Opinion ID: 321074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 0.05 Gram/Gallon Lead Content Ceiling

Text: 78 In the margin we set out the Statement's justification for selecting 0.05 gram/gallon as the lead content ceiling for 'unleaded gasoline.' 47 Petitioners allege that the Agency has failed to show (1) that a higher ceiling would prove harmful to converters or (2) that the oil industry can meet the prescribed ceiling. Petitioners additionally contend (3) that the rationality of the prescribed ceiling must remain in doubt until the Agency announces the 'test methods' it will use in measuring trace levels of lead. We are unpersuaded by these arguments. 79 ( 1) The Agency heard credible and uncontradicted testimony, informed by experimental evidence, to the effect that converters are poisoned by gasoline which averages more than 0.03 gram/gallon of lead. 48 The Statement finds that a 0.05 gram/gallon ceiling is necessary to keep average lead content at or below 0.03 gram/gallon. The question before us is whether this conclusion was arbitrary or capricious, given that petitioners had urged the adequacy of a 0.07 gram/gallon ceiling, a figure once recommended as a definition of 'unleaded gasoline' by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 49 80 For two reasons we must show considerable deference to the Agency's conclusion. First, the conclusion is in the nature of a prediction for which supporting data is necessarily sparse or absent. The average figure resulting from adoption of any given ceiling figure will depend entirely on how the oil companies respond to the chosen ceiling figure. If the companies decide to maintain lead levels well below the ceiling, the average will also be well below the ceiling; if the companies 'hug' the ceiling, the average will be considerably higher. Exactly how the companies will choose to behave cannot be known before the Regulations go into effect. To a large degree, therefore, we are dealing with an informed hunch or guess. EPA is closer to the scene, and has more expertise in these matters, than the courts, and we must therefore hesitate before replacing the Agency's predictions with our own. The second reason for judicial deference is that the 0.05 gram/gallon ceiling expresses the Agency's attitude toward competing risks: If the ceiling is set too high, many converters will be poisoned; if the ceiling is unnecessarily low, the cleanup effort required of the oil industry will be larger than necessary. The Agency's decision therefore 'rests in the final analysis on an essentially legislative policy judgment, rather than a factual determination, concerning the relative risks of underprotection as compared to overprotection.' Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, supra, 162 U.S.App.D.C. at , 499 F.2d at 475. 81 Turning to the record, we find adequate support for the Agency's decision to select a ceiling figure no higher than 0.05 gram/gallon. The Aerospace Report, cited by EPA, noted that the 0.07 gram/gallon figure proposed by petitioners 'was apparently based on refinery and distribution considerations, rather than catalyst life considerations,' and that 'many of the automakers and catalyst manufacturers have stated that the    value of 0.07 gram/gallon is probably too high.' 50 The 0.05 gram/gallon figure was characterized either as too high or as the highest figure tolerable by various converter manufacturers. 51 Finally, the Agency closely studied the experience of Amoco, the only oil company presently delivering unleaded gasoline on a large scale. Amoco's product averages 0.03 gram/gallon or less. The company formally sets itself a 0.07 gram/gallon ceiling, but in fact some 92 per cent of its gasoline is at or below 0.05 gram/gallon. 52 Faced with this evidence and testimony, and with the pressing need to ensure that lead content will not average more than 0.03 gram/gallon, EPA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in selecting a ceiling figure of 0.05 gram/gallon. 53 82 (2) Throughout these proceedings the oil companies have expressed doubt that they can deliver gasoline which always contains 0.05 gram/gallon or less. To support its determination that the 0.05 gram/gallon ceiling is feasible EPA need not show that the oil companies are already supplying gasoline below the ceiling 100 per cent of the time. On the other hand, the Administrator's latitude for 'protection is subject to the restraints of reasonableness, and does not open the door to 'crystal ball' inquiry.' Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, supra, 158 U.S.App.D.C. at 324, 486 F.2d at 391. See also International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, supra, 155 U.S.App.D.C. at 425, 478 F.2d at 629. Within these parameters, we are persuaded that the record adequately shows the feasibility of the 0.05 gram/gallon ceiling. As noted above, Amoco already meets the standard with 92 per cent of its product; this is achieved without the inducement of legal compulsion and, indeed, without the benefit of a 0.05 gram/gallon target figure. Furthermore, the Agency was presented with evidence that, in the New York City area, unleaded gasoline available in 55 gas stations was below the 0.05 gram/gallon level in 54 of the stations; in fact, at 98 per cent of the stations the gasoline sampled was below the 0.03 gram/gallon level. 54 The oil companies have pointed to no scientific or technological obstacles to meeting the 0.05 gram/gallon ceiling. Rather, the problem is a straightforward one of cost and effort. 55 The Agency's prediction of feasibility is neither arbitrary nor capricious. 83 ( 3) The Agency deferred promulgating the test methods by which it will detect violations of the 0.05 gram/gallon ceiling. 56 Petitioners argue that the rationality of the ceiling cannot be determined until the method of measuring it is known. We agree that it would be better practice for the Agency to promulgate its standards and test methods at the same time, but there is no fixed requirement to this effect. We have stated that 84 a significant difference between techniques used by the agency in arriving at standards, and requirements presently prescribed for determining compliance with standards, raises serious questions about the validity of the standard. 85 Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, supra, 158 U.S.App.D.C. at 329, 486 F.2d at 396. Should such a 'significant difference' appear upon final promulgation of test methods in these Regulations, the court reviewing those methods may have to regard their promulgation as an effective alteration in the lead content ceiling, which alteration would itself be subject to review. But this is clearly a matter for future proceedings. 86 Petitioners also contend that any test methods adopted will involve a certain capacity for statistical error. We fail to appreciate the force of this argument. The possibility of statistical measurement error, which is often unavoidable where regulations set quantitative standards, does not detract from an agency's power to set such standards. It merely deprives the agency of the power to find a violation of the standards, in enforcement proceedings, where the measured departure from them is within the boundaries of probable measurement error. Furthermore, if the test methods eventually adopted raise a greater potential for error than is practical or necessary, a reviewing court may order revisions.