Court Opinion

ID: 9822093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 08:45:37.618747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:11:05.742057
License: Public Domain

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. United States 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.