In June, the EPA stated its intention to delay (by a year) the enforcement of an Obama-era rule requiring states and localities to maintain ozone levels no higher than 70 parts per billion, a reduction of the old standard of 75 parts per billion. The EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made it clear the agency would not be seeking out problem-areas in the country as required by the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Furious at the administration’s audacious move, various health organizations filed suit on July 12th, asking the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to halt the agency’s delay. Then on August 1st, 16 state attorneys general filed their own lawsuit against the EPA, arguing that the delay was in direct violation of the Clean Air Act. A day later, on August 2nd, the EPA announced it would be revoking the delay, while saying nothing of the lawsuits.
Initial Announcement
When the EPA originally announced the delay, it stated several different reasons for doing so. In the initial press release, the EPA expressed concern over the fact that the areas deemed to be in “nonattainment” of regulatory standards would be subject to numerous burdens. These regions would suffer the consequences of regulation, face a decrease in infrastructure investment and witness a reduction in profits for local businesses, according to the press release.
In a letter to state governors, Pruitt said the agency, lacking sufficient information, needed more time “to consider completely all designation recommendations.” Additionally, the EPA administrator highlighted “a host of complex issues” that could work against the compliance effort. These “issues” required certain actions to be taken, including the following: understanding the influence of “background” ozone levels; determining the impact of international transport; and considering “exceptional events demonstrations.” The details of the delay were outlined in the official publication of the extension.
First Lawsuit
The first lawsuit – filed by several organizations including the American Lung Association – argued that “[t]he Designations Delay is illegal and irrational.” The suit claimed that the EPA’s delay was Illegal because it defied the framework supplied by the Clean Air Act, which requires the EPA to “set ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ standards for pollutants like ozone to protect public health and welfare.” According to the suit, the agency could halt the implementation of these standards for only one reason: that there is “insufficient information to promulgate the designations.” The health organizations, represented in part by Earth Justice, did not agree with the EPA that there was “insufficient information” to continue with the implementation of the Ozone rule.
The suit pointed to the EPA’s own research, which concluded that the 2015 standard could prevent 230,000 asthma attacks in young people and result in 160,000 fewer “school loss days” per year. That’s in addition to saving 600 lives and preventing 1,000 hospital visits.
Second Lawsuit
The second lawsuit – filed by attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia – also contended that the EPA’s delay broke with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who led the charge, said the following in a statement: “By illegally blocking these vital clean air protections, Administrator Pruitt is endangering the health and safety of millions — but attorneys general have made clear: we won’t hesitate to fight back to protect our residents and our states.”
Reversal
Right after the second lawsuit was filed, the EPA announced that it would continue with the original plan as put forth in the 2015 rule. The press release clarified that the agency could at any point enforce a delay. Pruitt claimed that, in the past, EPA regulation deadlines were often missed resulting in a slew of lawsuits. Those lawsuits would then become the primary driver behind the enforcement of deadlines. “We do not believe in regulation through litigation, and we take deadlines seriously. We also take the statute and the authority it gives us seriously,” Pruitt said.
Nowhere in the announcement did the EPA mention the legal complaints. But since the decision to halt the delay came just a day after the second lawsuit, it is reasonable to assume that the agency was responding to pressure applied by the attorneys general and the various health organizations.
Leave a Comment