On July 6, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). The act authorized spending on federal highway and public transportation programs, surface transportation safety and research, and some rail programs and activities through September 30, 2014. MAP-21 authorized roughly $105 billion for FY2013 and FY2014 combined. It also extended FY2012 surface transportation authorizations to the end of the fiscal year, raising the total authorization to approximately $118 billion. Most of the funding for surface transportation bills has been drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF) since its creation in 1956, but the HTF, which receives revenue mainly from federal motor fuel taxes, has experienced declining revenue due to a sluggish economy and improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. For the past several years, HTF revenue has been insufficient to finance the government's surface transportation programs, leading Congress to delay reauthorization for 33 months following expiration of the last multi-year reauthorization. Although Congress was unable to agree on a long-term solution to the HTF revenue issue, MAP-21 did provide for the transfer of sufficient general fund revenues to the HTF to fund a two-year bill. MAP-21 made major changes in the programmatic structure for both highways and public transportation and included initiatives intended to increase program efficiency through performance-based planning and the streamlining of project development. Among its major provisions, MAP-21 included: for the federal-aid highway program, research, and education, authorizations for FY2013 of $40.96 billion and for FY2014 of $41.03 billion; for public transportation, authorizations for FY2013 of $10.58 billion and for FY2014 of $10.7 billion; for the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which provides credit assistance for surface transportation projects, a significant expansion that could provide credit support of up to $690 million for FY2013 and $9.2 billion for FY2014; major program restructuring, which reduced the number of highway programs by two-thirds and consolidated public transportation programs as well; more distribution of funding via apportionment to the states and less discretionary funding via the Department of Transportation (DOT) to individual projects; no project earmarks; no equity program, instead basing the distribution of highway funding on the FY2012 distribution such that each state will likely receive as much federal highway funding as its highway users paid to the highway account of the HTF; and changes in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process intended to accelerate project delivery.

Hurricane Katrina produced unprecedented destruction, resulting in disaster debris from vegetation and man-made structures. Before Katrina, the event that left behind the greatest recorded amount of disaster-related debris in the United States was Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which generated 43 million cubic yards (CY) of debris in Florida's Metro-Dade County. When the demolition of damaged property in the New Orleans metropolitan area is complete, Hurricane Katrina will have generated more than 100 million CY of disaster debris.

As estimates for the amount of U.S. natural gas resources have grown, so have the prospects of rising U.S. natural gas exports. The United States is expected to go from a net importer of natural gas to a net exporter by 2020. Projects to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) by tanker ship have been proposed-cumulatively accounting for about 12.5% of current U.S. natural gas production-and are at varying stages of regulatory approval. Projects require federal approval under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b), with the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission being the lead authorizing agencies. Pipeline exports, which accounted for 94% of all exports of U.S. produced natural gas in 2010, are also likely to rise. What effect exporting natural gas will have on U.S. prices is the central question in the debate over whether to export. A significant rise in U.S. natural gas exports would likely put upwards pressure on domestic prices, but the magnitude of any rise is currently unclear. There are numerous factors that will affect prices: export volumes, economic growth, differences in local markets, and government regulations, among others. With today's natural gas prices relatively low compared to global prices and historically low for the United States, producers are looking for new markets for their natural gas. Producers contend that increased exports will not raise prices significantly as there is ample supply to meet domestic demand, and there will be the added benefits of increased revenues, trade, and jobs, and less flaring. Consumers of natural gas, who are being helped by the low prices, fear prices will rise if natural gas is exported. Electric power generation represents potentially the greatest increase in natural gas consumption in the U.S. economy, primarily for environmental reasons. Natural gas emits much less carbon dioxide and other pollutants than coal when combusted. Other types of consumption are not likely to increase natural gas demand domestically for a long time. Use in the transportation sector to displace oil is likely to be small because expensive new infrastructure and technologies would be required. There is discussion of a possible revival of the U.S. petrochemicals sector, but the potential extent of a change is unclear. Getting natural gas to markets where it can be consumed, whether domestically or internationally, may be the industry's biggest challenge. Infrastructure constraints, environmental regulations, and other factors will influence how the market adjusts to balance supply and demand. Environmental groups are split regarding natural gas use, with some favoring increased use to curb emissions of certain pollutants, while others oppose expanded use of natural gas because it is not as clean as renewable forms of energy, such as wind or solar. The use of hydraulic fracturing to produce shale gas has also raised concerns among environmental groups particularly concerned with its possible impacts on water quality. The possibility of a significant increase in U.S. natural gas exports will factor into ongoing debates on the economy, energy independence, climate change, and energy security. As the proposed projects continue to develop, policymakers are likely to receive more inquiries about these projects. Proposals to expedite and expand LNG exports have already been raised in the 113th Congress, including in S. 192 and H.R. 580. Two other bills, H.R. 1189 and H.R. 1191, would reform the DOE's process for determining the public interest regarding LNG exports and prohibit exports of natural gas produced on federal lands.

Funding authorization for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs set forth in the Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176, hereafter referred to as Vision 100) are set to expire at the end of FY2007. During the current reauthorization process, methods to address the environmental impacts associated with airport operations and expansion are likely to be debated. This issue is important to various stakeholders, particularly those whose health, property values, and quality of life may be affected by such impacts. The concerns of community members and local, state, and tribal agencies regarding environmental impacts have led to the delay and cancellation of some airport expansion projects.

Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations regarding the disposal of hazardous wastes. Although there are federal requirements under RCRA for the management of hazardous waste, some states have opted to implement more stringent requirements - particularly with regard to the management of certain hazardous wastes generated by households and small businesses (entities that are essentially exempt from RCRA's hazardous waste management requirements).

In 2008, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada filed an application with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone XL would ultimately have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and further to points in Texas. TransCanada plans to build a pipeline spur so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL. As a facility connecting the United States with a foreign country, the pipeline requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. In evaluating such a permit application, the department must determine whether it is in the "national interest," considering the project's potential effects on the environment, economy, energy security, foreign policy, and other factors. Environmental impacts are considered pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and documented by the State Department in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The final EIS was released for the Keystone XL pipeline permit application in August 2011, after which a 90-day public review period began to make the national interest determination. During that time the State Department determined that more information was needed to consider an alternative pipeline route avoiding the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, an extensive sand dune formation with highly porous soil and a shallow depth to groundwater recharging the Ogallala aquifer. The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78) required the Secretary of State to approve or deny the project within 60 days. On January 18, 2012, the State Department, with the President's consent, denied the Keystone XL permit, citing insufficient time under this deadline to properly assess the reconfigured project. Subsequently, TransCanada announced that it would proceed with development of the pipeline segment connecting Cushing, OK, to the Gulf Coast as a stand-alone project not requiring a Presidential Permit-a decision supported by the Obama administration. In April 2012, TransCanada submitted to Nebraska proposed pipeline routes avoiding the Sand Hills. Subsequently, on May 4, 2012, TransCanada submitted a new application for a Presidential Permit that includes proposed new routes through Nebraska. With the new permit application, the NEPA compliance process begins anew, although it may draw from relevant existing analysis and documentation prepared for the August 2011 final EIS. In the wake of the State Department's denial of the Presidential Permit, Congress has debated legislative options addressing the Keystone XL pipeline. The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II (H.R. 4348) and the North American Energy Access Act (H.R. 3548) would transfer the permitting authority for the Keystone XL pipeline project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, requiring FERC to issue a permit within 30 days of enactment. The Keystone For a Secure Tomorrow Act (H.R. 3811), the Grow America Act of 2012 (S. 2199), S. 2041 (a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline), the EXPAND Act (H.R. 4301), and the Energizing America through Employment Act (H.R. 4000) would immediately approve the original permit application filed by TransCanada.

If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline would transport crude oil (e.g., synthetic crude oil or diluted bitumen) derived from oil sands in Alberta, Canada to destinations in the United States. Because the pipeline crosses an international border, it requires a Presidential Permit that is issued by the Department of State (DOS). The permit decision rests on a "national interest" determination, a term not defined in the authorizing Executive Orders. DOS states that it has "significant discretion" in the factors it examines in this determination. Key events related to the Presidential Permit include: September 19, 2008: TransCanada submitted an application for a Presidential Permit for its Keystone XL pipeline. November 10, 2011: DOS announced it needed additional information concerning alternative pipeline routes through the Nebraska Sandhills. January 18, 2012: In response to a legislative mandate in P.L. 112-78, DOS, with the President's consent, announced its denial of the Keystone XL permit. May 4, 2012: TransCanada submitted a revised permit application to DOS. Although some groups have opposed previous oil pipeline permits, opposition to the Keystone XL proposal has generated substantially more interest among environmental stakeholders. Pipeline opponents are not a monolithic group: some raise concerns about potential local impacts, such as oil spills or extraction impacts in Canada; some argue the pipeline would have national energy and climate change policy implications. A number of key studies indicate that oil sands crude has a higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity than many other forms of crude oil. The primary reason for the higher intensity: oil sands are heavy oils with a high viscosity, requiring more energy- and resource intensive activities to extract. However, analytical results vary due to different modeling assumptions. Moreover, industry stakeholders point out that many analyses indicate that GHG emissions from oil sands crude oil are comparable to other heavy crudes, some of which are produced and/or consumed in the United States. Because of oil sands' increased emissions intensity, further oil sands development runs counter to some stakeholders' energy and climate change policy objectives. These objectives may vary based on differing views concerning the severity of climate change risk and/or the need for significant mitigation efforts. Opponents worry that oil sands crude oil will account for a greater percentage of U.S. oil consumption over time, making GHG emissions reduction more difficult. On the other hand, neither issuance of a Presidential Permit nor increased oil sands development would preclude the implementation of energy/climate policies that would support less carbon intensive fuels or energy efficiency improvements. A primary local/regional environmental concern of any oil pipeline is the risk of a spill. Environmental groups have argued that both the pipeline's operating parameters and the material being transported imposes an increased risk of spill. Industry stakeholders have been critical of these assertions. To examine the concerns, Congress included provisions in P.L. 112-90 requiring a review of current oil pipeline regulations and a risk analysis of oil sands crude. Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline and oil sands development often highlight the environmental impacts that pertain to the region in which the oil sands resources are extracted. Potential impacts include, among others, land disturbance and water resource issues. In general, these local/regional impacts from Canadian oil sands development may not directly affect public health or the environment in the United States. Within the context of a Presidential Permit, the mechanism to consider local Canadian impacts is unclear.

In recent years, the time needed to comply with various environmental laws has been the subject of public scrutiny and debate in Congress. As a result, numerous administrative and legislative efforts (both proposed and enacted) have intended to expedite or streamline the environmental compliance process. Although methods to do so vary, streamlining measures are often proposed or implemented when the participation of multiple local, state, tribal, or federal agencies is necessary to comply with various environmental requirements. Streamlining measures may be applied to various environmental compliance processes, such as federal permitting or approvals.

Several major statutes form the legal basis for the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many of these have been amended several times. The current provisions of each are briefly summarised in this report. The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) seeks to prevent pollution through reduced generation of pollutants at their point of origin. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set mobile source limits, ambient air quality standards, hazardous air pollutant emission standards, standards for new pollution sources, and significant deterioration requirements; and to focus on areas that do not attain standards. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a sewage treatment construction grants program, and a regulatory and enforcement program for discharges of wastes into U.S. waters. Focusing on the regulation of the intentional disposal of materials into ocean waters and authorising related research is the Ocean Dumping Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishes primary drinking water standards, regulates underground injection disposal practices, and establishes a groundwater control program. The Solid Waste Disposal Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provide regulation of solid and hazardous waste, while the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund, provides authority for the federal government to respond to releases of hazardous substances, and established a fee-maintained fund to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites. The authority to collect fees has expired, and funding is now provided from general revenues. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires industrial reporting of toxic releases and encourages planning to respond to chemical emergencies. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the testing of chemicals and their use, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) governs pesticide products and their use.