Clean Air Act
Historical Information on EPA's Process for Reviewing California Waiver Requests and Making Waiver Determinations Gao ID: GAO-09-249R January 16, 2009Emissions from mobile sources, such as automobiles and trucks, contribute to air quality degradation and can threaten public health and the environment. Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates these emissions. The act generally allows one set of federal standards for new motor vehicle emissions and pre-empts states from adopting or enforcing their own standards. However, it also authorizes the EPA Administrator to waive this provision to allow the state of California1 to enact and enforce emission standards for new motor vehicles that are as protective, in the aggregate, as federal government standards. Other states may also adopt California's standards if they choose. The waiver provision was added to the Federal Air Quality Act (one of the precursors of the current Clean Air Act) in 1967 because of California's severe air pollution problems and because the state had already established its own emission standards for mobile sources. California has used this waiver provision regularly to establish and enforce standards for vehicle emissions more stringent than those required by federal law. However, California must request a waiver of federal pre-emption and the EPA Administrator must approve it before California or any other state can implement such standards. Since being given this authority, California has requested and been granted waivers more than 50 times. In December 2005, California requested a waiver from EPA to allow it to regulate motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases, which are closely linked to global climate change. At the time, EPA was responding to litigation initiated by environmental groups and state and local governments regarding whether greenhouse gas emissions were air pollutants that the agency had authority to regulate under the Clean Air Act. EPA delayed action on California's waiver request pending the outcome of that litigation. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the question in Massachusetts v. EPA by holding that EPA did have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, on December 19, 2007, the EPA Administrator announced his intent to deny California's request. The Administrator subsequently formalized the denial in a decision document he signed and EPA published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2008. The decision has received a high level of attention for a number of reasons. For example, it departed in certain respects from EPA's previous waiver determinations--it was the first time that EPA denied a formal waiver request outright, and it also was the first time EPA used the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" criterion in the Clean Air Act as the basis for denying a waiver request. Due to the atypical outcome of EPA's decision regarding California's greenhouse gas waiver request, Congress asked GAO to review the decision to deny the waiver. As agreed with Congressional offices, we focused our work on the process for and outcomes of past waiver requests because the greenhouse gas waiver decision is the subject of ongoing litigation. Thus, we did not seek to examine the basis for the greenhouse gas decision itself or the process EPA used in reviewing this waiver request. This report summarizes the information about prior waiver requests and decisions provided to Congressional staff during our November 21, 2008, briefing.
EPA's process for responding to waiver requests has typically consisted of an informal five-step process, through which staff evaluate the waiver request and review its adherence to criteria laid out in section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA officials, the agency (1) receives and begins review of the waiver request; (2) issues a notice in the Federal Register about the waiver request, including the opportunity for a hearing; (3) holds a hearing, if interest is expressed, and accepts public comments on the proposed waiver; (4) holds internal discussions and conducts internal analysis on the waiver request, including consideration of public comments; and (5) prepares a decision document and publishes the decision in the Federal Register. EPA officials said that as the draft decision document is routed through the approval chain at EPA, it is typically accompanied by a draft Federal Register notice, which lays out the decision and the three statutory criteria in section 209(b) and summarizes the analysis behind the decision. The draft decision document is also usually accompanied by an "action memorandum" that identifies the issues, examines the three Clean Air Act section 209(b) criteria, summarizes public comments, discusses anticipated reaction from external parties and potential for litigation, and provides a recommendation for action. For the past 15 years, several officials in EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality have been the primary staff involved in reviewing waiver requests and preparing documents supporting decisions. Typically, EPA's Office of General Counsel then reviews these documents before a final decision is made by EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. According to the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality officials involved in the process over the past 15 years, the approving official's decisions have generally aligned with staff recommendations to approve waivers, whether in full or in part. While some of these steps are documented in the Federal Register and the public docket that EPA maintains for each decision, others--specifically internal discussions, internal analyses, decision document drafts, and the documents that accompany the drafts through the approval chain--are generally not formally documented, retained, or made publicly available. In addition, the contents of the public dockets for waiver decisions are not standardized and vary from decision to decision. The majority of the dockets were prepared 10 or more years ago, and we could not determine the extent to which they are complete. Consequently, it is not feasible to identify the specific internal actions that EPA has taken or the discussions the agency has held with internal and external parties when deliberating previous waiver requests.
GAO-09-249R, Clean Air Act: Historical Information on EPA's Process for Reviewing California Waiver Requests and Making Waiver Determinations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-249R
entitled 'Clean Air Act: Historical Information on EPA's Process for
Reviewing California Waiver Requests and Making Waiver Determinations'
which was released on February 17, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-09-249R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 16, 2009:
Congressional Requesters:
Subject: Clean Air Act: Historical Information on EPA's Process for
Reviewing California Waiver Requests and Making Waiver Determinations:
Emissions from mobile sources, such as automobiles and trucks,
contribute to air quality degradation and can threaten public health
and the environment. Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulates these emissions. The act generally
allows one set of federal standards for new motor vehicle emissions and
pre-empts states from adopting or enforcing their own standards.
However, it also authorizes the EPA Administrator to waive this
provision to allow the state of California[Footnote 1] to enact and
enforce emission standards for new motor vehicles that are as
protective, in the aggregate, as federal government standards. Other
states may also adopt California's standards if they choose. The waiver
provision was added to the Federal Air Quality Act (one of the
precursors of the current Clean Air Act) in 1967 because of
California's severe air pollution problems and because the state had
already established its own emission standards for mobile sources.
California has used this waiver provision regularly to establish and
enforce standards for vehicle emissions more stringent than those
required by federal law. However, California must request a waiver of
federal pre-emption and the EPA Administrator must approve it before
California or any other state can implement such standards. Since being
given this authority, California has requested and been granted waivers
more than 50 times.[Footnote 2]
The Clean Air Act specifies, under section 209(b), that the EPA
Administrator shall grant a waiver if the state has determined that its
standards will be, "in the aggregate, at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable federal standards." However, the
statute prohibits the EPA Administrator from granting a waiver if it is
found that: (1) the state's protectiveness determination was arbitrary
and capricious, (2) the state's standards are not needed to meet
"compelling and extraordinary conditions," or (3) the state's standards
are inconsistent with certain Clean Air Act provisions related to
technical feasibility and lead time to manufacturers.
In December 2005, California requested a waiver from EPA to allow it to
regulate motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases, which are closely
linked to global climate change. At the time, EPA was responding to
litigation initiated by environmental groups and state and local
governments regarding whether greenhouse gas emissions were air
pollutants that the agency had authority to regulate under the Clean
Air Act. EPA delayed action on California's waiver request pending the
outcome of that litigation. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided the question in Massachusetts v. EPA by holding that EPA did
have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless,
on December 19, 2007, the EPA Administrator announced his intent to
deny California's request. The Administrator subsequently formalized
the denial in a decision document he signed and EPA published in the
Federal Register on March 6, 2008. The decision has received a high
level of attention for a number of reasons. For example, it departed in
certain respects from EPA's previous waiver determinations--it was the
first time that EPA denied a formal waiver request outright, and it
also was the first time EPA used the "compelling and extraordinary
conditions" criterion in the Clean Air Act as the basis for denying a
waiver request.[Footnote 3]
Due to the atypical outcome of EPA's decision regarding California's
greenhouse gas waiver request, you asked us to review the decision to
deny the waiver. As agreed with your offices, we focused our work on
the process for and outcomes of past waiver requests because the
greenhouse gas waiver decision is the subject of ongoing litigation.
Thus, we did not seek to examine the basis for the greenhouse gas
decision itself or the process EPA used in reviewing this waiver
request. This report summarizes the information about prior waiver
requests and decisions provided to your staffs during our November 21,
2008, briefing.
To identify EPA's typical California waiver review process and to
analyze the outcomes of waiver requests, we reviewed key EPA documents
that identify the steps EPA takes in reviewing waiver requests and
making waiver decisions; we also reviewed agency decision documents. We
interviewed officials from EPA's Office of Transportation and Air
Quality and Office of General Counsel involved in reviewing waiver
requests and preparing supporting documentation for EPA's decision, as
well as California Air Resources Board officials involved in waiver
requests. In addition, we compiled information on previous waiver
requests based on documents provided by EPA and the California Air
Resources Board. We supplemented this information by reviewing the
final EPA decision documents and Federal Register announcements for
waiver requests. Using these sources, we analyzed the universe of
requests to identify the outcomes of waiver requests. However, our
analyses were limited to some extent by incomplete and missing
documentation, which precluded us from determining the exact number of
waiver requests California has made and from developing comprehensive
information on EPA's responses to them. Nonetheless, we believe that
the available information supports the statements about the (1) typical
waiver review process EPA has used in reviewing past waiver requests
and (2) waiver decisions provided in this report; these statements have
also been verified by cognizant EPA officials. To ensure our efforts
were not duplicated, we coordinated our work with the EPA Office of
Inspector General.[Footnote 4] We conducted this engagement from June
2008 to December 2008 in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality
Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework
requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient
and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss
any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data
obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for
any findings and conclusions.
EPA's Process for Reviewing California Requests for Waivers of Federal
Pre-emption under the Clean Air Act, and Outcomes of Past Requests:
EPA's process for responding to waiver requests has typically consisted
of an informal five-step process, through which staff evaluate the
waiver request and review its adherence to criteria laid out in section
209(b) of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA officials, the agency:
* receives and begins review of the waiver request;
* issues a notice in the Federal Register about the waiver request,
including the opportunity for a hearing;
* holds a hearing, if interest is expressed, and accepts public
comments on the proposed waiver;
* holds internal discussions and conducts internal analysis on the
waiver request, including consideration of public comments; and:
* prepares a decision document and publishes the decision in the
Federal Register.
EPA officials said that as the draft decision document is routed
through the approval chain at EPA, it is typically accompanied by a
draft Federal Register notice, which lays out the decision and the
three statutory criteria in section 209(b) and summarizes the analysis
behind the decision. The draft decision document is also usually
accompanied by an "action memorandum" that identifies the issues,
examines the three Clean Air Act section 209(b) criteria, summarizes
public comments, discusses anticipated reaction from external parties
and potential for litigation, and provides a recommendation for action.
A one-page summary of the action memo is also typically provided. For
the past 15 years, several officials in EPA's Office of Transportation
and Air Quality have been the primary staff involved in reviewing
waiver requests and preparing documents supporting decisions.
Typically, EPA's Office of General Counsel then reviews these documents
before a final decision is made by EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. According to the EPA Office of Transportation and
Air Quality officials involved in the process over the past 15 years,
the approving official's decisions have generally aligned with staff
recommendations to approve waivers, whether in full or in part.
While some of these steps are documented in the Federal Register and
the public docket that EPA maintains for each decision, others--
specifically internal discussions, internal analyses, decision document
drafts, and the documents that accompany the drafts through the
approval chain--are generally not formally documented, retained, or
made publicly available. In addition, the contents of the public
dockets for waiver decisions are not standardized and vary from
decision to decision. The majority of the dockets were prepared 10 or
more years ago, and we could not determine the extent to which they are
complete. Consequently, it is not feasible to identify the specific
internal actions that EPA has taken or the discussions the agency has
held with internal and external parties when deliberating previous
waiver requests.
However, available information does show that EPA's informal process
for past waiver decisions has led to the following outcomes:
* The majority of the waiver requests were granted in full--that is,
approximately 42 waivers have been fully granted.[Footnote 5]
* Waivers were granted in part when EPA found that aspects of the
waiver request did not meet the criteria under Section 209(b). EPA has
granted waivers in part approximately nine times since 1967.[Footnote
6]
* Determinations that a waiver should be granted in part were usually
based on the Section 209(b) criterion covering technical feasibility
and lead time issues.[Footnote 7] (See enclosure I for information on
waiver decisions that were granted in part and EPA's rationale for
these decisions.)
* Decision documents were drafted prior to announcements about waiver
decisions. As discussed earlier, these documents are typically drafted
after the public hearing and public comment processes are complete.
* Since the mid-1980s, Assistant Administrators generally signed the
waiver decisions rather than Administrators. Since 1992, it has been
the official duty of the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
to sign waiver decisions.[Footnote 8]
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a statement of facts supporting this report to EPA
officials in the Office of Air and Radiation's Office of Transportation
and Air Quality and the Office of General Counsel for their review and
comment. They generally agreed with the information and provided
technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the
Administrator, EPA; appropriate congressional committees; and other
interested parties. The report also will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
include Christine Fishkin (Assistant Director), Laura Gatz, Joanna
Owusu, Karen Keegan, Antoinette Capaccio, and Elizabeth Beardsley.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Enclosures:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable Barbara Boxer:
Chairman:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin:
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton:
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar:
The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
The Honorable Bernard Sanders:
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse:
United States Senate:
Enclosure I:
EPA's Basis for California Waivers Granted in Part, 1968-2008:
Waiver description: Amendments to California's Zero Emission Vehicle
regulations affecting 2006 and prior year vehicles and 2007-2011
vehicles;
Aspects of historical waiver requests that EPA concluded did not meet
section 209(b) criteria[Footnote 9]: Technological feasibility/lead
time: EPA affirmed that certain amendments to regulations affecting
2006 and prior-year vehicles were within the scope of previous waivers
and thus continued to qualify for a waiver, and it granted a waiver for
regulations affecting 2007 through 2011 vehicles but did not grant a
waiver for a regulation affecting 2012 and later vehicles (the
commercial phases of Zero Emission Vehicle implementation). EPA did not
believe that the fuel-cell technology required would be available for
commercial application by 2012. (Decision Document, p. 57);
Waiver request date: 9/23/2004;
Waiver announcement date (Federal Register): 12/28/2006.
Waiver description: Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) standards
and test procedures, and amendments to evaporative emission test
procedures;
Aspects of historical waiver requests that EPA concluded did not meet
section 209(b) criteria[Footnote 9]: Protectiveness determination
arbitrary and capricious: This is the only instance in which EPA denied
a waiver in part on this basis. EPA concluded that the California Air
Resources Board's (CARB) finding in support of its ORVR regulations was
arbitrary and capricious to the extent the regulations applied to
vehicles other than gaseous fueled vehicles. EPA granted the waiver for
the ORVR standards in all other respects. A decision on a waiver for
CARB's amendments to emission test procedures was deferred. (67 Fed.
Reg. 54180, 54181); [Footnote 10]
Waiver request date: 7/22/1997;
Waiver announcement date (Federal Register): 8/21/2002.
Waiver description: Emissions standards and certification procedures
for 1979 and later heavy-duty motor vehicles;
Aspects of historical waiver requests that EPA concluded did not meet
section 209(b) criteria[Footnote 9]: Lead time: There was not time for
manufacturers to retool facilities to produce vehicles in compliance
with the proposed standard by 1979. Rather than deny the waiver
outright, however, EPA granted it on the condition that manufacturers
could instead comply with the 1978 standard for another year. (42 Fed.
Reg. 31637, 31640-41);
Waiver request date: 11/12/1976;
Waiver announcement date (Federal Register): 6/22/1977.
Waiver description: Evaporative hydrocarbon emission standards and
Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determinations test procedures for 1977
and later light-duty vehicles;
Aspects of historical waiver requests that EPA concluded did not meet
section 209(b) criteria[Footnote 9]: Lead time: Because there was not
sufficient time to apply the new technological requirements to 1977
vehicles but there was sufficient time to apply them to 1978 vehicles,
the waiver was denied for 1977 and granted for 1978 and later years.
(40 Fed. Reg. 30311, 30311);
Waiver request date: 4/23/1975;
Waiver announcement date (Federal Register): 7/18/1975.
Waiver description: Stricter standards for hydrocarbon, carbon
monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen emissions for 1975 and later light-
duty trucks;
Aspects of historical waiver requests that EPA concluded did not meet
section 209(b) criteria[Footnote 9]: Technological feasibility/lead
time: While the technology existed to achieve the proposed standards
for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide and there was enough time to
implement that technology, the costs associated with adopting the
standards by 1975 were prohibitive. A waiver was thus denied as it
applied to the 1975 model year, but EPA suggested an alternative
acceptable standard for 1975. There was adequate lead time to achieve
the standards without excessive cost by 1976, however; thus, a waiver
was granted for 1976 and subsequent model years. No technology was
available to achieve California's proposed standard for oxides of
nitrogen by 1975, and thus a waiver was denied for that standard, but
EPA suggested an alternative acceptable standard for 1975. (38 Fed.
Reg. 30136, 30136);
Waiver request date: 8/17/1973;
Waiver announcement date (Federal Register): 11/1/1973.
Waiver description: Standards and test procedures for 1973-1976
gasoline light-duty vehicles; carbon monoxide standard for 1975
passenger cars;
Aspects of historical waiver requests that EPA concluded did not meet
section 209(b) criteria[Footnote 9]: Technological feasibility/lead
time: The Clean Air Act required that hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
levels be reduced during 1975 by 90% from their 1970 levels. EPA could
suspend this requirement for 1 year based in part on technological
feasibility. Industry applied for a suspension. California applied for
a waiver to apply standards close to the federal requirement. EPA
waived pre-emption for California's hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide
standards but denied a waiver for its carbon monoxide standard based on
technological feasibility and lead-time concerns. As an alternative,
EPA proposed an interim federal standard that required more stringent
technological controls for cars shipped to California than to elsewhere
in the country (38 Fed. Reg. 10317, 10319);
Waiver request date: 9/29/1971;
Waiver announcement date (Federal Register): 4/25/1972; 4/26/1973;
3/15/1974[Footnote 11].
Waiver description: Assembly-line test procedures for 1973 and later
motor vehicles; statutory requirement for use of 91 research octane
gasoline in testing 1972 model year vehicles;
Aspects of historical waiver requests that EPA concluded did not meet
section 209(b) criteria[Footnote 9]: Lead time: EPA overturned previous
waiver denial (11/18/1970) for assembly-line test procedures, agreeing
that it could not deny a waiver based on overall cost as opposed to
benefit if adequate compliance time were provided. EPA upheld its
waiver denial regarding 91 research octane fuel, however, because there
was inadequate time for manufacturers to apply the technology necessary
to use the new fuel at a reasonable cost. (36 Fed. Reg. 17458, 17458-
59);
Waiver request date: 5/25/1971;
Waiver announcement date (Federal Register): 8/31/1971.
Waiver description: Various exhaust standards and test procedures for
heavy-duty diesel engines, heavy-duty gasoline engines, gasoline light-
duty vehicles; and assembly-line test procedures from 1972 through 1975
and later vehicles;
Aspects of historical waiver requests that EPA concluded did not meet
section 209(b) criteria[Footnote 9]: Lead time: Waived exhaust
standards and test procedures for 1972 model gas-powered light-duty
vehicles except insofar as they did not make special provision for
calculation of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from off-road
utility vehicles and required use of 91 research octane fuel. Waived
assembly-line test standards and procedures except as applied to 1973
gas-powered light-duty vehicles. Waived certain other standards except
insofar as 91 research octane fuel was required for testing 1972
vehicles. EPA made these exceptions because there was not time to apply
the required technology at a reasonable cost in any case, and with
regard to assembly-line test procedures, there was no evidence that the
new standard would result in reduced emissions. (36 Fed. Reg. 8172,
8172);
Waiver request date: 11/18/1970 (CARB adoption date)[Footnote 12];
Waiver announcement date (Federal Register): 4/30/1971.
Waiver description: Exhaust standards for 1970, and later light-duty
vehicles; oxides of nitrogen standards for 1974 and later light-duty
vehicles; gasoline exhaust standards for 1972 and later heavy-duty
vehicles; and evaporative standards for 1970 and later light-duty
vehicles;
Aspects of historical waiver requests that EPA concluded did not meet
section 209(b) criteria[Footnote 9]: Exceptions related to
technological feasibility/lead time: Due to technological feasibility
and lead-time issues, exhaust emission standards and test procedures
for 1970 gas-powered light-duty vehicles were not to be applied to off-
road utility vehicles until April 30, 1970, and not at all unless
provision was made for calculating emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide. Due to technological feasibility issues, standards and
procedures for 1971 and later gas-powered light-duty vehicles were not
to be applied to off-road utility vehicles unless provision was made
for calculating emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Due to
technological feasibility issues, fuel evaporative emission standards
and test procedures for 1970 and later gas-powered light-duty vehicles
were not to be applied to off-road utility vehicles until April 30,
1970. (34 Fed. Reg. 7348, 7348);
Waiver request date: 7/25/1968 (CARB adoption date)[12];
Waiver announcement date (Federal Register): 5/6/1969.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA and CARB data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The act does not name California but waives the prohibition on the
development of separate state standards for any state that had adopted
certain motor vehicle emission standards prior to March 1966.
California is the only state that had adopted such standards.
[2] Incomplete and missing documentation precluded us from determining
the exact number of waiver requests California has made since 1967 and
from developing comprehensive information on EPA's responses to them.
[3] In this case, EPA considered whether the specific standard at issue
was needed to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions related to a
specific pollutant (greenhouse gas emissions). Until this decision, EPA
had looked at the whole California program in determining compliance
with this waiver criterion, and thus the agency had not examined
whether the specific standards at issue were needed to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions related to a specific pollutant.
[4] EPA Office of Inspector General, EPA's California Waiver Decision
on Greenhouse Gas Automobile Emissions Met Statutory Procedural
Requirements, Report No. 09-P-0056 (Washington, D.C., Dec. 9, 2008).
[5] Missing documents and inconsistently recorded information preclude
us from developing exact statistics on the number of waivers granted or
granted in part.
[6] EPA has used a variety of terms to characterize waivers that were
granted in part, including partially denied, granted with exceptions,
granted with minor exceptions, granted with conditions, or no action
taken on portions of the request. In this report, we use the term,
"waivers granted in part."
[7] The only instance where EPA used a different criterion in declining
to fully grant a waiver was a waiver request that was granted with
exceptions in 2002 because EPA found that California's protectiveness
determination for a particular aspect of the standard was arbitrary and
capricious.
[8] The authority to approve waivers was officially delegated to the
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation in 1992.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
