Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2013 in P.L. 113-6
Released: 2013-08-29T00:00:00

Summary:
Enacted March 26, 2013, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6), appropriated funding for the full fiscal year through September 30, 2013. Seven regular appropriations acts, including Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, which funds EPA, are covered by the full-year continuing appropriations provided in Division F of P.L. 113-6. The final level of appropriations ultimately available to EPA and other federal departments and agencies in FY2013 includes the application of an across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 113-6 and the executive branch calculations of the automatic spending reductions triggered by sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25), as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA; P.L. 112-240). Section 1113 of P.L. 113-6 required federal departments and agencies funded in Division F of the law to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to identify the allocations of FY2013 enacted funding by program, project, or activity within each statutory appropriations account, including the application of rescissions and sequestration, within 30 days of enactment.
In its FY2013 Operating Plan submitted to the committees on May 7, 2013, EPA reported a total enacted FY2013 post-sequestration funding level of $7.90 billion, $443.4 million (5.3%) less than the President's FY2013 request and $548.3 million (6.5%) below the FY2012 enacted level. The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2), provided another $577.3 million (post-sequestration) to EPA in FY2013 for water infrastructure, cleanup, and other recovery efforts in areas of states affected by Hurricane Sandy, for a combined agency total of $8.48 billion.
Prior to the enactment of P.L. 113-6, EPA and other federal departments and agencies had operated under the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (P.L. 112-175, H.J.Res. 117), enacted September 28, 2012, in the 112th Congress. With a few exceptions, P.L. 112-175 generally had provided FY2013 appropriations for EPA and most other federal departments and agencies apportioned at 0.612% above the FY2012 enacted levels. Although not enacted, Title II of H.R. 6091, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on July 10, 2012, had included $7.06 billion for EPA for FY2013. The bipartisan leadership of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies also had released a draft bill on September 25, 2012, which included different funding priorities and proposed $8.52 billion for EPA in FY2013.
In addition to funding levels for EPA programs and activities, several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions received considerable interest during the consideration of the FY2013 appropriations debate similar to recent fiscal-year appropriations. Although several directive provisions to prohibit or restrict funding for certain EPA actions were included in H.R. 6091 as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, these provisions were not included in the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee leadership draft bill, the partial-year continuing resolution for FY2013 in P.L. 112-175, or P.L. 113-6, which provided funding for the full fiscal year.
This report summarizes actions on FY2013 appropriations for EPA and presents the FY2013 enacted levels after the application of the across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration, as reported in EPA's Operating Plan. A breakout of the agency total is presented for each account and selected programs and activities within those accounts that received prominent attention in the congressional debate. A comparison of the FY2013 enacted levels to the President's FY2013 budget request and the FY2012 enacted levels is included.

subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: Congress considered FY2013 discretionary appropriations for federal departments and agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in the context of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25 ) as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA; P.L. 112-240 ). That act established, among other things, a statutory limit on FY2013 discretionary spending and required a sequestration of FY2013 budgetary resources due to the failure of the President and Congress to enact legislation reducing the federal deficit by a specified date.
Neither the House nor the Senate passed a regular appropriations bill for FY2013 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in which EPA is funded. Because no regular FY2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill was enacted prior to the start of the fiscal year, Congress first included funds for these agencies in a continuing appropriations resolution (CR; P.L. 112-175 , H.J.Res. 117 , enacted September 28, 2012) that would have been in effect through March 27, 2013. For EPA and most other federal departments and agencies, the CR generally continued funding on a pro-rata basis at a level that was 0.612% higher than the FY2012 level. P.L. 112-175 was superseded by a second law, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 ( P.L. 113-6 , H.R. 933 , enacted March 26, 2013). Division F of the law provided discretionary appropriations for the full fiscal year for EPA and other federal departments and agencies through September 30, 2013.
P.L. 113-6 does not specify the actual amount available to EPA, and many other federal departments and agencies for FY2013. Instead, the act provides a level of appropriations from which certain reductions were to be made as a result of the sequestration required by the BCA and an across-the-board rescission required to comply with the statutory limit on discretionary spending for FY2013. That is, the actual funding available to EPA and other departments and agencies generally is the amounts specified in the act minus the amounts required to be sequestered and rescinded.
P.L. 113-6 did not treat all of EPA's eight appropriations accounts the same. For four of the accounts, the act specified a level equal to the FY2012 enacted appropriations. For those accounts, the act further specified that the use of funds provided for these accounts would be subject to the same authorities and conditions in FY2013 that applied in FY2012. For the other four accounts, P.L. 113-6 specified amounts referred to as "anomalies" that were below the FY2012 enacted levels. These "anomalies" would not be subject to the same FY2012 authorities and conditions in FY2013.
In determining the final funding levels, Section 1113 of P.L. 113-6 required EPA and other federal departments and agencies funded in Division F of the law to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to identify the allocations of FY2013 funding by program, project, or activity within each statutory appropriations account, including the application of sequestration and rescissions, within 30 days of enactment.
In response to this requirement, EPA submitted its FY2013 Operating Plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on May 7, 2013. In its plan, EPA reported total FY2013 enacted discretionary appropriations of $7.90 billion after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. The FY2013 enacted level is $443.4 million (5.3%) below the President's FY2013 request and $548.3 million (6.5%) below the FY2012 enacted level. The EPA Operating Plan also presented the supplemental appropriations provided for FY2013 by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 ( P.L. 113-2 , H.R. 152 ). EPA reported an additional $577.3 million (post-sequestration) in supplemental funding for the agency, increasing the total FY2013 enacted discretionary appropriations for EPA to $8.48 billion. The supplemental appropriations were allocated for water infrastructure, cleanup, and other recovery efforts in areas of states affected by Hurricane Sandy.
The following sections of this report present the FY2013 funding levels indicated in EPA's Operating Plan for each of the agency's statutorily defined appropriations accounts, compared to the President's FY2013 request and the enacted FY2012 appropriations. The report presents a breakout of this funding for selected EPA programs and activities funded at the sub-account level that have received prominent attention in the congressional debate. EPA's Operating Plan presents a more detailed breakout for the major program areas within each account (see " FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief " below).
This report also summarizes action on EPA appropriations for FY2013 in the 112 th Congress leading to the enactment of P.L. 113-6 , including the partial-year continuing resolution for FY2013 in P.L. 112-175 , the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 ( H.R. 6091 , H.Rept. 112-589 ), reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on July 10, 2012, and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies draft bill released on September 25, 2012. For further discussion of these earlier proposals in the 112 th Congress and related issues, see CRS Report R42520, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112 th Congress , coordinated by [author name scrubbed].
 Table A -1 in Appendix A provides a historical comparison of enacted appropriations (not adjusted for inflation) by EPA appropriations account from FY2008 through FY2013. Figure A -1 depicts historical funding trends (adjusted for inflation) for the agency back to FY1976, and Figure A -2 presents EPA's full-time-equivalent (FTE) employment ceiling for FY2001 through FY2013 (proposed and requested). With the exception of the historical funding presented in Figure A -1 in Appendix A , the enacted appropriations for prior fiscal years presented throughout this report have not been adjusted for inflation. In some cases, small increases above the prior-year funding level may reflect a decrease in real dollar values when adjusted for inflation.
In general, the term appropriations used in this report refers to total discretionary funds made available to EPA for obligation, including regular fiscal year and emergency supplemental appropriations, as well as any rescissions, transfers, and deferrals in a particular fiscal year, but excludes permanent or mandatory appropriations that are not subject to the annual appropriations process. This latter category of funding constitutes a very small portion of EPA's annual funding. The vast majority of the agency's annual funding consists of discretionary appropriations. Since FY1996, EPA's appropriations have been requested by the Administration and appropriated by Congress within eight statutory appropriations accounts. Appendix B briefly describes the scope and purpose of the activities funded within each of these accounts.
The levels of FY2013 appropriations indicated in this report are as presented in EPA's Operating Plan provided to CRS by the House Committee on Appropriations, reflecting the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P.L. 112-25 ) as amended, and the additional across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 113-6 (determined to be 0.2%). The House Committee on Appropriations is the primary source for the FY2012 enacted amounts after rescissions, and the President's budget request for FY2013 unless otherwise specified.
section_title: FY2013 and the Budget Control Act14
paragraphs: Congress considered FY2013 discretionary appropriations in the context of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25 ) as amended, which established limits for discretionary spending for FY2012-FY2021. The BCA also tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a federal deficit reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012. Because deficit reduction legislation was not enacted by that date, an automatic spending reduction process established by the BCA was triggered. This process consists of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, initially scheduled to begin on January 2, 2013. The "joint committee" sequestration process for FY2013 required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement across-the-board spending cuts at the account and program level to achieve equal budget reductions from both defense and nondefense funding at a percentage to be determined, under terms specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the BCA.
The American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA; P.L. 112-240 ), enacted on January 2, 2013, made a number of significant changes to the procedures in the BCA that took place in FY2013. First, the date for the joint committee sequester to be implemented was delayed until March 1, 2013. Second, the dollar amount of the joint committee sequester was reduced by $24 billion. Third, statutory caps on discretionary spending for FY2013 (and FY2014) were lowered.
Pursuant to the BCA, as amended by the ATRA, President Obama ordered that the joint committee sequester be implemented on March 1, 2013. The accompanying OMB report estimated a dollar amount of budget authority to be canceled in FY2013 from each account containing non-exempt funds. The sequestration was to be applied at the program, project, and activity (PPA) level within each account. Because the sequestration was implemented at the time that a temporary continuing resolution was in force, the calculations required to determine the amount of the reduction were based on the annualized level of the part-year appropriations provided by the FY2013 Continuing Resolution ( P.L. 112-175 ). Therefore, the effect of these reductions on the discretionary budgetary resources available to EPA and other federal departments and agencies at the account and PPA level was dependent on the amounts provided for the full year, as subsequently specified in P.L. 113-16 . The succeeding EPA Operating Plan presented the reductions that were applied to the agency's funding under sequestration in FY2013 at the account level and by major program area within each account.
section_title: EPA FY2013 Appropriations
paragraphs:  Table 1 presents the levels of FY2013 enacted appropriations reported in EPA's Operating Plan, compared to the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted amounts, by each of the agency's eight statutorily defined appropriations accounts. (A description of each of the appropriations accounts is presented in Appendix B .) The FY2013 enacted amounts reflect automatic spending reductions triggered by sequestration and a 0.2% across-the-board rescission applied to the baseline amounts for EPA in Division F of P.L. 113-6 . The table also presents a breakout of supplemental appropriations for FY2013 (post-sequestration) under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 ( P.L. 113-2 ), enacted prior to P.L. 113-6 . The FY2012 enacted amounts presented in the table reflect rescissions that applied to that fiscal year. The table also identifies transfers of funds between appropriations accounts, and funding levels for several program areas within certain accounts that have received prominent attention.
 Figure 1 following the table presents the allocation of the total FY2013 enacted appropriations among the agency's eight appropriations accounts, as reported in the EPA Operating Plan, compared with the relative allocation of the FY2012 enacted amounts by account. Figure 1 presents two separate comparisons for the allocations of FY2013 appropriations, one including the FY2013 disaster relief supplemental funding provided in P.L. 113-6 for areas of states affected by Hurricane Sandy, and the other excluding the supplemental funding. A summary of actions on EPA appropriations for FY2013 leading to the enactment of P.L. 113-6 , and a discussion of the FY2013 enacted appropriations for selected EPA programs and activities that received prominent attention in the congressional debate, follow the table and bar graph.
subsections: section_title: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
paragraphs: Division F of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 ( P.L. 113-6 ), enacted March 26, 2013, provided discretionary appropriations for the full fiscal year through September 30, 2013, for seven regular appropriations acts, including Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, which funds EPA. The levels of enacted appropriations for FY2013 in Division F of P.L. 113-6 ultimately available to EPA and other federal departments and agencies include the application of an across-the-board (0.2%) rescission required by the law and the executive branch's calculations of spending reductions triggered by the BCA ( P.L. 112-25 ) as amended.
Section 1113 of P.L. 113-6 required each federal department and agency funded in Division F of the law to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with detailed allocations of FY2013 appropriations by program, project, or activity within each statutory appropriations account, after the application of sequestration and rescissions, within 30 days of enactment. EPA reported this information in its FY2013 Operating Plan released to the committees on May 7, 2013. The EPA Operating Plan presents a breakout by each of the agency's eight appropriations accounts and program areas funded with each account.
As shown in Table 1 , EPA reported a total FY2013 enacted funding level of $7.90 billion after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. The FY2013 enacted level is $443.4 million (5.3%) below the President's FY2013 request and $548.3 million (6.5%) below the FY2012 enacted level. Including the $577.3 million (post-sequestration) in supplemental funding provided under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 ( P.L. 113-2 ), EPA reported a combined total of $8.48 billion in discretionary appropriations enacted for the agency in FY2013.
As noted earlier in this report, P.L. 113-6 did not specify the final FY2013 enacted funding levels available to EPA and other federal departments and agencies funded in Division F of the law. Instead, the act provides a level of appropriations from which certain reductions were to be made as a result of the sequestration required by the BCA and an across-the-board rescission required by the executive branch to comply with the statutory limit on discretionary spending for FY2013.
Division F of P.L. 113-6 did not treat all appropriations accounts and program activities of agencies and departments included in this division the same. Section 1101 of Division F of the act specified a level equal to the FY2012 enacted appropriations. For those accounts and program activities, the act further specified that the use of funds provided would be subject to the same authorities and conditions in FY2013 that applied in FY2012. For the other accounts and program activities, P.L. 113-6 specified amounts referred to as "anomalies" that were generally below the FY2012 enacted levels. These "anomalies" would not be subject to the same FY2012 authorities and conditions in FY2013.
Under Section 1101, four of EPA's eight appropriations accounts were specified at FY2012 enacted levels that would be used to calculate the FY2013 available funding taking into account the rescission. These accounts include the Office of Inspector General, Buildings and Facilities, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, and Inland Oil Spill Program. Section 1405 of P.L. 113-6 specified amounts below the FY2012 enacted for calculating the FY2013 enacted funding levels for the four other EPA accounts, including
$785.3 million for Science and Technology; $2.65 billion for Environmental Programs and Management; $1.18 billion for the Hazardous Substance Superfund; and $3.58 billion for State and Tribal Assistance Grants.
Additionally, Section 1406 of P.L. 113-6 required a rescission of $50.0 million from unobligated balances of prior appropriations to the Hazardous Substance Superfund ($15.0 million) and STAG ($35.0 million) accounts. FY2013 rescissions of unobligated balances specified within the STAG account included $5.0 million from categorical grants, $10.0 million each from Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) grants, and $10.0 million from Brownfields grants. The President's FY2013 request had proposed a $30.0 million rescission of unobligated balances of prior appropriations, but did not specify from which accounts.
Similar rescissions of unobligated balances of prior appropriations have been included in EPA appropriations since FY2006. For FY2012, Title II of Division E in P.L. 112-74 included a rescission of $50.0 million from unobligated balances in the Hazardous Substance Superfund ($5.0 million) and STAG ($45.0 million) accounts. FY2012 rescissions of unobligated balances specified within the STAG account included $20.0 million from categorical grants, $10.0 million from the Clean Water SRF, and $5.0 million each from Brownfields grants, Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants, and U.S.-Mexico Border water infrastructure grants.
section_title: FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief25
paragraphs: P.L. 113-6 was preceded by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 ( P.L. 113-2 ), enacted January 29, 2013. P.L. 113-2 provided $50.7 billion in supplemental FY2013 appropriations for disaster assistance largely focused on responding to the impacts of Hurricane Sandy in late October 2012. Hurricane Sandy impacted a wide swath of the East Coast of the United States, resulting in major disaster declarations for 12 states plus the District of Columbia. Prior to the application of reductions triggered by sequestration, Chapter 7 in Title X of P.L. 113-2 provided $1.44 billion in disaster relief supplemental appropriations for FY2013 within the accounts of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, including $607.7 million within four of the eight EPA accounts. In its FY2013 Operating Plan, EPA reported that sequestration reduced the disaster relief supplemental funding for the agency to $577.3 million across these four accounts.
As indicated in Table 1 , $570.0 million ($600.0 million pre-sequester) of the supplemental for EPA was allocated within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account for grants to aid affected states in capitalizing their SRFs. Of this amount, $475.0 million ($500.0 million pre-sequester) was allocated for Clean Water SRF grants, and $95.0 million ($100.0 million pre-sequester) was allocated for the Drinking Water SRF grants. These funds were allocated to New York and New Jersey for wastewater and drinking water treatment works and facilities impacted by Hurricane Sandy (see the " Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure " section of this report). P.L. 113-2 included a requirement that the affected states receiving these funds use not less than 20%, but not more than 30%, of the SRF capitalization grant funds to provide additional subsidization to SRF loan recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants, or any combination of these.
The remaining $7.3 million ($7.7 million pre-sequester) of the supplemental funds within the three other EPA accounts included $689,000 ($725,000 pre-sequester) in the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account; $1.9 million ($2.0 million pre-sequester) in the Hazardous Substance Superfund account; and $4.75 million ($5.0 million pre-sequester) in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund account.
section_title: Interim Continuing Resolution Enacted in the 112th Congress
paragraphs: P.L. 113-6 superseded a partial-year continuing resolution that had provided funding for the first half of FY2013. On September 28, 2012, the President signed the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 ( P.L. 112-175 , H.J.Res. 117 ), to provide appropriations through March 27, 2013, for EPA and other federal departments and agencies. Section 101 of P.L. 112-175 generally continued the rate of appropriations for the operations of EPA and most other federal departments and agencies on an apportioned basis at 0.612% above the FY2012 enacted level, with the exception of activities (none administered by EPA) funded in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012 ( P.L. 112-77 ). P.L. 112-175 also funded certain activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) designated as "Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism," and various departments and agencies for which specific funding levels were designated in the resolution itself. Section 116(a) of P.L. 112-175 required EPA and all other federal departments and agencies to submit a spending, expenditure, or operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 30 days after enactment.
section_title: Other Actions in the 112th Congress
subsections: section_title: H.R. 6091, Reported by the House Committee on Appropriations
paragraphs: Prior to the enactment of an interim continuing resolution for FY2013 in P.L. 112-175 during the 112 th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations had reported the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 ( H.R. 6091 , H.Rept. 112-589 ), on July 10, 2012. Title II of this bill included a total of $7.06 billion for EPA for FY2013, $1.29 billion (15.5%) less than the President's FY2013 request of $8.34 billion, and $1.39 billion (16.5%) less than the $8.45 billion FY2012 enacted level (including applicable rescissions). These overall decreases that the committee proposed were attributed largely to recommended reductions of $753.7 million (22.5%) and $1.01 billion (28.0%), respectively, for the STAG account. These proposed decreases in the STAG account were largely due to a combined $507.0 million reduction below the President's FY2013 request and $866.3 million below the FY2012 enacted level for grants to help states capitalize Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs.
Relative to the President's FY2013 request, H.R. 6091 included reductions for FY2013 for nearly all other state and tribal grants funded within the STAG account, including most of the categorical grants. Funding in the bill for the remaining EPA accounts, with the exception of the LUST Trust Fund account, also would have been below the President's FY2013 request. The FY2013 levels proposed by the committee would have been below the FY2012 enacted levels for all but two of EPA's accounts, the Office of Inspector General and Buildings and Facilities accounts, which would have been the same as the FY2012 enacted amounts. Below the account level, H.R. 6091 included a variety of decreases and increases in funding for many of the individual EPA programs and activities, compared to the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted levels.
section_title: Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Leadership Draft Bill
paragraphs: Subsequent to the enactment of an interim continuing resolution for FY2013 in P.L. 112-175 during the 112 th Congress, the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released a draft bill on September 25, 2012, reflecting divergent funding priorities from the House. The draft bill included $8.52 billion for EPA for FY2013, $1.46 billion (20.7%) more than the House Committee on Appropriations recommended in H.R. 6091 . In its view, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee leadership had intended the draft document to "... serve as a roadmap as discussions continue to finalize a responsible, balanced fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill."
section_title: Selected EPA Programs and Activities
paragraphs: Much of the attention on EPA's appropriations for FY2013 focused on federal financial assistance to states for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, various categorical grants to states to support general implementation and enforcement of federal environmental programs as delegated to the states, funding for implementation and research support for air pollution control requirements, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, and funding for environmental cleanup. Also garnering congressional interest were the funding levels for several geographic-specific initiatives, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay, and certain other program activities.
The following sections of this report discuss the levels of FY2013 appropriations for selected EPA programs and activities within the above areas that received prominent attention in the congressional debate leading to the enactment of P.L. 113-6 . Disaster relief supplemental appropriations provided for FY2013 in P.L. 113-2 also are discussed for programs or activities that received this funding. The FY2013 funding levels identified in the following sections reflect the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 113-6 and automatic spending reductions triggered by sequestration, as presented by EPA in its FY2013 Operating Plan. A comprehensive summary of funding for all EPA programs and activities is beyond the scope of this report. The EPA Operating Plan provides a more detailed breakout of funding, and presents the levels of FY2013 appropriations for each program area funded within all eight statutory accounts of the agency.
subsections: section_title: Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure31
paragraphs: Historically, funding within the STAG account for grants to aid states and territories in capitalizing their Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) has represented a sizable portion of the total appropriations for EPA, ranging from one-fourth to one-third of the agency's funding in recent fiscal years. The FY2013 funding level for SRF grants specified in P.L. 113-6 constituted roughly 28% of the total EPA appropriations. Including the disaster relief supplemental funding provided in P.L. 113-2 , SRF grants represented more than 33% of the total appropriations for EPA in FY2013. In contrast, the President's FY2013 budget request for the SRF grants represented about 24% of the total request for EPA. In FY2011 and FY2012, enacted funding for the SRF grants was more than 28% of the total appropriations for EPA in those fiscal years, similar to the proportion for FY2013 excluding the disaster relief supplemental funding.
The SRF capitalization grants to states and territories support local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as construction of and modifications to municipal sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, respectively. EPA awards SRF grants to states and territories based on formulas. A combined $2.24 billion was available for FY2013 for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs together, after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. The combined total was $212.4 million (10.5%) more than the President's FY2013 request of $2.03 billion, and $147.0 million (6.2%) less than the FY2012 enacted level of $2.38 billion. The combined amount for FY2013 excluding the supplemental was also less than the FY2011 and FY2010 enacted levels (see Table A -1 in Appendix A ).
P.L. 113-2 provided an additional $570.0 million (post-sequester) for FY2013 in disaster relief supplemental appropriations combined for the Clean Water ($475.0 million) and Drinking Water ($95.0 million) SRFs. These funds in P.L. 113-2 were allocated to affected areas of New York and New Jersey for improvements to wastewater and drinking water treatment works and facilities impacted by Hurricane Sandy. Because the funding was directed to areas affected by this weather event, they were not allocated according to the existing state-by-state allotment formula under the Clean Water Act for the Clean Water SRF or according to needs surveys under the Safe Drinking Act for the Drinking Water SRF. P.L. 113-2 included a requirement that affected states use not less than 20%, but not more than 30%, of the SRF supplemental appropriations to provide additional subsidization to SRF loan recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants, or any combination of these.
 Table 2 presents the FY2013 available funding levels for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants provided in P.L. 113-6 , after application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. Separate breakouts for FY2013 are presented; one including and the other excluding the disaster relief supplemental appropriations provided in P.L. 113-2 . The table presents a comparison of these FY2013 funding levels to the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted amounts.
section_title: Water Infrastructure in Geographic-Specific Areas
paragraphs: As in past appropriations, P.L. 113-6 also included funding within the STAG account for FY2013 to support other water infrastructure projects in two geographic-specific areas: Alaska Native Villages and the U.S.-Mexico Border region. The FY2013 amount for the construction of wastewater and drinking water facilities in Alaska Native Villages was $9.5 million, after application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and sequestration reductions. For FY2013, the President had requested $10.0 million for Alaska Native Villages programs, the same amount as the FY2012 enacted level. An additional $4.7 million after rescissions and sequestration was available for wastewater infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border, less than half of the $10.0 million requested for FY2013, but nearly the same as the FY2012 enacted level of $5.0 million.
section_title: Categorical Grants to States and Tribes
paragraphs: Another $1.03 billion was included within the STAG account for FY2013 to support state and tribal "categorical" grant programs, after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. The FY2013 amount for these grants was $170.4 million (14.2%) below the President's FY2013 request of $1.20 billion, and $56.8 million (5.2%) less than the FY2012 enacted level of $1.09 billion. These funds are allocated among multiple grants generally to states and tribes to support the day-to-day implementation of federal environmental laws and regulations and to support various activities that address particular environmental media (air, water, hazardous waste, etc.). Implementation by states involves a range of activities such as monitoring, permitting and standard setting, training, and other pollution control and prevention activities. These grants also assist multimedia projects such as pollution prevention incentive grants, pesticides and toxic substances enforcement, the tribal general assistance program, and environmental information. Categorical grants to assist states and tribes with the implementation of federal air quality requirements are discussed in more detail in the following section on " Air Quality and Climate Change Activities ."
 Table 3 presents the FY2013 funding levels for EPA categorical grant programs as specified in P.L. 113-6 , after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and sequestration reductions. These grant programs cut across the following broad categories: air and radiation, water quality, drinking water, hazardous waste, pesticides and toxic substances, and multimedia. The table provides a comparison of these FY2013 funding levels to the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted amounts.
section_title: Air Quality and Climate Change Activities37
paragraphs: Several EPA air quality and climate change activities received attention in the consideration of FY2013 appropriations. Many of these activities are associated with regulations under the Clean Air Act to address emissions of greenhouse gases, hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and particulate matter. Although generally not included in P.L. 113-6 , Title IV of H.R. 6091 , as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on July 10, 2012, included a number of provisions that would have limited or restricted EPA's use of FY2013 funds to support the development, implementation, or enforcement of various Clean Air Act regulations, as well as directives for conducting evaluations of certain activities and providing reports to the committee. Some of these provisions were similar to those included for FY2012 in Division E of P.L. 112-74 , and a subset of those proposed during deliberations on the FY2012 and FY2011 EPA appropriations.
EPA is one of 17 federal agencies that have received appropriations for climate change activities in recent fiscal years. EPA's share of this funding is relatively small, but EPA's policy and regulatory roles are proportionately larger than other federal agencies and departments. Appropriated funds for EPA's climate change and air quality activities are distributed across several program activities under multiple appropriations accounts. Because of variability in these activities and modifications to account structures from year to year, it is difficult to compare the overall combined funding included in appropriations bills with the President's request and prior-year enacted appropriations. However, comparisons can be made among certain activities for which Congress does specify a line-item in the appropriations process.
 Table 4 presents the FY2013 funding levels for EPA air quality and climate change activities provided in P.L. 113-6 by account for which a breakout is readily available, after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and the sequestration reductions. The table presents a comparison of these FY2013 funding levels to the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted amounts.
As presented in the table, EPA "clean air and climate" activities constitute the single largest air quality program area funded within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and Science and Technology (S&T) accounts. The total FY2013 funding available for this program area was $386.2 million, $54.1 million (12.3%) less than the President's FY2013 request of $440.3 million, and $24.3 million (5.9%) less than the FY2012 enacted level of $410.5 million.
State and Local Air Quality Management grants are the single-largest air quality activity funded within the STAG account. The FY2013 available funding for these grants was $223.4 million, $78.1 million (25.9%) less than the President's FY2013 request of $301.5 million, and $12.3 million (5.2%) less than the FY2012 enacted level of $235.7 million. States use these grants to help pay the costs of operating air pollution control programs. Much of the day-to-day operations of these programs (i.e., monitoring, permitting, enforcement, and developing site-specific regulations) are done by the state and local agencies with Clean Air Act authorities delegated by EPA.
The STAG account also included $18.9 million for FY2013 for the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program, $3.9 million (26.0%) more than the President's FY2013 request of $15.0 million, but $11.1 million (37.0%) below the FY2012 enacted level of $30.0 million. Although funding for these grants has declined in recent years, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ) had provided an additional $300.0 million in supplemental funds for these grants in FY2009 for a total of $360.0 million in that fiscal year, much of which was awarded in FY2010. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) originally had authorized $200.0 million annually for these grants from FY2007 through FY2011.
section_title: Cleanup of Superfund Sites
paragraphs: The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account supports the assessment and cleanup of sites contaminated from the release of hazardous substances. EPA carries out these activities under the Superfund program. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) authorized this program, and established the Superfund Trust Fund to finance discretionary appropriations to fund it . P.L. 113-6 included a total of $1.11 billion for the Superfund account in FY2013, after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. P.L. 113-2 appropriated an additional $1.9 million (post-sequester) in disaster relief supplemental funding in FY2013 for Superfund sites affected by Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey.
Excluding the supplemental for these two states, the FY2013 funding level of $1.11 billion for the Superfund account is $63.1 million (5.4%) less than the President's FY2013 request of $1.18 billion, and $100.5 million (8.3%) less than the FY2012 enacted level of $1.21 billion. These amounts reflect an overall downward funding trend since FY2010 (see Table A -1 in Appendix A ). For the previous decade, annual funding levels for the Superfund account had remained fairly steady, averaging approximately $1.25 billion annually. However, some have observed that the funding levels declined during this period when accounting for the effects of inflation.
As amended, CERCLA authorizes EPA's Superfund program to clean up sites that are among the nation's most hazardous and to enforce the liability of parties who are responsible for the cleanup costs. Many states also have developed their own cleanup programs to address contaminated sites that are not pursued at the federal level. These state programs complement federal cleanup efforts. At sites that are addressed under the federal Superfund program, EPA first attempts to identify the responsible parties to enforce their liability for the cleanup costs. Sites financed by the responsible parties do not rely upon Superfund appropriations, except for situations in which EPA may use the appropriations up front and later recover the costs from the responsible parties. If the responsible parties cannot be found or do not have the ability to pay, EPA is authorized to use Superfund appropriations to pay for the cleanup of a site under a cost-share agreement with the state in which the site is located. Sites at which there are no viable parties to assume responsibility for the cleanup are referred to as "orphan" sites.
The use of Superfund appropriations has focused primarily on cleaning up contamination from the release of hazardous substances at high-risk sites that EPA has placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). The cleanup of federal facilities on the NPL is funded apart from the Superfund program by the federal agencies that administer those facilities. Annual funding for the cleanup of all contaminated federal facilities combined exceeds EPA's Superfund appropriations by several billion dollars. Although Superfund appropriations are not eligible to pay for the cleanup of federal facilities, EPA oversees their cleanup through the Superfund program in conjunction with the states in which the facilities are located.
Just over half of the Superfund account is allocated to the performance of response actions at non-federal facilities that are elevated for federal attention. CERCLA authorizes two types of response actions. Remedial actions are intended to address long-term risks to human health and the environment, whereas removal actions are intended to address more imminent hazards or emergency situations. Removal actions may precede remedial actions to stabilize site conditions while long-term measures are developed. Only sites listed on the NPL are eligible for Superfund appropriations to pay for remedial actions, whereas removal actions may be funded with Superfund appropriations regardless of whether a site is listed on the NPL.
The remainder of the Superfund account funds EPA's homeland security responsibilities to prepare for the federal response to incidents that may involve the intentional release of hazardous substances, EPA's operational and administrative expenses in carrying out the Superfund program, and EPA's enforcement of cleanup liability under CERCLA. Enforcement is a core tenet of the statute intended to ensure that the responsible parties pay for the cleanup of contamination whenever possible, in order to focus the use of Superfund appropriations at orphan sites.
Historically, funding within the Superfund account also has been transferred to EPA's Science and Technology account for the research and development of cleanup technologies, and to EPA's Office of Inspector General account for independent auditing, evaluation, and investigation of the Superfund program. Annual appropriations acts typically have included statutory language authorizing these transfers.
 Table 5 presents the FY2013 funding levels for the Superfund account provided in P.L. 113-6 by major program area, after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. Separate breakouts of the FY2013 enacted appropriations are provided, one including and the other excluding the disaster relief supplemental appropriations provided in P.L. 113-2 . The table compares these FY2013 funding levels to the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted amounts. The net total for the Superfund account also is presented after the transfers to the Science and Technology and Office of Inspector General accounts.
section_title: Brownfields
paragraphs: EPA also administers another cleanup program to provide financial assistance to state, local, and tribal governmental entities for certain types of sites, referred to as "brownfields." Sites eligible for this assistance tend to be sites where the known or suspected presence of contamination may present an impediment to economic development, but where the risks generally are not high enough for the site to be addressed under the Superfund program or other related cleanup authorities. Consistent with liability under CERCLA, responsible parties at these brownfields sites are not eligible for this federal financial assistance, as they are to be held accountable for the cleanup costs. Accordingly, the Brownfields program focuses on providing federal financial assistance for "orphan" sites at which the potential need for cleanup remains unaddressed.
EPA's Brownfields program awards two different categories of grants, one competitive and one formula-based. Section 104(k) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to award competitive grants to state, local, and tribal governmental entities for the assessment and remediation (i.e., cleanup) of eligible brownfields sites, job training for cleanup workers, and technical assistance. Section 128 authorizes EPA to award formula-based grants to help states and tribes enhance their own similar cleanup programs. These grants are funded within the STAG account, whereas EPA's expenses to administer the Brownfields program are funded within the EPM account.
P.L. 113-6 provided a total of $158.2 million for EPA's Brownfields program in FY2013, after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and the sequestration reductions. The FY2013 funding level is $8.3 million (5.0%) less than the President's FY2013 request of $166.5 million, and $9.6 million (5.7%) less than the FY2012 enacted appropriation of $167.8 million. Table 6 presents the FY2013 enacted levels for EPA's Brownfields program, compared to the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted appropriations. These amounts are broken out by the STAG account that funds the competitive and formula grants awarded under the program, and the EPM account that funds the agency's expenses to administer the program.
section_title: Underground Storage Tanks53
paragraphs: Under the authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks addresses the cleanup of releases from underground storage tanks (USTs) containing petroleum or oxygenated fuels (e.g., ethanol) and administers regulations to prevent leaks from underground storage tanks containing petroleum or hazardous substances. These activities are supported by a combination of appropriations from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund and appropriations within the EPM and STAG accounts funded with revenues from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund provide most of the funding and are used by the states and EPA to perform or enforce corrective actions to clean up contamination from petroleum leaks, and to enforce leak detection and prevention requirements. Appropriations within the EPM and STAG accounts are available for certain other regulatory and support activities.
P.L. 113-6 provided $98.7 million from the LUST Trust Fund for FY2013, after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. P.L. 113-2 provided an additional $4.8 million (post-sequester) in disaster relief supplemental funding for FY2013 to address problems with leaking underground storage tanks in areas of states affected by Hurricane Sandy. Excluding the supplemental for these states, the FY2013 enacted level of $98.7 million in appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund is $5.4 million (5.2%) less than the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted level of $104.1 million.
P.L. 113-6 provided $12.1 million for FY2013 within the EPM account, after application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration, to support EPA staff and extramural costs of efforts to prevent releases from underground storage tanks. The FY2013 enacted level for this activity is somewhat less than the President's FY2013 request of $12.3 million and the FY2012 enacted level of $12.8 million. P.L. 113-6 provided $1.5 million within the STAG account, after rescissions and sequestration, for categorical grants to support state implementation of certain other underground storage tank leak prevention and detection regulations that are not eligible for funding through the trust fund. The FY2013 enacted level of $1.5 million for this activity is roughly the same as the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted level.
Congress established the LUST Trust Fund to provide a dedicated source of funds for EPA and the states to enforce corrective actions by UST owners or operators responsible for releases; conduct cleanups where no responsible party has been identified, where a responsible party fails to comply with a cleanup order, or in the event of an emergency; and take cost recovery actions against the parties. EPA and the states have generally been successful in getting responsible parties to perform most cleanups. Historically, the states have used the bulk of their annual LUST Trust Fund monies (provided through cooperative agreements with EPA) to oversee and enforce corrective actions performed by tank owners and operators using their own funds. The LUST Trust Fund is supported by a 0.1 cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax, and had a balance of $1.16 billion available for appropriation, as of the beginning of FY2013.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005; P.L. 109-58 ) expanded the UST leak prevention provisions under Subtitle I, and imposed new responsibilities on the states and EPA, such as requiring states to inspect all tanks every three years. EPAct also broadened the authorized uses of the LUST Trust Fund to support state implementation of most leak prevention and detection requirements, in addition to supporting the LUST cleanup program. Congress now appropriates monies from the trust fund to support both cleanup and underground storage tank leak prevention and detection regulations. Before EPAct 2005, the regulation of underground storage tanks to prevent and detect leaks had been supported entirely from general revenues. As noted above, a relatively small portion of the funding is now derived from general revenues.
 Table 7 presents the FY2013 funding levels provided in P.L. 113-6 for the LUST Trust Fund, EPM, and STAG accounts to support the cleanup and UST leak prevention and detection activities, after application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. Separate breakouts of the FY2013 funding levels are presented, one including and the other excluding the disaster relief supplemental appropriations provided in P.L. 113-2 . The table provides a comparison of these FY2013 enacted funding levels to the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted amounts.
section_title: Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs58
paragraphs: The EPM account includes funding for several ecosystem restoration programs to address water quality and sources of pollution associated with environmental and human health risks in a number of geographic-specific areas of the United States. These programs often involve collaboration among EPA, other federal agencies, state and local governments, communities, and nonprofit organizations. Table 8 presents the FY2013 funding levels for selected geographic-specific/ecosystem programs administered by EPA, after application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration, compared to the President's FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted amounts. A discussion of funding to address the restoration of the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay in particular follows.
subsections: section_title: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
paragraphs: In 2004, President Bush established a Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, chaired by EPA, to develop a strategy (released in 2005) that would guide federal Great Lakes protection and restoration efforts under existing law. In furtherance of this strategy, President Obama proposed the establishment of a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in FY2010, which Congress subsequently approved in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 ( P.L. 111-88 ). The initiative is intended to improve coordination among existing federal programs and projects administered by EPA and eight other federal agencies. The purpose of the initiative is to target the most significant problems in the ecosystem, such as aquatic invasive species, nonpoint source pollution, and toxics and contaminated sediment. Projects and programs are to be implemented through grants and cooperative agreements with states, tribes, municipalities, universities, and other organizations.
The initiative consolidates funding for a number of existing federal Great Lakes programs, including EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, the agency's implementation of the Great Lakes Legacy Act to clean up contaminated sediments, and Great Lakes programs administered by other federal agencies. As the President had requested for FY2010, P.L. 111-88 initially appropriated $475 million to EPA to establish the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. EPA was responsible for allocating a portion of these funds among its own Great Lakes programs and the Great Lakes programs administered by other federal agencies. Since FY2010, Congress has continued to appropriate funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to EPA for allocation among the participating federal agencies, but at lower levels.
As indicated in Table 8 above, $283.7 million was available for FY2013 for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative within the EPM account, after the application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. The FY2013 funding level is $16.3 million (5.4%) less than the President's FY2013 request and $15.8 million (5.3%) less than the FY2012 enacted level.
section_title: Chesapeake Bay
paragraphs: In May 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration , which directed federal departments and agencies to exercise greater leadership in implementing their existing authorities to restore the bay. Despite restoration efforts of the past 25 years, which have resulted in some successes in specific parts of the ecosystem, the overall health of the bay remains degraded by excessive levels of nutrients and sediment. As indicated in Table 8 above, $54.3 million was available for EPA's Chesapeake Bay program for FY2013, after application of the 0.2% across-the-board rescission and reductions triggered by sequestration. The FY2013 level is $18.3 million (25.2%) less than the FY2013 President's request of $72.6 million, and $3.0 million (5.2%) less than the FY2012 enacted level of $57.3 million. The increase that the President had requested for the program in FY2013 was intended to accelerate pollution reduction and aquatic habitat restoration efforts in the bay, consistent with the objectives of the 2009 executive order.
Appendix A. Historical Funding Trends and Staffing Levels
The Nixon Administration established EPA in 1970 in response to growing public concern about environmental pollution, consolidating federal pollution control responsibilities that had been divided among several federal agencies. Congress has enacted an increasing number of environmental laws, as well as major amendments to these statutes, over three decades following EPA's creation. Annual appropriations provide the funds necessary for EPA to carry out its responsibilities under these laws, such as the regulation of air and water quality, use of pesticides and toxic substances, management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state, tribal, and local governments in controlling pollution in order to comply with federal environmental requirements, and to help fund the implementation and enforcement of federal laws and regulations delegated to the states and tribes. Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA programs and activities within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies annual appropriations bill.
The statutory authorization of appropriations for many of the programs and activities administered by EPA has expired, but Congress has continued to fund them through the appropriations process. Although House and Senate rules generally do not allow the appropriation of funding that has not been authorized, these rules are subject to points of order and are not self-enforcing. Congress may appropriate funding for a program or activity for which the authorization of appropriations has expired, if no Member raises a point of order, or the rules are waived for consideration of a particular bill. Congress typically has done so to continue the appropriation of funding for EPA programs and activities for which the authorization of appropriations has expired, but may opt not to fund an unauthorized program or activity. In the 112 th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations proposed to limit funding for unauthorized programs in FY2013 by decreasing or terminating appropriations in H.R. 6091 , including EPA's U.S.-Mexico border water infrastructure grants and environmental education grants. P.L. 113-6 provided funding to continue both of these grant programs.
 Table A -1 presents the level of FY2008-FY2013 enacted appropriations for EPA by each of the agency's eight statutory accounts. Figure A -1 presents a history of total discretionary budget authority for EPA from FY1976 through FY2012, and the President's FY2013 budget request, as reported by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the "Historical Tables" accompanying the President's Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2013 . Levels of agency budget authority prior to FY1976 were not reported by OMB in the Historical Tables. In Figure A -1 , discretionary budget authority is presented in nominal dollars as reported by OMB, and adjusted for inflation by CRS to reflect the trend in real dollar values over time.
EPA's funding over the long term generally has reflected an increase in overall appropriations to fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities. EPA's historical funding trends tend to parallel the evolution of the agency's responsibilities over time, as Congress has enacted legislation to authorize the agency to develop and administer programs and activities in response to a range of environmental issues and concerns. In terms of the overall federal budget, EPA's annual appropriations have represented a relatively small portion of the total discretionary federal budget (just under 1% in recent years).
Without adjusting for inflation, EPA's funding has grown from $1.0 billion when EPA was established in FY1970 to a peak funding level of $14.86 billion in FY2009. This peak includes regular fiscal year appropriations of $7.64 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-8 and the supplemental appropriations of $7.22 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. However, in real dollar values (adjusted for inflation), EPA's funding in FY1978 was slightly more than the level in FY2009, as presented in Figure A -1 .
EPA Staff Levels
 Figure A -2 below provides a trend in EPA's authorized "Full Time Equivalent" (FTE) employment ceiling from FY2001 through FY2013, the last year of which is based on the levels proposed by the House committee and the President's request. (FTEs for FY2013 enacted were not immediately available.) Information prior to FY2001 is available in a March 2000 testimony by the General Accounting Office (GAO), in which GAO reported that EPA FTEs increased by about 18% from FY1990 through FY1999, with the largest increase (13%, from 15,277 to 17,280 FTEs) occurring from FY1990 though FY1993. From FY1993 through FY1999, GAO indicated that EPA's FTEs grew at a more moderate rate, at less than 1% per year. As indicated in Figure A -2 , with the exception of increases in four fiscal years, the general trend has been downward since FY2001, with the largest single-year decrease (2.3%) occurring from FY2011 to FY2012.
Appendix B. Descriptions of EPA's Eight Appropriations Accounts 
Since FY1996, EPA's funding has been requested by the Administration and appropriated by Congress under eight statutory accounts. Table B -1 describes the scope of the programs and activities funded within each of these accounts. Prior to FY1996, Congress appropriated funding for EPA under a different account structure, making it difficult to compare funding for the agency historically over time by the individual accounts.