May 21, 1999

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner says a recent federal appeals court ruling against the way EPA has regulated air particulates is "extreme, illogical and bizarre." The court appears to have concluded that "more pollution could even be good for public health," says Browner.

The decision held that EPA overstepped its legal and constitutional authority in regulating the Clean Air Act. The court found that the EPA had "construed sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act so loosely as to render them unconstitutional delegations of legislative power" and that EPA "appears to have articulated no intelligible principle" as to how it used scientific data in writing the regulations.

At issue in the court decision were regulations issued in July 1997 that imposed tough health standards for ozone and implemented regulation of soot. Hundreds of counties suddenly were in violation of federal air-quality standards. The suit was brought by a broad coalition of industry groups.

"The decision is illogical," Browner told a Senate subcommittee Thursday. "It would have you believe that in 1990, Congress and the Bush Administration broke their sacred trust with the American people and perpetrated a cruel hoax by, on the one hand, directing EPA to strengthen air quality standards, and then, with the other hand, gutting EPA's powers to enforce these standards."

She added that the court "did not say that the air standards were based on bad science. Nor did the court find that the process that produced the standards were insufficient. In fact, the court explicitly recognized the strong scientific and public health rationale for tougher air quality protections."

The court "has struck at the heart and soul of this legislation that is so critical to the health of our families. We are pursuing all options available to us to overturn this decision," Browner said.