## Facts

- McCoy-Elkhorn Coal Corporation produced low-sulfur coal in Kentucky; Ohio Edison Company was an Ohio electric utility.
- Ohio’s sulfur-dioxide state implementation plan (SIP) allowed regulated sources to comply either by burning low-sulfur fuel or by installing flue-gas desulfurization scrubbers to burn high-sulfur coal.
- After the Ohio SIP was approved, several Ohio utilities chose to comply by purchasing low-sulfur coal rather than installing scrubbers.
- EPA initiated steps to implement Clean Air Act § 125 (42 U.S.C. § 7425) by proposing action that would require certain noncomplying major fuel-burning sources to use “locally or regionally available coal” to prevent significant local or regional economic disruption or unemployment in Ohio coal-producing counties.
- The proposed use requirement would tend to shift utility purchases toward high-sulfur Ohio coal (often requiring scrubbers) and away from imported low-sulfur coal, including McCoy-Elkhorn’s product.
- Before any final § 125 order issued, McCoy-Elkhorn and Ohio Edison filed suit asserting that § 125 is unconstitutional on its face.

## Issues

1. Whether Clean Air Act § 125, authorizing federal restrictions on use of non-local coal to prevent local economic disruption, exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power or impermissibly burdens interstate commerce.
2. Whether § 125 violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause on its face because its standards (e.g., “significant local or regional economic disruption or unemployment”) are unconstitutionally vague and/or delegate excessive discretion to the Executive.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding § 125.
- The court held that § 125 is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power as part of a comprehensive federal regulatory program affecting interstate commerce.
- The court held that § 125 is not facially void for vagueness and does not violate due process; the statutory standards are sufficiently definite for administrative application and judicial review.
- The court emphasized the facial posture: because no final § 125 order had issued, objections to particular applications were left for future as-applied review.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may regulate major fuel-burning sources and related fuel-choice decisions under the Commerce Clause when those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, including within a broader environmental regulatory scheme.
- A federal statute is not invalid on its face merely because it influences geographic sourcing of commodities; Congress may adopt such measures if rationally related to legitimate national objectives.
- In facial constitutional review of economic regulation, courts apply deferential review; imprecise terms may be permissible where agency fact-finding, notice procedures, and judicial review provide workable constraints.
- Vague-terms challenges are weaker where the statute channels discretion through required findings and administrative procedures and where concrete meaning can be tested through review of a final agency action.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Clean Air Act § 125 against facial Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment challenges, concluding that Congress could authorize restrictions favoring locally or regionally available coal as part of a national clean-air program and that the statute’s economic-disruption standard was sufficiently definite to permit administrative decisionmaking and judicial review.


McCoy-Elkhorn Coal Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 622 F.2d 260 (6th Cir. 1980)