The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control responsibilities that had been divided among several federal agencies. EPA's responsibilities grew significantly as Congress enacted an increasing number of environmental laws as well as major amendments to these statutes. Among the agency's primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality, water quality, pesticides, and toxic substances; the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist states and local governments in complying with federal requirements to control pollution, to assist those states with the delegated authority to administer certain federal pollution control programs, and for research and other activities supporting the agency's mission. Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA programs and activities within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. No regular appropriations bill was enacted before October 1, 2011, the start of FY2012, for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies or the other 11 regular appropriations bills. Prior to the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 ( P.L. 112-74 , H.R. 2055 ), on December 23, 2011, EPA and other departments and agencies funded within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill were operating under a series of continuing resolutions sequentially extending FY2012 funding. From July 25, 2011, to July 28, 2011, the House considered H.R. 2584 as reported July 19, 2011, by the House Appropriations Committee, recommending FY2012 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, but the House floor debate was suspended. No bill to fund Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2012 was formally introduced in the Senate. However, on October 14, 2011, the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released a draft bill for FY2012 to serve as a starting point of discussions for markup. Title II under Division E of P.L. 112-74 ( H.Rept. 112-331 ) provided $8.46 billion for EPA for FY2012, not including a 0.16% across-the-board rescission. The total FY2012 appropriations for EPA was an 18.3% increase above the $7.15 billion proposed for FY2012 for EPA by the House Appropriations Committee in H.R. 2584 ( H.Rept. 112-151 ) as reported, but 1.8% less than the $8.62 billion proposed in the October 14, 2011, Senate subcommittee draft. The enacted EPA FY2012 appropriation was $219.1 million (2.6%) less than the FY2011 enacted appropriations of $8.68 billion, and $510.0 million (5.7%) below the $8.97 billion included in the President's FY2012 budget request. In addition to funding priorities among the various EPA programs and activities, several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions were central to the debate on the FY2012 appropriations. These EPA regulatory actions, which were also the focus of considerable attention during deliberations on EPA's FY2011 appropriations, cut across the various environmental pollution control statutes' programs and initiatives. Some Members expressed concerns related to these actions during hearings and markup of EPA's FY2012 appropriations, and authorizing committees have been addressing EPA regulatory actions through hearings and legislation. P.L. 112-74 included several administrative and general provisions affecting EPA actions and authorities (see " Selected Provisions Regarding EPA Actions " later in this report), but not nearly as many as the more than 25 provisions proposed in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, H.R. 2584 ( H.Rept. 112-151 ) as reported by the House Appropriations Committee. Several additional proposals to address EPA actions were also among the roughly 150 amendments considered and pending prior to suspension of House floor debate of H.R. 2584 on July 28, 2011. The Senate subcommittee draft did not include general provisions similar to the House committee-reported bill that would restrict or preclude EPA from using appropriated funds for implementing or proceeding with a number of regulatory actions. In response to congressional interest in several of the provisions affecting EPA program activities included in P.L. 112-74 and proposed in H.R. 2584 as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, this report highlights a number of these provisions. The information regarding the provisions presented throughout this report is primarily an extraction of language contained in P.L. 112-74 and proposed in H.R. 2584 for purposes of reference, and is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of all provisions related directly or indirectly to EPA programs. As all the terms and activities contained within the provisions were not always explicitly defined, the scope of the effects of many of the provisions is subject to interpretation, and therefore neither definitions nor potential impacts are inferred in this report. Only those provisions affecting EPA programs that are clearly identifiable by specific language or references are included in this report. This report also provides a brief summary of funding levels for EPA accounts and certain program activities enacted and proposed for FY2012, and enacted for FY2011. The following section of this report provides an overview of enacted appropriations for FY2012 as compared to amounts proposed in H.R. 2584 as reported, the Senate subcommittee draft, the President's FY2012 request, and the enacted amounts for FY2011 in P.L. 112-10 . For purposes of historical comparison, Table A-1 in the Appendix of this report shows EPA enacted appropriations by account for FY2008 through FY2012. The overview of funding levels is followed by highlights of provisions included in P.L. 112-74 and a series of tables that present a comparison of a compilation of excerpts of selected provisions in P.L. 112-74 with those proposed in H.R. 2584 as reported. These provisions are for selected EPA programs and activities that received prominent attention during deliberations on the FY2012 appropriations. Amendments that were agreed to or failed during House floor debate of H.R. 2584 , as well as submitted amendments pending action, are not included in the tables, as the House floor debate of H.R. 2584 was suspended and not completed. Concerns regarding EPA's FY2012 funding generally focused on federal financial assistance for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, grants to assist states in implementing air pollution control requirements, climate change research and related activities, and environmental cleanup of Superfund sites. There also was interest in funding for geographic-specific water quality initiatives, particularly the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound. Since FY1996, EPA's funding has been requested by the Administration and appropriated by Congress under eight statutory accounts. Table 1 presents the FY2012 enacted amounts for EPA compared to the amounts proposed by the House Appropriations Committee in H.R. 2584 as reported, the Senate subcommittee draft released October 14, 2011, the President's FY2012 budget request, and the FY2011 enacted appropriations for the eight accounts that fund the agency. The table includes a brief description of the programs and activities funded within each of the EPA accounts. Note that the former name of the "Oil Spill Response" account was changed by the conferees as proposed in the President's FY2012 request to "Inland Oil Spill Program." This modification was intended to more clearly reflect the agency's jurisdiction for oil spill response in the inland coastal zone. The FY2012 enacted appropriations reflect a decrease from the FY2011 enacted levels and the President's FY2012 request for each of the eight EPA accounts once the 0.16% across-the-board rescission is applied. With the exception of increases for the Hazardous Substance Superfund, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, and the Buildings and Facilities accounts, the FY2012 appropriations were below the levels for each of the remaining accounts as recommended in the Title II of the Senate subcommittee draft. Accounting for the across-the-board rescission, FY2012 enacted appropriations for all of the accounts were above the levels proposed in the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill ( H.R. 2584 ), with the largest difference (38.6%) being the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account. The House Committee had proposed roughly a 55% reduction below FY2011 enacted appropriations (to the FY2008 level) for grants to aid states to capitalize their Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Drinking Water SRF would also have been reduced to the FY2008 level, although the magnitude of the decreases below the FY2011 enacted and FY2012 requested levels would have been smaller than the decreases for the Clean Water SRF. There was variability among the FY2012 enacted amounts for program activities below the account level, compared to the FY2012 proposals and the FY2011 enacted amounts. In those cases where FY2012 enacted amounts were the same as proposed for FY2012 and FY2011 enacted, the FY2012 enacted levels would be a decrease once the 0.16% across-the-board rescission is taken into account. The tables contained in the conference report ( H.Rept. 112-331 ) provide a comparison of the FY2012 appropriations for certain individual programs and activities funded within each of the eight appropriations accounts with the FY2012 President's request and FY2011 levels. However, a comparison with FY2011 enacted is not possible across all program activities. The conferees accepted the reorganization of the budget presentation of certain program areas below the appropriations account level for FY2012 as proposed by the President, including consolidation and modifications of line items, making the FY2011 enacted funding levels not comparable to the reorganized activities. The table included in H.Rept. 112-151 (pp. 192-200) accompanying H.R. 2584 and those accompanying the Senate subcommittee draft reflect the reorganization, allowing for comparisons at the sub-account level. The $23.0 million transfer from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account to the Science and Technology (S&T) account included in P.L. 112-74 for FY2012 was the same as proposed for FY2012 in both the House and Senate versions and as requested, but is $3.8 million less than the $26.8 million transferred in FY2011. The FY2012 transfer of $10.0 million from the Superfund account to the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account was the same as proposed for FY2012 and enacted for FY2011. These transfer comparisons would reflect a decrease once the 0.16% across-the-board rescission is included for the FY2012 enacted amounts. In addition to the funding amounts presented by account in the table below, the "Administrative Provisions" for EPA in Title II of Division E under P.L. 112-74 , included a rescission of $50.0 million from unobligated balances funded through the Hazardous Substance Superfund ($5.0 million) and STAG ($45.0 million) accounts. Within the STAG account, the distribution of the rescission was specified in the provision as $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 Mexico Border grants. H.R. 2584 as reported had proposed a rescission of $140.0 million, and the Senate subcommittee draft proposed a smaller rescission of $34.0 million from unobligated balances funded through the Superfund and STAG accounts, but the distribution of the rescissions was not specified. The FY2012 request proposed a $50.0 million rescission of prior years' unobligated balances, but did not specify from which account. Similar rescissions of unobligated balances have been included in EPA appropriations since FY2006. For FY2011, Section 1740 in Title VII of Division B in P.L. 112-10 included a rescission of $140.0 million from unobligated balances available within the STAG account only; for FY2010, P.L. 111-88 included a $40.0 million rescission of unobligated balances available from the STAG and the Hazardous Substance Superfund accounts. An additional EPA administrative provision in the FY2012 enacted appropriations authorized the Administrator to transfer up to $300.0 million of the funds appropriated for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) within the EPM account to other federal departments or agencies to carry out projects supporting the GLRI and the Great Lakes Water Agreement programs, projects, or activities. Not including the 0.16% across-the-board rescission, the FY2012 enacted amount was generally the same as FY2011 enacted and the proposed amount for FY2012 in the Senate draft, more than the $250.0 million proposed in the House committee-reported H.R. 2584 , but less than the $350.0 million included in the FY2012 request. During the past two years, EPA has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing provisions of many of the federal pollution control statutes enacted by Congress. During the first session of the 112 th Congress, many stakeholders and some Members expressed concerns that the agency was reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules. EPA and others countered that these actions were consistent with statutory mandates and in some cases compelled by court ruling, the pace in many ways is slower than a decade ago, and that cost and benefits are appropriately evaluated. Recently promulgated and pending actions under the Clean Air Act, in particular EPA controls on emissions of greenhouse gases and efforts to address conventional pollutants (e.g., mercury, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide) from a number of industries, received much of the attention. Several actions under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA), also received some attention. A number of these issues were the focus of considerable debate which resulted in provisions in the enacted and House Appropriations Committee-proposed versions of the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. P.L. 112-74 included several administrative and general provisions affecting EPA actions and authorities (see tables that follow), but not nearly as many as those proposed in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, H.R. 2584 ( H.Rept. 112-151 ) as reported by the House Appropriations Committee on July 19, 2011, and among amendments considered and submitted prior to suspension of the House floor debate on July 28, 2011. Most of the administrative provisions in the FY2012 enacted appropriations were similar to those proposed in H.R. 2584 as reported and the Senate draft for FY2012, and the general provisions were similar to or a slightly revised subset of those contained in House committee-reported bill. Comparable general provisions were not proposed in the Senate draft. In addition to the rescission of unobligated balances and transfer of funds for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative discussed in the previous section (" Comparison of EPA FY2012 Enacted and Proposed Appropriations ") and presented in Table 1 above, three other provisions were included in the EPA Administrative Provisions setting terms and conditions for the use of FY2012 appropriations, under Title II of Division E in P.L. 112-74 . These administrative provisions were similar to those included in both House committee-reported H.R. 2584 and the Senate subcommittee draft. One additional provision authorized EPA to transfer up to $10.0 million from any of its eight accounts to fund emergency response actions for oil spills in addition to amounts available in the Inland Oil Spill Program account if the Administrator determines that the account will be exhausted within 30 days. The funds transferred from other accounts would be reimbursed by payments administered by the U.S. Coast Guard from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. This provision was similar to an administrative provision included in the Senate draft that allowed for the transfer of funds under these circumstances, but without placing a dollar limit on the amount of the transfer. H.R. 2584 as reported did not include such a transfer provision. Division E, Title IV "General Provisions" in P.L. 112-74 , included provisions specifying requirements and restrictions for the use of appropriations for certain air quality regulatory actions and greenhouse gas emission reporting requirements, and certain Clean Water Act permitting requirements associated with silvicultural activities: Section 425 of Division E of the FY2012 appropriations law required the President to submit a comprehensive report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing all federal (including EPA) obligations and expenditures, domestic and international, for climate change programs and activities by agency for FY2011. Section 426 prohibited the use of appropriations for promulgation or implementation of regulation requiring permits under Title V of the Clean Air Act for certain pollutants resulting from biological processes associated with livestock production, and Section 427 prohibited use of appropriations for implementing any provisions in a rule that requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from "manure management systems." Section 432 of the FY2012 law amended Section 328 of the Clean Air Act, effectively transferring authority to regulate air emissions from EPA to Department of the Interior (DOI) in the Outer Continental Shelf off Alaska's north coast. Section 429 in P.L. 112-74 prohibited EPA from requiring a permit under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342; commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act), and further, prohibited the EPA administrator "...from directly or indirectly requiring any state to require a permit for discharges of stormwater runoff from roads, the construction of, use, or maintenance of which is associated with silvicultural activities, or from other silvicultural activities involving nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, or surface drainage." Each of the general provisions included in the FY2012 appropriations summarized above is similar to provisions proposed for FY2012 in the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill H.R. 2584 as noted in the tables which follow. Section 425 in the enacted FY2012 appropriations was also similar to a reporting requirement for FY2009 and FY2010 contained in Section 426 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 ( P.L. 111-88 ). A similar recurring reporting requirement had been in existence for nearly a decade through FY2007, under provisions in the annual appropriations bills for Foreign Operations. Section 426 and Section 427 of P.L. 112-74 are the same as Section 424 and Section 425 of P.L. 111-88 for FY2010, and retained in the FY2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations law ( P.L. 112-10 ). Additionally, in lieu of certain provisions proposed for FY2012 in the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill ( H.R. 2584 ), the FY2012 appropriations conference report, H.Rept. 112-331 , included extensive language with regard to specific actions by EPA. For example, under the Science and Technology account in H.Rept. 112-331 (p. 1,072), the conferees required specific refinements and modifications to EPA's policies and practices for conducting assessments under the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This report language reflects some of the concerns that resulted in a general provision, Section 444, contained in the House committee-reported bill. As reported, H.R. 2584 contained more than 25 provisions that would have restricted or precluded the use of FY2012 funds by EPA for implementing or proceeding with a number of regulatory actions. These provisions included more than 20 provisions proposed by the subcommittee, and eight amendments added during full committee markup. The more controversial provisions regarding several EPA programs and regulations were contained in the "General Provisions" in Title IV of H.R. 2584 . Further, Title V of the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill H.R. 2584 , the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, included amendments to the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in response to EPA's consideration of requiring permits under the Clean Water Act for point source discharges of pesticides in or near U.S. waters. From July 25, 2011, to July 28, 2011, the House considered H.R. 2584 but did not complete debate on the bill. Concerns regarding these EPA actions continued to be raised during House floor debate and were among roughly 150 amendments considered and submitted prior to suspension of floor debate on July 28, 2011. The provisions and amendments central to the House debate would have impacted ongoing and anticipated EPA activities, including those addressing greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter emissions, permitting of new source air emissions, water quality impacts of mountaintop mining operations, management of coal ash, lead-based paint removal, environmental impacts associated with livestock operations, financial responsibility with respect to Superfund cleanup, and stormwater discharge. Table 2 through Table 8 , which follow, highlight directive provisions included in P.L. 112-74 and proposed in H.R. 2584 as reported, including those that would restrict or preclude EPA from using appropriations for implementing or proceeding with a number of regulatory actions. Comparable provisions were not proposed in the Senate subcommittee draft. The provisions presented in the following tables are categorized in this report by general program areas, that is, air quality and climate change, water quality, and waste management. Related provisions that are under the jurisdiction of agencies other than EPA, but may impact EPA, are listed separately in Table 8 . The tables contain information about the provisions, including the associated sections of the bill (or relevant conference report citation with regard to EPA's ISIS program). H.R. 1 , the FY2011 Full-Year Continuing resolution passed by the House February 19, 2011, included roughly 20 provisions that would have similarly restricted and prohibited the use of FY2011 funds to implement EPA regulatory activities. These provisions were not included in the final FY2011 appropriations law ( P.L. 112-10 ) enacted April 15, 2011. Those provisions contained in P.L. 112-74 and H.R. 2584 as reported that are similar or the same as provisions proposed in H.R. 1 as passed by the House February 19, 2011, are denoted in the first column of each of the following tables. Since FY1996, EPA's appropriations have been requested by the Administration and appropriated by Congress within eight statutory appropriations accounts. Table A-1 identifies the amounts for the appropriations enacted by Congress for FY2008 through FY2012 for these accounts. The table identifies transfers of funds between these accounts, and funding levels for several grant program areas within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account that have received more prominent attention during these fiscal years. The enacted amounts presented in Table A-1 are based on most recent information available from House, Senate, or conference committee reports accompanying the annual appropriations bills that fund EPA.

Summary:
Enacted December 23, 2011, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74, H.R. 2055), finalized appropriations for FY2012 for those agencies typically funded under nine of the 12 regular appropriations bills. Not including a 0.16% across-the-board rescission, Title II of Division E under P.L. 112-74 provided $8.46 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2012. The total was an increase above the $7.15 billion proposed by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 2584 as reported), but less than the $8.62 billion proposed in a draft released by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee and the $8.97 billion included in the President's FY2012 budget request. The EPA FY2012 appropriations were $219.1 million (2.6%) less than the FY2011 enacted appropriations of $8.68 billion. Prior to the enactment of P.L. 112-74, EPA and agencies included in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill had been funded sequentially under a series of FY2012 continuing resolutions. In addition to FY2012 appropriations for the various EPA programs and activities, P.L. 112-74 included directive provisions regarding certain EPA authorities and program activities, including some that restricted the use of appropriated funds for implementing or proceeding with several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions. Division E, Title IV "General Provisions" P.L. 112-74, included provisions specifying requirements and restrictions for the use of appropriations for certain air Clean Air Act regulatory actions and greenhouse gas emission reporting requirements (see sections 425, 426, 427 and 432), and certain Clean Water Act permitting requirements associated with silvicultural activities (section 429). Additionally, the Conference Report H.Rept. 112-331 included extensive language with regard to specific actions by EPA. For example, under the Science and Technology account in H.Rept. 112-331 (p. 1072), the Conferees required specific refinements and modifications to EPA's policies and practices for conducting assessments under the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). EPA regulatory actions received considerable attention during House and Senate oversight committee hearings, appropriations committee hearings, and House floor debate on the FY2012 appropriations during the first session of the 112th Congress. Several of the provisions included in P.L. 112-74 were the same or similar to a subset of more than 25 provisions included in H.R. 2584, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.Rept. 112-151), as reported on July 19, 2011, and additional proposed provisions regarding EPA among roughly 150 amendments considered or submitted during floor debate of H.R. 2584, which was suspended on July 28, 2011. These proposed directives cut across many of the various environmental pollution control statutes' programs and initiatives. An October 14, 2011, draft released by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies did not include comparable general provisions that would restrict or preclude the use of appropriations for certain EPA actions. This report summarizes funding levels for EPA accounts and certain sub-account program activities as enacted in P.L. 112-74, and as proposed in H.R. 2584 as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, in the Senate subcommittee draft, and in the President's FY2012 request, compared to the FY2011 enacted appropriations. Selected provisions regarding EPA program activities extracted from P.L. 112-74, the conference report, and the House committee-reported bill are also presented. Only those provisions affecting EPA that are clearly identifiable by specific language or references contained in the bill are included. Amendments that were considered or pending during initial House floor debate at the end of July 2011 are not included.