WASHINGTON - The American Chemistry Council, Clean Air Implementation Project, and others have filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency seeking to limit the scope of greenhouse gas emissions control requirements for new and modified stationary sources to a few hundred facilities per year, BNA Daily Report for Executives reports.

According to the EPA's greenhouse gas tailoring rule, announced in May, greenhouse gas emissions control requirements are limited to only the largest emissions sources, which affects about 1,600 sources a year.

The suit seeks to limit greenhouse gas emissions control requirements to only those new and modified sources that are already required to reduce "criteria" pollutants emissions, of which there are about 700 sources each year (according to the agency). The suit argues that the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions (required to control emissions of criteria pollutants) should not be triggered by anything other than those criteria pollutants, which do not include greenhouse gases. However, once a source is subject to PSD regulation, greenhouse gas emissions controls would take effect. The EPA tailoring rule would apply this logic for only the first six months after finalization, this suit seeks to extend this treatment permanently.

Several environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Sierra Club, and the Conservation Law Foundation, objected to the suit, filing a motion saying, "In re-litigating the fundamentals of the PSD program, air quality across the country would be put at risk."

"An attempt to weaken these longstanding clean air protections is like trying to bring back the days when cars didn't need seat belts," said David Baron, an attorney for Earthjustice representing the EDF. "These vital clean air rules have been in place for more than 30 years, and the time for challenging them passed long ago. If anything, the evidence today shows we need more, not less protection from air pollution."

Correction: The above article was published on August 12, 2010. ACC did not file suit on the EPA tailoring rule; the following statement was issued by the ACC:

"The American Chemistry Council (ACC) did not file suit against EPA's 'Tailoring Rule.' Rather, our focus is on which pollutants should trigger the applicability definition of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements. We believe PSD is triggered only by the construction or major modification of a major source emitting a NAAQS pollutant in an area designated as "attainment" or "unclassifiable" for that criteria pollutant. We believe our view is consistent with Congress's establishment of the PSD program, which is intended to prevent the deterioration of air quality in areas designated as 'in attainment' for specific criteria pollutants. EPA's approach, by contrast, would require PSD permits for emission of ANY pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

"Now that carbon dioxide and other GHGs have become 'subject to regulation' under the Clean Air Act (per EPA's recent finalization of the Section 202 Light Duty Motor Vehicle Rule), ACC believes there is an urgent need for EPA to re-examine its interpretation of PSD applicability, which we believe is inappropriately expansive and inconsistent with the language of the Clean Air Act and Congress's intent. Our administrative petition asks EPA to reconsider, rescind, or revise its PSD regulations so that they apply only when a major source emits a criteria pollutant for which there is a NAAQS. Our July 6 'petitions for review' filed in the DC Circuit seek review of past PSD rulemakings - the basis for court review is CAA Section 307's "grounds arising after."