891 N.W.2d 233
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- AK Steel (which acquired Severstal) operates a Dearborn steel plant subject to Clean Air Act and Michigan NREPA permitting. Severstal obtained a series of "permits to install" for rebuilding a blast furnace and installing baghouses; the final permit at issue is PTI 182-05C issued May 12, 2014.
- Petitioners filed a claim of appeal in Wayne Circuit Court 59 days after issuance seeking vacatur and remand of PTI 182-05C.
- AK Steel moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing petitioners’ appeal was untimely under court rules (21-day or 60-day limits), while petitioners argued NREPA or the APA afforded a 90- or 60-day period.
- The circuit court denied AK Steel’s motion, relying on petitioners’ reading of MCL 324.5506(14) to permit a 90-day filing period.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of dismissal but reversed the circuit court’s statutory rationale: it held MCL 324.5506(14) does not authorize a 90-day appeal for a permit-to-install and instead concluded the APA applies so MCR 7.119 (60-day rule) governs; petitioners’ filing at 59 days was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 324.5506(14)’s 90‑day provision permits judicial review of DEQ issuance of a permit to install for an existing source | "A petition for judicial review is the exclusive means...filed within 90 days"—the indefinite article "a" means "any" permit, so §5506(14) gives 90 days to appeal PTI | The second sentence in §5506(14) refers back to "operating permit," so it does not cover permits to install; §5506(14) therefore does not provide a 90‑day path for PTIs | Court held §5506(14) refers to operating permits in context and does not apply to a permit to install; circuit court erred in reading "a" as "any" |
| Whether the decision to issue a permit to install is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) so that MCR 7.119 (60 days) governs | Petitioners: granting a permit is a "license" under MCL 24.205(1), licensing provisions of APA apply and MCR 7.119’s 60‑day claim‑of‑appeal rule governs | AK Steel: NREPA controls and §5506(14) (or catchall MCR 7.123/7.104 21‑day rule) should govern, making the appeal untimely | Court held a permit to install is a "license" under the APA; contested‑case licensing provisions apply, so MCR 7.119 governs and the 60‑day period applied (petitioners filed within 59 days) |
| Whether petitioners’ appeal was timely under applicable court rules | Petitioners: appeal filed within 60 days of mailing of final decision (59 days), thus timely under MCR 7.119 | AK Steel: rule 7.104/7.123 21‑day requirement applies, so appeal was untimely | Held timely: MCR 7.119 applies (60 days); petitioners’ 59‑day filing was timely |
| Whether the circuit court’s denial of AK Steel’s motion to dismiss should be affirmed despite its statutory error | Petitioners: correct ultimate outcome (timely) regardless of circuit court’s statutory analysis; no reversal needed | AK Steel: circuit court misapplied NREPA and dismissal proper if rule 7.104 applied | Court affirmed denial of dismissal but on different grounds (APA/MCR 7.119), applying harmless‑error principle to uphold correct result reached for wrong reason |
Key Cases Cited
- Glaubius v. Glaubius, 306 Mich. App. 157 (statutory interpretation; give effect to every word and avoid surplusage)
- Robinson v. City of Lansing, 486 Mich. 1 (statutes must be read as a whole; avoid isolated readings)
- Wolverine Power Supply Coop. v. Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 285 Mich. App. 548 (interpretation of §5506(14) concerning review of operating permits)
- Neville v. Neville (On Remand), 295 Mich. App. 460 (affirming correct result reached for wrong reason)