American Chemistry Council Statement On Supreme Court Decision on Clean Air Law

ARCHIVED 2002–2016: Originally distributed via the eWire press wire service. Preserved as historical record.

SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE |

Conservation & Wildlife

Corporate Responsibility

Science & Technology

Syndication Partners

**************************************************************************

E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE

**************************************************************************

TO NATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDITORS:

American Chemistry Council Statement On Supreme Court Decision on Clean Air Law

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, Feb. 28 -/E-Wire/-- The following statement was issued February 28, 2001, by David Zoll, vice president and general counsel of the American Chemistry Council, on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on EPA's revised 1997 national ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone and particulate matter. For additional information on this subject, contact Kate McGloon at [REDACTED-PHONE] or [REDACTED-EMAIL].

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutionality of the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) setting process and barred the Administrator from considering costs in that process. As we've pointed out in the past, this case is about more than whether agencies such as the EPA should determine what potential regulations might cost. It's also about improving the quality of government decision-making by making sure that government is spending money wisely and where it will do the most good for the most people. And that problem doesn't go away with the Court's decision.

The Court, nonetheless, laid out some important principles that should guide the Administrator's discretion when setting NAAQS. For example, the Court instructed the Administrator on the words of the statute relating to her duty to set a standard "requisite to protect public health." The Court said that meant an exacting standard of "not lower or higher than is necessary." Finally, the Court indicated that the Administrator has considerable discretion in determining what is needed to protect human health.

People overwhelmingly think it's a good idea for the government to calculate both what the costs and the benefits of regulations are likely to be. Comparing risks and problems, determining what the costs of regulations might be, and having government clearly state what benefits might be expected from the regulationsâpeople think having the government do these things is a good idea.

The business of chemistry has been a supporter of the Clean Air Act and has worked continuously to improve its environmental performance. The Council also has been a strong supporter of the EPA's efforts to expand the public's right to know environmental information. Like the public, we believe better information leads to better decision-making. And we believe better decision-making is part of improving environmental performance, something our member companies take seriously.

American Chemistry Council

Kate McGloon at [REDACTED-PHONE] or [REDACTED-EMAIL]

http://http://www.cmahq.com/

**************************************************************************

To Transmit Your News Over E-Wire, visit http://www.ewire.com or

call 1-[REDACTED-PHONE]. E-Wire Is Broadcast To Millions Of Readers Worldwide

**************************************************************************