Please carry forward the facts regarding Aux Sable in the previous question.

Assume now that it was the Southern Illinois Clean Air Alliance $($SICAA$)-$ an environmental membership organization $-$ who originally alerted the EPA of Aux Sable's alleged violation. For some reason, SICAA restricts its membership to zip codes south of Springfield in the center of the state.

Slight change of facts: Though SICAA properly notified EPA of the alleged violation, EPA declined to bring an enforcement action against Aux Sable. SICAA therefore files suit in Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Aux Sable under the citizen suit provisions of Title VII of the Clean Air Act.

In a pre$-$trial hearing, Aux Sable moves to dismiss SICAA's citizen suit. The federal court agrees and dismisses SICAA's suit.

Which answer below if true might explain why?

Question $4$Select one:

a$.$

SICAA failed to demonstrate that it had one single member living in the "Chicago ozone non$-$attainment area," and therefore lacked standing.

b$.$

Citizen suits under the Clean Air Act may only be brought by individual human persons, not environmental groups.

c$.$

SICAA failed to allege money damages in its complaint against Aux Sable.