917 N.W.2d 603
Mich.2018Background
- DEQ issued PTI 182-05C (a permit to install) for an existing steel-mill source on May 12, 2014 after public comment and hearing; South Dearborn filed for judicial review 59 days later.
- AK Steel (later purchaser of the mill) moved to dismiss as untimely, arguing the appeal window was 21 days under the RJA/court rules (MCR 7.104/MCR 7.123) rather than 90 days.
- Statutory conflict centered on Part 55 of the NREPA: MCL 324.5505(8) (appeals re: permits to install for new sources) cross-references MCL 324.5506(14) (permits for existing sources, operating permits, and contested-case procedures).
- Circuit court held the petition timely under a 90-day period; Court of Appeals affirmed but reasoned the 90-day rule applied only to operating (Title V) permits and alternatively invoked APA contested-case procedures (MCR 7.119).
- Michigan Supreme Court held that MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14), read together, require petitions for judicial review of permit actions for existing sources (including permits to install) to be filed within 90 days of final permit action; South Dearborn’s petition was therefore timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) set the deadline for judicial review of a DEQ permit to install for an existing source | South Dearborn: Those provisions, read together, govern appeals for existing-source permits and provide a 90-day filing period | AK Steel/DEQ: The cross-reference does not create a 90-day RJA-based right for existing PTIs; appeal governed by MCL 600.631 and the 21-day rule | Held: Read together, the statutes make appeals of permit actions for existing sources subject to MCL 324.5506(14), and the 90-day petition-for-judicial-review rule applies (petition timely) |
| Whether the APA contested-case procedure (and MCR 7.119) applies to the permitting decision (affecting a 60-day rule) | South Dearborn: Court of Appeals' alternative holding that contested-case/APA applies would support timeliness under 60 days | AK Steel: APA does not apply; if APA doesn't apply, the RJA/court-rule timelines control (shorter) | Court: Unnecessary to decide because statutory 90-day rule resolved timeliness; Court of Appeals' APA analysis vacated as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayor of Lansing v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 470 Mich. 154, 680 N.W.2d 840 (Mich. 2004) (interpreting "subject to" and reading related subsections together)
- G. C. Timmis & Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co., 468 Mich. 416, 662 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 2003) (canon: harmonize statutes and give effect to the act as a whole)
- People v. Mazur, 497 Mich. 302, 872 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2015) (standard of review: de novo for jurisdictional/statutory interpretation)
- People v. Rea, 500 Mich. 422, 902 N.W.2d 362 (Mich. 2017) (plain-meaning and whole-text canons; give effect to every word)
- Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (U.S. 2011) (surplusage canon applies only when competing interpretation gives effect to every clause)
- Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 462 Mich. 691, 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000) (distinguishing administrative review from judicial review)