Opinion ID: 2799582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The EPA Reasonably Construed the Pesticide

Text: Element’s Ambiguous Language as Committing to a 12% Reduction in Emissions for the San Joaquin Valley by 1999 Section 110(l) of the Act, the so-called anti-backsliding provision, states that the EPA “shall not approve a revision of a [SIP] if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirements of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l). When approving the SIP Revision, the EPA found that the Pesticide Element committed to a 12% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels for the San Joaquin Valley by 1999. It therefore concluded that the SIP Revision’s 18.1 tpd emissions cap, which corresponds to a 12% reduction from 1990 levels, did not weaken the existing commitment in violation of § 110(l). El Comité contends that the plain language of the Pesticide Element requires a 20% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels in the San Joaquin Valley, not a 12% reduction. Thus, it argues that the EPA failed to consider whether the SIP Revision’s 18.1 tpd emissions cap would weaken the existing SIP in violation of § 110(l). The difficulty with this argument is that the Pesticide Element’s commitment to reduce VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley is ambiguous, because it refers to both a 12% reduction and a 20% reduction. As approved, the Pesticide Element includes both the Element itself and the Howekamp Letter, which is incorporated by reference. The Pesticide Element itself does not refer to the 20% emissions reduction EL COMITÉ PARA EL BIENESTAR DE EARLIMART V. EPA 15 as a “commitment,” but only as a “goal” or “target.” The Howekamp Letter, however, explicitly states that the “commitment is for a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2005 in each SIP area . . . .” But the Howekamp Letter then goes on to say that California is taking credit only for a 12% reduction for the San Joaquin Valley in its 1999 attainment year, and that the table from the Wells Memo showing a 20% reduction by 2005 in that area is deleted. Additionally, the spreadsheets attached to the Howekamp Letter, which it says “identify the reductions that the State committed to achieve,” show a 12% reduction in VOC emissions in 1999 for the San Joaquin Valley. The Howekamp Letter thus creates ambiguity because it is internally contradictory, referencing both a 12% and 20% reduction commitment. Further, its reference to a 20% commitment is inconsistent with the Pesticide Element’s description of 20% as a “goal.” Because the plain language of the relevant documents is ambiguous, we defer to the EPA’s interpretation if it is reasonable, i.e., if it “sensibly conforms to the purpose and wording of the regulations.” Crown Pacific v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 197 F.3d 1036, 1038 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Safe Air, 488 F.3d at 1095–96. After considering the Pesticide Element in its entirety, the EPA concluded that it committed the State to a 12% reduction in VOC emissions from 1990 levels in the San Joaquin Valley by 1999, and that the 20% figure was not a commitment but an aspirational goal. This interpretation is supported by the Pesticide Element’s language, which repeatedly refers to the 20% reduction as a “goal” and “target,” and reserves flexibility to adjust that goal. While the Howekamp Letter does at one point state that the “commitment is for a 20% 16 EL COMITÉ PARA EL BIENESTAR DE EARLIMART V. EPA reduction,” giving that language controlling effect would require us to ignore both the reference to a 12% commitment and the description of the 20% figure as a “goal.” “[O]ur task is to interpret the regulation as a whole, . . . not to give force to one phrase in isolation.” Bayview, 366 F.3d at 701 (quoting Campesinos Unidos, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 803 F.2d 1063, 1069 (9th Cir. 1986)). The EPA’s interpretation is also consistent with the Pesticide Element’s purpose within the larger regulatory scheme. The Pesticide Element, as a part of California’s SIP, was designed to attain the ozone standards set by the Act. To attain the ozone NAAQS by its 1999 deadline, the San Joaquin Valley had to reduce VOC emissions at least 12% from 1990 levels. We interpret the SIP “in light of the overall statutory and regulatory scheme.” Bayview, 366 F.3d at 701 (quoting Campesinos Unidos, 803 F.2d at 1069). It therefore makes sense to interpret the 12% reduction necessary to achieve attainment as the Pesticide Element’s firm commitment, with the more optimistic 20% reduction as an aspirational goal. See Bayview, 366 F.3d at 702 (applying similar reasoning to reject argument that a SIP measure, which “was not a mandated condition precedent to NAAQS attainment,” was an enforceable commitment). El Comité points out that in the Howekamp Letter, California said it was taking credit for a 12% reduction, and argues that “taking credit” for a reduction and committing to a reduction are two different things. Under the Act, California’s SIP had to include an attainment demonstration and reasonable further progress demonstration for the San Joaquin Valley as an ozone nonattainment area. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(1), 7511a. El Comité thus contends that the Howekamp Letter’s statement about “taking credit” EL COMITÉ PARA EL BIENESTAR DE EARLIMART V. EPA 17 for a 12% reduction in 1999 merely clarified that for purposes of those required demonstrations, California was not using the 20% figure; instead, it was using the reduction percentage each area was projected to achieve in its attainment year. Because the San Joaquin Valley was the only area covered by the Pesticide Element with an attainment year prior to 2005, El Comité argues that the letter was being careful to take credit only for a partial 12% reduction in the Valley’s attainment demonstrations for 1999, not creating a different commitment. El Comité’s interpretation may be plausible, but it requires us to read into the Howekamp Letter more than it states. In light of the Pesticide Element’s ambiguous language we must, in any event, give deference to the EPA’s interpretation so long as it is reasonable. See Crown Pacific, 197 F.3d at 1038. The EPA’s interpretation is supported by the language of the Pesticide Element and the documents incorporated therein, and it also is consistent with the California SIP’s overall regulatory purpose. We hold that the EPA did not arbitrarily and capriciously fail to consider whether the SIP Revision violated § 110(l) of the Act, because it reasonably interpreted the Pesticide Element as committing to a 12% reduction in VOC emissions from 1990 levels by 1999 in the San Joaquin Valley.