Air Pollution: Status of Implementation and Issues of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (Letter Report, 04/17/2000, GAO/RCED-00-72).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
1990 Clean Air Act amendments, focusing on: (1) the status of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the
requirements established by the 1990 amendments; and (2) views from
state governments, local programs, industries that are regulated under
the act, and environmental advocacy groups (collectively referred to as
stakeholders) on the issues that have either helped or hindered the
implementation of the 1990 amendments.

GAO noted that: (1) as of February 2000, EPA had identified 538
requirements under the 1990 amendments' first six titles, of which 409
have been met; (2) of the requirements that have been met, 162 had no
statutory deadlines, and the remaining 247 had statutory deadlines
before the end of February 2000; (3) EPA missed the statutory deadline
for 198 of these 247 requirements with a deadline; (4) of the 129
requirements that the agency has not met, 6 had a statutory due date
prior to February 2000, 108 have a statutory due date after February
2000, and 15 do not have a statutory date; (5) EPA will likely miss 62
of the 108 future statutory requirements, which are related to
establishing new standards for hazardous air pollutants; (6) EPA
officials attributed the agency's missing of statutory deadlines to
several reasons, including: (a) an increased emphasis on stakeholders'
review and involvement during the development of regulations, which
added to the time needed to issue regulations; (b) the setting of
priorities to manage the workload resulting from the 1990 amendments,
which created a tremendous number of new responsibilities for EPA; and
(c) complications associated with the startup and effective
implementation of new programs, including technical, policy, or legal
issues that were not fully anticipated in 1990; (7) stakeholders
provided a variety of views on the issues that have helped or hindered
the implementation of the six titles; (8) a number of stakeholders
expressed the view that flexibility in the act has helped
implementation; (9) one of the challenges facing Congress in considering
the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act is determining the appropriate
balance between traditional command and control approaches and more
flexible approaches that allow states and local air pollution control
agencies and other stakeholders to implement the most cost-effective
strategies, while meeting national air quality goals; (10) stakeholders
cited the specificity in the act's title dealing with stratospheric
ozone depletion, which listed the affected chemicals and the dates for
their eventual phase-out, as contributing to the successful
implementation of that title; and (11) stakeholders cited inadequate
resources as an example of where the implementation of the 1990
amendments has been hindered.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-72
     TITLE:  Air Pollution: Status of Implementation and Issues of the
	     Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
      DATE:  04/17/2000
   SUBJECT:  Air pollution control
	     Pollution monitoring
	     Environmental policies
	     Reporting requirements
	     Environmental law
	     Federal/state relations
	     Noncompliance
IDENTIFIER:  EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards
	     EPA Acid Rain Program

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO/RCED-00-72

Appendix I: Title I--National Ambient Air Quality Standards

22

Appendix II: Titles I and II--Mobile Sources

29

Appendix III: Title III--Hazardous Air Pollutants

34

Appendix IV: Title IV--Acid Deposition Control

38

Appendix V: Title V--Permit Program

41

Appendix VI: Title VI--Stratospheric Ozone Protection

48

Appendix VII: Selected Organizations Included in GAO's Review

51

Appendix VIII: Comments From the Environmental Protection
Agency

53

Table 1: Status of Requirements Designed for National Ambient
Air Quality Standards 23

Table 2: Long-Term Percent Changes in National Air Quality
Concentration 24

Table 3: Status of Requirements Designed for Mobile Sources 30

Table 4: Status of Requirements Designed for Hazardous
Air Pollutants 35

Table 5: Status of Requirements Designed for Acid Rain Deposition 39

Table 6: Status of Requirements Designed for the Permit Program 42

Table 7: Status of Requirements Designed for Stratospheric Ozone Protection
49

Figure 1: U.S. Population, Vehicle Miles Traveled, U.S. Gross
Domestic Product, and Aggregate Pollution Emissions, 1970-97 8

Figure 2: Number of People Living in Counties With Air Quality
Concentrations Above the Level of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards in 1997 (numbers in millions) 9

Figure 3: Status of Requirements 10

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division

B-284843

April 17, 2000

The Honorable James M. Inhofe
Chairman, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands,
Private Property, and Nuclear Safety
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Clean Air Act,1 last reauthorized and amended by the Congress in 1990,
provides for a number of related programs designed to protect health and
control air pollution. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established new
programs and made major changes in the ways that air pollution is
controlled. The amendments require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to take a number of actions--such as issuing new regulations and guidance
documents, undertaking research studies, and preparing reports to the
Congress--and specify a deadline for many of them. The majority of these
requirements are found in the amendments' first six titles; EPA has
identified 538 such requirements, 361 of which have a statutory deadline.
Additionally, the amendments specify deadlines for states and local air
pollution control agencies--who play a pivotal role in implementing the
act--to respond to the rules promulgated by EPA.

With reauthorization of the Clean Air Act impending, you asked us to provide
information on the implementation of the first six titles of the 1990 Clean
Air Act amendments.2 Specifically, you asked us to (1) provide information
on the status of EPA's implementation of the requirements established by the
1990 amendments and (2) obtain views from state governments, local programs,
industries that are regulated under the act, and environmental advocacy
groups (collectively referred to as stakeholders) on the issues that have
either helped or hindered the implementation of the 1990 amendments.3

As of February 2000, EPA had identified 538 requirements under the 1990
amendments' first six titles, of which 409 have been met. Of the
requirements that have been met, 162 had no statutory deadlines, and the
remaining 247 had statutory deadlines before the end of February 2000. EPA
missed the statutory deadline for 198 of these 247 requirements with a
deadline. Of the 129 requirements that the agency has not met, 6 had a
statutory due date prior to February 2000, 108 have a statutory due date
after February 2000, and 15 do not have a statutory due date. EPA will
likely miss 62 of the 108 future statutory requirements, which are related
to establishing new standards for hazardous air pollutants. EPA officials
attributed the agency's missing of statutory deadlines to several reasons,
including (1) an increased emphasis on stakeholders' review and involvement
during the development of regulations, which added to the time needed to
issue regulations; (2) the setting of priorities to manage the workload
resulting from the 1990 amendments, which created a tremendous number of new
responsibilities for EPA; and (3) complications associated with the startup
and effective implementation of new programs, including technical, policy,
or legal issues that were not fully anticipated in 1990.

Stakeholders provided a variety of views on the issues that have helped or
hindered the implementation of the six titles. The following were the most
commonly cited issues:

ï¿½ The degree of flexibility allowed for states and regulated pollution
sources to determine how they will achieve required air quality
improvements. A number of stakeholders expressed the view that flexibility
in the act has helped implementation. For example, according to
stakeholders, the emissions allowance-trading system−under which
utilities that reduce their emissions below required levels can sell their
allowances to other utilities to help them meet their
requirements−established by the title dealing with acid rain is a good
example of flexibility. This allows electric utilities to achieve required
sulfur dioxide emissions reductions at a lower-than-expected cost. One of
the challenges facing the Congress in considering the reauthorization of the
Clean Air Act is determining the appropriate balance between traditional
command and control approaches and more flexible approaches that allow
states and local air pollution control agencies and other stakeholders to
implement the most cost-effective strategies, while meeting national air
quality goals.

ï¿½ The extent to which goals and requirements are clearly specified in the
statute or regulations. For example, stakeholders cited the specificity in
the act's title dealing with stratospheric ozone depletion, which listed the
affected chemicals and the dates for their eventual phase-out, as
contributing to the successful implementation of that title.

ï¿½ The adequacy of resources at the state and local level to effectively
implement and enforce the statute. Stakeholders cited inadequate resources
as an example of where the implementation of the 1990 amendments has been
hindered.

The Clean Air Act, enacted in 1963 and substantially overhauled in 1970, is
a comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and
mobile sources. This law authorizes EPA to, among other things, establish
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and
welfare. The goal of the 1970 amendments was to set and achieve the
standards in every state by 1975. The setting of pollutant standards was
coupled with directing the states to develop state implementation plans
applicable to appropriate sources in the state. The Congress amended the
statute again in 1977 primarily to set new goals or dates for attaining the
standards, since many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines.

In large part, the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act were intended to
meet unaddressed or insufficiently addressed problems. The major provisions
of the amendments are contained in the first six titles. Each of these
titles requires EPA to, among other things, promulgate regulations, publish
final guidance for state air pollution control programs, and issue various
research reports to the Congress. Most of the requirements involve
promulgating regulations to implement the act. Once the regulations are
promulgated, it is generally up to state and local air pollution control
agencies to enforce their provisions, with oversight from EPA.

ï¿½ Title I of the 1990 amendments establishes a more comprehensive approach
for states to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.

ï¿½ Title II contains provisions for controlling air pollution from motor
vehicles, engines, and their fuel.

ï¿½ Title III establishes new requirements to reduce the emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (often called "air toxics").

ï¿½ Title IV establishes the acid deposition control program to reduce the
adverse effects of acid rain by reducing the annual emissions of pollutants
that are precursors of acid rain.4

ï¿½ Title V establishes a national permit program to ensure compliance with
all applicable requirements of the act and to enhance EPA's and the states'
ability to enforce the act. Title V requires the states to establish permit
programs.

ï¿½ Title VI establishes provisions to protect the stratospheric ozone layer.

Although the Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country, the
states are responsible for carrying out much of the statute. Under the law,
EPA sets limits on how much of certain pollutants can be in the air anywhere
in the United States. This ensures that all Americans have the same basic
environmental protections. The 1990 amendments set deadlines for EPA,
states, local governments, and businesses to reduce air pollution. These
deadlines were designed to be more realistic than the deadlines in previous
versions of the law.

According to EPA, by many measures, the quality of the nation's air has
improved in recent years. Great strides have been made in combating urban
air pollution, toxic air pollution, depletion of the stratospheric ozone
layer, and acid rain. Specifically, ground- level ozone, particulate matter,
and carbon monoxide emissions have been reduced; the emissions of toxic air
pollution are expected to decrease by 1.5 million tons a year; production of
the most harmful ozone depleting chemicals has ceased; sulfur dioxide
emissions have been cut by more then 5 million tons from the 1980 level; and
motor vehicles and fuels are far cleaner than in 1990 as a result of revised
emissions standards. As shown in figure 1, while the United States enjoyed
major increases in population, gross domestic product, and vehicle miles
traveled, the aggregate emissions of the six criteria pollutants decreased
by 31 percent from 1970 through 1997.5

Figure 1: U.S. Population, Vehicle Miles Traveled, U.S. Gross Domestic
Product,
and Aggregate Pollution Emissions, 1970-97

Source: EPA's National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report (1997)

Although changes in the economy and other factors affect emissions trends,
according to EPA, the emissions of air pollutants would be much higher
without the Clean Air Act. EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation has stated that the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 has substantially cut air pollution over the past 9 years.6 The
stakeholders we interviewed--including environmental groups, industrial
groups, and state and local governments--also agreed that the 1990
amendments have had a positive effect on the environment.

However, according to EPA's Assistant Administrator, the nation still has a
long way to go to reach the agency's goal of clean air nationwide. For
example, as shown in figure 2, in 1997, approximately 107 million people
lived in counties with air pollutant concentrations that exceeded national
ambient air quality standards.

Figure 2: Number of People Living in Counties With Air Quality
Concentrations
Above the Level of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 1997
(numbers in millions)

Source: EPA's National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report (1997).

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

As of February 2000, EPA had completed the majority of the actions required
by the 1990 amendments. As shown in figure 3, the bulk of the future
requirements relate to establishing new standards for hazardous air
pollutants under title III, which will be completed in 2002, according to
EPA officials' estimates. However, not all the requirements were met within
the statutory deadline, and EPA officials indicated that additional
requirements may be met after the specified statutory deadline, particularly
those for the hazardous air pollutants. The status of implementing each of
the amendments' six major titles is detailed in appendixes I through VI.

Figure 3: Status of Requirements

Note: There are six unmet requirements (one in title I, three in title III,
and two in title IV) that had a statutory due date prior to February 2000.
These six requirements are not included in figure 3.

Source: GAO's analysis of EPA's data.

It is important to recognize that in terms of their ultimate impact on the
environment, all requirements are not equal. For example, a requirement that
EPA issue a rule on monitoring a limited number of stationary sources in a
single industry has neither the complexity nor the impact of a provision
that requires dozens of states to submit implementation plans to attain a
major national ambient air quality standard. The latter is inherently more
difficult to accomplish and often requires states and local agencies to pass
legislation and issue, adopt, and implement rules. Certain programs are
implemented largely by states and require extensive, continuing interaction
between EPA and the nation's governors, state legislators, county officials,
state and local regulators, and others on numerous complex requirements.
Other programs are implemented by EPA.

Overall, as of February 2000, EPA had fulfilled 409 of the 538 requirements
that it identified to implement the amendments' first six titles. Of the 409
requirements that have been met, 247 had a statutory due date and 162 did
not. The majority of actions required for five of the six titles have been
completed. For example, EPA has completed 126 of 141 requirements
implementing the NAAQS under title I.

The 129 remaining requirements include promulgating regulations for states
and local air pollution control agencies to enforce, as well as other
requirements described in the amendments. Of the 129 requirements that are
unmet, 6 had a statutory due date prior to February 2000, 108 have a
statutory due date after February 2000, and 15 do not have a statutory
deadline. About one-half of these unmet requirements are for establishing
standards for hazardous air pollutants: EPA is to promulgate 62 Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards due by the statutory deadline
of November 15, 2000.7

EPA missed the deadline for 198 of the 247 statutory requirements with a
deadline through February 2000.8 According to EPA officials, it is unlikely
that the agency will meet the deadline for 62 of the 108 remaining statutory
requirements. Specifically, the officials do not believe they will meet the
November 15, 2000, deadline for establishing standards for hazardous air
pollutants.

EPA officials cited several factors explaining why the agency has missed
deadlines, including the following: (1) increased emphasis on stakeholders'
review and involvement during regulatory development, which added to the
time needed to issue regulations; (2) the setting of priorities to manage
the workload resulting from the 1990 amendments, which created a tremendous
number of new responsibilities for EPA; (3) complications associated with
the startup and effective implementation of new programs (e.g., operating
permits and air toxics), which posed technical, policy, or legal issues that
were not fully anticipated in 1990; (4) competing demands caused by the
workload associated with EPA's response to lawsuits challenging some of its
rules; and (5) the emergence of new scientific information and other factors
that led to major Clean Air Act activities that did not arise from the 1990
amendments, such as the effort to reduce regional transport of ozone
pollution throughout the East.

EPA officials stated that they do not believe they will meet the November
15, 2000, deadline for all of the remaining 62 MACT standards. (The agency
took over 9 years to promulgate 92 existing MACT standards. According to
EPA, these 92 MACT standards included some of the largest and most
contentious categories.) The 1990 amendments require that if EPA fails to
finalize the regulations within 18 months after the statutory deadline date,
states must develop their own standards. According to EPA officials, this
would be very expensive and cumbersome. However, the officials estimate that
they can promulgate the required standards within 18 months after the
deadline, noting that while the agency has missed previous MACT deadlines,
it has virtually always issued the standards within 18 months of the
deadline. According to EPA, in no case has any state had to develop its own
case-by-case MACT determinations.

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

The stakeholders we interviewed from environmental groups, industrial
groups, and state and local governments stated that the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 have had positive effects on the environment by reducing
pollutant emissions. However, the stakeholders had differing views on the
issues that either helped or hindered the effective implementation of the
specific provisions. Key stakeholders' views on the major issues affecting
the implementation of each of the amendments' first six titles is detailed
in appendixes I through VI.

The stakeholders we interviewed from environmental groups, industrial
groups, and state and local governments identified three areas that affected
the implementation of the specific provisions of the amendments: (1) the
extent to which flexibility is allowed in meeting the requirements, (2) the
specificity of requirements, and (3) the adequacy of funding at the state
and local levels.

One of the overarching issues affecting implementation cited by stakeholders
is the tension between allowing states and sources of pollution the
flexibility to develop their own approaches for achieving air quality
improvements and using a more prescriptive "command and control" approach.
For example, the title IV acid rain program, as designed by the Congress and
implemented by EPA, attempted to strike a balance between traditional
command and control principles--which specify where and how emissions
reductions must be achieved--and the flexibility of market-based measures
for reducing air pollution. Stakeholders from environmental and industrial
groups and state and local governments told us that the flexibility provided
by the acid rain program's sulfur dioxide emissions allowance-trading system
enabled the required emissions reductions to be achieved at a lower cost
than that estimated at the time the amendments were passed.9 Other
stakeholders pointed out that because the legislation specified the
reduction goals and identified the power plants that were required to
achieve these reductions, the program was administratively more efficient to
implement.

According to some stakeholders, adopting more market-based approaches like
the acid rain program is a particularly effective way of achieving greater
flexibility. In their view, this program has shown that an aggregate "cap"
on emissions, which permits individual sources to trade allowances, can lead
to lower-cost emissions reductions than those under the traditional command
and control approach used by EPA in other programs. EPA officials agreed
that the "cap and trade" approach can lead to lower-cost emissions
reductions (and, in some cases, reduced pollution levels as well) than those
under a traditional command and control approach. However, they pointed out
that to work effectively, cap and trade programs traditionally require a
well-known population of sources with extremely well characterized emissions
and control costs. According to EPA, other forms of economic incentive
programs and approaches (e.g., open market trading and emission fee
programs), in some circumstances, can be added to the existing regulatory
structure and can provide incentives for reductions from other source
categories when accountability is adequate. For this reason, EPA has issued
rules and guidance that allow states and other stakeholders to consider a
variety of economic incentive approaches to both reduce costs and gain
improved environmental quality.

Concerned that future emissions reductions may be more expensive and
difficult to accomplish, a state and local government organization official
and other stakeholders cited a need for EPA and the states to provide
flexibility in achieving further emissions reductions. According to one
state official, allowing the states more creativity and flexibility is a way
to get a better "bang for the buck" in emission reductions. He added that
EPA should provide oversight but give the states the flexibility and
incentive to meet the requirements themselves. We have reported several
times in recent years on EPA's evolving efforts to provide states with more
flexibility and to "reinvent" environmental regulation, under the Clean Air
Act and other statutes, by incorporating more flexible approaches and a
greater focus on environmental results.10

An industrial stakeholder observed that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
allow EPA to use innovations such as trading mechanisms that would provide
needed flexibility but that EPA had not used these innovations except in the
acid rain program. However, EPA officials cited several examples that, in
their view, illustrate the use of more flexible approaches.

ï¿½ The Ozone Transport and Assessment Group--a national work group consisting
of representatives of EPA, the Environmental Council of the States, and
various industry and environmental groups--identified flexible and
cost-effective strategies to address the long-range transport of ozone.
These strategies, including emissions trading programs, were incorporated in
the agency's 1998 rule requiring 22 states and the District of Columbia to
revise their state implementation plans to mitigate the transport of ozone
through a reduction in nitrogen oxides. The rule allows states flexibility
to choose the best mix of controls to meet statewide emissions budgets.11
EPA also published as guidance for states a "model rule" for achieving these
emissions reductions through a cap-and-trade program.

ï¿½ On the basis of the experience with the acid rain trading program, the
Ozone Transport Commission developed a nitrogen oxides trading program for
states in the Northeast, with EPA's assistance.

ï¿½ In developing measures to be included in state implementation plans to
improve visibility, EPA gave states the option of applying the best
available retrofit technology on a source-by-source basis or developing an
emissions trading program. EPA also cited the regional planning bodies that
have been formed to address visibility impairment and regional haze issues
as another example of flexibility.

ï¿½ EPA's recent rule to reduce emissions from cars and light-duty trucks
allows averaging, banking, and trading to provide additional flexibility to
both vehicle manufacturers and gasoline refiners.

According to one stakeholder, the state implementation plan process--under
which each state develops a plan for implementing, maintaining, and
enforcing air quality standards--needs to be better coordinated and more
flexible in order to address situations in which pollution from one state
contributes to the air pollution problems in another.

EPA officials also noted that the agency worked with states and regions to
design guidance on economic initiative programs that can be adopted to
provide for the cost-effective implementation of the national ambient air
quality standards. EPA believes that this guidance provides states with a
great deal of flexibility in developing their implementation plans for
achieving the air quality standards.

Several stakeholders identified the specificity in the act or in
implementing regulations as an important factor affecting implementation.
According to an environmental group stakeholder, statutory provisions that
specified the expected quantity of emissions reductions and identified the
categories of sources that were expected to achieve the reductions have been
more successfully implemented. For example, according to a state and local
government organization, specifying the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions
reductions to be achieved and the specific power plants where the reductions
were to come from made it easier to achieve the required reductions in
sulfur dioxide emissions. The stratospheric ozone provisions of title
VI--which specify the affected chemicals and the time frames for the
eventual phase-out of their use--were also cited by stakeholders as an
example of successful implementation.

The states, state organizations, and environmental groups that we
interviewed all commented that state and local governments need additional
funding to more effectively implement the requirements of the act. According
to a director of an organization that represents all state and local
governments, there is currently a $140 million annual shortfall in funds at
the state and local government levels.

EPA awards grants to the states and local government agencies to help them
implement the Clean Air Act. The agency has reduced this funding over the
last several years by 25 percent to $120 million annually. According to a
state and local government organization, EPA justified the decrease by
considering the funding available to states and local air pollution control
agencies through permit fees (which are assessed on regulated sources for
permits required by the Clean Air Act). However, according to a stakeholder
representing an environmental group, there is a scarcity of funds from
permits because states have been under pressure to keep the fees low. EPA
officials stated that they work jointly with states and local agencies to
establish priorities on the basis of available funding and, through work
plan negotiations for grants, have been successful in directing grant funds
toward agreed-upon priorities.

One state government stakeholder commented that much of the burden of
implementing the Clean Air Act has now shifted from EPA to the states. For
example, EPA provides grant funds for the purchase of equipment, but states
are expected to provide a matching share of the money needed to operate it.
Such a problem may surface in the case of the new monitors for particulate
matter. EPA paid for the monitors, and, as we reported in 1999, is funding
their operation and maintenance .12 However, future funding for operation
and maintenance was uncertain. According to EPA, the Clean Air Act
recognizes that the states are principally responsible for its
implementation, and through the appropriations of grant funds, the federal
government participates in aiding the states in meeting their obligations.

The Clean Air Act is a large and complex statute. The nature of the
pollutants covered by specific titles varies greatly in terms of, among
other things, the distances they travel once airborne and how they interact
with other pollutants in different climates and weather conditions.
Moreover, the numbers of sources vary greatly depending upon the pollutant.
One of the challenges facing the Congress in considering the Clean Air Act's
reauthorization is determining the appropriate balance between traditional
command and control approaches and more flexible approaches that allow state
and local air pollution control agencies and other stakeholders to implement
the most cost-effective strategies, while meeting national air quality
goals. In this regard, the acid rain provisions in title IV could offer a
worthwhile model for some other air quality problems by setting national
emissions reduction goals and, at the same time, encouraging market-based
approaches to achieve the national goals.

We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. The
agency stated that presenting a broad account of the status of its
implementation of the Clean Air Act in a single report was difficult and
offered several suggestions for framing the implementation status in a
broader contextual perspective. We agree with the general thrust of these
comments and have made changes to the report where appropriate.

Specifically, EPA emphasized that an assessment of the act should focus on
results such as emissions reductions, air quality improvements, and the
increased protection of public health and the environment and emphasized
that these improvements can be achieved through cost-effective methods that
allowed for economic growth. We added information in the report on emissions
reductions, national air quality improvements, and the increased protection
of public health and the environment. The agency also pointed out that the
report focuses on the 1990 amendments' implementation without discussing
related activities resulting from requirements established in prior clean
air statutes, such as the requirement for periodic review and, if
appropriate, revision to the national ambient air quality standards. Our
objective was to review only the status of requirements added by the 1990
amendments. We made it clear that the report does not provide information on
other requirements. EPA also stated that given the act's ambitious agenda
and the reality of finite resources, the agency gave priority to
implementing requirements that offered the greatest impact, which resulted
in missed statutory deadlines for other requirements. We added this
statement to the discussion of why EPA has missed deadlines. Lastly, we made
changes to include EPA's views that the agency endeavored to implement the
1990 amendments in a flexible manner that best achieves air pollution
reductions and that while the market-based cap and trade program has been
highly effective in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions, it may not be the
best tool for every environmental problem. The agency provided technical
comments that updated and clarified information in the report; we
incorporated these comments where appropriate. Appendix VIII contains the
full text of the agency's written comments.

To obtain information on the status of EPA's implementation of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, we held discussions with the EPA officials who
manage EPA's work load under the amendments' first six titles. As agreed
with your staff, we did not review the status of implementing the 1990
amendments' remaining titles. We also did not address the status of
implementing the requirements established prior to the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. We also obtained and reviewed EPA documentation entitled
Implementation Strategy for the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This
document is updated periodically, provides an overview of the regulatory
framework envisioned by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and provides
information on what EPA has accomplished and what is left to be
accomplished. We analyzed this documentation, including the most recent
update in March 1999, and prepared a table of the requirements under each
title, the requirements met by and after the established deadlines, and the
unmet requirements. In order to ensure an accurate-as-possible count of the
requirements, we asked EPA to review our table of requirements, and EPA
suggested changes, which we have incorporated. For the requirements that
were late in being met, we obtained agency officials' reasons for the delay.
This analysis provides the extent to which EPA has met its requirements
under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 but does not show the extent to
which the states and industry have actually implemented the requirements
promulgated by EPA. We recognize that a tabulation of the requirements is
only the first step in determining the status of implementation because of
the relative complexities of the different provisions in the act. For
example, certain titles require extensive, continuing interaction among EPA
and state and local regulators, while others do not.

To obtain the views of key stakeholders on the major issues affecting the
implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, we interviewed and
received information from organizations that were interested and affected
parties, including environmental groups, manufacturing associations, and
state and local government agencies. (See app. VII for a listing of the
organizations selected.) We coordinated our selection of organizations with
EPA to ensure the representation of a good cross section of the key
stakeholders involved with the implementation and oversight of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990. We asked representatives from these associations for
their views on the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
including factors that could either help or hinder effective implementation.
We also obtained documentation of the National Governors Association's
comments on the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. We
did not independently verify the information provided by the stakeholders.
For each issue presented by the stakeholders, we asked for examples to
support the points they were making. In some cases, examples were provided.
We also asked EPA officials with responsibility for implementing the act to
review and comment on the issues raised by the stakeholders.

We performed our work from May 1999 through February 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we
plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of
this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others on
request.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-6111 or William F. McGee at (919) 899-3781. Key contributors to this
report were Gregory P. Carroll; Hamilton C. Greene, Jr.; Karen Keegan; and
Everett O. Pace.

Sincerely yours,

David G. Wood
Associate Director,
Environmental Protection Issues

Title I--National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
set national standards to protect human health and welfare from emissions
that pollute ambient air. As a first step in this process, EPA is required
to list harmful pollutants that are discharged in relatively large
quantities by a variety of sources across broad regions of the country. The
act requires EPA to determine National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for these so-called "criteria pollutants."13 NAAQS are currently in place
for six air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter. EPA has been regulating
these criteria pollutants since the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments were
enacted. However, title I of the 1990 amendments established a more
comprehensive approach for states to implement, maintain, and enforce the
NAAQS to further help reduce criteria pollutants.

To accomplish the objectives of title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, EPA identified 141 requirements. These requirements included
promulgating new regulations, such as enhanced monitoring for ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and volatile organic compounds; publishing final guidance
for state plans to implement the NAAQS; and issuing reports to the Congress
on volatile organic compounds emissions from the use of consumer and
commercial products. The status of these requirements is shown in table 1.

Table 1: Status of Requirements Designed for National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

 Require Requirements with statutory deadlines Number
 Met on time                                   16
 Met late                                      48
 Unmet--deadlines prior to February 2000       1
 Deadlines after February 2000                 14
 Subtotal                                      79
 Requirements without statutory deadlinesa     62
 Total                                         141

a EPA has met all 62 requirements.

EPA's most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet 64
of the 79 title I requirements established with a specific statutory
deadline in the legislation. However, in 48 instances, the agency completed
the required action after the statutory deadline had passed. According to
EPA, it missed deadlines in the 1990 amendments owing in part to competing
demands placed on the agency and other stakeholders by Clean Air Act issues
not arising from the 1990 amendments. For example, in the development of new
air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, an extensive
scientific consultation process occurred. The emergence of new scientific
information documenting the importance of regional ozone transport led to
EPA's extending the deadlines for state submittal of ozone plans for many
areas, and engaged states and EPA in a 2-year process to conduct modeling
studies and to study potential solutions. That process led to EPA's nitrogen
oxides State Implementation Plan call, which was another major effort. In
addition, many of the title I requirements were delayed because of
litigation. EPA has recently been delayed in implementing recent revisions
to the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter and in implementing its plan
to mitigate the interstate transport of ozone because of two recent court
rulings in May 1999. As a result, several requirements planned for
completion in 1999 and 2000 have been put on hold.

According to EPA officials, the ongoing litigation on particulate matter and
ozone is the largest obstacle preventing EPA from successfully completing
the requirements of title I of the 1990 amendments. EPA has implemented the
bulk of title I requirements.

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

The stakeholders we spoke with from environmental and industrial groups and
state and local governments recognize the benefits of title I and
acknowledge that cleaner air has resulted from it. As shown in table 2, the
concentration of criteria pollutants affecting national air quality has
decreased significantly from 1978 to 1997.

Table 2: Long-Term Percent Changes in National Air Quality Concentration

 Numbers in percentages

 Pollutant         Air quality concentration
                   percent change, 1978-97
 Carbon monoxide   -60
 Lead              -97
 Nitrogen dioxide  -25
 Ozone             -30
 Particular matter Data not available
 Sulfur dioxide    -55

Source: EPA's National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report (1997).

However, stakeholders, including environmental groups and states, expressed
concern with the process of implementing title I and gave several
suggestions on how to improve the requirements or change the legislation. In
particular, stakeholders support making improvements--such as better
coordination between states and EPA and more flexibility−to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) process, which is required by all states to
implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. In addition, stakeholders
expressed their concern with the inconsistency in the way that states
implement NAAQS, which is generally allowed by the act, and suggested that
the act provide for better coordination between EPA and the states to
address these inconsistencies on a regional basis. Lastly, other
stakeholders expressed their concerns with specific provisions in title I of
the act that exempt older facilities from the emissions standards that apply
to newer facilities.

Several stakeholders, including the environmental and state groups we spoke
with, support making changes to the SIP process required by all states when
they implement the NAAQS. According to one stakeholder we met with, the SIP
process needs to be coordinated better, more flexible, and based on
performance. The stakeholder added that more flexibility was needed in the
SIP process so that coordination between state and local entities and EPA
can be more effective, especially when pollution from one state contributes
to the air pollution problems in another. According to EPA officials, under
section 126 of the Clean Air Act, any state may petition EPA to set
emissions limits for specific sources of pollution in other states that
significantly contribute to its air quality problem. Petitions were filed by
eight states in 1997 and three additional states and the District of
Columbia in 1999. In December 1999, EPA granted final approval of four of
the eight petitions filed in 1997. By granting these four petitions, EPA
found that certain large electric utilities and large industrial boilers and
turbines violated a Clean Air Act prohibition against significantly
contributing to air pollution in other states.

According to an independent research organization we met with, a late SIP
puts a state transportation agency in a bind because EPA can automatically
withhold federal funds. As a result, state planners must plan for two
scenarios−one with federal funds and one without them. Using two
scenarios results in additional planning time. According to EPA officials,
the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act direct EPA to apply certain
sanctions to areas that fail to comply with the act's requirements. These
officials stated that one of these sanctions−the withholding of
federal highway funds−takes effect only after a state or nonattainment
area is 2 years late in submitting the required SIP revision. Before such
sanctions are invoked, the Governor's office and other government officials
are made aware of the pending action and also are advised of what must occur
to remove the sanction.

According to the independent research organization we met with, a change to
the current SIP process is supported. Under the change, credit will be given
not only for planned programs, but also for going back and validating
information through actual performance. For example, states are currently
receiving SIP credits for instituting inspection and maintenance programs,
but the credits are based solely on EPA's model−not on validating
actual emissions testing. According to EPA officials, EPA does not
discourage a state or area from validating its reduction credits. EPA
reviews state validations by assessing the rate at which a state is reducing
its total emissions.

Several stakeholders expressed their concern with the inconsistency in
states' approaches for implementing NAAQS, which are generally allowed by
the Clean Air Act, and suggested that the act provide for better
coordination between EPA and the states to address these inconsistencies on
a regional basis. One stakeholder stated that the differences in states'
approaches for implementing NAAQS need to be addressed, particularly in
regions with ozone problems because ozone is a regional problem−not
just a state problem. The stakeholder recommended that EPA be granted more
authority to impose regional solutions to solve the interstate transport of
ozone pollution. According to this stakeholder, one solution would be for
the SIP process to be run on a regional basis. Another stakeholder suggested
that in the area of ozone transport, there is a need for better coordination
between states because none of them has the authority to require the others
to take any particular action.

According to EPA, the agency has taken significant steps toward reducing
ground-level ozone in the eastern half of the United States. Through a
2-year effort with the Ozone Transport Assessment Group, EPA worked in
partnership with the 37 easternmost states and the District of Columbia,
industry representatives, and environmental groups to address the regional
transport of ozone. According to EPA, the process resulted in a
comprehensive analysis of technical information related to ozone transport,
including modeling and monitoring data. The Ozone Transport Assessment Group
recommended flexible and cost-effective strategies for reducing the
long-range transport of ozone and ozone precursors, including the
development of trading and market-based incentives.

The solution to the ozone problem, however, has not been realized. In
September 1998, EPA promulgated the nitrogen oxide State Implementation Plan
call, a final rule requiring 22 states and the District of Columbia to
mitigate the interstate transport of ozone through reductions in nitrogen
oxides.14 The final rule required the affected states to submit their State
Implementation Plan revisions by September 1999, but on May 25, 1999, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit indefinitely stayed the deadline
for submission of the required plans.15 According to EPA, this court ruling
delayed actions that would result in the reduction of actual nitrogen oxide
emissions. On March 3, 2000, however, the federal appeals court rejected
most challenges to the rule, upholding EPA's authority to promulgate it.16
The court ruled, however, that EPA had improperly included 3 of the 22
states in the State Implementation Plan call.

In another ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, remanded EPA's
rules revising NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone.17 EPA is seeking a
review of the Court of Appeals decision in the Supreme Court.

According to one environmental stakeholder, the most ineffective provision
of the Clean Air Act is the grandfather language in section 111 (b)(6),
which exempts coal-fired power plants existing at the time the act was
amended in 1977 from the emissions standards that apply to newer facilities
unless changes are made requiring permit modifications. According to this
stakeholder, when this exemption--which covers most coal-fired power plants
in the United States−was adopted, it was expected that these plants
would be retired after approximately 30 years of operations and that the
entire fleet of power plants would be replaced with lower-emitting,
more-efficient facilities. According to this stakeholder, in practice, this
provision has created an incentive for the owners of these older, dirtier
power plants to continue to operate them long after their expected
retirement dates and has slowed the development of cleaner replacement
capability.

This stakeholder added that the grandfather provision in title I imposes
significant costs on society in terms of human health effects (e.g., medical
costs for respiratory ailments and premature deaths) and environmental
impacts (e.g., forest productivity losses, contaminated water bodies, and
reduced visibility). According to this stakeholder, as the electric industry
is deregulated, it is also increasingly clear that this provision has
anticompetitive effects--making it difficult or impossible for new power
plants to enter markets dominated by grandfathered plants, and consequently,
limiting electric consumers' choice in the market. Any change in this
provision would require a change in legislation.

In November 1999, the Department of Justice and EPA took enforcement actions
against 32 coal-fired power plants, charging the companies with illegally
releasing massive amounts of air pollutants for years. Because of the Clean
Air Act grandfather provision, utility companies were not required to
retrofit those existing plants with new air pollution equipment unless the
utilities undertook major modifications of those plants. The government
asserts that the utilities made major modifications to their plants in order
to extend their life and to avoid the costs of building new plants, without
installing new pollution control equipment, which resulted in tons of
illegal emissions of pollutants. According to the EPA Administrator, the
companies that owned the power plants had illegally retooled old,
pollution-spewing coal plants without notifying regulators, without getting
the necessary permits, and without installing new equipment to reduce
emissions and meet pollution standards that apply to new plants. Most of
these enforcement actions are still pending.

Titles I and II--Mobile Sources

Provisions for controlling air pollution from motor vehicles, engines, and
their fuels are contained in both title I and title II of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.18 Mobile sources include cars, trucks, buses, trains,
aircraft, motorcycles, construction and farm equipment, boats and marine
vessels, and lawn and garden equipment. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
provides for emissions reductions from transportation sources by emphasizing
the following:

ï¿½ Title II, emission standards for motor vehicles: Develop more stringent
emissions standards for cars, buses, trucks, and nonroad vehicles and
engines, such as construction equipment, boats, lawn and garden equipment,
and locomotives.

ï¿½ Title II, clean fuels: Develop reformulated gasoline, diesel fuel, and
oxygenated fuels to reduce carbon monoxide emissions.

ï¿½ Titles I and II, inspection and maintenance and onboard diagnostics:
Develop programs to identify faulty emission controls and ensure that
vehicles remain clean in actual customer use.

ï¿½ Title I, clean transportation alternatives: Develop strategies to
encourage transportation alternatives to address vehicle travel growth.

To accomplish the mobile source objectives of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990, EPA identified 89 requirements.19 These requirements include
promulgating new regulations to establish federal programs that resulted in
cleaner passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses and cleaner-burning gasoline
and diesel fuel. The amendments also authorized EPA for the first time to
set national emissions standards for non road vehicles and engines, such as
locomotives, boats, and marine vessels; lawn and garden equipment; and
engines used in construction and agricultural equipment. The status of the
implementation of these requirements is shown in table 3.

Table 3: Status of Requirements Designed for Mobile Sources

 Requirements with statutory deadlines     Numbers
 Met on time                               6
 Met late                                  21
 Deadlines prior to February 2000          0
 Deadlines after February 2000             0
 Subtotal                                  27
 Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 62
 Total                                     89

a EPA has met 51 of the 62 requirements.

EPA's most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet
all 27 of the mobile source requirements established by the legislation.
However, as indicated in table 3, EPA was late in meeting 21 of its
requirements. According to EPA officials, there were several reasons why the
rules were late. One reason for the rules' lateness was that EPA began to
operate differently in the early 1990s by bringing in more people to get
their input and comments before issuing the rules. As a result, according to
EPA, the process took longer but, in the end, turned out better because by
the time the requirements were completed, most stakeholders were in
agreement.

EPA officials believe that one of its greatest challenges will be to find
ways to reduce emissions from motor vehicles, whose numbers and miles
traveled continued to increase every year. According to EPA, despite the
tremendous success of the federal program to reduce motor vehicle emissions
over the past 25 years, they still represent the single largest category of
air pollution in most cities around the country. An example of this
challenge is the potential for an increase in the number of diesel-powered
passenger vehicles that may enter the market in the coming years. The trend
to more diesels is driven in part by their better fuel efficiency compared
with gasoline engines. Diesels, however, produce significantly greater
amounts of particular matter and nitrogen oxide than gasoline counterparts,
according to EPA. Working with manufacturers of diesel engines to develop
clean diesels for the future is one of the great challenges facing EPA in
meeting the nation's clean air goals.

of Titles I and II of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Several stakeholders from environmental and industrial groups agree that
titles I and II of the 1990 amendments have made a significant impact on
reducing pollution from mobile sources. For example, one environmental group
stated that the emissions requirements for new vehicles have been quite
effective in reducing emissions, as have the reformulated gasoline fuels
programs. EPA estimates that oxygenated fuels reduced ambient carbon
monoxide concentrations 7 to 14 percent overall for the winter seasons from
1986 to 1994. These groups, however, believe that improvements can and
should be instituted in two areas involving mobile sources: (1) the
inspection and maintenance programs and (2) considering and regulating
pollution control devices and fuel requirements as one system.

According to some state and local government stakeholders, and an
independent research organization, although the inspection and maintenance
program for in-use motor vehicles has resulted in significant reductions in
emissions in the past, they are concerned that public support for the
program may not remain. One state agency commented that improvements in the
inspection and maintenance program, such as including the use of technology
to lessen the program's costs, are needed if it is to continue receiving
public support. In addition, the cost of the inspection and maintenance
program has already led to declining support. Opposition to EPA's enhanced
inspection and maintenance regulation--including the reluctance of some
state legislatures to provide the legislative authority and funding needed
to implement these programs--caused many states to delay implementation
several years after the required start date of 1995.20

Opposition to what they view as the stringent requirements of the program
led to the reluctance of some state legislatures to authorize and fund it.
In order to decrease the cost, some stakeholders believe that there must be
increased emphasis put on using new state-of-the-art technology, such as
roadside testing using remote sensors, that is available to identify
vehicles in need of repair. A stakeholder commented that these high-tech
solutions to the identification of high-pollution-emitting vehicles are
available but that they are not being used to the degree that they should.
This stakeholder added that other types of in-use testing, such as
remote-sensing devices, should be used instead of relying solely on
inspection and maintenance facilities to identify vehicles needing repair.
According to EPA officials, the agency currently allows states to use
remote-sensing technology in their inspection and maintenance program as a
form of "clean screening." These same officials said that a state might
elect to use remote sensing to identify clean vehicles, whose owners would
then be informed that it was unnecessary to bring their vehicles to an
inspection and maintenance facility. In EPA's opinion, however,
remote-sensing technology has not yet been demonstrated as a reliable
alternative to replace standard inspection and maintenance testing. A
stakeholder believes that the on-board diagnostic equipment, which is
required in 1996 and newer model vehicles, should be used to identify
problems in pollution-emitting vehicles instead of relying solely on
inspection and maintenance equipment. According to EPA officials, on-board
diagnostic equipment has been proven to be accurate in identifying
high-emitting vehicles, on the basis of a recently completed 2-year test
program. On-board diagnostic equipment has also been proven to reliably
identify malfunctioning components and allow for more accurate diagnosis of
vehicles' emission control systems than was possible with previous
technology. EPA is currently working on a plan that will incorporate
on-board diagnostic checks as part of state inspection and maintenance
programs, and according to the agency, it will be implemented as soon as
practical.

According to one industrial stakeholder, the effectiveness of vehicle
pollution control devices depends upon the types of fuels that are used in
engines. The use of inferior fuels leads to less than desirable results in
emissions reductions. Therefore, when one system is adopted without the
other, opportunities for improving air quality are lost. The stakeholder is
concerned that this interrelationship is sometimes overlooked. For example,
according to this stakeholder, several northeastern states decided to
require vehicles sold there to meet the pollution control requirements
applicable to vehicles sold in California. The industrial group we
interviewed commented that these states required California's vehicle
standards but did not require California's fuels standards, and, thus, the
effectiveness of the control devices was diminished. In addition, this group
stated that the Clean Air Act should be changed to make it clear that
advanced-technology vehicles like those required under the California
standards should be used with cleaner-burning fuels like those required
under the state's standards. EPA officials pointed out that in its recently
announced vehicle program rulemaking, the agency, for the first time,
considered vehicles and fuels as an integrated system and regulated each in
a single rulemaking.

Title III--Hazardous Air Pollutants

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 to 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.

Under the hazardous air pollutant program prior to title III, EPA identified
only seven hazardous pollutants in 20 years and then developed emission
standards for those pollutants using a risk-based approach. The approach of
the new program differs from this in that, as a first step, title III
identifies the pollutants to be regulated and directs that EPA impose
technology-based standards, or Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards, on industry to reduce emissions. As a second step, once EPA
finishes the technology-based standards, it is to consider the remaining
risks to the public and issue health-based standards to address such risk.

The act requires EPA to publish the technology-based emissions standards for
both major and area sources from 1992 to 2000. The act also required EPA to
publish a list of source categories by November 15, 1991, for these
hazardous pollutants, but the agency did not do so until July 16, 1992. At
that time, EPA listed 174 source categories. The Clean Air Act established
milestones for issuing the MACT regulations as follows:

ï¿½ ⋅ Twenty-five percent of the MACTs to be issued by November 15, 1994.

ï¿½ ⋅ Fifty percent of the MACTs to be issued by November 15, 1997.

ï¿½ ⋅ One hundred percent of the MACTs to be issued by November 15, 2000.

To accomplish the objectives of title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, EPA has identified 221 requirements. The implementation status
of these requirements is shown in table 4.

Table 4: Status of Requirements Designed for Hazardous Air Pollutants

 Requirements with statutory deadlines     Number
 Met on time                               15
 Met late                                  102
 Deadlines prior to February 2000          3
 Deadlines after February 2000             94
 Subtotal                                  214
 Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 7
 Total                                     221

a EPA has met all seven requirements.

b The numbers in table 4 do not include the requirement for EPA to conduct
residual risk determinations for each of the final MACT standards.

EPA's most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet
117 of the title III requirements established by the legislation, although
102 of these were met late. As shown in table 4, EPA has 94 unmet
requirements with statutory deadlines after February 2000. Ninety-two of the
94 requirements are to be addressed with the promulgation of 62 MACT
standards. EPA took more than 9 years to promulgate the first 92 MACT
standards. However, according to EPA, over that time period, it has taken
much initiative in expediting the MACT development process. Nonetheless, EPA
officials do not believe they will meet the November 15, 2000, deadline for
all of the remaining MACT standards but estimate that they will do so for
about three MACT standards. While they do not anticipate meeting the
deadline for 59 MACT standards, they do believe they can promulgate the
rules within 18 months after the deadline. This is significant in that the
Clean Air Act requires that if EPA fails to finalize the rules within 18
months of the deadline, the states themselves must develop their own
standards. According to EPA, this would be very expensive and cumbersome.
EPA officials point out that while the agency has missed previous deadlines,
it has virtually always issued the standards within 18 months of the
deadline, and in no case has any state had to develop its own case-by-case
MACT determinations.

According to EPA officials, the development of the MACT standards requires a
significant amount of time and money. They explained that many previous
requirements were met late because of the need to prioritize, given resource
limitations, the time needed to develop the policy framework and
infrastructure of the MACT program, and the complexity and stakeholder
participation involved with some industrial source categories. EPA noted
that the successful completion of the remaining MACT requirements is
contingent upon adequate resources.

of Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Although EPA has not finished the technology-based standards, the
stakeholders from an industrial group, environmental group, and state
governments we interviewed stated that the program has been very effective,
resulting in the reduction of millions of tons of air toxics and
smog-forming volatile organic compounds from the air.

In the second step in the program to control hazardous air pollutants, EPA
will assess the risk remaining to the public from these pollutants once the
technology-based standards are in place. If necessary, the agency would then
publish health-based standards to address that risk. It is in this second
phase that some stakeholders from environmental and industrial groups, and
state and local governments believe EPA will have the most difficulty. For
example, one of the problems mentioned is that EPA will lack the necessary
data to do the residual risks assessments.

Stakeholders are concerned that the second step−involving residual
risk assessments− will be problematic. This second step will involve
the evaluation of the risks remaining after the technology-based standards
are in place and setting standards that are based on the risks to the
public's health from air toxics remaining in the air. One industrial
stakeholder commented that the "residual risk" program will be more
difficult for EPA to implement, since it will involve defining what "risk"
is, and "how clean is clean," as well as modeling issues. According to EPA
officials, the agency is mandated to set a residual risk standard if the
existing MACT standard does not protect the public health with an ample
margin of safety. EPA outlined the general approach that it will use to make
decisions whether to set residual risk standards in its peer-reviewed 1999
Report to Congress (EPA-453/R-99-001). The report states that, for
carcinogens, EPA will continue to apply the 1989 Benzene National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, commonly referred to as the Benzene
rule, which laid out EPA's approach for making decisions under the ample
margin of safety language. Given that residual risk assessments will assess
noncancer risks as well as cancer risks, EPA stated that it will use the
best available models to assess residual risk and plans to apply them
consistently.

In developing an overall approach to the residual risk program, EPA believes
it may be able to learn from several states that have had risk-based
programs. For example, over the last 15 years, Georgia has addressed
residual risk by doing its own screening and modeling of the health effects
of air toxics and set its own standards for allowable concentrations of
toxins in the air. In addition, according to an industrial stakeholder, the
upcoming residual risk program will require EPA to know a lot about
individual industries and require an intensive data collection effort.
According to EPA officials, they recognize that in many cases, conducting
residual risk assessments will require the agency to expand upon the data
collected for the development of the MACT standards. EPA states that it can
gather these additional data from several sources, including EPA's National
Toxics Inventory, state databases and permits, compliance reports, and
industry. According to EPA, it will use the best available data to conduct
residual risk assessment.

Insufficient data have caused data collection efforts in the past to be
deemed unsuccessful. As a result, industrial stakeholders believe that
problems with residual risk assessments will occur. According to one
industrial stakeholder, because of time pressures and the lack of resources,
EPA may be forced to make decisions using inadequate data. An environmental
group stakeholder also commented that EPA would find it difficult to amass
the information that will be necessary to develop the residual risk
assessments. According to EPA officials, as with any risk assessment, there
will be gaps in some data bases used and uncertainties in the results of the
residual risk assessments. EPA stated that it would make every effort to
collect the necessary data for these assessments and will clearly articulate
the uncertainties that exist in the data as well as the assumptions used.

Title IV--Acid Deposition Control

Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establishes the acid
deposition control program to reduce the adverse effects of acid rain
deposition through reductions in the annual emissions of pollutants--mainly
sulfur dioxide. It provides an alternative to traditional "command and
control" regulatory approaches by using a market-based approach to allow
electric utilities to trade SO2 allowances with other utilities to achieve
cost-effective reductions. After setting the overall reductions in SO2
emissions to be achieved, the act defined each source's specific emissions
limits and directed the allocation of allowances to sources in amounts equal
to the emissions limits. These emissions limits for all sources are combined
to meet a total emissions cap. The sources that emit SO2 must install
continuous emissions monitors and keep records in accordance with
regulations issued by EPA. The utilities that reduce their emissions below
the required levels can sell their extra allowances to other utilities to
help them meet their requirements. The utilities that exceed their emissions
allowances forfeit allowances to cover the excess emissions and must pay
fines that are set at several times the estimated average cost of complying
with SO2 emissions limits.

In July 1997, we reported that the acid rain program, including the use of
emissions trading, has been successful in achieving greater-than-planned
reductions in the emissions of SO2 from facilities and projected significant
cost savings compared with a traditional command-and-control regulatory
approach.21 More recently, we reported on trends in emissions and their
effects.22

To accomplish the objectives of title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, EPA identified 44 requirements. These requirements included
promulgating new regulations for an allowance-trading system, continuous
emissions monitoring, and an acid rain permit program and issuing a report
to the Congress on an acid deposition standard feasibility study. The status
of these requirements is shown in table 5.

Table 5: Status of Requirements Designed for Acid Rain Deposition

 Requirements with statutory deadlines     Number
 Met on time                               9
 Met late                                  15
 Unmet--deadlines prior to February 2000   2
 Deadlines after February 2000             0
 Subtotal                                  26
 Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 18
 Total                                     44

a EPA has met all of the 18 requirements.

EPA's most recent data show that it has met 24 of 26 of the title IV
requirements established by legislation, although it was late in 15
instances. 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 that the
time spent was worthwhile because it allowed for more stakeholders' input in
the rules process, thereby making them less controversial.

According to officials of EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs, Acid Rain
Division, the program has been much more successful than initially
envisioned--both in terms of emissions reductions and in terms of the cost
to implement the program. Furthermore, they said the use of continuous
emissions monitoring and the cap and trade program, which limits the amount
of pollutants while allowing industry the flexibility to determine how best
to reach those limits, can be considered as contributors to the overall
success of the program. Also, EPA officials stated that both approaches
might have applications to other pollutants and problems in addition to SO2
for acid rain.

of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Stakeholders from both the industrial sector and from state governments whom
we spoke with agree that, overall, title IV is one of the most effective
titles of the Clean Air Act. Title IV serves as an example of a title that
provides sources with the flexibility to reduce emissions
cost-effectively--through the allowance-trading program−while
establishing clearly defined objectives, firm deadlines, mandatory
monitoring, and significant penalties for noncompliance. For example, one
environmental stakeholder commented that the SO2 emissions reduction-trading
program has been implemented in a timely and efficient way and that
emissions reductions are well documented as a result of acid rain reporting
through the emission/allowance tracking system.

Currently, the control of nitrogen oxide under title IV does not include a
cap on emissions nor provisions for nitrogen oxide trading. Stakeholders
from an industrial group and a state would like to see the trading program's
focus expanded, believing it could have beneficial applications to other
pollutants associated with acid rain, such as nitrogen oxides, and also
those not associated with acid rain. One of the stakeholders commented that
if the trading program is employed for these pollutants, the program should
provide the ability to trade emissions between sectors. For example, the
mobile source component would be allowed to trade with the stationary source
components. EPA agrees that a cap and trade approach could be applied to
more air pollution problems and sectors, but emissions monitoring and
accounting as well as administrative feasibility are important
considerations in such expansion. EPA suggests that the approach should be
extended to other stationary sources before considering its application to
mobile sources.

Title V--Permit Program

The principal purpose of title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is
to establish a national permit program to ensure compliance with all
applicable regulations of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA, the program
will enhance the agency's and the public's ability to enforce the act by
making it easier to detect noncompliance and by requiring sources to take
certain actions to demonstrate compliance. The program requires major
stationary sources to obtain operating permits that contain all existing
federal clean air requirements applicable to the source in one document.
Title V was not intended to impose new substantive requirements. It requires
industry to pay permit fees to cover the costs incurred by state air
pollution control agencies in approving and administering these permits.
According to EPA officials, over 18,000 sources have submitted permit
applications. Of this number, approximately 7,000 permits have been issued.

EPA is responsible for promulgating regulations establishing the minimum
elements of a title V permit program; reviewing, approving, and overseeing
state programs; and reviewing permits issued by the states. EPA is also
responsible for implementing permit programs for any states or tribal
governments that do not implement their own programs. States are responsible
for establishing and implementing their permit programs, issuing permits to
pollution sources, collecting fees to cover the cost of the programs, and
ensuring that sources comply with permit requirements.

To accomplish the objectives of title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, EPA identified 14 requirements. These requirements included
promulgating new regulations such as state permit program requirements, as
well as publishing guidance on state programs to assist small businesses.
The status of these requirements is shown in table 6.

Table 6: Status of Requirements Designed for the Permit Program

 Requirements with statutory deadlines     Number
 Met on time                               1
 Met late                                  2
 Unmet--deadlines prior to February 2000   0
 Deadlines after February 2000             0
 Subtotal                                  3
 Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 11
 Total                                     14

a EPA has met 8 of the 11 requirements.

EPA's most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet
the title V requirements established with specific statutory deadlines in
the legislation, although EPA was late in meeting two requirements. For
example, title V charged EPA, by November 1991, with issuing a permit rule
that would identify the minimum elements of state permit programs and govern
their implementation. According to EPA, disagreement between the Office of
Management and Budget and the then Council on Competitiveness over certain
requirements in the final rule delayed its issuance 8 months until July
1992. While waiting to learn what the final rule would require, EPA and the
states postponed some efforts to implement title V.23 In addition, after
promulgation, states, industry, and environmental groups sued EPA over this
rule, and EPA agreed to propose changes to portions of the rule to address
litigants' concerns. According to EPA officials, the agency has moved the
completion date for the rulemaking promulgating revisions to the operating
permits program from April to November 2000 because of the need to repropose
part of the package as a result of stakeholders' extensive comments. Until
then, the original rule remains in effect, and states continue to issue
title V permits.

According to EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, about
19,000 sources are subjected to the permit program. Between 18,000 and
18,400 sources had submitted permit applications. Of this number, 7,000
permits have been issued. As a result of the slow progress in approving
permits, EPA has sought to identify and, where possible, correct the
obstacles to faster permit issuance. The statute requires that permits be
issued or denied within 3 years of the date that a state program is
approved.24 EPA officials predict an incremental climb in the number of
permits being issued as a result of this effort. The effort has identified
several reasons why the states have problems with meeting their established
milestones. According to EPA, where possible, it has attempted to respond to
these problems through guidance or other assistance. However, states also
identified some internal issues. For example, one of the main reasons
presented by the states is the turnover of permitting staff, compounded in
some cases by hiring freezes and the lack of expertise that results when
state staff leave and are not replaced.

of Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Some stakeholders from the industrial sector and from state governments
questioned the cost-effectiveness of the permit program, observing that it
does not directly lead to emission reductions, is more administrative in
nature, and takes a lot of time and manpower. Industrial stakeholders also
cited as an implementation issue the perceived inconsistency of EPA's
interpretation of "modifications" to permits.

According to EPA officials, Title V was added to address existing shortfalls
in compliance. However, state agencies and an industrial stakeholder whom we
interviewed agreed that the permit program consists primarily of accounting
and reporting processes rather than inspection processes. One state
stakeholder commented that the permit program attempts to enforce
environmental rules through a paper trail rather than by inspections of
specific sources. According to EPA, however, a permit that clearly contains
all Clean Air Act requirements for a facility can serve as a valuable
inspection tool.

A state stakeholder told us that title V is more administrative in nature
than other provisions of the act, yet it takes more time and more manpower
than anything the state must do under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
From the state's perspective, the program has become an administrative
grind: when the permits are finished, what remains is a voluminous document
that few will read. According to EPA, the initial steps of getting the
program up and running and issuing the initial round of permits certainly
could require significant resources, but the act funds this effort with
permit fees that sources pay to the states. EPA believes that since the
permit is a single document containing all applicable requirements, it
should be of interest and use to the industrial sources, air pollution
control agencies, and the public.

When the permit program was implemented, several states already had permit
programs in place. For example, according to a state official, California
has had a permit program for 30 years and would rather enforce its
regulations through inspections. According to a state stakeholder, the Clean
Air Act Amendments allow for state permit programs that provide equivalent
results, but EPA wants the permit programs in each state to be identical.
According to EPA officials, the title V regulations allow significant
flexibility in tailoring state programs, but each program must meet the
minimum criteria established by the act.

Costs are associated with both approaches−paper trail or
inspection−and several state stakeholders believe that the actual
inspection of emissions is more effective than wading through volumes of
permit paperwork. For example, according to an industrial stakeholder, one
permit application for a source is 15,000-pages long and contains several
thousand requirements. State officials commented that they would rather
inspect the source than go through the voluminous permit package
page-by-page.

However, according to EPA, preliminary data indicate that as sources
undertake the compliance review required by title V, as many as 70 percent
of them in some states are finding Clean Air Act requirements that they had
been unaware of or had been complying with improperly. Actual inspections
always have a place in an air program, according to EPA, and should
continue. However, the process of compiling all requirements in a single
place and the requirement that sources review and certify compliance with
these requirements are clearly leading to the correction of instances of
noncompliance that were not caught by inspection programs, according to EPA.
This leads to actual emissions reductions and a more level playing field for
sources, the agency said. According to EPA, it also complements the
inspection approach by providing inspectors with a permit that clearly
describes what requirements apply to the industrial source, thus enabling
more efficient inspections.

From the industrial perspective, significant costs have resulted from the
permit program with minimal, if any, air quality improvements. According to
an industrial stakeholder, at the time of the permit program's enactment,
EPA estimated that the program would have no costs. In 1992, when the first
regulations were issued, EPA estimated that the permit program would cost
$360 million. Industrial stakeholders said that the actual costs are
substantial. According to the First Annual Title V Report of the Clean Air
Implementation Project,25 the cost of the permit program has averaged
$100,000 per facility for the 20,000 facilities subject to title V,
resulting in total costs of at least $2 billion just for the preparation of
title V permit applications. For example, according to one industrial
stakeholder, the automobile industry has spent millions of dollars in
preparing voluminous permit applications, yet only two assembly facilities
have received approved permits. According to EPA officials, early estimates
of the costs of the program are uncertain and vary widely because of
differing early interpretations of various requirements. For example,
according to EPA, many industrial sources and states took a very strict view
of the permit application requirements of EPA's rules, leading to early
concerns about voluminous permit applications. According to EPA, when it
learned of these concerns, it issued two guidance documents to clarify that
applications need not contain such exhaustive detail.

EPA has since issued several guidance documents that clarify and streamline
permit application requirements. For example, according to EPA, it worked
extensively with stakeholders in the automobile manufacturing industry to
develop streamlined monitoring reference materials for use in their
operating permit. EPA's latest estimates are that the administrative burden
of the permit program is about $10,000 per source per year, but it
acknowledged that the total costs could exceed $100,000 for some of the
largest and most complex sources. EPA expects this burden to lessen after
the initial round of permit issuance is completed.

By clarifying how Clean Air Act requirements apply to specific sources, and
requiring responsible officials at the sources themselves to review their
compliance with these requirements, EPA believes title V is achieving
several direct and indirect air quality benefits. As the program is being
implemented, EPA is compiling a list of benefits that sources, states,
citizens, and EPA report finding. Such benefits to date have fallen into
several categories: (1) emissions reductions as sources begin to comply with
requirements they had previously not been complying with; (2) improving
monitoring, which allows sources to ensure their compliance with the act and
to discover and correct deviations from the act's requirements more
promptly; (3) identification of, and subsequent clarifying and streamlining
of, permit or rule requirements that were overlapping, unclear, or obsolete;
(4) improvements in the development of rules benefiting the regulated
community, as rule writers develop rules with an emphasis on how these rules
will be implemented through permits; (5) an improved awareness of pollution
control requirements, resulting in sources' improved ability to do
comprehensive air quality management and for states to conduct regional air
quality planning; and (6) improved public involvement in air pollution
control decisions.

A problem with the permit program, according to an industrial stakeholder we
spoke to, is EPA's interpretation of section 502(b)(10) of the Clean Air
Act. Under that section, permit programs must have provisions to allow
changes within a permitted facility without a permit revision as long as (1)
the changes are not "modifications" under any provision of title I, (2) the
changes do not exceed emissions allowable under the permit, and (3) the
permit holder notifies EPA and the permitting authority. The stakeholder
stated that EPA has interpreted this section to mean that any change in a
facility, regardless of how small, requires the permit's revision and the
agency's permission. According to the First Annual Title V Report of the
Clean Air Implementation Project, EPA's history of interpreting the term
modifications shows how the agency significantly increased the level of
review required for minor changes without revising its regulations. Under
the current permit rule, whether a change constitutes a modification in
large part determines whether an industrial source can change its
manufacturing process without the necessity of a permit revision. The
industry report found the following:

ï¿½ Consistent with Congress's clear intention, the preamble to EPA's 1992
title V rule made it clear that minor changes do not constitute
modifications.

ï¿½ EPA subsequently announced, in numerous Federal Register notices, that
states must treat minor changes as modifications.

ï¿½ In an August 1994 proposal, EPA confirmed this revision of the original
title V rule.

ï¿½ In August 1995, EPA rescinded this interpretation and, consistent with its
original title V preamble, announced that it would define "modifications" to
exclude minor changes.

According to the industry report, EPA's history of changing its
interpretation of modifications is an example of how title V should not be
implemented, if the program is to meet the essential policy objectives.

According to EPA officials, the definition of "modification" has been
difficult to interpret and remains the subject of litigation. However,
according to EPA, this term relates to the system for revising permits and
should not affect the initial issuance of permits. EPA expects to resolve
the litigation before a significant number of permit revisions occurs.

A related issue concerns the timing of permit modifications. According to an
industry stakeholder, under the Clean Air Act, sources are allowed to wait
to make any changes in their permits until the permits are renewed, as long
as the time remaining on the permits is 3 years or less. According to EPA
officials, the 3-year time frame applies to newly promulgated requirements,
but nothing in the act allows sources to wait for up to 3 years to
incorporate requirements that they themselves trigger by making a change at
a source.

Title VI--Stratospheric Ozone Protection

Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 pertains to the protection
of the stratospheric ozone layer. Such protection is to be accomplished by
limiting the production and consumption of substances with ozone-depletion
potential.

Title VI categorizes substances that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer
as either class I (i.e., chloroflurocarbons, methylchloroform, carbon
tetrachloride, and halons) or class II (i.e., hydochlroflourocarbons)
substances. Title VI required the phasing out of the production of class I
substances by January 1, 2000, except in the case of methyl chloroform,
which is to be accomplished by January 1, 2002. Title VI also allows for an
acceleration of the phaseout if Parties to the Montreal Protocol determine
that the stratospheric ozone layer is depleting more rapidly then estimated
earlier.26 According to EPA officials, under the accelerated phase out
approved by the Parties, class I production and import were phased out.

As for class II substances, the title provides, effective January 1, 2015,
that it shall be unlawful to introduce them into interstate commerce or use
except under certain circumstances. Such circumstances pertain to (1)
substances that have been used, recovered, and recycled; (2) substances
consumed in the production of other chemicals; and (3) substances used as a
refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to January 1, 2020. The
production of class II substances shall be unlawful after 2030. According to
EPA officials, the Montreal Protocol Parties accelerated the phaseout of
class II substances as well, beginning in 2004.

Other sections of title VI concern the use, disposal, recovering, and
recycling of class I substances during the service, repair, or disposal of
appliances; industrial process refrigeration; and the servicing of motor
vehicle air conditioners. For the class I and class II substances being
phased out, title VI provides for approving the replacement of chemicals,
product substitutes, or alternative manufacturing processes that will reduce
the overall risks to human health and the environment.

To accomplish the objectives of title VI of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, EPA identified 29 requirements. These requirements included
promulgating class I phaseout regulations, new class I labeling regulations,
bans on nonessential products using ozone-depleting substances, and
determinations of acceptability for alternatives to class I and class II
substances and issuing reports to the Congress on the production/consumption
of ozone-depleting chemicals. The status of the implementation of these
requirements is shown in table 7.

Table 7: Status of Requirements Designed for Stratospheric Ozone Protection

 Requirements with statutory deadlines     Number
 Met on time                               2
 Met late                                  10
 Unmet--deadlines prior to February 2000   0
 Deadlines after February 2000             0
 Subtotal                                  12
 Requirements without statutory deadlinesa 17
 Total                                     29

a EPA has met 16 of the 17 requirements.

EPA's most recent data show that it has taken the required action to meet
all 12 deadlines of the title VI requirements established by the
legislation. EPA met all the deadlines, although, as indicated in table 7,
it was late in meeting 10 of its requirements. For example, the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 required EPA to promulgate the mobile
air-conditioning recycling regulations by November 1991; however, EPA did
not meet this date. The regulation was promulgated in July 1992. According
to EPA officials, the basic reason for being late with the requirements was
the need to prioritize the large workload under the act.

of Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

The stakeholders we interviewed from both the industrial sector and the
environmental sector agreed that title VI has been effective in reducing
ozone-depleting chemicals from the environment. According to two industrial
stakeholders, the most effective requirements under title VI are (1) the
recycling and emissions reduction program for class I and II substances and
(2) the servicing of the motor vehicle air conditioners rule.

According to one stakeholder, EPA faces a challenge to implement the
regulations judiciously so that ozone-depleting pollutants can be removed
from the ambient air in a timely manner. According to EPA, the basic reason
why regulations are issued late is the lack of sufficient EPA staff to
handle the large work load. Delays in issuing regulations may result in the
emission of ozone-depleting substances or their substitutes into the ambient
air. For example, absent a final rule addressing the recovery of refrigerant
substitutes, some industrial refrigeration owners or operators may be
venting refrigerant, while others may be complying with the statutory
requirements of the Clean Air Act. The latter are likely following the
detailed requirements set out in an EPA proposal that regulates the recovery
of substitute refrigerants.

Selected Organizations Included in GAO's Review

Continued

 Organization                          Purpose
                                       The national trade association
 Air Conditioning Refrigeration        representing manufacturers of more
 Institute                             than 90 percent of U.S.- produced
                                       central air-conditioning and
                                       commercial refrigeration equipment.
                                       A coalition of nine global
                                       automakers that provides member
                                       companies a forum to work together
                                       on public policy matters of common
 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers  interest and to work with government
                                       and other stakeholders to find
                                       sensible and effective solutions to
                                       improve the environment and motor
                                       vehicle safety.
                                       A coalition of companies that
                                       produce and use chlorofluorocarbons,
                                       hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and
 Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric  hydroflourocarbons. Coordinates
 Policy                                industry's participation in the
                                       development of international and
                                       U.S. government policies regarding
                                       ozone protection and global climate
                                       change.
                                       A health organization formed to
 American Lung Association             fight lung disease and promote lung
                                       health through education, research,
                                       and advocacy.
                                       The primary trade association for
                                       the U.S. petroleum and allied
 American Petroleum Institute          industries engaged in oil and
                                       natural gas exploration, production,
                                       transportation, refining, and
                                       marketing.
                                       The trade association for U.S.
                                       subsidiaries of international
 Association of International Auto     automobile companies. The
 Manufacturers                         association acts as the voice of the
                                       International Automakers in America,
                                       speaking to the public, the press,
                                       and the government.
                                       Represents the chemical industry on
                                       public policy issues, coordinates
                                       the industry's research and testing
 Chemical Manufacturing Association    programs, and administers the
                                       industry's environmental, health,
                                       and safety performance improvement
                                       initiative.
                                       An alliance of nearly 1,000
                                       national, regional, state, and local
 Clean Air Network                     citizens groups that work to protect
                                       human health and environmental
                                       quality.
                                       The trade association of
                                       shareholder-owned electric
                                       utilities, whose members generate
                                       and distribute more than
 Edison Electric Institute             three-quarters of the nation's
                                       electricity. The institute provides
                                       information on energy and
                                       environmental issues of national
                                       importance.
                                       Actively involved in major national
                                       environmental issues and many
 Natural Resources Defense Council     regional and international issues as
                                       well. Its primary strategies include
                                       scientific research, public
                                       education, lobbying, and litigation.
                                       Nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank
                                       that conducts independent
 Resources for the Future              research--rooted primarily in
                                       economics and other social
                                       sciences--on environmental and
                                       natural resource issues.
                                       Association representing air
                                       pollution control agencies in 54
                                       states and territories and over 150
                                       major metropolitan areas. The
 State and Territorial Air Pollution   association serves to encourage the
 Program Administrators/Association of exchange of information among air
 Local Air Pollution Control Officials pollution control officials; enhance
                                       communication and cooperation among
                                       federal, state, and local regulatory
                                       agencies; and promote good
                                       management of our air resources.

We also interviewed representatives from four states--California, Georgia,
Illinois, and New York−and the nation's largest local
program--California's South Coast Air Quality Management District. The state
and local programs were chosen in coordination with EPA and the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials to select a nationwide representation of the
organizations responsible for implementing the requirements of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.

Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

(
(160485)

Table 1: Status of Requirements Designed for National Ambient
Air Quality Standards 23

Table 2: Long-Term Percent Changes in National Air Quality
Concentration 24

Table 3: Status of Requirements Designed for Mobile Sources 30

Table 4: Status of Requirements Designed for Hazardous
Air Pollutants 35

Table 5: Status of Requirements Designed for Acid Rain Deposition 39

Table 6: Status of Requirements Designed for the Permit Program 42

Table 7: Status of Requirements Designed for Stratospheric Ozone Protection
49

Figure 1: U.S. Population, Vehicle Miles Traveled, U.S. Gross
Domestic Product, and Aggregate Pollution Emissions, 1970-97 8

Figure 2: Number of People Living in Counties With Air Quality
Concentrations Above the Level of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards in 1997 (numbers in millions) 9

Figure 3: Status of Requirements 10
  

1. 42 U.S.C. 7401-7626. Unless otherwise stated, in this report "the act"
refers to the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990.

2. This report does not address the implementation of requirements
established prior to the 1990 amendments.

3. A list of the specific stakeholders contacted for this report is in
appendix VII.

4. Acid deposition is caused mainly by coal that is burned in large
electrical utility plants in the Midwest. When the coal is burned, large
amounts of sulfur dioxide are released. It is then carried by winds toward
the East Coast of the United States and Canada, where the acids become part
of rain, snow, or fog in the area, or remain in gas or particle form and
settle onto land as dry deposition. Falling to earth, acid rain can damage
plant and animal life as well as lakes and streams.

5. The six criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate
matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and lead. They are called criteria
pollutants because the agency set permissible levels for them on the basis
of "criteria" or information on the effects on public health or welfare that
may be expected from the presence of such pollutants.

6. Testimony of the Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation,
Environmental Protection Agency, before the U. S. Senate, Committee on
Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private
Property and Nuclear Safety (Oct. 14, 1999).

7. 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.

8. EPA has historically been tardy in meeting statutory deadlines. We
previously recommended that EPA implement a rulemaking tracking system to
aid the agency in meeting statutory deadlines, but EPA has not taken action
on this recommendation. See Clean Air Rulemaking: Tracking System Would Help
Measure Progress of Streamlining Initiatives (GAO/RCED-95-70 , Mar. 2,
1995).

9. Title IV of the amendments uses a market-based approach to allow electric
utilities to trade SO2 allowances with other utilities. Utilities that
reduce their emissions below the required level can sell their extra
allowances to other utilities to help them meet their requirements.

10. See Environmental Protection: Challenges Facing EPA's Efforts to
Reinvent Environmental Regulation (GAO/RCED-97-155 , July 2, 1997),
Environmental Protection: EPA's and States' Efforts to Focus State
Enforcement Programs on Results (GAO/RCED-98-113 , May 27, 1998), and
Environmental Protection: Collaborative EPA-State Effort Needed to Improve
New Performance Partnership System (GAO/RCED-99-171 , June 21, 1999).

11. 63 Fed. Reg. 57, 356 (1998). This rule has been the subject of
litigation. On March 3, 2000, a federal appeals court rejected most
challenges to the rule, upholding EPA's authority to promulgate it. Michigan
v. EPA, No. 98-1497 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 3, 2000).

12. See Air Pollution: EPA's Actions to Resolve Concerns With the Fine
Particulate Monitoring Program (GAO/RCED-99-215 , Aug. 12, 1999).

13. These pollutants are called criteria pollutants because the agency sets
permissible levels for them on the basis of "criteria" or information on the
effects on public health or welfare that may be expected from the presence
of such pollutants.

14. 63 Fed. Reg. 57, 356 (1998).

15. Michigan v. EPA, No. 98-1497 (D.C. Cir. May 25, 1999).

16. Michigan v. EPA, No. 98-1497 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 3, 2000).

17. American Trucking Ass'ns. v. U.S. EPA, No. 175 F. 3d 1027, on rehearing
195 F. 3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

18. In this report, we have included the discussion of major issues
affecting the implementation of mobile sources programs from both title I
and title II in this appendix. EPA's Office of Transportation and Air
Quality and state and local air pollution control agencies operate their
mobile source programs as one program.

19. The number of requirements identified in this section relates to title
II requirements only.

20. See Air Pollution: Delays in Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs
Jeopardize Attainment of the Ozone Standard (GAO/RCED-98-175 , June 15,
1998).

21. See Air Pollution: Overview and Issues on Emissions Allowance Trading
Programs (GAO/T-RCED-97-183 , July 9, 1997).

22. See Acid Rain: Emission Trends and Effects in the Eastern United States
(GAO/RCED-00-47 , Mar. 9, 2000).

23. See Air Pollution: Difficulties in Implementing a National Air Permit
Program (GAO/RCED-93-59 , Feb. 23, 1993).

24. Program approval dates range from December 1, 1994, to June 10, 1997.

25. See Getting the Title V Program on Track: Will EPA Make the Necessary
Changes to It Policies? First Annual Report of the Clean Air Implementation
Project (Apr. 1999). The Clean Air Implementation Project is an organization
of major industrial corporations, which joined together in 1991 to focus on
a broad range of issues under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

26. On September 16, 1987, twenty-four nations signed the Montreal Protocol
on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, which called for specific
reductions of chloroflurocarbons and halons.
*** End of document. ***