II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2161 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 

issuing any final rule under the Clean Air Act until the date on which 

the Administrator improves certain employment effect analyses under 

that Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 26, 2014 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. 

BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. VITTER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. 

CHAMBLISS, Mr. COATS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. SCOTT, 

Mr. SHELBY, Mr. ENZI, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. LEE, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. 

ROBERTS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. WICKER, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BURR, and 

Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing any final rule under the Clean 

Air Act until the date on which the Administrator improves certain employment effect analyses under that 

Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2161 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EPA Employment Im3 pact Analysis Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS UNDER THE 

5 CLEAN AIR ACT. 

6 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

7 (1) the Environmental Protection Agency has 

8 systematically distorted the true impact of regula9 tions promulgated by the Environmental Protection 

10 Agency under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

11 seq.) on job creation by using incomplete analyses to 

12 assess effects on employment, primarily as a result 

13 of the Environmental Protection Agency failing to 

14 take into account the cascading effects of a regu15 latory change across interconnected industries and 

16 markets nationwide; 

17 (2) despite the Environmental Protection Agen18 cy finding that the impact of certain air pollution 

19 regulations will result in net job creation, implemen20 tation of the air pollution regulations will actually 

21 require billions of dollars in compliance costs, result22 ing in reduced business profits and millions of actual 

23 job losses; 

24 (3)(A) the analysis of the Environmental Pro25 tection Agency of the final rule of the Agency enti26 tled ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2161 IS

1 Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric 

2 Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of 

3 Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, 

4 Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small In5 dustrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating 

6 Units’’ (77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012)) esti7 mated that implementation of the final rule would 

8 result in the creation of 46,000 temporary construc9 tion jobs and 8,000 net new permanent jobs; but 

10 (B) a private study conducted by NERA Eco11 nomic Consulting, using a ‘‘whole economy’’ model, 

12 estimated that implementation of the final rule de13 scribed in subparagraph (A) would result in a nega14 tive impact on the income of workers in an amount 

15 equivalent to 180,000 to 215,000 lost jobs in 2015 

16 and 50,000 to 85,000 lost jobs each year thereafter; 

17 (4)(A) the analysis of the Environmental Pro18 tection Agency of the final rule of the Agency enti19 tled ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate 

20 Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

21 and Correction of SIP Approvals’’ (76 Fed. Reg. 

22 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011)) estimated that implementa23 tion of the final rule would result in the creation of 

24 700 jobs per year; but 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 2161 IS

1 (B) a private study conducted by NERA Eco2 nomic Consulting estimated that implementation of 

3 the final rule described in subparagraph (A) would 

4 result in the elimination of a total of 34,000 jobs 

5 during the period beginning in calendar year 2013 

6 and ending in calendar year 2037; 

7 (5)(A) the analysis of the Environmental Pro8 tection Agency of the final rules of the Agency enti9 tled ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

10 Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Com11 mercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heat12 ers’’ (76 Fed. Reg. 15608 (March 21, 2011)) and 

13 ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

14 Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, 

15 and Institutional Boilers’’ (76 Fed. Reg. 15554 

16 (March 21, 2011)) estimated that implementation of 

17 the final rules would result in the creation of 2,200 

18 jobs per year; but 

19 (B) a private study conducted by NERA Eco20 nomic Consulting estimated that implementation of 

21 the final rules described in subparagraph (A) would 

22 result in the elimination of 28,000 jobs per year dur23 ing the period beginning in calendar year 2013 and 

24 ending in calendar year 2037; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•S 2161 IS

1 (6) implementation of certain air pollution rules 

2 of the Environmental Protection Agency that have 

3 not been reviewed, updated, or finalized as of the 

4 date of enactment of this Act, such as regulations on 

5 greenhouse gas emissions and the update or review 

6 of national ambient air quality standards, are pre7 dicted to result in significant and negative employ8 ment impacts, but the Agency has not yet fully stud9 ied or disclosed the full impacts of existing Agency 

10 regulations; 

11 (7) in reviewing, developing, or updating any 

12 regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act 

13 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) after the date of enactment 

14 of this Act, the Environmental Protection Agency 

15 must be required to accurately disclose the adverse 

16 impact the existing regulations of the Agency will 

17 have on jobs and employment levels across the econ18 omy in the United States and disclose those impacts 

19 to the American people before issuing a final rule; 

20 and 

21 (8) although since 1977, section 321(a) of the 

22 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7621(a)) has required the 

23 Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

24 Agency to ‘‘conduct continuing evaluations of poten25 tial loss or shifts of employment which may result 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
6 

•S 2161 IS

1 from the administration or enforcement of the provi2 sion of [the Clean Air Act] and applicable implemen3 tation plans, including where appropriate, inves4 tigating threatened plant closures or reductions in 

5 employment allegedly resulting from such adminis6 tration or enforcement’’, the Environmental Protec7 tion Agency has failed to undertake that analysis or 

8 conduct a comprehensive study that considers the 

9 impact of programs carried out under the Clean Air 

10 Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) on jobs and changes 

11 in employment. 

12 (b) PROHIBITION.—The Administrator of the Envi13 ronmental Protection Agency shall not propose or finalize 

14 any major rule (as defined in section 804 of title 5, United 

15 States Code) under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 

16 et seq.) until after the date on which the Administrator— 

17 (1) completes an economy-wide analysis cap18 turing the costs and cascading effects across indus19 try sectors and markets in the United States of the 

20 implementation of major rules promulgated under 

21 the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); and 

22 (2) establishes a process to update that analysis 

23 not less frequently than semiannually, so as to pro24 vide for the continuing evaluation of potential loss or 

25 shifts in employment, pursuant to section 321(a) of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
7 

•S 2161 IS

1 the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7621(a)), that may re2 sult from the implementation of major rules under 

3 the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS