Court Opinion

ID: 9459731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:30:13.256511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:18.763467
License: Public Domain

LEWIS, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I am not prepared to agree that the trial court lacked naked jurisdiction to entertain this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1857h-21 but am in complete accord with the views expressed in the main opinion when projected against the merits of the controversy. However, I wish to add a comment indicating my subjective disapproval of one aspect of E.P.A. procedure which surfaced during the presentation of oral argument.
It appears that the figure of the allowable sulfur oxide emission of 7,040 pounds set by the E.P.A. in its proposed regulation was not the work product of the agency staff and was simply an arbitrary figure, not intended by the agency as one defendable by the E.P.A. as reasonable in fact, and was used only as the bait for discussion at the public hearing to be later scheduled. Since the figure of 7,040 pounds constituted a reduction of 89% in Anaconda’s emission of sulfur oxide such a proposal certainly activated protest and discussion. However such procedure is inherently unfair, might well serve to destroy the value of corporate stock in a lesser company than Anaconda, and most certainly will deter any acceptance of expertise in the E.P.A. by the courts. All proposals by the E.P.A. should reflect, that agency’s considered judgment. Nothing less than that is acceptable to the public, industry, or the courts.

. Although the trial court’s jurisdiction was controverted at the trial level this contention was neither briefed nor argued on appeal.