El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency is given broad deference to interpret provisions and to act accordingly, so long as its actions, interpretations, and determinations are not arbitrary or capricious.

Under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7409, states must submit a State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) in order to meet national ambient air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). In creating its SIP, California submitted the Wells Memo, which was later corrected by the Howekamp Letter, and was accepted as part of California’s SIP Pesticide Element by the EPA. California further revised its SIP and added fumigant regulations in 2009, which was approved by the EPA in 2012. In response, El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart (“El Comité”) and other organizations filed a petition for review regarding the EPA’s 2012 approval. El Comité commenced action under § 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, alleging that the plain language of the Pesticide Element requires a 20 percent, not 12 percent reduction, the revisions and fumigation regulations did not fulfill the Pesticide Element’s commitment, and that California’s assurances of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act were inadequate. The Ninth Circuit failed to agree with any of El Comité's arguments, and denied the petition for review. The panel held that the EPA made reasonable conclusions concerning the sufficiency of the revisions and fumigation regulations, and that it would be inappropriate to discard the EPA’s conclusions absent arbitrary and capricious action. The panel further upheld the EPA’s determination that California met the Pesticide Element requirements, finding the determination rational, and not capricious or arbitrary. Lastly, the panel held that the EPA was acting within its discretion by finding that California made the necessary assurances of compliance with federal and state laws, as required under the Clean Air Act, because the EPA’s decision was supported by California’s response to the EPA’s inquiries and reports concerning the new effects of the new regulations. DENIED.