Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 279–289 | Cite as

A revised look: EPA rulemaking processes

  • Jeffrey J. Cook
  • Sara R. RinfretEmail author


Scholars have not analyzed the decision-making processes (i.e., administrative rulemaking) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in great detail since the 1990s. Therefore, this paper uses original interview data to examine a contemporary case, the EPA’s Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, to offer an up to date perspective on how the agency produces rules. This paper argues that, at the very least, the EPA’s Climate Change Division, part of the Office of Air and Radiation is a quintessential example of effective outreach across all of the stages of administrative rulemaking. The findings from these interviews suggest that understanding the process the EPA uses to produce environmental regulations is particularly relevant for practitioners, politicians, and scholars. Therefore, we suggest that scholars should use this research as a baseline for future scholarship about the rulemaking processes of the EPA.


Rulemaking EPA Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule 


  1. Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) (1995) Building Consensus in Agency Rulemaking: Implementing the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. Accessed 30 Apr 2012
  2. Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, 5 U.S.C. § 553 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. Balla SJ, Wright JR (2001) Interest groups, advisory committees, and congressional control of the bureaucracy. Am J Polit Sci 45:799–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bush B (2009) New edition of greenhouse Gas estimation methods–API. Energy API. Accessed 30 Apr 2012
  5. Coglianese C (1997) Assessing consensus: the promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law J 46:1255–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, H.R. 2764 Division F Title II (2008)Google Scholar
  7. Croley SP (1996) Practical guidance on the applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Am Univ Adm Law J 10:111–178Google Scholar
  8. Croley SP, and Funk WF (1997) The Federal Advisory Committee Act and good government. Yale J Regul (451–490)Google Scholar
  9. EPA (2011a) Our mission and what we do. Accessed 11 Mar 2012
  10. EPA (2011b) Greenhouse gas emissions. Accessed 11 Mar 2012
  11. EPA (2012a) Current leadership. Accessed 11 Mar 2012
  12. EPA (2012b) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Accessed 11 Mar 2012
  13. Executive Order 12,838. 58 Fed. Reg. 8,207 (1993 comp.)Google Scholar
  14. Fiorino D (1995) Regulatory negotiation as a form of public participation. In: Mumpower J, Renn O (eds) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiorino D (2012) Environmental bureaucracies: The Environmental Protection Agency. Forthcoming in: Kraft, M. E., Kamieniecki, S. Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental PolicyGoogle Scholar
  16. Funk W (1997) Bargaining toward the new Millenium: regulatory negotiation and the subversion of the public interest. Duke Law J 46(28):1351–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Furlong S (1995) Reinventing regulatory development at the Environmental Protection Agency. Policy Studies J 23(3):466–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gore A (1993) From red tape to results: creating a government that works better and costs less. Accessed 30 Apr 2012
  19. Hansen B (2009) Both energy groups and environmentalists have legal objections to GHG reporting rule. Electr Util Week 5Google Scholar
  20. Harter P (1997) Fear of commitment: an affliction of adolescents. Duke Law J 46:1389–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kamieniecki S (2006) Corporate America and environmental policy: how often does business get its way? Stanford Law and Politics, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerwin C, Furlong S (1992) Time and rulemaking empirical test of theory. J Public Adm Res Theory 2:113–138Google Scholar
  23. Kerwin CM, Furlong SR (2011) Rulemaking how government agencies write law and make policy. CQ Press, Washington, DC, pp 49–180Google Scholar
  24. Kerwin CM, Furlong SR, West W (2011) Interest groups, rulemaking, and American bureaucracy. In: Durant R (ed) The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Klyza C, Sousa D (2008) American environmental policy, 1990–2006 beyond gridlock. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Lubbers J (2008) Achieving policymaking consensus: the (unfortunate) waning of negotiated rulemaking. South Texas Law Rev 49:987–1017Google Scholar
  27. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule 74 Fed. Reg. 5260 (2009) (to be codified at 40 CFR pt. 86, 87, 89 et al.)Google Scholar
  28. McGarity TO (1991) The internal structure of EPA rulemaking. Law Contemp Probl 54:57–111, Accessed 11 Mar 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, London, p 176Google Scholar
  30. Rinfret SR (2011a) Cleaning up the air: the EPA and shuttle diplomacy. Environ Pract 13(3):1–8Google Scholar
  31. Rinfret SR (2011b) Behind the shadows: interests, influence, and the U.S. fish and wildlife service. Hum Dimens Wildl 16:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rinfret SR, Furlong SR (2012) Defining environmental rulemaking. Forthcoming in: Kraft, M. E., Kamieniecki, S. Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental PolicyGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlosberg D, Zavestoski S, and Shulman SW (2007) Democracy and E-rulemaking: web-based technologies, participation, and potential for deliberation. University of Massachusetts-Amherst Scholar Works 37–55Google Scholar
  34. Susskind L, McMahon G (1985) The theory and practice of negotiated rulemaking. Yale J Regul 3:133–165Google Scholar
  35. Vaughn J (2011) Environmental politics: domestic and global dimensions, 6th edn. Wadsworth Publishing, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  36. Vig N, Kraft M (Eds.) (2010) Environmental policy: new directions for the twenty-first century (7th ed.). CQ Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  37. West W (2009) Inside the black box: the development of proposed rules and the limits of procedural controls. Adm Soc 41:576–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceColorado State UniversityFt. CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceHartwick CollegeOneontaUSA

Personalised recommendations