Opinion ID: 2804920
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Source-Apportionment Modeling

Text: The Texas Petitioners also challenge the EPA’s modification of the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment modeling on three fronts. First, they argue that the EPA has not rationally explained why it considered the source-apportionment modeling’s projected absolute impact—instead of its projected relative impact—that wind from Wise County would have on violating Dallas–Fort Worth area monitors. Second, they argue that the EPA’s analysis of the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment modeling was inconsistent with its analysis of 58 source-apportionment modeling submitted in connection with Illinois’s designation of Lake County. And third, they argue that the EPA’s decision to examine the model’s projected absolute impact rather than its relative impact violated the EPA’s earlier modeling guidance. We note, at the outset, that the EPA’s application, interpretation and modification of source-apportionment modeling plainly fall “within its technical expertise” and thus we owe it “an extreme degree of deference.” ATK Launch Sys., 669 F.3d at 338 (quotation marks omitted). To withstand judicial review, the EPA needs to articulate only a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,” Burlington Truck Lines, 371 U.S. at 168, show that it treated “similar counties” similarly, ATK Launch Sys., 669 F.3d at 336 (emphasis in original), and demonstrate that it did not run afoul of binding guidance, see generally Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1020–23 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Because the EPA has done all three, we will not disturb its designation of Wise County as nonattainment based on the Texas Petitioners’ objections to its interpretation of the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment modeling. First, the Texas Petitioners challenge the EPA’s decision to reinterpret the source-apportionment modeling submitted by the Texas Commission. As discussed, supra § III.F.1, when the EPA received the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment modeling data during the comment period, it observed that the model did not rely on data from an entire ozone season. Rather, the projections in the Texas Commission’s model relied on data from June 2006 only. The Texas Commission based its approach on the fact that June 2006 purportedly presented “an exceptionally rich set of air quality and meteorological measurements,” “had the most high-ozone days of any month” and experienced “all the 59 meteorological conditions linked to formation of high ozone concentration.” See Response to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s Reconsideration Pet. at 3. Despite these assurances, the EPA did not agree that one month of data, even an “exceptionally rich” month, was sufficient. Specifically, the EPA observed that the ozone season in the Dallas–Fort Worth area was bimodal (i.e., reporting its highest ozone values in July-September but experiencing a lower ozone peak in May-June) and that the Texas Commission’s reliance on limited data meant that it failed to account for “all of the meteorology regimes conducive for ozone events” in the Dallas–Fort Worth area. See Final Dallas–Fort Worth Area Designations at 16. According to the EPA, “emphasis on the average modeled impact is more appropriate when a full ozone season of model results is available.” See Resp’t’s Br. 131. Because the Texas Commission’s model was premised on baseline data excluding “events that happen in mid to late-summer that often set” the Dallas–Fort Worth area’s ozone levels, the EPA examined both the projected average impact and the projected maximum impact of Wise County emissions. See Final Dallas–Fort Worth Area Designations at 16. At bottom, the EPA had a “basic obligation” to conduct “reasoned decisionmaking.” Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 25. When presented with the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment modeling, the EPA determined that it “needed to be carefully evaluated and could not simply be accepted at face value,” Resp’t’s Br. 126, identified several methodological flaws in the Texas Commission’s data, adjusted the Texas Commission’s submissions to account for the flaws and articulated, quite thoroughly, a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Burlington Truck Lines, Inc., 371 U.S. at 168. On this record, 60 we cannot say that the EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in re-evaluating the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment modeling data. Rather, the EPA’s thorough treatment of all available data indicates that it in fact “surpassed” its “obligation of reasoned decisionmaking.” Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 25. Second, the Texas Petitioners argue that the EPA’s modification to the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment modeling subjected Wise County to arbitrarily disparate treatment. They compare the EPA’s interpretation of the Texas Commission’s modeling to its interpretation of source-apportionment modeling for the Chicago area. Specifically, they argue that (1) emissions from Jasper County, a Chicago-area county with attainment status, had a projected average impact on violating monitors similar to Wise County’s; (2) the EPA should have evaluated the average impact of Wise County’s emissions on violating monitors as it did for Jasper County; and (3) the EPA’s evaluation of Wise County’s maximum, as opposed to relative, estimated impact was, accordingly, inconsistent and resulted in an arbitrarily different result between Wise County and Jasper County. Again, we emphasize that applying different methods to different areas, standing alone, does not give rise to arbitrarily disparate treatment and given “significant” relevant differences between two areas, “a direct one-to-one comparison of the data” or the methods used to measure such data can be “inappropriate.” ATK Launch Sys., 669 F.3d at 337. Here, the significant difference lies in the quality of data submitted by the Texas Commission compared to that submitted in support of Jasper County. Specifically, the source-apportionment model submitted in support of the Chicago-area designations included data from a full ozone 61 season, which made “emphasis on the average modeled impact . . . more appropriate.” Resp’t’s Br. 131. As noted, the EPA modified the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment model because it did not include data from a full ozone season. Moreover, the EPA had to compensate for the fact that the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment model underestimated the number of days that monitors in the Dallas– Fort Worth area exceeded the ozone NAAQS because the model under-predicted peak ozone levels around the monitors, sometimes by a significant range. The source-apportionment model for Jasper County, however, had the opposite problem; it did not account for recent emissions reductions at a Jasper County power plant and thus the Chicago-area source-apportionment model over-reported Jasper County’s emissions impact. See Chicago Area Designations at 9–10. Stated differently, because Wise County’s model under-reported its emissions impact and Jasper County’s model over-reported its emissions impact, the EPA reasonably concluded that the two counties should receive different attainment designations. Third, the Texas Petitioners argue that the EPA arbitrarily and capriciously deviated from its earlier guidance on source-apportionment modeling, which guidance allegedly expressed a preference for relative, rather than absolute, modeling. Specifically, they argue that the EPA’s reliance on Wise County’s maximum potential emissions impact directly conflicts with the EPA’s 2007 “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze” (2007 Attainment Guidance). In that guidance, the EPA stated that its “recommended test is one in which model estimates are used in a ‘relative’ rather than ‘absolute’ sense.” Id. at 15. 62 As a threshold matter, the 2007 Attainment Guidance does not speak to the use of source-apportionment modeling in the designation process; rather, it recommends procedures that a state can use after it has been designated as nonattainment to show that its proposed emission control strategy will eventually result in attainment status. But even assuming that the 2007 Attainment Guidance informs the current NAAQS designation process, the EPA did not err by deviating from it. Indeed, the 2007 Guidance expressly contemplates deviations in appropriate cases: This document does not substitute for any Clean Air Act provision or EPA regulation, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose binding, enforceable requirements on any party, nor does it assure that EPA will approve all instances of its application. The guidance may not apply to a particular situation, depending upon the circumstances. The EPA and State decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where appropriate. . . . Users are cautioned not to regard statements recommending the use of certain procedures or defaults as either precluding other procedures or information, or providing guarantees that using these procedures or defaults will result in actions that are fully approvable. . . . EPA cannot assure that actions based upon this guidance will be fully approvable in all instances. 2007 Attainment Guidance at ix. 63 As noted, the EPA fully explained why it revised and independently evaluated the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment modeling to account for “the limited data set [the Texas Commission] relied upon.” Resp’t’s Br. 136. Because the 2007 Attainment Guidance did not compel the EPA to limit its consideration to relative projected impacts, and because the EPA articulated a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,” Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 41, it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it relied on Wise County’s absolute, rather than relative, impact on NAAQS-violating monitors. The fundamental deficiency in the Texas Petitioners’ challenges to the EPA’s revision of the Dallas–Fort Worth area source-apportionment model is that, to establish that “EPA’s administration of the complicated provisions of the Clean Air Act” was erroneous, Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 41, they have to demonstrate more than mere disagreement with the EPA’s reasoning. Barring an unreasonable or irrational application of the “scientific data within [the EPA’s] technical expertise,” City of Waukesha, 320 F.3d at 247, we cannot say that the EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The record plainly shows that the EPA “considered all relevant factors and articulated a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made’ ” when it declined to accept the Texas Commission’s source-apportionment model without modification. Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 41 (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, 371 U.S. at 168). We therefore hold that the EPA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it did so. 64