# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 18 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

St at e o f Nor th Dako ta

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Uni te d St at es Env iro nm en ta l Pro te ct io n Age nc y , an d Lis a P. Ja ck so n, Adm in is tra to r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

Bas in Elec tri c Po wer Co op erat iv e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l In te rv en or

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 19 61

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Great Riv er En erg y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Uni te d St at es Env iro nm en ta l Pro te ct io n Age nc y , an d Lis a P. Ja ck so n, Adm in is tra to r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

Bas in Elec tri c Po wer Co op erat iv e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l In te rv en or

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 23 31

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Nati on al Park s C on se rv at io n As so ci at io n; Sie rra C lu b

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er s

v.

Uni te d S ta te s En vi ro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Ag en cy ; Li sa P. Jac ks on , Adm in is tra to r,

Uni te d S ta te s En vi ro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Ag en cy

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt s

Bas in Elec tri c Po wer Co op erat iv e; Great Riv er En erg y ; M in nk ot a Po wer Co op erat iv e; Sq ua re Bu tt e Ele ct ric Co op erat iv e; Sta te of No rth Dako ta

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l In te rv en or s

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Mo nt an a-Dak ot a Uti li ti es Co ., A Divi si on of M DU Res ou rces Grou p, In c.; Nor th ern Mu ni ci pa l Po wer Ag en cy ; No rth wes te rn Co rp or at io n, d oi ng bu si ne ss as

Nor th W es te rn Ener gy; Ott er Tai l Po wer Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Ad m in is tra ti on

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 3

Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 23 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

In th e s e c o n s o l id at ed pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w, t he St at e of Nor th Dak ot a (St at e),

Great Ri ve r Ene rg y , an d Nati on al Park s Co ns erv at io n Ass oc ia ti on an d S i e r ra Cl ub
(co ll ect iv el y Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s) ch al le ng e th e fin al ru le pr om ul ga te d by

Env iro nm en ta l Pro te ct io n Age nc y (EPA) on Apr il 6, 20 12

, se e 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,89 4-

9 45 (th e Fi na l Ru le ). The Fi na l Ru le ap pr ov ed in pa rt an d di sa pp ro ve d in pa rt two

st at e im pl em en ta ti on pl an s (SIP s) su bm it te d by th e S t a t e to ad dr es s it s ob li ga ti on s

un de r §§ 11 0 an d 16 9A of th e Cl ean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 74 01 -7 67 1q

, an d

pr om ul ga te d a fed eral im

pl em en ta ti on pl an (FIP ) to ad dr es s th os e po rti on s of th e SIPs

th at were di sa pp ro ve d. W e gr an t in pa rt an d de ny in pa rt th e St at e’s an d Great Ri ve r

Ene rg y ’s pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w, an d de ny th e Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s ’ p e t it io n fo r

rev ie w an d vo lu nt ary m ot io n t o d is m is s u nd er Fede ral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e

42 (b ).

I. Back gr ou nd

A. Stat ut or y

Back gr ou nd

“ [I]n 19 77

, ‘[i]n res po ns e to a gr owi ng aware ne ss th at vi si bi li ty was rap id ly

de te rio rat in g in m an y pl aces , su ch as wil de rn es s area s an d na ti on al pa rk s,’ Co ng res s

ad de d § 16 9A t o t he [Cl ean Air Act .] ” Am . Cor n Gro wers Ass ’n v . EPA, 29 1 F .3d

1, 3 (D.C. Ci r. 20 02 ) (p er cu ria m ) (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al c i t a t i on

om it te d) (q uo ti ng Ch ev ro n U.S.A., In c. v. EPA, 65 8 F.2 d 27 1, 27 2 (5 th Ci r. 19 81 )).

“ Sect io n 16 9A es ta bl is he d as a na ti on al go al th e ‘prev en ti on of an y fu tu re, an d th e

rem ed y in g of an y ex is ti ng , im pa irment in vi si bi li ty in m an da to ry cl as s I area s whi ch

-3

-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229im

pa irment res ul ts f

r o m manm ad e ai r po ll ut io n.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Cl ean Air Act

Am en dm en ts of 19 77 , P ub . L. No. 95 -9 5, § 1 2 8

, 9 1 S ta t. 68 5, 74 2 (cu rren t ve rs io n

at 42 U.S.C. § 74 91 (a)( 1) )). In co nn ect io n wit h § 16 9A, “ Co ng res s di rect ed EPA to

is su e reg ul at io ns req ui rin g st at es to su bm it [SIP s] co nt ai ni ng em is si on li m it s,

sc he du le s of co m

pl ia nc e, an d ot he r m eas ur es ne ces sa ry to m ak e reas on ab le pr og res s

to ward m eet in g t he na ti on al vi si bi li ty goa l.” Id

.

Und er th e reg io na l ha ze r e g ul at io ns pr om ul ga te d by EPA, a st at e “ m us t

es ta bl is h go al s (ex pr es se d in de ci vi ews ) th at pr ov id e fo r reas on ab le pr og res s to ward s

ach ie vi ng na tu ral vi si bi li ty co nd it io ns ” in “ each man da to ry Cl as s I Fed eral area

lo cat ed wit hi n th e St at e[.]” 40 C.F.R. § 51 .30 8( d) (1 ). In reac hi ng th es e reas on ab le 1

pr og res s go al s, th e st at e m us t co ns id er “ th e co st of co m pl ia nc e, th e ti m e ne ces sa ry fo r

co m pl ia nc e, th e en erg y an d no n- ai r qu al it y en vir onm en ta l im pa ct s of co m

pl ia nc e, an d

th e rem ai ni ng us efu l li fe of an y po te nt ia ll y affe ct ed so ur ces , an d in cl ud e a

de m on st rat io n sh owi ng ho w th es e fact or s were ta ke n in to co ns id erat io n in se le ct in g

a go al .” Id

. § 51 .30 8( d) (1 )(i )(A). The st at e m us t al so an al y ze an d de te rm in e th e rat e

of pr og res s ne ces sa ry to ach ie ve na tu ral vi si bi li ty co nd it io ns in th e m an da to ry Cl as s

I Fed e r a l a r e as by th e y ear 20 64 an d “ co ns id er th e un ifo rm rat e of im pr ov em en t in

vi si bi li ty an d th e em is si on red uc ti on m eas u r e s ne ed ed to ach ie ve it fo r th e pe rio d

“ The de ci vi ew is an atm os ph eri c h aze i nd ex th at ex pr es se s un ifo rm ch an ge s 1

in ha zi ne ss in te rm s of co m m on in crem en ts acro ss th e en ti re ran ge of co nd it io ns , fro m

pr is ti ne to ex tre m el y im

pa ire d en vi ro nm en ts

. A on e de ci vi ew ch an ge in ha zi ne ss is

a sm al l bu t no ti ceab le ch a n g e in ha zi ne ss un de r m os t ci rcu m st an ces whe n vi ewin g

sc en es in m an da to ry

Cla ss I Fed eral area s.” 6 2 F ed . Reg . 41 ,14 5 (i nt ern al foo tn ot e

om it te d)

. Areas de si gn at ed as Cl as s I Fed eral area s in cl ud e al l in te rn at i o n a l p ark s,

na ti on al wil de rn es s area s whi ch ex ceed 5,0 00 acre s in si ze, na ti on al m em or ia l pa rk s whi ch ex ceed 5,0 00 acre s in s i z e , an d na ti on al pa rk s whi ch ex ceed 6,0 00 acre s in

si ze. 42 U.S.C. § 74 72 (a). “ [T]he te rm ‘m an da to ry cl as s I Fed eral area s’ m ean s Fed eral area s whi ch m ay no t be de si gn at ed as ot he r th an c l a s s I [

. ]” 42 U.S.C. § 74 91 (g )(5 ). The re are two su ch area s in t h e S t at e: The od or e Ro os ev el t Nati on al

Park an d Lo st woo d Wil de rn es s Are a.

-4

-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229co ve red by th e im pl em en ta ti on pl an .” Id

. § 51

. 3 0 8 ( d ) ( 1 ) (i) (B). If th e st at e’s

reas on ab le pr og res s go a l s pr ov id e fo r a sl owe r rat e of im pr ov em en t th an ne ces sa ry

to ach ie ve na tu ral vi si bi li ty co nd it io ns by 20 64

, th e st at e m us t de m on st rat e “ th at th e

rat e of pr og res s fo r th e im pl em en ta ti on pl an to at ta in na tu ral co nd it io ns by 20 64 is

no t reas on ab le ; an d th at th e pr og res s go al ad op te d by th e St at e is reas on ab le .” Id

. §

51 .30 8( d) (1 )(i i).

In ad di ti on to th e reas on ab le pr og res s go al s, § 16 9A an d th e reg i o n a l h a ze

reg ul at io ns req ui re st at es to de te rm in e th e be st av ai la bl e ret ro fit te ch no lo gy (BART)

fo r cert ai n m ajor st at io na ry so ur ces bu il t be twee n 19 62 an d 19 77 th at are reas on ab ly

an ti ci pa te d to cau se or co nt rib ut e to vi si bi li ty im pa irment in an y Cl as s I area

. See 42

U.S.C. § 74 91 (b )(2 )(A); 40 C.F.R. §§ 51 .30 1, 51 .30 8( e). To ad dr es s th e req ui rem en ts

fo r BART, a st at e m

us t su bm it a SIP th at co nt ai ns a li st of al l BART-el ig ib le so ur ces

an d a n a n a l ys is th at ta ke s in to co ns id erat io n th e te ch no lo gy av ai la bl e, th e co st s of

co m pl ia nc e, th e en erg y an d no n- ai r qu al it y en vi ro nm en ta l im pa ct s of co m

pl ia nc e, an y

po ll ut io n co nt ro l eq u i p ment in us e at th e so ur ce, th e rem ai ni ng us efu l li fe of th e

s o u rce, an d th e de gr ee of im pr ov em en t in vi si bi li ty whi ch m ay reas on ab l y b e

an ti ci pa te d to res ul t fro m th e us e of su ch te ch no lo gy. Id

. § 51 .30 8( e)(1 )(i )-(i i). Fo r

BART-el ig ib le so ur ces th at ha ve a to ta l ge ne rat in g cap ac i t y g r e a te r th an 75 0

m eg awat ts , t he st at e m

us t al so us e App en di x Y to th e BART Gui de li ne s in m ak in g

it s de te rm in at io n. Id

. § 51 .30 8( e)(1 )(B)

. App en di x Y crea te s a fiv e-s te p pr oc es s fo r

de te rm in in g BART on a cas e-b y -cas e ba si s: (1 ) id en ti fy al l av ai la bl e ret ro fit co nt ro l

te ch no lo gi es ; (2 ) el im in at e te ch ni cal ly in feas ib le op ti on s; (3 ) ev al ua te co nt ro l

effe ct iv en es s of rem ai ni ng co nt ro l te ch no lo gi es ; (4 ) ev al ua te im pa ct s an d do cu m en t

th e res ul ts ; an d (5 ) ev al ua te vi si bi li ty im pa ct s. See 70 Fed . Reg . 39 ,16 4.

Th e CAA al so “ ch arg es EPA wit h se tt in g Nati on al Am bi en t Air Q u a l i t y

St an da rd s, or NAAQS, whi ch pr es cri be th e m ax im um pe rm is si bl e le ve ls of co m m on

po ll ut an ts in th e am

bi en t ai r.” EME Hom er Ci ty Gen erat io n, L.P. v. EPA, 69 6 F.3 d

7, 12 (D.C. Ci r. 20 12 ). “ The St a t e s im pl em en t th e NAAQS wit hi n th ei r bo rd ers

-5

-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229th ro ug h

. . . SIPs .” Id

. at 13

. The CAA req ui res st at es to su bmi t r e v i s e d S I P s to

ad dr es s ne w or rev is ed NAAQS wit hi n th ree y ears aft er pr om ul ga ti on of th e NAAQS.

42 U.S.C. § 74 10 (a)( 1)

. Sect io n 11 0( a)(2 ) id en ti fie s th e req ui red el em en ts of a st at e’s

in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP su bm is si on , whi ch in cl ud e w h a t is kn own as th e “ go od

ne ig hb or ” pr ov is io n. Id

. § 74 10 (a)( 2) (D). The go od ne ig hb or pr ov is io n req ui res th at

a SIP c on ta in fou r di st in ct co m po ne nt s, o ne of wh ic h is a vi si bi li ty co m po ne nt . Id.

§ 74 10 (a)( 2) (D)(i )(II)

. The vi si bi li ty c o mp on en t m an da te s th at th e SIP co nt ai n an

ad eq ua te pr ov is io n pr oh ib it in g an y so ur ce of em is si on s wit hi n th e st at e fro m em it ti ng

ai r po ll ut an t in am ou nt s th at wil l i nt erfe re wi th m eas ur es req ui red to be in cl ud ed in

th e ap pl ic ab le SIP fo r an y ot he r st at e to pro te ct vi si bi li ty. Id.

“ Und er th e Cl ean Air Act, bo th th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t an d th e St at es ex erci se

res po ns ib il it y fo r m ai nt ai ni ng an d im pr ov in g ai r qu al it y .” Am . Tru ck in g Ass ’ns v. EPA, 60 0 F.3 d 62 4, 62 5 (D.C. Ci r. 20 10 ). “ The Act s e t s f o r t h a ba si c di vi si on of

la bo r: The Fed eral Gov er n men t es ta bl is he s ai r qu al it y st an da rd s, bu t St at es ha ve

pr im ary res po ns ib il it y fo r at ta in in g th os e st an da rd s wit hi n th ei r bo rd ers .” EME

Hom er, 69 6 F.3 d at 29

. “ The Act th us le av es it to th e in di vi du al St at es to de te rm in e,

in th e fir st in st an ce, th e pa rti cu la r res tri ct io ns t h a t w i l l b e im po se d on pa rti cu la r

em it te rs wit hi n th ei r bo rd ers .” Id

. at 12

. Bu t, if a st at e fai ls to su bm it a SIP, su bm it s

an in co m pl et e SIP, or su bm it s a SIP th at do es no t mee t th e st at ut or y req ui rem en ts

, EPA is ob li ga te d to im

pl em en t it s own FIP to co rrec t th e de fic ie nc y in th e SIP, un le ss

th e St at e can co rrec t th e de fic ie nc y it se lf an d EPA can ap pr ov e th at co rrec ti on wit hi n

two y ears

. 42 U.S.C. § 74 10 (c). Thi s is co m m on ly refe rr e d t o as co op erat iv e

fed eral is m , and bo th § 1 69 A and § 1 10 op erat e u nd er t hi s fr am ewo rk

.

B. Pro ced ur al Back gr ou nd

Th e St at e su bm it te d it s in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP fo r EPA a pp ro va l on Apr il 6

, 20 09

, an d su bm it te d it s regi on al ha ze SIP on Mar ch 3, 20 10

. The St at e su bm it te d a

SIP Su pp le m en t No. 1 on Ju ly 27

, 20 10

, an d al so a SIP Am en dm en t No. 1 on Ju ly 28

,

-6

-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 407822920 11

. EPA is su ed a pr op os ed ru le on Sep te m be r 21

, 20 11

, se e 76 Fed

. Reg

. 58 ,57 0-

64 8 (Pro po se d Ru le ), pr op os in g to di sa pp ro ve th e St at e’s reg io na l ha ze SIP reg ard in g

it s de te rm in at io n of BART fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n, Mi lt on R. You ng St at io n Uni ts

1 an d 2, an d Lela nd Old s S t a ti on Uni t 2, as well as th e reas on ab le pr og res s

de te rm in at io n fo r th e Ant e l o p e Vall ey St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2, an d to di sa pp ro ve th e

St at e’s in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP fo r fai lu re to sa ti sf y th e vi si bi li ty co m

po ne nt

. Alo ng

wit h t he pro po se d p art ia l d is ap pr ov al s, EPA p ro po se d t he pr om ul ga ti on of a FIP t o

ad dr es s t he de fic ie nc ie s i n t he SIPs . See i d. at 58 ,57 3- 74

.

Afte r th e pu bl ic no ti ce an d co m m en ts pe rio d on th e Pro po se d Ru le was

co m pl et ed

, EPA is su ed it s Fi na l Ru le

. See 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,89 4- 94 5. The Fi na l Ru le

di ffer ed in on e m ajor res pe ct fro m th e Pro po se d Ru le —al th ou gh EPA ha d pr op os ed

to di sa pp ro ve th e St at e’s BART de te rm in at io ns fo r You ng St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d

Old s St at io n Uni t 2, EPA in st ead de ci de d to ap pr ov e th e St at e’s B A RT

de te rm in at io ns fo r th os e un it s. See 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,89 7- 98

. Thi s de te rm in at io n was

ba se d p r im ari ly on th e de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v. Mi nn ko ta Po wer Co op erat iv e,

In c., 83 1 F. Su pp

. 2d 11 09

, 11 27 -3 0 (D.N.D. 20 11 ), whi ch co nc lu de d th at th e St at e’s

an al y si s of th e be st av ai la bl e co nt ro l te ch no lo gy (BACT) fo r You ng St at io n Uni ts 1

an d 2 was no t un reas on ab le —a co nc lu si on co nt rary to EPA’ s po si ti on at th e ti m e of

EPA’ s Pr op os ed Ru le

.

Bec au se Mi nn ko ta was is su ed aft er th e pu bl ic no ti ce an d co m m en ts pe rio d ha d

cl os ed on EPA’ s Pro po se d Ru le

, in te res te d pa rti es were un ab le to co m m en t on EPA’ s

de ci si on to rel y up on it as p e r s u a s i ve au th or it y fo r ap pr ov in g th e St at e’s BART

de te rm in at io ns fo r Y o u ng St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Old s St at io n Uni t 2. The

Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s fil ed a pe ti ti on fo r reco ns id erat io n wit h EPA on Ju ne 5, 20 12

,

se e 42 U.S.C. § 76 07 (d )(7 )(B)

, vo ic in g th ei r co nc ern s wit h EPA ’s rel ia nc e up on

Mi nn ko ta an d it s su bs eq ue nt ap pr ov al of th e St at e’s BART de te rm in at io n fo r You ng

St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Old s St at io n Uni t 2. The Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s m ov ed to

ha ve th ei r pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w be fo re th is co ur t he ld in ab ey an ce un ti l EPA de te rm in ed

-7

-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229whe th er it wou ld en te rta in th e pe ti ti on fo r re c o n si de rat io n. The Env iro nm en ta l

Gro up s’ m ot io n fo r ab ey an ce was de ni ed wit ho ut pr ejud ic e on Ju ly 31

, 20 12

. The reaf te r, EPA gr an te d th e pe ti ti on fo r reco ns id erat io n on Nov em be r 19

, 20 12

, an d

th at reco ns id erat io n pro ces s is st il l on go in g. Fo ll owi ng EPA’ s g ran t o f th e pe ti ti on

fo r reco ns id erat io n, th e En vi ro nm en ta l Gro up s m ov ed un de r Fed eral Ru le of

App el l a t e Pro ced ur e 42 (b ) to vo lu nt ari ly di sm is s th e in st an t pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w

co nc ern in g t h e B ART de te rm in at io ns fo r You ng St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Old s

St at io n Un it 2. Tha t m ot io n i s s ti ll pe nd in g b efo re u s.

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Stan da rd of R ev ie w

W e wil l se t as id e EPA’ s Fi na l Ru le if it is “ arb it rary, c a p r i c io us , a n ab us e of

di sc ret io n, or ot he rwis e no t in acco rd an ce wit h la w,” or “ in ex ces s of st at ut or y juri sd ic ti on , au th or it y , or li m it at io ns , or sh or t of st at ut or y rig ht .” 42 U.S.C.

§ 76 07 (d )(9 ). Thi s st an da rd is th e sa m e as th at us ed un de r th e Adm i ni st rat iv e

Pro ced ur es Act, 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2)

. See EME Hom er, 69 6 F.3 d a t 23 n.1 7. Bu t,

“ [o ]nly an ob

jecti on to a ru le or pr oc ed ur e whi ch was ra i s e d w i t h reas on ab le

sp eci fic it y du rin g th e p e r i o d fo r pu bl ic co m m en t

. . . m ay be rai se d du rin g jud ic ia l

rev ie w.” 42 U.S.C. § 76 07 (d )(7 ) (B). Thi s ad m in is tra ti ve ex ha us ti on pr ov is io n is

st ric tl y en fo rced

, Natu ral Res

. Def. Co un ci l v. EPA, 57 1 F.3 d 12 45

, 12 59 (D.C. Ci r.

20 09 ) (p er cu ria m ), “ to en su re th at th e ag en cy is gi ve n th e fir st op po rtu ni ty to br in g

it s ex pe rti se to be ar o n t he res ol ut io n o f a ch al le ng e to a ru le .” App al ach ia n P owe r

Co

. v. EPA (Ap pa la ch ia n Po wer I), 13 5 F.3 d 79 1, 81 8 (D.C. Ci r. 19 98 ) (p er cu ria m ).

B. Si m ul ta ne ou s Den ia l o f a SIP an d P ro m ul ga ti on of a FIP

The St at e fir st co nt en ds th at t h e Fi na l Ru le sh ou ld be va cat ed be cau se EPA

pr oc ed ur al ly erre d un de r th e C A A by si m ul ta ne ou sl y di sa pp ro vi ng th e St at e’s SIP

-8

-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229an d pr om

ul ga ti ng it s FIP in th e sa m e Fi na l Ru le

. Und er th e CAA, rev ers al of an

act io n be cau se of pr oc ed ur al erro r is ap pr op ria te on ly whe n (1 ) th e fai lu re to ob se rv e

th e pr oc ed ur e is arb it rary or cap ric i o u s ; ( 2 ) th e al le ge d erro r was rai se d du rin g th e

co m m en t p e rio d; an d (3 ) th e erro r was so se rio us an d rel at ed to m at te rs of su ch

cen tra l rele va nc e to th e ru le th at th ere is a su bs ta nt ia l li ke li ho od th at th e ru le wou ld

ha ve be en si gn ifi ca n t l y c h a ng ed if th e erro r ha d no t be en m ad e. 42 U.S.C.

§ 7 60 7( d) (9 )(D).

Am on g ot he r th in gs , § 76 07 (d )(3 ) req ui res th at a pr op os ed ru le un de r th e CAA

co nt ai n a st at em en t of ba si s an d pu rp os e, whi ch m us t in cl ud e a su m

m ary of th e

fact ua l da ta on whi ch th e pr op os ed ru le is ba se d, th e m et ho do lo gy us ed in ob ta in in g

t he da ta an d in an al y zi ng th e da ta

, an d th e m ajor le ga l in te rp ret at io ns an d p o l i c y

co ns id erat io ns un de rlyin g th e pr op os ed ru le

. The St at e arg ue s th at a pr op er st at em en t

of ba si s a n d pu rp os e fo r EPA’ s FIP co ul d no t be is su ed un ti l a fin al ru le m ak in g on

it s SI P was is su ed . Even ass um in g t ha t th e St at e’s in te rp ret at io n o f § 7 60 7( d) (3 ) is

co rrec t, th e S t at e ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e th at EPA’ s erro r in th is reg ard was “ so

se rio us an d re l a t e d t o m at te rs of su ch cen tra l rel ev an ce to th e ru le th at th ere is a

su bs ta nt ia l li ke li ho od th at th e ru le wou ld ha ve be en si gn ifi can tl y ch an ge d if th e erro r

ha d no t be en m ad e.” Id

. at § 76 07 (d )(9 )(D). Alt ho ug h “ [i]t m ay be po or po li cy to try

to di st in gu is h be twee n th e SIP an d FIP in a si ng le act io n[ ,] ” Okl ah om a v. EPA, Nos

. 12 -9 52 6, 12 -9 52 7, 20 13 W L 37 66 98 6, at *1 9 (1 0t h Ci r. Ju ly 19

, 20 13 ), th e St at e ha s

fai le d to de m on st rat e th at va cat in g th e Fi na l Ru le ba se d up on th is al le ge d pr oc ed ur al

erro r is ap pr op ria te

.

C. Co al Cree k S ta ti on

The St at e an d Gr e a t R iv er Ene rg y , th e own er of th e Co al Cree k St at io n,

c h al le ng e EPA’ s di sa pp ro va l of th e St at e’s SIP de te rm in at io n th at m od ifi ed an d

x ad di ti on al se pa r a t e d o v e r fir e ai r wit h lo w NO bu rn er (SOFA pl us LNB) wit h an

em is si on li m it of 0.1 7l b/ MM Bt u on a th irt y -d ay ro ll in g av erag e ba si s was BART fo r

-9

-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229th e Co al Cree k S t a t io n. The se pe ti ti on ers al so ch al le ng e EPA’ s FIP de te rm in at io n

th at se le ct iv e no n- cat al y ti c red uc ti on (SNCR ) pl us SOFA pl us LNB wit h an em is si on

li m it of 0.1 3l b/ MM Bt u on a th irt y -d ay ro ll in g av erag e is BART fo r th e Co al Cree k

St at io n.

Ene rg y pr od uc ti on at th e Co al Cree k St at io n crea te s a by-pro du ct kn own as fly

as h. Grea t Ri ve r Ene rg y

is ab le to se ll th e fl y

ash crea te d a t t he Co al Cree k S ta ti on

to co ns tru ct io n com

pa ni es to be us ed as a rep la cem en t for cem en t i n t he crea ti on of

co nc ret e. Dur in g it s BART an al y si s fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n, th e St at e co nc lu de d

th at us in g SNCR to co nt ro l ad di ti on al em is si on s at th e pl an t wou ld res ul t in am m on ia

sl ip

, whi ch in tu rn wou ld co nt am in at e th e fly as h, m ak in g it un su it a b l e f o r u s e in

co nc ret e. The St at e th us co nc lu de d th at SNCR wou ld cau se Great Ri ve r Ene rg y to

lo se rev en ue fro m th e sa le of fly as h a nd wou ld res ul t i n a dd it io na l co st s t o d is po se

of th e fl y ash in lan df

il ls

.

The St at e req ue st ed in fo rm at io n reg ard in g fly as h sa le s fro m G r eat Ri ve r

Ene rg y , whi ch in fo rm ed th e St at e th at it rece iv ed $3 6 pe r to n of fly as h so ld

. The

St at e us ed th is in fo rm at io n to cal cu l a t e t h e es ti m at ed co st effe ct iv en es s of

x im pl em en ti ng SNCR as $8 ,55 1 pe r-t on -o f-NO rem ov ed

. Thi s es ti m at e in cl ud ed th e

co st of lo st fly as h rev en ue an d th e ad di ti on al co st of di sp os in g th e un us ab le fly as h.

See Great Ri ve r Ene rg y Add

. 57

. The St at e cal cu la te d th e co st effe ct iv en es s of SOFA

x pl us LNB as $4 11 pe r-t on -o f

- N O rem ov ed

. Id

. The St at e co nc lu de d th at th e

in c r e men ta l co st of SNCR ov er SOFA pl us LNB was ex ces si ve , bu t th at if fly as h

sa le s were no t lo st us in g SNCR, th at th e co st wou ld no t be co ns id ered ex ces si ve

. Id

.
at 61

. The St at e al so fo un d th at th e in crem en ta l im pr ov em en t in vi si bi li ty of SNCR

ov er SOFA pl us LNB was on ly 0.1 05 de ci vi ews

. The St at e co nc lu de d th at “ [b ]ecaus e

of th e po te nt ia l fo r lo st sa le s of fly as h, th e ne ga ti ve en vi ro nm en ta l effe ct s of ha vi ng

to di sp os e of th e fly as h in st ead o f r e c y cl in g it in to co nc ret e, an d th e ve ry sm al l

am ou nt of vi si bi li ty im

pr ov em en t fro m th e us e of SNCR, th is op ti on is reject ed as

-1 0-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229BART.” Id

. In st ead

, th e St at e pr op os ed th at “ BART is rep res en te d by m od ifi ed an d

ad di ti on al SOFA pl us LNB[.] ” Id

.

Dur in g it s rev ie w of th e St at e’s BART an al y si s f o r t h e Co al Cree k St at io n,

EPA id en ti fie d a po ss ib le di sc rep an cy reg ard in g th e pr ojec te d co st s as so ci at ed wit h

SNCR and req ue st ed ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n from Great Ri ve r Ene rg y to su pp or t its

pr ed ic ti on s on lo st fly as h rev en ue

. Great Ri ve r Ene rg y di sc ov ered th at it ha d m ad e

a m is ta ke in it s di sc lo su re to th e St at e by st at in g th at it rece iv ed $3 6 pe r to n of fly as h

in rev en ue , whe n it s act ua l rev en ue fro m fly as h was o n l y $ 5 p er to n. On Ju ly 16

, 20 11

, Great Ri v e r En e r gy su bm it te d co rrec te d da ta reg ard in g lo st fly as h rev en ue ,

x res ul ti ng in a pr ojec te d co st effe ct iv en es s of SNCR as $ 2

, 3 1 8 p er-t on -o f-NO

rem ov ed

. Afte r rev ie wi n g t h e ne w da ta

, EPA di sa pp ro ve d th e St at e’s BART

de te rm in at io n fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n. EPA co nc lu de d th at th e St at e’s SIP fai le d

to pr op erl y co ns id er th e co st of c om pl ia nc e in an y

m ean in gf

ul se ns e as req ui red by

40 C.F.R. § 51 .30 8( e)(1 )(i i)( A) be cau se th e co st of co m pl ia n c e an al y si s was ba se d

up on fu nd am en ta ll y fla wed an d gr eat ly in fla te d co st es ti m at es reg ard in g lo st fly as h

rev en ue

.

Hav in g di sa pp ro ve d th e St at e’s B A R T d e te rm in at io n, EPA pr op os ed to

pr om ul ga te a FIP im

po si ng it s own BART de te rm in at io n fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n.

Afte r co nd uc ti ng it s own BART anal y si s bas ed up on th e St at e’s ba se li ne em is si on s

nu m be rs fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n es ta bl is he d in 20 03 -2 00 4, as well as th e co rrec te d

lo s t f l y a s h rev en ue pr ojec ti on s, EPA pr op os ed to fin d th at BART was SNCR pl us

S O F A pl us LNB wit h an em is si on li m it of 0.1 2l b/ MM Bt u on a th irt y -d ay ro ll in g

av erag e. 76 Fed

. Reg

. 58 ,62 2. Great Ri ve r Ene rg y su bm it te d sev eral co m m en ts on

EPA’ s pr op os ed BART de te rm in at io n, in cl ud in g it s ob jecti on s to EPA’ s cal cu la ti on s

reg ard in g c os t ef

fect iv en es s o n t he gro un d t ha t EPA ha d fa il ed to co ns id er ex is ti ng

co nt ro l tech no lo gy in us e at th e Co al Cree k St at io n. See, e.g., 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,92 7.

Fro m 20 06 to 20 09

, Great Ri ve r En e r g y t es te d a pr ot ot y pe po ll ut io n co nt ro l

te ch no lo gy th at is no w kn own as Dry Fi ni ng TM. Great Ri ve r Ene rg y vo lu nt ari ly

-1 1-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229in st al le d a fu ll ve rs io n of th e te ch no lo gy at th e Co al Cree k St at io n in 20 09

, two y ears

pr io r to EPA’ s pr op os ed BART de te rm in at io n. EPA ack no wled ge d Great Ri ve r

Ene rg y ’s co m

m en ts bu t co nc lu de d th at it was no t req u i r e d to co ns id er vo lu nt ari ly

in st al le d co nt ro l te ch no lo gy th at was in st al le d aft er th e ba se li ne pe rio d. 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,91 8. EPA’ s Fi na l Ru le co nc lu de d th at BART w as SNCR pl us SOFA pl us LNB,

bu t de te r mine d th at th e em is si on li m it sh ou ld be 0.1 3l b/ MM Bt u on a th irt y -d ay

ro ll in g a ve rag e. 77 Fed . Reg . 20 ,89 9.

1. Di sa pp ro va l o f th e St at e’s BART d et erm in at io n

The St at e a n d Great Ri ve r Ene rg y co nt en d th at EPA’ s di sa pp ro va l of th e

St at e’s BART de te rm in at io n fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n was arb it rary, cap ric io us , an d

an ab us e of di sc ret io n. The y co nt en d th at be cau se EPA is req ui red to ap pr ov e a SIP

su bm is si on th at m eet s al l of th e req ui rem en ts of § 16 9A, se e 42 U.S.C. § 74 10 (k )(3 ),

an d b ecau se th e St at e’s SIP c on ta in ed an an al y si s of each m an da to ry BART fact or , EPA was wit ho ut au th or it y to di sa pp ro ve th e SIP, no twi th st an di ng th a t t h e c o s t of

co m pl ia nc e fact or was ba se d up on ad m it te dl y er r o n e o u s da ta

. Und er th e St at e an d

Great Ri ve r Ene rg y ’s in te rp ret at io n of § 16 9A, EPA’ s ro le i n r e vi ewin g a st at e’s

BART de te rm in at io n is li m it ed to en su rin g th at at le as t m in im al co ns i d e r a t i on is
gi ve n to each fact or an d do es no t pe rm it EPA t o ex am in e th e rat io na li ty or

reas on ab le ne ss of t he un de rlyin g d eci si on

.

EPA co nt en ds th at it po ss es se d th e au th or it y to di sa pp ro ve th e St at e’s BART

de te rm in at io n be cau se th e St at e ha d fai le d to co ns id er, in an y m ean in gf ul se ns e, th e

co st of co m

pl ia nc e, whi ch is a fact or th at a st at e m us t co ns id er un de r th e st at ut e an d

t h e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es

. See 42 U.S.C. § 74 91 (g )(2 ); 40 C

. F

. R

. § 51 .30 8( 3) (1 )(i i)( A). EPA arg ue s th at al th ou gh th e BART an al ys i s c o nt ai ne d a

d i s c us si on of th e co st of co m pl ia nc e fo r SNCR, th e di sc us si on was ba se d up o n

gr os sl y erro ne ou s da ta th at sk ewed th e res ul ts an d pr ev en te d th e St at e fro m pr op erl y

co ns id eri ng th is fact or

. Mo reo ve r, EPA no te s th at th e St at e ack no wled ge d in it s SIP

-1 2-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229th at bu t fo r th e co st of lo st rev en u e f o r f l y a s h

, th e St at e wou ld no t ha ve fo un d th e

co st of c om

pl ia nc e fo r SNCR e xc es si ve

.

Alt ho ug h th e CAA gr an ts st at es the pr im ar y ro le of de te rm in in g th e ap pr op ria te

po ll ut io n co nt ro ls wit hi n th ei r bo rd ers , EPA is le ft wit h m or e th an th e m in is te ria l ta sk

of ro ut in el y ap pr ov in g SIP su bm is si on s. The Ten th Ci rcu it rece nt ly co nc lu de d th at

EPA act ed wit hi n it s po wer un de r § 16 9A in reject in g a BART de te rm in at io n on th e

ba si s th at th e st at e “ di d no t pr op erl y ta ke in to co ns id erat io n th e co st s of co m pl ia nc e

whe n it rel ie d on co st es ti m at es th at gr eat ly ov eres ti m at ed th e co st s of d r y an d wet

sc ru bb in g to co nc lu de th es e co nt ro ls were no t co s t e ffec ti ve .” Okl ah om a v. EPA,

20 13 W L 37 66 98 6, at *3

, *5 -6 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it t e d )

. Th e co ur t he ld

th at be cau se th e st at e’s co st o f c o mp l i a nc e es ti m at e was ba se d up on fu nd am en ta l

m et ho do lo gi cal fla ws, EPA ha d a reas on ab le b a s i s fo r reject in g th e st at e’s BART

de te rm in at io n fo r fai lu re to co m pl y wit h th e re q u i si te BART gu id el in es

. Id

. at *8

. Mo reo ve r, in Alas ka Depa rtment of Env iro nm en ta l Co ns erv at io n v. EPA, 5 40 U.S.

46 1 (2 00 4)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t reject ed an arg um en t si m il ar to th at rai se d he re

reg ard in g EPA’ s o v e r s i g h t ro le in th e BACT de te rm in at io n pr oc es s un de r § 16 7 of

th e CAA. The Co ur t he ld th at EPA was no t li m it ed si m pl y to ve rif

y in g th at a BACT

de te rm in at io n was ac t u a l l y m ad e, co nc lu di ng in st ead th at EPA co ul d ex am in e th e

su bs ta nc e of th e BACT de te rm in at io n to en su re th at it was on e th at was “ reas on ab ly

m oo red to th e Act’s pr ov is io ns ” a n d w a s ba se d on “ reas on ed an al y si s.” See id

. at

48 5, 49 0. Alt ho ug h t he Co ur t’s an al y si s was on e u nd er § 16 7, we n on et he le ss fin d

it pe rs ua si ve in th e co nt ex t o f § 1 69 A.

W e se e li tt le di ffer en ce be twee n t h e r e jecti on of a fact or co nt ai ni ng

m et ho do lo gi cal fla ws th at le d to an ov eres ti m at ed co st of co m pl ia nc e, as oc cu rred in

Okl ah om a v. EPA, a nd th e reje c t i o n of a fact or co nt ai ni ng da ta fla ws th at le d to an

ov eres ti m at ed co st of co m pl ia nc e, as oc cu rred in th is cas e. In bo th cas es , th e fla w in

th e an al y si s pr ev en te d th e st at e fro m co nd uc ti ng a m ean in gf ul co ns id erat io n of th e

fact or , a s req ui red by t he BART gu id el in es . As di d t he Su pr em e Co ur t in it s § 16 7

-1 3-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229an al y si s in Alas ka Dep art m en t of Env iro nm en ta l Co ns e r va ti on , we reject th e

arg um en t th at EPA is req ui red un de r § 16 9A to ap pr ov e a BART de te rm in at io n th at

is ba se d up on an an al y si s t h a t is ne it he r reas on ed no r m oo red to th e CAA’s

pr ov is io ns

. At or al arg um en t, th e St at e al l bu t co nc ed ed EPA’ s ab il it y to rev ie w th e

su bs ta nt iv e co nt en t of th e BART de te rm in at io n whe n it ack no wled ge d th at EPA

wou ld ha ve th e au th or it y to di sa pp ro ve a SIP if th e st at e pl ai nl y pr oc eed ed wit ho ut

a su ffi ci en t f

a c t u a l ba si s. Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th at EPA’ s di sa pp ro va l of th e

St at e’s BART de te rm in at io n fo r fai li ng to co ns id er th e co st of co m pl ia nc e as req ui red

un de r th e st at ut e an d t he BART gu id el in es was n ei th er ar bi tra ry , cap ric io us , no r an

ab us e o f di sc ret io n. 2

The St at e arg ue s in th e al te rn at iv e th at EPA’ s de ci s i o n w a s arb it rary an d

cap ric io us be cau se it pr em at ur el y reject ed th e St at e’s SIP bas ed up on th e d at a err or

in th e co st of co m

pl ia nc e fact or be fo re th e St at e co ul d su pp le m en t it s SIP an d ad dr es s

th e da ta erro r. The St at e co nt en ds th at it no ti fie d EPA th at it wou ld s u b mi t a

su pp le m en ta l BART de te rm in at io n fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n on ce it rece iv ed th e

pr ojec te d fin al rev is ed co st es ti m at es fro m Great Ri ve r Ene rg y

. The St at e arg ue s

fu rth er tha t EPA pr em at ur el y di sa pp ro ve d th e St at e’s or ig in al BART dete rm in at io n

in it s reg io na l ha ze SIP, kn owi ng th at a su pp le m en ta l BA RT de te rm in at io n was

fo rth co m in g.

Nor do we fin d co nv in ci ng Great Ri ve r Ene rg y ’s arg um en t th at un de r Fri en ds 2

of t h e Bo un da ry W at ers W il de rn es s v. Dom be ck

, 16 4 F.3 d 11 15

, 11 29 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ), EPA was fir st req ui red to pr ov e th at th e da ta erro r was m at eri al to th e St at e’s
de te rm in at io n be fo re reject in g it s BART de te rm in at io n al l to ge th e r

. Fri en ds of th e Bo un da ry W at ers W il de rn es s is in ap pl ic ab le be cau se th e da ta err o r di sc us se d an d

a d dr es se d in th at cas e was on e co nt ai ne d in a fact or vo lu nt ari ly co ns id ered b y t h e

ag en cy u n d e r a co m

pl et el y di ffer en t reg ul at or y act

. In th is cas e, th e da ta erro r was

co nt ai ne d in a fact or th at th e St at e was ob li ga te d to pr op erl y co ns id er un de r th e CAA;

th us , EPA ne ed on ly de m on st rat e th at th e St at e fai le d to co ns i d e r t h i s fact or as

req ui red by the CAA an d a cco m pa nyin g re gu la ti on s.

-1 4-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229U n d e r 4 2 U.S.C. § 74 10 (k )(2 ), EPA is req ui red to ta ke act io n on a SI P

su bm is si on wit hi n twel ve m on th s of th e da te th at th e su bm is si on is de em ed co m pl et e.

EPA m ay ap pr ov e th e su bm is si on as a who le or in pa rt, bu t what ev er acti on it ta ke s

m us t be do ne wit hi n twel ve m on th s of th e co m pl et ed SIP su bm is si on

. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 74 10 (k )(2 )-(3 ). The St at e’s reg io na l ha ze SIP su bm is si on was de em ed co m pl et e on Apr il 30

, 20 11

, le av in g EPA un ti l Apri l 30 , 20 12

, to ta ke act io n th ereo n. Alt ho ug h

Great Ri ve r Ene rg y su bm it te d in it ia l in f o r mat i o n reg ard in g lo st fly as h rev en ue on

Ju ne 16

, 20 11

, as of Apr il 20 12

, it ha d y et to su bm it it s fin al rev is ed c al cu la ti on s

reg ard in g th e pr ojec te d co st s as so ci at ed wit h lo st fly as h sa le s. EPA to ok fin al act io n

on th e St at e’s SIP ad dr es si ng th e BART de te rm in at io n fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n on Apr il 6, 20 12

. Great Ri ve r Ene rg y di d no t su bm it it s fin al r e v is ed cal cu la ti on s

reg ard in g th e pr ojec te d co st as so ci at ed wit h lo st fly as h sa le s un ti l Ju ne 20 12

. The

St at e ha s id en ti fie d no pr ov is io n of th e CAA t h a t o b li ga te d EPA to wait fo r it s

su pp le m e n t a l BART de te rm in at io n be fo re di sa pp ro vi ng it s or ig in al Co al Cree k

St at io n B ART de te rm in at io n. No r ha s t he Sta te id en ti fie d any pr ov is io n th at to ll ed

th e twel ve -m on th pe rio d wit hi n whi c h EPA was req ui red to ta ke fin al act io n. The

St at e ha s th us fa i l e d t o de m on st rat e th at EPA’ s di sa pp ro va l of th e St at e’s BART

de te rm in at io n fo r th e Co al Cree k St a t i o n w a s arb it rary, cap ric io us , or an ab us e of

di sc ret io n.

2. Pr om

ul ga ti on of a FIP fo r th e Co al Cree k S ta ti on

In li gh t of it s de ci si on to di sa pp ro ve t h e S t a t e’s SIP rel at ed to it s BART

d e t e r mina ti on fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n, EPA was ob li ga te d un de r th e CAA t o

pr om ul ga te a FIP wit hi n two y ears of th e di sa pp ro va l “ un le ss th e St at e co rrec t[e d] th e

de fic ie nc y, a n d t h e Adm in is tra to r ap pr ov e[d ] th e pl an or pl an rev is io n, be fo re th e

Adm in is tra to r pr om

ul ga te [d ] su ch Fed eral im pl em en ta ti on pl an .” 42 U.S.C.

§ 74 10 (c)( 1) (B). Great Ri ve r Ene rg y ch al le ng es EPA’ s de te rm in at io n th at SNCR is

BART fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n o n th e gr ou nd th at EPA vi ol at ed th e CAA by

refu si ng to co ns id er ex is ti ng po ll ut io n co nt ro l te ch n o l o g y at th e st at io n du rin g it s

-1 5-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229BART an al y si s. One of th e st at ut or y fact or s th at a st at e an d EPA m us t co ns id er whe n

de te rm in in g BART is “ an y ex is ti ng pollu ti on co nt ro l te ch no lo gy in us e at th e so ur ce.”

42 U.S.C. § 74 91 (g )(2 ). Dur in g it s BART an al y si s EPA refu se d to co ns id er th e Dry Fi ni ng TM po ll ut io n co nt ro l te ch no lo gy in us e at th e Co al Cree k St at io n, st at in g in

it s Fi na l Ru le th at “ Dry Fi ni ng TM was no t in st al le d un ti l aft er th e ba se li ne pe rio d an d

was in st al le d vo lu nt ari ly, no t to m eet an y reg ul at or y req ui rem en t[,]” an d th at EPA

was no t req ui red to reco ns id er co st es ti m at es ba se d on vo lu nt ari ly in st al le d co nt ro ls

in st al le d aft er th e ba se li ne pe rio d. 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,91 8. Great Ri ve r Ene rg y co nt en ds

th at EPA’ s refu sa l to co ns id er th e vo lu nt ari ly in st al le d po ll ut io n co nt ro l te ch no lo gy

in us e at th e Co al Cree k St at io n de m on st rat es th at EPA f ai le d to co ns id er al l of th e

st at ut or y fact or s req ui red un de r 42 U.S.C. § 74 91 (g )( 2 ) an d 40 C.F.R.

§ 5 1.3 08 (e)( 1) (i) (A) an d t ha t i ts BART de te rm in at io n m us t t he refo re b e v acat ed

.

EPA co nt e nd s th at it was no t req ui red to co ns id er th e vo lu nt ari ly in st al le d

po ll ut io n co nt ro ls at th e Co al Cree k St at io n, in cl ud in g th e Dry Fi ni ng TM te ch no lo gy,

be cau se it pe rm is si bl y

in te rp ret ed th e am

bi gu ou s ph ras e “ ex is ti ng po ll ut io n con tro l

te ch no lo gy in us e a t t h e s ou rce” to m ean ex is ti ng te ch no lo gy “ in co rp or at ed in to

em is s i o n l i mi t s i n an ap pr ov ed SIP or sp eci fie d in a Cl ean Air Act pe rm it fo r th e

faci li ty an d

. . . ad op te d to m eet Cl ean Air Act req ui rem en ts .” EPA Br. 82

. Mak in g

no m en ti on of or gi vi ng an y si gn ifi can ce to th e wor d “ an y” in § 74 91 (g )(2 ), EPA

arg ue s th at it s in te rp ret at io n of th e am bi gu ou s st at ut or y la ng ua ge “ ex is ti ng po ll ut io n

co nt ro l te ch no lo gy” is en ti tl ed to de fere nc e, pr es um ab ly un de r Ch ev ro n, U.S.A., In c.

v. Natu ral Res ou rces Defen se Co un ci l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 83 7 (1 98 4)

. Grea t R i v er

Ene rg y co nt en ds th at EPA’ s in te rp ret at io n of “ an y ex is ti ng po ll ut io n co nt ro ls ” is

en ti tl ed to no de fere nc e be c a u s e t h e st at ut or y la ng ua ge at is su e is cl ear an d

un eq ui vo cal , no t am

bi gu ou s.

Ch ev ro n de fere nc e is ap pr op ria te whe n a n a g e n cy ex erci se s it s ge ne ral ly

co nf erre d au th or it y to res o l v e a p a rti cu la r st at ut or y am bi gu it y an d th e res ul ti ng

in te rp ret at io n is ba se d on a pe rm is si bl e co ns tru ct io n of th e st at ut e. See Ch ev ro n, 46 7

-1 6-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229U.S. at 84 2- 43

. To de te rm in e i f a n a g en cy in te rp ret at io n is en ti tl ed to Ch ev ro n

de fere nc e,

[W] e as k fir st whe th er t h e i n t e n t of Co ng res s is cl ear as to th e pr eci se

qu es ti on at is su e. If, by em pl oyin g tra di ti on al to ol s of st at ut or y

co ns tru ct io n, we de te rm in e th at Co ng res s’ in te nt is cl ear, th at is th e en d

of th e m at te r. Bu t if th e st at ut e is si le nt or am bi gu ou s wit h res pe ct to th e

sp eci fic is su e, th e qu es ti on fo r th e co ur t is whe th er th e ag en cy ’s an swe r is ba se d on a pe rm is si bl e co ns tru ct io n o f t h e s t a tu te

. If th e ag en cy ’s
read in g fil ls a ga p o r de fin es a te rm in a reas on ab le way in li gh t of th e Leg is la tu re’s de si gn , we gi ve th at read in g co nt ro ll in g weig ht

, ev en if it

is no t t he an swe r th e co ur t wo ul d h av e rea ch ed if t he qu es ti on in it ia ll y ha d a ris en in a jud ic ia l p ro ceed in g.

Bap ti st Heal th v. Tho m

ps on , 45 8 F.3 d 76 8, 77 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al )
(ci ta ti on s o m it te d i n o rig in al ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Und er th e fir st st ep of th e Ch ev ro n an al y si s, we em pl oy th e tra di ti on al to ol s of

st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n to de te rm in e whe th er th e st at ut e m ak es c l e a r t h e in te nt of

Co ng res s as to th e m ean in g of th e ph ras e “ an y ex is ti ng po ll ut io n co nt ro l te ch no lo gy

in us e at th e so ur ce.” 42 U.S.C. § 74 91 (g )(2 )

. “As i n al l su ch cas es , we be gi n by

an al y zi ng th e st at ut or y la ng ua ge , ‘ass um [in g] th at th e or d in ary m ean in g of th at

la ng ua ge accu rat el y ex pr es se s th e le gi sl at iv e pu rp os e.’” Hard t v. Rel ia nc e St an da rd

Life In s. Co

., 56 0 U.S. 24 2, 13 0 S. Ct

. 21 49

, 21 56 (2 01 0) (al te ra t i o n i n or ig in al )

(q uo ti ng Gros s v . FBL Fin . Serv s., In c., 55 7 U.S. 1 67 , 17 5 (2 00 9) ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ack no wled ge d th at “ ‘any ’ can an d do es m ean di ffer en t

th in gs de pe nd in g u po n t he set ti ng .” Nix on v. Mo . Mu n. Lea gu e, 54 1 U.S. 1 25 , 13 2
(2 00 4)

. Nev ert he le ss , “ [i]n a se rie s of cas es , th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s dr awn up on th e

wor d ‘any ’ to g i v e t h e w or d it m od ifi es an ‘exp an si ve m ean in g’ whe n th ere is ‘no

reas on to co nt rav en e th e cl au se ’s ob vi ou s m ean in g.’” New Yor k v . EPA, 44 3 F .3d

88 0, 88 5 (D.C. Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Nor fo lk S. Ry

. Co

. v. Kirb y , 54 3 U.S. 14

, 31 -3 2

-1 7-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229(2 00 4) ). Thi s li ne of cas es ad op ti ng an ex pa ns iv e m ean in g in cl ud es th e in te rp ret at io n

of th e te rm “ an y ” un de r § 30 7( b) (1 ) o f t h e CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 76 07 (b )(1 ). See

Harri so n v . PPG In du s., In c., 44 6 U.S. 5 78 (19 80 ).

An ex am in at io n of th e rel ev an t st at ut or y la ng ua ge in § 74 91 (g )(2 ) rev eal s “ no

reas on to co nt rav en e th e cl au se ’s ob vi ou s m ean in g[ ,] ” Kirb y , 54 3 U.S. at 31 -3 2, no r

ha s EPA pr of

fere d an y reas on to do so

. W e th us affo rd th e te rm it s ob vi ou s an d

ex pa ns iv e mea ni ng an d co nc lu de th at Co ng res s’s us e of th e te rm “ an y ” to m od ify

“ ex is ti ng po ll ut io n c on tro l t ech no lo gi es ” d em on st rat es th at it in te nd ed th e d eci si on

m ak er to co ns id er “ on e or so m e in di sc riminat el y of wha te ve r ki nd ,” W eb st er’s Thi rd

In te rn at io na l Dict io na ry (Un ab ri d ge d)

, 97 (1 98 1)

, of co nt ro l te ch no lo gi es in us e at

th e so ur ce, no t si m

pl y th os e th at are “ in co rp or at ed in to em is si on li m it s in an ap pr ov ed

SIP or sp eci fie d in a Cl ean Air Act pe rm it fo r t h e faci li ty an d

. . . ad op te d to m eet

Cl ean Air Act req ui rem en ts .” EPA Br. 82

.

Bec au se we fin d no am bi gu it y in th e ki nd of te ch no lo gi es th at m us t be

co ns id ered un de r § 7 4 9 1 ( g) (2 ), EPA’ s in te rp ret at io n th at it was no t req ui red to

co ns id er th e ex is ti ng po ll ut io n co nt ro l te ch no lo gi es in us e at th e Co al Cree k St at io n

is en ti tl ed to no de fere nc e. Ju st as th e St at e was req ui red to pro pe rly con si de r eac h

st at ut or y fact or in th e BART an al y si s in th e im pl e men t a t i o n of it s SIP, so to o was

EPA in th e pr om

ul ga ti on of it s FIP. Acco rd in gl y , EP A’ s refu sa l to co ns id er th e

ex is ti ng po ll ut io n co nt ro l te ch no lo gy in us e at th e Co al Cree k St at io n be cau se it ha d

be en vo lu nt ari ly in st al le d was a r b i t r a r y an d cap ric io us an d it s FIP pr om ul ga ti ng

SNCR a s B ART for th e Co al Cree k S ta ti on is th eref or e v acat ed

.

D. Ant el op e Val le y

Sta ti on

The St at e ch al le ng es EPA’ s di sa pp ro va l of it s reas on ab le pr og res s

de te rm in at io n fo r A n t e l o p e Vall ey St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d EPA’ s su bs eq ue nt

pr om ul ga ti on of a FIP.

-1 8-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229As di sc us se d ab ov e, th e CAA req u i res th at st at es m ak e de te rm in at io ns of

reas on ab le pr og res s fo r ach ie vi ng na tu ral vi si bi li ty in Cl as s I Fed eral area s. The st at e

is req ui red to an al y ze an d de te rm in e th e rat e of pr og res s ne ces sa ry to ach ie ve na tu ral

vi si bi li ty co nd it io ns in th e m an da to ry Cl a s s I Fed eral area s by th e y ear 20 64 an d

“ co ns id er th e un ifo rm rat e o f im pr ov em en t in vi si bi li ty an d th e em is si on red uc ti on

m eas ur es ne ed ed to ach ie ve it fo r th e pe rio d co ve red by th e i mp l e men ta ti on pl an .”

40 C.F.R. § 51 .30 8( d) (1 )(i )(B)

. Dur in g it s an al y si s, th e St at e co nc lu de d th at th e rat e

of pr og res s ne ces sa ry “ fo r th e im pl em en ta ti on p l a n to at ta in na tu ral co nd it io ns by

20 64 [was ] no t reas on ab le [.]” Id

. § 51 .30 8( d) (1 )(i i). Thi s de te rm in at io n al lo wed th e

St at e t o im

pl em en t a sl owe r rat e of pr og res s bu t it al so ob li ga te d th e St at e to

de m on st rat e th at it s re as on ab le pro gr es s g oa ls were re as on ab le . Id.

W he n t h e St at e es ta bl is he d it s reas on ab le pr og res s go al s fo r th e The od or e

Ro os e v e l t Nati on al Park an d Los two od W il de rn es s Areas it de te rm in ed th at

ad di ti on al po ll ut io n c on tro l t ech no lo gi es for Ant el op e Val le y Sta ti on Uni ts 1 and 2

were un ne ces sa ry to ach ie ve reas on ab le pr og res s. The St at e reac he d th is co nc lu si on

aft er ex am in in g th e fo ur st at ut or y fact or s t h a t mu s t be ta ke n in to acco un t in

de te r mi ni ng reas on ab le pr og res s un de r § 74 91 (g )(1 ): co st s of co m pl ia nc e; th e ti m e

ne ces sa ry fo r co m

pl ia nc e; th e en erg y

an d n on -ai r qu al it y en vi ro nm en ta l im pa ct s of

co m pl ia nc e; an d t he rem ai ni ng us efu l l ife of t he un it s— as well as o ne no ns ta tu to ry

fact or , in crem en ta l vi si bi li ty imp r o v e m en t. In it s an al y si s of th e pr ojec te d

im p r o v e men t in vi si bi li ty, th e St at e crea te d an d us ed it s own cu m ul at iv e so ur ce

vi si bi li ty m od el , wh ic h em pl oys cu rren t de gr ad ed b a c k g r o un d vi si bi li ty co nd it io ns

as it s ba se li ne

. Usi ng th e cu m ul at iv e so ur ce vi si bi li ty m od el

, th e St at e co nc lu de d th at

th e m ax im

um co m bi ne d im pr ov em en t fo r th e av erag e of th e 20 % wor st da y s was 0.1 1

de ci vi ews at Los two od W il de rn es s Area an d 0.0 3 de ci vi ews at The od or e Ro os ev el t

Nati on al Park

. The St at e th en ch os e to ev al ua te th e co st effe ct iv en es s of ad di ti on al

co n t r o ls at Ant el op e Vall ey us in g th e do ll ar-p er-d eci vi ew of im pr ov em en t m et ric

x rat he r th an th e m or e co nv en ti on al do ll ar-p er-t on -o f-NO rem ov ed m et ric

. W it h th e

vi si bi li ty nu m

be rs cal cu la te d us in g th e cu m ul at iv e so ur ce vi si bi li ty m od el

, th e St at e

-1 9-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229fo un d th at th e co st effe ct iv en es s of ad di ti on al co nt ro ls wou ld be 61 8 m il li on do ll ars

pe r-d eci vi ew of im

pr ov em en t at Los two od W il de rn es s Area an d 2.3 bi ll io n do ll ars

pe r-d eci vi ew of im

pr ov em en t at The od or e Ro os ev el t Nati on al Park

. The St at e fo un d

th es e c o s t s ex ces si ve an d de te rm in ed th at in st al li ng ad di ti on al co nt ro ls at th e

Ant el op e Val le y

Sta ti on was n ot reas on ab le

.

EP A p r o po se d to di sa pp ro ve th e St at e’s de te rm in at io n, co nc lu di ng th at th e

de ci si on no t to in st al l ad di ti on al co nt ro ls was un reas on ab le in li gh t o f t h e St at e’s

ad m is si on th at it co ul d no t m eet th e u n i f o r m r a t e of pr og res s to res to re na tu ral

v is ib il it y in Cl as s I Fed eral area s by 2 06 4. EPA t oo k is su e wit h two as pe ct s o f t h e

St at e’s reas on ab le pr og r e s s de te rm in at io n: th e res ul ts of th e St at e’s in crem en ta l

vi si bi li ty im

pr ov em en t an al y si s a n d th e res ul ts of th e St at e’s co st effe ct iv en es s

an al y si s. Bo th se ts of res ul ts were ba se d up on th e St at e’s us e of it s cu m ul at iv e so ur ce

vi si bi li ty m od el in g. In th e Pro po se d Ru le

, EPA fo un d “ th at Nor th Dak ot a’s vi si bi li ty

m od el in g si gn ifi can tl y un de rs ta te s th e vi si bi li ty im pr ov em en t th at wou ld be real iz ed

fo r th e co nt ro l op ti on s un de r co ns id erat io n.” 76 Fed

. Reg

. 58 ,62 7. EPA co nc lu de d:

W hi le it is reas on ab le fo r a st at e to co ns id er vi si bi li ty i m pr ov em en t as

an ad di ti on al fact or in it s reas on ab le pr og res s an al y si s whe n ev al ua ti ng vi si bi li ty b en efi ts fro m po te nt ia l co nt ro l op t io ns at in di vi du al so ur ces , it is no t app ro pr ia te to as su m e d eg rad ed ba ck gr ou nd co nd it io ns , as th e St at e di d

. A s w e no te ab ov e, us in g de gr ad ed rat he r th an na tu ral

ba ck gr ou nd in th e m od el in g pr od uc es es ti mates th at gr eat ly

un de res ti m at e th e b e n e fit s of po te nt ia l co nt ro l op ti on s. The ul ti m at e

go al of th e reg io na l ha ze pr og ram is to ach ie ve na tu ral vi si bi li t y

co nd it io ns , no t t o p res erv e d eg rad ed co nd it io ns

.

76 Fed

. Reg

. 5 8

, 6 2 9. EPA al so fo un d th at be cau se of th e gr eat ly un de res ti m at ed

im pr ov em en t in vi si bi li ty at tri bu ta bl e to th e St at e’s v i s i bi li ty m od el

, th at “ co st

effe ct iv en es s v al ue s, wh en ex pr es se d i n do ll ars pe r de ci vi ew, were ov eres ti m at ed .”

Id

. EPA th us pr op os ed to di sa pp ro ve th e reas on ab l e p r o g res s de te rm in at io n fo r

Ant el op e Val le y

Sta ti on Uni ts 1 an d 2 . In i ts pl ace, EPA p ro po se d t o p ro m ul ga te a

-2 0-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229x

FIP de te rm in in g th at se pa rat ed ov erfi re ai r pl us lo w NO bu rn ers (SOFA + LNB) wit h

a n e mi ss io n li m it of 0.1 7 lb /M MBt u on a th irt y -d ay ro ll in g av erag e rep res en te d

reas on ab le pr og res s fo r Uni ts 1 an d 2. 76 Fed

. Reg

. 58 ,63 2. EPA co nc lu de d th at th is

x te ch no lo gy wou ld co st a p p r o xi m at el y $5 86 an d $6 61 pe r-t on -o f-NO rem ov ed at

Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d wou ld re s u lt in th e to ta l rem ov al of ap pr ox im at el y 3,5 00 to ns of

x NO pe r un it pe r y ear. Id

.

The St at e ch al le ng es EPA’ s di sa pp ro va l of it s reas on ab le pr og res s

de te rm in at io n, co n t e n d in g th at EPA’ s reject io n of th e in crem en ta l vi si bi li ty

im pr ov em en t res ul ts an d th e do ll ars -p er-d eci vi ew of im pr ov em en t resu lt s ba se d up on

th e St at e’s cu m

ul at iv e so ur ce vi s i b i l i t y m od el in g was arb it rary, cap ric io us , an d an

ab us e of di sc ret io n. Bec au se th is was a reas on ab le pr og res s de te rm in at io n, th e St at e

co nt en ds th at it was n ot ob li ga te d t o u se th e si ng le so ur ce vi si bi li ty m od el req ui red

un de r th e BART Gui de li ne s an d th at it co ul d in st ead de ve l o p a n d u t i l iz e it s own

vi si bi li ty m od el

. EPA co nc ed es th at th e St at e was no t ob li ga te d to us e EPA’ s si ng le

so ur ce vi si bi li ty m od el

, bu t arg ue s th at if a st at e ch oo s e s t o co ns id er in crem en ta l

vi si bi li ty im

pr ov em en t in th e reas on ab le pr og res s co nt ex t, it m us t do so in a m an ne r

th at is co ns is te nt wit h t he CAA.

As di sc us se d ab ov e, EPA’ s rev ie w o f a SIP ex te nd s no t on ly to whe th er th e

st at e co ns id ered th e ne ces s a r y f act or s in it s de te rm in at io n, bu t al so to whe th er th e

de te rm in at io n is on e th at is reas on ab ly m oo red to th e CAA’s pr ov is io ns

. See an te 12

-
14

. Th i s is es pe ci al ly tru e whe n a st at e is ob li ga te d to de m on st rat e th at it s

de te rm i n a ti on is on e th at is reas on ab le

, as was th e cas e he re. See 40 C.F.R.

§ 51 .30 8( d) (1 )(i i). In it s rev ie w of th e St at e’s reas on ab le pr og res s de te rm in at io n,

EPA co nc lu de d th at th e cu m ul at iv e so ur ce vi si bi li ty m od e l e mp l o y in g th e cu rren t

de gr ad ed co nd it io ns as it s ba se li ne was no t co ns is te nt wit h th e CAA. EPA no te d th at

th e us e of su c h a v i s ib il it y m od el wil l rare ly if ev er de m on st rat e th at em is si on s

red uc ti on s at a si ng le so ur ce wil l ha ve an ap pr eci ab le effe ct on in crem en ta l vi si bi li ty

im pr ov em en t in a gi ve n area

. “T hi s is tru e be cau se of th e no nl in ear na tu re of

-2 1-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229vi si bi li ty im pa irment. In ot he r wor ds

, as a Cl as s I area be co m es m or e po ll ut ed

, an y

in di vi du al so ur ce’s co nt rib ut io n to ch an ge s in im pa irment b e c o m es ge om et ric al ly

le ss .” 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,91 2 (q uo t i ng 70 Fed

. Reg

. 39 ,12 4)

. EPA fo un d th at rat he r

th an res to re Cl as s I area s to na tu ral co nd it io ns , su ch a vi s i b i l i t y mod el wil l se rv e

in st ead to m ai nt ai n cu rren t de gr ad ed co nd it io ns

. EPA’ s de te rm in at io n on th is m at te r

is en ti tl ed to jud ic ia l de fere nc e, as it in vo lv es “ te ch ni cal m at te rs wit hi n i t s a r ea of

ex pe rti se [.]” Loc kh art v. Ken op s, 92 7 F.2 d 1 0 2 8, 10 34 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (q uo ti ng

Lou is ia na ex rel

. Gus te v. Veri ty, 85 3 F.2 d 32 2, 32 9 (5 th Ci r. 19 88 )); se e al so Mar sh

v. Or. Natu ral Res

. Co un ci l, 49 0 U.S. 3 6 0

, 37 8 (1 98 9) (“ W he n sp eci al is ts ex pr es s

co nf li ct in g vi ews , an ag en cy m us t ha ve di sc ret io n to rel y on th e reas on ab le op in io ns

of it s own qu al ifi ed ex pe rts ev en if, as an or ig in al m at te r, a co ur t m ig ht fin d co nt rary

vi ews m or e p ers ua si ve .”).

x The St at e’s de te rm in at io n th at no ad di ti on al NO co nt ro ls were nece ss ary fo r

Ant el op e Vall ey St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 was ba se d pr im ari ly on th e la ck of in crem en ta l

vi si b i l i t y i m

pr ov em en t ex pe ct ed fro m th e in st al la ti on of th e te ch no lo gy an d it s

ex ces si ve co st effe ct iv en es s on a do ll ars -p er-d eci vi ew of im pr ov em en t m et ric

. Each

of th es e co nc lu si on s, ho wev er, was reac he d th ro ug h th e us e of th e St at e’s cu m ul at iv e

so ur ce vi si bi li ty m od el in g. Alt ho ug h th e St at e was free to em pl oy it s own vi si bi li ty

m od el an d to co n s i d e r vi si bi li ty im pr ov em en t in it s reas on ab le pr og res s

d e t e r mi n a t i on s, it was no t free to do so in a m an ne r th at was in co ns is te nt wit h th e

CAA. Bec au se th e go al of § 16 9A is to at ta in na tu ral vi si bi li ty c o n d i ti on s in

m an da to ry Cl as s I Fed eral area s, s e e 4 2 U.S.C. § 74 91 (a)( 1)

, an d EPA ha s

de m on st rat ed th at th e vi si bi l i t y m od el us ed by th e St at e wou ld se rv e in st ead to

m ai nt ai n cu rren t de gr ad ed co nd it io ns , we can no t sa y th at EPA act ed in a m an ne r th at

was arb it rary, cap ric io us , or an ab us e of di sc ret io n by di sa pp ro v i n g t h e S ta te ’s

reas on ab le pr og res s de te rm in at io n ba se d up on it s cu m ul at iv e so ur ce vi si bi li ty

m od el in g.

-2 2-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229Alt ho ug h th e St at e ha s ch al le ng ed EPA’ s pr om ul ga ti on of it s FIP— co nc lu di ng

th at reas on ab le pr og res s fo r Ant el op e Vall ey St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 was SOFA+LNB

wit h a 0.1 7 lb /M MBt u em is si on li m it on a th irt y -d ay ro ll in g av erag e—i t ha s do ne so

on ly o n p r o c e d u ral gr ou nd s, arg ui ng th at be cau se th e di sa pp ro va l of th e SIP was

im pr op er, so to o wa s t he pr om ul ga ti on of th e FIP. Bec au se we co nc lu de th at EPA

pr op erl y di sa pp ro ve d th e St at e’s reas on ab le pr og res s de te rm in at io n, th e St at e’s

ch al le ng e to th e FIP ne ces sa ril y fai ls

. Acco rd in gl y , th e St at e’s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w of

EPA’ s d is ap pr ov al of t he Sta te ’s SIP an d p ro m ul ga ti on of a FIP i s d en ie d.

E. Coyote Sta ti on

The Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s ch al le ng e EPA’s ap pr ov al of th e 0.5 0 l b/ MM Bt u

em is si on li m it as r eas on ab le pro gr es s fo r th e Co y ot e St at io n.

As pa rt of it s reg io na l ha ze S I P

, th e St at e co nd uc te d a reas on ab le pr og res s

de te rm in at io n fo r th e Co y ot e St at io n. Dur in g th is de te rm in at io n, th e St at e ev al ua te d

se vera l poss ibl e pol lut ion co ntr ol te ch nol ogi es , inc lud ing ad va nc ed se pa rat ed ov erfi re

ai r (ASOFA). The St at e es ti m at ed th at in st al li ng ASOFA wou ld res ul t in a 40 %

x red uc ti on of NO em is si on s. Alt ho ug h th e St at e de term in ed th at ASOFA wou ld res ul t

x in a co st effe ct iv en es s o f $2 46 pe r-t on -o f-NO rem ov ed , it co nc lu de d t ha t th e m or e

ap pr op ria te m eas ur e of co st effe c t i v e ne ss fo r de te rm in in g reas on ab le pr og res s was

ex pr es se d in do ll ars -p er-d ecivie w of im pr ov em en t. Usi ng it s own vi si bi li ty m od el in g

di sc us se d ab ov e, th e St at e cal c u l a t e d a co m bi ne d m ax im

um im pr ov em en t in

de ci vi ews ov er th e 20 % wor st da y s at Los two od W il de rn es s Area a n d Th eo do re

Ro os ev el t Nati on al Park

. As wit h th e de te r mina ti on fo r Ant el op e Vall ey St at io n

Uni ts 1 an d 2, th e St at e us ed th e pr ojec t e d v i s ib il it y im pr ov em en ts to cal cu la te th e

cu m ula tiv e co st effe ct iv en es s of ad di ti on al te ch no lo gi es of ap pr oxi m at el y 618 m ill ion

do ll ars -p er-d eci vi ew of im pr ov em en t at Los two od W il de rn es s Area an d 2.3 bi ll io n

do ll ars -p er-d eci vi ew of

im pr ov em en t at Theo do re Ro os ev el t Nat io na l Pa rk . Bas ed

-2 3-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 23 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229x

up on th es e co st effe ct iv en es s cal cu la ti on s, th e St at e co nc lu de d th at no ad di ti on al NO

co nt ro ls were re as on ab ly neces sa ry at t he Co y ot e St at io n.

Not wit hs ta nd in g th is co n c l u si on , th e St at e en ga ge d in ne go ti at io ns wit h th e

x own er of th e Co y ot e St at io n, reac hi ng an ag reem en t th at es ta bl is he d an NO em is si on

li m it of 0.5 0 lb /M MBt u on a th irt y -d ay ro ll in g av erag e. Thi s em is si on li m it wou ld

be sa ti sf ie d th ro ug h th e in st al la ti on of a d d i t i on al po ll ut io n co nt ro ls

, as su m ed to be

x o v e rfi re ai r (OFA), th at wou ld rem ov e ap pr ox im at el y 4,2 13 to ns of NO

, whi c h

rep res en ts an ap pr ox im at e 32 % de crea se in em is si on s from th e st at io n’s 20 00 -2 00 4

ba se li ne

. Thi s ag reem en t was m ad e en fo rcea bl e th ro ug h a pe rm it fo r co ns tru ct io n at

th e Co y ot e St at io n a nd was s ub m it te d wi th th e St at e’s SIP.

In it s rev ie w of th e St at e’s reas on ab le pr og res s de te rm in at io n, EPA co nc lu de d

th at th e St at e ha d un reas on ab ly reject ed ASOFA as a po te nt ia l te ch no lo gy

rep res en ti ng reas on ab le pr og r e s s b e c au se it s de ci si on was ba se d on th e sa m e

cu m ul at iv e so ur ce vi si bi li ty m od el in g di sc us se d ab ov e. See 76 Fed

. Reg

. 58 ,63 0.

Unl ik e th e de te rm in at io n in vo lv in g th e Ant el op e Vall ey St at io n, ho wev er, th e St at e

ne ve rth el es s h ad in cl ud ed in it s SIP an em is si on li m it fo r th e Co y ot e St at io n. EPA

fo un d t he fol lo win g:

[W] e c o n t i n ue to di sa gr ee wit h th e m an ne r in whi ch Nor th Dak ot a

ev al ua te d vi si bi li ty im

pr ov em en t whe n it ev al ua t e d s in gl e so ur ce

co nt ro ls an d ha ve di sr eg ard ed th is ev al ua ti on in ou r co ns id erat io n of th e

reas on ab le ne ss of Nor th Dak ot a’s reas on ab l e p ro gr es s co nt ro l

de te rm in at io ns

. W e al so di sa gr ee wit h so m e of Nor th Dak ot a’s le ga l

co nc lu si on s ab ou t th e n e c es si ty of reas on ab le pr og res s co nt ro ls fo r

x cert ai n so ur ces —s pe ci fic al ly, f or Co y ot e St at io n fo r NO an d fo r

2 Hes ke tt St at io n 2 fo r su lfu r di ox id e (SO ). Howev er, in th es e in st an ces , Nor th Dak ot a no ne th el es s in cl ud ed em is si on li m it s in th e SIP th at re fl ect

reas on ab le le ve ls of co nt ro l fo r reas on ab le pr og res s f o r t h i s in it ia l pl an ni ng pe rio d. Here ag ai n, we un de rs ta nd th at th ere is ro om f o r di sa gr eem en t ab ou t th e St at e’s an al y se s an d ap pr op r i a t e li m it s. And

,

-2 4-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 24 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229ag ai n, we m ay ha ve reac he d di ffer en t co nc lu si on s h a d we be en

pe rfo rm in g th e de te rm in at io ns

. Howev er, th e co m m en ts ha ve no t

co nv in ced us th at th e St at e, co nd uc ti ng sp eci fic cas e-b y -cas e an al y se s fo r th e rel ev an t un it s, m ad e un reas on ab le de te rm in at io ns fo r th is in it ia l plan ni ng pe rio d or th at we sh ou ld be di sa pp ro vi ng th e St at e’s reas on able

pr og res s d et erm in at io ns th at we pr op os ed to ap pr ov e.

77 Fed . Reg . 20 ,89 9. The refo re, aft er “ di sr eg ard [in g] t he Sta te ’s vi si bi li ty anal y si s

. . . an d in st ead fo cu s[ in g] on th e fo ur reas on ab le pr og res s fact or s[ ,] ” EPA co nc lu de d

th at t h e S t a te ’s pr op os ed 0.5 0 lb /M MBt u em is si on li m it was no t un reas on ab le

. 77

Fed . Reg . 20 ,93 7.

The Env i r o n men ta l Gro up s fir st arg ue th at EPA’ s ap pr ov al of th e

0.5 0 lb /M MBt u em is si on li m it as reas on ab le pr og res s was arb it rary, cap ric io us , an d

an ab us e of di sc ret io n be cau se EPA c o u l d no t fin d th at th e St at e un reas on ab ly
reject ed ASOFA as a po te nt ia l te ch no lo gy rep res en ti ng reas on ab le pr og res s, whi le

si m ul ta ne ou sl y ap pr o v i n g th e m or e la x 0.5 0 lb /M MBt u em is si on li m it

. Bu t EPA’ s

fin di ng th at th e St at e un reas on ab ly reject ed ASOFA on th e gr ou nd th at it was no t co st

effe ct iv e ha s no be ari ng on whe th er th e em is si on li m it was it se lf reas on ab le pr og res s.

EPA’ s im pl ic it co nc lu si o n th at ASOFA wou ld ha ve be en te ch no lo gy rep res en ti ng

reas on ab le pr og res s do es no t m ean th at EPA c o n c l u d ed th at ASOFA was th e on ly

te ch no lo gy rep res en ti ng reas on ab le pr og res s. Eve n if ASOFA were pe rh ap s th e m os t

reas on ab le te ch no l o g y av ai la bl e, th e CAA req ui res on ly th at a st at e es ta bl is h

reas on ab le pr og res s, no t th e m os t reas on ab le pr og res s. EPA ack no wled ge d th at ha d

i t b e e n m ak in g th e de ci si on in th e fir st in st an ce, it pe rh ap s wou ld ha ve ch o s e n

A S O FA, bu t co nc lu de d th at was no t it s de ci si on to m ak e. Giv en th e p r o c e d u r a l

po st ur e, EPA was o bl ig at ed to rev ie w th e St at e’s de ci si on to en su re t ha t t he Sta te ’s

de te rm in at io n rep res en te d reas on ab l e pr og res s, whi ch it co nc lu de d th e St at e ha d

do ne

. W e th us fin d no th in g arb it rary ab ou t EP A’ s co nc lu si on th at ASOFA wou ld

ha ve rep res en te d reas on ab le pr og res s an d it s ul ti m at e de te rm in at io n th at th e

-2 5-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 25 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 40782290

. 5 0 lb /M MBt u em is si on li m it co nt ai ne d in th e SIP al so rep res en te d reas on ab le

pr og res s.

The Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s arg u e in th e al te rn at iv e th at EPA’ s de ci si on

ap pr ov in g th e em is si on li m it la ck ed a reas on ed ba si s an d th eref or e m us t be va cat ed

.

“ W hi le we m ay

no t s up pl y a reas on ed ba si s for th e ag en cy ’s act io n th at th e ag en cy

i t s el f ha s no t gi ve n,

. . . we wil l up ho ld a de ci si on of le ss th an id eal c l a r i t y i f t h e

ag en cy ’s pa th m ay reas on ab ly be di sc ern ed .” Bow m an T ra nsp. , In c. v. Ark an sa s- Bes t

Frei gh t Sy s., In c., 41 9 U.S. 28 1, 28 5- 86 (1 97 4) (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d )

. In it s

co ns i d e rat io n of th e em is si on li m it as reas on ab le pr og res s, EPA di sr eg ard ed th e

St at e’s vi si bi li ty m od el in g and in st ead ev al ua te d th e em is si on li m it ag ai ns t th e fo ur

st at ut or y fact or s fo r reas on ab le pr og res s. See 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,93 7. In th e Pro po se d

Ru l e , EP A ack no wled ge d th at ASOFA was es ti m at ed to red uc e em is si on s by

ap pr ox im at el y 40 %, se e 76 Fed

. Reg

. 58 ,62 6, bu t al so ac kn owl ed ge d th at th e

em is si on li m it es ta bl is he d fo r th e Co y ot e St at io n was es ti m at ed to red uc e em is si on s by ap pr ox im at el y 32 %, se e 76 Fed

. Reg

. 58 ,62 8. Fu rth erm or e, OFA te ch no lo gy

m ig ht well be co ns id ered co s t e f fect iv e in li gh t of EPA’ s co nc lu si on th at th e m or e

ad va nc ed ve rs io n of th e te ch no lo gy AS OFA was co st effe ct iv e. Thu s, al th ou gh

EPA’ s de ci si on in th is in st an ce is no t a m od el of cl ari ty, we no ne th el es s can di sc ern

it s p at h.

B e c a u s e th e Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s ha ve fai le d to de m on st rat e th at EPA’ s

ap pr ov al of th e 0.5 0 lb /M MBt u em is si on li m it as reas on ab le pr og res s fo r th e Co y ot e

St at io n was arbi tra ry , cap ric io us , or an ab us e of di sc ret io n, th ei r pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w

of th is is su e is de ni ed

.

F. Mi lt on R. You ng an d Lel an d Ol ds Sta ti on s

The Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s co nt en d th at EPA’ s ap pr ov al of th e St at e’s BART

de te rm in at io ns for Mi lt on R. You ng St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Lela nd Old s St at io n

-2 6-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 26 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229Uni t 2 was arb it rary, cap ric io u s , a n d a n ab us e of di sc ret io n be cau se it vi ol at ed

ap pl ic ab le no ti ce an d co m m en ts req ui rem en ts an d fa il ed to pr ov id e a rat io na l ba si s

fo r EPA’s cha ng e o f po si ti on fro m th e Pro po se d R

ul e to th e Fi na l Ru le

. 3

The St at e de te rm in ed du rin g it s ev al ua ti on of it s reg io na l ha ze ob li ga ti on s th at

th es e t h r e e u n i ts were su bjec t to th e BART req ui rem en ts of § 16 9A. As di sc us se d

ab ov e, th e se co nd st ep in th e BART Gui de li ne s ev al ua ti on pr oc es s in vo lv es th e

el im in at io n of te ch ni cal ly in feas ib le co nt ro l te ch no lo gi es

. See 70 Fed

. Reg

. 39 ,16 4.

W he n t h e St at e co nd uc te d it s BART an al y si s fo r each of th es e un it s, it el im in at ed

se le ct iv e cat al y ti c red uc ti on (SCR ) as a po te nt ia l co nt ro l te ch no lo gy, co nc lu di ng th at

SCR was no t te ch ni cal ly f e a s i b le fo r a un it th at bu rn ed li gn it e co al in a cy cl on e

bo il er. The St at e t h u s c on cl ud ed th at BART fo r th es e un it s was SNCR.

Co nt em po ran eo us ly, t he St at e was al so de te rm in in g th e be st av ai la bl e co nt ro l

te ch no lo gy (BACT) fo r Y o u n g S t a t io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 pu rs ua nt to a co ns en t de cree

en te red in to be twee n th e o wne r of th e st at io n, th e St at e, an d EPA u nd er th e CAA’s

Prev en ti on of Si gn ifi can t Dete rio rat io n pr og ram

. The co ns en t de cree ga ve th e St at e

th e in it ia l res po n s i b i l i t y of de te rm in in g BACT an d ga ve EPA th e au th or it y to

ch al le ng e th at de te rm in at io n in th e di st ric t co ur t if it be li ev ed th at it was

un reas on ab le

. BART an d BACT bo th in vo lv e th e el im in at io n of te ch ni c a ll y

in feas ib le co nt ro l op ti o n s , us in g su bs ta nt ia ll y th e sa m e cri te ria

. See 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,89 7. In it s BACT an al y si s, th e St at e si m il arl y co nc lu de d th at SCR was te ch ni cal ly

in feas ib le be cau se of th e type of co al an d type of bo il er at is su e an d in st ead se le ct ed

SNCR as BACT. EPA pr om pt ly ch al l e n g e d th e St at e’s BACT de te rm in at io n in

di st ric t co ur t

, co nt en di ng th at SCR was a te ch ni cal ly feas ib le em is si on co nt ro l an d

sh ou ld ha ve be en sel ect ed as B ACT.

You ng St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Old s St at io n Uni t 2 each ge ne rat e el ect ric it y 3 by bu rn in g Nor th Dak ot a li gn it e co al in Bab co ck & W il co x cy cl on e bo il ers

. Bec au se each of th es e un it s op erat es th e sa m e type of bo il er an d bu rn s th e sa m e type of co al

, th e te ch ni cal feas ib il it y

de te rm in at io n re qu ire d u nd er t he BART Gui de li ne s wi ll be

th e sa m e fo r eac h u ni t. The y are t hu s ad dr es se d t og et he r.

-2 7-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 27 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229W hi le EPA’ s pe ti ti on ch al le ng in g th e S t at e’s BACT de te rm in at io n was

pe nd i n g , it pr op os ed to di sa pp ro ve th e St at e’s reg io na l ha ze SIP, de te rm in in g th at

BA R T fo r You ng St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Old s St at io n Uni t 2 was SNCR. The

ba si s for EPA’ s pr op os ed di sa pp ro va l of the SIP m irr or ed it s po si ti on in it s pet it io n

ch al le ng in g th e St at e’s BACT de te rm in at io n, n a mely

, it s be li ef th at SCR was

te ch ni c a l l y feas ib le an d th at th e St at e’s de te rm in at io n th at it was no t te ch ni cal ly

feas ib le was un reas on ab le

. EPA a ck no wled ge d th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc eed in g in th e

Pro po se d Rul e, st at in g th at it s “ pr op os ed act io n her e p ert ai ns to BART, no t BACT,

is go ve rn ed by CAA pr ov is io ns an d reg ul at io ns sp eci fic to reg io na l ha ze an d BART,

a n d i s n o t g ov ern ed by [th e] co ns en t de cree .” 76 Fed

. Reg

. 58 ,60 4 n.4 1. EPA

si m ul ta ne ou sl y pr op os ed to pr om ul ga te a FIP fin di ng th at SCR was BART fo r th es e

un it s. On Decem

be r 21

, 20 11

, aft er th e no ti ce an d co m m en t pe rio d fo r th e Pro po se d

Ru le ha d cl os ed

, th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed it s dec is io n on EPA’ s pet it io n cha ll en gi ng

th e St at e’s BACT de te rm in at io n. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e St at e’s co nc lu si on

th at SCR was no t te ch ni cal ly feas ib le was no t un reas on ab le

. See Mi nn k o t a P o wer

Co -o p., 8 31 F. Sup p. 2 d a t 1 12 7- 30

.

Rat he r th an di sa pp ro vi ng th e St at e’s de te rm in at io n th at SNCR was BART fo r

You ng St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Old s St at io n Uni t 2 an d pr om ul ga ti ng it s own FIP,

EPA’ s Fi na l Ru le ap pr ov e d t he St at e’s SIP. In ex pl ai ni ng it s de ci si on , EPA fo un d

two po rti on s of th e BART Gui de li ne s rel ev an t. Fi rs t, EP A no te d th at th e te ch ni cal

feas ib il it y de te rm in at io n un de r th e BART an d BACT an al y se s was su bs ta nt ia ll y th e

sa m e. See 77 Fed

. Reg

. 20 ,89 7. Seco nd

, EPA no t e d t h a t th e BART Gui de li ne s

pe rm it a st at e to rel y up on a BACT de te rm in at io n fo r pu rp os es of se le ct in g BART,

un le ss ne w te ch no lo gi es ha ve be co m e av ai la b l e o r b e st co nt ro l le ve ls fo r rece nt

ret ro fit s ha ve be co m e m or e st rin ge nt

. See id

. EPA th en ack no wled ge d th at ov er it s

“ vi go ro us ch al le ng e of th e in fo rm at io n an d an al y si s rel ie d up on by Nor th Dak ot a, th e

U.S. Dis tri ct Co ur t up he ld Nor th Dak ot a’s rece nt BACT de te rm in at io n ba se d on th e

sa m e te ch ni cal feas ib il it y cri te ria th at ap pl y in th e BART co nt ex t.” Id

. at 20 ,89 7- 98

. EPA co nc lu de d th at “ [i]n li gh t of th e co ur t’s de ci si on an d th e vi ews we ha ve

-2 8-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 28 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229ex pr es se d in ou r BART gu id el in es , we ha ve co nc lu de d th at it wou ld be in ap pr op ria te

to pr oc eed wit h ou r pr op os ed di sa pp ro v a l o f SNCR as BART[.]” Id

. at 20 ,89 8.

Acco rd in gl y , EPA ap pr ov ed th e St at e’s SIP ad dr es si ng th e BART de te rm in at io ns fo r

You ng Sta ti on Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Ol ds Sta ti on Uni t 2

.

The reaf te r, th e Env i r o n ment al Gro up s fil ed th is pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w, whi le

si m ul ta ne ou sl y fil in g a pe ti ti on fo r reco ns id e r a t i o n w it h EPA. On Nov em be r 19

, 20 12

, aft er al l of th e pe ti ti on ers ha d fil ed th e i r i n it ia l br ie fs

, EPA gr an te d th e

Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s’ pe ti ti on fo r reco ns id erat io n, a pr oc es s th at is st il l on go in g.

On Feb ru ary 8, 20 13

, aft er br ie fin g i n t h e pr es en t cas e was co m pl et ed

, th e

Env iro nm en ta l Gro u p s mo v e d un de r Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 42 (b ) to

v ol un ta ril y di sm is s th ei r pe ti ti on to th e ex te nt it ch al le ng es EPA’ s ap pr ov al of th e

St at e’s BART de te rm in at io n fo r You ng St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Old s St at io n Uni t 2.

“ [T]he pr oc ed ur al req ui rem en ts of th e Cl ean Air Act do no t pe rm it [p etit io ne rs ]

to rai se

. . . ob

jecti on [s ] fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al .” App al ach ia n Po wer Co

. v. EPA
(Ap pa la ch ia n Po wer II), 24 9 F.3 d 10 32

, 10 55 (D.C. Ci r. 20 01 ) (fi rs t two al te rat io ns

in or i g i n al ) (q uo ti ng Am

. Pet ro le um In st

. v. Co st le

, 66 5 F.2 d 11 76

, 11 90 -9 1 (D.C.

C i r

. 19 81 )). “ Onl y an ob jecti on to a ru le or pr oc ed ur e whi ch was rai se d wit h

reas on ab le sp eci fic it y du rin g th e pe rio d fo r pu bl ic co m m en t

. . . m ay be rai se d du rin g jud ic ia l rev ie w.” 42 U.S.C. § 76 07 (d )(7 )(B)

. Sect io n 76 07 (d )(7 )(B) is “ a juri sd ic ti on al ad m in is tra ti ve ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t,” Noe l Can ni ng v. NLRB, 70 5

F.3 d 49 0, 49 7 (D.C. Ci r. 20 13 ), whi ch co ur ts are to st ric tl y en fo rce, Natu ral Res

. Def.

Co un ci l, 57 1 F.3 d at 12 59

. “ The pu rp os e of th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t is to en su re

th at th e ag en cy is gi ve n th e fir st op p o r t u ni ty to br in g it s ex pe rti se to be ar on th e

res ol ut io n of a ch al le ng e to a ru le .” A p p a l ach ia n Po wer I, 13 5 F.3 d at 81 8.

“ Co ns eq ue nt ly, t h e c o ur t en joy s th e be ne fit of th e ag en cy ’s ex pe rti se an d po ss ib ly

a vo id s ad dr es si ng so m e of th e ch al le ng es un ne ces sa ril y .” Mo to r & Equ ip

. Mfr s

. Ass ’n v. Nic ho ls , 14 2 F .3d 44 9, 4 62 (D.C. Cir . 19 98 ).

-2 9-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 29 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229EP A co nt en ds th at th e Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s’ ch al le ng es to th e ap pr ov a l o f

th es e BART de te rm in at io ns are no t pr op erl y be fo re us be cau se th ey are be in g rai se d

fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

. The Env iro nm en ta l Gro u ps ack no wled ge th at be cau se

th ey ha d no no ti ce th at EPA was co ns id eri ng ap pr ov in g th e BART de te rm in at io ns

pr io r to pu bl ic at io n of th e Fi na l Ru le th ey di d no t rai se a ch al le ng e to EPA’ s ap pr ov al

du rin g th e ru le m ak in g pr oc es s. In su ch ci rcu m st an ces , “ th e CAA req ui res a pe ti ti on er

to fir st rai se it s ob

jecti on to th e ag en c y t h [ r ]o u gh a pe ti ti on fo r reco ns id erat io n.”

Okl ah om a v. EPA, 20 13 W L 37 66 98 6, at *1 1 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng App al ach ia n Po wer II, 24 9 F.3 d at 10 65 ). The Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s ha ve do ne jus t

th at , fil in g a pe ti ti on for reco ns id erat io n t ha t i s s ti ll un de r co ns id erat io n.

Not wit hs ta nd in g th e Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s’ f ai lu re to rai se th es e ob

jecti on s

du rin g th e ru le m ak in g pr oc es s, In te rv en or s M i n n k o t a Po wer Co op erat iv e, In c. an d

Sq ua re Bu tt e Elec tri c Co op erat iv e arg ue th at § 76 07 (d )(7 )(B) do es no t de pr iv e us of
juri sd ic ti on

. In te rv en or s co nt en d th at be cau se § 76 07 (d )(7 )(B) pe rm it s co ur ts to st ay

th e effe ct iv en es s of a fin al ru le du rin g reco ns ide ra tio n, it “ ex pr es sl y co nt em

pl at es th at

a rev ie win g co ur t ret ai ns su bjec t m at te r juri s d i c t io n ov er th e cl ai m s du rin g th e

pe nd en cy of EPA reco ns id erat io n.” In te rv en or s Mi nn ko ta & Sq ua re Bu tt e Br. 52
(ci ti ng § 7 60 7( d) (7 )(B) (“ Su ch reco ns id erat io n sh al l no t p os tp on e th e eff ect iv en es s

of th e ru le

. The effe ct iv en es s of th e ru le m ay be st ay ed du rin g su ch reco ns id erat io n,

ho wev er, by

. . . th e co ur t fo r a pe rio d no t to ex ceed th ree m on th s.”) ). In te rv en or s are

in co rrec t th at th is se ct io n co nt em pl at es th at we ret ai n juri sdi ct ion to he ar un ex ha us te d

cl ai m s. Rat he r, it es ta bl is he s th at we ret ai n juri sd ic ti on ov er th e en ti re fin al ru l e

pe nd in g th e reco ns id erat io n of un ex ha us te d cl ai m s, an d th us h a v e th e au th or it y to

po st po ne th e eff

ect iv en es s o f th e en ti re fi na l ru le

.

Bec au se th e Env iro nm en ta l Gro u p s ’ ch al le ng es to EPA’ s ap pr ov al of th e

St at e’s BART de te rm in at io n fo r You ng St at io n Uni ts 1 an d 2 an d Old s St at io n Uni t

2 were no t rai se d be fo re EPA du rin g th e ru le m ak in g pr oc es s, we co nc lu de th at we are

wit ho ut juri sd ic ti on to he ar th e m un de r § 76 07 (d )(7 )(B)

. Thi s co nc lu si on ren de rs

-3 0-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 30 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229m oo t th e Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s’ m ot io n to di sm is s th ei r pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w of th es e

m at te rs un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro ced ur e 4 2( b)

.

H. Int ers ta te Tran sp or t SI P

The Sta te co nt en ds th at EPA’ s d is ap pr ov al of i ts in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP was

arb it rary, cap ric io us , an d an ab us e of di sc ret io n. In Ju ly 19 97

, EPA pr om ul ga te d ne w NAAQS, whi ch tri gg ered th e St at e’s ob li ga ti on to su bm it an in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP

ad dr es si ng th e ne w st an da rd s. As d is cu ss ed ab ov e, on e of th e el em en ts of th is SIP

is th e “ go od ne ig hb or ” pr ov is io n, whi ch co nt ai ns a vi si bi li ty co m po ne nt

. See 42

U.S.C. § 74 10 (a)( 2) (D)(i )(II)

. In 20 06

, EPA is su ed gu i d a n c e t o th e st at es on

sa ti sf y in g th e go od ne ig hb or pr ov i s i o n. See Env iro nm en ta l Pro te ct io n Age nc y , Gui da nc e fo r St at e Im

pl em en ta ti on Pla n Su bm is si on s to Mee t Cu rren t Out st an di ng

2

. 5 Obl ig at io ns Und er Sect io n 11 0( a)(2 )(D)(i ) fo r th e 8- Hou r Ozo ne an d PM Nati on al

Am bi en t Ai r Qua li ty Stan da rd s (2 00 6) [he rei na fte r 20 06 Gui da nc e].

Th e f i rs t pa rag rap h of th e 20 06 Gui da nc e “ em ph as iz es th at th is gu id an c e

do cu men t m erel y pr ov id es su gg es ti on s an d

. . . EPA m ay el ect to fo ll ow or de vi at e

fro m th is gu id an ce, as ap pr op ria te .” See id

. at 1. Reg ard in g th e vi si bi li ty co m po ne nt

of th e go od ne ig hb or pr o v is io n, th e 20 06 Gui da nc e reco gn iz ed th at be cau se st at es ’

r e g i o na l ha ze SIPs were no t du e un ti l Decem be r 17

, 20 07

, it was “ cu r r e n t l y

pr em at ur e” to de te rm in e whe th er a st at e’s SIP co m pl ie s wit h th e go od ne ig hb or

pr ov is io n. Id

. at 9- 10

. The refo re, th e 20 06 Gui d a n c e s u gg es te d “ th at St at es m ay

m ak e a si m

pl e SIP su bm is si on co nf

irming th at it is no t po ss ib le at th is ti m e to as se ss

whe th er th ere is an y in te rfer en ce wit h m eas ur es in th e ap pl ic ab le SIP fo r an ot he r

2

. 5 St at e de si gn ed to ‘pro te ct vi si bi li ty’ fo r th e 8- ho ur oz on e or PM NAAQS un ti l

reg io na l ha ze SIPs are su bm it te d an d ap pr ov ed .” Id

. “ Thu s, EPA’ s reco m m en da ti on

to st at es as of th at pa rti cu la r po in t in ti m e was th at th ey refe r to th e im m in en t reg io na l

ha ze SIP su bm is si on as th e m ean s by wh ic h th ey co ul d ad dr es s th e vi si bi li ty p ro ng

of [§ 7 41 0( a)(2 )(D)(i )].” 76 F ed . Reg . 58 ,64 2.

-3 1-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 31 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229On Apr il 6, 20 09

, t h e St at e su bm it te d a SIP rev is io n de si gn ed to sa ti sf y it s

in te rs ta te tra ns po rt re q u ire m en ts un de r th e CAA. The St at e di d no t su bs ta nt iv el y

ad dr es s th e vi si bi li ty co m po ne nt

, bu t in st ead refe rred to th e 20 06 Gui da n ce an d

in cl ud ed a pl aceh ol de r su bm is si on , st at in g th at un ti l reg io na l ha ze SIPs were

su bm it te d, it was no t po ss ib le to as se ss whe th er th ere is an y in te rfer en ce wit h

m eas ur es in an ot he r st at e’s ap pl ic ab le reg io na l ha ze SIP. The St at e th us su gg es te d

th at it pl an ne d to sa ti sf

y th e vi si bi li ty co m

po ne nt th ro ug h th e su bm is si on of it s

reg io na l h aze S IP, whi ch it su bm it te d o n M arch 3, 2 01 0.

EPA rev ie wed th e St at e’s in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP in 20 11 an d ap pr ov ed th ree

of th e fo ur co m

po ne nt s, bu t di sa pp ro ve d th e vi si bi li ty co m po ne nt

. EPA reject ed th e

St at e’s us e of th e pl aceh ol de r su bm is si on su gg es te d in th e 20 06 Gui da nc e an d fo un d

th a t t he SIP ha d fai le d to ad dr es s su bs ta nt iv el y th e vi si bi li ty pr on g. EPA al so

co nc lu de d th at th e reg io na l ha ze SIP co ul d no t be us ed to sa ti sf y th e vi si bi li ty

co m po ne nt be cau se it was no t fu ll y ap pr ov ab le

. See 76 Fed

. Reg

. 58 ,64 2. To ad dr es s

th e vi si bi li ty co m

po ne nt

, EPA pr op os ed to pr om ul ga te a FIP. The FIP co nc lu de d th at

th e vi si bi li ty co m

po ne nt wou ld be sa ti sf

ie d by rel y in g on a co m bi na t i o n o f th e

po rti on s of th e St at e’s reg io na l ha ze S IP th at ha d be en ap pr ov ed an d th e FIP

pr om ul ga te d t o re pl ace t he di sa pp ro ve d p or ti on s o f th e reg io na l h aze S IP.

The St at e fir st co nt en ds th at EPA a ct ed arb it rari ly by no t fo ll owi ng it s 20 06

Gui da nc e an d refu si ng to acce pt it s pl aceh ol de r su b m is si on fo r th e vi si bi li ty

co m po ne nt

. W e di sa gr ee, fo r th e 20 06 Gui da nc e cl e arl y pl aced th e St at e on no ti ce

th at EPA was no t is su in g bi nd in g reg ul at io ns bu t was in st ead o nl y is su in g

su gg es ti on s th a t l e f

t EPA free “ to fo ll ow or de vi at e fro m th is gu id an ce, as

ap pr op ria te .” 20 06 Gui da nc e at 1. Mo reo ve r, th e 20 06 Gui da nc e su gg es te d th a t i t

was “ cu rren tl y

pre m at ur e” to req ui re a su bm is si on ad dr es si ng vi si bi li ty prio r to th e

20 07 de ad li ne f

o r r e g i on al ha ze SIP su bm is si on s. Thi s de m on st rat es th at th e 20 06

Gui da nc e co nt ai ne d ti m e-s en si ti ve su gg es ti on s. It is un di sp ut ed th at th e St at e di d no t

su bm it it s in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP un ti l 20 09

, well aft er th e pe rio d di sc us s ed in th e

-3 2-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 32 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 407822920 06 Gui da nc e. Giv en th e d is cl ai m er wi th in th e 2 00 6 Gu id an ce tha t EPA was free

to de vi at e fro m it

, as well as th e ti m e fram e du rin g whi ch it was is su ed —p rio r to th e

de ad li ne fo r su bm it ti ng reg io na l ha ze SIPs —t he St at e ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e th at

EPA’ s refu sa l to ac c e p t t h e St at e’s pl aceh ol de r st at em en t reg ard in g th e vi si bi li ty

co m po ne nt was a rb it rary, capri ci ou s, o r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

The St at e arg ue s in th e al te rn at iv e th at it s su bm is si on of th e reg io na l ha ze SIP

sa ti sf ie d th e vi s i b il it y co m

po ne nt of th e in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP. EPA co nc lu de d,

ho wev er, th at be cau se th e reg io na l ha ze SIP was no t fu l l y ap pr ov ab le

, it co ul d no t

sa ti sf y th e vi si bi li ty co m

po ne nt of th e in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP. The St at e do es no t

ch al le ng e EPA’ s au th or it y to di s a p p r o v e th e in te rs ta te tra ns po rt SIP on th is ba si s.

Rat he r, it co nt en ds th at be cau se th e reg io na l ha ze SIP sh ou ld ha ve be en ap pr ov ed as

to a l l po rti on s, it sh ou ld ha ve sa ti sf ie d th e vi si bi li ty co m

po ne nt in it s in te rs ta te

tra ns po rt SIP. See St at e’s Rep ly Br. 36 (“ Bec au se EPA’ s di sa pp ro va l o f N or th

Dak ot a’s [Co al Cree k St at io n] BART de te rm in at io n an d [An te lo pe Vall ey St at io n

reas on ab le pr og res s] de te rm in at io ns were arb it rary an d cap ric io us , so to o is EPA’ s

di sa p p r o v al of Nor th Dak ot a’s SIP as it pe rta in s to in te rs ta te vi si bi li ty.”). Bec au se

we ha ve co nc lu de d th at EPA pr op erl y di sa pp ro ve d po rti on s o f th e St at e’s reg io na l

ha ze SIP, th e St at e’s arg um en t on th is is su e fai ls

, a n d t h u s th e St at e’s pe ti ti on fo r

rev ie w of EPA’ s di sa pp ro va l of th e S t a t e ’s i nt ers ta te tra ns po rt SIP is de ni ed

.

III. Co nc lu si on

W e gr an t th e St at e’s an d Great Ri ve r Ene rg y ’s pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w to th e ex te nt

th at th ey ch al le ng e EP A ’s BART de te rm in at io n fo r th e Co al Cree k St at io n

pr om ul ga te d in EPA’ s FIP, an d we va cat e an d rem an d th at po rti on of th e Fi na l Ru le

to EPA fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n. W e de ny th e rem ai nd er

of th e St at e’s

, G reat Ri ve r Ene rg y ’s, an d th e Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s’ pe ti ti on s fo r

rev ie w, as well as th e Env iro nm en ta l Gro up s’ m ot io n for vo lu nt ary di sm is sa l un de r

Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro ced ur e 4 2( b)

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3 3-

Appellate Case: 12-1844 Page: 33 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Entry ID: 4078229