More
The new PM standards are going back to the EPA for review,
after the D.C. Appeals Court decided a case concerning several petitions for
review.
The case, American Farm Bureau v. EPA, was decided Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court considered a number of petitions from both industry and environmental groups, but turned most down. The successful petition was that from environmentalists, who questioned the agency's justification for the new standard. "We conclude the EPA failed adequately to explain why, in view of the risks posed by short-term exposures and the evidence of morbidity resulting from long-term exposures, its annual standard is sufficient "to protect the public health [with] an adequate margin of safety," the court wrote in its decision. "Accordingly, we grant the petitions for review in part and remand the annual NAAQS to the EPA for reconsideration."
The court granted in part the petition for review of the EPA's primary annual fine particulate standard, and granted in full the review for the secondary NAAQS.
The case, American Farm Bureau v. EPA, was decided Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court considered a number of petitions from both industry and environmental groups, but turned most down. The successful petition was that from environmentalists, who questioned the agency's justification for the new standard. "We conclude the EPA failed adequately to explain why, in view of the risks posed by short-term exposures and the evidence of morbidity resulting from long-term exposures, its annual standard is sufficient "to protect the public health [with] an adequate margin of safety," the court wrote in its decision. "Accordingly, we grant the petitions for review in part and remand the annual NAAQS to the EPA for reconsideration."
The court granted in part the petition for review of the EPA's primary annual fine particulate standard, and granted in full the review for the secondary NAAQS.
View Pollution Engineering's popular 
