BEFORE THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Endangerment and CauseorContribute

) Finding For Greenhouse Gases Under

) Section 202(a)oftheCleanAir Act,

)Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR 2009-0171 74Fed. Reg.66496 (December 15, 2009)

) PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF ENDANGERMENT AND CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE FINDING FOR GREENHOUSE GASES UNDER SECTION 202(A) OFTHE CLEAN AIRACTBYTHE COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA, EXREL. KENNETH
T. CUCCINELLI,

II, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA Pursuant
toSection 307(d)oftheCleanAir Act,42U.S

.C. § 7607(d), andbased uponnewinformation
ofcentral relevance notavailable duringthe public comment period,the Commonwealth

of Virginia exrel. Kenneth

T.Cuccinelli,
II, hereby petitions the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)toconvene

aproceeding for the reconsideration

ofthe "Endangerment
and CauseorContribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a)oftheCleanAirAct" (Endangerment Finding) published byEPAonDecember 15, 2009,74Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009).Thenew information raises questions with respecttothe validity and integrity ofasubstantial segmentofthedata uponwhichthe Endangerment Finding rests,
amatterwhichisof central relevance
tothe Endangerment Finding. Consequently,

in response
tothis petition under 307( d),EPAmust: (1) reconvenethe regulatory proceeding, (2) provide the public withthe opportunity

tocommentonthe newly available information, and (3)' provide such information

to the Science Advisory Board (SAB) for its review and comment.
Bases of this Petition On November 17, 2009, well after the close of the public comment period onthe proposed Endangerment Finding, internal e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia werereleased to the public. The e-mails and documents, manyof which were apparently authored by the CRU scientists working
at CRU onthe project (CRU scientists), discuss the mannerin which CRU's global warming data (CRU Data) were developed, analyzed, and handled. Specifically, the e-mails and documents suggest that the CRU scientists questioned the reliability of their own data, the methodologies used in developing and analyzing such data, and the conclusions based thereon. CRU and other organizations studying global climate change and its causesall use the sameraw data, and scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have acknowledged that the three surface temperature data sets from NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and CRU are not independent but arebased onacommonset of underlying rawdata. If NASA and NOAA used the samerawdata as CRU, and if they have reached conclusions similar to those of CRU, then
a finding of data unreliability with regard to the CRU Data mayindicate systemic problems with all three of the data sets uponwhich EPA relied in promulgating

its Endangerment Finding. Because these issues areof central relevance
to the Endangerment Finding, they must be addressed by EPA, the public, and SAB in a proceeding for the reconsideration

of the finding. 2In addition to the probable invalidity of the underlying data, EPA failed to properly exercise its judgment
as required by the Clean Air Act ("CAA") and acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion by relying almost exclusively
on reports of the IPCC in attributing climate change to anthropogenic greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. Contrary
to the CAA and the Information Quality Act ("IQA")

1 ,EPA substantially ceded its obligation
to make

a judgment whether GHGs may endanger public health and welfare to the IPCC, aninternational body that is not subject to U.S. data quality and transparency standards and whose reports were prepared
in total disregard
to those standards. Therefore, EPA is about to begin regulating GHG emissions based ona scientific processthat wasconducted without those procedural safeguards contained
in American law. These safeguards arewhat ensurethe reliability and accuracyof the scientific conclusions underlying the Agency's Endangerment Finding. As an agencyof the United States, however, whose regulatory actions will have far-reaching consequences
for the citizens of Virginia and the nation, EPA must abide by U.S. standards and not the standards of international bodies whose actions are governed by different standards and requirements. Finally, EPA's remote findings of endangerment
of health and welfare fail to consider and properly weigh the offsetting harms to health and welfare necessarily flowing from economically destructive regulation. Standard for Granting the Petition The CAA provides that EPA's Administrator shall convene

a proceeding for reconsideration

of the Endangerment Finding where

a person: (1) objects, (2) within the 1 The IQA wasenacted asthe Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001
§ 515,44 U.S.C. 3504(d)(l) and 3516 (2000). 3time specified for judicial review, (3) based upon
a matter of central relevance
to the outcome of the Endangerment Finding proceedings,

( 4) on grounds arising after the comment period has expired. 42 U.S.C.

§ 7607(d)(7)(B). Reasons for Granting the Petition Virginia

is a person within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 7602(e), and its Petition

is timely as falling within the sixty day period for judicial review. EPA's improper delegation,
its failure to follow American law regarding the method and quality of analysis, its reliance upon invalid data of now widely questioned integrity, and its failure to properly weigh remote and speculative harm from GHGs against the virtual certainty of damage to health and welfare from the Endangerment Finding itself are of central relevance. Furthermore, the massive and disturbing evidence giving rise to the Petition became known only after the time for public comment had expired. Because that evidence

is in the public domain and has been exhaustively discussed
in other Petitions, including those of the Pacific Legal Foundation and Peabody Energy Company,

it is not set forth here again in detail. Instead,

it should be the subject of further evidentiary proceedings. The methodological and substantive errors of EPA became apparent only on December 15, 2009 with the promulgation
of the Endangerment Finding. Conclusion Wherefore, the EPA should reconvene regulatory proceedings, provide for public notice and comment, conduct evidentiary proceedings, and provide all information

to the SAB for review and comment.

4Kenneth
T. Cuccinelli,

II Attorney General ofVirginia E. Duncan Getchell, Jr. (14156) State Solicitor General dgetchell
@ oag.state. va. us Stephen R. McCullough

( 41699) Senior Appellate Counsel smccullough

@ oag.state.va.us February 16, 201 0 Respectfully submitted, COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA EX REL. KENNETH

T. CUCCINELLI,

II ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA BY:**e~nfi>Ms. ~~** 
t. Counsel 5 Charles E. James, Jr. Chief Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Telephone: (804) 786-2436 Facsimile: (804) 786-1991 Counsel for the Commonwealth Ex Rel. Kenneth

T Cuccinelli,
II