Clean Air Act: EPA Has Completed Most of the Actions Required by the 1990 Amendments, but Many Were Completed Late
Published: 2005-05-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: While air quality in the United States has steadily improved over the last few decades, more than a hundred million Americans continue to live in communities where pollution causes the air to be unhealthy at times, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air Act, first passed in 1963, was last reauthorized and amended in 1990, when new programs were created and changes were made to the ways in which air pollution is controlled. The 1990 amendments included hundreds of requirements for EPA, as well as other parties, to take steps that will ultimately reduce air pollution. The amendments also established deadlines for many of these requirements. Since the 1990 amendments, various actions have been proposed to either amend the Clean Air Act or implement its provisions in new ways. GAO was asked to report on the current status of EPA's implementation of requirements under Titles I, III, and IV of the 1990 amendments. These titles, which address national ambient air quality standards, hazardous air pollutants, and acid deposition control, respectively, are the most relevant to proposed legislation and recently finalized regulations addressing emissions of air pollutants by power plants.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As of April 2005, EPA had completed 404 of the 452 actions required to meet the objectives of Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Of the 338 requirements that had statutory deadlines prior to April 2005, EPA completed 256 late: many (162) 2 years or less after the required date, but others (94) more than 2 years after their deadlines. Consequently, improvements in air quality associated with some of these requirements may have been delayed. The numerous actions required to implement these titles varied in scope and complexity. For example, these actions included reviewing numerous state plans to comply with national health- and welfare-based air quality standards for six major pollutants, setting technology-based standards to reduce emissions from sources of hazardous air pollutants, and developing a new program to reduce acid rain. EPA officials cited several reasons for the missed deadlines, including the emphasis on stakeholders' involvement during regulatory development, which added to the time needed to issue regulations; the need to set priorities among the tremendous number of new responsibilities EPA assumed as a result of the 1990 amendments, which meant that some actions had to be delayed; and competing demands caused by the workload associated with EPA's response to lawsuits challenging some of its rules. Of the 48 requirements EPA had not met as of April 2005, 45 had associated deadlines, and 3 did not. The unmet requirements include 15 Title I requirements to promulgate regulations to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds from a number of consumer and commercial products, such as household cleaners and pesticides. According to EPA officials, these rules were not completed because EPA shifted its priorities toward issuing standards related to the emissions of hazardous air pollutants regulated under Title III. However, the unmet requirements also include actions under Title III to periodically assess whether EPA's emissions standards for sources that emit significant amounts of hazardous air pollutants appropriately protect public health. These "residual risk" assessments are to be made within 8 years of the setting of each of the emissions standards, and 19 of these assessments are now past the 8-year mark. EPA completed the first of these residual risk assessments in March 2005. Any improvements in air quality that would result from EPA meeting these requirements remain unrealized. In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA generally agreed with our findings and provided supplemental information, primarily on the benefits of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the reasons for implementation delays.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Exposure to air pollution is associated with numerous effects on human  health, including respiratory problems, heart and lung diseases resulting in  hospitalization, and even premature death. While air quality in the United  States has steadily improved over the last few decades, more than a  hundred million Americans continue to live in communities where  pollution causes the air to be unhealthy at times, according to the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air Act, first passed in  1963, was last reauthorized and amended by the Congress in 1990, when  new programs were created and changes were made to the ways in which  air pollution is controlled. For example, the 1990 amendments created a  market-based “cap-and-trade” program to reduce the adverse effects of  acid rain deposition by capping emissions of sulfur dioxide nationwide and  allowing electric power plants the flexibility to either achieve emissions  reductions themselves or purchase allowances from plants that have  achieved greater reductions than required. In addition, the 1990  amendments required EPA to take numerous actions, such as creating  national technology-based standards for hazardous air pollutants; issuing  new regulations and guidance documents; undertaking research studies;  and preparing reports to the Congress.
As we reported in 2000, the first six titles of the 1990 amendments included  hundreds of requirements for EPA and other parties—such as states and  local governments—to take steps that will ultimately reduce air pollution.  The amendments also established deadlines for many of these  requirements. We further reported that EPA had met many of the  requirements by February 2000, but that the agency had missed statutory  deadlines for most of the requirements that were met. Some of the  requirements EPA had not yet met had statutory deadlines after February  2000.
In recent years, EPA and the Congress have sought to achieve further  reductions in the emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from  power plants in order to, among other things, help improve air quality in  communities that do not meet EPA’s health-based standards for major  pollutants. In addition, EPA and the Congress have sought to reduce  mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time. In fact, in  March 2005, EPA issued two regulations—the Clean Air Interstate Rule and  the Clean Air Mercury Rule—addressing these pollutants. The interstate  rule permanently caps emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in 28  eastern states and the District of Columbia, and the mercury rule sets  nationwide limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. In  these rules, EPA uses the cap-and-trade approach to allow power plants to  either reduce emissions or buy allowances from other power plants that  have reduced their emissions below their limit. As you know, certain  proposals of the current session of Congress, such as the “Clear Skies” bill,  would similarly impose reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and  mercury, though they would do so on a nationwide basis for all three  pollutants. Some proponents of the legislative approach to controlling  emissions have argued that legislation that specified emissions reduction  levels may be subject to fewer legal challenges than EPA-promulgated  regulations developed under broader statutory authorities. Along these  lines, we note that on the day EPA issued the mercury rule, attorneys  general for nine states initiated a lawsuit challenging various aspects of this  rule.
In this context, you asked us to report on the current status of EPA’s  implementation of requirements under Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean Air  Act Amendments of 1990, which address national ambient (outdoor) air  quality standards, hazardous air pollutants, and acid deposition control,  respectively, and are the most relevant to the recent regulations and  proposed legislation addressing emissions of air pollutants by power  plants.
To obtain information on the status of EPA’s implementation of Titles I, III,  and IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, we spoke with EPA  officials knowledgeable about EPA’s workload related to these titles. These  officials verified a list of the requirements related to each title for accuracy  and completeness and provided documentation for any changes made to  the list. This list had originally been developed as evidence for GAO’s 2000  report on the status of EPA’s implementation of the 1990 amendments. In  addition, EPA officials provided explanations and documentation for  requirements that had not been met as of April 2005. This report focuses on  the extent to which EPA has met its requirements with statutory deadlines  prior to April 2005 and those without statutory deadlines related to Titles I,  III, and IV under the 1990 amendments, but does not show the extent to  which the states have implemented applicable requirements. A more  detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in  appendix IV. We conducted our work from January 2005 to May 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Clean Air Act, a comprehensive federal law that regulates air pollution  from stationary and mobile sources, was passed in 1963 to improve and  protect the quality of the nation’s air. The act was substantially overhauled  in 1970 when the Congress required EPA to establish national ambient air  quality standards for pollutants at levels that are necessary to protect  public health with an adequate margin of safety and to protect public  welfare from adverse effects. EPA has set such standards for ozone, carbon  monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. In  addition, the act directed the states to specify how they would achieve and  maintain compliance with the national standard for each pollutant. The  Congress amended the act again in 1977 and 1990. The 1977 amendments  were passed primarily to set new goals and dates for attaining the  standards because many areas of the country had failed to meet the  deadlines set previously. The act was amended again in 1990 when several  new themes were incorporated into it, including encouraging the use of  market-based approaches to reduce emissions, such as cap-and-trade  programs.
The major provisions of the 1990 amendments are contained in the first six  titles. As requested, this report addresses EPA’s actions related to Titles I,  III, and IV: Title I establishes a detailed and graduated program for the attainment  and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards;  Title III expands and modifies regulations of hazardous air pollutant  emissions and establishes a list of 189 hazardous air pollutants to be  regulated;  Title IV establishes the acid deposition control program to reduce the  adverse effects of acid rain by reducing the annual emissions of  pollutants that contribute to it.
Although the Clean Air Act is a federal law, states and local governments  are responsible for carrying out certain portions of the statute. For  example, states are responsible for developing implementation plans that  describe how they will come into compliance with national standards set  by EPA. EPA must approve each state’s plan, and if an implementation plan  is not acceptable, EPA may assume enforcement of the Clean Air Act in  that state. Once EPA sets a national standard, it is generally up to state and  local air pollution control agencies to enforce the standard, with oversight  from EPA. For example, state air pollution control agencies may hold  hearings on permit applications by power or chemical plants. States may  also fine companies for violating air pollution limits.
According to EPA, by many measures, the quality of the nation’s air has  improved in recent years. Each year EPA estimates emissions that impact  the ambient concentrations of the six major air pollutants for which EPA  sets national ambient air quality standards. EPA uses these annual  emissions estimates as one indicator of the effectiveness of its air  programs. As figure 1 shows, according to EPA, between 1970 and 2004,  gross domestic product, vehicle miles traveled, energy consumption, and  U.S. population all grew; during the same time period, however, total  emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 54 percent.
Despite this progress, large numbers of Americans continue to live in  communities where pollution sometimes exceeds federal air quality  standards for one or more of the six principal air pollutants. For example,  EPA reported in April 2004 that 159 million people lived in areas of the  United States where air pollution sometimes exceeds federal air quality  standards for ground-level ozone. According to EPA, exposure to ozone  has been linked to a number of adverse health effects, including significant  decreases in lung function; inflammation of the airways; and increased  respiratory symptoms, such as cough and pain when taking a deep breath.  Moreover, in 2003, 62 million people lived in counties where monitors  showed particle pollution levels higher than national particulate matter  standards, according to a December 2004 EPA report. Long-term exposure  to particle pollution is associated with problems such as decreased lung  function, chronic bronchitis, and premature death. Even short-term  exposure to particle pollution—measured in hours or days—is associated  with such effects as cardiac arrhythmias (heartbeat irregularities), heart  attacks, hospital admissions or emergency room visits for heart or lung  disease, and premature death.
section_title: EPA Has Implemented Almost All Required Actions, but Many Were Implemented Late
paragraphs: EPA identified 452 actions required to meet the objectives of Titles I, III,  and IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. About half of these  required actions were included under Title III, which also included the  largest number of requirements with statutory deadlines. As shown in table  1, the 1990 amendments specified statutory deadlines for 338 of the Title I-,  III-, and IV-related requirements.
The numerous actions required to meet the objectives of Titles I, III, and IV  of the 1990 amendments vary in scope and complexity. For example, Title I  of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to periodically review and revise, as  appropriate, the national health- and welfare-based standards for air  quality. After EPA revises any one of these standards, states are responsible  for developing plans that detail how they will achieve the revised standard.  EPA then must review the individual state plans for each standard and  decide whether to approve them. While EPA must review and approve all  individual state plans submitted, each set of reviews is only counted as one  action. Other Title I requirements, on the other hand, only require EPA to  publish reports on air quality and emission trends. While the reports may  represent a significant amount of effort, the steps required to implement  national ambient air quality standards are inherently more difficult to  accomplish and often require parties independent of EPA, such as state and  local agencies, to pass legislation and issue, adopt, and implement rules.  Comparing the requirements among titles also shows how they vary in  complexity. For example, Title IV required EPA to develop a new  market-based cap and trade program to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide  and a rate-based program to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from  power plants. While developing the cap and trade program was a large  undertaking on EPA’s part, it involved regulating a specified number of  stationary sources in a single industry. In contrast, under Title III, EPA is  required to implement technology-based standards for 174 separate  categories of sources of hazardous air pollutants, involving many  industries.
As shown in table 2, a large portion of the requirements with statutory  deadlines related to Titles I, III, and IV were met late. That is, 256 of the 338  requirements with statutory deadlines have been completed but were late.
Of the 114 requirements without statutory deadlines, all but 3 of the  requirements have been completed.
On average, EPA met the requirements related to Titles I, III, and IV about  24, 25, and 15 months after their statutory deadlines, respectively. Of the  256 requirements that EPA met late, 162 were met within 2 years of their  statutory deadline and 94 were completed more than 2 years after their  deadlines (see table 3). Consequently, improvements in air quality  associated with some of these requirements may have been delayed.
EPA officials cited several factors to explain why the agency missed  deadlines for so many requirements. Among these factors was an emphasis  on stakeholders’ review and involvement during regulatory development,  which added to the time needed to issue regulations. For example,  according to an EPA official, the process to develop an early technology  rule under Title III involved protracted negotiations among EPA, industry  groups, a labor union, and environmental groups. The rule was finalized in  October 1993, 10 months after its statutory deadline. In addition, EPA  officials mentioned the need to set priorities among the tremendous  number of new requirements for EPA resulting from the 1990 amendments,  which meant that some of these actions had to be delayed. Moreover,  competing demands caused by the workload associated with EPA’s  responses to lawsuits challenging some of its rules caused additional  delays. For example, the time needed to respond to litigation of previous  rules impinged on EPA staff’s ability to develop new rules, according to  agency officials. In addition, at the time of our 2000 report, EPA officials  also attributed delays to the emergence of new scientific information that  led to major Clean Air Act activities unforeseen by the 1990 amendments.  For example, the emergence of new scientific information regarding the  importance of regional ozone transport led to an extensive collaborative  process between states in the eastern half of the country to evaluate and  address the transport of ozone and its precursors.
As of April 2005, 45 of the requirements related to Titles I, III, and IV with  statutory deadlines that had passed have not been met. Thus, any  improvements in air quality that would result from EPA meeting these  requirements remain unrealized. The majority of the unmet requirements  related to Title I are activities involving promulgating regulations that limit  the emissions of volatile organic compounds from different groups of  consumer and commercial products. According to EPA officials, these  rules were never completed because EPA shifted its priorities toward  issuing the Title III technology-based standards. Additionally, EPA officials  noted that many states have implemented their own rules limiting  emissions of volatile organic compounds from these products, and these  state rules are achieving the level of emissions reductions that would be  achieved by a national rule passed by EPA. However, EPA is currently being  sued because it did not implement these rules by their statutory deadlines.  According to an EPA official, the agency and the litigant have agreed on the  actions to be taken to address the requirements, but they could not reach  agreement on completion dates. As a result, EPA is currently awaiting  court-issued compliance dates. In addition, 21 Title III requirements have yet to be met. Most of these are “residual risk” reviews of  technology-based standards with deadlines prior to April 2005. That is,  within 8 years of setting each technology-based standard, EPA is required  to assess the remaining health risks (the residual risk) from each source  category to determine whether the standard appropriately protects public  health. Applying this “risk-based” approach, EPA must revise the standards  to make them more protective of health, if necessary. EPA completed its  first review and issued the first set of these risk-based amendments in  March 2005. Two actions required by Title IV have not been met, but,  according to EPA, the agency has decided not to pursue these actions  further. The requirements were to (1) promulgate an opt-in regulation for  process sources and (2) conduct a sulfur dioxide/nitrogen oxides  inter-pollutant trading study. According to EPA officials, the agency  decided not to promulgate the opt-in regulation because it determined that  the federal resources needed to develop the rule would be well in excess of  those available and the implementation of this provision would not reduce  overall emissions. EPA officials also said that the rule would not be  cost-effective due to these factors and the limited number of sources  expected to use the opt-in option. EPA officials said that the agency  decided not to pursue the sulfur dioxide/nitrogen oxides inter-pollutant  study because of the lack of a trading ratio that would capture the complex  environmental relationship between sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and  because an inter-pollutant trading program would be complex and unlikely  to result in environmental benefits.
The list of specific actions EPA is required to take to meet the objectives of  Titles I and III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 includes  requirements for periodic assessments of some of the standards related to  these titles. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required every 5 years to  review the levels at which it has set national ambient air quality standards  to ensure that they are sufficiently protective of public health and welfare.  If EPA determines it is necessary to revise the standard, the agency  undertakes a rulemaking to do so. Each new national ambient air quality  standard, in turn, will trigger a number of subsequent EPA actions under  Title I, such as setting the boundaries of areas that do not attain the  standards and approving state plans to correct nonattainment. As a result,  the set of required actions related to Title I tends to repeat over time. Title  III also includes requirements for periodic assessments of its  technology-based standards. In addition to the residual risk assessments  discussed above, the Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the  technology-based standards every 8 years, and, if necessary, revise them to  account for improvements in air pollution controls and prevention. The  first round of these recurring reviews will occur concurrently with the first  round of residual risk assessments, according to an EPA official. Moreover,  EPA’s workload related to its air programs may increase as a result of  recommendations for regulatory reform compiled by the Office of  Management and Budget. For example, in response to a recommendation  to permit the use of new technology to monitor leaks of volatile air  pollutants, EPA plans to propose a rule or guidance in March 2006.
section_title: Observations
paragraphs: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 constituted a significant overhaul  of the Clean Air Act, and notable reductions in emissions of air pollutants  have been attained as a result of the many actions these amendments  required of EPA, states, and other parties. Currently, EPA has completed  most of the 452 actions required by the 1990 amendments related to Titles I,  III, and IV. The number, scope, and complexity of the required actions  under each of these titles varied widely, and these differences, along with  other challenges EPA faced, led to varying timeliness in implementing  these requirements. Although EPA did not meet the statutory deadlines in  many cases, we believe that the deadlines played an important role in EPA’s  implementation of the myriad and diverse actions mandated in the 1990  amendments by providing a structure to guide and support the agency’s  efforts to complete them.
As EPA and the Congress now move on to addressing the remaining air  pollution problems that pose health threats to our citizens, some points  from our 2000 report on the implementation of the 1990 amendments bear  repeating. First, some of the stakeholders we interviewed representing  environmental groups and state and local government agencies expressed a  preference for legislation and regulations that describe specific amounts of  emissions to be reduced, provide specific deadlines to be met, and identify  the sources to be regulated. Second, we, along with many of these  stakeholders, concluded in that report that the acid rain program under  Title IV could offer a worthwhile model for some other air quality problems  because it set emission-reduction goals and encouraged market-based  approaches, such as cap-and-trade programs, to attain these goals. While  EPA officials noted that emissions-trading programs may not be suitable  for all air pollutants, the agency has applied this approach to several  pollutants since 2000. Specifically, EPA has issued final rules using  cap-and-trade programs to achieve further reductions in sulfur dioxide and  nitrogen oxides and to require reductions of mercury emissions for the first  time. However, whether EPA can apply the cap-and-trade model to  hazardous air pollutants such as mercury in the absence of express  statutory authority to do so is unclear, particularly in light of the lawsuit  that has been filed challenging EPA’s March 2005 rule on mercury  emissions.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and comment.  EPA generally agreed with the findings presented in the report and  provided supplemental information about the air quality, public health, and  environmental benefits associated with implementation of the Clean Air  Act Amendments of 1990 and comments related to its future challenges.  The agency also provided technical comments, which we incorporated  where appropriate. Appendix V contains the full text of the agency’s  comments and our responses.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator, EPA; and other  interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Title I
paragraphs: The Clean Air Act requires that all areas of the country meet national  ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which are set by EPA at levels that  are expected to be protective of human health and the environment.  NAAQS have been established for six “criteria” pollutants: ozone, carbon  monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, and lead. The  act further specifies that EPA must assess the level at which the standards  are set every five years and revise them, if necessary.
To accomplish the objectives of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of  1990, EPA identified 171 requirements. The specific requirements  contained in Title I direct EPA to perform a variety of activities, many of  which are related to implementing the NAAQS. Implementation of the  standards involves several stages, many requiring efforts by both EPA and  states. For example, once EPA has determined the appropriate air quality  level at which to set a standard, the agency then goes through a designation  process during which it identifies the areas of the country that fail to meet  the standard. After the nonattainment areas are identified, states have  primary responsibility for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. To do this,  states develop state implementation plans (SIPs) that specify the programs  that states will develop to achieve and maintain compliance with the  standards. Once a state submits a SIP to EPA, EPA is responsible for  reviewing it and either approving or disapproving the plan. To assist states  in developing their plans, EPA develops guidance documents that help  states interpret the standards and provide information on how to comply.  For example, EPA established several alternative control techniques  documents for various sources that emit nitrogen oxides. These documents  provide suggestions for states and industry on different techniques that can  be used to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions. In some circumstances, EPA  may provide guidance to the state and local air pollution control agencies  through the issuance of EPA guidance and/or policy memos. For example,  although designating areas as nonattainment or attainment is a complex  and time-consuming process, EPA issued guidance through policy memos  on the factors and criteria EPA used to make decisions for designating  areas of the country as nonattainment.
As of April 2005, EPA had completed 146 of the requirements that the  agency must implement to meet the objectives of Title I. Sixty-one  requirements that EPA had met by April 2005 had statutory deadlines. As  table 4 shows, EPA met 16 of these requirements on time and missed the  deadlines for 45 of them. EPA also completed 85 of the 88 requirements  that did not have statutory deadlines.
On average, Title I-related requirements that were met late were completed  24 months after their statutory deadline. As table 5 shows, the length of  time by which requirements were met late for Title I varied. For example,  24 of the late requirements were met within 1 year of their statutory  deadline while 8 requirements were completed more than 3 years late.
According to EPA, the agency missed deadlines for Title I-related  requirements for a number of reasons, such as (1) having to review a larger  quantity of scientific information than was available in the past; (2)  competing demands placed on agency staff who had to work concurrently  on more than one major rulemaking; and (3) engaging in longer, more  involved interagency review processes. According to agency officials, many  of the requirements that EPA completed late arose due to issues beyond  EPA’s control. For example, in implementing the ozone and particulate  matter NAAQS, the emergence of new scientific information regarding the  importance of regional ozone transport led to an extensive collaborative  process between states in the eastern half of the country to evaluate and  address the transport of ozone and its precursors. This information was  then taken into account in the review and subsequent revision of the ozone  NAAQS in 1997. In addition, EPA was sued on both the 1997 ozone and  particulate matter standards, which delayed EPA’s action to designate areas  as nonattainment. Moreover, the ongoing review of the particulate matter  NAAQS has been significantly extended as a consequence of the  unprecedented amount of new scientific research that has become  available since the last review, according to EPA.
Currently, EPA has not completed 22 requirements related to Title I with  statutory deadlines (see table 6). Fifteen of these requirements call for  rules involving different groups of consumer and commercial products, six  involve reviewing the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants, and one requires  EPA to finalize approving the state implementation plans for ozone and  carbon monoxide. The outstanding rules involving the consumer and  commercial products are to limit volatile organic compound emissions  from various products, such as cleaning products, personal care products,  and a variety of insecticides. The 1990 amendments specified that the rules  be promulgated in four groups, based on a priority ranking established by  EPA that includes a number of factors, such as the quantity of emissions  from certain products. While EPA completed the first group of rules by  September 1998, the agency had not done anything further to implement  the remaining three groups of rules. According to EPA officials, no further  work had been done to implement the rules because EPA shifted its  priorities toward issuing the Title III technology-based standards.  Additionally, EPA officials noted that many states have implemented their  own rules limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds from these  products, and these state rules are achieving the level of emissions  reductions that would be achieved by a national rule passed by EPA. An  EPA official stated that a national rule would not provide much of an  additional benefit in the areas where emissions of volatile organic  compounds are a problem and that a national rule would be fought by  industry in states where emissions of volatile organic compounds are not a  problem. However, promulgating these rules is a requirement under the  1990 amendments, and according to EPA officials, the agency is currently  being sued by the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group, for not  promulgating them by their statutory deadline. EPA and the litigant have  agreed on the actions to be taken to address the requirements, however,  they could not reach agreement on the completion dates and are currently  awaiting court-issued compliance dates.
In addition, the other six unmet requirements related to Title I involve  potentially revising the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants. While EPA has  been involved in litigation regarding four of these standards, litigation is  still ongoing only regarding the lead NAAQS. EPA is being sued for not  reviewing since 1991 the lead NAAQS that was originally issued in October  1978. According to EPA officials, the agency did not undertake this review  because it shifted its focus to controlling other sources of lead, such as  drinking water and hazardous waste facilities. As shown in table 6, EPA  expects to complete the required reviews for four of the criteria pollutants  by 2009.
In addition to the unmet requirements discussed above, EPA has three  requirements related to Title I without statutory deadlines that have not yet  been completed. The first is to develop a proposed particulate matter  implementation rule, which EPA expects to complete in summer 2005. The  second is the promulgation of methods for measurement of visible  emissions; EPA has not yet set a completion date for this action. The third  is the promulgation of phase II of the 8-hour ozone implementation rule,  expected in summer 2005.
section_title: Title III
paragraphs: Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established a new  regulatory program to reduce the emissions of hazardous air pollutants,  specifying 189 air toxics whose emissions would be controlled under its  provisions. The list includes organic and inorganic chemicals, compounds  of various elements, and numerous other toxic substances that are  frequently emitted into the air. Title III was intended to reduce the  population’s exposures to these pollutants, which can cause serious  adverse health effects such as cancer and reproductive dysfunction. After  identifying the pollutants to be regulated, Title III directs EPA to impose  technology-based standards, or Maximum Achievable Control Technology  (MACT) standards, on industry to reduce emissions. These technology- based standards require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions  that EPA determines achievable for new and existing sources, taking into  consideration the cost of achieving such reduction, health and  environmental impacts, and energy requirements. The process for  developing each MACT standard may include surveying impacted  industries, visiting sites, testing emissions, and conducting public hearings.  As a second step, within 8 years after completing each technology-based  standard, EPA is to review the remaining risks to the public and, if  necessary, issue health-based amendments to each of the MACT rules to  address such risks. The first set of these “residual risk” standards was  finalized in March 2005; residual risk standards for the remaining MACT  rules have not been completed. Finally, the Clean Air Act requires that EPA  review and, if necessary, revise the technology-based standards at least  every 8 years, to account for improvements in air pollution controls and  prevention. The first round of these recurring reviews will occur  concurrently with the first round of residual risk assessments, according to  an EPA official.
EPA identified 237 requirements—either with statutory deadlines prior to  April 2005 or without statutory deadlines—that accomplish the objectives  of Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Most of the specific  requirements under Title III direct EPA to promulgate MACT standards for  various sources of hazardous air pollutants, such as dry cleaning facilities,  petroleum refineries, and the printing and publishing industry. Title III also  requires EPA to issue a variety of studies and reports to the Congress. For  example, EPA has issued a series of studies on the deposition of air  pollutants to the Great Lakes and other bodies of water. In addition, Title III  also directs EPA to issue guidance on a number of subjects, including, for  example, guidance regarding state air toxics programs.
As of April 2005, EPA had met almost all of the requirements it identified to  fully implement the objectives of Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments  of 1990, as shown in table 7. EPA’s most recent data show that it has taken  the required action to meet 216 of the 237 Title III requirements, although  195 of these were met late, as shown in table 7.
As shown above, the vast majority of Title III requirements were met late.  On average, Title III requirements met late were completed 25 months after  their statutory deadline. However, the length of time by which  requirements were met late varied. As shown in table 8, 116 of the 195  requirements met late were completed within the first 2 years after the  statutory deadline, while 29 were not completed until more than 3 years  after the deadline.
In explaining why requirements under Title III were met late, an EPA  official discussed several factors. For example, the official said that the  vast majority of the requirements involved the development of the MACT  standards, which requires a significant amount of time and effort. The  official also confirmed the reasons that requirements were met late  provided by EPA officials at the time of our 2000 report, which included the  need to prioritize, given resource limitations, the time needed to develop  the policy framework and infrastructure of the MACT program, and the  need for stakeholder participation in the rulemaking processes for certain  MACT standards. In addition, the EPA official pointed out that in the past,  litigation on issued rules has imposed additional demands on EPA staff  working to meet outstanding requirements, leading to delays.
There are 21 requirements under Title III that EPA had not met as of April  2005, most of which involve the residual risk reviews required after EPA  has set technology-based standards (see table 9). Specifically, EPA has not  yet reviewed residual risk for 19 MACT standards with deadlines prior to  April 2005. EPA completed its first review and issued the first set of these  risk-based amendments, for the coke oven batteries MACT standard, on  March 31, 2005. In addition to the residual risk reviews, EPA has not yet  completed its urban area source standards. The other unmet requirement  under Title III calls for EPA to promulgate standards for solid waste  incinerators not previously regulated under the title. According to an EPA  official, the agency has focused its resources on regulating major solid  waste incinerators, while this requirement consists of a “catch-all” to pick  up remaining sources. Part of the challenge to completing this action has  involved identifying what these other sources might be, according to the  official.
In addition to the unmet requirements above, EPA has not yet completed  residual risk reviews for 76 MACT standards whose deadlines fall later than  April 2005. Because these residual risk reviews are not due until 8 years  after the completion of each technology standard, some of these residual  risk reviews are not due until 2012.
section_title: Title IV
paragraphs: Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established the acid  deposition control program. This program was designed to provide  environmental and public health benefits through reductions in emissions  of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the primary causes of acid rain. The  program provides an alternative to traditional “command and control”  regulatory approaches by using a market-based trading program that  allocates sulfur dioxide emission allowances to affected electric utilities.  The program creates a cost-effective way for utilities to achieve their  required sulfur dioxide emission reductions in the manner that is most  suitable to them. Utilities can choose to buy, sell, or bank their allowances,  as long as their annual emissions do not exceed the amount of allowances  (whether originally allocated to them or purchased) that they hold at the  end of the year. The nitrogen oxides program, on the other hand, does not  cap emissions of nitrogen oxides, nor does it utilize an allowance trading  system. Rather, this program, which focuses on emissions of nitrogen  oxides from coal-fired electric utility boilers, provides flexibility for  utilities in meeting emission limits by focusing on the emission rate to be  achieved and providing options for compliance.
To accomplish the objectives of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments  of 1990, EPA identified 44 requirements. Many of the required activities had  to do with setting up the acid rain program—for example, conducting  allowance auctions, issuing allowances to utilities, and establishing an  allowance trading system. Additionally, EPA developed requirements for  utilities to continuously monitor their emission levels to properly account  for allowances.
As of April 2005, EPA had completed 42 of the 44 requirements to meet the  objectives of Title IV. There were 26 requirements in Title IV with statutory  deadlines—EPA met 8 of them on time and missed 16; 2 others were unmet.  There were 18 requirements that did not have statutory deadlines, and EPA  has completed all of them. (See table 10.)
On average, for the 16 requirements EPA met late, they were completed  within approximately 15 months of their deadlines. As shown in table 11, 10  were met within 1 year of their deadline and 1 was met more than 3 years  late.
According to EPA officials, the agency was late with some of the  requirements because interagency review and consultation with the Acid  Rain Advisory Committee added time to the process. Officials consider this  time spent worthwhile because it allowed for more stakeholder input into  the rulemaking process, which may have made the rules less controversial.  In fact, EPA officials stated that Title IV has been subjected to less litigation  than other titles. According to the officials, litigation, however, did cause a  delay in the effective date of the first phase of the acid rain nitrogen oxides  reduction program by 1 year. EPA officials said the second phase of this  program affected approximately three times more units and was  implemented on schedule.
EPA officials stated that since implementation of the acid rain program,  changes have been necessary to keep the program up to date and  successful. For example, EPA revised the continuous emission-monitoring  rule in 1999 and 2002. According to EPA, these updates were necessary  because of changes in the industry, such as technological advances and  growth in the number of sources.
Two Title IV requirements that EPA has not completed have statutory  deadlines that have passed. The two requirements are (1) promulgating the  opt-in regulation for process sources and (2) conducting a sulfur  dioxide/nitrogen oxides inter-pollutant trading study. After conducting  preliminary work for the first action, which was to have been completed by  May 1992, EPA determined that the federal resources required to  accomplish it were well in excess of those available. Additionally,  according to an EPA official, there was evidence of very limited use of the  opt-in election for other sources. Given these two factors, and EPA’s view  that implementation of this provision would not reduce overall emissions,  the agency determined that it would not be cost-effective to promulgate the  regulation. Finally, EPA officials said that the agency decided not to pursue  the second action, which was to have been completed by January 1994, for  three reasons. Specifically, according to EPA officials, (1) they lacked a  trading ratio that would capture the complex environmental relationship  between sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides; (2) if the ratio issue could be  resolved, an annual allowance system for nitrogen oxides would need to be  created with which to trade sulfur dioxide allowances; and (3) it was not  clear that implementing inter-pollutant trading would result in a net  environmental benefit as there are multiple and complex health and  environmental impacts of both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides requiring  a comprehensive analysis of impacts and cost-effectiveness beyond  available resources.
section_title: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objective of this review was to determine the extent to which the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed the various actions  required to meet the objectives of Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean Air Act  Amendments of 1990. These titles, which respectively address national  ambient air quality standards, hazardous air pollutants, and acid deposition  control, are the most relevant to proposed legislation and recently finalized  regulations that address emissions of air pollutants by power plants.
To obtain information on the status of EPA’s implementation of  requirements related to Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean Air Act  Amendments of 1990—both those with and without statutory deadlines— we obtained lists of these requirements used for GAO’s 2000 report, Air  Pollution: Status of Implementation and Issues of the Clean Air Act  Amendments of 1990 (GAO/RCED-00-72) and held discussions with EPA  officials knowledgeable about EPA’s workload required to meet the  objectives of these titles. EPA officials verified the list of requirements  related to each of the three titles for accuracy and completeness and  provided documentation for any changes and additions made to the list. To  determine how late the requirements were met, we compared the statutory  deadline for each requirement to the month in which the requirement was  met. For regulations that appeared in the Federal Register, for example, we  considered the date the Federal Register issue was published to be the date  the requirement was met, as agreed with EPA officials. In addition, we  obtained explanations for why a large number of requirements were met  after their statutory deadlines from two sources—our 2000 report and  through discussions with EPA officials. For requirements that had not been  met as of April 2005, we obtained additional information from EPA  officials, including actions taken to date.
To ensure the reliability of the information provided by EPA, we requested  documentation for any changes EPA made to the list of requirements  developed for our previous report and checked the documentation to  ensure it matched the description of the requirement. In addition, we  reviewed the information EPA submitted to ensure there were no duplicate  entries or apparent inconsistencies; for any entries that appeared  questionable, we followed up with EPA officials and usually obtained  additional documentation. In certain cases, in particular with regard to  Title III requirements, we also independently verified the status of the  requirements. In all cases, EPA provided confirmation for the conclusions  we reached as well as, in some cases, additional documentation. We  determined that the data we obtained about the status of EPA’s  implementation of required actions were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. We also reviewed the methodology of two EPA  studies that contained information about areas of the United States  impacted by ground-level ozone and particulate matter. We determined  that these studies were sufficiently methodologically sound to present their  results in this report as background information.
While this report addresses the extent to which EPA has met its  requirements related to Titles I, III, and IV of the 1990 amendments, it does  not address the status of requirements under other titles of the  amendments or show the extent to which states have implemented  applicable requirements. We conducted our work from January 2005 to  May 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
section_title: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on EPA’s letter dated May 18, 2005.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. As background, our report states that while air quality in the United  States has steadily improved over the last few decades, more than a  hundred million Americans continue to live in communities where  pollution causes the air to be unhealthy at times, according to EPA.  EPA has apparently interpreted this statement as implying that missed  deadlines described in the report are responsible for the scope of the  current particulate matter and ozone nonattainment problems.  However, our report does not make that link. 2. EPA provided us several examples of cases in which a delay in the  implementation of certain specific requirements did not lead to a delay  in improvements in air quality. While our draft report indicated that  requirements met late delayed improvements in air quality, we did not  mean to suggest that all late requirements delayed improvements in air  quality. Therefore, we revised the report to say that delays in  implementation of some of the requirements may have led to delays in  improvements in air quality. 3. During the course of our work, we discussed our proposed  methodology with EPA officials and they agreed with our plan to use  the Federal Register publication date as the completion date for  relevant requirements. In commenting on the draft report, however, the  agency stated that its Office of Air and Radiation generally considers  that it has met its statutory obligation to issue a rule on the date on  which a final rule is signed and disseminated to the public, which is  likely to be earlier than the publication of that rule in the Federal  Register. Although we agree with EPA’s assessment that using the  signature date, rather than the Federal Register publication date, would  not change the report’s conclusions, we revised the report to include  EPA’s comment.  4. We revised report language throughout to reflect the fact that certain  actions originally included as requirements of Title I of the Clean Air  Act Amendments of 1990 were established earlier but are related to  these amendments.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
paragraphs: John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 (stephensonj@gao.gov) Christine Fishkin, (202) 512-6895 (fishkinc@gao.gov)
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individuals named above, Nancy Crothers, Christine  Houle, Karen Keegan, Judy Pagano, and Nico Sloss made key contributions  to this report.