Weather | Traffic | Surf | Maps | Webcam


   
 
Forums Visitors Guide Shopping Classifieds Autos Homes Jobs Entertainment Sports Today's Paper Home

 News
 Metro | Latest News
 North County
 Temecula/Riverside
 Tijuana/Border
 California
 Nation
 Mexico
 World
 Obituaries
 Today's Paper
 AP Headlines
 Business
 Technology
 Biotech
 Markets
 In Depth
 Iraq / Afghanistan
 Pension Crisis
 Special Reports
 Video
 Multimedia
 Photo Galleries
 Topics
 Education
 Features
 Health | Fitness
 Military
 Politics
 Science
 Solutions
 Opinion
 Columnists
 Steve Breen
 Forums
 Weblogs
 Communities
 U-T South County
 U-T East County
 Solutions
 Calendar
 Just Fix It
 Services
 Weather
 Traffic
 Surf Report
 Archives
 E-mail Newsletters
 Wireless | RSS
 Noticias en Enlace
 Internet Access

 Sponsored Links

Court says EPA air pollution rule is illegal


ASSOCIATED PRESS

3:19 p.m. August 19, 2008

WASHINGTON – A Bush administration rule barring states and local governments from requiring more air pollution monitoring is illegal, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a two-year-old rule that may have allowed some refineries, power plants and factories to exceed pollution limits because the Environmental Protection Agency “failed to fix inadequate monitoring requirements ... and prohibited states and local authorities from doing so.”

Since 1990, the Clean Air Act has required permits granted to facilities releasing more than 100 tons of any pollutant a year to include enough monitoring to ensure the company is meeting its emissions targets. Approximately 15,000 to 16,000 permits have been issued under the program, mostly by state and local pollution agencies.

“We can't have strong enforcement of our clean air laws unless we know what polluters are putting into the air,” said Keri Powell, a staff attorney with Earthjustice, who sued the EPA on behalf of four environmental groups.

The EPA said Tuesday that it was reviewing the court's decision. But an agency spokesman said the monitoring deficiencies should be remedied on the national level rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former attorney in the Bush White House, wrote the sole dissenting opinion.

He said that while EPA and state and local governments may disagree about whether monitoring requirements will adequately measure compliance, he found “nothing in the statute that prohibits EPA's approach.”


 On the Net:
The court's decision: tinyurl.com/6dn372


 Sponsored Links







Quicklinks
Restaurants Bars
Hotels Autos
Shopping Health
Eldercare Singles
Business Listings
Free Newsletters


Guides
Vegas Spas/Salon
Travel Weddings
Wine Old Town
Baja Catering
Casino Home Imp.
Golf SD North
Gaslamp


© Copyright 1995-2008 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper Site