Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The Environmental Protection Agency is the federal agency responsible for protecting human health and the environment. Established by executive order in 1970 (never authorized by a single organic statute), the EPA administers dozens of environmental laws covering air quality, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, pesticides, and more. With approximately 15,000 employees across headquarters, 10 regional offices, and research laboratories, the EPA sets environmental standards, issues permits, conducts enforcement, awards grants, and performs the scientific research that underpins environmental regulation.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

The EPA is unusual among major federal agencies in that it was not created by a single authorizing statute. Instead, it was established by President Nixon's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated environmental responsibilities from multiple agencies. The EPA derives its authority from the individual environmental statutes it administers:

• Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401+) — National ambient air quality standards, emission standards, permits, state implementation plans
• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251+) — Water quality standards, discharge permits (NPDES), wetlands protection, water quality monitoring
• RCRA (42 U.S.C. § 6901+) — Hazardous waste management from generation to disposal ("cradle to grave")
• CERCLA/Superfund (42 U.S.C. § 9601+) — Cleanup of contaminated sites, liability framework for responsible parties
• TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2601+) — Chemical safety evaluation, reporting requirements, restrictions on hazardous chemicals
• FIFRA (7 U.S.C. § 136+) — Pesticide registration, use restrictions, tolerances
• SDWA (42 U.S.C. § 300f+) — Drinking water standards, public water system regulation, underground injection control
• 18 U.S.C. § 3063 — EPA enforcement personnel powers (criminal investigators may carry firearms, execute warrants, make arrests)
• 42 U.S.C. § 4370a — Assistant Administrators (provides for additional leadership positions to manage the agency's broad portfolio)

How It Works

The EPA operates through a standard-setting and permitting model. For each environmental medium (air, water, waste, chemicals), the EPA establishes health-based or technology-based standards, then requires permits from regulated entities demonstrating compliance. Enforcement — through inspections, compliance orders, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution — ensures adherence.

The state delegation model is central to EPA's operations. Most EPA programs can be delegated to states that demonstrate the capacity and legal authority to implement federal standards. Under delegation, the state issues permits, conducts inspections, and takes enforcement actions, while the EPA retains oversight authority and can step in when states fail to act. This model means that in practice, most regulated entities interact with their state environmental agency, not the EPA directly — though the EPA sets the minimum standards and maintains backstop authority.

The EPA's ten regional offices provide the operational link between national standards and local implementation. Each region oversees states, tribes, and territories in its geographic area, reviewing state programs, conducting direct enforcement where needed, and managing federal programs in areas without delegated authority.

Environmental justice has become an increasingly central EPA priority — the recognition that pollution and environmental hazards disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color. The EPA has incorporated environmental justice analysis into permitting decisions, enforcement targeting, and grant allocation.

The EPA's research function (primarily through the Office of Research and Development) provides the scientific foundation for regulatory decisions — developing risk assessments, testing methodologies, and policy-relevant research that determines what standards are set and how they're justified.

Criminal enforcement through the EPA's Criminal Investigation Division (EPA-CID) targets the most serious environmental violations — knowing violations of environmental laws, criminal negligence, and fraud. EPA special agents have full law enforcement authority including the ability to carry firearms, execute warrants, and make arrests.

How It Affects You

State Variations

Implementing Regulations

• 40 CFR Part 1 — EPA organization (§ 1.43 — Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention)

• 40 CFR Parts 50–99 — Air quality standards and programs (NAAQS, state implementation plans, new source performance standards, hazardous air pollutant standards)

• 40 CFR Parts 100–149 — Water quality standards and programs (NPDES permits, water quality standards, underground injection control)

• 40 CFR Parts 239–282 — Solid waste and hazardous waste (RCRA subtitle C/D requirements, landfill standards, hazardous waste generation/transport/treatment/disposal)

• 40 CFR Part 240 — Guidelines for the Thermal Processing of Solid Wastes (50 sections — EPA's operational and design guidelines for municipal solid waste combustion facilities processing 50 or more tons per day). Key provisions:

  • § 240.100 — Scope: applies to thermal processing (incineration, pyrolysis, wet oxidation) facilities for municipal-type solid wastes of 50+ tons/day capacity; sets minimum requirements and recommended best practices in a two-tier structure
  • § 240.200-1 — Accepted wastes: in consultation with responsible agencies, the owner/operator must determine which waste streams will be accepted and what special handling is needed; residential and commercial wastes are standard, but some special wastes (hospital, industrial) may be conditionally accepted
  • § 240.201-1 — Excluded wastes: hazardous or dangerous materials identified by the waste generator must be excluded from thermal processing; a list of excluded materials must be posted at the facility entrance and provided to regular users
  • § 240.202-1 — Site selection: facilities must be sited consistently with public health, air quality, and water quality standards, and adaptable to applicable land-use plans; industrial zoning preferred
  • § 240.203-1 — Design requirement: all facility design plans must be prepared or approved by a licensed professional engineer; the design must account for waste type, quantity, calorific value, and all federal and state environmental requirements
  • § 240.204-1 — Water quality: all discharged waters must meet the most stringent applicable water quality standards under the Clean Water Act; effluent waters may not be discharged untreated
  • § 240.205-1 — Air quality: emissions must not exceed applicable EPA standards under the Clean Air Act (Parts 52, 60, 61); when monitoring indicates excessive emissions, operations must be adjusted immediately
  • § 240.206-1 — Vectors: conditions unfavorable for harboring, feeding, or breeding of disease vectors must be maintained at all times; regular housekeeping schedules are required for tipping and residue areas
  • § 240.207-1 — Aesthetics: facilities must be designed and operated in an "aesthetically acceptable manner" with screened tipping areas and landscaped grounds — an unusual requirement reflecting the community-siting controversies that attended early incinerator development

  Part 240 predates the modern Boiler MACT and Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) rules, which now govern most MSW combustion under the Clean Air Act. The Part 240 guidelines continue to apply as baseline standards and are often incorporated by reference in state solid waste management permits. The two-tier structure — mandatory "Requirements" (-1 sections) and voluntary "Recommended Procedures" (-2/-3 sections) — reflects EPA's 1970s approach of setting floors while encouraging better-practice adoption. For new municipal waste combustors, the more stringent standards in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Eb (New Source Performance Standards) and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEE (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from hazardous waste combustors) now set the primary emission control requirements; Part 240 remains the general operational framework. Ash residue from thermal processing must be managed as solid waste under RCRA and tested for hazardous characteristics under Part 261 before disposal.

• 40 CFR Parts 300–399 — Superfund/CERCLA cleanup (National Contingency Plan, hazardous substance response, natural resource damage assessment)

• 40 CFR Parts 1033–1045 — Mobile source emissions (locomotive engines, marine engines, highway/nonroad vehicles)

• 40 CFR Parts 260-261 — Hazardous Waste Identification and Management (RCRA — defines what constitutes hazardous waste; listing of specific hazardous wastes; characteristics tests for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity; generator requirements; 103 sections)

• 40 CFR Part 300 — National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP — the regulatory framework for federal Superfund response actions; hazard ranking system for NPL listing; remedial investigation/feasibility study procedures; 79 sections)

• 40 CFR Part 302 — Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification (defines reportable quantities for ~800 hazardous substances; requires notification within 24 hours of a release exceeding the RQ)

• 40 CFR Part 152 — Pesticide Registration (FIFRA registration requirements: data submission, conditional registration, amended registration, cancellation; 74 sections)

• 40 CFR Part 745 — Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention (renovation, repair, and painting rule; training and certification for lead-safe work practices; disclosure requirements for sales and rentals of pre-1978 housing; 44 sections)

• 40 CFR Part 35 — State and Local Assistance (478 sections): the administrative framework governing EPA financial assistance grants to states, tribes, and local governments. Key programs and provisions:

  • Subpart A (§§ 35.100–35.140) — Environmental Program Grants to states and interstate agencies: covers Performance Partnership Grants (PPG), which allow states to combine CWA § 106, CAA § 105, RCRA § 3011, TSCA § 28, FIFRA § 23, and other program-specific grants into a single flexible award. States submit a work plan negotiated with the EPA Regional Administrator (§ 35.107); EPA must act on complete applications within 60 days (§ 35.110). Award amounts consider the state's allotment, work plan quality, and prior performance (§ 35.112).
  • Subpart B (§§ 35.500–35.560) — Environmental Program Grants for Tribes: parallel framework for Indian Tribes and Intertribal Consortia. Tribes may consolidate grants across multiple environmental programs in a single award; intertribal consortia are eligible if all member tribes authorize the consortium to apply on their behalf (§ 35.504).
  • Subpart K (§§ 35.3100–35.3185) — Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): implements CWA § 603; states capitalize their SRF programs with federal grants (20% state match required); SRF funds are loaned to municipalities and utilities for wastewater infrastructure at below-market interest rates; repaid funds become perpetual revolving capital.
  • Subpart L (§§ 35.3500–35.3560) — Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): implements SDWA § 1452; parallel structure to CWSRF; loans to public water systems for infrastructure improvements, source water protection, and compliance with drinking water standards.
  • Subpart O (§§ 35.6000–35.6600) — Superfund Cooperative Agreements: governs financial assistance for CERCLA remediation and removal actions; establishes procedures for states entering into Superfund State Contracts (SSCs) for cost-sharing at NPL sites (CERCLA § 104(c)(3) requires 10% state cost share at non-federal sites, 50% for government-owned sites).
  • Subpart Q (§§ 35.10000–35.10070) — WIFIA Credit Assistance: implements the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act; EPA provides direct loans or loan guarantees for large water infrastructure projects (wastewater, drinking water, stormwater, drought resilience); maximum federal share 49% of project costs (§ 35.10010); requires investment-grade credit rating; 15% annual set-aside for communities under 25,000 (§ 35.10020); American iron and steel requirement for all funded construction (§ 35.10030).

• 40 CFR Part 22 — Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits — EPA's cross-cutting procedural code for all administrative civil penalty proceedings, used across FIFRA, CWA, CAA, SDWA, RCRA, TSCA, and EPCRA enforcement actions. Key provisions:

  • § 22.13 — Commencement: an EPA enforcement proceeding begins when the Regional Hearing Clerk receives a complaint filed by the Regional Administrator (or designated complainant); for some programs (FIFRA, CAA mobile sources) a pre-complaint "expedited settlement offer" must first be extended
  • § 22.14 — Complaint requirements: the complaint must identify the statutory basis, cite each violation by specific provision, state the proposed penalty amount and its basis, and propose any required corrective action; it must also state that the respondent has the right to request a hearing
  • § 22.15 — Answer: respondent must file a written answer within 30 days of receipt; a failure to answer is treated as an admission of the violations alleged and waives the right to contest the penalty amount; partial answers must specifically admit or deny each allegation
  • § 22.17 — Default: if a respondent fails to answer or comply with discovery orders, the Presiding Officer may enter a default order assessing the proposed penalty; motions to set aside defaults are granted only on showing of good cause
  • § 22.18 — Quick resolution and settlement: at any time before the initial decision, respondent may settle by paying a penalty or consenting to required actions; settlement agreements are filed as consent orders; the rule also authorizes formal ADR (mediation, conciliation) as an alternative to hearing — most EPA civil penalty cases settle before hearing
  • § 22.19 — Prehearing information exchange: in lieu of formal discovery, parties exchange (1) witness lists and witness statement summaries, (2) documentary evidence they intend to introduce, and (3) a brief statement of the facts they expect to prove; no depositions without agreement or Presiding Officer order; the absence of formal discovery keeps most EPA administrative proceedings significantly faster and cheaper than federal court litigation
  • § 22.24 — Burden of proof: EPA (the "complainant") bears the burden of proving the violation occurred and that the proposed relief is warranted; the standard is a preponderance of the evidence; respondent bears the burden on any affirmative defenses (force majeure, prior pending permit application, etc.)
  • § 22.27 — Initial Decision: the Presiding Officer (an EPA Administrative Law Judge) issues a written initial decision with findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a penalty order; either party may appeal to the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) within 20 days; a penalty in the initial decision may not be paid during the 20-day appeal window
  • § 22.30 — Final Order: if neither party appeals, the initial decision automatically becomes the final EPA order 45 days after issuance; if the EAB takes the case, its decision is the final order; final orders are enforceable in federal district court; respondents who fail to pay assessed penalties are subject to additional penalty accrual

  Part 22 governs a significant share of EPA's approximately 700-800 administrative penalty cases per year — covering facilities from small dry cleaners (PERC violations) to industrial sites (RCRA hazardous waste), utilities (CWA/NPDES), and pesticide distributors (FIFRA). The consolidated rules replaced program-specific procedural rules, creating uniform timelines and hearing standards across EPA's major statutes. For companies facing EPA civil enforcement, the pre-complaint penalty offer (where required) and the quick-resolution mechanism (§ 22.18(a)) are the two most practically important provisions — most companies pay the proposed penalty or negotiate a consent agreement before the formal complaint stage.

• 40 CFR Part 124 — Procedures for Decisionmaking (55 sections — EPA's unified procedural framework for issuing, modifying, and appealing permits under four major programs: NPDES (Clean Water Act), Underground Injection Control (Safe Drinking Water Act), RCRA hazardous waste permits, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (CAA air quality) permits). Key provisions:

  • § 124.10 — Public notice: EPA must provide public notice of any draft permit action — including publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area, direct notification to the permit applicant and adjacent state agencies, and posting on EPA's website; the notice must describe the facility, the proposed permit conditions, the basis for key conditions, and how the public can comment or request a hearing
  • § 124.11 — Comment period: any interested person may submit written comments on a draft permit and may request a public hearing during the public comment period; there is no standing requirement — neighbors, environmental groups, trade associations, competing facilities, and downstream water users may all participate
  • § 124.12 — Public hearings: EPA must hold a public hearing if it receives significant public interest or a written request; the hearing director has discretion to hold additional hearings; testimony is part of the administrative record; EPA is not bound by the majority opinion expressed at a hearing but must respond to all significant comments in the record
  • § 124.13 — Issue exhaustion: all factual and legal arguments must be raised during the public comment period to be preserved for appeal; a person who fails to raise an issue in comments — or fails to provide factual information supporting their position — generally may not raise it in a subsequent EAB appeal; this provision channels substantive challenges into the comment period rather than deferring them to administrative appeals
  • § 124.15 — Final permit decision: after the public comment period closes, EPA issues a final permit decision based on the administrative record; the permit decision takes effect 30 days after the decision is served on the applicant, unless a timely petition for EAB review is filed; pending review, contested conditions are automatically stayed under § 124.16
  • § 124.17 — Response to comments: when EPA issues a final permit, it must simultaneously issue a written response to all significant comments received during the public comment period; the response must identify each comment, explain how EPA addressed it, and provide the basis for any changes or rejections; the response to comments is part of the administrative record reviewed by the EAB and courts
  • § 124.19 — Environmental Appeals Board review: any party may petition the EAB for review within 30 days of the final permit decision; petitions must identify the specific permit conditions challenged, explain the legal and factual errors claimed, and show that the issues were raised during the comment period (§ 124.13 issue exhaustion); the EAB reviews for clear error of law, abuse of discretion, or new material information; EAB decisions constitute final agency action for purposes of federal court judicial review

  Part 124's public comment and appeal procedures govern the issuance of virtually every major EPA permit in the United States. NPDES permits alone cover approximately 6,000 major industrial and municipal discharges — including power plants, refineries, municipal wastewater treatment plants, and large agricultural operations — with hundreds of thousands of minor permits below. For companies seeking NPDES, RCRA, or air quality permits, the administrative record assembled during the § 124.10 comment period is the foundation on which all subsequent challenges (EAB, federal court) will be built; permit applicants, neighboring facilities, and environmental advocates all participate in the same public comment process. The 30-day EAB appeal window (§ 124.19) and the issue-exhaustion requirement (§ 124.13) together define the practical litigation strategy for any party seeking to contest a permit condition: intervene early with specific comment-period submissions, or risk having your arguments deemed waived.

Pending Legislation

• HR 6615 — EPA Climate Justice Grant Program, $1B/year for community clean-energy projects. Status: Introduced.
• HR 3346 — Sovereign State Environmental Quality Assurance Act: would abolish the EPA and replace it with state-run environmental programs funded by $4.4 billion annual block grants. Status: Introduced.
• HR 2996 — CAP Act: would fund local climate adaptation plans through EPA grants prioritizing environmental justice communities. Status: Introduced.

Recent Developments

• Trump EPA regulatory rollback (2025): The Trump administration's EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, launched the most sweeping regulatory rollback in the agency's history. In March 2025, EPA announced plans to rescind or substantially revise more than 30 significant Biden-era rules — including greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants, vehicle emission standards (including EV mandates), methane rules for oil and gas, PFAS water standards, and the particulate matter (PM2.5) standards update. The announced rollbacks triggered hundreds of legal challenges from states, environmental groups, and public health organizations.
• PFAS drinking water standards under review: The Biden EPA in April 2024 finalized the first-ever national drinking water standards for PFAS ("forever chemicals"), setting maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion. The Trump EPA announced it would reconsider these standards — raising concerns among utilities that had already begun planning billions in infrastructure upgrades to comply. Courts blocked outright withdrawal, but the reconsideration timeline is extended.
• Greenhouse gas standards: EPA's power plant GHG rules (carbon capture requirements for coal plants, new gas plant standards) and vehicle emission rules (accelerating EV adoption) were among the first Biden-era rules targeted for rescission. EPA justified the rollbacks on West Virginia v. EPA (2022) major questions grounds — arguing that transformative economy-wide changes require explicit congressional authorization.
• EPA workforce reductions: DOGE-driven workforce reductions affected EPA significantly, with the agency losing hundreds of employees through voluntary separation, RIF, and terminations. Science advisory boards were dissolved. Regional offices lost staff. Environmental enforcement capacity — already stretched — declined further. States with their own environmental agencies continued enforcement, but states without robust programs saw gaps.
• Loper Bright and EPA rulemaking: Loper Bright (2024), which overruled Chevron deference, changed EPA's legal position significantly. EPA can no longer rely on judicial deference to its technical interpretations of ambiguous Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act provisions — courts will now independently determine the correct statutory interpretation. This has implications for both the rollback of Biden-era rules and the stability of any new rules EPA issues.