DISCLAIMER: The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
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.