121844P.pdf   09/23/2013  State of North Dakota  v.  EPA
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-1844
                          and No:  12-1961
                          and No:  12-2331
   Petition for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Administration   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Petition for Review - Environmental law. In this proceeding, challenging 
   the EPA's final rule approving in part and disapproving in part North 
   Dakota's State Implementation Plan regarding regional haze and the Best 
   Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for certain pollution sources, the 
   EPA's decision to disapprove the plan and simultaneously issue a Federal 
   Implementation Plan was not a basis for overturning the final rule; the 
   EPA's disapproval of North Dakota's BART plan for the Coal Creek Station 
   power plant was neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion; 
   the EPA's refusal to consider the existing pollution control equipment in 
   use at the Coal Creek Station because it had been voluntarily installed 
   was arbitrary and capricious and the EPA's Federal Implementation Plan 
   requiring certain technology for this site is vacated; because the goal of 
   Section 169A of the Clean Air Act is attain natural visibility conditions 
   in Class I Federal areas, and the EPA demonstrated that the visibility 
   model used by the state would serve, instead, to maintain the current, 
   degraded conditions, the court cannot say the EPA acted arbitrarily, 
   capriciously or abused its discretion by disapproving the state's 
   reasonable progress determination for the Antelope Valley Station units in 
   question; the Environmental Group petitioners failed to demonstrate that 
   the EPA's approval of a particular emission limit for the Coyote Station 
   site was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion; because the 
   Environmental Group petitioners' challenges to the EPA's approval of the 
   state's BART determination for the Young Stations Units 1 and 2 and the 
   Olds Station Unit 2 were not raised before the EPA during the rule-making 
   process, the court is without jurisdiction to hear them under 42 U.S.S. 
   Sec. 7607(d)(7)(B); the EPA did not act arbitrarily by refusing to accept 
   the state's "placeholder" submission for the visibility component of its 
   interstate transport State Implementation Plan.