Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01159/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01159-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Battery Council International
Intervenor
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
National Apartment Association
Petitioner
National Leased Housing Association
Petitioner
National Multi Housing Council
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 19, 2002 Decided June 7, 2002

No. 01-1159

National Multi Housing Council;

National Apartment Association;

National Leased Housing Association,

Petitioners

v.

United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent

Battery Council International,

Intervenor

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Environmental Protection Agency

J. Marks Moore III argued the cause for the petitioners.

Samuel M. Riley was on brief.

USCA Case #01-1159 Document #682109 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 1 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Jon M. Lipshultz, Attorney, United States Department of

Justice, argued the cause for the respondent. John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department

of Justice, and Alan Carpien, Attorney, United States Environmental Protection Agency, were on brief.

David B. Weinberg and Edward Loring Ferguson, Jr.

entered appearances for the intervenor.

Before: Henderson, Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: In 1992 the

Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X1 or Act), which, inter alia,

amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C.

ss 2601 et seq., by adding Title IV entitled "Lead Exposure

Reduction." In 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) issued its final "Lead Rule" pursuant to section 403 of

TSCA, 15 U.S.C. s 2683. See Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead, 66 Fed. Reg. 1206 (2001). The

petitioners, three trade associations representing the multifamily rental housing industry, challenge the Lead Rule's

"regardless of source interpretation," which construes the

statutory term "lead-based paint hazard" to include "leadbased paint and all residential lead-containing dusts and soils

regardless of the source of the lead, which, due to their

condition and location, would result in adverse human health

effects." Id. at 1207 (emphasis added). The petitioners

assert EPA's decision to include all hazardous lead-containing

dust and soil, whether or not the source of the lead is leadbased paint, is contrary to the Congress's intent in enacting

Title X and is arbitrary and capricious.2 We reject the

petitioners' challenge for the reasons set forth below.

__________

1 The legislation was enacted as Title X of the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-550, 106

Stat. 3672 (1992).

2 The petitioners also assert the regardless of source interpretation violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution but this argument is waived

I.

Title X directs EPA and the Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) to take various actions to protect

the public from any lead-based paint hazard by reducing such

hazard3 or, of particular relevance here, by requiring disclosure of it. Section 1018(a)(1) of Title X directs HUD and

EPA to promulgate regulations for the disclosure of leadbased paint hazards in "target housing," that is, "housing

constructed prior to 1978," 42 U.S.C. s 4851b(27), which is

offered for sale or lease. See 42 U.S.C. s 4852d(a). Accordingly, in 1996, EPA and HUD jointly promulgated a final

"Disclosure Rule" which requires an owner of target housing

to disclose "the presence of any known lead-based paint

and/or lead-based paint hazards" before a purchaser or lessee

"is obligated under a contract to purchase or lease target

USCA Case #01-1159 Document #682109 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 2 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

housing." See 61 Fed. Reg. 9064, 9082 (1996) (codified at 24

__________

because it was not raised before EPA. See National Wildlife Fed'n

v. EPA, 286 F3d 554, 562 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ("It is well established

that issues not raised in comments before the agency are waived

and this Court will not consider them.") (citing Nat'l Elec. Mfrs.

Ass'n v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1170, 1171 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Washington

Ass'n for Television & Children v. FCC, 712 F.2d 677, 681 (D.C.

Cir. 1983)).

3 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. s 4822 (HUD "shall establish procedures to

eliminate as far as practicable the hazards of lead based paint

poisoning" and "shall provide for appropriate measures to conduct

risk assessments, inspections, interim controls, and abatement of

lead-based paint hazards" with respect to target housing covered by

HUD mortgage insurance or assistance payments); id. s 4852

(HUD "is authorized to provide grants to eligible applicants to

evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards in nonpublic housing"); id. s 4852a (HUD and EPA "shall establish a task force to

make recommendations on expanding resources and efforts to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards in private housing"); id.

s 4852c (HUD, "in consultation with the [EPA, DOL and HHS],

shall issue guidelines for the conduct of federally supported work

involving risk assessments, inspections, interim controls, and abatement of lead-based paint hazards").

USCA Case #01-1159 Document #682109 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 3 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

C.F.R. s 35.88 (HUD codification); 40 C.F.R. s 745.107

(EPA codification)).

Section 403 of TSCA further requires that EPA "promulgate regulations which shall identify ... lead-based paint

hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil."

15 U.S.C. s 2683. Pursuant to this directive, on January 5,

2001 EPA issued its final Lead Rule, which, as noted above,

included EPA's regardless of source interpretation that the

term "lead-based paint hazard" is "intended to identify leadbased paint and all residential lead-containing dusts and soils

regardless of the source of the lead, which, due to their

condition and location, would result in adverse human health

effects." 66 Fed. Reg. at 1207. The petitioners seek review

of this portion of the Lead Rule insofar as it requires them to

disclose lead contamination in dust and soil from sources

other than lead-based paint.

II.

The petitioners first assert the language of Title X must be

construed to refer only to lead hazards from lead-based paint.

In construing statutory language we use the familiar Chevron

analysis:

If ... " 'Congress has directly spoken to the precise

question at issue,' " we "must give effect to Congress's

'unambiguously expressed intent.' " Secretary of Labor

v. F[ed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n], 111

F.3d 913, 917 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Chevron USA,

Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467

U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)). "If

'the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the

specific issue,' we ask whether the agency's position rests

on a 'permissible construction of the statute.' " Id. (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778).

Cyprus Emerald Resources Corp. v. Fed. Mine Safety &

Health Review Comm'n, 195 F.3d 42, 45 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

The petitioners maintain that EPA's regardless of source

interpretation contravenes the Congress's unambiguously exUSCA Case #01-1159 Document #682109 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 4 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

pressed intent to target contamination from lead-based paint

only. In support, they point to the repeated references to

lead-based paint and to "lead-based paint hazards" throughout Title X, including, notably, both in section 1018(a)(1),

which authorized EPA and HUD to promulgate their joint

disclosure rule, and in the legislation's title; the definition of

"target housing" to include only "housing constructed prior to

1978," the year the Consumer Product Safety Commission

banned residential use of lead-based paint, see 61 Fed. Reg.

s 9066; and the focus of the pre-enactment congressional

hearings on the dangers posed by lead-based paint.

By contrast, EPA maintains that the regardless of source

interpretation is consistent with the statutory language and,

in particular, with the statutory definition of "lead-based paint

hazard" as "any condition that causes exposure to lead from

lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, leadcontaminated paint that is deteriorated or present in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces that would

result in adverse human health effects as established by the

appropriate Federal agency." 42 U.S.C. s 4851b(15); 15

U.S.C. s 2681(1). EPA contends that because the three lead

sources--dust, soil and deteriorated paint--are enumerated

separately, and neither "lead-contaminated dust" nor "leadcontaminated soil" is anywhere defined to require that the

lead contamination derive from paint, the Act permits regulation of lead contaminated dust and soils regardless of the

source of the lead.

We agree with EPA that the Act's definition does not

represent the Congress's " 'unambiguously expressed' " intent

in view of the statutory definition which broadens the term

beyond its literal meaning by including lead-contaminated

dust and soil without expressly limiting the source of the

contamination to lead-based paint. This being so, we apply

the second step of Chevron and conclude that EPA's interpretation reflects "a permissible construction of the statute."

Cyprus Emerald, 195 F.3d at 45.

The arbitrary and capricious standard requires only that an

agency "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactoUSCA Case #01-1159 Document #682109 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 5 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ry explanation for its action including a 'rational connection

between the facts found and the choice made.' " Motor

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463

U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v.

United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). EPA satisfied this

standard here. In its response to comments, EPA explained

that "while [its] decision to cover lead in dust or soil regardless of the source of the lead is based on the directives of the

statute," it is also justified for the additional reason that there

is no "good technical basis to exclude from coverage based on

the lead source, dust or soil--particularly dust and soil with

high levels of lead." EPA Response to Comments at 32-33

(Dec. 22, 2000). Among the technical problems EPA cited is

that, "as a practical matter, with current scientific technology,

it is not possible to determine with good precision how much

of the lead in dust or soil in a specific room or area originated

from lead paint in a specific dwelling unit on a specific

building component" so that "there is a distinct absence of a

scientific method to determine conclusively that the source of

lead in dust or soil is not paint on a routine basis." Id at 31-

32. At oral argument the petitioners' counsel agreed that it

is impossible "under current technology" to ascertain whether

lead contamination in soil and dust derives from lead-based

paint or from some other source. In light of the technological

limitation, EPA reasonably required disclosure of all lead

contaminated soil and dust regardless of source in order to

carry out the Congress's undisputed intent to require disclosure and abatement of all hazardous contamination from leadbased paint. A contrary rule requiring disclosure only of

contamination known to be from paint, which appears to be

what the petitioners seek, would inevitably prevent disclosure

of some paint-based contamination because its source cannot

be determined.4

__________

4 It is not clear that EPA's regardless of source interpretation

even imposes any additional disclosure obligation on the petitioners.

At oral argument their counsel all but acknowledged that in the

absence of EPA's interpretation a seller would nevertheless be

obligated to disclose lead contamination.

USCA Case #01-1159 Document #682109 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 6 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

Denied.

USCA Case #01-1159 Document #682109 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 7 of 7