St. Marys Cement Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 782 F.3d 280

The Clean Air Act, including the 1977 visibility provisions and the Regional Haze Rule, requires states to identify sources for BART and implement controls through SIPs or federal plans.
St. Marys Cement, a Canadian company, owns a Charlevoix, Michigan cement plant subject to BART review for visibility impacts.
Michigan submitted a SIP plan; the EPA rejected it in 2009 and again in 2012 for not requiring BART at St. Marys; the EPA proposed nitrous oxide reductions via SNCR at Charlevoix.
St. Marys submitted timely comments challenging the proposed SNCR-based BART; it later learned historical permit steps might render Charlevoix not BART-eligible and argued reconstruction timing would exempt it.
The EPA finalized a stricter BART-related rule in December 2012, and denied reconsideration requests; St. Marys sought judicial review in the D.C. Circuit.
The court reviews EPA’s decision under the narrow, deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard and addresses forfeiture of a late BART-eligibility challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EPA’s BART decision for Charlevoix was arbitrary or capricious	St. Marys asserts case-by-case flaws and insisted the plant’s unique characteristics undermine SNCR effectiveness.	EPA properly conducted site-specific analysis and relied on evidence showing SNCR could achieve ~50% NOx reduction at Charlevoix.	No arbitrary or capricious defect; EPA’s case-by-case analysis sustained.
Whether St. Marys forfeited its challenge to BART eligibility by not raising it during public comment	St. Marys argues EPA had an independent duty to consider BART-eligibility regardless of comment timing.	Failure to raise during the comment period forfeits challenges about BART eligibility for a single-plant rulemaking.	Yes, forfeited; the objection was not raised during the comment period and is not reviewable.
Whether late-filed comments could be considered in judicial review	Late comments should be reviewed as part of the record in determining the rule’s validity.	Judicial review records are tied to timely comments; late submissions do not alter the record.	Late comments cannot salvage the forfeited BART-eligibility challenge; denial of reconsideration stands.

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 () (arbitrary-and-capricious review requires reasoned explanation)
Catawba Cnty. v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (limits on agency judgment with respect to technical determinations)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious review requires a defensible process)
Ky. Res. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006) (deference to agency scientific determinations within expertise)
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 559 F.3d 561 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (public comment specificity and forfeiture principles in rulemaking)
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014) (nationwide-rule review and jurisdictional considerations)