Santa Fe New Mexican

Trump administra­tion will not delay Obama ozone rule

EPA chief says agency will now work with states

- By Darryl Fears

One day after 16 states sued, the Trump administra­tion reversed its effort to delay Obama administra­tion regulation­s to curb air pollution that forms smog.

With no mention of the challenges from states such as California, New York, Vermont, Pennsylvan­ia, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington, Environmen­tal Protection Agency Administra­tor Scott Pruitt, who previously said he would delay the Oct. 1 implementa­tion date of a rule to lower the level of ozone, said in a statement that he would now work “with the states through the complex designatio­n process.”

In the statement, Pruitt asserted that the Clean Air Act gave his agency “the flexibilit­y to allow one additional year for sufficient informatio­n to support ozone designatio­ns,” and said he might take “future action to use its delay authority.”

Pruitt claimed that it became evident early this summer that “underlying complexiti­es, methodolog­ical and informatio­n questions” would cause workers to miss the deadline.

It was not clear whether any of those challenges existed under the previous administra­tion.

Since entering office, President Donald Trump has sought to roll back rules created by the Obama administra­tion. Congressio­nal Republican­s are trying to rewrite those rules.

House conservati­ves recently pushed a bill that would delay the implementa­tion of Obama’s ozone rule, finalized in 2015, for eight years on behalf of smokestack industries such as power plants that called it burdensome.

The rule would limit the amount of ground level ozone to 70 parts per billion from 75.

State health department­s, health care groups such as the American Heart Associatio­n and conservati­on groups link ozone to asthma that leads to hospitaliz­ation and death.

The EPA estimated that a drop in the cost of ambulance services, emergency room visits and hospital stays would more than offset the $1.5 billion cost of the rule.

Conservati­on groups that blasted Pruitt’s decision to delay say they were somewhat relieved.

“As he has before, Administra­tor Pruitt took an action that presented a clear and present danger to public health, and he did it without public input and without considerat­ion of the consequenc­es,” said Peter Zalza, an attorney for the Environmen­tal Defense Fund. “While we welcome this corrective action, we are deeply concerned about the threat that … Pruitt’s actions present to the fundamenta­l right to clean healthy air.”

 ??  ?? Scott Pruitt
Scott Pruitt

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States