Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-12-02910/USCOURTS-ca8-12-02910-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fresh Energy
Petitioner
Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness
Petitioner
Gina McCarthy
Respondent
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Petitioner
National Parks Conservation Association
Petitioner
Sierra Club
Petitioner
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
Voyageurs National Park Association
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2910

___________________________

National Parks Conservation Association; Voyageurs National Park Association;

Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness; Sierra Club; Minnesota Center for

Environmental Advocacy; Fresh Energy

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

Gina McCarthy, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency;

United States Environmental Protection Agency

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents

___________________________

No. 12-3481

___________________________

National Parks Conservation Association; Voyageurs National Park Association;

Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness; Sierra Club; Minnesota Center for

Environmental Advocacy; Fresh Energy

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

Gina McCarthy, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency;

United States Environmental Protection Agency

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents

____________

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Environmental Protection Administration

____________

 Submitted: September 23, 2015

 Filed: January 21, 2016

____________

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

____________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

On June 12, 2012, EPA approved the Minnesota Regional Haze State

Implementation Plan. Six conservation organizations petition for review ofthe Plan. 

1

Having jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), this court denies the petition.

I.

A.

A national goal is natural visibility in “mandatory class I Federal areas.” 42

U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1). States must revise their environmental plans to include

“measures as may be necessary” for reasonable progress toward the national goal. 

§ 7491(b)(2). Some majorstationary facilitiesthat emit “any air pollutant which may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in

[class I Federal areas]” must install and operate the best available retrofit technology

(“BART”). § 7491(b)(2)(A). 

National Parks Conservation Association, Voyageurs National Park 1

Association, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, Sierra Club, Minnesota

Center for Environmental Advocacy, and Fresh Energy.

-2-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
BART is “an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable

through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each

pollutant which is emitted by an existing stationary facility.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.301. 

When implementing BART, the state must consider five statutory 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” from BART. 42

U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2). 

In 1999, EPA offered an alternative to BART if “the State demonstrates that

an emissions trading program or other alternative will achieve greater reasonable

progress toward natural visibility conditions.” Regional Haze Regulations, 64 Fed.

Reg. 35,714, 35,767 (July 1, 1999). See also 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2). For BART

alternatives, a state must submit a “demonstration that the emissions trading program

or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have

resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART

in the State.” § 51.308(e)(2)(i). The demonstration includes several steps. 

§ 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A)-(E). A state may satisfy the final step of the demonstration by

meeting two criteria: “(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and

(ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the

average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I

areas.” § 51.308(e)(3) (emphasis added).

On June 7, 2012, EPA determined that the Transport Rule—also known as the

Cross-StateAirPollutionRule (“CSAPR”)—is “better thanBART.” Regional Haze: 

Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

Determinations, 77 Fed. Reg. 33,642, 33,648 (June 7, 2012) (Better than BART

Rule). According to EPA, the Transport Rule achieves “greater reasonable progress

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

than source-specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) in those states

-3-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
covered by the Transport Rule.” Id. at 33,643. States subject to the Transport Rule

may use its emissions-trading program instead of source-specific BART. 40 C.F.R.

§ 51.308(e)(4). See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584,

1610 (2014), approving 76 Fed. Reg. 48,208 (Aug. 8, 2011) (Transport Rule). 

In addition to BART requirements, a state must propose a long-term strategy

plan for regional haze, including “enforceable emissions limitations, compliance

schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals

established by States having mandatory Class I Federal areas.” 40 C.F.R.

§ 51.308(d)(3). States must “establish goals . . . that provide for reasonable progress

towards achieving natural visibility conditions” at Class I areas. § 51.308(d)(1). In

establishing such goals, a state must consider four factors: “the costs of compliance,

the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental

impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected

sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were taken into

consideration in selecting the goal.” § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). The state must also

“[a]nalyze and determine the rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility

conditions by the year 2064.” § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). 

“If the state’s reasonable progress goals provide for a slower rate of

improvement than necessary to achieve natural visibility conditions by 2064, the state

must demonstrate ‘that the rate of progress for the implementation plan to attain

natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; and that the progress goal adopted by

the state is reasonable.’” North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir. 2013),

quoting 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(ii). “The reasonable progress goals established by

the State are not directly enforceable but will be considered by the Administrator in

evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the implementation plan to achieve the

progress goal adopted by the State.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(v). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
B.

Minnesota has two Class I federal areas: the Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. Proposed Rule; Minnesota; Regional

Haze, 77 Fed. Reg. 3,681, 3,686 (Jan. 25, 2012). Minnesota has five electricgenerating units (EGUs) subject to BART that pollute these Class I areas (and also

affect the visibility in Isle Royale National Park in Michigan). Id. at 3,686, 3,688.

For these EGUs, Minnesota proposed using the Transport Rule rather than sourcespecific BART. Id. at 3,691. Days after EPA determined that the Transport Rule was

“better than BART,” EPA approved the Minnesota Plan, stating that “it is acceptable

for Minnesota to substitute participation in the [Transport Rule] trading programs for

source-specific BART.” Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality

Implementation Plans; Minnesota; Regional Haze, 77 Fed. Reg. 34,801, 34,803

(June 12, 2012).

EPA also approved Minnesota’s reasonable-progress goals to “attain natural

visibility conditions in Boundary Waters in 2093 and in Voyageurs in 2177.” Id. 

Minnesota must review and reassessthese reasonable-progress goals and its Plan “by

July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(f). 

The conservation organizations challenge EPA’s approval of Minnesota’s

decision to use the Transport Rule in place of source-specific BART, and

Minnesota’s reasonable-progress goals. 

II.

The conservation organizations petition for review under 42 U.S.C.

§ 7607(b)(1). Neither side disputes this court’s jurisdiction to consider the

reasonable-progress goals in the Plan. EPA, however, asserts that its approval of the

Plan based on the Transport Rule is a nationally-applicable action that must be

-5-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
reviewed in the D.C. Circuit. The conservation organizations counter that EPA’s

approval of the Plan—including Minnesota’s reliance on the Transport Rule—is a

local or regional action that must be reviewed by this court. 

Section 7607(b)(1) has three parts. First, only the D.C. Circuit may review a

petition for review of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action

taken, by the Administrator under this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Second,

only an appropriate circuit court of appeals may review a “petition for review of the

Administrator’s action . . . which is locally or regionally applicable.” Id. This

includes petitions for review of the “Administrator’s action in approving or

promulgating any implementation plan under section 7410.” Id. However, for a

“locally or regionally applicable” action, only the D.C. Circuit may review the

petition “if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and

if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes thatsuch action is based

on such a determination.” Id. See Lion Oil Co. v. EPA, 792 F.3d 978, 982 (8th Cir.

2015) (holding this court had jurisdiction to hear a locally or regionally applicable

action because EPA did not publish a finding of nationwide scope or effect). 

Section 7607(b)(1) thus has two routesfor review in the D.C. Circuit. Am. Rd.

& Transp. Builders Ass’n v. EPA, 705 F.3d 453, 455 (D.C. Cir. 2013). First, “EPA’s

regulations may themselves be nationally applicable,” and second, “EPA may

determine that the otherwise locally or regionally applicable regulations have a

nationwide scope or effect” then find and publish the determination. Id. EPA’s

“‘action in approving or promulgating any implementation plan’ is the prototypical

‘locally or regionally applicable’ action that may be challenged only in the

appropriate regional court of appeals.” Id. See also ATK Launch Sys., Inc. v. EPA,

651 F.3d 1194, 1199 (10th Cir. 2011) (describing an action challenging a state plan

as a “purely local action” and “an undisputably regional action”). EPA has not found

and published a determination of nationwide scope or effect for the Minnesota Plan;

therefore, the D.C. Circuit has jurisdiction of this case only if EPA’s action is

-6-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
“nationally applicable.” The Minnesota Plan is a “prototypical ‘locally or regionally

applicable’ action” that must be challenged in the regional court of appeals. See Am.

Rd. & Transp. Builders, 705 F.3d at 455. 

True, the Third Circuit has ruled that it has no jurisdiction of a challenge to

“the Transport Rule or Pennsylvania’s reliance on it.” Nat’l Parks Conservation

Ass’n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 160 (3d Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). More instructive

is the Seventh Circuit’s Madison Gas case. Madison Gas challenged “an element of

a national program,” a program that involved “allocating allowances to all the

electrical generating plants in the nation, and all the allocations [were] listed . . . in

a single table in the regulations.” Madison Gas & Electric Co. v. EPA, 4 F.3d 529,

530-31 (7th Cir. 1993). The challenge was “based upon an entirely local factor,”

specifically “that the allowances [were] based on an incorrect determination of

Madison’s generating capacity.” Id. The Seventh Circuit noted that the petition “if

successful will have no impact on the overall program except insofar as the award of

additional allowances might pierce the national ceiling.” Id. at 531. Because this

was “too speculative to warrant forcing the case into the D.C. Circuit,” the Seventh

Circuit had jurisdiction of the petition for review. Id. 

As in Madison Gas, the conservation organizations here challenge “an element

of a national program . . . based upon an entirely local factor”: whether the Transport

Rule as applied to the five EGUs in the Minnesota Plan is “better than BART.” See

also United States v. Cinergy Corp., 458 F.3d 705, 707 (7th Cir. 2006) (finding

jurisdiction of a challenge because the “validity of the regulation is not in issue, just

its meaning”); Texas v. EPA, 2011 WL 710598, at *3 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2011)

(unpublished order) (“Determining whether an action by the EPA is regional or local

on the one hand or national on the other should depend on the location of the persons

or enterprises that the action regulates rather than on where the effects of the action

are felt.”) (emphasis added). This court has jurisdiction to consider a petition for

-7-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
review of the Minnesota Plan, including the claim that EPA’s approval of the

Transport Rule for the five EGUs is “arbitrary or capricious.” 

III.

This court sets aside EPA’s action if it is “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 decision is

arbitrary or 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 isso implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the

product of agency expertise.” Lion Oil, 792 F.3d at 982. Under this narrow standard,

“a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency,” yet “the agency must

examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action

including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S.

29, 43 (1983), quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. U.S., 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962). 

“If an agency’s determination is supportable on any rational basis, [a court] must

uphold it,” especially “when an agency is acting within its own sphere of expertise.”

Voyageurs Nat’l Park Ass’n v. Norton, 381 F.3d 759, 763 (8th Cir. 2004). 

A. 

The conservation organizations attack EPA’s approval of the Minnesota Plan,

claiming the Transport Rule allowances in the Plan are not “better than BART.”

Minnesota proposed to use the Transport Rule instead ofBART for five EGUs. 

77 Fed. Reg. at 3,689. EPA conducted “a technical analysis . . . to determine whether

compliance with the Transport Rule would satisfy the requirements of the [Regional

-8-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
Haze Rule] addressing alternatives to BART.” Id. at 3,683. Approving the

Minnesota Plan, EPA relied on two national rulings. See 76 Fed. Reg. 48,208 (Aug.

8, 2011) (Transport Rule); 77 Fed. Reg. 33,642 (June 7, 2012) (Better than BART

Rule). A state subject to the Transport Rule “need not require BART.” 40 C.F.R.

§ 51.308(e)(4) (codifying the two rulings). EPA decided that Minnesota properly

exercised its discretion as a Transport Rule state by using it for the five EGUs. 77

Fed. Reg. at 34,801-802. It concluded that Minnesota’s “compliance with the

Transport Rule will provide for greater reasonable progress toward improving

visibility than source-specific BART controls for EGUs.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 3,683. In

its final approval, EPA reiterated that the Transport Rule is “an alternative program

to source-specific BART for EGUs” and referred to the analysis in the Better than

BART Rule. 77 Fed. Reg. at 34,804. 

True, evidence in the record indicates that source-specific BART may achieve

better results in Minnesota. The Forest Service was “concerned that the inclusion of

Minnesota in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) would likely mean that the

air pollution control equipment proposed for Minnesota power plants under BART,

such as [the largest power plant], would not be installed. . . . It appears that CSAPR

will not drive any emission reductions in Minnesota. Based on the spreadsheet from

EPA’s website . . . , the current emissions for Minnesota are already very close to its

2014 emission budgets under CSAPR.” (Emphasis added). The Forest Service later

emphasized, “For Minnesota we find CSAPR is more lenient than both your original,

and our recommended lower emitting, source-specific BART limits. It is clear that

the source-specific BART limits provide the greatest visibility improvement and

request that you use the values the EPA and FLMs proposed.” 

However, EPA’s explanation that the Transport Rule is better than sourcespecific BART is rational. Minnesota’s Transport Rule allowances are 41,981 tons

of SO2 and 29 x,572 tons of NO . 76 Fed. Reg. at 48,261. Under BART, EPA

projec 2ted emissions from Minnesota EGUs in 2014 as 52,075 tons of SO and 29,875

-9-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
x

tons of NO . Technical Support Attachment to Comments of Conservation

Organizations—Minnesota Regional Haze SIP Approval 11, 17 (Feb. 21, 2012)

(based on the EPA’s National BART 2014 spreadsheet). These emission projections

indicate that the Transport Rule is better thanBART. The conservation organizations

disagree with EPA’s projected emissions under BART. Id. The EPA rejected the

conservation organizations’ numbers, referring to its analysis in the Transport Rule. 

77 Fed. Reg. at 34,801-802. The EPA is acting within its sphere of expertise and its

determination here is supportable on a rational basis.

The Transport Rule seeks to achieve greater, overall reasonable progress

towards improving visibility than source-specific BART. The D.C. Circuit has

rejected the claim “that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to ensure that any BARTalternative improves visibility at least as much as BART at every Class I area and in

all categories of days.” Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340

(D.C. Cir. 2006) (analyzing the Transport Rule’s predecessor—the Clean Air

Interstate Rule). Here, Minnesota chose to use the Transport Rule, which EPA

determined will achieve greater overall reasonable progress than source-specific

BART. “Maybe time will prove [petitioner] right on some of these fronts; maybe not. 

But arbitrary and capricious review does not ask who is right. It asks whether the

EPA followed a defensible process in assessing who is right.” St. Mary’s Cement,

Inc. v. EPA, 782 F.3d 280, 286 (6th Cir. 2015). EPA did not rely on factors that

Congress did not intend it to consider, did not entirely fail to consider an important

aspect of the problem, and did not offer an explanation that runs counter to the

evidence before the agency. 

EPA’s approval of Minnesota’s reliance on the Transport Rule was not

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 

-10-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
B.

The conservation organizations also seek review of the reasonable-progress

goals in the Minnesota Plan. 

EPA approved the reasonable-progress goals in the Plan, finding Minnesota

had demonstrated it was not reasonable to meet the 2064 target for the first

implementation period. 77 Fed. Reg. at 34,803. Although the goals do not meet the

2064 target for natural visibility conditions, this does not mean EPA arbitrarily

approved Minnesota’s demonstration. 

Approving the Plan, EPA explained that the “state followed the proper

approach in setting its [reasonable-progress goals] through 2018” by considering the

four factors in the regulations. Id. Minnesota considered “the costs of compliance,

the time needed for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental

impacts, and the remaining useful life of the facility.” Id. EPA noted that the

“visibility improvement at issue here is the visibility improvement for the first

implementation period, which extends until July 31, 2018.” Id. Much of the

pollution affecting Voyageurs and Boundary Waters is not within Minnesota’s

control; “Minnesota focused on the emissions it can control.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 3,690. 

Minnesota’s contribution to light extinction for Boundary Waters is 28% and for

Voyageurs, 31%. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Regional Haze State

Implementation Plan 84 (Dec. 2009). 

EPA determined that Minnesota adequately demonstrated—given the

uncontrollable causes and the weighing of the four prescribed factors—that its

progress goals are reasonable. 77 Fed. Reg. at 34,803. Just as in the North Dakota

case, “EPA’s determination on this matter is entitled to judicial deference, as it

involves ‘technical matters within its area of expertise.’” North Dakota, 730 F.3d at

766. North Dakota there determined that a large power plant did not need additional

-11-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
pollution control technologies in order to achieve reasonable progress. Id. at 764. 

EPA disapproved this determination, “concluding that the decision not to install

additional controls was unreasonable in light of the State’s admission that it could not

meet the uniform rate of progress to restore natural visibility . . . by 2064.” Id. at 765. 

On petition for review, this court concluded that EPA’s disapproval was not arbitrary

or capricious because EPA “demonstrated that the visibility model used by the State

[in evaluating the need of additional controls at the power plant] would serve . . . to

maintain current degraded conditions” Id. at 766. 

Similar to the North Dakota case, the conservation organizations stress that

EPA erred by approving reasonable-progress determinations that did not include

additional controls at two large Minnesota EGUs. Unlike in North Dakota, EPA has

set forth plans to address the pollution emitted from one of the two EGUs. That EGU

is a source of RAVI (“reasonably attributable visibility impairment” directly from a

single source or a small number of sources). See 40 C.F.R. § 51.301. “EPA intends

to act on RAVI BART in a separate action” for this facility. 77 Fed. Reg. at 34,806,

34,804. In approving Minnesota’s reasonable-progress goals, EPA considered that

additional controls may be needed at the facility and committed to a regulatory

process that will result in a plan to address those controls. For the second EGU, EPA

determined that Minnesota properly relied on Transport Rule allowances in place of

BART. 77 Fed. Reg. at 34,803. EPA’s approval of the Plan articulates a “rational

connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs.

Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43. 

Because EPA acted rationally within its sphere of expertise, the conservation

organizations’ petition for review of the Minnesota Haze Plan’s reasonable-progress

goals is denied. 

* * * * * * *

Petition for review is denied.

-12-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093 
BYE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result.

To the extent the six conservation organizations involved in this petition for

review contend the Transport Rule is not better than source-specific BART with

respect to Minnesota's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, I find this case

indistinguishable from the contentions advanced by the conservation groups who

challenged Pennsylvania's Plan in National Parks Conservation Ass'n v.UnitedStates

Environmental Protection Agency, 803 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2015). I also believe the

Third Circuit's jurisdictional analysis is correct. Thus, to the extent the conservation

organizations claim source-specific BART is better than the Transport Rule as

applied to Minnesota's Plan, I conclude we lack jurisdiction. In all other respects, I

agree with my colleagues that the EPA acted rationally in approving Minnesota's

Plan, and thus concur in the result.

______________________________

-13-

Appellate Case: 12-2910 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Entry ID: 4358093