Opinion ID: 2804920
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sierra Club Background

Text: In furtherance of the Clean Air Act’s “ ‘core principle’ of cooperative federalism,” EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1602 n.14 (2014), states take the lead in the collection of air-quality data. In doing so, states operate regulatory monitors under an array of “[e]xhaustive technical specifications” promulgated by the EPA. Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 30; see 40 C.F.R. pt. 58. States “edit[]” and “validate[]” the collected data pursuant to the EPA-mandated procedures and report it to the EPA according to a prescribed schedule. See 40 C.F.R. § 58.16(b)–(c). Data collected in each quarter must be “edited, validated and entered” into the EPA’s system within ninety days of the end of the quarter. Id. “For example, the data for the reporting period January 1– March 31 are due on or before June 30 of that year.” Id. § 58.16(b). Post-auditing, the data are still considered “uncertified” when submitted to the EPA. While uncertified data from the first quarter (i.e., January 1 to March 31) become available to the EPA as of June 30, those data remain subject to continuing audits and edits by states. The data collection process reaches completion only when a state provides final certification that the necessary “ambient concentration and quality assurance data are completely submitted . . . and . . . are accurate.” Id. § 58.15(a). The EPA requires certification by May 1 of the 29 following calendar year for all data collected in the previous year. Id. § 58.15(a)(2). States therefore had to certify their 2011 data by May 1, 2012. As explained, because the 2008 ozone NAAQS represent a three-year average, the EPA needs air-quality data from three sequential calendar years to classify an area as attainment or nonattainment (as opposed to unclassifiable). See 2008 Designations Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 30,089. In the designation process for the 2008 NAAQS, the EPA gave each state a choice between two options: (i) early-certify 2011 data by February 29, 2012, in which event the EPA would consider 2009 to 2011 data for the designation process for that state (Option One); or (ii) decline to early-certify (and stick to the normal May 1 certification deadline), in which event the EPA would use 2008 to 2010 data for designations in that state (Option Two). See id. at 30,091. At least eight states selected Option Two. Sierra Club identifies over one dozen counties within those eight states for which the choice between Option One and Option Two (i.e., the choice between designations based on 2008 to 2010 data versus 2009 to 2011 data) allegedly meant that those counties avoided nonattainment designations. See Letter from Robert Ukeiley, Counsel, Sierra Club to EPA, Re: Designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476 at 3 tbl.1 (Feb. 3, 2012). Sierra Club contends that the EPA was compelled to use 2009 to 2011 data for those areas. We disagree and conclude that the EPA’s actions were non-arbitrary.