Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
404 U.S. App. D.C. 375
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Mingo Logan sought a section 404 permit from the Corps to discharge dredged/fill material from Spruce No. 1 Mine into three West Virginia streams and tributaries.
- The Spruce Mine Permit (1998/2007) authorized disposal into Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch, and Seng Camp Creek and their tributaries, with express EPA non-veto at the time.
- EPA, after years of review, invoked its subsection 404(c) veto authority in 2011 to withdraw the specifications of Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch (and their tributaries) as disposal sites.
- Mingo Logan challenged EPA’s withdrawal as ultra vires and APA-arbitrary/capricious; the district court granted summary judgment on the ultra vires ground.
- The government appeals; Corps also joins. The issue centers on whether EPA can withdraw site specifications after a permit has issued.
- EPA’s initial 2002–2006 stance showed concern but did not pursue a 404(c) objection at that time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA may withdraw a disposal-site specification after permit issuance under 404(c). | Mingo Logan argues 404(c) cannot operate post-permit and only pre-permit. | EPA argues 404(c) authorizes post-permit withdrawal whenever unacceptable adverse effects are found. | EPA has post-permit withdrawal authority. |
| Whether EPA’s withdrawal was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. | Mingo Logan asserts EPA acted arbitrarily in withdrawing sites after the permit. | EPA contends its interpretation and determination under 404(c) is permissible. | Remand to address APA merits; holding on merits not reached here. |
| How 404(c) interacts with 404(p) and 404(q) and permit certainty. | Mingo Logan says 404(p) and 404(q) imply pre-permit certainty and limit retroactive actions. | EPA maintains 404(c) stands with post-permit authority without undermining pre-permit timelines. | 404(c) authority upheld; post-permit action does not implicitly override 404(p)/(q). |
Key Cases Cited
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Chevron framework for agency interpretation; deference if permissible)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (S. Ct. 1984) (establishes two-step framework for statutory interpretation)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (S. Ct. 2009) (avoidance of superfluity; interpret statutes to give effect to all provisions)
- Virginia Dept. of Med. Assistance Servs. v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 678 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (legislative history not controlling where text clear; probative but not dispositive)
- Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012) (legislative history not controlling when text is clear)