Nov. 25, 2002
Court orders EPA  to declare St. Louis a serious non-attainment area.
by Cheryl Hammond

The 7th Circuit Court ruled today that the EPA had no authority to extend the deadline for enforcement of the Clean Air Act and ordered the EPA to declare the St. Louis metro area a serious non-attainment area. This court ruling followed an appeal by the Sierra Club and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment that the EPA acted beyond its authority when it issued an extension of the deadline for the St. Louis area to November 15, 2004.

The EPA first designated St. Louis a non-attainment area in 1978.  In 1991, the EPA classified St. Louis a moderate non-attainment area based on provisions of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act with a deadline to reach attainment of Nov. 15, 1996.  In 1998, with St. Louis failing clean air requirements,  the Sierra Club and Coalition filed a lawsuit asking the Court to direct the EPA to reclassify St. Louis as a serious non-attainment area. After a lengthy set of court actions, the EPA on June 26, this year, extended the deadline for clean air requirements from Nov. 15, 1996 to Nov. 15, 2004, an eight year extension.

EPA Arguments

In challenging this eight year extension, the Sierra Club claimed that the EPA had acted unlawfully. with no statutory right to make this extension. The EPA  acknowledged that the Clean Air Act does not explicitly give it this authority, but  considered its policy supportable in light of a  "broader congressional intent not to punish downwind areas affected by ozone transport." The EPA also argued that "the fact that Congress provided an extension based on air quality that is near attainment . . . does not imply that Congress intended to preclude EPA from authorizing extensions based on other considerations." Sierra Club and Coalition lawyers argued that Congress was aware of downwind sources of air pollution and specifically wrote remedies for these situations,  and that Congress did not remotely intend the extension that EPA has now granted.  EPA's argument boiled down to the assertion that since Congress granted some exemptions, the EPA could create additional exemptions when it genuinely believed that a particular area deserved them.

Sierra Club and Coalition argued that, following this logic. the Internal Revenue Service could on its own authority provide additional tax breaks to the poor or small businesses or even adjust tax rates on the grounds that such actions will stimulate more future revenue, which is what the Congress really wants anyway.

St. Louis meets exceedances standard in 2002.

With lower readings from the ozone monitors around St. Louis this past ozone season, the area has now met the 1990 requirement to not record more than three high ozone readings in three years at any one station. Based on this result, the Missouri DNR agreed to slightly reduce air pollution rules, according to an Oct. 24 Post-Dispatch story, contingent on EPA approval and other state review.

Other court actions since 1997 have upheld more stringent standards which will be required by St. Louis and other cities. The deadlines for these more stringent standards have not yet been set, and St. Louis is not in compliance with the newer standards. 

Read complete opinion at: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=01-2844.PDF