EPA ozone rule goes to appeals court

November 22nd, 2016 by Dakota Software Staff Industry News

Plenty of attention has been paid to the influence the presidential election will have on the Environmental Protection Agency, from how it will enforce existing rules to the formulation of new environmental regulations. The current EPA administration remains hard at work during this transition period, working through current projects and enforcing the many requirements it's charged with maintaining.

It's also dealing with a number of legal challenges to existing and proposed rules. The regulator's decision to change its approach to controlling ozone emissions in late 2015 recently led to a federal appeals court case, with a group of businesses and professional associations challenging the changes and saying they go against previously established measures contained in the Clean Air Act.

Future of new ozone requirements unclear
The EPA developed the stricter regulations in coordination with the Obama administration in 2015, reducing the standard for ozone from 75 parts per million to 70. That change, as The Washington Post pointed out, drew criticism from groups on both sides of the issue. An array of businesses and related associations believed the change would require increased spending on the part of employers, leading to job losses and economic issues. Environmentalists thought the rule change didn't go far enough and wanted to see the ozone standard reduced further.

For its part, the EPA said its major motivation was reducing the health impact of ozone on Americans with asthma and similar issues. The EPA cited a collection of research drawing a correlation between ozone and respiratory concerns.

The legal challenge brought against the EPA's proposed rule means delays in enforcement, with the case not scheduled to be heard until February 2017. The businesses and organizations involved in the case, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, believe the methodology behind setting the limits is flawed.

According to The Hill, the case argues the EPA failed to properly account for naturally occurring ozone in the environment. It also believes a number of other potentially negative factors weren't properly accounted for when developing the regulations. Groups supporting the regulations, including the Sierra Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility, will also speak out in favor of the rule once the case is heard. For its part, the EPA said it believes the ozone rules were calculated appropriately and pointed out the CAA calls for calculations based only on health and environmental impacts, not economic ones.