Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02238/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02238-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Bell
Appellee
Judith M. Espinosa
Appellant
New Mexico Environment Department
Appellant
Roswell Tower, Inc.
Appellee
Leonard Talbert
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUDITH M. ESPINOSA, in her official) 

capacity as Secretary of the New ) 

Mexico Environment Department; ) 

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

ROSWELL TOWER, INC.; RAY BELL; 

LEONARD TALBERT, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED -. ,.;;;~C: i.taf.tl.o Gourt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG t 1 1994_ 

No. 93-2238 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico 

(D.C. No. CIV-93-145-JC) 

Ripley B. Harwood (Geoffrey Sloan with him on the briefs), Special 

Assistant Attorney General, Assistants General Counsel, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Bruce S. Garber of Garber and Hallmark, Santa Fe, New Mexico (Timothy J. CUsack of CUsack, Jaramillo & Associates, Roswell, New 

Mexico, with him on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, LOGAN, Circuit Judge, and DAUGHERTY, 

District Judge.* 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

* The Honorable Frederick A. Daugherty, Senior United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District 

of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 93-2238 Document: 01019290218 Date Filed: 08/17/1994 Page: 1 
The New Mexico Environmental Department and its Secretary, 

Judith M. Espinosa (collectively NMED), brought suit against Roswell Tower, Inc., Ray Bell and Leonard Talbert (defendants) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seg.1 

The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; NMED 

appeals. The only issue on appeal is whether NMED can invoke federal jurisdiction to seek federal penalties under the Clean Air 

Act after having prevailed in a state enforcement suit. 

In 1991, NMED filed suit against these defendants in state 

court, alleging violations of the New Mexico Environmental 

Improvement Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 74-1-1 through 74-1-10. The 

state court entered judgment against defendants; an appeal is 

pending. NMED then filed suit in federal district court seeking 

damages for the same conduct under the Clean Air Act, and requesting that the district court recognize the state court judgment. 

The district court dismissed the suit, holding that although NMED 

could file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 7412 in federal court to enforce 

the state emission standards, it could not seek the federal penalties provided by 42 U.S.C. § 7413. The court then found that 

claim preclusion prevented NMED from bringing a federal suit. 

The Clean Air Act establishes dual responsibilities of the 

states and federal government for prevention and control of air 

pollution. The Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to set air quality standards, and allows each state to 

1 We refer to the sections of the Clean Air Act in effect at the 

time these alleged violations occurred. The 1990 amendments 

changed some of the sections we refer to; § 7412(d) was amended at 

that time and renumbered as§ 7412(~). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 93-2238 Document: 01019290218 Date Filed: 08/17/1994 Page: 2 
establish a state implementation plan (SIP) to implement and maintain those standards. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7409, 7410. The EPA has 

authority to accept or reject a proposed SIP, and may establish an 

implementation plan for states that do not submit a SIP that meets 

the Clean Air Act standards. Id. § 7410(c). The state implementation plan has the force and effect of federal law, thereby permitting the Administrator to enforce it in federal court. Id. 

§ 7413(a) and (b). 

In this case the New Mexico SIP was approved by the EPA. 

NMED argues that § 7412(d) provides for broad delegation of 

authority to states with SIPs to institute federal enforcement 

actions under§ 7413(b). Section 7412(d) provides: 

(d) State implementation and enforcement 

(1) Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator a procedure for implementing and enforcing emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for stationary sources located in such State. If the Administrator 

finds the State procedure is adequate, he shall delegate 

to such State any authority he has under this chapter to 

implement and enforce such standards. 

(2) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the 

Administrator from enforcing any applicable emission 

standard under this section. 

We read this language as delegating to the states with approved 

SIPs the primary responsibility to enforce the standards as manifested in that SIP. Admittedly the delegation language is broad, 

but § 7412(d) by its terms provides that the SIP include state 

enforcement provisions. The delegation of federal authority, we 

hold, is limited to state enforcement of the federally-approved 

SIP through the state administrative and judicial process, see EPA 

v. AM General Co~., 808 F. Supp. 1353, 1358 (N.D. Ind. 1992), or 

-3-

Appellate Case: 93-2238 Document: 01019290218 Date Filed: 08/17/1994 Page: 3 
possibly through citizens' suits pursuant to § 7604. See Union 

Elec. Co. v. EPA, 515 F.2d 206, 211 (8th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 427 

U.S. 246 (1976). The Administrator retains authority to enforce 

the SIP in federal court, acting as a supervisor to insure that 

the federal standards are met. See United States v. Continental 

Group, U.S.A., 595 F. Supp. 1021, 1023 (E.D. Wise. 1984). 

This reading of§ 7412(d) is consistent with the language of 

§ 7413(a) and (b) which states in part: 

(a) Finding of violation; notice; compliance 

order; civil action; State failure to enforce 

plan; construction or modification of major 

stationary sources 

(1) Whenever, on the basis of any information 

available to him, the Administrator finds that any person is in violation of any requirement of an applicable 

implementation plan, the Administrator shall notify the 

person in violation of the plan and the State in which 

the plan applies of such finding. If such violation 

extends beyond the 30th day after the date of the Administrator's notification, the Administrator may issue an 

order requiring such person to comply with the requirements of such plan or he may bring a civil action in 

accordance with subsection (b) of this section. 

(2) Whenever, on the basis of information available to him, the Administrator finds that violations of 

an applicable tmplementation plan are so widespread that 

such violationa appear to result from a failure of the 

State in which the plan applies to enforce the plan 

effectively, he aball so notify the State. If the 

Administrator finds such failure extends beyond the 30th 

day after such notice, he shall give public notice of 

such finding. During the period beginning with such 

public notice and ending when such State satisfies the 

Administrator that it will enforce such plan (hereafter 

referred to in this section as "period of federally 

assumed enforcement"), the Administrator may enforce any 

requirement of auch plan with respect to any person--

(B) by bringing a civil action under subsection 

(b) of this aection. 

-4-

' ! Appellate Case: 93-2238 Document: 01019290218 Date Filed: 08/17/1994 Page: 4 
{b) Violations by owners or operators of major 

stationary sources 

The Administrator shall, in the case of any person 

which is the owner or operator of a major stationary 

source, and may, in the case of any other person, commence a civil action for a permanent or temporary 

injunction, or to assess and recover a civil penalty of 

not more than $25,000 per day of violation, or both, 

whenever such person --

The Administrator may commence a civil action for recovery of any noncompliance penalty under section 7420 of 

this title or for recovery of any nonpayment penalty for 

which any person is liable under section 7420 of this 

title or for both. 

Section 7413 contains the procedural prerequisites before the 

Administrator may file suit. There is no language in the Act that 

authorizes a state to bring a federal enforcement action. Rather, 

§ 7413 is essentially a default provision providing that the 

Administrator will enforce the SIP when a state fails to do so. 

Cf. United States v. Louisiana-Pacific CokP., 682 F. Supp. 1122, 

1128 (D. Colo. 1987) (acknowledging that notice of violation is 

prerequisite to EPA enforcement suit under§ 7413(b)). The EPA 

approval of the New Mexico SIP provides for the Administrator to 

exercise "concurrent" authority with the state. Appellants' App. 

at 40-46. 

Section 7420 reflects similarly redundant procedures for the 

imposition of noncompliance penalties. States have the opportunity to develop a plan (for approval by the Administrator) for the 

assessment and collection of penalties; but the Administrator may 

-5-

' ' 

I . 

L 

[ 

Appellate Case: 93-2238 Document: 01019290218 Date Filed: 08/17/1994 Page: 5 
assess the penalty if a State fails to do so.2 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7420(a) (1); 7420(b) (1) and (b) (2). These provisions, along with 

the SIP enforcement mechanism, underscore the dual enforcement 

approach with the state government having primary control and federal action serving as, an enforcement safety net. Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 64 (1975). 

Finally, our reading of §§ 7412 and 7413 also is consistent 

with § 7416 which explicitly provides that state regulation of air 

pollution is preempted only insofar as any state regulation is 

less stringent than the SIP or the standard under §§ 7411 or 7412. 

Thus, a state may have other more restrictive air quality regulations that are not based on EPA standards. 

The few cases that have discussed the relationship of the 

state, federal and private enforcement process acknowledge the 

availability of jurisdictionally independent enforcement actions. 

See Union Elec., 515 F.2d at 211 (utility company petitioned for 

review of emission standard in SIP; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after extensive discussion of Clean Air Act procedures); 

United States v. Ford Motor Co., 736 F. Supp. 1539, 1549-51 (W.D. 

Mo. 1990) (in dispute whether SIP or a manufacturer's stateapproved alternative compliance plan is binding upon manufacturer, 

court noted that the Clean Air Act provided for independent federal enforcement, even if state had concluded manufacturer was in 

compliance with a SIP or the alternative compliance plan); United 

States v. SCM CokP., 615 F. Supp. 411, 414-20 (D. Md. 1985) 

2 we need not address whether a state action, regardless of the 

outcome, could be followed by a federal action for the same violation. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 93-2238 Document: 01019290218 Date Filed: 08/17/1994 Page: 6 "i 
(refusing to dismiss or stay a federal enforcement action because 

of administrative consent order entered into after federal notice 

of violation issued) . 

Only one court has concluded that the Clean Air Act intended 

the states to bring enforcement actions i~ federal courts under 

§ 7412. Alabama ex rel. Graddick v. Veterans Admin., 648 F. Supp. 

1208 (M.D. Ala. 1986). Graddick ruled that the Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management "cannot be said to be attempting to 

enforce state regulations without also being found to be enforcing 

federal regulations." Id. at 1211. We reject that analysis; it 

would seem to permit an unsuccessful 

federal action brought by a state to foreclose the Administrator 

from filing suit under the Clean Air Act. 

We hold that NMED may not bring an enforcement action in federal court under the Clean Air Act when it has previously brought 

a state court enforcement action for the same violation. For the 

reasons stated, we AFFIRM. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 93-2238 Document: 01019290218 Date Filed: 08/17/1994 Page: 7