EPA is also

responsible for implementing permit programs for any states or tribal

governments that do not implement their own programs. States are

responsible for establishing and implementing their permit programs,

issuing permits to pollution sources, collecting fees to cover the cost of the

programs, and ensuring that sources comply with permit requirements.

Status of Requirements To accomplish the objectives of title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, EPA identified 14 requirements. These requirements

included promulgating new regulations such as state permit program

requirements, as well as publishing guidance on state programs to assist

small businesses. The status of these requirements is shown in table 6.
Appendix V

Title V—Permit Program

Page 42 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Table 6: Status of Requirements Designed for the Permit Program

a

EPA has met 8 of the 11 requirements.

EPA’s most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet

the title V requirements established with specific statutory deadlines in the

legislation, although EPA was late in meeting two requirements. For

example, title V charged EPA, by November 1991, with issuing a permit rule

that would identify the minimum elements of state permit programs and

govern their implementation. According to EPA, disagreement between the

Office of Management and Budget and the then Council on

Competitiveness over certain requirements in the final rule delayed its

issuance 8 months until July 1992. While waiting to learn what the final rule

would require, EPA and the states postponed some efforts to implement

title V.1 In addition, after promulgation, states, industry, and environmental

groups sued EPA over this rule, and EPA agreed to propose changes to

portions of the rule to address litigants’ concerns. According to EPA

officials, the agency has moved the completion date for the rulemaking

promulgating revisions to the operating permits program from April to

November 2000 because of the need to repropose part of the package as a

result of stakeholders’ extensive comments. Until then, the original rule

remains in effect, and states continue to issue title V permits.

Requirements with statutory deadlines Number

Met on time 1

Met late 2

Unmet—deadlines prior to February 2000 0

Deadlines after February 2000 0

Subtotal 3

Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 11

Total 14

1

See Air Pollution: Difficulties in Implementing a National Air Permit Program (GAO/RCED93-59, Feb. 23, 1993).
Appendix V

Title V—Permit Program

Page 43 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

According to EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, about

19,000 sources are subjected to the permit program. Between 18,000 and

18,400 sources had submitted permit applications. Of this number, 7,000

permits have been issued. As a result of the slow progress in approving

permits, EPA has sought to identify and, where possible, correct the

obstacles to faster permit issuance. The statute requires that permits be

issued or denied within 3 years of the date that a state program is

approved.2 EPA officials predict an incremental climb in the number of

permits being issued as a result of this effort. The effort has identified

several reasons why the states have problems with meeting their

established milestones. According to EPA, where possible, it has attempted

to respond to these problems through guidance or other assistance.

However, states also identified some internal issues. For example, one of

the main reasons presented by the states is the turnover of permitting staff,

compounded in some cases by hiring freezes and the lack of expertise that

results when state staff leave and are not replaced.

Views of Key

Stakeholders on Major

Issues Affecting

Implementation of

Title V of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of

1990

Some stakeholders from the industrial sector and from state governments

questioned the cost-effectiveness of the permit program, observing that it

does not directly lead to emission reductions, is more administrative in

nature, and takes a lot of time and manpower. Industrial stakeholders also

cited as an implementation issue the perceived inconsistency of EPA’s

interpretation of “modifications” to permits.

Cost-Effectiveness of

Permit Program

According to EPA officials, Title V was added to address existing shortfalls

in compliance. However, state agencies and an industrial stakeholder

whom we interviewed agreed that the permit program consists primarily of

accounting and reporting processes rather than inspection processes. One

state stakeholder commented that the permit program attempts to enforce

environmental rules through a paper trail rather than by inspections of

specific sources. According to EPA, however, a permit that clearly contains

2

Program approval dates range from December 1, 1994, to June 10, 1997.
Appendix V

Title V—Permit Program

Page 44 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

all Clean Air Act requirements for a facility can serve as a valuable

inspection tool.

A state stakeholder told us that title V is more administrative in nature than

other provisions of the act, yet it takes more time and more manpower than

anything the state must do under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

From the state’s perspective, the program has become an administrative

grind: when the permits are finished, what remains is a voluminous

document that few will read. According to EPA, the initial steps of getting

the program up and running and issuing the initial round of permits

certainly could require significant resources, but the act funds this effort

with permit fees that sources pay to the states. EPA believes that since the

permit is a single document containing all applicable requirements, it

should be of interest and use to the industrial sources, air pollution control

agencies, and the public.

When the permit program was implemented, several states already had

permit programs in place. For example, according to a state official,

California has had a permit program for 30 years and would rather enforce

its regulations through inspections. According to a state stakeholder, the

Clean Air Act Amendments allow for state permit programs that provide

equivalent results, but EPA wants the permit programs in each state to be

identical. According to EPA officials, the title V regulations allow

significant flexibility in tailoring state programs, but each program must

meet the minimum criteria established by the act.

Costs are associated with both approaches−paper trail or inspection−and

several state stakeholders believe that the actual inspection of emissions is

more effective than wading through volumes of permit paperwork. For

example, according to an industrial stakeholder, one permit application for

a source is 15,000-pages long and contains several thousand requirements.

State officials commented that they would rather inspect the source than

go through the voluminous permit package page-by-page.

However, according to EPA, preliminary data indicate that as sources

undertake the compliance review required by title V, as many as 70 percent

of them in some states are finding Clean Air Act requirements that they had

been unaware of or had been complying with improperly. Actual

inspections always have a place in an air program, according to EPA, and

should continue. However, the process of compiling all requirements in a

single place and the requirement that sources review and certify

compliance with these requirements are clearly leading to the correction of
Appendix V

Title V—Permit Program

Page 45 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

instances of noncompliance that were not caught by inspection programs,

according to EPA. This leads to actual emissions reductions and a more

level playing field for sources, the agency said. According to EPA, it also

complements the inspection approach by providing inspectors with a

permit that clearly describes what requirements apply to the industrial

source, thus enabling more efficient inspections.

From the industrial perspective, significant costs have resulted from the

permit program with minimal, if any, air quality improvements. According

to an industrial stakeholder, at the time of the permit program’s enactment,

EPA estimated that the program would have no costs. In 1992, when the

first regulations were issued, EPA estimated that the permit program would

cost $360 million. Industrial stakeholders said that the actual costs are

substantial. According to the First Annual Title V Report of the Clean Air

Implementation Project,

3 the cost of the permit program has averaged

$100,000 per facility for the 20,000 facilities subject to title V, resulting in

total costs of at least $2 billion just for the preparation of title V permit

applications. For example, according to one industrial stakeholder, the

automobile industry has spent millions of dollars in preparing voluminous

permit applications, yet only two assembly facilities have received

approved permits. According to EPA officials, early estimates of the costs

of the program are uncertain and vary widely because of differing early

interpretations of various requirements. For example, according to EPA,

many industrial sources and states took a very strict view of the permit

application requirements of EPA’s rules, leading to early concerns about

voluminous permit applications. According to EPA, when it learned of

these concerns, it issued two guidance documents to clarify that

applications need not contain such exhaustive detail.

EPA has since issued several guidance documents that clarify and

streamline permit application requirements. For example, according to

EPA, it worked extensively with stakeholders in the automobile

manufacturing industry to develop streamlined monitoring reference

materials for use in their operating permit. EPA’s latest estimates are that

the administrative burden of the permit program is about $10,000 per

source per year, but it acknowledged that the total costs could exceed

3

See Getting the Title V Program on Track: Will EPA Make the Necessary Changes to It

Policies? First Annual Report of the Clean Air Implementation Project (Apr. 1999). The

Clean Air Implementation Project is an organization of major industrial corporations, which

joined together in 1991 to focus on a broad range of issues under the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments.
Appendix V

Title V—Permit Program

Page 46 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

$100,000 for some of the largest and most complex sources. EPA expects

this burden to lessen after the initial round of permit issuance is completed.

By clarifying how Clean Air Act requirements apply to specific sources, and

requiring responsible officials at the sources themselves to review their

compliance with these requirements, EPA believes title V is achieving

several direct and indirect air quality benefits. As the program is being

implemented, EPA is compiling a list of benefits that sources, states,

citizens, and EPA report finding. Such benefits to date have fallen into

several categories: (1) emissions reductions as sources begin to comply

with requirements they had previously not been complying with; (2)

improving monitoring, which allows sources to ensure their compliance

with the act and to discover and correct deviations from the act’s

requirements more promptly; (3) identification of, and subsequent

clarifying and streamlining of, permit or rule requirements that were

overlapping, unclear, or obsolete; (4) improvements in the development of

rules benefiting the regulated community, as rule writers develop rules with

an emphasis on how these rules will be implemented through permits; (5)

an improved awareness of pollution control requirements, resulting in

sources’ improved ability to do comprehensive air quality management and

for states to conduct regional air quality planning; and (6) improved public

involvement in air pollution control decisions.

Permit Modification A problem with the permit program, according to an industrial stakeholder

we spoke to, is EPA’s interpretation of section 502(b)(10) of the Clean Air

Act. Under that section, permit programs must have provisions to allow

changes within a permitted facility without a permit revision as long as (1)

the changes are not “modifications” under any provision of title I, (2) the

changes do not exceed emissions allowable under the permit, and (3) the

permit holder notifies EPA and the permitting authority. The stakeholder

stated that EPA has interpreted this section to mean that any change in a

facility, regardless of how small, requires the permit’s revision and the

agency’s permission. According to the First Annual Title V Report of the

Clean Air Implementation Project, EPA’s history of interpreting the term

modifications shows how the agency significantly increased the level of

review required for minor changes without revising its regulations. Under

the current permit rule, whether a change constitutes a modification in

large part determines whether an industrial source can change its

manufacturing process without the necessity of a permit revision. The

industry report found the following:
Appendix V

Title V—Permit Program

Page 47 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

• Consistent with Congress’s clear intention, the preamble to EPA’s 1992

title V rule made it clear that minor changes do not constitute

modifications.

• EPA subsequently announced, in numerous Federal Register notices,

that states must treat minor changes as modifications.

• In an August 1994 proposal, EPA confirmed this revision of the original

title V rule.

• In August 1995, EPA rescinded this interpretation and, consistent with

its original title V preamble, announced that it would define

“modifications” to exclude minor changes.

According to the industry report, EPA’s history of changing its

interpretation of modifications is an example of how title V should not be

implemented, if the program is to meet the essential policy objectives.

According to EPA officials, the definition of “modification” has been

difficult to interpret and remains the subject of litigation. However,

according to EPA, this term relates to the system for revising permits and

should not affect the initial issuance of permits. EPA expects to resolve the

litigation before a significant number of permit revisions occurs.

A related issue concerns the timing of permit modifications. According to

an industry stakeholder, under the Clean Air Act, sources are allowed to

wait to make any changes in their permits until the permits are renewed, as

long as the time remaining on the permits is 3 years or less. According to

EPA officials, the 3-year time frame applies to newly promulgated

requirements, but nothing in the act allows sources to wait for up to 3 years

to incorporate requirements that they themselves trigger by making a

change at a source.
Page 48 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Appendix VI

Title VI—Stratospheric Ozone Protection ApendxiVI

Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 pertains to the protection

of the stratospheric ozone layer. Such protection is to be accomplished by

limiting the production and consumption of substances with ozonedepletion potential.

Title VI categorizes substances that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer

as either class I (i.e., chloroflurocarbons, methylchloroform, carbon

tetrachloride, and halons) or class II (i.e., hydochlroflourocarbons)

substances. Title VI required the phasing out of the production of class I

substances by January 1, 2000, except in the case of methyl chloroform,

which is to be accomplished by January 1, 2002. Title VI also allows for an

acceleration of the phaseout if Parties to the Montreal Protocol determine

that the stratospheric ozone layer is depleting more rapidly then estimated

earlier.1 According to EPA officials, under the accelerated phase out

approved by the Parties, class I production and import were phased out.

As for class II substances, the title provides, effective January 1, 2015, that

it shall be unlawful to introduce them into interstate commerce or use

except under certain circumstances. Such circumstances pertain to (1)

substances that have been used, recovered, and recycled; (2) substances

consumed in the production of other chemicals; and (3) substances used as

a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to January 1, 2020. The

production of class II substances shall be unlawful after 2030. According to

EPA officials, the Montreal Protocol Parties accelerated the phaseout of

class II substances as well, beginning in 2004.

Other sections of title VI concern the use, disposal, recovering, and

recycling of class I substances during the service, repair, or disposal of

appliances; industrial process refrigeration; and the servicing of motor

vehicle air conditioners. For the class I and class II substances being

phased out, title VI provides for approving the replacement of chemicals,

product substitutes, or alternative manufacturing processes that will

reduce the overall risks to human health and the environment.

Status of Requirements To accomplish the objectives of title VI of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, EPA identified 29 requirements. These requirements

1

On September 16, 1987, twenty-four nations signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances

That Deplete the Ozone Layer, which called for specific reductions of chloroflurocarbons

and halons.
Appendix VI

Title VI—Stratospheric Ozone Protection

Page 49 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

included promulgating class I phaseout regulations, new class I labeling

regulations, bans on nonessential products using ozone-depleting

substances, and determinations of acceptability for alternatives to class I

and class II substances and issuing reports to the Congress on the

production/consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals. The status of the

implementation of these requirements is shown in table 7.

Table 7: Status of Requirements Designed for Stratospheric Ozone Protection

a

EPA has met 16 of the 17 requirements.

EPA’s most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet

all 12 deadlines of the title VI requirements established by the legislation.

EPA met all the deadlines, although, as indicated in table 7, it was late in

meeting 10 of its requirements. For example, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 required EPA to promulgate the mobile airconditioning recycling regulations by November 1991; however, EPA did

not meet this date. The regulation was promulgated in July 1992. According

to EPA officials, the basic reason for being late with the requirements was

the need to prioritize the large workload under the act.

Requirements with statutory deadlines Number

Met on time 2

Met late 10

Unmet—deadlines prior to February 2000 0

Deadlines after February 2000 0

Subtotal 12

Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 17

Total 29
Appendix VI

Title VI—Stratospheric Ozone Protection

Page 50 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Views of Key

Stakeholders on Major

Issues Affecting

Implementation of

Title VI of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of

1990

The stakeholders we interviewed from both the industrial sector and the

environmental sector agreed that title VI has been effective in reducing

ozone-depleting chemicals from the environment. According to two

industrial stakeholders, the most effective requirements under title VI are

(1) the recycling and emissions reduction program for class I and II

substances and (2) the servicing of the motor vehicle air conditioners rule.

According to one stakeholder, EPA faces a challenge to implement the

regulations judiciously so that ozone-depleting pollutants can be removed

from the ambient air in a timely manner. According to EPA, the basic

reason why regulations are issued late is the lack of sufficient EPA staff to

handle the large work load. Delays in issuing regulations may result in the

emission of ozone-depleting substances or their substitutes into the

ambient air. For example, absent a final rule addressing the recovery of

refrigerant substitutes, some industrial refrigeration owners or operators

may be venting refrigerant, while others may be complying with the

statutory requirements of the Clean Air Act. The latter are likely following

the detailed requirements set out in an EPA proposal that regulates the

recovery of substitute refrigerants.
Page 51 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Appendix VII

Selected Organizations Included in GAO’s

Review ApendxiVI

Organization Purpose

Air Conditioning Refrigeration Institute The national trade association representing

manufacturers of more than 90 percent of

U.S.- produced central air-conditioning and

commercial refrigeration equipment.

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers A coalition of nine global automakers that

provides member companies a forum to

work together on public policy matters of

common interest and to work with

government and other stakeholders to find

sensible and effective solutions to improve

the environment and motor vehicle safety.

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric

Policy

A coalition of companies that produce and

use chlorofluorocarbons,

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and

hydroflourocarbons. Coordinates industry’s

participation in the development of

international and U.S. government policies

regarding ozone protection and global

climate change.

American Lung Association A health organization formed to fight lung

disease and promote lung health through

education, research, and advocacy.

American Petroleum Institute The primary trade association for the U.S.

petroleum and allied industries engaged in

oil and natural gas exploration, production,

transportation, refining, and marketing.

Association of International Auto

Manufacturers

The trade association for U.S. subsidiaries

of international automobile companies. The

association acts as the voice of the

International Automakers in America,

speaking to the public, the press, and the

government.

Chemical Manufacturing Association Represents the chemical industry on public

policy issues, coordinates the industry’s

research and testing programs, and

administers the industry’s environmental,

health, and safety performance

improvement initiative.

Clean Air Network An alliance of nearly 1,000 national,

regional, state, and local citizens groups that

work to protect human health and

environmental quality.

Continued
Appendix VII

Selected Organizations Included in GAO’s

Review

Page 52 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

We also interviewed representatives from four states—California, Georgia,

Illinois, and New York−and the nation’s largest local program—California’s

South Coast Air Quality Management District. The state and local programs

were chosen in coordination with EPA and the State and Territorial Air

Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution

Control Officials to select a nationwide representation of the organizations

responsible for implementing the requirements of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990.

Edison Electric Institute The trade association of shareholder-owned

electric utilities, whose members generate

and distribute more than three-quarters of

the nation’s electricity. The institute provides

information on energy and environmental

issues of national importance.

Natural Resources Defense Council Actively involved in major national

environmental issues and many regional

and international issues as well. Its primary

strategies include scientific research, public

education, lobbying, and litigation.

Resources for the Future Nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank that

conducts independent research—rooted

primarily in economics and other social

sciences—on environmental and natural

resource issues.

State and Territorial Air Pollution Program

Administrators/Association of Local Air

Pollution Control Officials

Association representing air pollution control

agencies in 54 states and territories and

over 150 major metropolitan areas. The

association serves to encourage the

exchange of information among air pollution

control officials; enhance communication

and cooperation among federal, state, and

local regulatory agencies; and promote

good management of our air resources.

Continued from Previous Page
Page 53 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Appendix VIII

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency ApendxiVI
Appendix VIII

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 54 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Appendix VIII

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 55 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Appendix VIII

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 56 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Appendix VIII

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 57 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Appendix VIII

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 58 GAO/RCED-00-72 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(

(160485) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00