Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. U.S. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 06 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | 82-2283,82-2395 and 82-2521,82-2308,Nos. 82-2282,PHASE-DOWN,s. 82-2282 |
| Parties | , 18 ERC 1683, 18 ERC 2033, 227 U.S.App.D.C. 201, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,390, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,391, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,490 SMALL REFINER LEADTASK FORCE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents, Exxon Corporation, et al., Texas City Refining, Inc., Environmental Defense Fund, et al., Texaco, Inc., et al., Intervenors. SMALL REFINER LEADTASK FORCE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents, Exxon Corporation, Sun Refining and Marketing Company, Texas City Refining, Inc., Environmental Defense Fund, et al., Texaco, Inc., et al., Intervenors. SMALL REFINER LEADTASK FORCE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents, Environmental Defense Fund, et al., United Refining Company, Texaco, Inc., et al., Exxon Corporation, et al., Texas City Refining, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Intervenors. PLATEAU, INC., Petitioner, v. Anne M. GORSUCH, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents. SIMMONS OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Anne M. GORSUCH, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
L.L. Hank Hankla, Washington, D.C., with whom Matthew A. Low, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner, Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force.
Patrick M. Raher, Washington, D.C., with whom David J. Hayes, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner, Plateau, Inc.
Scott M. DuBoff, Washington, D.C., with whom John P. Proctor and Sharon L. Steen, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioner, Simmons Oil Company.
Samuel I. Gutter, Atty., E.P.A., Washington, D.C., with whom Carol Dinkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Robert M. Perry, Associate Administrator and Gen. Counsel, Houston, Tex., Gerald K. Gleason, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Robert A. Weissman and Robert E. Kenney, Attys., E.P.A., and David E. Dearing, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for respondents.
G. William Frick, Washington, D.C., for intervenors, Texaco, Inc., et al. Roy L. Jacobs and Thomas Murphy, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for Texaco, Inc., et al.
Robert V. Percival, Washington, D.C., for intervenors, Environmental Defense Fund Eric A. Goldstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., was on the brief for intervenor, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
and Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. Alan Mark Silbergeld, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for intervenors.
Richard P. Noland and Monica A. Otee, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenor, Texas City Refining, Inc.
Frederick M. Lowther, James McNab, III, and Michael E. Nannes, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenor, United Refining Co.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. BACKGROUND ....................................................... 511
A. Early Regulation of Gasoline Lead ............................. 512
B. The Current Regulation ........................................ 512
C. Issues Presented .............................................. 514
II. EPA's STATUTORY AUTHORITY ........................................ 514
A. Authority to Regulate Small Refiners .......................... 515
B. The Relationship Between the Gasoline Lead Standard and the
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead ........................ 516
III. JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT Sec. 307(d) ..................... 518
A. Notice of Rulemaking and Statement of Basis and Purpose ....... 518
B. The Record for Judicial Review ................................ 519
C. Substantive Review ............................................ 519
D. Procedural Review ............................................. 521
IV. THE 1.10 gplg FINAL STANDARD ..................................... 523
A. EPA's Explanation ............................................. 523
1. Health Effects ............................................ 523
2. Feasibliity ............................................... 524
3. Equity and Efficiency ..................................... 525
B. What Constitutes Adequate Agency Reasoning .................... 525
C. Reasonableness of the Final Standard .......................... 526
1. Agency Reversal of Position ............................... 526
2. Health Effects ............................................ 527
a. Gasoline Lead Generally ............................... 527
i. The Correlation Between Gasoline Lead and Blood
Lead Levels ...................................... 527
ii. Incidence of Lead Poisoning ....................... 529
iii. Public Comments ................................... 530
iv. Conclusion on Health Effects ...................... 531
b. The Health Effects of Small Refiner Lead Use .......... 531
i. Sales to Urban Areas .............................. 531
ii. Health Effects in Rural Areas ..................... 533
3. Feasibility ............................................... 534
a. Timely Objection ...................................... 534
b. EPA's Use of Aggregate Analysis ....................... 535
4. Equity and Efficiency ..................................... 536
5. Summary ................................................... 536
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ............................... 537
1. Reviewability of the Analysis ............................. 537
2. Adequacy of the Analysis .................................. 539
E. The July 1, 1983 Effective Date ............................... 539
F. Late Docketing of Comments .................................... 540
G. Conclusion .................................................... 541
V. THE INTERIM 1.90 gplg STANDARD ................................... 542
A. Notice ........................................................ 542
B. Feasibility ................................................... 544
C. What Standard Does EPA Return To? ............................. 545
VI. THE DEFINITION OF "SMALL REFINERY" ............................... 546
A. The Standard for Adequate Notice .............................. 546
B. Past Production Requirement ................................... 547
C. Past Ownership Requirement .................................... 548
1. Notice from EPA ........................................... 548
2. Actual Notice ............................................. 549
3. Notice by Others .......................................... 549
4. The July 1, 1981 Cutoff Date .............................. 551
5. Conclusion ................................................ 551
D. Our Power to Issue a Stay ..................................... 551
VII. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 552
APPENDIX I ............................................................. 552
APPENDIX II ............................................................ 554
Before WILKEY, WALD and MIKVA, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD.
Petitioners Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force (SRTF), Plateau, Inc., and Simmons Oil Co. seek review of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation that sets lead-content limits for leaded gasoline produced by certain "small" refiners. 47 Fed.Reg. 49,322 (Oct. 29, 1982) (). In brief, the new rule: (1) narrows EPA's previous definition of "small refinery"; (2) requires small refiners to meet an interim standard of no more than 1.90 grams of lead per gallon of leaded gasoline (grams per leaded gallon or gplg) as of November 1, 1982; and (3) requires small refiners to meet a final standard (equal to the large refiner standard) of no more than 1.10 gplg as of July 1, 1983.
We vacate the interim 1.90 gplg standard because EPA promulgated it without adequate notice and the standard is not supported by the evidence in the record. We also vacate one clause in the definition of "small refinery" as promulgated without adequate notice and not supported by the evidence in the record. We uphold the remainder of the regulation, including the 1.10 gplg final standard, as within EPA's statutory authority, not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and not procedurally flawed.
Adding lead to gasoline is an inexpensive way to produce the high-octane gasoline needed by today's high-compression auto and truck engines. Other methods of producing high-octane gasoline require refiners to invest large sums in refining equipment and also involve higher operating costs. In particular, a refinery that uses less lead must use more crude oil to produce the same amount of gasoline. Use of lead in gasoline, however, has grave social costs. Lead is highly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Transmission Access Policy Study v. Fed Energy Comm'n.
...a rule.' " Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 340-41 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (quoting Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 537-39 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). In this case, FERC explained that Orders 888 and 889, considered in their entirety, do not have a "significan......
-
American Rivers v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
...conform to `certain minimal standards of rationality' ... the rule is reasonable and must be upheld." Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 521 (D.C.Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). In exercising its narrowly defined review authority under the APA, a court must consid......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar (In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing & § 4(d) Rule Litig.)
...agency's prior regulation continues in effect or whether [its] action leaves no regulation in effect.” Small Refiner Lead Phase–Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 553 (D.C.Cir.1983); see also Fund for Animals v. Norton, 294 F.Supp.2d 92, 115 (D.D.C.2003) (vacating 2003 snowmobile rule an......
-
Banner Health v. Burwell
...of a simpler model,’ " West Virginia v. EPA, 362 F.3d 861, 868 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting Small Refiner Lead Phase–Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 535 (D.C.Cir.1983) ). Therefore, the Court will defer to the agency's choice to use actual historical data for the cost-to-charge ratios rath......
-
TEXTUALISM AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.
...(198) See, e.g., Nat'l Black Media Coal. v. FCC, 791 F.2d 1016, 1022 (2d Cir. 1986); Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 547 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Richard B. Stewart, Vermont Yankee and the Evolution of Administrative Procedure, 91 HARV. L. REV. 1805, (199) Comment, M......
-
Shifting sands: the limits of science in setting risk standards.
...decisions. Divergence from agency precedent demands an explanation." (footnote omitted)); Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 525 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("By EPA's logic, adverse health effects would permit it to justify any lead standard at all, without explaining why ......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IN CONTEXT — ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES IN 21ST CENTURY ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: A NEW ERA IN AGENCY DECISIONMAKING, OR BACK TO THE NEW DEAL?
...the proper performance of our judicial function, when the question is raised by a party whose interests entitle him to raise it."). [162] 705 F.2d 506, 520 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing Harold Leventhal, Environmental Decisionmaking and the Role of the Courts, 122 U.Pa.L.Rev. 509, 514 (1974)). T......
-
Challenges to Federal Agency Action
...State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 29. Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. U.S. Environmental Prot. Agency, 705 F.2d 506, 521 (D.C.Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 30. See Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. Krieger, 513 F.3d 1169, 1176 (10th Cir. 2008). 31. C......