Document VK3r544RKKRLY6vMOn4ygQpYo

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 W The By E. KENWORTHYSpecialKENWORTHYSpecial to New York TIN New York Times Current file Feb 2 1973 ProQuest Historical Newspaper The New York Times 185 - 2002 pg 1 a > COURT DELAY on oF CLEANINAGIRtee FF eh Finds Ruckelshaus Erred in Giving 17 States a Year Extension of Deadline = By E. W. KENWORTHY Spetco i TheaNl ew York Times ome WASHINGTON Feb. The Ot United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia TR Circuit has ordered the En- eh vironmental Protection Agency i to rescind its decision allowingae 17 states including New York a two additional years to come into compliance with air pollu In an order issued late yesterday the court said that William D. Ruckelshaus administrator of the agency had acted in the best of faith in granting the extensions Neverthe less the court said that he had violated the strict requirements of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and had thereby interfered 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 with permis ion of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermison Court Bars Delay in Cleaning Up Air From Page 1 Col.1 Continued 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 in the adminis plan will judgment quality standards but also the ability to meet limits on carbon rator'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 prepare a plan for the state by According Aug. state to informed Alabama Arizona Call Aug. 15 sources the environmental Colorado Indlana Kan- Further thethe courtcourt orderedordered agency will almost certainly sas Maryland . Massachusetts the administrator not to grant not seek to appeal the ruling Minnesota Missouri New Jer any an extension on at- to the Supreme Court sey Ohio Texas tainment of a primary stand- PennsyWlasvhiangntoin a In another case involving the Utah and Washington ard without determining that 1970 act a Federal District Mr. Ruckelshaus said that compliance is impossible for _ extensions for carbon monoxide of techology or alterna- Court ordered Mr. Ruckels and oxidants had been granted tive means of meeting the whiatuhsinye6s0tedradyasy etmoisspiroonmusltgaantde blaetceadusteo tthheeyneweedrefodrirtercatnlyspsortanFdinaarlldy the court ordered the ards for three subtation subtation controls such as exhaust to review the plans of agency stances asbestos beryllium control devices on automobiles states to insure that they and mercury Under the law ready in use vehicle inspectandards provide for maintenance of the Mr. Ruckelshaus was required traffic flow car pool inspectandards after May 31 1975. to issue these final standarde tion and increased use of mass inspectandards they are found deficient plans last June 7. On Dec. 4 the En- transit systems to maintenance revised plans . vironmental Defense Fund filed ~ be submitted by April 15 suit to compel compliance with Reasons for Extensions must by the law Mr. Ruckelshaus said that the Under the 1970 act states extensions were warranted be- were required to submit Jan. of art on control the state emis ions 31 1972 their plans for meet control of auto emissions was ing ing by May 1975 the primary sufficiently developeddeveloped and amblent standards that the en the states had not obtained 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 : 4 gen oxides and photochemical For this reason Mr. Ruckels- dealing oxidants smog haus said he advised the states A primary ambient standard in August , 1971 that they is one designed to protect pub could defer from Jan. 31 1972 lic health by limiting the until Feb. 15 1973 that portion amount of pollutant in the sur with transportationtransportation rounding afr controls The law permitted the ad- A week after the announced ministrator to grant a year extension on compliance for 17 extension if he found upon a states the National Resources Governor's request that one Defense Council filed a : suit emission or more emission sources contending that Mr. Ruckelsunable to comply with the state haus had violated the law by plan because the control tech granting the year extension nology was not available or without an adequate showing alternative methods of re that compliance was not feasi- ducing the pollutants such as ble and extending the time traffic controls or mass transit for submitting a transportation transportation were not developed plan The case was argued last Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission