Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-12-03084/USCOURTS-ca8-12-03084-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gina McCarthy
Respondent
National Parks Conservation Association
Intervenor
Sierra Club
Intervenor
State of Nebraska
Petitioner
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3084

___________________________

State of Nebraska

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

United States Environmental Protection Agency; Gina McCarthy, Administrator,

United States Environmental Protection Agency

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents

Sierra Club; National Parks Conservation Association

lllllllllllllllllllllIntervenors

___________________________

No. 12-3085

___________________________

National Parks Conservation Association; Sierra Club

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

United States Environmental Protection Agency; Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents

Nebraska Public Power District; State of Nebraska

lllllllllllllllllllllIntervenors

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Environmental Protection Administration

____________

 Submitted: September 23, 2015

 Filed: February 3, 2016 

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

On July 6, 2012, EPA partially disapproved the Nebraska Regional Haze State

Implementation Plan. EPA specifically rejected Nebraska’s best available retrofit

technology (BART) determination for Gerald Gentleman Station, substituting a

Federal Implementation Plan. The State of Nebraska petitioned for review. National

Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club (conservation organizations) not

only oppose Nebraska’s petition but also seek review of EPA’s federal plan. 

Nebraska Public Power District intervened on behalf of EPA, opposing the

conservation organizations. Having jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), this

court denies the petitions for review.

I.

A.

Congress declares as a national goal “the prevention of any future, and the

remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas

which impairment resultsfrommanmade air pollution.” 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1). The

-2-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
Clean Air Act controls air pollution through a system of shared federal and state

responsibility. See Gen. Motors Corp v. United States, 496 U.S. 530, 532 (1990). 

To achieve the national goal, each state must create a regional haze plan and submit

it to EPA for review and approval. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a)(1), 7491(b)(2). EPA

determines if the plan “meets all the applicable requirements of [the Act].” 

§ 7410(k)(3). If EPA disapproves a plan, EPA promulgates a federal implementation

plan to replace any disapproved part of the state plan. § 7410(c)(1)(B). 

A state plan must require specific major stationary sources that “emit[] any air

pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any

impairment of visibility” to “procure, install, and operate, as expeditiously as

practicable (and maintain thereafter) the best available retrofit technology.” 

§ 7491(b)(2)(A). BART is “an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction

achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission

reduction” for visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by specific stationary facilities. 

40 C.F.R. § 51.301. To determine BART, a state must consider five factors: “the

costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of

compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, the

remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which

may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 7491(g)(2). Although states initially determine BART emission limits, EPA steps

into a state’s shoes if it determines that a state’s BART determination does not meet

the requirements of the Act. See § 7491(b)(2)(A); § 7410(k)(3).

A state may use an alternative to BART if there will be an “overall

improvement in visibility,” based on a comparison of “the average differences

between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.” 40 C.F.R.

§ 51.308(e)(3)(ii). In 2012, EPA determined that the Transport Rule, “also known as

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), achieve[s] greater reasonable progress

towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas

-3-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
than source-specific [BART] in those states covered by the Transport Rule.”

Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to SourceSpecific BART, 77 Fed. Reg. 33,642 (June 7, 2012) (Better than BART Rule). See

also Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate

Matter and Ozone, 76 Fed. Reg. 48,208 (Aug. 8, 2011) (Transport Rule); EPA v.

EME HomerCity Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014)(upholding the Transport

Rule). A state subject to the Transport Rule, like Nebraska, “need not require

BART.” § 51.308(e)(4).

B.

Gerald Gentleman Station—a Nebraska electric plant subject to

BART—“affects six Class I areas greater than 0.5 dv [deciviews] on average:

Badlands and Wind Cave in South Dakota; Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma; Rocky

Mountain in Colorado; and Hercules Glades and Mingo in Missouri.” Proposed

Rule; Nebraska; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 77 Fed. Reg. 12,770,

12,779 (Mar. 2, 2012). A deciview is a measure of visibility impairment; the higher

the deciview, the greater the impairment. 40 C.F.R. § 51.301. The Station has a

“cumulative baseline impact on these six Class I areas of 8.86 dv.” 77 Fed. Reg. at

12 2,779. The station, the largest source of SO pollution in Nebraska, has the potential

2

to emit a baseline of 31,513 tons of SO per year. Id. at 12,779-80. 

Nebraska submitted a state implementation plan to EPA. Id. at 12,775. 

Determining BART for the Station, Nebraska’s plan “evaluated wet and dry FGD

2

[Flue Gas Desulfurization] and Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) for SO controls.” Id.

1

FGD 2is the removal, after combustion, of SO from flue gases. Nebraska

1

Dep’t of Envtl. Quality Fact Sheet 11-12 (May 11, 2010). Wet FGD is a scrubbing

2

system that reduces SO —typically consisting of the following operations: 

“scrubbing or absorption, lime handling and slurry preparation, sludge processing,

-4-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
at 12,779. Nebraska noted, “FGD control would offer an improvement of 3.71 dv

across the six Class I areas.” Id. Nebraska asserted that the costs for FGD controls

“were reasonable on a cost per ton basis, but not on a dollars per deciview basis.” Id.

According to EPA, however, Nebraska “only provided visibility information for DSI

at Badlands” so the cumulative effect of DSI is unknown. Id. Nebraska concluded

2

that BART for the Station requires “no SO controls.” Id. 

EPA disagreed. In its final ruling, EPA disapproved Nebraska’s determination

2

that BART does not require SO controls for the Station. Final Rule; Nebraska;

Regional Haze State ImplementationPlan; Federal Implementation Plan, 77 Fed.

Reg. 40,150, 40,151 (July 6, 2012). EPA cited errorsin “Nebraska’s cost analysis for

FGD controls, the reasonableness of the costs of controls, the significant visibility

improvement achieved as a result of installing FGD or DSI, and improper rejection

of DSI.” Id. at 40,152; see also 77 Fed. Reg. at 12,780. EPA then promulgated a

federal implementation plan to satisfy the Act. EPA’s plan relied on the Transport

Ru 2le as an alternative to source-specific BART for SO emissions from the Station. 

77 Fed. Reg 2. at 40,151. EPA did decline to “require specific SO controls on [the

Station] as a geographic enhancement” in addition to the Transport Rule. Id. at

40,164. Nebraska and the conservation organizations petition for review. 

and flue gas handling.” Id. at 12. This wet FGD technology is a “well established

p 2rocess for removing SO from flue gas.” Id. Dry FGD, also a well-established

process, includes “a loop to recycle a portion of the bag-house collected material for

re-use in the FGD module.” Id. Both types of FGD are commonly called

“scrubbers.” 

“DSI involves the injection of a sorbent into the ductwork upstream of the

unit’s particulate control system” and is a feasible “control option [that] uses very

little water.” Nebraska State Implementation Plan 64 (June 30, 2011).

-5-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
II.

This court sets aside EPA’s action only if it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 252

F.3d 943, 947 (8th Cir. 2001), quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An agency action is

arbitrary and capricious if “the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not

intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,

offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the

agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the

product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). This standard “is narrow and a court is

not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Id. A court “‘may not supply

a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given’ . . . .

however, [the Court will] ‘uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s

path may reasonably be discerned.’” Id., quoting SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S.

194, 196 (1947) and Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 419 U.S.

281, 286 (1974). 

A.

Nebraska claims that EPA should have approved its plan. It argues that EPA

exceeded its statutory authority in disapproving Nebraska’s BART determination for

the Station. 

The Act “grantsstatesthe primary role of determining the appropriate pollution

controls within their borders.” North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 760-61 (8th Cir.

2013). Congress, however, gave EPA the authority to review state plans to ensure

they meet “all of the applicable requirements of [the Act].” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(3). 

EPA’s role in reviewing state BART determinations is more than “ministerial” and

“extends not only to whether the state considered the necessary factors in its

-6-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
determination, but also to whether the determination is one that isreasonably moored

to the [Act’s] provisions.” North Dakota, 730 F.3d at 761, 766. In similar

circumstances, the Supreme Court held that “EPA was not limited simply to verifying

that a [best available control technology (BACT)] determination was actually made,

concluding instead that EPA could examine the substance ofthe BACT determination

to ensure that it was one that was ‘reasonably moored to the Act’s provisions’ and

was based on ‘reasoned analysis.’” Id. at 761, quoting Alaska Dep’t of Envtl.

Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485, 490 (2004). In Alaska, the Court explained

that only when a state agency’s determination is “‘not based on a reasoned analysis’

. . . may EPA step in to ensure that the statutory requirements are honored.” Alaska,

540 U.S. at 490. 

In its state plan, Nebraska considered the required five factors in determining

BART for the Station. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2). 

“All five . . . factors inform the states’ inquiries into what BART controls are

appropriate for particular sources. Although no weights were assigned, the factors

were meant to be considered together by the states.” Am. Corn Growers Ass’n v.

EPA, 291 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A state considers these factors to determine

whether “the degree of improvement in visibility obtained frominstalling a particular

set of emission controls” justifies the cost. Id. at 7.

Eva 2luating SO controls at the Station, Nebraska focused on dry and wet FGD. 

Under Nebraska’s analysis, the costs for dry and wet FGD were “$2,726 per ton and

$2,724 per ton, respectively.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 12,779. It determined that the costeffectiveness for both types of FGD was “reasonable on a cost per ton basis.” Id. As

part of the reasonable cost-effectiveness, the visibility improvement was deemed

“significant.” Id. Yet, Nebraska raised “water use of wet and dry FGD as a

significant non-air environmental impact.” Id. Nebraska concluded that “the cost of

obtaining water to operate wet FGD would add approximately 8.6 percent to the cost

-7-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
of controls,” increasing the cost per ton to $2,958. Id. Weighing the factors,

Neb 2raska determined that BART for the Station was no SO controls. Id.

EPA di 2sagreed. It found “Nebraska’s blanket dismissal of any SO control

under the ‘non-air quality environmental impact’ factor was unreasoned.” 77 Fed.

Reg. 40,161. EPA determined that Nebraska erred in its “cost analysis for FGD

controls, the reasonableness of the costs of controls, the potential for significant

visibility improvement as a result of installing FGD or DSI, and improper rejection

of DSI.” Id. EPA found that even considering the cost of obtaining water, the “costs

were still found to be reasonable, particularly given the significant visibility benefits.”

Id. EPA acknowledged “the concerns about water availability, and recognizes the

great care that the State takes to manage limited water resources. [EPA] also

acknowledge[s] the goals of the Integrated Management Plans (IMP) and obligations

of the Platte River Recovery Plan.” Id. at 40,162. Additionally, at “$2,058 per ton,

and a visibility improvement of 0.86 dv at the closest Class I area, EPA considers DSI

to be cost effective, and the visibility improvements to be significant at the closest

Class I area.” Id. at 40,161. EPA disapproved Nebraska’s BART determination for

the Station because it was “based on flawed analysis and an unreasonable

conclusion.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 40,153. 

Nebraska does not dispute the facts found by EPA. Rather, Nebraska claims

EPA performed its own analysis and substituted its determinations for the state’s,

when itshould have assessed the reasonableness of Nebraska’s determinations. This

court considered a similar situation in the North Dakota case. EPA there disapproved

North Dakota’s BART determination for a coal-powered electric plant. North

Dakota, 730 F.3d at 760. Reviewing the state’s BART determination, “EPA

concluded that the State’s [plan] failed to properly consider the cost of compliance

in any meaningful sense . . . because the cost of compliance analysis was based upon

fundamentally flawed and greatly inflated cost estimates.” Id. This court noted that

“the flaw in the analysis prevented the state from conducting a meaningful

-8-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
consideration of the factor, as required by the BART guidelines” and rejected “the

argument that EPA isrequired under [the Act] to approve a BART determination that

is based upon an analysis that is neither reasoned nor moored to [the Act’s]

provisions.” Id. at 761. This court affirmed EPA’s disapproval of North Dakota’s

BART determination. Id. 

As in the North Dakota case, EPA found errors in Nebraska’s determinations. 

For example, Nebraska’s evaluation ofthe cost of FGD controls contained “errors and

deviations from EPA’s Cost Control Manual,” leading Nebraska to overestimate the

costs. 77 Fed. Reg. at 12,780. Compare Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1212

(10th Cir. 2013) (concluding EPA “had a reasonable basis for rejecting” cost

estimates not in compliance with its guidelines). EPA found that FGD controls are

capable of controlling emissions to a greater degree than Nebraska had assumed, and

that Nebraska overestimated the Station’s emissions baseline at 49,785 tons per year,

skewing its analysis of the proposed controls’ cost-effectiveness. 77 Fed. Reg. at

12,780. These errors resulted in “the overestimation of the costs of FGD controls.” 

Id. EPA found that Nebraska provided no adequate explanation for rejecting DSI,

which “does not consume as much water as does FGD.” Id. 

Nebraska alleges that EPA simply disagreed with its numbers and replaced its

analysis with EPA’s own. “Left to evaluate the arguments of the parties’ experts, we

must give deference to the EPA. . . . we cannot adopt [petitioners’] analysis given

that the EPA was aware of, and provided explanations contradicting, petitioners’

comments.” Oklahoma, 723 F.3d at 1216-17. Given Nebraska’s errors and EPA’s

determination that Nebraska’s action was unreasoned, this court denies Nebraska’s

petition for review.

B.

Because the Nebraska Plan lacked an approvable BART determination, EPA

promulgated a federal implementation plan to satisfy the Act. EPA’s plan relies on

-9-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
the Transport Rule in place of source-specific BART for the Station. The

conservation organizations object.

EPA asserts that it “does not dispute the Court’s jurisdiction to review EPA’s

action in promulgating a partial [federal plan] for Nebraska.” However, EPA argues

that the conservation organizations’ petition for review of the EPA’s plan is “nothing

more than [a] collateral attack[] on the nationwide better-than-BART rule itself, and

as such [is] not properly before the Court.” This court has jurisdiction over their

petition for review, including the challenge to EPA’s reliance on the Transport Rule,

because the plan is a locally or regionally applicable action. See Nat’l Parks

Conservation Ass’n v. McCarthy, 2016 WL 240768, at *4 (8th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016)

(holding that this court “has jurisdiction to consider a petition for review of the

Minnesota Plan, including the claim that EPA’s approval of the Transport Rule for

the five [facilities] is ‘arbitrary or capricious.’”). See also Dalton Trucking, Inc. v.

EPA, 2015 WL 9258716, at *3 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 18, 2015) (“Lest there be any

confusion going forward, we reiterate what the Supreme Court made clear thirty-five

years ago: Section 307(b)(1) is a ‘conferral of jurisdiction upon the courts of

appeals.’”), quoting Harrison v. PPG Indus., Inc., 446 U.S. 578, 593 (1980). 

The EPA’s plan does not meet the exception to the rule for locally or regionally

applicable actions, as EPA did not find and publish a determination that the plan has

nationwide scope or effect. Lion Oil Co. v. EPA, 792 F.3d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 2015)

(stating that this court may hear a petition unless it is “based on a determination of

nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and

publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”), quoting 42 U.S.C. §

7607(b)(1). See also Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass’n v. EPA, 705 F.3d 453, 455

(D.C. Cir. 2013) (explaining that 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) creates two routes to the

D.C. Circuit, the second of which is that “EPA may determine that the otherwise

locally or regionally applicable regulations have a nationwide scope or effect.”).

-10-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
The conservation organizations assert that EPA’s reliance on the Transport

Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because EPA did not consider or

respond to evidence that FGD and DSI controls will reduce emissions and improve

visibility more than the Transport Rule. EPA determined that the FGD and DSI

controls at the Station were cost-effective and feasible. 77 Fed. Reg. at 40,162-63. 

EPA 2found that if BART were used, the FGD controls would reduce SO emissions

from the station by 23,147 tons per year (at 0.15 lbs/MMBtu) and by 28,166 tons per

year (at 0.06 lbs/MMBtu). 77 Fed. Reg. at 12,780. Applying the Transport Rule to

2

the Station, EPA’s plan reduces SO emissions by only 4,010 tons per year. In its

final rule, EPA did not detail why the Transport Rule was better than source-specific

BART for the Station. 77 Fed. Reg. at 40,164-65. EPA did state that it “has the

flexibility pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 51.308(e)(3) to adopt an emissions trading program

or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable

progress towards improving visibility thanBART.” Id. at 40,164. EPA did then refer

to its finding in the Better than BART Rule that the Transport Rule achieves “greater

reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility

conditions in Class I areas than source-specific BART.” Id., citing to 77 Fed. Reg.

33,642. 

“Even when an agency explains its decision with ‘less than ideal clarity,’ a

reviewing court will not upset the decision on that account ‘if the agency’s path may

reasonably be discerned.’” Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 540 U.S. at 497,

quoting Bowman Transp., Inc., 419 U.S. at 286. EPA may use an alternative to

BART if there will be an “overall improvement in visibility,” based on a comparison

of “the average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class

I areas.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(3)(ii) (emphasis added). EPA’s plan reiterated that

it demonstrated in the Better than BART Rule that “on average, the Transport Rule

results in greater average visibility improvement at affected Class I areas compared

to application of BART nationwide.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 40,165. Although the

Transport Rule may not reduce the Station’s emissions as much as source-specific

-11-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
BART, the EPA determined that the Transport Rule—when compared to

BART—will result in greater improvement over all affected Class I areas. 77 Fed.

Reg. at 33,642. 

In the final Better than BART Rule, EPA noted in response to comments that

“the omission of Gerald Gentleman Unit 2 from the BART-eligible inventory . . .

would [not] affect the outcome of [its] national analysis.” Id. at 33,651. The EPA

explained that “the emission reductions from a single [electric generating unit] in the

BART control scenario would not change the average visibility improvement across

all affected Class I areas, which is the basis for [EPA’s] determination.” Id.

According to EPA’s modeling, source-specific BART provides 0.1 deciview

improvement over the Transport Rule on the 20% worst-visibility days in Badlands

National Park and Wind Cave National Park. EPA’s Technical Support Document

for Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART Alternative, Docket ID

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729-0014, at 34-36 (Dec. 2011). Transport Rule and sourcespecific BART achieve the same visibility improvement for the 20% worst-visibility

days in Rocky Mountain National Park. Id. at 35. Transport Rule achieves greater

improvement on the 20% worst-visibility days in Hercules Glades Wilderness (0.8

dv improvement over BART) and Wichita Mountains (0.4 dv improvement over

BART). Id. at 34, 36. 

2

When “analysis of the relevant information ‘requires a high level of technical

expertise, [courts] must defer to the informed discretion of the responsible federal

agencies.” Friends of Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Dombeck, 164 F.3d 1115,

1128 (8th Cir. 1999), quoting Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360,

377 (1989). Although the Transport Rule allows for more emissions from the Station

than source-specific BART, the record indicates that the Transport Rule improves

The Better than BART Rule did not expressly address the final affected Class

2

I area, Mingo Wilderness in Missouri.

-12-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
visibility significantly atsome of the affected Class I areas and performs comparably

to BART at the other areas. “[T]he focus of the Clean Air Act [is] to achieve ‘actual

progress and improvement in visibility’ . . . not to anoint BART the mandatory

vehicle of choice.” Ctr. for Energy & Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C.

Cir. 2005). See also Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340 (D.C.

Cir. 2006) (squarely rejecting the “claim that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to

ensure that any BART-alternative improves visibility at least as much as BART at

every Class I area and in all categories of days.”). EPA’s reliance on the Transport

Rule for the Station was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with

the law. 

C.

The conservation organizations challenge the EPA’s rejection of a geographic

enhancement—a scrubber—to supplement Transport Rule allowances at the Station. 

The conservation organizations repeatedly emphasize that, by EPA’s logic in

rejecting Nebraska’s plan, EPA should have required a scrubber in its own plan. 

Per EPA regulations, “A state [following the Transport Rule allowances] may

adopt provisions . . . for a geographic enhancement to the program to address the

requirement under § 51.302(c) related to BART for reasonably attributable

impairment from the pollutant covered by such trading program in that State.” 40

C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(4) (emphasis added). Under § 51.302(c), a Federal Land Manager

“may certify to the State, at any time, that there exists reasonably attributable

impairment of visibility [RAVI] in any mandatory Class I Federal area.” 

§ 51.302(c)(1). See also Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. EPA, 759 F.3d 969, 971

(8th Cir. 2014) (discussing how a RAVI determination is made). 

As noted, based on EPA’s modeling,theTransport Rule resultsin less visibility

improvement than source-specific BART at two of the affected Class I areas,

-13-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. However, in rejecting a scrubber as a

geographic enhancement, EPAexplained that the “primary purpose of EPA’s existing

regulatory language regarding geographic enhancements . . . is to allow a marketbased system to accommodate actions taken under the RAVI provisions. No RAVI

finding has been certified [for the Station].” 77 Fed. Reg. at 40,164. 

Although EPA could require a geographic enhancement without a RAVI

determination, EPA chose “not to pursue any geographic enhancements” because

“EPA ha 2s met the minimum requirements for SO BART for [the Station] by relying

on the Transport Rule.” Id. “EPA steps into the State’s shoes, and must meet the

same requirements,” with the same “flexibility to make technical judgments within

2

the bounds of the rule.” Id. Nebraska’s plan concluded that no SO controls were

needed for the Station, rejecting scrubbers assource-specificBART. EPA wastasked

with evaluating that action. It concluded Nebraska’s decision was unreasoned

because scrubbers were a cost-effective option. The Transport Rule, at that point,

was not an option. However, when promulgating its plan, EPA did have the option

of choosing between source-specific BART or the Transport Rule. See 40 C.F.R. §

51.308(e)(4) (“A State subject to [the Transport Rule] . . . need not require BART”).

EPA chose to rely on the Transport Rule, rejecting a geographic enhancement due to

the Station’s lack of a RAVI certification and finding that the Transport Rule “met

2

the minimum requirements for SO BART.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 40,164. Because this

court finds EPA properly relied on the Transport Rule for the Station, EPA did not

abuse its discretion in rejecting a geographic enhancement.

* * * * * * *

The petitions for review are denied.

-14-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033 
BYE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result.

I agree with all aspects of the Court's opinion, with one exception. In their

separate petition for review, the conservation organizations contend in part that the

Transport Rule is not better than source-specific BART with respect to the

Environmental Protection Agency's partial federal plan for Nebraska. To that extent,

I do not believe we have jurisdiction over the conservation organizations' petition for

review. See Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. McCarthy, __ F.3d. __, __ (8th Cir. 

2016) (2016 WL 240768 at *7) (Bye, J., concurring); see also Nat'l Parks

Conservation Ass'n v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 803 F.3d 151, 160 (3d Cir.

2015) (denying a similar petition for review for lack of jurisdiction to the extent it

challenged the nationally-applicable determination that the Transport Rule is better

than BART).

______________________________

-15-

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Entry ID: 4363033