Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01252/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01252-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ATK Launch Systems, Inc.
Petitioner
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment
Amicus Curiae for Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 24, 2012 Decided February 24, 2012

No. 10-1004

ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS, INC.,

PETITIONER

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENT

BRIAN MOENCH AND UTAH PHYSICIANS

 FOR A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT,

INTERVENORS

Consolidated with 10-1005, 10-1006, 

11-1252, 11-1253, 11-1254

On Petitions for Review of a Final Action 

of the Environmental Protection Agency

Michael A. Zody argued the cause for petitioners. With him

on the briefs were Michael L. Larsen, M. Lindsay Ford,

Elizabeth A. Schulte, and David W. Tundermann. Dylan M.

Fuge and Claudia M. O'Brien entered appearances. 

Jessica O'Donnell, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 1 of 15
2

Geoffrey L. Wilcox, Attorney, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

Joro Walker was on the brief for intervenors Utah

Physicians for a Healthy Environment, et al. in support of

respondent. 

Before: ROGERS and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and

GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge ROGERS.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge: In these consolidated petitions,

ATK Launch Systems, Inc., two Utah counties, and three Utah

cities seek partial vacation of a final rule designating certain

areas as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate

matter (PM2.5) standard. Air Quality Designations for the 2006

24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality

Standards, 74 Fed. Reg. 58,688 (Nov. 13, 2009) (“Final Rule”). 

In particular, petitioners challenge the inclusion of parts of

Tooele and Box Elder Counties within the Salt Lake City

nonattainment area. The Environmental Protection Agency

concluded, upon applying its nine-factor test for designations,

that emissions from eastern portions of both Box Elder County,

including Brigham City and ATK’s operations, and Tooele

County, including Tooele City and Grantsville City, contributed

to nearby violations of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in and around

Salt Lake City. 

Petitioners’ principal argument is that EPA was arbitrary

and capricious in applying the nine-factor designation analysis,

arguing dissimilar treatment as compared to EPA’s analysis of

the data for two east coast counties, Warren County, New Jersey

and Hartford County, Connecticut, which EPA designated

attainment. Petitioners also object to EPA’s use of a pollutant

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 2 of 15
3

transport model generally and its analysis of wind data for Box

Elder County specifically. Finally, they question EPA’s

decision to include ATK’s operations in the nonattainment

portion of Box Elder County. Because EPA’s nine-factor test is

intended to be applied on a case-by-case basis to account for

diverse considerations, including the varying effects of local

topography and meteorology on PM2.5 dispersion, and EPA

reasonably explained its designations, we deny the petitions for

review.

I.

Title 1 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) requires EPA to set

national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants that may

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7408–09. One such pollutant, PM2.5, consists of

airborne particles 2.5 micrometers or smaller in diameter. EPA

has promulgated both an annual and a 24-hour standard for

PM2.5. Effective December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour

PM2.5 standard downward from 65 micrograms/cubic meter to

35 micrograms/cubic meter. See National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Particulate Matter, 71 Fed. Reg. 61,144 (Oct. 17,

2006) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 50). Under § 107(d) of the

CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d), after new or revised standards are

promulgated, States are to submit proposed area designations to

EPA, classifying areas as attainment, nonattainment, or

unclassifiable. Areas are to be designated nonattainment if they

either violate the standard or contribute to a nearby area’s

violation. Id. § 7407(d)(1)(A)(i). The EPA Administrator may

modify the designations as deemed necessary, and States then

have an opportunity to respond to the modifications. Id.

§ 7407(d)(1)(B)(ii).

On June 8, 2007, EPA provided States with a guidance

document suggesting that they consider nine factors in making

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 3 of 15
4

designations: (1) emission data, (2) air quality data, (3)

population density and degree of urbanization, (4) traffic and

commuting patterns, (5) growth rates and patterns, (6)

meteorology, (7) geography/topography (e.g., mountain ranges

and other air basin boundaries), (8) jurisdictional boundaries,

and (9) level of control of emission sources. The list is neither

“mandatory nor an exclusive list of types of relevant

information.” Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. at 58,694-95. In

Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 38–40 (D.C. Cir. 2009),

the court approved EPA’s interpretation of section 107 of the

CAA to permit it to apply this nine-factor test in determining

which areas contribute to violations in a nearby nonattainment

area. 

The PM2.5 problem in the Salt Lake City area is driven by

topography and meteorology: the area is a valley almost

completely bounded by mountain ranges. Under normal

meteorological conditions, air temperature decreases as altitude

increases. In the Salt Lake City area, wintertime high pressure

systems cause temperature inversions; high altitude warm air

traps cold air below, with an inversion layer at about 1,500 feet.

The surrounding mountains, which extend above the inversion

layer, trap the ground level cold air and prevent dispersion. 

Pollution then accumulates in the stagnant air mass, sometimes

for weeks at a time. The air quality worsens gradually until the

high pressure system lifts, at which point the polluted air can

disperse over the mountains. Without these seasonal inversions,

Salt Lake City would not likely be in violation of the air quality

standards – the State of Utah noted in its 2007 submission to

EPA that it attains the annual PM2.5 standard. 

Utah submitted its proposed designations on December 18,

2007, including recommendations that Box Elder County be

designated attainment and Tooele County be designated

unclassifiable; Box Elder County is north, and Tooele County

is west, of the Great Salt Lake. Utah’s recommendations did not

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 4 of 15
5

include portions of these two “contributing” counties and also

made Utah County, which borders Salt Lake County to the

south, a separate nonattainment area. EPA disagreed and

classified parts of both Box Elder County (including Brigham

City and ATK’s operations) and Tooele County (including

Tooele City and Grantsville City) nonattainment and as part of

a single unified nonattainment area for the Salt Lake City area,

because, under EPA’s analysis, they contribute to the Salt Lake

City area’s violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. EPA’s

classifications were consistent with Utah’s recommended

eastern boundary but differed relative to the western boundary.

Considering the nine factors together, EPA determined that

eastern portions of both Box Elder and Tooele Counties produce

emissions that contribute to nearby violations of the standard. 

Final Utah Technical Support Document (Dec. 2008), at 53; see

Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. at 58,769–70 (table). EPA found that

the portions of Box Elder and Tooele Counties designated

nonattainment were in the same topographic airshed as the

greater Salt Lake City area, and that there was no physical

impediment to prevent their emissions from traveling into the

violating region. Using wind data collected from Salt Lake

International Airport, EPA analyzed PM2.5 measurements from

air quality monitors; when the Salt Lake County monitors

recorded violations, the prevailing winds were from the

northwest and southeast. EPA concluded this indicated that

“some portion of PM2.5 that influence[s] [violating] monitor[s]

[] originates from eastern Box Elder County to the north” and

“some portion . . . originates from the north and west of Salt

Lake County from sources in Tooele County.” Final Utah

Technical Support Document, at 39. EPA further explained that

modeling of emissions demonstrated that some contributions

came from Box Elder and Tooele Counties, the populated areas

of the counties had relatively high density, the percentage of

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 5 of 15
6

people commuting into Salt Lake County from the two counties

was high, and both had higher than average predicted growth. 

EPA also examined the wind patterns, which showed that,

during the wintertime inversions, the emissions “sloshed”

around the valley, because winds move from higher elevations

to the low points during the night, and then in the opposite

direction during the day. In this manner, emissions from the

nonattainment portions of Box Elder and Tooele Counties would

be carried into violating areas in and around Salt Lake City at

night. EPA additionally considered the Contributing Emissions

Score (“CES”), which incorporates emissions, meteorological,

and air quality data to provide a relative ranking score of the

potential contribution of an area’s counties to the local air

quality problem. The scores are normalized to show relative

contribution within an area, with values ranging from 0 to 100;

the eastern portion of Box Elder County had a CES of 7 and the

eastern portion of Tooele County had a CES of 2. In conjunction

with the nine-factor test, the CES provided an additional method

of evaluating the potential contribution of nearby counties. 

Based on its analysis, EPA defined the boundaries of the airshed

as the Wasatch Mountains to the east, the Promontory and North

Promontory Mountains to the west (for eastern Box Elder

County), and the Stansbury to the west (for eastern Tooele

County). 

Petitioners sought review of the Final Rule in the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and subsequently filed

protective petitions for review in this court; the Tenth Circuit

transferred the case to this court, ATK Launch Sys., Inc. v. EPA,

651 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2011). Our review of EPA’s

rulemaking pursuant to the CAA is under the same standard as

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 

Catawba, 571 F.3d at 41; Allied Local & Reg’l Mfrs. Caucus v.

EPA, 215 F.3d 61, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The Final Rule may be

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 6 of 15
7

vacated only if “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 7607(d)(9)(A). The court “must affirm the Rule if the record

shows EPA considered all relevant factors and articulated a

‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice

made.’” Catawba, 571 F.3d at 41 (quoting Burlington Truck

Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The court

“give[s] an ‘extreme degree of deference to [EPA] when it is

evaluating scientific data within its technical expertise.’” Id.

(quoting City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228, 247 (D.C. Cir.

2003) (second alteration in original)). This level of deference is

“especially appropriate in [] review of EPA’s administration of

the complicated provisions of the Clean Air Act.” Id. (citing

Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1229

(D.C. Cir. 2007)); see also Bluewater Network v. EPA, 372 F.3d

404, 410 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

II.

In upholding EPA’s nine-factor test, this court concluded

that “nothing in the [CAA] compels EPA to quantify a uniform

amount of contribution below which counties will automatically

escape nonattainment designations or to quantify similar

thresholds for the nine factors EPA evaluated in making those

determinations.” Catawba, 571 F.3d at 39. Furthermore, the

court observed, “discrete data points” are not determinative,

because elevating them “ignore[s] the very nature of the ninefactor test, which is designed to analyze a wide variety of data

on a case-by-case basis.” Id. at 46 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Thus, “EPA’s holistic assessment of

numerous factors [] drives the process – no single factor

determines a particular designation.” Id. Nonetheless, the ninefactor test may not be applied “inconsistently, resulting in

similar counties being treated dissimilarly.” Id. at 40 (emphasis

added).

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 7 of 15
8

A.

The bulk of petitioners’ challenge rests on a comparison

between the data underlying EPA’s decision to classify Box

Elder and Tooele Counties nonattainment and that underlying

EPA’s decision to classify two east coast counties, Warren

County, New Jersey and Hartford County, Connecticut,

attainment. Petitioners’ premise is flawed. The significant

topographical and meteorological differences between the Salt

Lake City area and the two east coast counties make a direct

one-to-one comparison of the data underlying the analyses

inappropriate. 

As the State of Utah explained in recommending

designations, in the Salt Lake City area “it is not enough to

simply have an urban area with an urban mix of emissions [to

cause a violation]; there must also be a barrier to dispersion . .

. which allows PM2.5 concentrations to build up over a period of

several days.” Utah Area Designation Recommendation for the

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (“Utah Recommendations”), at 3. In other

words, fewer emissions on any given day are necessary to cause

a problem in the Salt Lake City area because the inversion layer

forms a lid and the mountains a wall, trapping accumulating

emissions for days or weeks. EPA pointed out that the 24-hour

PM2.5 nonattainment areas on the east coast are distinct; no such

temperature inversion exists trapping pollutants at the ground

level, and no mountain ranges limit dispersion. See Final

Connecticut Technical Support Document (Dec. 2008), at Factor

7; Final New Jersey Technical Support Document (Dec. 2008),

at 18. There, the sheer volume of emissions on a given day,

rather than topographical and meteorological influences that

cause accumulation of emissions over time, suffices to cause

violations of the 24-hour standard. Because the Salt Lake City

area’s problem is cumulative, a comparison of data on a per-day

basis is not informative. It is no surprise that the data for the

four counties led EPA to reach opposite conclusions, and

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 8 of 15
9

petitioners thus fail to demonstrate that “similar counties [have

been] treated dissimilarly” by EPA. Catawba, 571 F.3d at 40

(emphasis added).

Petitioners also raise several objections concerning

dissimilar treatment that go beyond a simple comparison of the

data among the four counties. The first two, involving how EPA

characterized the population density of the Utah Counties and its

consideration of projected, in addition to historical, growth rates

for Utah but not for Hartford and Warren Counties, are readily

disposed of. Both Box Elder and Tooele Counties are physically

large, with vast expanses of rural, unpopulated desert regions

separated from the Salt Lake City airshed by mountain ranges. 

It was reasonable for EPA to examine the population of only the

portions of the counties considered for nonattainment separately

from the counties as a whole – indeed, it would be illogical to do

otherwise. See Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. at 58,696. Although

EPA could have taken the next step of determining the actual

population density for the nonattainment-designated portions of

the counties, its conclusion of relatively high density is

supported by the data in the record. Likewise, the State of Utah

provided EPA with projected growth rate data, see Utah

Recommendations, at 27–28, and it was appropriate for EPA to

consider “the best available information,” Catawba, 571 F.3d at

44.

Petitioners also object that in considering the traffic and

commuting patterns for Box Elder and Tooele Counties, EPA

relied on percentages of commuters traveling to other counties,

rather than raw numbers of commuters, to support its findings of

contribution. In Warren and Hartford Counties, EPA focused on

the raw number of commuters. The court noted in Catawba that

EPA stated that “the relevant factor on which it relied was not

the percentage of commuters but rather the raw number of

commuters.” Id. at 50. Catawba, however, dealt with the

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 9 of 15
10

annual PM2.5 standard. Because the 24-hour standard is at issue

here, and the Salt Lake City area’s violations of that standard

occur after trapped pollution accumulates over days or weeks,

reliance on daily raw numbers of commuters would understate

the potential contribution of Box Elder and Tooele Counties. 

EPA, in fact, provided the raw numbers (both commuters and

vehicle miles traveled) while noting this data “does not

adequately take into account . . . [a] large volume of diesel truck

traffic[] on the major highways running through th[e] area.” 

Final Utah Technical Support Document, at 36. EPA explained

that the relatively high percentage of commuters traveling from

Box Elder and Tooele Counties to Salt Lake County

demonstrates a linkage between the areas, suggesting that the

two counties contribute to the nearby nonattainment status. Id.

The high projected growth rates in population and vehicle miles

traveled for both counties further supports this conclusion. In

any event, “no single factor determines a particular designation.” 

Catawba, 571 F.3d at 46; see Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. at 58,695.

Additionally, petitioners question EPA’s treatment of the

CES on two grounds: the use of partial-county scores for Box

Elder and Tooele Counties and EPA’s treatment of those

counties’ low scores, compared to the higher scores for Warren

and Hartford Counties that EPA described as demonstrating a

low potential for significant contribution. EPA reasonably relied

on scores calculated for only the portions of Box Elder and

Tooele Counties designated nonattainment, however, because a

county-wide “CES cannot adequately account for the effects of

mountainous terrain which would essentially split a county into

different parts, each having [its] own potentially unique effect

on the violating county,” EPA Derivation of Contributing

Emission Score (Dec. 15, 2008) (“CES Derivation”), at 9. And

although the CES is normalized to show relative contribution,

EPA cautioned that it “only provides relative contribution within

the area under evaluation and does not provide a reliable means

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 10 of 15
11

for comparison between counties in different areas.” Final Rule,

74 Fed. Reg. at 58,695 n.16. In explaining the derivation of the

CES, EPA emphasized that the scores require careful

interpretation, “particularly in the western United States.” CES

Derivation at 9. EPA addressed that concern by calculating

partial-county scores to account for the size and geographic

separation of the counties, and further noted that mountain

ranges can act as barriers to transported emissions, implying

further caution was warranted because of the effect of the

inversion layer, which causes emissions to accumulate over

time. In any event, the CES was “merely an additional method

for evaluating the potential contribution of nearby counties,”

Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. at 58,695, and other of the nine factors,

such as topography, may weigh more heavily than the CES. Cf.

Catawba, 571 F.3d at 49. EPA’s application of the CES data is

the type of “‘evaluati[on] [of] scientific data within its technical

expertise,’” for which the court gives EPA an “‘extreme degree

of deference,’” Id. at 41 (quoting City of Waukesha, 320 F.3d at

247). 

Further, petitioners maintain that in applying the first factor

(emissions), EPA applied a “significant contribution” standard

to Hartford County but an “any contribution” standard to Box

Elder and Tooele Counties. In the Final Rule, EPA rejected

adoption of a “significant contribution” standard, 74 Fed. Reg.

at 58,691–92, and the court upheld its similar rejection in

Catawba, 571 F.3d at 38–39. Although EPA’s technical

analysis used the word “significant,” it more often referred to

the potential contribution of Hartford County without using the

word, suggesting that it was used as an adjective to describe the

data, rather than as a dissimilar standard. Compare Final

Connecticut Technical Support Document, at Factors 1, 6, and

Conclusion, with id., at Factors 3, 4, 5, 8, and Conclusion. It is

far from the dissimilar treatment the court rejected in Catawba,

where one Region’s bright-line test would have resulted in a

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 11 of 15
12

county in a different Region being designated attainment, had

the same test been used in the second Region. See id. at 51–52. 

Petitioners fail to demonstrate that EPA employed a different

standard or acted arbitrarily or capriciously in its analysis of Box

Elder and Tooele Counties as compared to its analysis of

Hartford County.

B.

 In addition to asserting dissimilar treatment compared to

Warren and Hartford Counties, petitioners challenge EPA’s use

of modeling data in analyzing the potential transport of

emissions from Box Elder and Tooele Counties as technically

infirm, and its analysis and characterization of the wind data for

Box Elder County as both unsupportive of inclusion in the

nonattainment area, and nonresponsive to new information in

the record. Neither objection has merit.

As part of its analysis of factor six, meteorology, EPA used

a modeling program, “HYSPLIT,” which analyzes wind

conditions to determine dispersion of pollutants; this analysis

yields “back-trajectories” that help determine the source of

pollutants. See Final Utah Technical Support Document, at 41. 

The modeling demonstrated a degree of transport of emissions

from Box Elder and Tooele Counties into the violating Salt Lake

City monitors during inversion episodes. Petitioners point to

EPA’s statements acknowledging the “HYSPLIT” model’s

limitations, particularly in areas with topographic features, such

as mountains. See EPA State and Tribal Comment Summary

and Response Document (Dec. 22, 2008) at 13, 188. EPA,

however, independently analyzed surface meteorological data

from the State of Utah’s monitoring stations, which confirmed

the results of the “HYSPLIT” model. Id. By confirming the

modeling results with on-the-ground data, EPA “took reasonable

steps to ensure that” the “HYSPLIT” model’s limitations were

considered, “and its choices are not arbitrary or capricious,” Am.

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 12 of 15
13

Coke & Coal Chems. Inst. v. EPA, 452 F.3d 930, 943 (D.C. Cir.

2006).

Likewise, petitioners’ objection to EPA’s analysis of wind

direction data is without merit. In its initial analysis modifying

Utah’s recommended designations, EPA used wind direction

and speed data from the Salt Lake City International Airport and

the Pocatello Regional Airport in Idaho to analyze the pollution

data for Box Elder County. In response to comments from the

State of Utah that the two sites were too far from Box Elder

County to adequately account for local topographic influences

on wind direction and speed, EPA replaced the data with that

from Hill Air Force Base, which is closer. The original data

showed that when PM2.5 levels in Box Elder County were

highest, wind was coming from the northwest. The replacement

data, using the more representative Hill Air Force Base wind

measurements, indicated that when PM2.5 levels in Box Elder

County were highest, wind was coming from the southeast. 

Petitioners point out that EPA’s conclusion did not change

despite the substitution of new data for Box Elder County. In

both the preliminary and final technical analyses, EPA

concluded that “the data presented . . . for the Salt Lake CityOgden-Clearfield [area] . . . appear to show that some

component of measured elevated PM2.5 values may originate

from the” northwest, supporting the conclusion that Box Elder

County contributes to nearby violations. Compare EPA

Modification to Designations (Aug. 18, 2008) at 36 with Final

Utah Technical Support Document, at 39.

Nonetheless, petitioners’ claim that EPA was arbitrary and

capricious in failing to address the new data in its analysis is

incorrect. EPA’s analysis and conclusions were of the wind data

for the Salt Lake City air basin as a whole, not just for Box

Elder County. As EPA reasonably explained in responding to

comments about the changed data, “[t]he difference between

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 13 of 15
14

[the original and substituted data] is not unexpected given the

influence of local topography. The Salt Lake International

[data] used by EPA is likely more representative of large scale

wind patterns in the basin, given the relative distance of the

airport from topographic features.” EPA Public Comment

Summary and Response Document (Dec. 22, 2008), at 166–67;

see also EPA State and Tribal Comment Summary and

Response Document, at 189. In other words, to determine what

areas are contributing to nearby violations, the most relevant

wind data is that which corresponds with the violating monitors. 

The record supports the conclusion that, when PM2.5 levels are

most severe in Salt Lake City, wind direction is sometimes from

the northwest, indicating contribution from Box Elder County. 

EPA’s analysis of the wind data and air basin conclusion about

pollution transport was reasonably based upon “the best

available information,” Catawba, 571 F.3d at 44, and petitioners

thus fail to demonstrate that EPA ignored new information or

otherwise was arbitrary or capricious. 

C.

Finally, petitioners challenge EPA’s designation of the

portion of Box Elder County containing ATK’s operations as

arbitrary and capricious. ATK is engaged in the aerospace and

defense industries. EPA may designate partial counties, see

Catawba, 571 F.3d at 42, and it reasonably relied on the

Promontory Mountains, and the coinciding intra-county

jurisdictional boundaries, as the western topographic boundary

for the airshed in Box Elder County. Petitioners do not dispute

that ATK’s operations occur below the inversion layer, which is

at about 1,500 feet, and, as discussed, EPA reasonably

concluded that meteorological data indicated that emissions

from eastern Box Elder County, where ATK’s operations occur,

contribute to nearby violations of the PM2.5 standards. 

Petitioners fail to demonstrate that EPA was arbitrary or

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 14 of 15
15

capricious by including ATK’s operations within the

nonattainment area.

Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review.

USCA Case #11-1252 Document #1360185 Filed: 02/24/2012 Page 15 of 15