Opinion ID: 362872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the agency's procedures

Text: 29 Turning first, then, to our procedurally oriented review task, we note that in general the Agency appears to have bent over backwards to accommodate public participation in, and understanding of, the promulgation of the effluent limitations before us. No less than four opportunities for public comment on parts or all of the proposed regulations and supporting data were provided by the Agency and liberally utilized by the industry. That EPA made the hoped-for use of these procedures is evidenced by its willingness at each stage to reflect the comments in revisions of its conclusion, 17 and by the fact that members of the industry apparently exhausted most of their comments and criticisms before the Agency exhausted its procedures. Hence, the industry's trade association rejected EPA's offer to hold a formal hearing. 30 The one procedural inadequacy attributed to EPA in this case is of very limited scope. It concerns EPA's derivation of one effluent limitation (out of three in all) for one subdivision of the industry (out of 66 in all): the BOD limitation for acetate grade dissolving sulfite mills. The genesis of this challenge is complicated and somewhat obscure. It revolves around EPA's computation of the secondary waste load 18 that must be treated by typical acetate grade dissolving sulfite mills using BPC-TCA. To derive a typical secondary waste load, the Agency was forced to adjust the limited data available to it, See note 70 Infra, to make it representative of the appropriate mills. The dispute has arisen out of the Agency's identification and computation of the appropriate adjustments. Petitioners contend that, properly adjusted, the figures would show that these mills produce large amounts of waste that are costly to treat. Consequently, they urge that a high cost figure must be utilized in the Agency's cost-benefit balancing. EPA responds that there is not so much waste to treat at a typical mill, and thus that it justifiably used a lower cost estimate than the one argued for by petitioner. 31 EPA originally computed the secondary waste load for these mills at 487 pounds of waste to be treated per ton of product (lbs/ton), App. 1514, a figure to which the industry did not object. 19 Between the publication of the Interim Final Limitations and the Final Limitations, however, the Agency apparently secured new data and recalculated the waste load as lower, I. e., 404 lbs/ton. 20 EPA purportedly arrived at the latter figure after it (1) studied two other factors that it realized would require adjusting the figure upwards and downwards respectively, but then (2) decided to disregard the two factors on the assumption that they cancelled each other out. 21 We say purportedly because the record includes no mention of the two factors, much less of their mode of being considered. Finally, in making its cost calculations, EPA took the 404 lbs/ton figure and reduced it to 314 lbs/ton on a further assumption that it now admits is erroneous. 22 32 Because the industry had no opportunity to comment on either the 314 or 404 lbs/ton figures after the Final Limitations were issued, it made its objection to them in its brief on appeal. 23 It concluded these objections by recalculating secondary waste load and arriving at a figure close to the Agency's original 487 lbs/ton calculation. Brief for Petitioners in Nos. 76-1688 and 76-1690, at Appendix F. Included in its recomputations were some new data that had not been placed in the record. Although counsel for EPA conceded in response that petitioners' objections to the secondary waste load figures were partly correct, they also noted that petitioners' new data were favorable to EPA's conclusions. 24 Counsel asserted that if EPA recalculated secondary waste load based on both the new data, and on the two factors previously disregarded because they were assumed to cancel out, See note 21 Supra and accompanying text, it would arrive at secondary waste load figure of 292 lbs/ton even below its earlier computations. In sum, EPA conceded some errors and deletions but urged that by remaking its computations from scratch, it could justify the figures used in the Final Limitations. 25 33 The labyrinthine trail that must be followed merely to Set forth this dispute without even venturing a guess as to how to resolve it amply illustrates the inadequacy of the procedures followed by the Agency. Most obviously, the defect stems from the inadequacy of the Agency's final published explanation. That explanation includes, and we presume the Agency relied upon, computations now admitted to be erroneous. See note 22 Supra and accompanying text. Further, it deletes mention of a phantom set of not-quite-offsetting adjustments that Agency attorneys now deem crucial to the viability of the EPA's cost determination. See note 21 Supra and accompanying text. 34 Absent a coherent discussion in the record of the factual basis and legislative purpose underlying EPA's conclusion, See 5 U.S.C. § 553, we are unable to rely on our usual assumption that the Agency, when relying on supportable facts and permissible policy concerns and when obligated to explain itself, will rationally exercise the duties delegated to it by Congress. It is for this reason that we take no solace in the fact that the Agency's Counsel, after the fact, may be able convincingly to rationalize the Agency's decision. E. g., Dry Color Mfrs. Ass'n, supra, 486 F.2d at 106. See Vermont Yankee, supra, 98 S.Ct. at 1214, Quoting Camp. v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973). 35 Moreover, the Agency's procedures in this limited instance improperly denied petitioners the opportunity to comment on a significant part of the Agency's decisionmaking process as required by section 553. See American Frozen Food Inst., supra, 539 F.2d at 135, 176 U.S.App.D.C. at 133. Thus, the 404 and 314 lbs/ton figures variously relied upon by the Agency must be validated, if at all, by reference (1) to certain data on two mills obtained by the Agency after the opportunity for public comment had lapsed; (2) other data from one mill that is not reflected in the record at all but was included by petitioners in their brief; 26 and (3) calculations, also not reflected in the record, based on information scattered throughout the record. This denial of an opportunity for comment on these facts further undermines our usual assumption that notice and comment rulemaking, by virtue of its accessibility to public scrutiny, will achieve rational results. 36 Our conclusion does not imply any dissatisfaction with the rule that the Agency need not subject every incremental change in its conclusions after each round of notice and comment to further public scrutiny before final action. E. g., International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 411, 424, 478 F.2d 615, 632 n.51 (1973); South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 F.2d 646, 659 (1st Cir. 1974). But in this case, the Agency's final conclusions are far from the logical outgrowth of the preceding notice and comment process, Id., and instead are the result of a complex mix of controversial and uncommented upon data and calculations. Given the lengths that the Agency must travel to justify its revisions between the interim and final stages, we cannot be sure that further and ultimately convincing public criticism of those changes would not have been forthcoming had it been invited by the Agency. 27 See Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1271-72 n.54 (9th Cir. 1977). 37 For all of the foregoing reasons, therefore, we must remand the regulation setting forth the BOD limitation for acetate grade dissolving sulfite mills. On remand, the Agency should conduct notice and comment proceedings aimed at reassessing and more fully explaining its conclusions concerning that limitation's validity in light of the cost of complying therewith. See id. at 1271-72. 38