Document KGXELLZnmgYrrZXd1KN7ZNaw6

FILE NAME Newspaper & Magazine Articles NMA DATE 1973 Feb 2 DOC NMA071 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION NYT - Court Bars Delay in Cleaning Up Air COURT BARS DELAY IN CLEANING UP AIR The By E. W KENWORTHYSpecial to New York Times New York Times Currentfile Feb 2 1973 ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times 1851 - 2002 pg DELAY COURT BARS ont vo. CLEANING AIRrey ae Finds Ruckelshaus Erred in Giving 17 States a Year Extension of Deadline areae ee By E. W. KENWORTHY Special to The New York Times Ot WASHINGTON Feb. The BE United States Court of Appeals ee for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered the En- E vironmental Protection Agency oe to rescind its decision allowing a 17 states including New York a two additional years to come into compliance with air pollu- tion limits Po In an order issued late yes-ee terday the court said that Wil-eae liam D. Ruckelshaus adminis- 11 trator of the agency had acted in ing the best of faith in grantthe extensions Neverthe 1 less the court said that he had of violated the strict require- ments of the Clean Air Act of roge 1970 and had thereby inter-aera fered with the Congressional purpose of attaining clean air by May 31 1975 subject to certain limited and well fined statutory extensions The court directed Mr. Ruckelshaus to inform the 17 states that they must submit to him by April 15 1973 corrected plans to comply fully with the requirements of the Clean Air Act for meeting primary standards by the 1975 target date rather than two years later Such plans the court said Continued on Page 34 Column 1 Reproduced withpermision of the the copyright owner Further reproductiopnrohibted withoutpermis on Court Bars Delay in CleaningCleaning Up Air 1 Continued From Page Col. 1 must include proposals for transportation controls as re quired by the law Mr. Ruckel granted shaus had extended not only On May 31 1972 Mr. Ruck elshaus in announcing which state plans were acceptable or unacceptable said that he had the request of 17 states for a year extension for compliance The states asked Jan 22. The court agreed with the plaintiffs The court directed that Mr. Ruckelhaus approve or dis- approve the amended plans by June 15. an amended state the time for meeting the air for extensions because of in plan will not in the adminis- quality standards but also the ability to meet limits on carbon trator's judgment achieve pri- . time for submitting plans monoxide for and photochemical Mary standards by May 1975 transportation controls to re- oxidents . then the administrator must duce pollutants The states besides New York a plan for the state by prepare According to informed are , Arizona Call Aug 15 sources the environmental fornia Colorado Indlana Kan- Further the court ordered agency will almost certainly sas Maryland . Massachusetts the administrator not to grant not seek to appeal the ruling Minnesota Missouri New Jer ny state extension on at- to the Supreme Court ; sey Ohio Pennsylvania Texas tainment of a primary stand- In another case involving the Utah and Washington ard without determining that said 1970 act a Federal District Mr. Ruckelshaus that the compliance is impossible for _ extensions for carbon monoxide Want of techology or alterna- Court ordered Mr. Ruckels- and oxidants had been granted tive means of meeting the haus yesterday to promulgate because they were directly re standard within 60 days emission stand lated to the need for transpor- Finally the court ordered the ards for three hazardous sub tation controls such as exhaust to review the plans of agency stances H asbestos beryllium control devices on automobiles states to insure that they and mercury Under the law already in use vehicle inspec- provide for maintenance of the Mr. Ruckelshaus was required tion traffic flow car pooling standards after May 31 1975 ~ to issue these final standards and increased use of standards mass they are found deficient as last June 7. On Dec. 4 the En- transit systems Lo to maintenance revised plans - vironmental Defense Fund filed be submitted by April 15 suit to compel compliance with Reasons for Extensions must the law Mr. Ruckelshaus said that the Under the 1970 act states extensions were warranted be- were required to submibty Jan. cause the state of the art on 31 for control auto emissions was 1972their plans primary ing May , the primary not sufficiently developed and ambient ambient standards that the en- the not obtained enough data vironmental agency set for six enough data or experience on polutants particulate matter transportation controls to meet soot sulphur oxides carbon standards that depend on such monoxide hydrocarbons nitro controls , h gen oxides and photochemical For this reason Mr. Ruckels- oxidants smog haus said he advised the states A primary ambient standard in 1971 that they August is one designed to protect pub could defer from Jan. 31 1972 limiting lic health by limiting amount of pollutant in transportaion rounding air until Feb. 15 1973 thatthat portion sur-dealing with transportation controls The law permitted the ad- A week after the announced ministrator to grant a extension on compliance for 17 extension if he found upon states the National Resources suit Governor's request that Defense Council filed a or more emission sources contending that Mr. Ruckels- unable to comply with the state had violated the law by plan because the control granting the year extension nology was not available without an adequate showing alternative methods of that compliance was not feasi- by ducing the pollutants such ble and extending traffic controls or mass transit submitting a transportation the time + ; transportation ; ; were not developed plan The case was argued last'l last'l Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission