ELR Citation: ELR 20164
No(s). 06-10714 (11th Cir. Jun 26, 2007)

The court upheld a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order in which it declined to object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) Title V permit granted to a power company by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division for the operation and construction of a major stationary source. An environmental group objected to the permit on grounds that the company is a part owner of another major stationary source that is not compliant with the CAA and therefore in violation of the Georgia Statewide Compliance Rule. But the term "owner . . . of . . . [a] major stationary source[ ]" is ambiguous. Nothing in the statutory language of the CAA or the Georgia rule answers the question of how EPA should define the phrase "owner . . . of . . . [a] major stationary source[ ]" for purposes of evaluating whether the power company should be denied a permit. The CAA and the Georgia rule do not speak in terms of ownership or operation of individual sources in a major stationary source. Instead, the language of these regulations refers, in a monolithic sense, to owning or operating a major stationary source. Neither Congress nor the Georgia Legislature has spoken directly to the question of whether a partial owner of a unit within a major stationary source should be considered an owner of the major stationary source as a whole for permitting purposes. Because EPA's interpretation is not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute, the court deferred to EPA's decision not to object to the company's Title V permit.