%PDF-1.4
%âãÏÓ
1 0 obj
[
/PDF /Text
]
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 104 0 R
/Metadata 107 0 R
>>
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
4 0 obj
<< /Length 5 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 13 Tf 100 Tz
88.1395 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(FOR PUBLICATION) Tj
/F1 15 Tf 100 Tz
-78.2395 -24 Td
1.5 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
43.47 -15.2 Td
(FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-53.37 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
(ü) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Governor, of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATE) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALIFORNIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( and the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALIFORNIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ESOURCES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OARD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
123 -13.2 Td
(Petitioner,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123 -18 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OAST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( Q) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UALITY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANAGEMENT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ISTRICT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HEVRON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S.A., I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.; W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ESTERN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
215.07 -6.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(No. 01-71356) Tj
-215.07 -6.6 Td
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETROLEUM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
226.734 -11.4 Td
(EPA No.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-158.382 -1.8 Td
(Petitioner-Intervenor,) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
113.268 -6.1 Td
2 Tw
(ý) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
20.616 -5.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(EPA 420-S-01-008) Tj
-119.736 -6.6 Td
(v.) Tj
141.84 -11.4 Td
(OPINION) Tj
-224.34 -6.6 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NVIRONMENTAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROTECTION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(GENCY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
115.008 -13.2 Td
(Respondent,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-115.008 -18 Td
(N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROWERS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENEWABLE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UELS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
60.36 -13.2 Td
(Respondent-Intervenor.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
121.26 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
(þ) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-136.734 -24.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(On Petition for Review of an Order of the) Tj
21.924 -12.6 Td
(Environmental Protection Agency) Tj
27.66 -25 Td
(Argued and Submitted) Tj
-58.188 -12.6 Td
(February 12, 2003ÐSan Francisco, California) Tj
65.58 -25 Td
(Filed July 17, 2003) Tj
-101.316 -25 Td
(Before: William) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(C.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Canby,) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Jr., Diarmuid) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(F.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(O'Scannlain, and) Tj
61.092 -12.5 Td
(William) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(A.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Fletcher, Circuit Judges.) Tj
25.062 -25 Td
(Opinion by Judge Canby;) Tj
-41.85 -12.6 Td
(Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by) Tj
59.058 -12.6 Td
(Judge O'Scannlain) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -65.15 m 183.8 -65.15 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -186.9 m 186.6 -73 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -317.8 m 186.6 -203.9 l s
.9 w 0 -324.75 m 183.3 -324.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
295 -664.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9775) Tj
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
4973
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300 250
333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278 500
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500 930
722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778 611
778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500 333
500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500 556
556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400 722
556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 667
611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 500
333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556 667
500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500 500
333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000
722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000 389
1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722 722
722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 92 0 R
/FontDescriptor 93 0 R
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300 250
333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278 500
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444 921
722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722 556
722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500 333
444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500 500
500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400 667
500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 611
556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611 444
333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556 611
500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444 500
333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000
722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980 333
889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722 722
667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 94 0 R
/FontDescriptor 95 0 R
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278 500
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444 549
722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722 768
741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500 500
631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549 549
521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603 400
549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658 823
686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 768
713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603 494
329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494 790
329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 96 0 R
/FontDescriptor 97 0 R
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300 250
333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278 500
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500 920
611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722 611
722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500 333
500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500 500
500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400 667
500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611 611
611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611 500
389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500 611
500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500 500
333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 889
667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980 333
889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722 722
667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 98 0 R
/FontDescriptor 99 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [ 3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 25 0 R ]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 104 0 R
>>
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<< /Length 13 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -27.6 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.2 Td
2.33 Tw
(Russell B. Hildreth, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(California, for the petitioner. ) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
3.33 Tw
(Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.83 Tw
(Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.14 Tw
(Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondents.) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
1.25 Tw
(Jeri G. Voge, Fran M. Layton, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
7.66 Tw
(L.L.P., San Francisco, California, for the petitioners-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(intervenors. ) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
6 Tw
(Michael E. Ward, Swindler, Berlin, Shereff, Friedman,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for the respondents-intervenors. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s
.5 w 0 -236.35 m 300 -236.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9778) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
1281
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<< /Length 16 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -26 Td
(CANBY, Circuit Judge: ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.38 Tw
(California Governor Gray Davis and the California Air) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.94 Tw
(Resources Board \() Tj
(ªCARB) Tj
(º\) \(collectively ) Tj
(ªCalifornia) Tj
(º\) peti-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(tion for review of an order of the United States Environmental) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(Protection Agency \() Tj
(ªEPA) Tj
(º\) denying their request for a waiver) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(of the oxygen level requirement under the federal reformu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(lated gasoline program. The EPA denied the waiver on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(ground that California had not clearly demonstrated that a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(waiver would have a beneficial effect on ozone pollution, and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(ruled that it was unnecessary to consider the effect a waiver) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(would have on particulate matter pollution. We conclude that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.06 Tw
(the EPA abused its discretion in refusing to consider and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(weigh the effect of the proposed waiver on particulate matter) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(pollution along with its effect on ozone levels. We accord-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(ingly grant the petition for review, vacate the EPA's order,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(and remand for further proceedings. We reject, however, Cali-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.34 Tw
(fornia's other technical and procedural challenges to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(EPA's action. ) Tj
/F5 12 Tf 100 Tz
45.018 -26 Td
(FACTS AND AGENCY PROCEEDINGS) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-45.018 -26 Td
(The Clean Air Act) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.04 Tw
(The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.04 Tw
(7401-7671q, authorizes) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(the EPA to set attainment standards \(National Ambient Air) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.24 Tw
(Quality Standards, or ) Tj
(ªNAAQS) Tj
(º\) for several air pollutants,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(including ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.7 Tw
(7409. Each state is required to adopt an imple-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(mentation plan to meet the NAAQS for each air quality con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(trol region within the state. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(7410. ) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
3.05 Tw
(In 1990, Congress established the reformulated gasoline) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(\(ªRFGº\) program as part of its amendments to the Clean Air) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.97 Tw
(Act. The statutory scheme requires the use of only RFG in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(certain high smog-ozone areas designated as non-attainment) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9779) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
3180
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Times-BoldItalic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 606 606 300 300 250
389 555 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278 500
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500 832
667 667 667 722 667 667 722 778 389 500 667 611 889 722 722 611
722 667 556 611 722 667 889 667 611 611 333 278 333 570 500 333
500 500 444 500 444 333 500 556 278 278 500 278 778 556 500 500
500 389 389 278 556 444 667 500 444 389 348 220 348 570 400 667
556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 667 667 667
611 500 500 500 500 556 556 444 722 722 667 667 667 667 667 500
389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556 667
500 500 500 250 667 500 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500 500
333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 576 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000
722 556 250 250 250 556 389 611 444 556 611 389 747 747 1000 389
944 389 266 389 389 722 722 611 722 944 300 722 722 722 722 722
722 611 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 100 0 R
/FontDescriptor 101 0 R
>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 19 0 R
>>
endobj
19 0 obj
<< /Length 20 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.27 Tw
0 Tc
(areas for NAAQS. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.27 Tw
(7545\(k\). As part of its) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.95 Tw
(program, Congress mandated that RFG contain at least two) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.81 Tw
(percent oxygen by weight. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.81 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\).) Tj
0 -13 Td
.09 Tw
(The primary choices of oxygenates to add to RFG to reach the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(two percent oxygen level are ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(ether \() Tj
(ªMTBE) Tj
(º\). The Clean Air Act authorizes the Adminis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(trator of the EPA to waive the oxygen content requirement if) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.21 Tw
(the Administrator determines ) Tj
(ªthat compliance with such) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(requirement would prevent or interfere with the attainment by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(the area of a national primary ambient air quality standard.) Tj
(º) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26 Td
(California's RFG Waiver Request) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
4.24 Tw
(After determining that seepage and other discharge of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.32 Tw
(MTBE was threatening public drinking water supplies, Cali-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(fornia banned MTBE effective December 31, 2002. Approxi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(mately seventy percent of the state's gasoline, however, is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(subject to federal RFG standards. As a result of California's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.22 Tw
(decision to ban MTBE, refiners faced the prospect of oxy-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(genating approximately ten billion gallons of gasoline a year) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(using ethanol in order to comply with the federal two percent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(oxygen requirement. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.47 Tw
(Studies by CARB revealed that using ethanol as the substi-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(tute oxygenate in California gasoline would have detrimental) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(economic and environmental impacts on the state. California) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(refiners would require 75,000 barrels of ethanol per day, out) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(of the 80,000 barrels per day produced in the United States.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(In addition, CARB's studies suggested that maintaining the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(two percent oxygen mandate using ethanol would prevent or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(interfere with California's attainment of the federal ozone and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(particulate matter \() Tj
(ªPM) Tj
(º\) NAAQS. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.25 Tw
(On the strength of these studies, Governor Davis wrote to) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(the EPA in April 1999, requesting a waiver of the oxygen) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(requirement pursuant to §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.11 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\). ) Tj
(Davis explained that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(California's Phase 3 reformulated gasoline \() Tj
(ªCaRFG3) Tj
(º\) can) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9780) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
20 0 obj
3454
endobj
21 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 22 0 R
>>
endobj
22 0 obj
<< /Length 23 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.66 Tw
0 Tc
(be blended to meet air emission reduction requirements with-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.83 Tw
(out a mandatory oxygen content.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Davis further asserted) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.4 Tw
(that ) Tj
(ªa waiver of the federal RFG oxygen mandate in Califor-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.5 Tw
(nia would be necessary to avoid increases of ozone-forming) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(emissions in the state.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
2.85 Tw
(Between April 1999 and December 2000, EPA officials) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
2.32 Tw
(reviewed the materials submitted in support of California's) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.81 Tw
(waiver request and asked for additional information. CARB) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.82 Tw
(submitted further materials to the EPA supporting the waiver) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.16 Tw
(request, explaining that ) Tj
(ªrevised California rules accommo-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.67 Tw
(dating a federal RFG requirement for 2.0% wt. oxygen in the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(fuel year-round will necessarily be less effective in reducing) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.39 Tw
(vehicle emissions than would be the case if the rules could be) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.57 Tw
(based on oxygen-content flexibility.) Tj
(º The data supplied by) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.63 Tw
(CARB demonstrated that a grant of the waiver request would) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.03 Tw
(result in 1.5% reduction of nitrogen oxides \() Tj
(ªNOx) Tj
(º\) for) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
-1.07 Tw
(CaRFG3, which translates to 2,920 tons of NOx reduction annu-) Tj
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
3 Tw
(ally.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( If the two percent federal oxygen mandate were) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4 Tw
(maintained, these NOx benefits would be lost. ) Tj
( Because) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.75 Tw
(reductions in NOx emissions are part of California's imple-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.63 Tw
(mentation plan to attain the national ozone standard) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and also) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.93 Tw
(are an important part of the state's efforts to attain the appli-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.5 Tw
(cable NAAQS for PM, CARB advised the EPA that denial of) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.8 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As the pioneer in motor vehicle emissions control, California is the) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.22 Tw
(only state permitted by the Clean Air Act to ) Tj
(ªprescribe and enforce, for) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.8 Tw
(the purpose of motor vehicle emission control, a control or prohibition) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
3.02 Tw
(respecting any fuel or fuel additive.) Tj
(º 42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.02 Tw
(7545\(c\)\(4\)\(B\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep't. of Envtl.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.88 Tw
(Conservation, ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(17 F.3d 521, 527 \(2d Cir. 1994\) \() Tj
(ªCalifornia has a special) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
3.17 Tw
(exception from federal preemption allowing it to enact its own fuel) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(requirementsº\). ) Tj
10 -14.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
4.28 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(NOx, carbon monoxide \() Tj
(ªCO) Tj
(º\) and volatile organic compounds) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(\(ªVOCº\) all influence ozone formation. ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
4.63 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(California's 1994 ozone state implementation plan demonstrated) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.65 Tw
(attainment in every federal non-attainment area by reducing both reactive) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.05 Tw
(organic gases and NOx emissions, a strategy reviewed and accepted by the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(EPA. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -325.95 m 300 -325.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9781) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
4309
endobj
24 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F6
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333 278
333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278 556
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611 975
722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778 667
778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556 278
556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611 611
611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400 722
611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722 667
667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 556
333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611 667
556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611 611
333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333 1000
722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000 278
1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722 722
889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 102 0 R
/FontDescriptor 103 0 R
>>
endobj
25 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 26 0 R
>>
endobj
26 0 obj
<< /Length 27 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.52 Tw
0 Tc
(the waiver request would undermine California's efforts to) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(comply with federal clean air regulations. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -25.4 Td
(The EPA's Response) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -25.4 Td
3.25 Tw
(On June 12, 2001, the EPA denied California's waiver) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
.18 Tw
(request. In a letter addressed to Governor Davis, EPA Admin-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2 Tw
(istrator Christine Todd Whitman stated that the agency had) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.04 Tw
(ªcarefully reviewed all the information and analysis submitted) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.1 Tw
(by California,) Tj
(º and ) Tj
(ªperformed [its] own comprehensive anal-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.22 Tw
(ysis to evaluate the possible emission effects of a waiver.) Tj
(º) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.14 Tw
(The agency determined that it should not grant the waiver,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.14 Tw
(ªunless, at a minimum, it has been clearly demonstrated that) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.37 Tw
(granting a waiver would aid in attaining at least one NAAQS,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(and would not hinder attainment for any other NAAQS.) Tj
(º ) Tj
12 -25.4 Td
3.33 Tw
(The EPA disagreed with CARB as to critical technical) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
.78 Tw
(issues. It determined that granting the waiver would decrease) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.67 Tw
(NOx emissions, but would increase carbon monoxide \() Tj
(ªCO) Tj
(º\)) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.85 Tw
(emissions. The EPA also determined there was substantial) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.18 Tw
(uncertainty relating to both the direction and the magnitude of) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
8.21 Tw
(changes in emissions of volatile organic compounds) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.71 Tw
(\(ªVOCº\). This cloudy finding in turn created uncertainty) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.67 Tw
(whether the overall effect of a waiver would help or hinder) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.03 Tw
(ozone attainment. ) Tj
(On the basis of all of the information before) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.96 Tw
(it, the EPA determined that California had not clearly shown) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.7 Tw
(what impact a waiver would have on achieving the ozone) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.05 Tw
(NAAQS for the affected areas. The EPA further concluded) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.17 Tw
(that ) Tj
(ª[s]ince we are denying California's request based upon) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.63 Tw
(uncertainty associated with the effect of a waiver on ozone,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.74 Tw
(we need not decide whether the expected reduction in NOx) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.47 Tw
(from a waiver and the associated reduction in PM would sup-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(port a determination of interference with the PM NAAQS.) Tj
(º ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
.92 Tw
(California now petitions for review of the EPA's denial of) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
1.37 Tw
(its request for a waiver.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The South Coast Air Quality Man-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
.72 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Following the EPA's filing of the certified index to the administrative) Tj
-10 -10.9 Td
(record, California filed a motion to supplement the record. The motion is) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -467.25 m 300 -467.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9782) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
27 0 obj
3528
endobj
28 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 31 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 29 0 R
>>
endobj
29 0 obj
<< /Length 30 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.11 Tw
0 Tc
(agement District \() Tj
(ªSCAQMD) Tj
(º\) \(the regional agency autho-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.08 Tw
(rized under California law to coordinate air pollution control) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.03 Tw
(efforts for the South Coast Basin\), Western States Petroleum) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.42 Tw
(Association, and Chevron, U.S.A., have intervened in support) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.57 Tw
(of California. The National Corn Growers Association and) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.04 Tw
(Renewable Fuels Association have intervened in support of) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.04 Tw
(the EPA. The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.75 Tw
(Natural Resources Defense Council, and the States of Maine,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.71 Tw
(Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York have filed) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(briefs as amici curiae. ) Tj
12 -27.2 Td
1.46 Tw
(We have jurisdiction pursuant to §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.46 Tw
(307\(b\)\(1\) of the Clean) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(7607\(b\)\(1\). ) Tj
/F5 12 Tf 100 Tz
113.994 -27.2 Td
(DISCUSSION) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12.996 -27.2 Td
(Standing) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-114.99 -27.2 Td
.14 Tw
([1]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( As a preliminary matter, we reject the EPA's contention) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
1.47 Tw
(that California lacks standing to bring this appeal. The EPA) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
3.14 Tw
(claims that California is suing in a purely ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(parens patriae) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.7 Td
1.66 Tw
(capacity to protect California citizen interests. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Alfred L.) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.08 Tw
(Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel., Barez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 458 U.S. 592,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.11 Tw
(600 \(1982\) \() Tj
(ª[I]f the State is only a nominal party without a) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.06 Tw
(real interest of its ownÐthen it will not have standing under) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
3.24 Tw
(the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(parens patriae) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( doctrine.) Tj
(º\). To the contrary, California) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
4.33 Tw
(faces remedial and proprietary consequences that depend) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.5 Tw
(upon the outcome of this litigation. If California fails to com-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.7 Tw
(ply with its implementation plan requirements, it could be) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
4.57 Tw
(subject to various federal enforcement remedies. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(42) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.5 Tw
(U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.5 Tw
(7413\(a\)\(2\). In addition, the State could lose millions) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -27 Td
.09 Tw
(granted with regard to the Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.11 Tw
(in Gasoline and the Blue Ribbon Panel Report entitled ) Tj
(ªExecutive Sum-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.18 Tw
(mary and Recommendations,) Tj
(º which were commissioned by EPA and ref-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
2.41 Tw
(erenced in California's waiver application. ) Tj
(The motion is denied with) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1 Tw
(regard to the remaining materials. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -430.75 m 300 -430.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9783) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
30 0 obj
3479
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Kids [ 28 0 R 32 0 R 35 0 R 38 0 R 41 0 R 44 0 R ]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 104 0 R
>>
endobj
32 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 31 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 33 0 R
>>
endobj
33 0 obj
<< /Length 34 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.41 Tw
0 Tc
(of dollars in highway funds, 42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.41 Tw
(7509\(b\)\(1\), and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.3 Tw
(could be required to offset emissions from new or expanded) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
8.6 Tw
(industrial facilities. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
8.6 Tw
(7509\(b\)\(2\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.86 Tw
(also) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.86 Tw
(Sierra Club v. EPA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 292 F.3d 895, 900 \(D.C. Cir. 2002\)) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.08 Tw
(\(stating that petitioner has standing to challenge agency action) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.47 Tw
(when the petitioner is an ) Tj
(ªobject of the [agency] action at) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.33 Tw
(issueº\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 504 U.S. 555,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(561-62 \(1992\)\). In addition, Davis and CARB, acting in their) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(official capacities, have a proprietary interest in the land, air) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.11 Tw
(and water of California that is sufficiently concrete to give) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.92 Tw
(them standing. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Hodges v. Abraham) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 300 F.3d 432, 445) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(4th Cir. 2002\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
133.008 -26.7 Td
(Merits) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-121.008 -26.7 Td
1.85 Tw
(California challenges on several grounds the EPA's deci-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.92 Tw
(sion to deny the waiver. In addition, California contends that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.2 Tw
(the EPA erred by denying the waiver without engaging in for-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.41 Tw
(mal rulemaking. Finally, California argues that the EPA erred) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.5 Tw
(by failing to take into account California's exemption under) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.63 Tw
(the Clean Air Act authorizing it to regulate fuel standards) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.85 Tw
(without approval from the EPA. We consider each of these) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(arguments in turn. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26.7 Td
1.55 Tw
(1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.55 Tw
(Whether the EPA abused its discretion in refusing) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.04 Tw
(California's request for a waiver of the oxygenate) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(requirement under Clean Air Act §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(211\(k\)\(2\)\(B\). ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26.7 Td
3.16 Tw
(California alleges that the EPA abused its discretion in) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
3.67 Tw
(refusing California's waiver request because \(1\) the EPA) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(relied on an erroneous evidentiary standard by requiring that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.67 Tw
(California ) Tj
(ªclearly demonstrate) Tj
(º ) Tj
(the effects that a waiver) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(would have on a NAAQS; \(2\) California adequately demon-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.85 Tw
(strated that a waiver was necessary to reduce NOx emissions) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.33 Tw
(and to meet the ozone and PM NAAQS; and \(3\) the EPA) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(refused to consider the impact of a waiver denial on Califor-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(nia's ability to meet the PM NAAQS.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9784) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
34 0 obj
3490
endobj
35 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 31 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 36 0 R
>>
endobj
36 0 obj
<< /Length 37 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.37 Tw
0 Tc
(We review the EPA's ) Tj
(ªaction, findings and conclusions) Tj
(º to) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.1 Tw
(determine whether they were ) Tj
(ªarbitrary, capricious, an abuse) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.7 Tw
(of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.) Tj
(º 5) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(706\(2\)\(A\).) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26.5 Td
.41 Tw
(1A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
.41 Tw
(The EPA did not rely on an erroneous evidentiary) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(standard by requiring that California ) Tj
(ªclearly demon-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.74 Tw
(strateº the effects that a waiver would have on a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(NAAQS.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
1 -26.5 Td
.7 Tw
(Section 7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) of the Clean Air Act states that ) Tj
(ªthe) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.18 Tw
(Administrator may waive, in whole or in part, [the oxygen) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(requirement] for any ozone nonattainment area upon a deter-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.65 Tw
(mination by the Administrator that compliance with such) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(requirement would prevent or interfere with the attainment by) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.03 Tw
(the area of a [NAAQS].) Tj
(º The EPA interpreted this provision) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.28 Tw
(as requiring that California ) Tj
(ªclearly demonstrate) Tj
(º the impact) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.93 Tw
(of a waiver for each applicable NAAQS. ) Tj
(We conclude that) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(the EPA's interpretation was a permissible one. ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
1.87 Tw
(Because §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.87 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) is silent with respect to the evi-) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.8 Tw
(dentiary standard applied in review of a waiver application,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.55 Tw
(we must determine ) Tj
(ªwhether the agency's answer is based on) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.32 Tw
(a permissible construction of the statute.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Chevron, U.S.A.,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.46 Tw
(Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 467 U.S. 837, 843) Tj
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
.48 Tw
(\(1984\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We are not in a position to reject the EPA's interpre-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
.22 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(California argues that ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Chevron) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( deference is not appropriate in this case) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
2.4 Tw
(because the EPA did not engage in formal notice and comment rule-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.39 Tw
(making. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Christensen v. Harris County) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 529 U.S. 576, 587 \(2000\)) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.1 Tw
(\(ª[I]nterpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.05 Tw
(enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of lawÐdo not warrant) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(Chevron-style deference.) Tj
(º\). The fact that the EPA reached its interpreta-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.46 Tw
(tion through means less formal than notice and comment rulemaking,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.62 Tw
(however, does not automatically deprive that interpretation of the judicial) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(deference otherwise due. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Barnhart v. Walton, ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(122 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.14 Tw
(Ct. 1265, 1271) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.14 Tw
(\(2002\). The deference afforded an agency depends in significant part upon) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.13 Tw
(the interpretive method used and the nature of the question at issue. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.09 Tw
(id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1272. In this case, ) Tj
(ªthe interstitial nature of the legal question, the) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -353.35 m 300 -353.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9785) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
37 0 obj
4197
endobj
38 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 31 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 39 0 R
>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<< /Length 40 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.6 Tw
0 Tc
(tation ) Tj
(ªunless it appears from the statute or its legislative his-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.27 Tw
(tory that the [agency decision] is not one that Congress would) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(have sanctioned.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at 845 \(citation omitted\). ) Tj
12 -26.8 Td
6 Tw
(The EPA's interpretation of the evidentiary standard) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.52 Tw
(required by §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.52 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) is based upon Clean Air Act leg-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.04 Tw
(islative history indicating that Congress wanted the EPA) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.81 Tw
(closely to scrutinize waiver requests. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Alaska v. EPA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 298) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.87 Tw
(F.3d 814, 819-20 \(9th Cir. 2002\) \(evaluating EPA's interpre-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.1 Tw
(tation of the Clean Air Act in light of the Act's legislative his-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.12 Tw
(tory\). During consideration of the 1990 Clean Air Act) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.37 Tw
(Amendments, Senator Simpson urged the EPA to ) Tj
(ªavoid a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.33 Tw
(proliferation of too many different oxygen levels when it) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.92 Tw
(grants partial oxygen content waivers, to solve NOx cap or) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.14 Tw
(NAAQS problems under other provisions of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.14 Tw
(211\(k\).) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
-.15 Tw
(136 C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
-.14 Tw
(ONG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
-.15 Tw
(. R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
-.14 Tw
(EC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
-.15 Tw
(. §§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
-.15 Tw
(3504, 3522 \(1990\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(reprinted in) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
-.14 Tw
(OMMITTEE) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.89 Tw
(ON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.9 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.89 Tw
(NVIRONMENT AND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.9 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.89 Tw
(UBLIC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.9 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.89 Tw
(ORKS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.9 Tw
(, 103rd C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.89 Tw
(ONG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.9 Tw
(., 4A L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.89 Tw
(EGIS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.9 Tw
(-) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
1.13 Tw
(LATIVE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.15 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
1.13 Tw
(ISTORY OF THE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.15 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
1.13 Tw
(LEAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.15 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
1.13 Tw
(IR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.15 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
1.13 Tw
(CT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.15 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
1.13 Tw
(MENDMENTS OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.15 Tw
( 1990,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.83 Tw
(at 1170 [hereinafter Legislative History]. The Conference) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.08 Tw
(Report indicated that ) Tj
(ªwaiver of the oxygen requirements by) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.17 Tw
(petition must be the exception rather than the rule,) Tj
(º and that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.28 Tw
(waiver applicants should be required to ) Tj
(ªdemonstrate that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.4 Tw
(they are trying to comply with [the oxygen content] provision) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
(within their capabilities.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at 1024. In the light of this his-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.35 Tw
(tory, it is not unreasonable for the EPA to insist on a standard) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(that clearly establishes eligibility for a waiver. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
2.25 Tw
(California argues that the EPA should have shown more) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
3.33 Tw
(deference to California's waiver submission because Con-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.4 Td
.05 Tw
(related expertise of the Agency, the importance of the question) Tj
( to adminis-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.17 Tw
(tration of the statute, the complexity of that administration, and the careful) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.79 Tw
(consideration the Agency has given the question over a long period of) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.72 Tw
(time all indicate that ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Chevron) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( provides the appropriate legal lens through) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.69 Tw
(which to view the legality of the Agency interpretation here at issue.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.4 Td
1.29 Tw
(The mere fact that the EPA engaged in informal agency adjudication of) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.14 Tw
(California's waiver request does not vitiate the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Chevron) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( deference owed) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(to the agency's interpretation of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -397.75 m 300 -397.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9786) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
40 0 obj
5158
endobj
41 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 31 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 42 0 R
>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<< /Length 43 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.57 Tw
0 Tc
(gress granted California authority to prescribe fuel additives) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
4.14 Tw
(for emission control, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.14 Tw
(7545\(c\)\(4\)\(B\), and) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.21 Tw
(because the EPA in enforcing a different waiver provision,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
0 Tw
(§) Tj
( ) Tj
(7543\(b\), merely looked to whether the State acted arbitrarily) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.36 Tw
(or capriciously.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( California also relies on a past rulemaking in) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.11 Tw
(which the EPA approved California's Phase I and Phase II) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.47 Tw
(gasoline standards simply because the standards appeared to) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.16 Tw
(provide as great reductions of emissions as the comparable) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.41 Tw
(federal standards. 60 Fed. Reg. 43,379, 43,381 \(Aug. 21,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.53 Tw
(1995\). All of these examples, however, involve entirely dif-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
4 Tw
(ferent statutory provisions and are readily distinguishable) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.85 Tw
(from the present situation in which California seeks a waiver) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.25 Tw
(of a federal requirement that Congress created with California) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(clearly in mind.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -28.3 Td
1.58 Tw
([2]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We read the statute's provision that the Administrator) Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
0 Tw
(ªmay waive [the oxygen requirement]) Tj
(º as affording broad dis-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.33 Tw
(cretion to the EPA. In the light of that discretion, and because) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(the EPA's interpretation is supported by the Clean Air Act's) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.04 Tw
(legislative history, we conclude that the EPA's interpretation) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.12 Tw
(of the evidentiary standard required by §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.12 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) is rea-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.28 Tw
(sonable. That interpretation therefore prevails ) Tj
(ªwhether or not) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
9 Tw
(there is another interpretation consistentÐeven more) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.03 Tw
(consistentÐwith the statute.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(State of Hawaii ex. rel. Attorney) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Gen. v. FEMA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 294 F.3d 1152, 1159 \(9th Cir. 2002\). ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -28.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
.9 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Section 7543\(b\) expressly requires an ) Tj
(ªarbitrary and capricious) Tj
(º stan-) Tj
-10 -12.1 Td
.39 Tw
(dard of review, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.39 Tw
(7543\(b\)\(1\)\(A\), unlike the oxygen require-) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
5.75 Tw
(ment waiver provision, which is silent on the subject. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.1 Td
1 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\). ) Tj
10 -15.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
.06 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(At the time the RFG program was created, it applied to only nine areas,) Tj
-10 -12.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(including Los Angeles and San Diego. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(56 Fed. Reg. 31,176, 31,204) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1 Tw
(\(July 9, 1991\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -363.65 m 300 -363.65 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9787) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
43 0 obj
3777
endobj
44 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 31 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 45 0 R
>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<< /Length 46 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -8.4 Td
5.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
5.1 Tw
(California did not clearly demonstrate that a) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.21 Tw
(waiver was necessary to reduce NOx emissions to meet) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(the ozone NAAQS.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
1 -26 Td
0 Tw
(The EPA denied California's waiver request because it con-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.27 Tw
(cluded that ) Tj
(ªit [was] not clear whether the waiver sought by) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.66 Tw
(California will actually help to reduce ozone levels) Tj
(º and) Tj
0 -13 Td
.17 Tw
(therefore that California had not met its burden of proof. Cali-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.21 Tw
(fornia challenges the technical merits of the EPA's decision.) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.25 Tw
(In so doing, California is essentially asking this Court to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(reject the EPA's research on the effect of oxygenated fuel on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(California's ozone levels, in favor of the studies conducted by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(CARB. This we decline to do. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.11 Tw
([3]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We review the EPA's actions to determine whether they) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(were ) Tj
(ªarbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(wise not in accordance with law.) Tj
(º ) Tj
(5) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(706\(2\)\(A\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(also ) Tj
(Arizona v. Thomas) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 824 F.2d 745, 748 \(9th Cir. 1987\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(Under this standard, we must engage in a substantial inquiry,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(but should not substitute our judgment for that of the agency.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(See id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(citations omitted\). We must instead presume that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(Administrator acted lawfully and so conclude unless our thor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(ough inspection of the record yields no discernible rational) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.55 Tw
(basis for the agency's action. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Motor & Equip. Mfrs.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(Ass'n, Inc. v. EPA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 627 F.2d 1095, 1105 \(D.C. Cir. 1979\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(\(citation omitted\). Moreover, ) Tj
(ª[d]eference is particularly great) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(where EPA's decision is based on complex scientific or tech-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.21 Tw
(nical analysis.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n v. EPA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(287 F.3d 1130, 1135 \(D.C. Cir. 2002\) \(per curiam\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.1 Tw
(New York v. EPA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 852 F.2d 574, 580 \(D.C. Cir. 1988\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(\(ª[a]cceptance or rejection of a particular air pollution model) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(and the results obtained from it are interpretations of scientific) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(evidence) Tj
(º to which the court must reasonably defer\). In the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(light of this deferential standard of review, we find that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(EPA's decision that the waiver sought by California would) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(not actually help reduce ozone levels was rationally based on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(the scientific evidence before it, and was neither arbitrary nor) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(capricious. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9788) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
46 0 obj
3790
endobj
47 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 48 0 R
>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<< /Length 49 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
3.16 Tw
0 Tc
(The EPA concluded that the most sensible approach in) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
3.57 Tw
(evaluating California's waiver request was to analyze the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.14 Tw
(combined effect of changes in NOx, CO, and VOC emissions,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.33 Tw
(because they all influence ozone formation. The first step in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.18 Tw
(the EPA's evaluation was ) Tj
(ªRefinery Modeling,) Tj
(º which entails) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.42 Tw
(forecasting the likely properties of gasoline that refiners) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.62 Tw
(would produce with and without an oxygenate waiver. Refin-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.41 Tw
(ery Modeling takes into account important variables such as) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.87 Tw
(gasoline input cost, octane levels, grade and price in order to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.92 Tw
(predict the fuel properties of gasoline products sold by refin-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.81 Tw
(ers. The analysis conducted by the EPA modeled several dif-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.5 Tw
(ferent scenarios, each representing different combinations of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(the variables. ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
.4 Tw
(The EPA then utilized the results of the Refinery Modeling) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.79 Tw
(to estimate the likely impact of a waiver on NOx, CO, and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.94 Tw
(VOC emissions. The EPA performed Emissions Modeling to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.33 Tw
(ascertain how the predicted fuel property changes from a) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.63 Tw
(waiver would affect emissions for each of the pollutants. In) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.71 Tw
(conducting this analysis, the agency evaluated each source of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.55 Tw
(emissions \(i.e., exhaust, evaporative, permeation, and com-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(mingling\). ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(The EPA evaluated the impact of increased commingling) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.39 Tw
(on VOC emissions using an EPA model to estimate the likely) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.26 Tw
(range of Reid Vapor Pressure) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \() Tj
(ªRVP) Tj
(º\) increases due to com-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.51 Tw
(mingling, and an equation derived from CARB's on-road) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.32 Tw
(emission inventory model to estimate the emission impacts) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.05 Tw
(resulting from various RVP changes. ) Tj
(Commingling occurs) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.55 Tw
(when ethanol-oxygenated gasoline and gasoline without etha-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.44 Tw
(nol are mixed together in vehicle fuel tanks. The resulting) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.36 Tw
(mixture has a higher RVP than the average of the RVP's of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.03 Tw
(the two original gasolines. This ) Tj
(ªRVP boost) Tj
(º increases evapo-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.47 Tw
(rative VOC emissions. The EPA's research demonstrated that) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.67 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reid Vapor Pressure is a measure of volatility. Specifically, it mea-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.11 Tw
(sures the surface pressure required to keep a liquid from vaporizing at a) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(temperature of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9789) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
49 0 obj
3521
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Kids [ 47 0 R 51 0 R 54 0 R 57 0 R 60 0 R 63 0 R ]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 104 0 R
>>
endobj
51 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 52 0 R
>>
endobj
52 0 obj
<< /Length 53 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(granting California's waiver request would increase the inci-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(dence of commingling and commingling-related VOC emis-) Tj
0 -13 Td
8.93 Tw
(sions, because substantial amounts of both ethanol-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.16 Tw
(oxygenated and non-oxygenated fuels would be sold in the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.71 Tw
(same market. The EPA predicted that the commingling could) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.84 Tw
(reasonably result in a range of RVP boosts from 0.1 to 0.3) Tj
0 -13 Td
.24 Tw
(pounds per square inch \() Tj
(ªpsi) Tj
(º\), leading to an increase in VOC) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(emissions between 5.15 and 11.22 tons per day. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.3 Tw
([4]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Finally, after reviewing the analysis of the Refinery and) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(Emissions Modeling, the EPA evaluated the effects that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(predicted changes in emissions would have on ozone levels.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(The agency concluded that emissions of NOx were likely to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(decrease with a waiver, that CO emissions were likely to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.48 Tw
(increase, and that there existed significant uncertainty over) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.38 Tw
(VOC emissions. Under the twelve likely refinery scenarios) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(that the EPA forecast, the agency predicted that in all cases) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(NOx would decrease and CO would increase; therefore, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(biggest unknown was the change in VOC emissions. Because) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.53 Tw
(all three pollutants affect ozone to varying degrees, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(agency was faced with having to speculate as to the effect the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.04 Tw
(prediction emission changes would have on air quality.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.41 Tw
(Because of the uncertainty in VOC emissions and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(expected increase in CO, the EPA stated that it was unclear) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(whether the waiver sought by California would actually help) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(to reduce ozone levels. As a result, in its final analysis, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.32 Tw
(agency concluded that California had failed to demonstrate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(clearly that maintaining the federal oxygen requirement pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(vents or interferes with the State's ability to comply with the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(NAAQS for ozone. We conclude that this conclusion was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(rationally based on the scientific evidence before the EPA. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.52 Tw
(California challenges the EPA's analysis on three technical) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(grounds. First, California claims that the EPA's analysis was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(flawed because it failed to consider the reduction in combined) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.44 Tw
(emissions of NOx and VOC resulting from a waiver. Accord-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(ing to California, even assuming a ) Tj
(ªworst case) Tj
(º scenario of a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(net 0.2 psi RVP increase due to commingling, the combined) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9790) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
53 0 obj
3450
endobj
54 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 55 0 R
>>
endobj
55 0 obj
<< /Length 56 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.09 Tw
0 Tc
(emissions of VOC and NOx decrease in all but two of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.71 Tw
(twelve likely refinery scenarios modeled by the EPA. The) Tj
0 -13 Td
.48 Tw
(record reveals, however, that the EPA did consider the reduc-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1 Tw
(tion in combined emissions of NOx and VOC resulting from) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.77 Tw
(a waiver, but found it unpersuasive. As the EPA explained,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.03 Tw
(NOx, VOC and CO are not equivalent on a ton-for-ton basis) Tj
0 -13 Td
6.42 Tw
(in their effects on ozone. Furthermore, CO emissions) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(increased under all of the refinery scenarios modeled. In many) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(of the cases where VOCs might decrease, the EPA determined) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(that the decrease \(along with the decrease in NOx\) would not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(be enough to offset the CO increase. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.22 Tw
(Second, California takes issue with the results of the EPA's) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.61 Tw
(commingling analysis. Studies by CARB concluded that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(likely commingling RVP boost would be no higher than 0.1) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(psi. The EPA estimated an increase in RVP of about 0.2 psi,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.04 Tw
(with a reasonable range anywhere between 0.1 psi and 0.3 psi.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(The record reveals that the EPA expanded on the research ini-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.83 Tw
(tially performed by CARB because it believed that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(research by CARB was based on an overly-narrow and con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(servative set of assumptions. The EPA's analysis was based) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(on several scenarios, including those relied upon by CARB,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(in order to address a range of likely effects. Although Califor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(nia's results may have been different from those reached by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(the EPA, we are not convinced that the EPA's comprehensive) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(analysis was unreasonable. The technical analysis relating to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.51 Tw
(commingling is complex and inherently difficult to forecast,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(and we therefore defer to the agency's findings. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.28 Tw
(Third, California argues that the EPA's RVP boost analysis) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.94 Tw
(is flawed because the agency failed to take into account ade-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(quately the fact that California reduced the RVP levels of its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(CaRFG3 gasoline by 0.1 psi to compensate for the effects of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(any increase in commingling due to the waiver. In its analysis,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(however, the EPA factored in a 0.1 psi reduction in recogni-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(tion of California's adjusted RVP standard. Even after factor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.14 Tw
(ing in this reduction, the EPA's analysis shows a VOC) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.76 Tw
(increase due to the waiver for nine of the twelve likely refin-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9791) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
56 0 obj
3359
endobj
57 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 58 0 R
>>
endobj
58 0 obj
<< /Length 59 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.97 Tw
0 Tc
(ery scenarios. The EPA did not ignore the effects of Califor-) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.73 Tw
(nia's new RVP standard, but concluded that it did not) Tj
0 -13 Td
.81 Tw
(necessarily offset increases in VOC emissions from commin-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(gling. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
4.33 Tw
(The EPA's finding was supported by evidence in the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(record. Despite California's contentions, there is no basis for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.6 Tw
(this court to set aside any element of the EPA's technical) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(analysis. We conclude that the EPA did not act arbitrarily or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(capriciously in concluding that California had not met its bur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(den of proving that the oxygen requirement interfered with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the ozone NAAQS. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26 Td
(1C.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The EPA abused its discretion by refusing to ) Tj
0 -13 Td
.36 Tw
(evaluate the effect that an oxygen waiver would have on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(California's efforts to comply with the PM NAAQS.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26 Td
1.78 Tw
([5]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Section 7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) provides that the Administrator) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(may waive the two percent oxygen content requirement if) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(compliance ) Tj
(ªprevent[s] or interfere[s] with the attainment by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(the area of a national primary ambient air quality standard.) Tj
(º) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.45 Tw
(42) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.45 Tw
(U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.45 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\). The EPA interpreted this provi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(sion to mean that a waiver request should be granted only) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(when the petitioner has demonstrated that a waiver would aid) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(in attaining at least one NAAQS and not hinder the attainment) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(of any other relevant NAAQS. According to that interpreta-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(tion, the EPA reasoned that ) Tj
(ª[s]ince we are denying Califor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(nia's request based upon uncertainty associated with the effect) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.17 Tw
(of a waiver on ozone, we need not decide whether the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(expected reduction in NOx from a waiver and the associated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(reduction in PM would support a determination of interfer-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.92 Tw
(ence with the PM NAAQS.) Tj
(º We agree with California that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.06 Tw
(the EPA abused its discretion by refusing to consider the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(effect that an oxygen waiver would have on the PM NAAQS.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
.55 Tw
(Congress did not specify how the EPA should resolve situ-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(ations involving multiple NAAQS when a waiver could aid in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(attaining one NAAQS but could also impede compliance with) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9792) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
59 0 obj
3302
endobj
60 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 61 0 R
>>
endobj
61 0 obj
<< /Length 62 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.63 Tw
0 Tc
(another. Because the Clean Air Act is silent with respect to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(this issue, ) Tj
(ªthe question for the court is whether the agency's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.) Tj
(º) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(Chevron) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 467 U.S. at 843. We cannot permit a construction of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.08 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) which allows the EPA, in making its waiver) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.14 Tw
(determination, to ignore possible harm to a nonattainment) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(area. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
9.71 Tw
([6]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( To begin with, the EPA's interpretation of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.62 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) prevents consideration of a factor that Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(gress stated was relevant to §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.34 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) waiver determi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.32 Tw
(nations: interference with the attainment of a NAAQS.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(CARB's research indicated that the maintenance of the oxy-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(gen requirement would keep NOx emissions up and thus) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
-.58 Tw
(would prevent or interfere with attainment of the PM NAAQS.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(The EPA's models showed a decrease in NOx under all sce-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(narios in which a waiver would be granted. The EPA admitted) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(that ) Tj
(ªthe consistent decreases in NOx emissions shown by our) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(analysis also indicates that there would likely also be an over-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(all decrease in nitrogen-containing PM emissions.) Tj
(º By ignor-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.44 Tw
(ing this evidence concerning the effects of a waiver on PM,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(the EPA refused to make the statutorily-directed determina-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.63 Tw
(tion whether denial of the State's waiver request would inter-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(fere with attainment of a NAAQS. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.1 Td
1.37 Tw
([7]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The EPA argues that §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.37 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) does not require) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.3 Tw
(it to assess the effects of a waiver on ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(all) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( NAAQS whenever) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.4 Tw
(a waiver application is submitted. For purposes of this deci-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.39 Tw
(sion we do not dispute that point. In this case, however, the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.33 Tw
(EPA was presented with research, both from CARB and the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.32 Tw
(EPA itself, which demonstrated that the oxygen requirement) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.51 Tw
(interfered with the attainment of PM standards. Although) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.3 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.3 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) may not require the EPA to assess the impact) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.27 Tw
(on a NAAQS when there is no evidence relevant to that) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.03 Tw
(NAAQS submitted with an application, we conclude that it) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.15 Tw
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(NOx is a precursor to PM and is the primary precursor to PM in the) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(South Coast Air Basin. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(64 Fed. Reg. 1,770, 1,773 \(Jan. 12, 1999\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9793) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
62 0 obj
3919
endobj
63 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 64 0 R
>>
endobj
64 0 obj
<< /Length 65 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.27 Tw
0 Tc
(does require the EPA to assess the impact on a NAAQS when) Tj
0 -13 Td
.47 Tw
(the EPA has relevant evidence before it suggesting a threat to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(that NAAQS. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
5.66 Tw
(Under the EPA's interpretation of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5.66 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\), a) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.77 Tw
(waiver that would have negative effects on attainment of one) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.96 Tw
(NAAQS must be denied, even if that same waiver would) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.33 Tw
(bring significant advancements toward attainment of another) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(NAAQS. This logic stands at odds with the Clean Air Act's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(stated goal of ) Tj
(ªprotect[ing] and enhanc[ing] the quality of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(welfare and the productive capacity of its population.) Tj
(º 42) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.87 Tw
(7401\(b\)\(1\). It also undermines the sole purpose of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(the federal RFG program, which is to reduce air pollution. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 52 F.3d 1113, 1119 \(D.C. Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(1995\). In short, this interpretation of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.28 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) not only) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(ignores the clear words of the statute; it also misses the forest) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(for the trees. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.74 Tw
(The EPA's current approach also cripples the goal of the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(Clean Air Act when, as in the current situation, the effects on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(one NAAQS are merely uncertain, not necessarily negative.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.24 Tw
(Although California was unable clearly to demonstrate that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(the oxygen requirement would interfere with ozone standards,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(the EPA found no conclusive evidence that a waiver would be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(harmful to ozone. The effects of a waiver on ozone are uncer-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(tain at worst. The EPA nevertheless refused to consider the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(significance of the PM evidence. It adhered to this refusal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(even though the benefit of a waiver to the PM NAAQS could) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(conceivably outweigh the uncertain effects of that waiver on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ozone levels. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.36 Tw
(We recognize that modeling the effects on NOx, CO, and) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(VOC from an oxygen waiver and predicting the resulting) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(effects on air quality is a complex technical exercise, fraught) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(with uncertainty. Even after careful research, the EPA's grant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(or denial of a waiver could prove to be the wrong decision for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.38 Tw
(California's air quality. This uncertainty, however, further) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9794) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
65 0 obj
3371
endobj
66 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 67 0 R
>>
endobj
67 0 obj
<< /Length 68 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.57 Tw
0 Tc
(bolsters the need for the EPA to evaluate all the possible out-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.07 Tw
(comes suggested by the evidence before it. We cannot support) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.53 Tw
(an interpretation of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.53 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) that permits the EPA to) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.6 Tw
(end its consideration of a waiver application as soon as it) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.42 Tw
(meets with evidence supporting an uncertain outcome with) Tj
0 -13 Td
.3 Tw
(regard to one NAAQS, especially where evidence of a benefit) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(to air quality with regard to another NAAQS is clearly pres-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.09 Tw
(ent. For these reasons, we hold that the EPA abused its discre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(tion by refusing to evaluate the effect that an oxygen waiver) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(would have on California's efforts to comply with the PM) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(NAAQS. We accordingly remand this case to the EPA with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(instructions to give full consideration to the effect of a waiver) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(on both the ozone and PM NAAQS. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26 Td
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Whether the EPA erred by denying the waiver ) Tj
0 -13 Td
(without engaging in formal rulemaking.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26 Td
3.22 Tw
([8]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( California argues that the EPA was required by 42) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(U.S.C. §§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2 Tw
(7545\(c\) and §7607\(d\) to proceed by formal rule-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(making, and that its failure to do so improperly precluded the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(opportunity for public comment and input. We agree with the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(EPA that California's contention is without merit. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.1 Td
1.37 Tw
([9]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Nothing in §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.37 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) requires the EPA to deter-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(mine whether to grant a waiver application by means of rule-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.71 Tw
(making. Absent express congressional direction to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(contrary, agencies are free to choose their procedural mode of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.91 Tw
(administration. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., SEC v. Chenery Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 332 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(194, 203 \(1947\) \() Tj
(ª[T]he choice made between proceeding by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(general rule or by individual, ad hoc litigation is one that lies) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.65 Tw
(primarily in the informed discretion of the administrative) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(agency.º\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Pfaff v. HUD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 88 F.3d 739, 747 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(1996\) \(recognizing, as an established principle of administra-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(tive law, that the choice between rulemaking and adjudication) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(lies in the first instance within the agency's discretion\). It is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(clear that Congress knew how to impose rulemaking require-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(ments under the Clean Air Act when it wanted to do so. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.37 Tw
(7545\(a\) \() Tj
(ªThe Administrator may by regula-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9795) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
68 0 obj
3713
endobj
69 0 obj
<<
/Kids [ 66 0 R 70 0 R 73 0 R 76 0 R 79 0 R 82 0 R ]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 104 0 R
>>
endobj
70 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 71 0 R
>>
endobj
71 0 obj
<< /Length 72 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.25 Tw
0 Tc
(tion designate any fuel or fuel additive [for registration pursu-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.38 Tw
(ant to §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.38 Tw
(7545\(b\)]) Tj
(º\); 42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.38 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(6\)\(B\) \(authorizing) Tj
0 -13 Td
.2 Tw
(the agency to grant petition to delay the effective date of RFG) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(opt-in areas ) Tj
(ªby rule) Tj
(º\). It did not do so here. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.58 Tw
(California cites 42 U.S.C. §§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.58 Tw
(7545\(c\) and 7607\(d\) for the) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.22 Tw
(proposition that Congress has directed the EPA to engage in) Tj
0 -13 Td
.28 Tw
(formal rulemaking in this instance. Those statutory provisions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4 Tw
(are not applicable to agency decisions made pursuant to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.05 Tw
(Section 7545\(c\)\(1\) provides that ) Tj
(ª[T]he Administrator may,) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(. .) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.22 Tw
(. by regulation, control or prohibit the manufacture, intro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(duction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(or fuel additive . . . .) Tj
(º Section 7545\(c\)\(2\)\(C\) adds that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(Administrator cannot prohibit a fuel unless ) Tj
(ªhe finds, and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(publishes such finding, that in his judgment such prohibition) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.02 Tw
(will not cause the use of any other fuel . . . which will produce) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(emissions which will endanger the public health . . . .) Tj
(º Cali-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.37 Tw
(fornia argues that, because the EPA's denial of the waiver) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(effectively prohibited the sale of oxygen-free fuel in Califor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(nia, §§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.63 Tw
(7545\(c\) and 7545\(c\)\(2\)\(B\) required the EPA to act by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(regulation and publish its findings. This argument ignores the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(difference between the EPA's authority to impose fuel con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(trols and its authority to decide whether to lift a requirement) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(imposed by Congress. The Clean Air Act imposes the oxygen) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(mandates on the states. Thus, it is Congress, not the EPA,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(which prohibits the sale of non-oxygenated fuel in California.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(The EPA's decision to deny a waiver of that requirement does) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(not amount to a ) Tj
(ªprohibition) Tj
(º on the sale of non-oxygenated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(fuel. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.38 Tw
(Section 7607\(d\) requires notice and public comment prior) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(to ) Tj
(ªthe promulgation or revision of any regulation pertaining) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(to any fuel or fuel additive under section 7545.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(42) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(U.S.C. §§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2 Tw
(7607\(d\)\(3\), 7607\(d\)\(1\)\(E\). Section 7607 does not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.87 Tw
(apply in this case because the denial of a waiver under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.28 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) does not constitute a ) Tj
(ªregulation) Tj
(º pertaining) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9796) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
72 0 obj
3681
endobj
73 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 74 0 R
>>
endobj
74 0 obj
<< /Length 75 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.24 Tw
0 Tc
(to a fuel or fuel additive. As we have already explained, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(EPA does not have authority to regulate two percent oxygen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.8 Tw
(ated fuel; it is merely given discretion whether to grant a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(waiver of Congress's oxygen mandate. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.5 Tw
(Congress did not require §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.5 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) waiver proceed-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(ings to be conducted as rulemakings. We accordingly find no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(error in the fact that the EPA did not publish a proposed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(denial of the waiver request before issuing its decision, nor in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(the fact that the EPA proceeded without a formal comment) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(period. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26 Td
4.16 Tw
(3.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
4.16 Tw
(Whether the EPA erred by failing to take into) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(account California's exemption under the Clean Air Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(authorizing California to regulate fuel standards ) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(without approval from the EPA.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
1 -26 Td
1.18 Tw
(As its final challenge to the EPA's action, California con-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(tends that it is exempt from federal preemption and free to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(regulate its own fuel requirements, thereby vitiating the need) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(for EPA approval of CaRFG3. We review de novo questions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(of statutory interpretation. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Harper v. U.S. Seafoods LP) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(278 F.3d 971, 973 \(9th Cir. 2002\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.03 Tw
(California cites to §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.03 Tw
(7545\(c\)\(4\)\(B\) as support for its asser-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(tion that when California adopts its own fuel content regula-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(tions, those regulations control in lieu of competing federal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.55 Tw
(RFG requirements. As we have already recognized,) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.05 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.05 Tw
(7545\(c\)\(4\)\(B\) grants California the authority to establish) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(state controls or prohibitions on fuel. This section, however,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.85 Tw
(must be read in conjunction with §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.85 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\), which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.54 Tw
(requires all fuels in particular areas to meet the two percent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.88 Tw
(oxygen requirement. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(U.S. West Communications,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.26 Tw
(Inc. v. Hamilton) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 224 F.3d 1049, 1053 \(9th Cir. 2000\) \(stating) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(that a court has a duty to harmonize two statutory provisions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.39 Tw
(that are enacted at the same time and form the same part of) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
1 Tw
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( footnote 1, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(supra) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -477.75 m 300 -477.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9797) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
75 0 obj
3643
endobj
76 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 77 0 R
>>
endobj
77 0 obj
<< /Length 78 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.14 Tw
0 Tc
(the same Act\). We read these two provisions as permitting) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.28 Tw
(California to impose its own controls in addition to, rather) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(than in lieu of, the federal oxygen mandate.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
1.93 Tw
(The structure of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.93 Tw
(7545\(c\)\(4\) makes it clear that the sole) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
3.53 Tw
(purpose of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.53 Tw
(7545\(c\)\(4\)\(B\) is to waive for California the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.45 Tw
(express preemption provision found in §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.45 Tw
(7545\(c\)\(4\)\(A\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( It) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.8 Tw
(was not intended to allow California, at its sole discretion, to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.66 Tw
(relieve refiners of their obligations to comply with federal) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
8.52 Tw
(fuel requirements such as the RFG program under) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.55 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.55 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\). Section 7545\(k\) contains no permission for) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.8 Tw
(California or any other state unilaterally to reject any of its) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(provisions, and instead includes a provision, §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.66 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\),) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.08 Tw
(that addresses requests for waiver of the federal oxygen) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(requirement. ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
.9 Tw
(Intervernor SCAQMD's reliance on 42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.9 Tw
(7589 also) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
3.71 Tw
(is misguided. That section permits California to establish) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.8 Tw
(specifications for ) Tj
(ªclean alternative fuel) Tj
(º to be used in a fed-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
5.28 Tw
(eral pilot test program. SCAQMD argues that, because) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.82 Tw
(CaRFG3 is produced and distributed in California for this) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
.95 Tw
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Congress expressly exempted certain states from some of the federal) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.56 Tw
(requirements contained in subsections of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.56 Tw
(7545. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.56 Tw
(7545\(h\)\(5\)) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.31 Tw
(and §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.31 Tw
(7545\(i\)\(4\) \(exempting Alaska and Hawaii from RVP and diesel fuel) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.19 Tw
(sulfur content requirements\). The fact that Congress did not exempt any) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.48 Tw
(states from §7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) supports the EPA's interpretation of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(7545 in) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(this case. ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.46 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Section 7545\(c\)\(4\)\(A\) states: ) Tj
(ªExcept as otherwise provided in sub-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.86 Tw
(paragraph \(B\) or \(C\), no State \(or political subdivision thereof\) may pre-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2.86 Tw
(scribe or attempt to enforce, for purposes of motor vehicle emission) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.36 Tw
(control, any control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or compo-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.75 Tw
(nent of a fuel or fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.79 Tw
(Ð \(i\) if the Administrator has found that no control or prohibition of the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.68 Tw
(characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive under paragraph \(1\)) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.9 Tw
(is necessary and has published his finding in the Federal Register, or \(ii\)) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.28 Tw
(if the Administrator has prescribed under paragraph \(1\) a control or prohi-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.05 Tw
(bition applicable to such characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel addi-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.36 Tw
(tive, unless State prohibition or control is identical to the prohibition or) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(control prescribed by the Administrator.) Tj
(º ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -284.55 m 300 -284.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9798) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
78 0 obj
4395
endobj
79 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 80 0 R
>>
endobj
80 0 obj
<< /Length 81 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.28 Tw
0 Tc
(pilot program, California's CaRFG3 regulations replace the) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.34 Tw
(oxygen mandate of §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.34 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\). We reject this conten-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion. ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.32 Tw
(Section 7589 establishes a limited pilot program in Califor-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.26 Tw
(nia designed to require the production, state-wide, of a certain) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.94 Tw
(minimum number of clean-fuel vehicles.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.52 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.52 Tw
(7589. Under the pilot program, California's role is to revise) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.18 Tw
(its implementation plan to establish clean fuel availability) Tj
0 -13 Td
.42 Tw
(requirements, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.42 Tw
(7589\(c\)\(2\), to ensure consumer) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.26 Tw
(access to fuels that will allow these vehicles to comply with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(the pilot program emission standards. There is nothing about) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(the existence of this state obligation that could reasonably be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(interpreted to exclude refiners of California gasoline from) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(their obligation to comply with other federal programs, such) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(as the federal RFG program. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -25.9 Td
2.2 Tw
([10]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Our reading of the Clean Air Act thus supports the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(EPA's conclusion that §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.45 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) applies to California.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.32 Tw
(Although California is not preempted from issuing its own) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(fuel additive requirements, it is not authorized to negate the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(requirements imposed by Congress. ) Tj
/F5 12 Tf 100 Tz
111 -26 Td
(CONCLUSION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-99 -26 Td
1.52 Tw
(We grant the petition for review, vacate the EPA's order,) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(and remand the matter to the EPA with instructions to review) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.85 Tw
(California's waiver request with full consideration of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.51 Tw
(effects of a waiver on both the ozone and the PM NAAQS.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(We deny relief with respect to the remainder of California's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(claims.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.75 Tw
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Clean-fuel vehicles, for purposes of the pilot program, are vehicles) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.98 Tw
(that are certified to comply with the EPA's pilot program emission stan-) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
0 Tw
(dards using ) Tj
(ªclean alternative fuel.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
( ) Tj
(7581\(2\); 59 Fed. Reg.) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.32 Tw
(50,042, 50,043 \(Sept. 30, 1994\). A ) Tj
(ªclean alternative fuel) Tj
(º is any fuel that) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1.09 Tw
(a clean fuel vehicle uses to meet the vehicle standards, and may include) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.16 Tw
(federal RFG, as well as alternative fuels or power sources such as electric-) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(ity. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(42 U.S.C. §) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(7581\(2\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( 42 U.S.C. §§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(7581-7590. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -411.25 m 300 -411.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9799) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
81 0 obj
3944
endobj
82 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 83 0 R
>>
endobj
83 0 obj
<< /Length 84 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
4.65 Tw
0 Tc
(PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(and REMANDED.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -49.5 Td
2.04 Tw
(O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dis-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(senting in part: ) Tj
12 -25.4 Td
3.18 Tw
(I agree that the United States Environmental Protection) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
14 Tw
(Agency's \() Tj
(ªEPA's) Tj
(º\) interpretation of 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.62 Tw
(§) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.62 Tw
(7545\(k\)\(2\)\(B\) is afforded broad deference. As a result, I) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.84 Tw
(concur in Parts 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 of the majority's opinion,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.41 Tw
(which hold that the EPA's extensive review of gasoline emis-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.37 Tw
(sions data is neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that any dis-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
5 Tw
(agreement that California has with the EPA's scientific) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.32 Tw
(analysis is simply insufficient to support its petition for) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.53 Tw
(review. I must dissent, however, from the majority's further) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1 Tw
(conclusion in Part 1C that the agency's assessment of poten-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.96 Tw
(tial ozone effects, while failing to consider particulate matter) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(\() Tj
(ªPM) Tj
(º\) effects, somehow contravenes congressional intent. ) Tj
12 -25.4 Td
2.61 Tw
(In subsection \(k\)\(2\)\(B\), Congress imposed a 2.0 percent) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
2.14 Tw
(oxygen content requirement for gasoline used in prescribed) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.74 Tw
(high-smog zone areas of the country. In the case before us,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.91 Tw
(the State of California sought an exemption from such) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.55 Tw
(requirement, claiming that without a waiver, it would be hard) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.55 Tw
(pressed to meet certain federal air quality standards. The) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.38 Tw
(Administrator denied the waiver request, concluding that Cal-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.91 Tw
(ifornia had failed to demonstrate adequately that the oxygen-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.83 Tw
(ate requirement was inhibiting the State's efforts to comply) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.38 Tw
(with the federal attainment standard for ozoneÐa finding) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.75 Tw
(which the majority concedes was well supported by evidence) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.07 Tw
(in the record. Nevertheless, the majority orders a remand for) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.3 Tw
(further agency review, concluding that the Clean Air Act) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.6 Tw
(requires that the EPA consider the effects of a proposed) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(waiver on PM. I respectfully disagree. ) Tj
12 -25.4 Td
2.5 Tw
(Congress adopted the oxygen requirement as part of the) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
1.5 Tw
(nationwide reformulated gasoline program \() Tj
(ªRFG\). In doing) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -45.05 m 300 -45.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9800) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
84 0 obj
3233
endobj
85 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 88 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 86 0 R
>>
endobj
86 0 obj
<< /Length 87 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.11 Tw
0 Tc
(so, it vested in the EPA the authority to waive the oxygen) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.61 Tw
(content requirement, but only, as subsection \(k\)\(2\)\(B\) pro-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.47 Tw
(vides, upon a ) Tj
(ªdetermination . . . that compliance with such) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.33 Tw
(requirement would prevent or interfere with the attainment by) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.41 Tw
(the area of a national primary ambient air quality standard.) Tj
(º) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3 Tw
(This statutory language limits waivers to circumstances in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.81 Tw
(which the benefits to air quality can be clearly demonstrated.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(The EPA rightfully surmised that Congress did not authorize) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.1 Tw
(waivers when the purported benefits were speculative and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(uncertain. Accordingly, the EPA reasonably determined that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.3 Tw
(it would grant waivers only if they would aid in attaining at) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.63 Tw
(least one standard, and would not hinder attainment for any) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(other standard. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.45 Tw
(As the majority notes, subsection \(k\)\(2\)\(B\) is silent about) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.41 Tw
(how the EPA should rule when a proposed waiver request) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.03 Tw
(could aid in attaining one standard, but impede compliance) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.87 Tw
(with another. Under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.96 Tw
(Def. Council, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 467 U.S. 837 \(1984\), when an agency) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.42 Tw
(presents a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.83 Tw
(that interpretation ) Tj
(ªprevails whether or not there is not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5 Tw
(another interpretation consistentÐeven more consistentÐ) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.96 Tw
(with the statute.) Tj
(º ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(State of Hawaii ex rel. Attorney General v.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.95 Tw
(FEMA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 294 F.3d 1152, 1159 \(9th Cir. 2002\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Chevron) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.86 Tw
(467 U.S. at 844 \() Tj
(ª[Courts] may not substitute their own con-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(struction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpreta-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion made by the administrator of an agency.) Tj
(º\). ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
1.66 Tw
(This is a classic case in which we are bound to give due) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.45 Tw
(deference to the EPA's statutory interpretation. Remarkably,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.78 Tw
(in reviewing the agency's actions, the majority itself recog-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.73 Tw
(nizes that modeling the effects on air quality ) Tj
(ªis a complex) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.91 Tw
(technical exercise, fraught with uncertainty.) Tj
(º In light of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.62 Tw
(narrow statutory exception, it is perfectly reasonable for the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.66 Tw
(EPA to resolve inherent ambiguities in forecasting air quality) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.11 Tw
(effects by requiring that the projected impact on a relevant) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(standardÐespecially for an important air quality component) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9801) Tj
-159.4342 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
87 0 obj
3533
endobj
88 0 obj
<<
/Kids [ 85 0 R 89 0 R ]
/Count 2
/Type /Pages
/Parent 104 0 R
>>
endobj
89 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Parent 88 0 R
/Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F6 24 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >>
/Contents 90 0 R
>>
endobj
90 0 obj
<< /Length 91 0 R >>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
0 Tw
0 Tc
(such as ozone) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Ðbe at least neutral, if not beneficial. Contrary) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.78 Tw
(to the majority's surmise, Congress never instructed the EPA) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(to resolve uncertainties in emissions modeling by balancing) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.55 Tw
(harmful effects to one air quality standard with potential ben-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.3 Tw
(efits to another. By forcing the EPA to engage in such a spec-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.93 Tw
(ulative enterprise in an area far beyond judicial expertise, I) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
7.75 Tw
(am afraid that our holding today has impermissibly) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(encroached upon the agency's discretion. ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
2.14 Tw
(Accordingly, I would affirm the EPA's order in full and) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(deny California's petition for review.) Tj
1 0 0 1 156 223.3 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -1 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F6 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.22 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Indeed, the agency's position is that, ) Tj
(ªGiven the salience of ozone) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.63 Tw
(NAAQS attainment to Congress in enacting and structuring the oxygen) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.2 Tw
(mandate, EPA would have considered impacts on the ozone NAAQS even) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.33 Tw
(if California had only presented purported evidence of interference with) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(the PM NAAQS.) Tj
(º Brief for Respondents at 65 n.37. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 223.3 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9802) Tj
118.5658 0 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. EPA) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
91 0 obj
1939
endobj
92 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior
130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute
129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137
/edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228
/Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron
226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224
/Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis
229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex
145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29
/logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27
/plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis
253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth
142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ]
>>
endobj
93 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139
/StemH 69.5
/ItalicAngle 0
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
94 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior
130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute
129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137
/edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228
/Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron
226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224
/Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis
229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex
145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29
/logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27
/plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis
253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth
142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ]
>>
endobj
95 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84
/StemH 42
/ItalicAngle 0
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
96 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
97 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85
/StemH 42.5
/ItalicAngle 0
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
98 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior
130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute
129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137
/edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228
/Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron
226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224
/Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis
229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex
145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29
/logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27
/plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis
253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth
142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ]
>>
endobj
99 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76
/StemH 38
/ItalicAngle -15.5
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
100 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior
130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute
129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137
/edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228
/Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron
226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224
/Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis
229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex
145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29
/logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27
/plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis
253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth
142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ]
>>
endobj
101 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-BoldItalic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -200 -218 996 921 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 121
/StemH 60.5
/ItalicAngle -15
/CapHeight 669
/XHeight 462
/Ascent 699
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
102 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior
130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute
129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137
/edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228
/Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron
226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224
/Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis
229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex
145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29
/logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27
/plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis
253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth
142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ]
>>
endobj
103 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140
/StemH 70
/ItalicAngle 0
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
104 0 obj
<<
/Kids [ 10 0 R 31 0 R 50 0 R 69 0 R 88 0 R ]
/Count 26
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
>>
endobj
105 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (D:00000101000000Z)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
/Title (Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-07-17 On Petition for Review for \
an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency)
/ModDate (D:20050902151904-06'00')
/Subject (This document, created or posted by the California Air Resources Board, \
contains information regarding: Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-0\
7-17 On Petition for Review for an Order of the Environmental Protection\
Agency)
>>
endobj
107 0 obj
<< /Type /Metadata /Subtype /XML /Length 1734 >>
stream
0-01-01T00:00:00Z
VERSACOMP R05.2
ECMP5
Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-07-17 On Petition for Review for an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency
2005-09-02T15:19:04-06:00
This document, created or posted by the California Air Resources Board, contains information regarding: Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-07-17 On Petition for Review for an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency
0-01-01T00:00:00Z
Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-07-17 On Petition for Review for an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency
2004-01-26T15:51:06-08:00
2005-09-02T15:19:04-06:00
Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-07-17 On Petition for Review for an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency
endstream
endobj
xref
0 108
0000000106 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000048 00000 n
0000000122 00000 n
0000000303 00000 n
0000005330 00000 n
0000005351 00000 n
0000006569 00000 n
0000007783 00000 n
0000008993 00000 n
0000010206 00000 n
0000010323 00000 n
0000010486 00000 n
0000011823 00000 n
0000011845 00000 n
0000012029 00000 n
0000015265 00000 n
0000015287 00000 n
0000016510 00000 n
0000016683 00000 n
0000020193 00000 n
0000020215 00000 n
0000020399 00000 n
0000024764 00000 n
0000024786 00000 n
0000026009 00000 n
0000026193 00000 n
0000029777 00000 n
0000029799 00000 n
0000029983 00000 n
0000033518 00000 n
0000033540 00000 n
0000033658 00000 n
0000033831 00000 n
0000037377 00000 n
0000037399 00000 n
0000037583 00000 n
0000041836 00000 n
0000041858 00000 n
0000042042 00000 n
0000047256 00000 n
0000047278 00000 n
0000047462 00000 n
0000051295 00000 n
0000051317 00000 n
0000051490 00000 n
0000055336 00000 n
0000055358 00000 n
0000055532 00000 n
0000059109 00000 n
0000059131 00000 n
0000059249 00000 n
0000059412 00000 n
0000062918 00000 n
0000062940 00000 n
0000063103 00000 n
0000066518 00000 n
0000066540 00000 n
0000066713 00000 n
0000070071 00000 n
0000070093 00000 n
0000070277 00000 n
0000074252 00000 n
0000074274 00000 n
0000074447 00000 n
0000077874 00000 n
0000077896 00000 n
0000078069 00000 n
0000081838 00000 n
0000081860 00000 n
0000081978 00000 n
0000082151 00000 n
0000085888 00000 n
0000085910 00000 n
0000086094 00000 n
0000089793 00000 n
0000089815 00000 n
0000089999 00000 n
0000094450 00000 n
0000094472 00000 n
0000094667 00000 n
0000098667 00000 n
0000098689 00000 n
0000098862 00000 n
0000102151 00000 n
0000102173 00000 n
0000102357 00000 n
0000105946 00000 n
0000105968 00000 n
0000106058 00000 n
0000106232 00000 n
0000108227 00000 n
0000108249 00000 n
0000109390 00000 n
0000109661 00000 n
0000110802 00000 n
0000111071 00000 n
0000111141 00000 n
0000111398 00000 n
0000112539 00000 n
0000112813 00000 n
0000113955 00000 n
0000114234 00000 n
0000115376 00000 n
0000115650 00000 n
0000115773 00000 n
0000000000 00001 f
0000116284 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 108
/Info 105 0 R
/Root 2 0 R
/ID[<8c682bc8034e3255fd0ff8a9a479e2a0><8b5df66c7e23328f288033f0f3ed639a>]
>>
startxref
118104
%%EOF
%BeginExifToolUpdate
105 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (D:00000101000000Z)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (webtoolz/pdfAnalysis.sh MarkU June 28 2020)
/Title (Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-07-17 On Petition for Review for \
an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency)
/ModDate (D:20050902151904-06'00')
/Subject (Tags Modified: 1593361700 : Author,Language,)
/Author (CARB-ISD)
>>
endobj
107 0 obj
<<
/Type /Metadata
/Subtype /XML
/Length 4102
>>
stream
en-US
Tags Modified: 1593361700 : Author,Language,
Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-07-17 On Petition for Review for an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency
CARB-ISD
0-01-01T00:00:00Z
VERSACOMP R05.2
2005-09-02T15:19:04-06:00
webtoolz/pdfAnalysis.sh MarkU June 28 2020
Tags Modified: 1593361700 : Author,Language,
Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-07-17 On Petition for Review for an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency
0-01-01T00:00:00Z
2005-09-02T15:19:04-06:00
2004-01-26T15:51:06-08:00
Petition to the Court of Appeals: 2003-07-17 On Petition for Review for an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency
endstream
endobj
xref
0 1
0000000000 65535 f
105 1
0000120446 00000 n
107 1
0000120826 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 108
/Info 105 0 R
/Root 2 0 R
/ID [ <8c682bc8034e3255fd0ff8a9a479e2a0> <8e5df66c7e23328f288033f0f3ed639a> ]
/Prev 118104
>>
%EndExifToolUpdate 120425
startxref
125013
%%EOF