Opinion ID: 2804920
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Private Monitoring Data Challenge

Text: WildEarth argues that, in light of the private data, the EPA contravened the Act’s requirements when it designated Uinta Basin as unclassifiable rather than nonattainment. We disagree. The Act calls for the EPA to make designations “on the basis of available information.” 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(iii). We have repeatedly found similar language to be ambiguous when assessing whether to defer to an agency’s construction. See Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 35, 38 (finding the phrase “based on air quality monitoring data” to be ambiguous); Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296, 305–06 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (finding the phrase “based on photochemical grid modeling” to 24 be ambiguous). The EPA therefore may interpret the statutory language as it sees fit, as long as its interpretation is reasonable. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 845. And even assuming the Act obligates the EPA to consider certain types of data, there would be no obligation for the agency to base its designations on data it reasonably considers to be unsound, at least if it “adequately explain[s] its reasons for rejecting . . . data” on which it declines to rely. City of Waukesha, 320 F.3d at 248. We evaluate the EPA’s reasons cognizant of the “extreme degree of deference” we owe an agency “when it is evaluating scientific data within its technical expertise.” Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 41. The EPA reasonably explained that the private monitoring data afforded an insufficient basis for a nonattainment designation because the agency was unable to perform post-collection quality assurance checks on the data. In particular, the EPA lacked quality assurance data needed to verify and audit the private data. As the agency explained: Quality assurance data consist, primarily, of biweekly single point quality control (QC) checks, used to assess the precision and bias a given instrument is displaying in its day-to-day measurements, and annual independent performance evaluations (audits) of equipment, which rely on independent staff and measuring systems to confirm that the monitors are operating as expected and required. Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Adm’r, EPA to Robin Cooley, Counsel, WildEarth Guardians 5 (Dec. 14, 2012) (denying reconsideration of Uinta Basin designation). The agency determined that, without audits or quality control checks, it 25 could not adequately verify the quality of the private data. That explanation comports with common sense and falls within the substantial deference accorded the EPA in evaluating the soundness of data available to it. WildEarth presses several counterarguments, none of which we find persuasive. First, WildEarth observes that the consent decrees required the private monitors to operate in “substantial compliance” with 40 C.F.R. Part 58, the quality assurance requirements under which regulatory monitors operate. But “substantial compliance” is not “full compliance,” and the EPA could reasonably draw a distinction between the two. Moreover, data from regulatory monitors—which must be collected in compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 58—undergo post-collection auditing and verification processes. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. pt. 58, app. A, § 3. Those post-collection processes could not be conducted for the private monitor data. Accepting WildEarth’s argument would require us to conclude that the EPA must apply less stringent post-collection validation requirements to data collected from private monitors in “substantial compliance” with the agency’s data-collection regulations than the agency applies to data collected from regulatory monitors in actual compliance with those regulations. We see no reason to embrace that counterintuitive result. Second, WildEarth points out that the EPA has encouraged other federal entities to take notice of the private monitoring data. The EPA acknowledges that it argued, in a judicial proceeding supporting entry of the same consent decrees mandating the private monitoring, that the private monitors would provide data that would be “reliable and of good quality” and “useful in assisting regulators.” Resp’t’s Br. 57. And indeed the data have proven helpful to the EPA in other regulatory contexts. On the basis of the private data, for 26 example, the EPA informed the Forest Service that Uinta Basin ozone concentrations “exceed the NAAQS” and are a “serious problem.” Supp. JA 387. We agree with WildEarth that an agency may be required to articulate why data are sufficiently reliable for one purpose but not for another. See Cnty. of L.A. v. Shalala, 192 F.3d 1005, 1022 (D.C. Cir. 1999). But the EPA has done so here. That the data may be sufficiently reliable to warrant identifying ozone as a serious issue for a Forest Service analysis under one statutory provision does not necessarily mean that the data are reliable enough to compel a nonattainment designation under a different statutory regime. To hold otherwise would require the EPA wholly to blind itself to potentially useful private data for any purpose if it were to consider that data insufficiently reliable for one purpose. There is no basis for constraining the agency in that way. That the EPA partially relied on the private data in the course of this very designation process does not undercut that conclusion. While “unclassifiable” represents a single statutory designation, see 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A)(i)–(iii), the EPA further divided that classification into two sub-categories: “unclassifiable/attainment” and “unclassifiable.” See 2008 Designations Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 30,089. “Historically for ozone,” the EPA designates as “ ‘unclassifiable/attainment’ ” those areas for which “air quality information is not available because the areas are not monitored.” Id. at 30,090. But in Uinta Basin, the EPA instead designated the area “unclassifiable” after determining that the private monitoring “detected levels of ozone that exceed the NAAQS.” Id. at 30,089. There is no arbitrariness in the EPA’s choice partially—but not fully—to rely on the private data. At the 27 outset, we note that the parties point us to no material differences between an “unclassifiable/attainment” and an “unclassifiable” designation, and we are aware of none. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.1100(g) (“Attainment area means, unless otherwise indicated, an area designated as either attainment, unclassifiable, or attainment/unclassifiable.”); cf. 42 U.S.C. § 7471 (instructing the EPA to give the same treatment to “unclassifiable” and “attainment” areas for SIP purposes). But given the EPA’s decision to create two different unclassifiable designations, we will assume arguendo that materially different regulatory burdens attend each designation. Even then, however, we agree with the EPA that it was reasonable to conclude that it would be inappropriate to label the Uinta Basin area “unclassifiable/attainment”: the private data, even if unverified, at least implied that a NAAQS violation was possible, even if not conclusively proven to the agency’s satisfaction. WildEarth, moreover, points to no other area for which private—but not regulatory—monitoring suggested a NAAQS violation. It thus appears that Uinta Basin differed from all other areas meriting an “unclassifiable/attainment” designation. We conclude that the EPA’s conclusion partially—but not fully—to credit the private data was reasonable and non-arbitrary, particularly in light of the “extreme deference” we owe the agency. See Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 41. In sum, the EPA reasonably declined to rely on data that it considered of insufficient quality for designations purposes. With that conclusion, and having reviewed the remainder of WildEarth’s challenges and determined that they lack merit, we deny the group’s petition for review. See Catawba Cnty., 571 F.3d at 52. 28