980 F.3d 1191
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs Casey and Julie Voigt own a ranch adjacent to CCMC’s Coyote Creek lignite mine and sued claiming Clean Air Act (CAA) violations.
- Coyote Creek Mine comprises a mine face and a coal processing facility connected by a private haul road; an approximately 8‑acre open coal pile abuts an apron feeder that supplies the crushing equipment.
- CCMC applied for and received a North Dakota Department of Health (NDDOH) minor‑source preconstruction permit; NDDOH treated the coal pile as outside the coal processing plant, so Subpart Y and PSD major‑source thresholds excluded the pile’s fugitive emissions.
- Voigts argued the coal pile is “in” the coal processing plant under NSPS Subpart Y, triggering a fugitive dust control plan requirement and inclusion of fugitive emissions in the 250 tpy PSD threshold (thus requiring a major‑source permit).
- The district court found Subpart Y ambiguous, relied on EPA guidance and the NDDOH permitting decision, and granted summary judgment to CCMC; the Eighth Circuit majority affirmed, while Judge Stras dissented, arguing state‑agency deference to interpret federal regulations is unconstitutional.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Subpart Y applies to the coal pile (is the pile “in” the coal processing plant?) | Voigt: textual definitions place the open storage pile within the plant; Subpart Y applies | CCMC: plant begins at first hopper/apron feeder; pile is storage outside the plant; Subpart Y does not apply | Court: regulation ambiguous; EPA guidance not dispositive; defer to NDDOH — pile not part of plant; Subpart Y does not apply |
| Whether fugitive emissions from the pile count toward PTE/PSD major‑source threshold | Voigt: if pile is part of plant, fugitive emissions must be counted and trigger PSD/major permit | CCMC: pile excluded, so fugitive emissions not counted; minor permit adequate | Held with first issue: pile excluded so fugitive emissions not counted; minor‑source permit sufficient |
| Whether EPA guidance resolves ambiguity about where a coal plant begins | Voigt: guidance supports including pile; CCMC: guidance supports exclusion at first hopper; both claim clarity | Guidance: EPA states plant begins at first hopper/unloading into receiving equipment, but acknowledges mixed scenarios | Court: guidance clarifies some situations but does not conclusively resolve this hybrid storage/unloading pile; ambiguity remains |
| Whether NDDOH permitting decision merits deference in interpreting federal NSPS/Subpart Y | Voigt: state agency not entitled to deference on federal law; EPA reserved interpretive authority; lack of public notice weakens decision | CCMC/NDDOH: cooperative federalism, SIP/EPA delegation gives state permitting authority and technical expertise; NDDOH’s interpretation reasonable | Court: deference appropriate under CAA cooperative‑federalism and Kisor framework; NDDOH decision reasonable and not arbitrary; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) (distinguishing NAAQS/NSPS and explaining CAA framework)
- Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) (on limits of NSPS in attainment areas and PSD purpose)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference to reasonable statutory interpretations)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (standards for deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation)
- Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 937 F.2d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (discussing fugitive emissions and surface coal mines in PSD context)
- Nucor Steel‑Ark. v. Big River Steel, LLC, 825 F.3d 444 (8th Cir. 2016) (states issue preconstruction permits under SIPs; role of state permitting authority)