@,<ED $14~ 

2-., UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY $tJg: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

-? Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1 

% P %'4( ,,ol~G 

m221981 , 

SUBJECT: Agency Policy on the Use of Special Purpose Monitoring Data 

FROM: S. ~eitz, Director 

ce of Air Quality Pl 

TO: Director, Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation, Region I 

Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, Region I1 

Director, Environmental Assessment and Protection Division, Region III 

Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division, Region N 

Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V 

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region VI 

Director, Environmental Services Division, RegionVII 

Director, Air Program, Region VIII 

Director, Air Division, Region IX 

Director, Office of Air Quality, Region X 

The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has received several inquiries from 

Regional Offices into how special purpose monitoring data can be used in making a variety of 

regulatory decisions such as designations, classifications, and attainment date extensions. We also 

have a final ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which supports the U.S. 

EPA denial -of ~enns~lvania's redesignation request for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone 

nonattainrnent area. In light of these questions, legal developments, and the new National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) implementation directives, I believe it is necessary to 

discuss the use of all publicly available special purpose monitoring data for all regulatory 

applications. The Agency policy on the use of all special purpose monitoring data for any 

regulatory purpose, with the exception of fine particulate matter data (PM-2.5), is that all qualityassured and valid data meeting 40 CFR 58 requirements must be considered within the regulatory 

process. This policy applies to aIl ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

lead, and particulate matter (PM-10) special purpose monitors, whether the data are reported into 

the AIRS database or available through other means. The recently findied 40 CFR 58 

particulate matter rule (62 FR. 38763) provides speciilc direction on how fine particulate (PM2.5) data collected by special purpose monitors will be considered in the regulatory process. 
Special purpose monitoring is conducted on a fiequent basis in the United States for a 

variety of reasons. Examples of why State and local agencies use special purpose monitoring as a 

tool to supplement their ambient air monitoring networks include the need to obtain information 

on where to locate permanent monitoring stations, to provide additional data in support of 

pollutant formation and transport analyses, or to assess air quality in a particular location. 

Industries often operate special purpose monitoring sites in support of the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program, and to satisfy their own information needs on air quality 

around their hcilities. These studies vary in duration fiom being temporary sites needed only 

during a portion of the year to long-term air pollution studies over a large area. The U.S. EPA 

and other Federal agenciq designate sites that are part of long-term studies or permanent 

networks as special purpose monitors, e.g., Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) 

and National Park Service sites. Where public hds are expended to support these studies (§ 105 

Grant fbnding for example), the responsible monitoring agency will generally report these data to 

the U.S. EPA as part of their routine monitoring data submittal into the Aerometric Information 

Retrieval System (AIRS), or in some other form, such as hard copy. 

The U.S. EPA also recognizes that there are a number of special purpose monitoring 

stations operated and maintained by private entities using private hds that do not regularly 

report the data to the AIRS or to the Agency through other means. On occasion, select private 

entities will provide these data to the U.S. EPA on a voluntary basis. These types of special 

purpose monitoring sites are frequently operated as part of private research studies or as part of 

an industry group's interest in obtaining information on their local air quality. 

Nationwide, we currently receive data fiom 5,209 criteria pollutant ambient air monitoring 

stations, of which 1,639 are special purpose monitoring stations operated by Federal agencies, 

State or local agencies, industrial groups, Tribal governments, or other private entities. 

While many of these 1,639 special purpose monitoring stations are operating in counties where 

other State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) are also actively reporting data, many of 

these special purpose monitors are operating in counties that do not have active SLAMS to 

provide supplemental information. As an example, there are 1,014 ozone monitoring stations 

reporting data to the AIRS, of which 151 are special purpose monitoring stations that are 

operating in counties that do not have other SLAMS supplementing the county's database. It is 

this subset of special purpose monitors, along with those special purpose monitors whose data are 

not reported to AIRS, that are expected to be affected by the U.S. EPA's policies regarding the 

use of special purpose monitoring data. 

The Third Circuit Court decision supports the view that the EPA may not redesignate an 

area from nonattainment to attainment if the EPA knows that the area is not meeting the ozone 

NAAQS. Specifically, if the U.S. EPA knows of a violation or violations of the ozone NAAQS 

by either examining information within the AIRS or data fiom other sources and these data meet 

all 40 CFR Part 58 requirements, the U.S. EPA cannot determine that an area is attaining the 

NAAQS. 
Existing 40 CFR Part 58 regulations do provide restrictions on the special purpose 

monitoring data used for demonstrations of attainment or nonattainment or in computing a design 

value for control purposes. Spdcally, these data and monitoring sites must meet the 

requirements for SLAMS described in 5558.13, 58.22, and Part 58 Appendices A and E. These 

regulations are primarily concerned with the quality of the analyzer or sampling method and with 

the quality of the data reported. These restrictions do not include the requirement that the special 

purpose monitoring data be reported to the U.S. EPA's AIRS. The regulations also allow for - 

alternative monitoring seasons (e-g., different ozone seasons) for special purpose monitoring sites 

provided that these alternative seasons are approved by the Regional Administrator. Briefly, the 

Part 58 requirements can ke summarized as below: \ 

1. The special purpose monitoring data must be from a U.S. EPA approved reference or 

equivalent method (558.22). 

2. The special purpose monitor must be operated in accordance with all applicable 

SLAMS quality assurance requirements as listed in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A. 

3. The special purpose monitor must meet all probe or path siting requirements as defined 

in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix E. 

The U.S. EPA recognizes that decisions on the use or non-use of special purpose 

monitoring data may impact certain areas' designations and hre regulatory actions. It is not 

U.S. EPA's intent to discourage additional special monitoring studies or to discourage the use of 

non-SLAMS data; however, under current regulations, U.S. EPA is obligated to consider all 

publicly available, valid (i.e., collected in accordance with 40 CFR 58), and relevant data in the 

NAAQS regulatory process. In addition to data reported to the AIRS, publicly available data may 

include data available fiom other sources including those special purpose monitors operated by 

third parties. Once the U.S. EPA is aware of these data from non-AIRS sources, the U.S. EPA 

should use reasonable means to obtain these data; ven@ that these data were collected in 

accordance with 40 CFR 58; and, once quality-assured, consider these data within the regulatory 

decision-making process. This policy clarifies previous agency policy interpretations. In 

particular, this revises two previous interpretations that only ozone data reported into AIRS 

would be considered when evaluating an area's compliance with the NAAQS. One interpretation 

was documented in the Federal Redster for the correction to the classification of the 

Beaumonflort Arthur Ozone nonattainrnent area (61 FR 14496) after going through a State 

implementation plan consistency analysis, and the second was documented in the Federal Rw 

for the redesignation of the Bay Area from nonattainment to attainment with the ozone NAAQS 

(60 FR 27028). 

Under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the OAQPS does not expect to use data from ozone 

monitors that operate for fewer than 3 years in judging compliance with the ozone NAAQS. This 

policy, which is consistent with the new 40 CFR Part 58 regulations for the measurement of fine 

particulate matter, should provide some relief to those agencies who operate short-term special 
purpose monitoring studies (no more than 2 years in durdon). Specifically, this provision is 

expected to promote short-term ozone special monitoring studies in rural or remote areas where 

routine regulatory monitoring to assess population exposure is not normally conducted, and , 

where implementing traditional local control measures would not provide for attainment of the 

ozone NAAQS. The U.S. EPA will propose regulatory revisions to 40 CFR 58 in April 1998 that 

will strengthen the Regional Office's flexibility in dealing with special purpose ozone monitors and 

using these data as appropriate. -. 

- 

The U.S. EPA also recognizes that this deQsion on the use of special purpose monitoring 

data may impact actions within the Federal Advisory Committee Act Subcommittee on Ozone, 

Particulate Matter, and ~kgional Haze Implementation based on recommendations from the 

Monitoring Incentives Ad Hoc Group. This group of external stakeholders has investigated ways 

in which the U.S. EPA can act to encourage additional monitoring and reduce regulatory burdens 

on affected entities. Among their many options, this group has recommended the formation of 

publieprivate partnerships to exparid ambient monitoring, with a recommendation that all data be 

made publicly available. It is important to note that once these data become part of the public 

record, the U. S. EPA is obligated to use these data within the NAAQS regulatory process. 

If you require fbrther information, please contact Lee Ann Byrd at 91 9-54 1-5367 for 

information on 40 CFR Part 58 and monitoring; Tom Helms at 919-541-5527 for information on 

ozone and nitrogen dioxide air quality policy issues; and Joe Paisie at 91 9-541-5556 for 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, lead, or sulh dioxide air quality policy issues. 

Attachment 

cc: Deputy Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I 

Director, Division of Environmental Science and Assessment, Region 11 

Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, Region III 

Director, Science & Ecosystems Support Division, Region IV 

Director, Air -RCRA, and Toxics Division, Region VII 

Director, Office of Environmental Assessment, Region X 

Lydia Wegman, OAQPS 

Henry Thomas, OAQPS 

William F. Hunt, EMAD 

Sally Shaver, AQSSD 

Tom Helms, AQSSD 

Joe Paisie, AQSSD 

Richard Scheffe, EMAD 

David Guinnup, EMAD 

Richard Ossias, OGC 

Lee Ann Byrd, EMAD 

Regional Monitoring Contacts 

Warren Freas, EMAD 
David Cole, AQSSD 

John Silvasi, AQSSD 

.Barry Gilbert, AQSSD 

Larry Wallace, AQSSD 
Rled July 28, 1997 

UNmD SrATEs COURT OF A.W 

WR l.: WE .'lllCRD CIRCUIT . . 

=- . . ..I 

PENNSYLVANIA GRO\K~ AWCE., , . ~ttbncr . . 

: ' ;: ..... ..V. ... : 

. . 

. . CAROL BROWNER' Admlnl?tralor of lht U.S. 

. . ..... ..I. 

. . , . ' Envlronmtnlal JVoWon ~~eendjr, and THE UNmD 

I ?.. . .... 

. . ,... , sTATES'EN?'lRONMEKTAL,. , .. PRO1FCllON AGENCY. ,. , i'. .: .'. . . , . ' .. ? 

J'.; ... ... Rwpoydyts ... I 1. ..... 

. . ., . . 

ADVANCED WUFAClURlNG NEIWORK, ' . 

Inlewcnot .In support of pt!!Uoner .. 1.: ; . a, , . .: !. ;& .I .. . . 

. . 

. . ON PPrnnCiN FOR REVIEW OF A FINAL ORDER :' :.:. .- ' t 

...... ... _.. & ..... . . . . OF ViS BWROVMEWU. pROTECnON AGENCY , ., ... .:' (Dale4 Yay 1, 19L96) . . i.. . . I. .. .'! .. . ..I' . .:I . . ',' . ... .. 1. ArguakMat~h 11, 19B7 ... . . 

.... 

... .Bany M. Hartman; Esq. (argued) i( , !. I: .. l.Kmnt4r S. Komowkl; Esq., 

. , . :. John F. bgkrt, Esq. ' 

' ... ':WlllamJ. Mli, Esg: .'. 

. . ..j KIRKPA'fRICK & UK!M K.6' .. ..... .... .. ; ....... 1 - ; 1500 .ollwr ~ulldlng i . . .' . . .. .:.. ?. . .. . ... : :., ,.. . < '. ;.;: ' . ... . . ...... 

.. : ! flileburgh,. FA 15222 , . . . 5 i; , .. .., . . . 

. . . . ... . . ..... ....:.. h, . . . , ibey.~b-r .. 

. . .... . ... .... (. 

.... ... 
JLIL-31-1997 12:06 EPR R3 WE . . 
j, . . clifbrd ,8. Mnc . 

*. IMORP. REED &. ARMmONG 

standards. we art mnsLralnd to deny the pettUon. for 

mew. . ' 

Ont ~vttfmnt center I . . 

.. ' : . . ... . . , .. ' 

. . . . . . 

Pltbburgh, PA 15222 I . ' I . .; : I.', . . 

..... .... \J ~d '. . 1. Fq%' * 6 I 

0 

01 

n 

S~ara Club bqpl Mar Pund 

1626 Maer, eve., N,W., altc 702 

2 . . Waehlmgton, f?C 20638.:. . I I 

U . . . . 

. . ~tlomey&r~'~~':'~ .' . 

' . 

. , Lkdcwum Y~Y'~' $or 

I. : .CCeqnw . .I. .....: I. 

. . .... ...: :...ii. ... 

i' ... . . ......... ~o~.~~w~- . ... . ., , : . I. .I..: ,!.r I- 

, I. I 

, -~ ... . '. 

,.. . . ...... ... . . .' ' 

Clrcull J~dgc: . , . '. . .I. 

, , . -. . . 

c9 

a The SauihWeelem Pennaybanla ' Growth ."Alllance 

I : I 

a (SWPOAvhsb ptUtkncd for mkl~ of a find rule of the M : I 

IY bvtronmtal Protccbn Agency ,I'EPA") 61 Pd, lit& ' I 

a 

a 19,193 (May '1, 1996). In Chls rule, the EPA hlad Ule 

w . .Co~nwcallh of. Pmnsyhwnle'a rcqutat the1 lht .BPA 

i 

rdcailignatc (he P1I~rgh-Ikavcr ~Vall y ' nonotlalnmt I 

... wee (the '-7 Ln @tlalnmmt alatrls ror ozont, pureuanl ' lo the Clean All. Acl, 42 US.C, @7407(d)(S). An InlcwCrH)r. ! 

ul 

m Advanced ManuCaclurlng Nelmrk, oonttnQe O\al ;lhc WA's .final nrk Is Cnvelld bncaust Ulc EPA dld not mmpb MU1 . . 

Cf Ur.Rcgulalory R~~Jbill(lr.Ad. 5 U.S.C. @ 601- 12.' Nth09& 

we uc .Jrnpa!heUc lo Ule"rln qrd by muiydwl(h(n P . ' the. Area that 1.1s rule lhl;ealtns ~I~u~ aoqnqmlc ham, .R. we rcmpbc Uul.gur role rcu(twtng' mud 16 ~(rccUy :. 

. . .... . I 

?J ... .. ..... 1I@1&* . " ..., .-). ' ??@J* :.,fp$ : zpP3: . fit . ;.?P~!!~~!~, B!? 1'. :,. ..... I 

I 

A, Cone mecttd ~hc ~h Alr ACI ta ?roteat and 

enhance the quallly or the NaUon'a alr mutp so ae lo . .promote Lhe pubjlc hdth'and welfare and Ule jiroducUve cepirclt)l or tLe populaUon.* 42 U.S.C. g7401(bnl). To 

mhhe lhla purpose. the Act ablhorhm'lhe WA lo IdcnUfj 

olr poiluLanLs Ulal w sultl~knUy danwr~us to -1 

I fcdcral rqplallon. See 42 U.S.C, w40814. ' For each I 

pollutant thal' the EPA fdmtlnts, the Acl autho- We 

EPA lo pmmulgalc a nebd ambltnl ab qualily shdatd 

CNAAQSl, &lch la the matrlrnum aJlotlvrrble mnantrallon ~f 

lhc polluLsrlt k th!: q~$luit alr..Sec 32 U.S.C. fj7#8(a). . . 

: one' po~~&l for J-W~IC~ LCEPA has pmmt.ibtd r 

NAAgS Is ocon*. whose chcmlcal pCbcut.bor&:arc wlted by 

.Industrial #'and 1f.aneportatlon; sour-.' . See 40 C.F.R 

6150.81aS . (18961.!: llte;: EPA ' mtasurca .ozone l~ta ' a( mnllorlng sl!ca ~~lpd~lhroughoul wt aounlry. When a 

.monltorlng sib rncaeurts that a' gtvtn;dayba 'mewlmum 

hourly ' average *amne' mnbtnCmtlorrt -has *excaerlM the . NAAQG, an Lcx~~w. has gocud,' See 40 C.F.R.' @O, 

.- App. H (1996). lf:a monltorlw ellt. rqlstk more' ban an 

average of one, moapclanw ptr ,y,mr. over a" lhme-yeat 

. IhqC. a,lk k .In mflwrnplhnm.Wth. the N.MW. .kt 

7hc clean -@r.Ad's.' 1990 amtkbcnta pmvlde Lhd be 

WA hrgn.~.te ,iUw d *~le country. no. ellher ^alWnmenl: 

arcaa. 'narcaUdnmcnt7: me. or ~"unclasalAable". areas for 

pafleuh~ polI.ubn~, dcgcndhg on whether' an ataa haa . 

.mmplld.*uh lh?ziNAAQS for ht pollu(ML.See 42 U.S.C. 

"74074d),.' If. one wn!wng. ..ad& .ivlulln. @+I amq '1s In 

non6omptlaypc, ,wl&.a,',NAAQ!3,'Ut#i lht tnllrc'at.ea Is . 

, d-@Iakd 4 nonaltah~l anai fpr'wal po~ulanC'See 40 . C,F'*R ' PL. ' M).%a): $0 ' .F.ER' PL ' 60. ' App; ' H (1996). 

Nonellalnmmt .am arc. (urUlu' draslw. o. *muglnd.' *p~dqate,~. ?~u~.~ *sevtrc," or *tlrltmeD nonattalnmnt 

arm, ctymrdlng lo ihe ucht to whkh lhe a;rca's rnonllor 

. . ,fy4ln$a mcabd' Lhc-NAA* .See 42:U.S.C, . . W5l la. . , I 

' .. :. . , .. ; . ! , ,.: ....... . . : .f.' . .. ' ' . :.i .' . .. , . 
. . . .. . ,.I : .., .".: ,,:.,. , , . . .. .. .. . . ihe d;ian i;i ,he bh(a ,j,e r+,ni)b;lyG .. 

hr aaeurlng alr quality wlthln each obk. See 42 U.S.~, .. 1 

w407(a). The Act provldca lhlrt wllhln. hrac yeam if fie 

EPA'6 QromulgaUon d a NAAQS for a polluCrml, dch e(ah 1 

muaC submll Lo tht EPA a stale lmplamntaUon plan [srrpr 

rpbcl&lng hcaaures. that orrtl) aUdn, malnlaln, and enform 

.Ule NAAQS, See 42. U.S.C. @7410(d. AU SPa muatme4 #c . mubrhUvc rcqulrpncnte enurneralad ..,el . . 42 U.S.c, $t4laa)[2). Once Ulc EPA hdo. Lab n SlP mmpka WI 

the Act, the EPA WtU .approve lh6 SFD SBe 42 ..U.S,C.. 

w41qk). When the EPA hne dcalgnakad an am wtlhln 8 

etatc as a. nonet(alnmm1 erea for. a partkular poUdtnnt 

thal state .muslrnodlfy Ile SIP (o hclude Incr~~~dng)S, etrJc1 

polluthn ,aonlrols ddlntald In Lhe' Act, dependrag on thc 

atator nonattalnml JassUloeMn. See 42 .U.SC. g7Sl la;. . 

Ihc Ad rpeell*. thc piasdurn hmugh whl& #c.EPA. : may radcei~qrale,an arta fmm noneillalnmcnl to aU.iuntn1. . * me pmcess btglns when lhc gowcmor of a state eubmltr a . 

request CM rtckslgnaUon, Ste 42 US-C. @7407(4(3)[0).' 

Then, 'lwllfhln 18 monh !of &pi of a complek Stale 

radeslgnaUon oubmlilal, .lhe ISPA( AdritlhlsLtetot. shall 

eppmve or deny euch radeelgnaUon." Id Under 42 U.S.C. 

$7607(d)(3)1E), Lhc EPA AdmlnlsLrator 'may not promuNgatc 

e dtellgnallon of a nonatlalnment area . , . to aUalnmeni ' unlees" Ihc rolkwvlng Rve cdtcrla ane mel: 

(I) Ole Admlnlalrab~ dclWhib thdt the arta hde 

aUetnad !he nallonal amblmt alr quality etandd: , 

10 ihe ~!mllshiar hm rttlly hpproirad gt ippll&c . Implmcn~Uon plan for tht area undcr sacUon 74 1 

. . of lhls Ulk; . . . *. * 

. , ., . . 

I& ~n~&ii&bi~db~~iri ~ut Uli hiwoKrnht , 

. In alr 'quallly Is due lo, putnancnl and enforceable 

radutflona tn cmlajilorir rcuulung from lmpkinenlallon 

cif. the applicable lmplcmentaUbn plan and appUcablc .. Fukrat :air poltulant aontral rcgulabns and , othw . 

ptmancnt a;nd cnbrctabk ~uctbns; . . 

' (14 the Admlnlohbr hse Tub : ~ppro~ , a 

malnlenana plan for ihc area .:.as m&ng .fit 

. mqulmmcnla of secllon 75058 of this Utk: drnd 

' (6). Ulii Stdl '~P:Aw~I~@ bud, l~ca had tiid' dj requlmm~lls ap~llcable to ,lhe ha under dicUon 74 10 

of Ulls UUc rurd part D of UIlr eubchaptcr.. 9. 

.. . 

id mus, in orckr..for ik LPA to tmiei~p~ & aka f& 

none1Calnmc.t lo atlalrrmtnl, .fie EPA must And thal 4 

fhrc of these crllnja havc baar 6aUatlad. , 

b. In. 19~0. hi EPA' dasilr*d the p1tlsbu&-&8~& 

Valky Arca (tht mArea"l RO .a modurtle nonatlafnmnt am . 

for omnc.' See 56 Fad; Re& WD691, 56,820 [Nov. 6. *1991); 

The EPA based file dtelgnetJon on otonc utduring the Ulmyeer perlad fim 1987 to 1989. See fd In 

Novtmbet '1993,. Ulc. Penneylvanta ,. Department of 

hulmnmcntal Rtsout&d submlllcd lo the '&PA a mud 

Lo rcdeafgnate lhe.&ca lo aUaInmcnt slatus for mane, Thic 

redcawallon ~qucst polnhl out that, the Arta hed . eCLalnad Chc NAAQS for orione durlng the Ulrabyear pulod from 1991 -1993, wlth only two c)[ccdmces In 1991, zero . cxccedanacs In 1992, and one cxdanoc In 1993. &e 61 

Fed. Reg. 19.193, 19.195 Ney 1. 1996). knnsylvanla's 

requcat acknow~~ Ihal.lls SIP had not yd been rutty 

approved by the EPA, but slated thal lhe stale arpacled to 

mcehre full EPA approval shortly, rttc rcqueat also lricludad 

a matntcnsnet . plan, under which Pcnnsylvanla - 

demonelratad how It planned to rndnmn the NAAW br the . ana unUl lhe year '1 

tn JU~ . I 995. he. l5PA pub~ahet~ .ei ha;^ nouct dt ' 

detcrmlnhbn that lhe Area wae Iri alialnmerll of Ulc T. . . # 

1, 7hc PI@--lkam Vdky , &em. 'e &&my Cwntf. 

Amwdronqt Came. kver bdy.. Bulb County. F*yc(Ct Cowrty. 

Waeldngton Oounty.rnd Wchmebbd Wnly. I . ' 

rculakn In May 1995. lhls mbkn ac- that Ihe .- 

arlbnJssbn had ~bed upn an mulomoMk Insp6cUon.and ndnhnoe 

~mltmlRnrryhr*nbhedsuspondedsawtIlasrronll~ 

measure br lhe ust ot relWhted gadlne. arh)ch RerrnyhranlP had 

also suspmdad I. 4 
-1997 12:,Be EPA R3 APE 215 566 2124 r.wo -. . . 
. . - :I 

ihi peiiiiina p~li~ L. 'be roi~wrlng p..+ r& the 

racafd ais euldcncc that Pcnnsylvan~ .ralead lhle atgu@nt In Ib cammenla Lo the EPAus propostd rule dlsappmvlng 'redtslgnaUon: . . . 

~~nna~r~ania bj~c&a '&it the '~lbburgh atofid 

nonatlalnmml area ehould have been redtelgnakd by. EPA to altalnmC 'the Commonwealth submlllcd lhc 

request In 1993. and EPA had ample opporlufrlty and 

JueUf)caUan. ... - . . . -I 

- liar he SIR yar pedod from' 1- ;b .ae . nabnal ambknl 'alr quality slandard Ibr wane was 

achlevcd. During , lhfs Urn' eight ozone . monlbre 

operated Tor Chc CuU sh. years and one eddlllon'al 

monltor operated two yuua al one slk and tht Four 

subsequenl cara a4 a; nearby ellc. SLw of thest 

monltora ha I no ucotxdancer durln lhls p#lod and 

Ulc tanalnlng mocltora shyad un d q the standard. 

Thus lor the four oonkiuUvc Ulrac-ytrir pehd fmm 

1889. thmugh.1891. the Pittsburgh arta atblnsd and 

malnlalnad lhc amblml standard. . 

bm M Proposed , Dtsapprn~d oj Re9ud .LO 

RedesbMLe R[Llsbrirgh <hswtc Nonallalnmeni At&&. JA. at 

550. Pennaybanla furlher oommenlcd thal 'lhc Flt+bur& 

arta lhad nail been rcdcalgnated In a Umcely mannet," Id at ' 551. . , ... 

I? ; . Jd ht && U&&& & humclcnl 6 b&&&c 

(I - pcllUoner08 inlrtcate alalulary .lnterprcCaUon . argumtnl, 

m a: . 'Ibesc com~ncnb , .adm~ldty demonstralt . lhat 

Ptnrwyivanla, durlng Lhc rulemaklng ploceas, broached lhc E qucaUo~~ wheU~a the EPA had aclad' In e Udy manna . YtC the eommenb lndude ne((htr e rda-cncc to dr statutory 

pmvleloh lmposlng s specific Urne Hdl,, nor iaii ewplldl 

argument that thi alstcnoc of such a ttmc lmll pduded the EM Thin oansldcrlng.(he 19S uroccdano2e. The ' . . pc~~ofio U~UB rpb lte mtatutoty lnkrpretauon argument 

$I for me fitst Urn on appeal. 

P . . W; rawgtik that tour prdc h& been h hear !mud 

I8 

.-I 

nd. ,. rald In. dltr , proaaadlngs when. . spcrdal 

I cCmrmstnncee Man1 an cxccpUon lo the general rule..)" rl. 

m Hyfs&fbI 724 F.2d at 36 n. 1 (ooneldcrtng the rehaclMty 

I 

... _.... . . .....:.... . . , . 

it ~lcndmerib. i~. a :i&iii atiucauiin .a, ~io~gh ~le 

mlrbacUvIly argumchl was, not ralacd In lhe lower court. 

because I1 was 'an IsSsSue of national Importance' that was 

'singularly wilhln iht oompelmoc of appellate court$ and 

mot prdfcated on complex fachid delermlnellone") see 

ah SekcW Risks Ins. Ca u. BFU~O, 7 18 F.2d 67. 69 (&I 

Clr, 1883). Although a ,varftty of clrcumslancts have 

-.pmrOiiiplnd appdlate aourts to apply Lhle ~(ceptlon. 'tqhc 

matter of what qucelloni may be taken icp and rescohrad for 

the Rnt ilmt on eppal Id ' one ldl prtmnrtly to lhe 

dlt+mtJori of Ihe eourLa of appdd, lo bc.wrcrclsed on Iht 

lecta of fndlvldual caw.' SingleLon ~'Wutll. 428 U.S. 10& 

121 (1976). In lhls icase, we Rnd It Inappropriate lo cohsldrr 

We new 1- Although ap@lls(c aurls arc ceddnly 

capable' of addreasfnk .qucsUone of ehluloly, lnkrptcbtlon 

the1 were riot mlssd, dur!ng an agency's ~IernekLng 

pmm& I1 Is far inore elliclenl tor ~lurts lo face such 

quceUons only . ancr Lhy . have . been bonrldtrad by lhc 

agaq ha1 Conpess liaa chargel wth the pt~mmy rcaponslblllty for cnrorclng the oomplut slalult In quesUon. . . . . 

.. In LC inatant cam. ihe - EPA ' and Pcnnryhranlava bcpartncn t of EnWonnmlal RaQurccm pasas, ~pld 

cirpcttlee mgardlng lhe, working3 of, the. Clean Alr. Act. 

. Pennsyhrsnla was thus fully cepabk d aplldUy ralelng the 

qpmenl Lhal 142 U.S.C. fV407(dN3HDl rcgulree the ETA 

lo ad on a rbdtslgnabn r#lual, wlUlln. 18 mon,lhs. Had 

Plennsytvanla mde such M qJlcll, argumtnl, the EPA 

1, - would have Ulm spplkd Ils elngular WPG7flse on lhc AcL.6 

tiu6chanlcs. and made' a mllng (hat would lntorm Uie 

dcUbcraUonr of thls court on appeal, It (hle ,mud rocre b 

conelder the petllloncr'e argument without be .bcntRC of 

i . . lhe EPAb expcrt Input we woukl undennlnc a funhtnlal 

: princlpk of our ,eyeltm of Judkld mrlcw of admlnlslratlve 

deeislone. . . . ... .I . :, . . !. Ihc ham $odd bo&eL pe~tknei P .muit or 

Ulla oulc~mc Is not .ao grel am b warrant dlaqard)ng 

U~ae mnams. Sa.,,e.g, Norlh Ahmo Waler Supplg Corp 

u. 'CUy oJ San Sunn, 90 E3d .910. 916 (5th .Clr,), & 

denlat, 117 S.Ct. 586 (1996) (an appcflalt court shauld 

invoke Ils dlecreuon lo review a purely legal lasue nol 

ratd below when "a mlscarrlaffe of JueClce would mull 
.... Y 12' 

fin; \the a6ur14sl .tallurn to .consldcr tl)." For thesc nasone, 

We .hold that the pcUUoner may no1 Wse tor lhe Amt Ume 

9n thb pdlng IN argument . that 42 U.S.C. 

. B1)07(d](S](D) rrqu1rcd~'lhc EPA (P act on Rnnsylvaqla's 

rakdgnaUon rcquc.1 wllhln 18 monlhs. !, ' ' 

. Mo~couie~~vq .if we wen 1s iht kalb of (he 

Mlloner6a argumtnl, nm would. hold that : 43 U.SC. 

C1;1407[d)f31(01 dld not pMJudt tht, &PA tram coneldding lhe eunmer 1995 exobtdpncc dm@: lhc l.ngu& of the 

provlelon hit enumcratta lhc tedwlltflallon dtcrie lends 

lo dupporl lhla result. .Unc)e,r 42 U.S.C. §7407(d)[3)[E)[U, the 

EPA Admlnblrator "may nd" promulgsle a Fadc%lgnaUon of 

a nonetlcrlnmcnl area unlcr#r, among other thlnge, *the 

Admlnlswelor deltrmlnw .@a1 the arte hea allalnad the 

naUonal ainblcnt alr quality elandard." Iht ust of the tern, 'hm etlalnad" Instcad of +aLlalnad' may be lnterprcted as 

~uggesung Lhal the, aUnmn1 mu81 mnUnue unUl Ulc 

dale of lhc radcslgnatlon. ' . . . :. , ,... . 

lo iny went. eva, 1~we ~.Mmc for pr-t putp& ihd 

lhe Ianguagt of 42 U.S.C. @407(d)(3)[E) Is amblguoue as Co 

whether' the EPA, mey dlsmgard .&la Me!ng afltr Ult 

cxpIraUon of h 18-man* 'paled, we muek:dcfa lo lhe 

EPA's lnlerprehtlon of lhls prmrlsbn undcr the .rule of 

Chnm U.S.A., Inc v. NaEunal Resowroes t)e- Cbtutdk 

I-, 467 US. 837 (198a). Ck.rw\ Inalrucb: ddng , courls. thal 1C Congress has not *dlrecl)y epokcn. lo lht 

praclse queellon a! Issue ; . . Cht qucsUon fw the wart Is 

whclher'tht agcncyep answer is bad on s pwmlsslble 

oonsLnrcUon of the atalulc.,' kd at 842-43. me EPh hm 

publlehod numus kgta!aUve mleq lhm$ have Inlapretad - 

42 U.S.C.'ll7407(dN3)lE) a8 obllgh'tg the EPA Id deny d 

redeslgnallon raqucal If the EPA know8 lhat lhe aka b not 

: In p-1 atwnment ,of, t&e' WQS,' Wyec *e EPA'e 

-- 

8, Sw,.e.nu el Fed. Rtg. 18.41Eq '18.197 (Iht find Nk ~~TWW 

, , pmneyhnlo's rspucs( lo mlw@mte iht A&. In wtticlt tht WA *ndddl 

!bt 1 haw mI md may 'not (In U&t d:ssudn lOl(dHlWAH6 mnd 

lMCdW3MEB ape rrc&Wmupn ngnrl for an awa' Uut li? WUng 

drnbard'): 6l Fad b& 9.W). 4.599 (!886) IW:'prpH 

'nJs dqlq Pennayhnnlr'. mquc?( 40 dc8l(pretc !b w. In nMch 

tw err(-- 1. 

. I. .. Uu! . ' '9 . ptpy@ .my!: . . Wl,y(r 

LnlerprctaUbn la, e 'reasonable aonsl~cllon af Ute elaltilc. 

See Chmm 467 U.S. 01 W (when Cong~ess has lmpllcltly 

delegalad lo an agency Lhe aulhorlly Lo blucldalc a speclfic 

pravlrrlon of lhc elelu~e by p.gulaUgn," a &cwln~ court 

'my no1 subsUlute ICa own canehcbon of a statutory 

pnrvislon lor ' a reasonable. .IntcrprelaQ~n. made by @t 

. . . . . admh!atiator .of q agcn.cyll, ,' .: . .. . . . . 

The prlllloncrs miend that -~7(d)(3)1~) pmhlbtls Q= . EPA fiom. conalderlng any .data acclutd . mop Ulan 18 

month? an- .lht , eubmlmbn . .or ' Qtnnsyhranla's 

ruleetgna~on 1.bputet.7hcy & - correctly. in our ~cw 

. -- that the usc.ot lht word *shall" In &407(d)(3110) Impow 

upon the .EPA a. mandatary duty. lo act on a alelc's 

redtdgnallon mqucsl wlChln 18 monlhs. The pttlllonde 

argument tale,. however, because @7407(d)(S)D)'s use of Ult 

word 'shalr docs not .conclu'slvety lndlcatc 'thal Conpas 

Intended to prohlblt Ihc EPA ,from taking acUon ah the 

'cxplraUon oC the eletubrity sprclflad tlmt perldd. " ' ' 

!. . . ' Thc"Supkc court Vad ia slmllw quesllon of statutory 

Ontcrp+.@n In'. &odr, t4. PCem .Counfy. 476 U.S. 253 

11986); At Issue In "Bm& was a provlelon of lhe 

Comprch~Lvc . Rrnpta-! and Walnlnp! Act ('CETA") . . 

stsung lhat lhc +crcbry of Wr ."shall'. Issue a final 

ddcPmlnpyon ,aa tp .(he mlguse o.f CWA turida by a grant 

rajplenl . wilhln 'I 20.. dam dcr rdvlng a compldnC 

a1kg;lng'such mlsusc See dd'alSS4-55. T)lc Dcparlmtnlo[. Cabor dlsaltowbd almosl$500.000 of CETA urpendll~rts by 

a oounly. ,@cf an Invesll~aUon rcvealipd that lhoeri funds 

had not been uaad In a~@anw Wlh lhc CmA progrqtq. .. . .. , OBIOIM~O~ (n kt* br wl~trtdn- * II*I k *r alW -ngsk 59 Fa& w. 97.190,37.195 (19941 (r pppd ruk 

dWmpVpA t!w PClwll-&m.W tarem b. r!bhmcnl slatua In ulllch 

. . Ihc EPA wnm (hLt It %la(* dtawr uk&Uom,of lhe os. NAAgS bcfow 

'the Hnal USEPA acQLpn on 1Mp ndesllputkn. .the USEPA prow that 

44 dimppnw the mdtdgmttllog mqucdl): 58 Psd. W 22757 (1990) CP 

Rnr! NL In whlc)! EPA deruod rcddgmtbrl~ot the .Wohmorni 

Vlqinb' area bemum that am 'dld 'no4 mbclr+ stetulory.mrta Cbt 

.. Wm4wW.to (rtblgnrml Jourwl Ir, s#.*n f074@l3ME) d oC UK' 

twq~thougll lhe .m'q oniy mane #dm pram rC*lW ern w, , ' 

.,Q'$ pMw 'q r+ ppd,~ am! el U)e lodtMm?!on rrgwd). . ,. . .. . . . :., '\ 1 
I4 

.8 . . 

The county we'd ih.1 thi: sacr- of hbor'muld mi 

racover the mlsused funds bemuse-lhe Sacrebuy dld'not 

lque hls llnal dthrmlnatlon of mlsusc unUl morc Ulan 120 

days aRer Ihc DeparLmtnt recdvcd Lhc InlUd compMnL 

suprime court thus ftwd the guauon wtw~her ~t 

gat of the word 'shall' In the Cm stakutc prohtbllcd ihc 

Secretmy from recovering mlaused funds after Ule 

cwplreUon of lhc 120.day period. A unanlrinoUo burt 

concluded lhet "the me use of the wrd 'ehalJ"''wae not 

enough lo dernonslratc lhal Congrtsa Inlendad lo pmhlbll Ule Sac- from acUng antr 120 days, fd a1 262. In so 

daddln lbe Courl ehld lhat 11 %ouM be mod rcluclanl 

to con B ude lhat -. Callurc of an agency lo oba~xvt a 

procadural requlruncnt volds nubsequmt agency acUon.' 

Id el 2430. Ihc Courl Instd cc3nc-ludad that "lhc nonnal 

hdlcla of,coongre6slonda Inhi* should d'tltnnlne whetha 

air rrgency may act afh, he ucplrallon of a ehtulory 

dkdllnc. See (d. a1 262 n.9. 

Hem, the ..pUlloner has , not broughl lo .our eth~on - 

bylhlng' In ihc Clean Alr Acl llsclf (other chw he use of 

lhc word "shdl" In 42 U.S.C..!i7407(d3(3)(0)), or sinythlng ln 

ihe Acl's lcglslaUve hlslory lhat show8 the1 Con- . intended for lhc EPA to lose ,lls poww lo consldu date . 

broughl to Ils allcnUon alter 1ht ewplratlon of 1ht I&monlh 

dcadllne, To the contrary. two .lmpor&nl asp- of lhc 

Clean Nr AcL strongly suggest lhat Congrcss dld not lntcnd 

tor the EPA lo lose Its power lo..ael Pntr 18 mgnlhe. The nr~l re the Act'a tanure la sptdfy a bneequcnoe tor 

amcompllanoc wllh lhc IS-monlh dcadllne. As lhe 

Suprum Courl has obmved. "If, e eblutc dow not spbclfy 

a conecq~en~ for noncomp!lanac wlth slalulory Umlng 

provllilons. the kderal courls wlll no1 In the ordinary 'course . lrnpoec thelr own aocrclvt eaneUon.' Unlled Slnfes v. ckunes 

-I Gd Rd Prom, 510 U.S. 43. 63 (1883). 

&nd, lhc Clean Mr Act fiords ; leu dndc r@y 

then that urgtd by the pclllloncr. In &rock lhc Supreme Court ahled that when 'U\ac are leas dradb nunadlea ' svellabh f~r fallute lo e ehlutory beadllne. aourts, 

should not Lsumt thal Con- Intended lhe agcncy lo 

.lose Ils .power Lo acl.' Brock, 476 U.S. at 260. 7ht Bmc)E 

kyufls cuncluston hat lhcre cxlsCad s less drasUc rundy 

1 

\ 18 

In (hat fiec pbidcs' guldma for our present Ingully. 

NoUng UIal 'nolhlng ln CFTA appears lo bar an acUon to 

enforce the 120-day deadllna' the Em& muri concluded 

that anyone wllhln the alalutc'a zone of Inlertstn auld 

have broughl an acllon lo force Ute Secrelaly or Labor to 

ricl wflhln lhc stalutory dtadllne, Id at 260 n.7. Thus. 120 

duy4 aft# the orlglnal complaint. lhe defendant In Bmdc 

cauM have brought an acUan to force lhe Depwtmnk of 

Labor b drop Ils Inveallgatlon. provided lhal O1e defendant 

muld achleve alandlng by aurwnasrul@ Wlng that 

Congrzss enacted lhe 120-day llrnlt In 'order 'lo protect 

grant mclpltnls from lengthy ddayrr In audlls." Id 

Slmllerly.. In lhe prcstnl cast. dlhcr Ule pcUUoner or Ule 

Comma of Pennsyhnrnla auld have brought an 

acUon to enforce the 118-monlh dcadllne In 42 U.S.C. 

w407(d)lS)D}.' me pcU0oner haa nol called b our 

allentlon my plmrlslon of Ihc Clean Alr Act that would have 

pracludcd such an xtcllon. Had the pcUUona bmughl such . m ctctbn. the mull wuld have been far leaa drasUc Lhm 

lhat whlch Ule pcUUoner now urges, which Is thc 

rdcdgnaUon of an area lhal b no1 In allalnrnent of the 

'NAAF . 

ARer oral bgurntnl. Ihc partlea have callad lo our 

aUenUon ceftaln nno facls that must be oonsldeucd. RrsG 

In 1995 the @PA Issued a dlracl Rnal notlce rcdwlgnatlng 

Mourche Parleh, Lmuklana, a8 an allalnmenl area. After 

the publlcallon of lhle notla, but prior 10 Itn dtdlvc dale, 

a monlbr raoodcd a vloletlon or lhe NAAQS For wnc In 

the Mourche Pariah area. AIlhough the EPA was swam oC 

ihle cxcxxdance, lhc EPA dld not wlihdrew lht notlot. aml 

lhe Woumhe Parimh area was rtdcsigoaiad as an 

atLalnmcn1 am Tor omnc on lhc notlcc's cfCccltve dale. The 

pcUUoner argues lhat Chis r&lgna(lon dwnonslrales Chat 

the EPA Is not precluded fmm redasllfnaUng an area lhat 

4.k mn cdwumiml mUw, mu# haw bem mmwk plrrusd to 

Uw -kc Mum (W, 5 US.C [p1701-706. whkh enlllka 

eny puwnn,'rdrera)y aflbclad or lq kRency acUorruorr to Jdktal 

tmhw. $702. kInlw3 Ihr mlcvrrd BIAtldt pralude4 )udWal rrvkw or 

'4Btncy actbn b mmnWd Lo qpxy crYsmlbn by taw.' WOlbL In 

uh mn tnlorwrwd mdbh P anrrt *roukl haw ruWy 'aolrpd 

mgemcy ech unbdu3 dLhhtM or unwnnbly delayed,' W064IL 
EPR R3 RPE 215 566 2124 P. 10 

JUL-31-1997 12:12 -. 
., ../. . . . :. : _. . . .I . . . Mi, ' yal, ',", &(..mi, ,..&&.. 

c~ceahf~cca," Wr, Br. a1 28. Allhough (he pctlUoncr docs 

mot &tun, lo. argue Ulal these cxdanbwi wtre caud 

.sole .by ttansporld wne, ihc pttllloncr malnlalnr that 

6uch otone plainly oonttlbulad to [he 1995 tnoaadanca~. : 

.See fd The pdllloncr +siah thel,*l~hcLi le naihlng (n the 

tcmord upon whlch the .EPA bases Ite esacrmpllon that i 

boaadanoea ere allrlbulablt Lioldy b ;BoUrcte wnhtn the 

border whd high omnc Icvcls arc btfng &anspow Inla 1. . ' C' 

the hc11." Id at 29, .' . ' :. . . . .I. . . .. 4 

.' r., 1 ';:+: ; a . ( ,..In &pan& (jre&~~a&pl bidku;~kbtifld: .' .. 

Ilr lmpltmenllng qulabne arqul.rc La1 EPA detQmlne . .. 

whtlhcr or not an area. hn~ me1 Ule NAAQS and eatlsllbd 

the Rfet crllcrlon.'tor radmtgnallon wlUloul rqtirif la why ..' . . the WQS. and Ulc crltcy!on &y not have been mt.' 

Rsp'l. Br. a1 30.'ln tsxne, hen, the EPA malntalnb that . ' ' 

Ule orlgln of Ulc mane lhnt caused Ule' 1995 emxdmca . . wadr Icgally Imltvant. See 61. Fad, Reg. at 19,193.19.194 -. 

(lhe EPA'e find rule ,,denyhg Pennayhranln'o quest lo 

Mcslgnate the Area). The EPA goes on, howm&; to defend . . . 

Ila eelcnUnc analysls of the tole of hattaporled mnc In the 

Area. ... . , .' . .. In ~ur3tirn~n~ the e~kh ~ntcqwh~in d"ihc CI-' ~tr 

Ad, wc muet apply lhe GamlUnr. Che~m anmlyalb Lo whkh 

we. prcvlously mkrrad. Under. #he -anabls, LC *CanIp.ces 

hai dlr+ctfy epoktn lo ahc.pmclac quteUbn a1 Isrue. . . Ole 

Gurl , . . must glue dl'd lo the 'unamblguoudy cxpd 

Intent or Congreu;' Cha,m 467 U.S. + al 842-49. U1 

howtycc. the "pradae'qutrrUon at Issud Is ohe about whlch 

.. Congre haa bcen tllhcr..*dtnt or emblguid.us," thqn a 

rcvlcwlng court muat defer to Ihe agency's oiatubry '. 

I . 1' . . Lnterprotatlon I It 1rr %fwd on a+ptmrlsslblq arndtmctton. ' of the n&luie? kL irC 843. . . . .,: .. . . 

Hai the 'BPA mnhdr that (hc CIA kr ird .l(.df ,. , 

pmhlMLd allmhnccu for ozone hnlpported from oulsldc 

Lho Arks. The EPA &ta In, pwt, on 42 USC. 

dl whlch provides that am aUaltrmcn1 mm b , . 

one . 'ha1 . Lmcclsa Ulc NAAm*. and 42 . USC. . g7ROr(d)(3)(elll), . whlch . prohlbils :. the EPA . from . redesfgnatlng an arca to aUnInmtnt. unleae Ule WA 

dtlerrnlnos hat the yea *hae allalnda Ulc NAAQS. These 

. 8 . . 

. , ,' . . ... .. . . .. . 

. .. , . 

. . . . . . imj&& ,& l..dh .,d l&d 

supporl (b Cht EPA'e hterprdallon. . . . ..? 

: sodii ~(ringa iltbpwi the EPA*~ Pgummt IS 

furnhhcd by 0th~ proYleloni of the Act, ?he Rret of Ultee. 

le 42 U.S.C. W51 lath), whlch calabllelica 'rural transport. 

.artas.l Th& are arw &el do not attain lhc.NAAQS for 

ozone, .despite not pduclng any sfgnlflcani amount of 

omne thrmatlvca, Congrcar addnruvbd the pmblan that 

ozone Lrensporl causes ruhl lransport brae by qemptlng 

such. arms trom ctrtaln pollullan , mn.hl rcquhmmnte, . providd . that the areae makc cMaln 'submlsslona to the .. 

EPA, . Although, such amm cq . enjoy. ,relaxed ' control 

ragulmhenls, Lhcy must rcmaln .in nonalcalnment rlatus, 

+uae they hevc not aUalnad the NAAQS for omnc . I.. 

: Cangrees also wl&ees#f the pmblm of omne transport 

.In 42 U.S.C. @7511(a)(4), whlch deslcrlbee .on2ahl 

flrcumslances ' under whlch the EPA may adjust a 

nonaltdnmcnt .area's. claseUtcaUon fe.91.. hm *scvesca b 

,aserlou~"). Under this plqvlrlon, It a nonatleLnmcnt m . 

meeta crtlala 'xqddng It dlglbtc Tor adJualmcnt of Ile 

dassll3caUon. there are d hcbra .that the EPA my 

consider wheh making Lhc adJuetmenl. One of lh- tacbrs 

la 'hc Jew4 of pollullon lrsnaport bebn lhc .area and 

other 8fCaclcd. h, lndudlng bolh Intrasblc . and 

Interdate Iranepofl* ki. Thue, undtr lhb prrwlelon, the - RPA my oonaldcr plludant laansport.. wh& adjuetlng e 

nonattalnmmt area's ~clssbWcaUon, but pollullon hamport 

does nd affecl the timane demlgnation aa a nonattatnment 

arcs. . ,. . 

. .. AJ*ough thk p;mvbbn&pravldt algntlh~~t .upport fo; 

thc EPA'r Intcipntetion, wt nd no(, and do not, go so far 

sa Co . hold @at . ,Me. .Ch . Alr . Act .dIctaCcs. that 

IntcrpFcteUon. For purpoatlr, It la enough to hold 

'4hbt evirm IC Chc AC~ wairlti pcrmlt a diflemi tnterprdatlon, 

'lhc EPA'a ' lntwp.rehUon . Ie plalnly . a reaeanable one to 

wbkh,. under CheuM :wle mud ddw, Aocarthgly, we 

accept (he EPA'e podUon that .the o@ of Lhc omnc (ha1 

mud the ~~otfr at fbuc I@ legally ~lrre1cvant. 

ma oral argument. UIC'EPA broug~ tb our qttcnm' 

ecrtaln admlnlstmUve acUone Chal mud bt addrejaad in