Opinion ID: 1609412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: City of Prichard's Method

Text: The City of Prichard contends that § 335-13-5-.05 expressly sets forth the method by which permitted volume must be calculated. The City of Prichard bases this contention on its construction of the following relevant provisions: Permits may be modified at any time to include provisions of regulations or statute not in the existing permit.... (1) Permit modification shall be required utilizing forms designated by the Department when the permittee proposes to modify its operation in any of the following ways: (a) There is any change in the traditional or permitted service area.... (b) The average daily volume of waste specified by the permit for a disposal facility is proposed to be exceeded, or is exceeded for two or more consecutive reporting quarters, by 20 percent, or 100 tons/day, whichever is less. 1. The average daily volume of waste received at a disposal facility [`reported volume'] shall be calculated by dividing the total month's receipts by the total number of days in the reporting month. (Emphasis added.) The City of Prichard, construing the Honeycutt letter and § 335-13-5-.05(1)(b)1., contends that Brunson was required to request, within 45 days of the effective date of the amended rules, permission to store an average daily volume of waste, represented by a definite figure. This figure, it insists, was to be calculated according to the formula provided by § 335-13-5-.05(1)(b)1., namely, by dividing the total month's receipts by the total number of days in the reporting month. This figure was, it contends, to become the permitted average daily volume of the landfill. Brief of the Appellees, at 9. Under this analysis, because Brunson reported to ADEM that it had processed 0 average daily volumes of waste during the quarters ending September and December 1990, ADEM should have established 0 as Brunson's permitted volume. To be sure, subsections (b) and (b)1. each refer to a figure representing average daily volume. However, each subsection describes the figure differently, namely, [t]he average daily volume of waste specified by the permit that is, the permitted volumeand [t]he average daily volume of waste received,  respectively. (Emphasis added.) In support of its contention that § 335-13-5-.05 prescribes the method for computing permitted volume, the City of Prichard places an identical meaning upon both figures. In other words, it regards the method by which ADEM was to calculate a facility's permitted volume as identical to the formula used to calculate the facility's received volumeat least as to the quarter ending after the facility's first obligation to report. The validity of the City of Prichard's construction of § 335-13-5-.05 turns on whether that construction is consistent with ADEM's interpretation. This is so, because the interpretation of an agency regulation by the promulgating agency carries `controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.' United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 872, 97 S.Ct. 2150, 2155, 53 L.Ed.2d 48 (1977) (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945)); see also Parker v. Bowen, 788 F.2d 1512, 1518 (11th Cir.1986); Strength v. Alabama Dep't of Finance, 622 So.2d 1283, 1287-88 (Ala.1993). That ADEM does not construe § 335-13-5-.05 in the manner advocated by the City of Prichard was evident at trial. For example, considerable testimony was directed to four important sentences contained in the Honeycutt letter of September 24, 1990, which sentences are as follows: [1] Rule 335-13-5-.05 requires all disposal facilities, both `sanitary landfills' and `landfills' to submit in writing within 45 days the average daily volume of waste received and the geographical area normally or traditionally served by the facility. [2] Those facilities who have previously furnished this information to the Department will not be required to resubmit the information. [3] In addition, all facilities must report their volumes in the format specified. [4] Attached is a sample reporting form. Sue Robertson, who served as ADEM's chief of land division, conceded that these instructions were poorly worded and that the confusion generated thereby had prompted a number of waste facility operators to contact ADEM for clarification. She testified, however, that ADEM was, in these four sentences, actually soliciting two calculations. Sentences one and two, she stated, referred to the permitted baseline historical data to be submitted once within 45 days of the effective date of the amended rulesfor use in determining a waste facility's permitted volume, that is, pursuant to § 335-13-5-.05( b ). She explained that when waste facility operators contacted ADEM for clarification of [w]hat they were to submit `within 45 days,' they were told to look at what they were doing [and] to look at what they were expecting to do in the forthcoming years [and] months in their particular area, and to give them[selves] some [room for] growth some comfort. Additionally, she testified that ADEM did not mean or expect that facilities would make [the] submission [sought in sentences one and two] using the calculation method specified in [§ 335-13-5-.05(b)1.] [6] These aspects of Robertson's testimony were fully corroborated by the testimony of Russell Kelly, who, at the time of trial, was occupying the position formerly held by Honeycutt. Moreover, the record contains no evidence that ADEM, in practice, used the method advocated by the City of Prichard to establish permitted volumes. Indeed, the City of Prichard concedes that the volume for most facilities was actually established by a different method instituted by Jack Honeycutt.... Using the `Honeycutt Rule' each landfill operator would simply tell ADEM what volume it wanted and, if ... Honeycutt believed it to be reasonable, ADEM would set that volume as the landfill's permitted daily volume. Brief of Appellee, at 32. We conclude, therefore, that ADEM, unlike the City of Prichard, does not equate the method used to calculate a facility's permitted volume with the formula used to calculate its quarterly reported volumes. [7] Because ADEM's construction is controlling, § 335-13-5-.05 must not be understood as containing a formula or method for calculating permitted volume. Brunson's permit was not invalid, therefore, on the ground that the permitted volume had not been calculated according to the formula set forth in § 335-13-5-.05(b)1. It does not follow, however, that the method by which ADEM did establish the permitted volume, and, consequently, the volume that was established thereby, was valid.