Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to analyze ozone emissions resulting from the proposed action, rather than from a concern with the adequacy of an actual ozone analysis.”). This contention is belied by the record. In its final EIS, BLM identified the 8-hour background concentration for ozone in the region adjacent to the WAII tracts for the period from 2005 through 2007. See J.A. 1033. According to the data relied upon by BLM, the background concentration for that time period was 136 |xg/m3, below the NAAQS of 157 p,g/m3 that applied prior to May 2008 and below the 147 p,g/m3 standard that applied after May 2008. See J.A. 50, 1033. BLM therefore noted that the area is considered to be in “attainment” status for ozone, see J.A. 1388, something that is conceded by WildEarth Plaintiffs, see WildEarth Pis.’ [89] Mem. at 9 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, BLM analyzed the effects of NOx 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that nox is an ozone precursor (B) recognizing that campbell county is in attainment with the current ozone naaqs (C) holding that motion to transfer also must show either that county where action is pending is improper or that venue is mandatory in another county (D) recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions  (E) holding that the grant county prosecutor had a statutory duty to be legal advisor to the county clerk even though she was not embroiled in litigation in which the county was the real party in interest
Output (English): holding that motion to transfer also must show either that county where action is pending is improper or that venue is mandatory in another county