UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 30, 2012, co-signed by seven of your colleagues, to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson requesting additional information on 

her testimony presented before the joint hearing of the Energy and Power and Environment and the 

Economy Subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 28, 2012. I am 

pleased to respond on her behalf and have addressed each of the questions raised by you and your 

colleagues in the enclosed documents. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 564-5200 

or your staff may contact Ms. Christina J. Moody at (202) 564-0260. 

Arviñ Ganesan 

Associate Administrator 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable • Punted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

Response to request for additional information from the Administrator's


testimony on February 28, 2012 

First, in response to questions posed by Representatives Terry and Walden, the EPA has evaluated 

its resources and options regarding publicly accessible information to include: (a) a list of all 

petitions for rulemakings submitted to the agency; and (b) a list of all notices of intent to sue to 

compel a rulemaking submitted to the agency. Following this evaluation, we have determined 

that the EPA is unable to accommodate this request to make all petitions, notices, and requests for 

agency action publicly accessible in one location on the internet. 

With respect to petitions for rulemaking, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 

environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide the 

public with the ability to petition the agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. Petitions are 

submitted to multiple different offices within the agency and vary considerably with regard to 

formality, clarity and format; many, for example, come in as letters or emails. Accordingly, it would 

be challenging for the agency to identify, compile, format for public posting, and make centrally 

available in a timely manner all petitions for rulemaking. Although the EPA does not centrally 

track all submissions that may be characterized as petitions for rulemaking, the Agency believes 

the number is very large. The EPA does not currently have a centralized process to collect, 

characterize and sort all the petitions for rulemaking that the agency receives. 

With respect to notices of intent to sue to compel a rulemaking, the agency is constrained by 

practical and resource challenges similar to those discussed above. The agency receives thousands 

of notices of intent to sue per year pursuant to the APA and citizen suit provisions provided in 

environmental statutes such as the CWA and CAA. Many of these notices of intent to sue do not 

seek to compel the agency to commence a rulemaking or in some cases even to challenge an 

agency action. As stated previously, the EPA does not currently have a centralized process to 

individually characterize and sort all the different types of notices of intent that the agency 

receives. 

Second, in response to your question regarding the scope of Tier 3 gasoline regulations, the EPA is 

able to confirm that the Tier 3 standards under consideration take a systems approach. They are 

more stringent vehicle emissions standards enabled by more stringent gasoline sulfur control. 

Thus, the Tier 3 standards under consideration focus on controlling the sulfur content of gasoline, 

and do not include any other fuel quality changes. 

Third, please refer to the attached spreadsheet for detailed information regarding the analysis of 

recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations. According to 0MB Circular A-il, Line 1021 of the SF133 includes more than just recovered amounts obligated against borrowing authority: it includes 

all cancellations, downward adjustments of obligations, and deobligations. Therefore, the 

Enclosure provides the total annual balances for the past ten years, beginning with FY 2002. 

In addition, with regard to the suggestions made by GAO that the EPA include in the annual budget 

justifications information about the portion of prior year funding that was from recoveries of
unpaid obligations, the EPA is not able to include these figures in annual budget justifications. 

Future deobligations are not known or predictable. Deobligations are a line item in the financial 

statements, which are historical accounting documents and no indication of future trends. These 

deobligations are common and can occur as a result of many factors. Some reasons include: 

Technical 

• A state or local agency cannot effectively use its incremental award because it occurs too 

late in its grant period and the work it would be directed to cannot be started or completed 

within the approved grant period. This can happen when there is a significant delay in the 

EPA receiving its full appropriation. 

• Due in part to the still recovering economy and its impact on state budgets, a state or local 

agency may have to decline its award or return funds because it cannot meet the cost 

sharing requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

• A state may be directed by its legislature to spend available state dollars first. A delay in the 

arrival of additional available federal funds means that these funds cannot be spent within 

the approved budget period. 

Programmatic 

• A deobligation can occur in any given fiscal year when a grant project ends up expending 

less than the original amount. If resources are remaining when a grant closes out, the 

resources are deobligated. 

• In Tribal grants, staff turnover and loss of capacity to perform the work plan can impact the 

grant. If new staff cannot be hired in a timely manner, the funding may be deobligated. 

Also, funds can be deobligated due to lack of performance on the part of a recipient. 

Since the agency does not know the amount of deobligations in advance, EPA would only be able 

to report on past history.
^ıTEO STA ^5^r^,^

.

^

9

'

rA ı

p,^0TEOT

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 

The Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 30, 2012, co-signed by seven of your colleagues, to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson requesting additional information on 

her testimony presented before the joint hearing of the Energy and Power and Environment and the 

Economy Subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 28, 2012. I am 

pleased to respond on her behalf and have addressed each of the questions raised by you and your 

colleagues in the enclosed documents. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 564-5200 

or your staff may contact Ms. Christina J. Moody at (202) 564-0260. 

Arvin Ganesan 

Associate Administrator 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

Response to request for additional information from the Administrator's 


testimony on February 28, 2012 

First, in response to questions posed by Representatives Terry and Walden, the EPA has evaluated 

its resources and options regarding publicly accessible information to include: (a) a list of all 

petitions for rulemakings submitted to the agency; and (b) a list of all notices of intent to sue to 

compel a rulemaking submitted to the agency. Following this evaluation, we have determined 

that the EPA is unable to accommodate this request to make all petitions, notices, and requests for 

agency action publicly accessible in one location on the internet. 

With respect to petitions for rulemaking, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 

environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide the 

public with the ability to petition the agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. Petitions are 

submitted to multiple different offices within the agency and vary considerably with regard to 

formality, clarity and format; many, for example, come in as letters or emails. Accordingly, it would 

be challenging for the agency to identify, compile, format for public posting, and make centrally 

available in a timely manner all petitions for rulemaking. Although the EPA does not centrally 

track all submissions that may be characterized as petitions for rulemaking, the Agency believes 

the number is very large. The EPA does not currently have a centralized process to collect, 

characterize and sort all the petitions for rulemaking that the agency receives. 

With respect to notices of intent to sue to compel a rulemaking, the agency is constrained by 

practical and resource challenges similar to those discussed above. The agency receives thousands 

of notices of intent to sue per year pursuant to the APA and citizen suit provisions provided in 

environmental statutes such as the CWA and CAA. Many of these notices of intent to sue do not 

seek to compel the agency to commence a rulemaking or in some cases even to challenge an 

agency action. As stated previously, the EPA does not currently have a centralized process to 

individually characterize and sort all the different types of notices of intent that the agency 

receives. 

Second, in response to your question regarding the scope of Tier 3 gasoline regulations, the EPA is 

able to confirm that the Tier 3 standards under consideration take a systems approach. They are 

more stringent vehicle emissions standards enabled by more stringent gasoline sulfur control. 

Thus, the Tier 3 standards under consideration focus on controlling the sulfur content of gasoline, 

and do not include any other fuel quality changes. 

Third, please refer to the attached spreadsheet for detailed information regarding the analysis of 

recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations. According to 0MB Circular A-il, Line 1021 of the SF133 includes more than just recovered amounts obligated against borrowing authority: it includes 

all cancellations, downward adjustments of obligations, and deobligations. Therefore, the 

Enclosure provides the total annual balances for the past ten years, beginning with FY 2002. 

In addition, with regard to the suggestions made by GAO that the EPA include in the annual budget 

justifications information about the portion of prior year funding that was from recoveries of
unpaid obligations, the EPA is not able to include these figures in annual budget justifications. 

Future deobligations are not known or predictable. Deobligations are a line item in the financial 

statements, which are historical accounting documents and no indication of future trends. These 

deobligations are common and can occur as a result of many factors. Some reasons include: 

Technical 

• A state or local agency cannot effectively use its incremental award because it occurs too 

late in its grant period and the work it would be directed to cannot be started or completed 

within the approved grant period. This can happen when there is a significant delay in the 

EPA receiving its full appropriation. 

• Due in part to the still recovering economy and its impact on state budgets, a state or local 

agency may have to decline its award or return funds because it cannot meet the cost 

sharing requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

• A state may be directed by its legislature to spend available state dollars first. A delay in the 

arrival of additional available federal funds means that these funds cannot be spent within 

the approved budget period. 

Programmatic 

• A deobligation can occur in any given fiscal year when a grant project ends up expending 

less than the original amount. If resources are remaining when a grant closes out, the 

resources are deobligated. 

• In Tribal grants, staff turnover and loss of capacity to perform the work plan can impact the 

grant. If new staff cannot be hired in a timely manner, the funding may be deobligated. 

Also, funds can be deobligated due to lack of performance on the part of a recipient. 

Since the agency does not know the amount of deobligations in advance, EPA would only be able 

to report on past history.
-co S41

FRO

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 30, 2012, co-signed by seven of your colleagues, to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson requesting additional information on 

her testimony presented before the joint hearing of the Energy and Power and Environment and the 

Economy Subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 28, 2012. I am 

pleased to respond on her behalf and have addressed each of the questions raised by you and your 

colleagues in the enclosed documents. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 564-5200 

or your staff may contact Ms. Christina J. Moody at (202) 564-0260. 

Aiin Ganesan 

Associate Administrator 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

Response to request for additional information from the Administrator's 


testimony on February 28, 2012 

First, in response to questions posed by Representatives Terry and Walden, the EPA has evaluated 

its resources and options regarding publicly accessible information to include: (a) a list of all 

petitions for rulemakings submitted to the agency; and (b) a list of all notices of intent to sue to 

compel a rulemaking submitted to the agency. Following this evaluation, we have determined 

that the EPA is unable to accommodate this request to make all petitions, notices, and requests for 

agency action publicly accessible in one location on the internet. 

With respect to petitions for rulemaking, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 

environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide the 

public with the ability to petition the agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. Petitions are 

submitted to multiple different offices within the agency and vary considerably with regard to 

formality, clarity and format; many, for example, come in as letters or emails. Accordingly, it would 

be challenging for the agency to identify, compile, format for public posting, and make centrally 

available in a timely manner all petitions for rulemaking. Although the EPA does not centrally 

track all submissions that may be characterized as petitions for rulemaking, the Agency believes 

the number is very large. The EPA does not currently have a centralized process to collect, 

characterize and sort all the petitions for rulemaking that the agency receives. 

With respect to notices of intent to sue to compel a rulemaking, the agency is constrained by 

practical and resource challenges similar to those discussed above. The agency receives thousands 

of notices of intent to sue per year pursuant to the APA and citizen suit provisions provided in 

environmental statutes such as the CWA and CAA. Many of these notices of intent to sue do not 

seek to compel the agency to commence a rulemaking or in some cases even to challenge an 

agency action. As stated previously, the EPA does not currently have a centralized process to 

individually characterize and sort all the different types of notices of intent that the agency 

receives. 

Second, in response to your question regarding the scope of Tier 3 gasoline regulations, the EPA is 

able to confirm that the Tier 3 standards under consideration take a systems approach. They are 

more stringent vehicle emissions standards enabled by more stringent gasoline sulfur control. 

Thus, the Tier 3 standards under consideration focus on controlling the sulfur content of gasoline, 

and do not include any other fuel quality changes. 

Third, please refer to the attached spreadsheet for detailed information regarding the analysis of 

recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations. According to 0MB Circular A-il, Line 1021 of the SF133 includes more than just recovered amounts obligated against borrowing authority: it includes 

all cancellations, downward adjustments of obligations, and deobligations. Therefore, the 

Enclosure provides the total annual balances for the past ten years, beginning with FY 2002. 

In addition, with regard to the suggestions made by GAO that the EPA include in the annual budget 

justifications information about the portion of prior year funding that was from recoveries of
unpaid obligations, the EPA is not able to include these figures in annual budget justifications. 

Future deobligations are not known or predictable. Deobligations are a line item in the financial 

statements, which are historical accounting documents and no indication of future trends. These 

deobligations are common and can occur as a result of many factors. Some reasons include: 

Technical 

• A state or local agency cannot effectively use its incremental award because it occurs too 

late in its grant period and the work it would be directed to cannot be started or completed 

within the approved grant period. This can happen when there is a significant delay in the 

EPA receiving its full appropriation. 

• Due in part to the still recovering economy and its impact on state budgets, a state or local 

agency may have to decline its award or return funds because it cannot meet the cost 

sharing requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

• A state may be directed by its legislature to spend available state dollars first. A delay in the 

arrival of additional available federal funds means that these funds cannot be spent within 

the approved budget period. 

Programmatic 

• A deobligation can occur in any given fiscal year when a grant project ends up expending 

less than the original amount. If resources are remaining when a grant closes out, the 

resources are deobligated. 

• In Tribal grants, staff turnover and loss of capacity to perform the work plan can impact the 

grant. If new staff cannot be hired in a timely manner, the funding may be deobligated. 

Also, funds can be deobligated due to lack of performance on the part of a recipient. 

Since the agency does not know the amount of deobligatioris in advance, EPA would only be able 

to report on past history.
iii Ganesan 

Associate Administrator 

S141

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

(aj

	

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

1L PAO1

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 30, 2012, co-signed by seven of your colleagues, to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson requesting additional information on 

her testimony presented before the joint hearing of the Energy and Power and Environment and the 

Economy Subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 28, 2012. I am 

pleased to respond on her behalf and have addressed each of the questions raised by you and your 

colleagues in the enclosed documents. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 564-5200 

or your staff may contact Ms. Christina J. Moody at (202) 564-0260. 

Sincerely, 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://wwwepa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Pflnted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (MInimum 25% Postconsumer)

Response to request for additional information from the Administrator's 


testimony on February 28, 2012 

First, in response to questions posed by Representatives Terry and Walden, the EPA has evaluated 

its resources and options regarding publicly accessible information to include: (a) a list of all 

petitions for rulemakings submitted to the agency; and (b) a list of all notices of intent to sue to 

compel a rulemaking submitted to the agency. Following this evaluation, we have determined 

that the EPA is unable to accommodate this request to make all petitions, notices, and requests for 

agency action publicly accessible in one location on the internet. 

With respect to petitions for rulemaking, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 

environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide the 

public with the ability to petition the agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. Petitions are 

submitted to multiple different offices within the agency and vary considerably with regard to 

formality, clarity and format; many, for example, come in as letters or emails. Accordingly, it would 

be challenging for the agency to identify, compile, format for public posting, and make centrally 

available in a timely manner all petitions for rulemaking. Although the EPA does not centrally 

track all submissions that may be characterized as petitions for rulemaking, the Agency believes 

the number is very large. The EPA does not currently have a centralized process to collect, 

characterize and sort all the petitions for rulemaking that the agency receives. 

With respect to notices of intent to sue to compel a rulemaking, the agency is constrained by 

practical and resource challenges similar to those discussed above. The agency receives thousands 

of notices of intent to sue per year pursuant to the APA and citizen suit provisions provided in 

environmental statutes such as the CWA and CAA. Many of these notices of intent to sue do not 

seek to compel the agency to commence a rulemaking or in some cases even to challenge an 

agency action. As stated previously, the EPA does not currently have a centralized process to 

individually characterize and sort all the different types of notices of intent that the agency 

receives. 

Second, in response to your question regarding the scope of Tier 3 gasoline regulations, the EPA is 

able to confirm that the Tier 3 standards under consideration take a systems approach. They are 

more stringent vehicle emissions standards enabled by more stringent gasoline sulfur control. 

Thus, the Tier 3 standards under consideration focus on controlling the sulfur content of gasoline, 

and do not include any other fuel quality changes. 

Third, please refer to the attached spreadsheet for detailed information regarding the analysis of 

recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations. According to 0MB Circular A-il, Line 1021 of the SF133 includes more than just recovered amounts obligated against borrowing authority: it includes 

all cancllations, downward adjustments of obligations, and deobligations. Therefore, the 

Enclosure provides the total annual balances for the past ten years, beginning with FY 2002. 

In addition, with regard to the suggestions made by GAO that the EPA include in the annual budget 

justifications information about the portion of prior year funding that was from recoveries of
unpaid obligations, the EPA is not able to include these figures in annual budget justifications. 

Future deobligations are not known or predictable. Deobligations are a line item in the financial 

statements, which are historical accounting documents and no indication of future trends. These 

deobligations are common and can occur as a result of many factors. Some reasons include: 

Technical 

• A state or local agency cannot effectively use its incremental award because it occurs too 

late in its grant period and the work it would be directed to cannot be started or completed 

within the approved grant period. This can happen when there is a significant delay in the 

EPA receiving its full appropriation. 

• Due in part to the still recovering economy and its impact on state budgets, a state or local 

agency may have to decline its award or return funds because it cannot meet the cost 

sharing requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

• A state may be directed by its legislature to spend available state dollars first. A delay in the 

arrival of additional available federal funds means that these funds cannot be spent within 

the approved budget period. 

Programmatic 

• A deobligation can occur in any given fiscal year when a grant project ends up expending 

less than the original amount. If resources are remaining when a grant closes out, the 

resources are deobligated. 

• In Tribal grants, staff turnover and loss of capacity to perform the work plan can impact the 

grant. If new staff cannot be hired in a timely manner, the funding may be deobligated. 

Also, funds can be deobligated due to lack of performance on the part of a recipient. 

Since the agency does not know the amount of deobligations in advance, EPA would only be able 

to report on past history.
uN\TEDSTAB

^^^^

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 

The Honorable Lee Terry 

Vice Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Vice Chairman: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 30, 2012, co-signed by seven of your colleagues, to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson requesting additional information on 

her testimony presented before the joint hearing of the Energy and Power and Environment and the 

Economy Subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 28, 2012. I am 

pleased to respond on her behalf and have addressed each of the questions raised by you and your 

colleagues in the enclosed documents. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 564-5200 

or your staff may contact Ms. Christina J. Moody at (202) 564-0260. 

Ain Ganesan 

Associate Administrator 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Pflnted wh Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

Response to request for additional information from the Administrator's 


testimony on February 28, 2012 

First, in response to questions posed by Representatives Terry and Walden, the EPA has evaluated 

its resources and options regarding publicly accessible information to include: (a) a list of all 

petitions for rulemakings submitted to the agency; and (b) a list of all notices of intent to sue to 

compel a rulemaking submitted to the agency. Following this evaluation, we have determined 

that the EPA is unable to accommodate this request to make all petitions, notices, and requests for 

agency action publicly accessible in one location on the internet. 

With respect to petitions for rulemaking, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 

environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide the 

public with the ability to petition the agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. Petitions are 

submitted to multiple different offices within the agency and vary considerably with regard to 

formality, clarity and format; many, for example, come in as letters or emails. Accordingly, it would 

be challenging for the agency to identify, compile, format for public posting, and make centrally 

available in a timely manner all petitions for rulemaking. Although the EPA does not centrally 

track all submissions that may be characterized as petitions for rulemaking, the Agency believes 

the number is very large. The EPA does not currently have a centralized process to collect, 

characterize and sort all the petitions for rulemaking that the agency receives. 

With respect to notices of intent to sue to compel a rulemaking, the agency is constrained by 

practical and resource challenges similar to those discussed above. The agency receives thousands 

of notices of intent to sue per year pursuant to the APA and citizen suit provisions provided in 

environmental statutes such as the CWA and CAA. Many of these notices of intent to sue do not 

seek to compel the agency to commence a rulemaking or in some cases even to challenge an 

agency action. As stated previously, the EPA does not currently have a centralized process to 

individually characterize and sort all the different types of notices of intent that the agency 

receives. 

Second, in response to your question regarding the scope of Tier 3 gasoline regulations, the EPA is 

able to confirm that the Tier 3 standards under consideration take a systems approach. They are 

more stringent vehicle emissions standards enabled by more stringent gasoline sulfur control. 

Thus, the Tier 3 standards under consideration focus on controlling the sulfur content of gasoline, 

and do not include any other fuel quality changes. 

Third, please refer to the attached spreadsheet for detailed information regarding the analysis of 

recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations. According to 0MB Circular A-il, Line 1021 of the SF133 includes more than just recovered amounts obligated against borrowing authority: it includes 

all cancellations, downward adjustments of obligations, and deobligations. Therefore, the 

Enclosure provides the total annual balances for the past ten years, beginning with FY 2002. 

In addition, with regard to the suggestions made by GAO that the EPA include in the annual budget 

justifications information about the portion of prior year funding that was from recoveries of
unpaid obligations, the EPA is not able to include these figures in annual budget justifications. 

Future deobligations are not known or predictable. Deobligations are a line item in the financial 

statements, which are historical accounting documents and no indication of future trends. These 

deobligations are common and can occur as a result of many factors. Some reasons include: 

Technical 

• A state or local agency cannot effectively use its incremental award because it occurs too 

late in its grant period and the work it would be directed to cannot be started or completed 

within the approved grant period. This can happen when there is a significant delay in the 

EPA receiving its full appropriation. 

• Due in part to the still recovering economy and its impact on state budgets, a state or local 

agency may have to decline its award or return funds because it cannot meet the cost 

sharing requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

• A state may be directed by its legislature to spend available state dollars first. A delay in the 

arrival of additional available federal funds means that these funds cannot be spent within 

the approved budget period. 

Programmatic 

• A deobligation can occur in any given fiscal year when a grant project ends up expending 

less than the original amount. If resources are remaining when a grant closes out, the 

resources are deobligated. 

• In Tribal grants, staff turnover and, loss of capacity to perform the work plan can impact the 

grant. If new staff cannot be hired in a timely manner, the funding may be deobligated. 

Also, funds can be deobligated due to lack of performance on the part of a recipient. 

Since the agency does not know the amount of deobligations in advance, EPA would only be able 

to report on past history.
\

S.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

(' )

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

FRO

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 

The Honorable Michael C. Burgess 

Vice Chairman 

Subcommittee on Health 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Vice Chairman: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 30, 2012, co-signed by seven of your colleagues, to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson requesting additional information on 

her testimony presented before the joint hearing of the Energy and Power and Environment and the 

Economy Subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 28, 2012. I am 

pleased to respond on her behalf and have addressed each of the questions raised by you and your 

colleagues in the enclosed documents. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 564-5200 

or your staff may contact Ms. Christina J. Moody at (202) 564-0260. 

Arvin Ganesan 

Associate Administrator 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

Response to request for additional information from the Administrator's


testimony on February 28, 2012 

First, in response to questions posed by Representatives Terry and Walden, the EPA has evaluated 

its resources and options regarding publicly accessible information to include: (a) a list of all 

petitions for rulemakings submitted to the agency; and (b) a list of all notices of intent to sue to 

compel a rulemaking submitted to the agency. Following this evaluation, we have determined 

that the EPA is unable to accommodate this request to make all petitions, notices, and requests for 

agency action publicly accessible in one location on the internet. 

With respect to petitions for rulemaking, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 

environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide the 

public with the ability to petition the agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. Petitions are 

submitted to multiple different offices within the agency and vary considerably with regard to 

formality, clarity and format; many, for example, come in as letters or emails. Accordingly, it would 

be challenging for the agency to identify, compile, format for public posting, and make centrally 

available in a timely manner all petitions for rulemaking. Although the EPA does not centrally 

track all submissions that may be characterized as petitions for rulemaking, the Agency believes 

the number is very large. The EPA does not currently have a centralized process to collect, 

characterize and sort all the petitions for rulemaking that the agency receives. 

With respect to notices of intent to sue to compel a rulemaking, the agency is constrained by 

practical and resource challenges similar to those discussed above. The agency receives thousands 

of notices of intent to sue per year pursuant to the APA and citizen suit provisions provided in 

environmental statutes such as the CWA and CAA. Many of these notices of intent to sue do not 

seek to compel the agency to commence a rulemaking or in some cases even to challenge an 

agency action. As stated previously, the EPA does not currently have a centralized process to 

individually characterize and sort all the different types of notices of intent that the agency 

receives. 

Second, in response to your question regarding the scope of Tier 3 gasoline regulations, the EPA is 

able to confirm that the Tier 3 standards under consideration take a systems approach. They are 

more stringent vehicle emissions standards enabled by more stringent gasoline sulfur control. 

Thus, the Tier 3 standards under consideration focus on controlling the sulfur content of gasoline, 

and do not include any other fuel quality changes. 

Third, please refer to the attached spreadsheet for detailed information regarding the analysis of 

recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations. According to 0MB Circular A-il, Line 1021 of the SF133 includes more than just recovered amounts obligated against borrowing authority: it includes 

all cancellations, downward adjustments of obligations, and deobligations. Therefore, the 

Enclosure provides the total annual balances for the past ten years, beginning with FY 2002. 

In addition, with regard to the suggestions made by GAO that the EPA include in the annual budget 

justifications information about the portion of prior year funding that was from recoveries of
unpaid obligations, the EPA is not able to include these figures in annual budget justifications. 

Future deobligations are not known or predictable. Deobligations are a line item in the financial 

statements, which are historical accounting documents and no indication of future trends. These 

deobligations are common and can occur as a result of many factors. Some reasons include: 

Technical 

• A state or local agency cannot effectively use its incremental award because it occurs too 

late in its grant period and the work it would be directed to cannot be started or completed 

within the approved grant period. This can happen when there is a significant delay in the 

EPA receiving its full appropriation. 

• Due in part to the still recovering economy and its impact on state budgets, a state or local 

agency may have to decline its award or return funds because it cannot meet the cost 

sharing requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

• A state may be directed by its legislature to spend available state dollars first. A delay in the 

arrival of additional available federal funds means that these funds cannot be spent within 

the approved budget period. 

Programmatic 

• A deobligation can occur in any given fiscal year when a grant project ends up expending 

less than the original amount. If resources are remaining when a grant closes out, the 

resources are deobligated. 

• In Tribal grants, staff turnover and loss of capacity to perform the work plan can impact the 

grant. If new staff cannot be hired in a timely manner, the funding may be deobligated. 

Also, funds can be deobligated due to lack of performance on the part of a recipient. 

Since the agency does not know the amount of deobligations in advance, EPA would only be able 

to report on past history.
çO S741.


PRO

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 

The Honorable Robert E. Latta 

Member 

Subcommittee on Health 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Latta: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 30, 2012, co-signed by seven of your colleagues, to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson requesting additional information on 

her testimony presented before the joint hearing of the Energy and Power and Environment and the 

Economy Subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 28, 2012. I am 

pleased to respond on her behalf and have addressed each of the questions raised by you and your 

colleagues in the enclosed documents. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 564-5200 

or your staff may contact Ms. Christina J. Moody at (202) 564-0260. 

Arvih Ganesan 

Associate Administrator 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed wth Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

Response to request for additional information from the Administrator's 


testimony on February 28, 2012 

First, in response to questions posed by Representatives Terry and Walden, the EPA has evaluated 

its resources and options regarding publicly accessible information to include: (a) a list of all 

petitions for rulemakings submitted to the agency; and (b) a list of all notices of intent to sue to 

compel a rulemaking submitted to the agency. Following this evaluation, we have determined 

that the EPA is unable to accommodate this request to make all petitions, notices, and requests for 

agency action publicly accessible in one location on the internet. 

With respect to petitions for rulemaking, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 

environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide the 

public with the ability to petition the agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. Petitions are 

submitted to multiple different offices within the agency and vary considerably with regard to 

formality, clarity and format; many, for example, come in as letters or emails. Accordingly, it would 

be challenging for the agency to identify, compile, format for public posting, and make centrally 

available in a timely manner all petitions for rulemaking. Although the EPA does not centrally 

track all submissions that may be characterized as petitions for rulemaking, the Agency believes 

the number is very large. The EPA does not currently have a centralized process to collect, 

characterize and sort all the petitions for rulemaking that the agency receives. 

With respect to notices of intent to sue to compel a rulemaking, the agency is constrained by 

practical and resource challenges similar to those discussed above. The agency receives thousands 

of notices of intent to sue per year pursuant to the APA and citizen suit provisions provided in 

environmental statutes such as the CWA and CAA. Many of these notices of intent to sue do not 

seek to compel the agency to commence a rulemaking or in some cases even to challenge an 

agency action. As stated previously, the EPA does not currently have a centralized process to 

individually characterize and sort all the different types of notices of intent that the agency 

receives. 

Second, in response to your question regarding the scope of Tier 3 gasoline regulations, the EPA is 

able to confirm that the Tier 3 standards under consideration take a systems approach. They are 

more stringent vehicle emissions standards enabled by more stringent gasoline sulfur control. 

Thus, the Tier 3 standards under consideration focus on controlling the sulfur content of gasoline, 

and do not include any other fuel quality changes. 

Third, please refer to the attached spreadsheet for detailed information regarding the analysis of 

recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations. According to 0MB Circular A-il, Line 1021 of the SF133 includes more than just recovered amounts obligated against borrowing authority: it includes 

all cancellations, downward adjustments of obligations, and deobligations. Therefore, the 

Enclosure provides the total annual balances for the past ten years, beginning with FY 2002. 

In addition, with regard to the suggestions made by GAO that the EPA include in the annual budget 

justifications information about the portion of prior year funding that was from recoveries of
unpaid obligations, the EPA is not able to include these figures in annual budget justifications. 

Future deobligations are not known or predictable. Deobligations are a line item in the financial 

statements, which are historical accounting documents and no indication of future trends. These 

deobligations are common and can occur as a result of many factors. Some reasons include: 

Technical 

• A state or local agency cannot effectively use its incremental award because it occurs too 

late in its grant period and the work it would be directed to cannot be started or completed 

within the approved grant period. This can happen when there is a significant delay in the 

EPA receiving its full appropriation. 

• Due in part to the still recovering economy and its impact on state budgets, a state or local 

agency may have to decline its award or return funds because it cannot meet the cost 

sharing requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

• A state may be directed by its legislature to spend available state dollars first. A delay in the 

arrival of additional available federal funds means that these funds cannot be spent within 

the approved budget period. 

Programmatic 

• A deobligation can occur in any given fiscal year when a grant project ends up expending 

less than the original amount. If resources are remaining when a grant closes out, the 

resources are deobligated. 

• In Tribal grants, staff turnover and loss of capacity to perform the work plan can impact the 

grant. If new staff cannot be hired in a timely manner, the funding may be deobligated. 

Also, funds can be deobligated due to lack of performance on the part of a recipient. 

Since the agency does not know the amount of deobligations in advance, EPA would only be able 

to report on past history.
-c o S141. 

g

	

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 

The Honorable Cory Gardner 

Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Gardner: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 30, 2012, co-signed by seven of your colleagues, to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson requesting additional information on 

her testimony presented before the joint hearing of the Energy and Power and Environment and the 

Economy Subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 28, 2012. I am 

pleased to respond on her behalf and have addressed each of the questions raised by you and your 

colleagues in the enclosed documents. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 564-5200 

or your staff may contact Ms. Christina J. Moody at (202) 564-0260. 

Arvin Ganesan 

Associate Administrator 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Bobby Rush, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed wth Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

Response to request for additional information from the Administrator's 


testimony on February 28, 2012 

First, in response to questions posed by Representatives Terry and Walden, the EPA has evaluated 

its resources and options regarding publicly accessible information to include: (a) a list of all 

petitions for rulemakings submitted to the agency; and (b) a list of all notices of intent to sue to 

compel a rulemaking submitted to the agency. Following this evaluation, we have determined 

that the EPA is unable to accommodate this request to make all petitions, notices, and requests for 

agency action publicly accessible in one location on the internet. 

With respect to petitions for rulemaking, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 

environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide the 

public with the ability to petition the agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. Petitions are 

submitted to multiple different offices within the agency and vary considerably with regard to 

formality, clarity and format; many, for example, come in as letters or emails. Accordingly, it would 

be challenging for the agency to identify, compile, format for public posting, and make centrally 

available in a timely manner all petitions for rulemaking. Although the EPA does not centrally 

track all submissions that may be characterized as petitions for rulemaking, the Agency believes 

the number is very large. The EPA does not currently have a centralized process to collect, 

characterize and sort all the petitions for rulemaking that the agency receives. 

With respect to notices of intent to sue to compel a rulemaking, the agency is constrained by 

practical and resource challenges similar to those discussed above. The agency receives thousands 

of notices of intent to sue per year pursuant to the APA and citizen suit provisions provided in 

environmental statutes such as the CWA and CAA. Many of these notices of intent to sue do not 

seek to compel the agency to commence a rulemaking or in some cases even to challenge an 

agency action. As stated previously, the EPA does not currently have a centralized process to 

individually characterize and sort all the different types of notices of intent that the agency 

receives. 

Second, in response to your question regarding the scope of Tier 3 gasoline regulations, the EPA is 

able to confirm that the Tier 3 standards under consideration take a systems approach. They are 

more stringent vehicle emissions standards enabled by more stringent gasoline sulfur control. 

Thus, the Tier 3 standards under consideration focus on controlling the sulfur content of gasoline, 

and do not include any other fuel quality changes. 

Third, please refer to the attached spreadsheet for detailed information regarding the analysis of 

recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations. According to 0MB Circular A-il, Line 1021 of the SF133 includes more than just recovered amounts obligated against borrowing authority: it includes 

all cancellations, downward adjustments of obligations, and deobligations. Therefore, the 

Enclosure provides the total annual balances for the past ten years, beginning with FY 2002. 

In addition, with regard to the suggestions made by GAO that the EPA include in the annual budget 

justifications information about the portion of prior year funding that was from recoveries of
unpaid obligations, the EPA is not able to include these figures in annual budget justifications. 

Future deobligations are not known or predictable. Deobligations are a line item in the financial 

statements, which are historical accounting documents and no indication of future trends. These 

deobligations are common and can occur as a result of many factors. Some reasons include: 

Technical 

• A state or local agency cannot effectively use its incremental award because it occurs too 

late in its grant period and the work it would be directed to cannot be started or completed 

within the approved grant period. This can happen when there is a significant delay in the 

EPA receiving its full appropriation. 

• Due in part to the still recovering economy and its impact on state budgets, a state or local 

agency may have to decline its awardor return funds because it cannot meet the cost 

sharing requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

• A state may be directed by its legislature to spend available state dollars first. A delay in the 

arrival of additional available federal funds means that these funds cannot be spent within 

the approved budget period. 

Programmatic 

• A deobligation can occur in any given fiscal year when a grant project ends up expending 

less than the original amount. If resources are remaining when a grant closes out, the 

resources are deobligated. 

• In Tribal grants, staff turnover and loss of capacity to perform the work plan can impact the 

grant. If new staff cannot be hired in a timely manner, the funding may be deobligated. 

Also, funds can be deobligated due to lack of performance on the part of a recipient. 

Since the agency does not know the amount of deobligations in advance, EPA would only be able 

to report on past history.
— o 

N. 

C

0 

N

C) 0 

0) 0 C) 

C 

C 

N.

() U) 

C) CD U) 

U0 

N. N

U) 

0) U) N C 

N U) 

N

U) (T 

C) 

U) N 

C) U) 

C) N 

0CU) U)U)-•0O U)0.F-.C') 

U)oU)N.oNU)(o)N.r-c,0) 

N. U) 0 U) 

0) CD 

U)

T 

U) N. 

N. U) U) 

N N 

0U)U)N.N.NN 

C1 

00 0 U) 

CD

C)

0) 0 

U) N. 

N. 0 

U) N 

U) 

U) U) 

N.

00 

0 N. 

U) 

C) U) 

N U) N

U) 

U) 

— 

U) N 

U) 

N 

0 N

0CDN. U)U)C) U) N. .-U)CD CD0 

C')C') 

C) 

')

0 00) 

U) 

U) U) 

C)N0C)CDU)0 'U)r..00)U)q 

CDC)0U)0 

't6't0U)0)U)0 

0 N N. 

00C)0)-0 

N 0	U) 

)c') 

C') C')

N. 0 

00 U)C)

C)N.N. 0)N0(4 

C') U) 

N. 

CD U) CD 

C)C)0C')N. U)C')U)N.CO 

U)C)C)U)0 

0..U)0U) 

N. U) 

N. C') 

N N.

C) 

U) 

N. N 

0 

—

N. N 

O 

0 

N 

U) 

CD

CD CO 

N 

N. U) 

N CO 

N. 

N C')

C') 

C)

• N 

N. 

N N 

N.

0 CC) U) C) C) N.-CD 

U) 0 N. CO 

C) U) CO C) 0) N	C) U) N. 

U) 0 U) U) 

C) 0	C') U),-N0 

N

U) U) N.N. 

U) C') 0) N 

U) CD 

' U) U) N. 'N. 

COU) 

U)

C)TN 0U) 

0 U) N 0 C') 

00 

U) N. U)N. 

C')N. 

N. N 

0) O 0 N

0 

-: 

CD 

N. 0 

0 

CD

0 C) 

0 0 0 

0 

CD 

U)

U) U) U) 0 0	U)U)	CDU)U)N. 

1')	0 U) U) U) 0 N	C) 0 CD	'UN	U)CDC')'U 

(0	CO'U	C) 

C) 'U 

'U N	C') C') 

N

N. C) 

C) CO 

U) U) 

0 

U) U) 

U)N

U) N 00 

U) C) CO N 

U) 

0) C') N 0 U) 

,r'U 

N 

U) 

N

U) N 

N. N C) U) 'U 

C) 

N. 

. 

N 

U)0U)0N. N. 00 

U) 0 '-0 C') 0 

U) C) 

U) 

CC) 

CD N

N. CD 

'U 

U) 

C') 

CD CD 

—

N	N U)	'U 

'U U)'	COCOU) 

C)	C) C')	C') 

N. U) U) 

N.	N N.	C) C')	U) U) 'U. N	N. 0	CD 'U	'	0)0. C')	N

C) N. 

U) U) 

U) C') 

C) U) 

U) 'U 

U) 

U) U) U)

N. C') )CD 

U) C) C') U) U) U) 

U) N. U) 00) 

.•	0 

CD N 

NN

CD C') 

'U 

N. N 

CD 

(0 

N

C') U) 

N. 

N. CO 

'U 

N. 

0 O

0 C) 

'U 0 N 

C') N

C')	C) 0	C') 

N. U)C)	C'.ICDCD 

C) 0 C')	CD C')	N C) C')	U) C')	C')NU)	0)CCD 

C) C) N. U) N. 

U) N	NCDU) CD	C)U)	U)C) 

N	N

U) N. 

U) C) 

U) CD 

N. N 

.-U) C')

U) N 00 

CD 'U 0 CD CDC') 

C') COO N.U) 

C') 

CD C') 

CO 

N

O ON 

N (0 CC) 

CD 

'U' —

U) C') 

'U 0) 

CO	U) 

U) N. 0)	CD 

N. C') o U) 0	CD 

C) N

U) N. U) C) U) - 

.- C')U)U)U)C')O 

N	NU)U)C)CDC')O) 

C) N CO U) 000 OCOU),-'N 

U) N C) U) CD 'U 

N. U) N C) 0	N.0)	CON-U) 

C) .-

U) .- 

CD 

C') 'U 'U N. 

IC5C)1 0 

,-

C') N. 

U) 

'-N C) CD U).-

U) 0 C) 'UN. 

'U 

U) N 

U) 

N

U) 

N 

C) 

NU) 

O U) 0 CU). 

C).-CD 

C)nC)

C')	0) U)	U) U)	.'O	U)C')O 

N. C) ("((DC') 

S 

CD 'c' .-c' U)

'

0 - N C') - COC) 

c'iU; 

U)

- 

U) CD 

-

N	.—U)	U)N.U) 

.	. 

l	.

. 

0 N

U) 

C) 

o

U) C') U) 

U).- 

Co	'U CO

'U•	C') U) 0	C') 

.-	.—N.O	NU)C) 

0	CD U) C')	U) C')	C) C') C')	U) N	C') '-

N 0 

U) U) 

N. N 'U N

0) 

N. 

CD 

C') 0 

N U) 

U) U) NN NO 

= 

0

t

a, '0 WCUU)	C 

U

U)