In two key decisions the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiatives relative to improving air quality. First, with a May 14 ruling, the court blocked the implementation of the new air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter.

Ironically, the court did not reject the regulations based on their belief that the EPA lacked sufficient scientific data to fulfill the need for the new regulations. This position was advocated by a large bipartisan group of congressmen when the regulations were first proposed by the EPA. The court also did not acknowledge the grassroots outcry expressed following the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments. This outcry was based on the need for vehicle inspection programs. Non-attainment areas faced various debates ranging from opposing all inspections to the conflict between centralized and decentralized testing.

The court did pursue a very basic principle. The court stated, "We find that the construction of the Clean Air Act on which EPA relied in promulgating the standards at issue here effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power." The Clean Air Act requires that the EPA promulgate and periodically revise national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants identified by the agency. The EPA had revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter and ozone in a July 1997 Federal Register publication. The court felt that this "unconstitutional delegation of legislative power" conflicted with Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

The court added, "Although the factors EPA uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with different levels of ozone and particulate matter are reasonable, EPA appears to have articulated no 'intelligible principle' to channel its application of these factors; nor is one apparent from the statute."

Industry litigants in the case, American Trucking Association vs. EPA, had argued:

1. The act allows EPA to consider costs.
2. EPA should have considered the environmental damage likely to result from the NAAQS' financial impact on the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.
3. The NAAQS revisions violated the National Environmental Policy Act.
4. The NAAQS revisions violated the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
5. The NAAQS revisions violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
6. The court rejected these claims.

One important point affirmed by the court was that proposed in the case of the American Lung Association vs. Reilly, 962 F.2d 258, 263 (1992). "The administrator, therefore, still must at five-year intervals (from December 31, 1980) complete a thorough review of the NAAQS promulgated under this section and make such revisions in such standards as may be appropriate," the court stated. In this case, the court held that this section continues to "set forth a bright-line rule for agency action." The court also stated, "Nothing in the act modifies this 'bright-line rule' or otherwise makes it inapplicable to revision of the ozone NAAQS."

The court followed a week later by ordering the EPA to suspend the implementation of a rule that required 22 states to submit tightening standards for nitrogen oxide emissions by this fall. Eight Southern and Midwestern states had sought a stay until April of next year.

The Clean Air Trust's executive director said, "One has to start wondering about a possible pro-polluter court." States may still submit their state implementation plans by September of this year.

The EPA currently plans for the industry to install new nitrogen oxide controls by 2003. This ruling could delay that process.

The EPA administrator has made it clear that the EPA will develop a strategy to improve upon their position as to these rulings. Independent repairers should watch an appeal strategy for the ozone and particulate matter stay very closely. The long-term impact on emissions inspection and maintenance will be significant.

Bob Redding is the Automotive Service Association's Washington, D.C., representative. He is a member of several federal and state advisory committees involved in the automotive industry. For more information about the legislative activities of ASA, visit www.TakingTheHill.com.

RATE THIS ARTICLE What do you think of this article? Your input will help AutoInc. develop additional articles on this subject. Share your thoughts! Your name Your e-mail address

MOST ACCESSED ARTICLES Fuel Injection Service, Not Just Cleaning The Art of Extraction EGR Systems: Operation and Diagnosis Proactive Target Marketing:_Rethinking Your Business Strategy Engine Performance: HO2S Diagnostics MOST E-MAILED ARTICLES Developing Employee Potential How Critical Thinking Can Help Your Business How to Diagnose the Ford Glow Plug What to Look for When Shopping for the Right Shop Management Software Putting a Price Tag on Complaints

AutoInc. Web Site | ASA Web Site | U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Clean Air Regulations | Scan Tool Information: Data or Dogma? | How Accurate is That Computerized Estimate? | Clearing the Hurdles of Estimating Systems Training | Organizing the Office | AutoInc.'s Ninth Annual Management Software Guide | Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) | Guest Editorial | Tech to Tech | Tech Tips | Shop Profile | Net Worth | Stat Corner | Chairman's Message