FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 22 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15324

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 2 2 7 9 - C V- HS - NW S I E R R A C L U B , A L A B A M A E N V I R O N M E N T A L C O U N C I L , I N C ., P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s T E N N E S S E E V A L L E Y A U T H O R I T Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t h e No r t h e r n Di s t r i c t o f Al a b a ma

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 22, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: I n th i s c a s e th e S i e rr aC l u b a n d th e Al ab a m aE n v i r o n m e n t a l C o u n c i l , two e n v ir o n m e n ta l g r o u p s , s u e d th e T e n n e s s e e V a lle y A u th o r ity u n d e rth e C le a n A ir2

A ct , 4 2 U . S . C . § § 7 4 0 1 etseq . , cl ai m i n g th atT V A ’ s p l an ti n C o l b ertC o u n ty, A l aba m avi ol a t e d the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on, A l a . A dm i n. C ode r . 335- 3- 4-

. 01( 1) ( a ) , w hi c h i s pa rtof A l aba m a ’ s s t a t e i m pl e m e nt a t i on pl a n ( S I P ) appr ove d by the E nv i ronm ent al P rot ec t i on A gency. T he com pl ai ntal l eged thatthere w er e m ore tha n 8, 900 vi ol a t i ons dur i ng the f i ve - y e a rpe r i od f

r om 1997 t o 2002, a nd i ts ought d ecl arat o ry an d i n

j u n ct i v e rel i ef, as w el l as th e i m p o si t i o n o f ci v i l p en al t i es. T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o T V A f ortw o r e a s ons . O ne o f th o s e r e a s o n s ap p lie s to a ll o f th e a lle g e d v io la tio n s ; th e o th e ro n e ap p lie s o n ly t o the al l eged vi ol at i on s occ urri ng before M ay20 , 19 99 . T he re as on w i th b roader appl i c a t i on i s tha ta l l of the a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons a tthe C ol be rtP l a nta r e w i thi n the f or gi ve ne s s z one of

the A l aba m aD e pa rtm e ntof E nvi r onm e nt a l M a na ge m e nt (A D E M )’ s s o-ca l l ed “ 2% de m i ni m i s rul e. ” T hatrul e w as i ni t i al l y j usta pra ct i ce , butha s s i nc e be e n f

orm a l l y a dopt e d a s ar e gul a t i on, A l a . A dm i n. C ode r . 335- 3- 4- .0 1 ( 4 ) ; it h a s n o t, h o w e v e r , e v e rb e e n p a rt o f A lab a m a ’s S I P . T h e s e c o n d r e a s o n th e c o u rtg a v e f o rg r a n t i n g s u m m a ry j u d g m e n tt o T VA w as b as ed o n th e c o u rt’s b elief th at d ata g en er ated b y th e C o lb er t p lan t’ s cont i nu ou s opaci ty m on i t ori ng sy st em (“ C O M S ”) , w hi ch i s a l l the evi dence there i s , c a nnotbe us e d t o e s t abl i s h opa c i ty vi ol a t i ons tha toc c urr e d be f or e M a y 20, 19 99 , the dat e A D E M adop t ed i t s “ cr edi bl e e vi dence rul e, ” A l a. A dm i n. C od e r .3

3 3 5 - 3 - 1 - .1 3 ( 2 ) . T he di stri ctcourtal so concl ud ed thateven i f opaci ty vi ol at i on s a t the pl a ntw e r e e s t abl i s he d, w hi c h w oul d e nt i t l e the pl a i nt i f f gr oups t o i nj unc t i ve a nd de c l a r a t ory r e l i e f

, s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty pr i nc i pl e s w oul d ba rthe a s s e s s m e ntof ci v i l p en al t i es. T h is is th e ap p e a l o f

th e tw o p la in tif

f g r o u p s , w h ic h w e w ill b e r e f e rr in g to c o lle c tiv e ly a s “th e S ie rr aC lu b ,” e x c e p t w h e r e th e c o n te x t r e q u ir e s s e p a r a te r e f e r e nc e . T he S i e rr aC l ub c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s tw o ba s e s f orthe f i ndi ng th a t it h a d f

a ile d to p r o v e a n y v io la tio n s , a n d th e a d d itio n a l ru lin g th a t e v e n if it h a d s u c c e e d e d , c iv il p e n a ltie s s h o u ld n o t b e a s s e s s e d a g a in s t T V A . We d i s a g r e e wi th th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s b a s i s f o rd e n y i n g a n y r e l i e f

, b e c au s e we a gr e e w i th the S i e rr aC l ub tha tA D E M ’ s us e of the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e thr oughout th e p e r io d in q u e s tio n w a s a n ille g a l, u n ila te r a l m o d if ic a tio n o f

th e A lab a m aS I P . Itw as no t , as urged b y T V A and the S t at e of A l abam a ( appeari ng here as an am i cus c uri ae ), si m pl y an i nt erpret at i on of A l abam a’ s c re di bl e e vi dence rul e w hi ch i s partof i t s S IP . H ow ever , w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourtthatthe S i erraC l ub has note s t abl i s he d a ny vi ol a t i ons of the opa c i ty r e qui r e m e ntbe f or e M a y 20, 1999, be c aus e a l l i tha s i s C O M S da t a , a nd tha tda t ac a nnotbe us e d t o s how vi ol a t i ons before A l abam a a do pt ed i t s c re di bl e e vi dence rul e on thatdat e. W e a ls o a g r e e w ith4

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity p r in c ip le s b a rth e a s s e s s m e n t o f c iv il p e n a ltie s a g a in s t T V A in aC le a n A irA c t c itiz e n s s u it s u c h a s th is o n e . A f t e rw e s e toutthe f

a c t s a nd appl i c abl e l a w i n s om e de t a i l a nd e xpl a i n our r e a s oni ng i n m or e de pth, w e w i l l a f f i rm the gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof T VA wi th r e s p e c tt o th e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s o c c u rr i n g b e f o r e Ma y 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , b u twe w i l l r e ve r s e the gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntw i th r e s pe c tt o vi ol a t i ons oc c urr i ng on ora f t e rM a y 20, 1999. W e w ill a ls o a f f irm th e g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to T V A i n so far as i td i sal l o w s ci v i l p en al t i es. I. T V A o p e r a te s e le v e n c o a l- f ir e d e le c tr ic p o w e rp la n ts th a t g e n e r a te e le c tr ic ity for c ust om er s i n seven st at es . O ne of them i s the C ol bertpl antw hi ch i s l ocat ed aboutt e n m i l e s w e s tof

T us c um bi a , A l aba m a , on the T e nne s s e e R i ve ri n the n o rth w e s t c o rn e ro f

A lab a m a . T h e C o l b ertp l an th as fi v e g en erat o r u n i t s. T o g en erat e el ectri ci ty, p u lv e r iz e d c o a l is b u rn e d in th e f u rn a c e o f

au n it p r o d u c in g h e a t th a t is u s e d to conv ertw at eri nt o st ea m . T he st ea m i s transform ed i nt o rot at i on al ener gy, w hi ch i n turn i s c onve rt e d by age ne r a t ori nt o e l e c tr i c i ty t o be di s tr i but e d thr oughoutthe T V A po w ergri d. T he coal com bu st i on proces s a l so re l ea se s by- prod uct s that be c om e a i rpol l ut a nt s i f the y a r e notc aptur e d. T he pl a nt ’ s pol l ut i on pr e ve nt i on5

e qui pm e ntdoe s c aptur e as i gni f i c a nta m ountof

the pol l ut a nt s ( a s m uc h a s 99. 9% o f s o m e o f th e m ) , b u tth e r e m a i n d e ri s r e l e a s e d i n t o th e a tm o s p h e r e th r o u g h two ta ll s m o k e s ta c k s . T h e a m o u n t o f a irp o llu tio n is s u b s ta n tia l in ab s o lu te te rm s : in 1 9 9 9 , f o re x a m p le , th e C o lb e rt p la n t e m itte d m o r e th a n 9 0 ,0 0 0 to n s o f a ir p o l l u t an t s. A tthe t i m e thi s l aw sui tw as fi l ed, the C ol bertpl antw as op er at i ng un der perm i t s A D E M had i ss ued i n M ar ch 19 98 . O ne of the re qu i re m ent s of the C ol bert p la n t’s a irp e rm its is th a t T V A in s ta ll, m a in ta in , a n d o p e r a te ac o n tin u o u s o p a c ity m on i t ori ng sy st em (“ C O M S ”) i n eac h o f the pl ant ’ s s m ok es t ac ks. S ee A l a. A dm i n. C od e r . 33 5-3-12 -. 02 (3). A s i t s nam e i nd i ca t es , C O M S i s adevi ce that m on i t ors c on t i nu ou sl y the op ac i ty of apl um e of s m ok e. O pa c i ty i s one of

the m os tba s i c e m i s s i on l i m i t a t i ons i m pos e d on s our c e s of part i cul at e a i r pol l ut i on such as the C ol bertpl ant ’ s tw o sm ok es t ac ks. T he t erm

“ opa c i ty ” r e f

e r s t o the e xt e ntt o w hi c h apl um e of s m oke “ r e duc e [ s ] the tr a ns m i s s i on of

l i ghta nd obs c ur e [ s ] the vi e w of the ba c kgr ound. ” A l a . A dm i n. C ode r . 335- 3- 1- . 02( 1) ( tt ) . F ore xa m pl e , apl um e w i th 20% opa c i ty bl oc ks 20% of l i g h tp assi n g th ro u g h i t ; n o l i g h tp asses th ro u g h a p l u m e w i th 1 0 0 % o p aci ty. O pa c i ty i s notapol l ut a nt , buti ns t e a d i s am e a s ur e of the l i ght - bl oc ki ng pr ope rty of a pl ant ’ s e m i ss i on s, w hi ch i s i m po rt anti n the C l ean A i r A ctre gu l at ory s chem e a s6

an i n d i cat o r o f th e am o u n to f v i si b l e p art i cu l at e p o l l u t i o n b ei n g d i sch arg ed b y a source . C O M S m e a s ur e s opa c i ty by pr oj e c t i ng abe a m of l i ghta c r os s the i nt e r i or di a m e t e rof

as m oke s t a c k t o am i rr orm ount e d on the oppos i t e s i de of the s m o k e s t a c kw a l l a n d m e a s u r i n g h o w m u c h o f th e l i g h ti s r e f

l e c t e d b a c k . C O MS th e n r e c o r d s th e a m o u n t o f lig h t th a t w a s ab s o rb e d o rs c a tte r e d o n th e tr ip . I t is un di sput ed thatatal l re l evantt i m es ea ch of the C ol bertpl antC O M S has fu n ct i o n ed p ro p erl y, accu rat el y m easu ri n g o p aci ty. II. A s r e q u ir e d b y S e c tio n 1 1 0 o f th e C le a n A irA c t, 4 2 U .S .C . § 7 4 1 0 , th e S ta te of A l abam a m ai nt ai ns a s t at e i m pl em ent at i on pl an (“ S IP ”) t o enforce nat i on al am bi entai r qual i ty s t andards devel op ed by E P A . Id. § 7 41 0(a) (1). A l abam a’ s S IP i s c odi f i e d a t40 C . F . R . § 52. 69. I ti nc orpor a t e s by r e f e r e nc e c e rt a i n pr ovi s i ons of A D E M ’ s A i r P ol l ut i on C on trol P rogram re gu l at i on s s etou tatA l a. A dm i n. C od e r . 33 5-3-1 etse q. , se e 40 C . F . R . § 5 2. 69 . S om e provi si on s, ho w ever , have no tbeen appr ove d by E P A a nd the r e f or e a r e notpa rtof

the A l aba m aS I P . T hr e e pr ovi s i ons of the A D E M r e gul a t i ons a r e a ti s s ue i n thi s c a s e : ( 1) the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on, A l a . A dm i n. C ode r . 335- 3- 4- . 01( 1) - ( 2) ; ( 2) the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e , A l a . A dm i n.7

C od e r . 33 5-3-4-. 01 (4); and (3) the cr edi bl e e vi dence rul e, A l a. A dm i n. C od e r . 33 5-3-1-. 13 (2). A. T he fi rs tprov i si on , A l abam a’ s opaci ty l i m i t at i on , i s i ncorpo ra t ed i nt o i t s S IP a nd pr ovi de s a s f

ol l ow s : “ [ N ] o pe r s on s ha l l di s c ha r ge i nt o the a tm os phe r e f r om any s ou rc e of e m i ss i on , part i cul at e of a n o paci ty gre at erthan thatdesi gn at ed as tw enty per ce nt(20% ) opaci ty, as det erm i ned b y asi x (6) m i nu t e a vera ge. ” A l a. A dm i n. C od e r . 33 5-3-4-. 01 (1)( a) (“ V i si bl e E m i ss i on s R es tri ct i on s f or S t at i on ary S o u r c e s ” ) . T h e o p a c ity p r o v is io n c o n ta in s f o u re x c e p tio n s to th e 2 0 % lim ita tio n : ( 1) a n e xc e pt i on tha ta l l ow s a ny s our c e t o e m i tapl um e w i th opa c i ty of up t o 40% f orone s i x- m i nut e pe r i od pe rhour ; ( 2) as our c e - s pe c i f i c e xc e pt i on f

or“ s t a rtup, s hut dow n, l oa d c ha nge , a nd r a t e c ha nge orothe rs hort , i nt e rm i tt e ntpe r i ods upon t erm s ap p ro v ed b y th e D i rect o r [o f A D E M ] an d m ad e a p arto f [th e so u rce’s ] p e rm it” ; ( 3 ) a n e x c e p tio n th a t a llo w s th e D ir e c to ro f A D E M to a d

ju s t th e o p a c ity lim ita tio n f

o ras o u r c e th a t d is c h a r g e s ap o llu ta n t f o rw h ic h th e r e is n o a m b ie n t a ir qu al i ty s t andard; and (4) a dom es t i c s ou rc e e xcept i on . Id. r. 33 5-3-4-. 01 (1)( b)–(e) . A s r e q u ir e d b y its a irp e rm its , T V A s u b m its q u a rte r ly e x c e s s e m is s io n s r e p o rts th a t in d ic a te th e to ta l n u m b e ro f s ix - m in u te p e r io d s d u r in g w h ic h p lu m e o p a c ityAn alternativ eto M e tho d 9 , c ontaine d in an E PA re gulatio n, is t

heus eof a mob ile 1 “lidar”(“Laser

Radar”or “Light Detection and Ranging” ) system. The Lidar system g enerates its own light sourceand may be used to mea sure opacity remotely at any time, day or night. 40 C.F .R. Pt. 60 , App . A -4 , A lt. Metho d 1 . Lida r i s operate d b y

an obs erv er o n th eground whil e COMS uses equipment mounted inside the smokestack itself. TheSierra Club describes Lidar a s “[a] second method for determiningopacity compliance .” TVAsays that Lidar is not prescribed fo r u sea s a

c omp lia nc ete st b y

Al a bama ’sre gulatio ns . It does not matter, bec ause everyone agree s that no Lidar data was submitted in this case. F or that re ason, wewill ignoreLidar when we a re talking a

bout the regulations and the issues arising from them. 8 d at a g en erat ed b y each o f i t s C O M S sh o w ed th ato p aci ty ex ceed ed 2 0 % . S ee al so i d. r. 33 5-3-1-. 04 (2)( d). A lab a m a ’s o p a c ity r e g u la tio n a ls o p r o v id e s th a t “[ c ]o m p lia n c e w ith o p a c ity s ta n d a r d s . . . s h a ll b e d e te rm in e d b y c o n d u c tin g o b s e rv a tio n s in a c c o r d a n c e w ith R e f e r e nc e M e thod 9 . . . . ” I d. r . 335- 3- 4- . 01( 2) . R e f e r e nc e M e thod 9 r e l i e s on a s ta te - c e rtif

ie d o b s e rv e rv is u a lly g au g in g th e o p a c ity o f ap lu m e o f

s m o k e a s it l ea ves asm ok es t ac k. 40 C . F . R . P t . 60 , A pp . A -4, M etho d 9 . T he m etho d p rovi des the m i ni m um qu al i fi ca t i on s f or ce rt i fi ca t i on of ob se rver s and ou t l i nes procedures th a t th e y s h o u ld f

o llo w in th e f

ie ld . I d . M e th o d 9 § § 2 - 3 . U n d e rM e th o d 9 , o p a c ity ob se rvat i on s are cond uct ed on l y per i od i ca l l y; i n a ye ara typi ca l source i s t es t ed u n d er M eth o d 9 o n n o tm o re th an fi ft een d ays an d as i n freq u en t l y as o n o n e d ay. A no ther draw back of M etho d 9 i s thatob se rvat i on s gener al l y m aybe perf orm ed o n ly d u r in g d a y lig h t. C ons pi c uous l y abs e ntf

r om both A l a . A dm i n. C ode r . 335- 3- 4- . 01( 2) a nd M e th o d 9 is au th o r iz a tio n to m e a s u r e o p a c ity u s in g C O M S . M o r e ab o u t th a t la te r . 19 B. T he s e c ond pr ovi s i on of the A D E M r e gul a t i ons a ti s s ue i n thi s c a s e i s the s oc a lle d “2 % d e m in im is ru le .” I t p r o v id e s as a f e h a rb o rf

r o m th e 2 0 % o p a c ity l i m i t a t i on i f

“ [ d] ur i ng e a c h c a l e nda rqua rt e r , . . . the non- e xe m pte xc e s s e m i s s i ons pe r i ods do note xc e e d 2. 0 pe r c e ntof the s our c e ope r a t i ng hour s f orw hi c h the op ac i ty s t andard i s app l i cabl e and for w hi ch the C O M S i s i nd i ca t i ng val i d d at a. ” A l a. A d m i n . C o d e r. 3 3 5 -3 -4 -. 0 1 (4 ); see al so i d . r. 3 3 5 -3 -4 -. 0 1 (3 ). In o th er w o rd s, unde rthi s rul e T V A ’ s e m i s s i ons , a s m e a s ur e d by C O M S , m a y e xc e e d the 20% op ac i ty l i m i t at i on for up t o tw o p er ce ntof the op er at i ng ho urs of the pl anti n eac h qu art er , m ea sure d i n si x-m i nu t e i nt erval s and excl ud i ng t i m es du ri ng w hi ch an ex cep t i o n ap p l i es. Th e 2 % d e mi n i mi s ru l e wa s n o to f f i c i a l l y a d o p t e d a s p a rto f th e AD EM r e g u la tio n s u n til O c to b e r2 0 0 3 , m o r e th a n o n e y e a ra f te rth e S ie rr aC lu b f

ile d th is la w s u it. B e f

o r e f o rm a lly a d o p tin g th e ru le in O c to b e r2 0 0 3 a n d s u b m ittin g it to E P A as a S IP re vi si on , A D E M fol l ow ed the rul e i n p ra ct i ce . Iti s the rul e a s an A D E M “ p ract i ce”— i n st ead o f th e l at er, fo rm al em b o d i m en to f i tas a r e gul a t i on— tha ti s a ti s s ue i n thi s c a s e . T he rul e i s not

— a nd ha s ne ve rbe e n— a p a rt o f th e A lab a m aS I P , b e c au s e E P A h a s n e v e rap p r o v e d it.10 C. T h e th ir d p r o v is io n o f

th e A D E M r e g u la tio n s a t is s u e is A lab a m a ’s c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le , w h ic h b e c a m e e f f e c tiv e M a y 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 . T h a t ru le p r o v id e s in p er ti n en t p ar t: “N o tw ith stan d in g an y o th erp ro v isio n in [th e A D E M re g u lati o n s], any c re di bl e e vi dence or i nform at i on re l evantt o w hether asource w ou l d h ave been i n c om pl i a nc e w i th appl i c abl e r e qui r e m e nt s i f the appr opr i a t e pe r f

orm a nc e or com pl i ance t es thad b ee n p er form ed, can b e use d t o est abl i sh w hether or ano tan o w n e ro ro p e r a to rh a s v io la te d o ris in v io la tio n o f a n y ru le o rs ta n d a r d in th is D i vi si on . ” A l a. A dm i n. C od e r . 33 5-3-1-. 13 (2). T he E P A m andat ed thatea ch s t a t e a dopti t s ow n c r e di bl e e vi de nc e rul e i n pa rt“ t o c l a r i f y tha tthe i nc l us i on i n a s t a t e i m pl e m e nt a t i on pl a n ( S I P ) of e nf or c e abl e t e s tm e thods f

orS I P e m i s s i ons l i m i t s doe s notpr e c l ude e nf or c e m e ntba s e d on othe rc r e di bl e e vi de nc e or i nf orm a t i on . . . . ” C r e di bl e E vi de nc e R e vi s i ons , 62 F e d. R e g. 8314, 8316 ( F e b. 24, 1997) ( t o be c odi f

i e d a t40 C . F . R . pt s . 51, 52, 60, a nd 61) ( di s c us s i ng r e vi s i on t o 40 C . F . R . § 51. 212( c ) , w hi c h r e qui r e s e a c h S I P t o i nc l ude pr ovi s i ons f or e n f o r c e ab le te s t m e th o d s f

o rd e te rm in in g c o m p lia n c e w ith e m is s io n lim its ) . A s w e di sc uss j ustbel ow , the di stri ctcourtfoun d and the part i es agre e that th e c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le au th o r iz e s u s in g C O M S d a tato e s tab lis h o p a c ity vi ol a t i ons on ora f

t e ri t s e f f e c t i ve da t e , M a y 20, 1999.11 III. O n S ept em ber 16, 20 02 , the S i erraC l ub sued T V A i n the N orthern D i stri ct of A l aba m a , a l l e gi ng 8, 933 vi ol a t i ons of A l aba m a ’ s 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on a tthe C ol be rtpl a ntf

r om the be gi nni ng of

the thi r d qua rt e rof

1997 thr ough the e nd of the s e c ond qua rt e rof

2002. T he S i e rr aC l ub c a l c ul a t e d the num be rof vi ol a t i ons us i ng th e C o l b ertp l an t ’ s C O M S d at a su b m i tt ed t o A D E M i n T V A ’ s q u art erl y ex cess e m i s s i o n s r e p o rt s f

o rth e p l a n t . T h e S i e rr aC l u b s o u g h t : ad e c l a r a t i o n th a tT VA had v i ol at ed the C l ean A i r A ct , i t s a i r perm i t , and the A l abam a S IP ; a pre l i m i nary and a perm anenti nj un ct i on agai nstthe vi ol at i on s; a c i vi l penal ty of $27 , 50 0 p er da y f ore a c h of

T V A ’ s vi ol a t i ons ; a nd a n a s s e s s m e ntof a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s a nd litig a tio n c o s ts . In Janu ary 200 3 T V A m ov ed for part i al sum m ary j ud gm enton the S i erra C l ub’ s c l a i m s f

orc i vi l pe na l t i e s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d tha tm ot i on on s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty gr ounds , c i t i ng D e pa rtm e ntof E ne r gy v. O hi o, 503 U . S . 607, 112 S . C t . 1627 ( 1992) ( hol di ng tha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s ha d notw a i ve d s ove r e i gn i m m un i ty f

rom l i abi l i ty f

or ci vi l fi nes ari si ng fr om pastvi ol at i on s of the C l ean W at erA ctor the R es ou rc e C on se rvat i on and R ec ov ery A ct ). In A ug ust20 03 the S i erraC l ub and T V A fi l ed cr oss- m ot i on s f or sum m ary j udgm e nton the r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s f orde c l a r a t ory a nd i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f . A tthe12

he a r i ng on thos e m ot i ons , T V A c onc e de d tha tthe C O M S da t as how s tha tdur i ng the r e l e va ntf

i ve - y e a rt i m e pe r i od the C ol be rtpl a nte xc e e de d 20% opa c i ty 8, 933 tim e s . No n e th e l e s s , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtg r a n t e d s u m m a ry j u d g m e n ti n f a v o ro f T VA . T he c ourthe l d tha tC O M S da t ac oul d notbe us e d t o pr ove vi ol a t i ons of the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on pr i ort o the e f f e c t i ve da t e of

A D E M ’ s c r e di bl e e vi de nc e rul e on M a y 20, 1999. B e c aus e the C O M S da t ai s the onl y e vi de nc e of vi ol a t i ons a tthe C ol bertpl antand the S i erraC l ub has no R ef er ence M etho d 9 dat a, the di stri ct courtconcl ud ed thatT V A w as ent i t l ed t o j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw on the S i erra C l ub’ s c l a i m s f

orde c l a r a t ory a nd i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f a r i s i ng f r om the pr e - M a y 20, 1 9 9 9 v i o l at i o n s. W i th r e s p e c tt o v i o l a t i o n s o c c u rr i n g a f t e rth e c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e ru l e b e c a me e f f e c t i ve on M a y 20, 1999, the di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tC O M S da t am a y be

“ prop er l y c on si dere d. ” A dd re ss i ng the al l eged vi ol at i on s occ urri ng on or af t erthat e f f e c tiv e d a te , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f ir s t d e te rm in e d th a t A D E M h a d c o n s is te n tly em pl oyed the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e i n d et erm i ni ng w hether C O M S dat a s ho w ed vi ol at i on s of the 20 % op ac i ty l i m i t at i on even before the rul e w as form al l y a do pt ed in 2 0 0 3 . T h e c o u rt o b s e rv e d th a t “[ t]h e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t A D E M e v e rto ld T V A tha tthe C O M s da t as how e d avi ol a t i on, de s pi t e e xc e e da nc e s above 20% on13

nu m er ou s occ as i on s. ” A dd i t i on al l y, the courtno t ed thatw hen A D E M prop osed th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le f o ra d o p tio n a s p a rt o f

th e r e g u la tio n s , it s ta te d th a t th e ru le “‘w o u ld s e rv e to c o d if

y th e p r a c tic e s th a t [ A D E M ] h a s b e e n a n d is c u rr e n tly u ti li zin g re g ar d in g C O M S d ata.’” T he di s tr i c tc ourtappa r e nt l y c ons true d A D E M ’ s unof f i c i a l pr a c t i c e of

us i ng the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e bef ore i t s i ncorpo ra t i on i nt o the re gu l at i on s i n O ct ob er 20 03 t o b e an i nt erpret at i on of the cr edi bl e e vi dence rul e. T he courtexpl ai ned that i tm ustdefe r t o A D E M ’ s i nt erpret at i on of the A D E M re gu l at i on s i f r ea sonabl e. T he c ourtthe n de t e rm i ne d tha tus i ng C O M S da t ai ns t e a d of pe r i odi c M e thod 9 obs e rva t i ons t o de t e rm i ne opa c i ty vi ol a t i ons w oul d i nc r e a s e the s tr i nge nc y of the 20 % op ac i ty l i m i t at i on . A l tho ug h i tdi d n otexpl i ci t l y s t at e i t s r at i on al e, the court ap p a r e n tly f

o u n d th a t A D E M ’s u s e o f th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le w a s r e a s o n ab le in l i ghtof w ha ti tc ons i de r e d t o be the i nc r e a s e d s tr i nge nc y of the opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on w h en C O M S d at a, i n st ead o f M eth o d 9 , w as u sed t o m easu re v i o l at i o n s. A ppl y i ng th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o u n d th a t th e C o lb e rt p la n t’s C O M S d a ta di d nots how a ny vi ol a t i ons of the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on on ora f t e rM a y 20, 1999. S o, i tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o T V A on tha tpa rtof the c a s e , a l s o.14 I V. I n the di s tr i c tc ourtT V A s oughtdi s m i s s a l of the l a w s ui ton gr ounds tha tthe tw o p l ai nt i ff

grou ps l ac ked st andi ng . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otaddres s the i ss ue, a nd T V A ha s notr e ne w e d i t s s t a ndi ng a r gum e nt s on appe a l . T ha tdoe s nott a ke the i s s ue of f the t abl e , how e ve r , be c aus e “ w e a r e obl i ge d t o c ons i de rque s t i ons of s t a ndi ng r e ga r dl e s s of

w he the rthe pa rt i e s ha ve r a i s e d the m . ” B oc he s e v. T ow n of P onc e I nl e t , 405 F . 3d 964, 975 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e de c i de s t a ndi ng i s s ue s de novo. I d. T he ba s i c s a r e f

a m i l i a r . A n i ndi vi dua l pl a i nt i f f ha s s t a ndi ng unde rthe C ons t i tut i on’ s c a s e - or - c ontr ove r s y l i m i t a t i on, A rt . I I I , § 2, w he r e “ ( 1) [ the pl a i nt i f f ] ha s s uf f e r e d a n ‘ i nj ury i n f

a c t ’ tha ti s ( a ) c onc r e t e a nd pa rt i c ul a r i z e d a nd ( b ) a c tu a l o rim m in e n t, n o t c o n je c tu r a l o rh yp o th e tic a l; ( 2 ) th e in ju ry is f a ir ly tra ce abl e t o the chal l enged act i on of the defendant ; and (3) i ti s l i kel y, as op po se d t o m er el y s pecul at i ve, thatthe i nj ury w i l l be re dres se d b y afa vo rabl e dec i si on . ” F r i e nds of

the E a rth, I nc . v. L a i dl a w E nvt l . S e rvs . ( T O C ) , I nc . , 528 U . S . 167, 180–81, 120 S . C t . 693, 704 ( 2000) ( c i t i ng L uj a n v. D e f e nde r s of W i l dl i f e , 504 U . S . 5 5 5 , 5 6 0

– 5 6 1 , 1 1 2 S . C t . 2 1 3 0 (1 9 9 2 )). T h e tw o p l ai n t i ff g ro u p s i n th i s case ar e the S i erraC l ub and the A l abam a E nv i ronm ent al C ou nci l . A n ass oci at i on “ has s ta n d in g to b r in g s u it o n b e h a lf o f its m e m b e r s w h e n [ 1 ] its m e m b e r s w o u ld15

otherw i se have st andi ng t o sue i n thei r ow n ri gh t , [2] the i nt er es t s a tst ake a re ge rm a ne t o the or ga ni z a t i on’ s purpos e , a nd [ 3] ne i the rthe c l a i m a s s e rt e d northe re l i ef re qu es t ed re qu i re s the part i ci pat i on of i nd i vi du al m em bers i n the l aw sui t . ” Id. at18 1, 12 0 S . C t . at70 4. S t andi ng has t o exi stfor e ac h cat egory of r el i ef s o u g h t, n o t o n ly f

o rd e c la r a to ry a n d in

ju n c tiv e r e lie f

, b u t a ls o f

o rc iv il p e n a ltie s . I d. a t184, 120 S . C t . a t706. T he fi rs tre qu i re m entof as soci at i on al st andi ng i s thatatl ea ston e m em ber m ee t s the three re qu i re m ent s of i nd i vi du al st andi ng . In envi ronm ent al ca se , an i ndi vi dua l pl a i nt i f

f m a y s how the f

i r s tof thos e r e qui r e m e nt s , i nj ury i n f a c t , by att es t i ng thathe uses , or w ou l d u se m ore f re qu ent l y, an ar eaaf

fe ct ed by the al l eged vi ol at i on s and thathi s a es thet i c or r ec re at i on al i nt er es t s i n the ar eahave been harm ed. S ee i d. at18 3– 84 , 12 0 S . C t . at70 5– 06 ; se e a l so P arker v. S cr ap M et al P r oc e s s or s , I nc . , 386 F . 3d 993, 1004 n. 11 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ; N a t ’ l P a rks C o n s e rv a tio n A s s ’n v . N o rto n , 3 2 4 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 4 2

– 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . M e m be r s of

the S i e rr aC l ub a nd the A l aba m aE nvi r onm e nt a l C ounc i l ha ve done th a t in th is c a s e . F or exam pl e, D usty D . F arned, an A l abam a E nv i ronm ent al C ou nci l m em ber, s t a t e d i n a n a f

f i da vi ttha the r e gul a r l y s a w pl um e s of s m oke f r om the C ol be rtpl a nt a s he dr ove a c r os s abr i dge ove rthe T e nne s s e e R i ve rt o ge tt o hi gh s c hool f r om16

1 9 9 7 to 2 0 0 1 . F a rn e d a ls o a tte s te d th a t h e f in d s it “f r ig h te n in g ” to b r e a th e a ir po l l ut ed by the C ol bertpl ant ; thatvi st as i n the ar eaar ou nd the pl anthave been harm ed by i t s e m i ss i on s; and thathe re fr ai ns fr om bo at i ng and h un t i ng i n are as nearthe C ol bertpl antbecause of i t s e m i ss i on s. R alph L am arM ar shal l , a m em ber of both the S i e rr aC l ub a nd the A l aba m aE nvi r onm e nt a l C ounc i l , t e s t i f i e d i n a de pos i t i on tha the e nga ge s i n ka y a ki ng, f i s hi ng, a nd s w i m m i ng on ori n the T enness ee R i ver nearthe C ol bertpl ant , and thathi s e nj oym entof tho se ac t i vi t i es h a s b e e n im p a ir e d b y e m is s io n s f r o m th e p lan t. T h e s e c o n d a n d th ir d r e q u ir e m e n ts o f in d iv id u a l s ta n d in g a r e a ls o m e t in th is ca se . B ec ause F arned and M ar shal l att es t ed thatthei r e xp er i ence s i n the natural ar ea s a ro u n d th e C o lb er t p lan t are n eg ativ ely a ff ec ted b y th e C o lb er t p lan t’ s e m i s s i ons , the i rr e s pe c t i ve i nj ur i e s a r e tr a c e abl e t o the a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons . T he pr i m a ry r e m e dy s oughtby the pl a i nt i f f s , a n i nj unc t i on a ga i ns tvi ol a t i ons of A lab a m a ’s 2 0 % o p a c ity lim ita tio n , w ill le s s e n F a rn e d ’s a n d M a r s h a ll’s in ju r ie s . C i vi l penal t i es , even tho ug h p ai d t o the T re as ury, have “ a det erre ntef fe ct . ” L a i dl a w E nvt l . S e rvs . , 528 U . S . a t187, 120 S . C t . a t707. I n tha tw a y , a s c oe r c i ve fi nes a i m ed aton go i ng cond uct , ci vi l penal t i es w ou l d redres s i nj uri es t o F arned a nd M a r s ha l l f

r om vi ol a t i ons a tthe T V A pl a nt“ by aba t i ng c urr e ntvi ol a t i ons a nd pr e ve nt i ng f

utur e one s . . . . ” S e e i d. , 120 S . C t . a t707.17

H a v in g d e te rm in e d th a t th e in d iv id u a l m e m b e r s h a v e s ta n d in g to s u e in th e ir o w n r ig h t, w e tu rn to th e s e c o n d a n d th ir d r e q u ir e m e n ts o f a s s o c ia tio n a l s ta n d in g : w h eth er th e i n t erest s atst ak e are g erm an e t o th e p l ai n t i ff o rg an i zat i o n s’ p u rp o ses, a n d w h e th e rth e c la im o rr e lie f r e q u e s te d r e q u ir e s th e p a rtic ip a tio n o f th e ir i nd i vi du al m em bers i n the l aw sui t . O bt ai ni ng an order thatre qu i re s T V A ’ s C ol bert pl antt o com pl y w i th the op ac i ty r egul at i on furthers the organi za t i on s’ st at ed pu rposes . F or exam pl e, on e of A l abam a E nv i ronm ent al C ou nci l ’ s pri m ary pu rposes i s “ t o . . . ai d i n the pres ervat i on of ar ea s i n the S t at e of A l abam a w hi ch a r e of s c e ni c , e c ol ogi c a l , bi ol ogi c a l , hi s t or i c a l , orr e c r e a t i ona l i m port a nc e . ” T he S i erraC l ub ’ s art i cl es of i ncorpo ra t i on se tforth as a m on g i t s purpo se s: “ t o p ra ct i ce a n d p r o m o te th e r e s p o n s ib le u s e o f th e e a rth ’s e c o s y s te m s a n d r e s o u r c e s ” a n d “to u s e a ll la w f

u l m e a n s to c a rry o u t th e s e o b je c tiv e s .” L as t l y, there i s no rea son w hy the cl ai m or re l i ef re qu es t ed by the S i erra C l ub orthe A l aba m aE nvi r onm e nt a l C ounc i l r e qui r e s the pa rt i c i pa t i on of F a rne d, M a r s ha l l , ora ny othe rm e m be rof e i the ra s s oc i a t i on. S e e N a t ’ l P a rks C ons e rva t i on A ss’ n , 3 2 4 F . 3 d at1 2 4 4 (h o l d i n g th atth e th i rd p ro n g o f asso ci at i o n al st an d i n g t est w a s m e t w h e r e in d iv id u a l m e m b e r s d id n o t n e e d to b e m a d e p a rtie s to th e s u it “in o r d e rto a d v a n c e th e [ a s s o c ia tio n ’s F if th A m e n d m e n t] e q u a l p r o te c tio n c la im o rto fa shi on the sortof prospect i ve i nj un ct i ve re l i ef soug htby appel l ant s” ).18

Ha v i n g s a t i s f

i e d o u r s e l v e s th a tth e two p l a i n t i f f g r o u p s h a v e s t a n d i n g , we p r o c e e d to ad is c u s s io n o f th e m e r its . V. W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to T V A . G i l m ou r v. A m . N at ’ l R ed C ross , 38 5 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 21 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). S um m ary j udgm e nti s pr ope ronl y i f the r e a r e no ge nui ne i s s ue s of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta nd the m ova nti s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w . W a l t on v. J ohns on & J ohns on S e rvs . , I nc . , 347 F . 3d 1272, 1279 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A l l m a t e r i a l f a c t s be i ng u n d is p u te d in th is c a s e , e v e ry th in g c o m e s d o w n to is s u e s o f la w . W h ile it is ge ne r a l l y true tha tw e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

onl y f or abuse of di sc re t i on , thatrul e m eans no thi ng w here , as here , i nj un ct i ve re l i ef w as de ni e d s ol e l y be c aus e s um m a ry j udgm e ntw a s gr a nt e d. S e e T e pe rv. M i l l e r , 82 F .3 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . B e c au s e th e g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is n o t a d is c r e tio n a ry a c t, a ll r e v ie w in th is c a s e is d e n o v o . V I. W e begi n w i th the qu es t i on of w hether A D E M ’ s 2% de m i ni m i s rul e, f ol l ow e d a s apr a c t i c e a ta l l t i m e s r e l e va ntt o thi s l a w s ui t , appl i e s t o e xc us e the vi ol a t i ons a l l e ge d i n the c om pl a i nt . I f i tdoe s , the l a w s ui ti s ove r . A l though the C O M S da t as how thous a nds of i ns t a nc e s w he r e the C ol be rtpl a nt ’ s e m i s s i ons19

exce eded 20 % op ac i ty duri ng the re l evantperi od , no ne of tho se i nst ance s are vi ol a t i ons i f

the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e appl i e d. W e ha ve a l r e a dy di s c us s e d the s pe c i f i c s of tha trul e a nd the pa r a m e t e r s of the s a f e ha rbori tpr ovi de s f

orpol l ut a nt d is c h a r g e s . S e e P a rt I I . B , ab o v e . W e n e e d n o t r e ite r a te th e te c h n ic a l d e ta ils be c aus e both s i de s a gr e e tha ti f the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e i s va l i d, the r e a r e no v io la tio n s ; if

it is n o t, th e r e a r e p le n ty . T o be va l i d a nd appl i c abl e i n de t e rm i ni ng vi ol a t i ons of the opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on c ont a i ne d i n A l aba m a ’ s S I P , the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e m us ti t s e l f be author i z e d or p e rm itte d b y th e S I P . H e r e is w h y . S ubj ec tt o sever al exce pt i on s notappl i cabl e her e, C l ean A i r A ct§ 1 10 (i ), ent i t l ed “ M od i fi ca t i on of R equi re m ent s P rohi bi t ed, ” provi des that : “ no order, suspensi on , pl an re vi si on , or other a ct i on m od i fy i ng any r equi re m entof an appl i cabl e i m pl em ent at i on pl an m aybe t aken w i th res pectt o any st at i on ary s ou rc e by the S t a t e orby the A dm i ni s tr a t or . ” 42 U . S . C . § 7410( i ) ; s e e a l s o D uque s ne L i ghtC o. v. E P A , 698 F . 2d 456, 468 n. 12 ( D . C . C i r . 1983) ( c i t i ng tha tpr ovi s i on a nd s t a t i ng tha t“ [ w ] i th c e rt a i n e num e r a t e d e xc e pt i ons , s t a t e s do notha ve the pow e rt o t a ke a ny a c t i on m odi f y i ng a ny r e qui r e m e ntof the i rS I P s , w i thout appr ova l f

r om E P A ” ) . T hi s s e c t i on of the C l e a n A i rA c tpr e ve nt s as t a t e f r om u n il ater ally m o d ifyin g an y r eq u irem en t co n tain ed in a S IP , i n clu d in g A lab am a’sThe prerequisite ter ms of § 110(i) are cle arly met. The Colbert plant is a “ stationary 2 source .” See 42 U .S.C. § 7602(z ). The Alabama SIP is an “applica ble implementation plan.” See id. § 7602(q). 20 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on. S e e 42 U . S . C . § 7602( k) ( de f i ni ng “ e m i s s i on l i m i t a t i on” or “ em i ss i on st andard” as a “ re qu i re m ent ”) . 2 I f as ta te w a n ts to a d d , d e le te , o ro th e rw is e m o d if y a n y S I P p r o v is io n , it m us ts ubm i tthe pr opos e d c ha nge t o E P A f orappr ova l . S e e 40 C . F . R . § 52. 1384 ( e x p la in in g “th e r e q u ir e m e n t o f s e c tio n 1 1 0 ( i) th a t th e S I P c a n b e m o d if ie d o n ly thr ough the S I P r e vi s i on pr oc e s s ” ) . T he E P A , i n turn, m a y “ notappr ove ar e vi s i on of apl a n i f the r e vi s i on w oul d i nt e r f e r e w i th a ny appl i c abl e r e qui r e m e nt c o n c e rn in g a tta in m e n t a n d r e a s o n ab le f u rth e rp r o g r e s s . . ., o ra n y o th e rap p lic ab le r e q u ir e m e n t [ o f

th e C le a n A irA c t].” 4 2 U .S .C . § 7 4 1 0 ( l) ; s e e a ls o id . § 74 10 (a )( 2)(H ), (k). A D E M ’ s 2% de m i ni m i s rul e i s t ant a m ountt o a n unappr ove d m odi f i c a t i on of the opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on c ont a i ne d i n the A l aba m aS I P , be c aus e appl i c a t i on of the rul e c ha nge s w ha tw oul d othe rw i s e be vi ol a t i ons of tha tl i m i t a t i on i nt o nonvi ol a t i ons . T he r e a r e anum be rof e xa m pl e s ( a c c or di ng t o the S i e rr aC l ub, 8, 933) of thati n the re cord i n thi s c as e. T he 20 % op ac i ty l i m i t at i on i n the S IP prov i des tha t“ no pe r s on s ha l l di s c ha r ge i nt o the a tm os phe r e f r om a ny s our c e of

e m i s s i on, pa rt i c ul a t e of

a n opa c i ty gr e a t e rtha n tha tde s i gna t e d a s tw e nty pe r c e nt( 20% )21

opa c i ty , a s de t e rm i ne d by as i x ( 6) m i nut e a ve r a ge . ” A l a . A dm i n. C ode r . 335- 3- 4-

. 01( 1) ( a ) . T he 2% de m i ni m i s rul e pr ovi de s tha t , the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on c o n t a i n e d i n th e SI P n o tw i th s t a n d i n g , a n y p e r s o n ma y d i s c h a r g e f r o m aCO M Sm oni t or e d s our c e e m i s s i ons i n e xc e s s of tha tl i m i t a t i on f

ora s m a ny a s tw o pe r c e nt o f th e s o u r c e ’s o p e r a tin g h o u r s in e a c h q u a rte r . T he 2% de m i ni m i s rul e e ff ec t i vel y r evi se s the op ac i ty l i m i t at i on cont ai ned i n the S IP

— a r evi si on by any other nam e i s s t i l l a r evi si on — and an u napp roved r e v is io n o f

a n y p a rt o f

a n S I P is in v a lid u n d e r§ 1 1 0 ( i) o f th e C le a n A irA c t. S e e T r a i n v. N a tur a l R e s . D e f . C ounc i l , I nc . , 421 U . S . 60, 92, 95 S . C t . 1470, 1488 ( 1975) ( “ [ A ] pol l ut e ri s s ubj e c tt o e xi s t i ng r e qui r e m e nt s unt i l s uc h t i m e a s he o b ta in s av a r ia n c e , a n d v a r ia n c e s a r e n o t a v a ilab le u n d e rth e r e v is io n au th o r ity un t i l they have been approved by bo th the S t at e and the A gency. ”) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. F or d M ot orC o. , 814 F . 2d 1099, 1103 ( 6th C i r . 1987) ( hol di ng tha t“ i nva l i da t i on o f aS I P o n te c h n ic a l g r o u n d s b y as ta te c o u rt . . . c a n n o t b e g iv e n e f f e c t, b e c au s e . . . r e v i s i o n s a n d v a r i a n c e s o f p r o p e r l y p r o mu l g a t e d SI Ps r e q u i r e EPA ap p r o v a l” ) ; 4 0 C .F .R . § 5 1 .1 0 5 ( “R e v is io n s o f ap la n , o ra n y p o rtio n th e r e o f , w ill no tbe consi dere d p artof an appl i cabl e pl an un t i l such re vi si on s have been ap p r o v e d b y [ E P A ] in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th is p a rt.” ) .22

T V A d o e s n o t s e r io u s ly d is p u te th is r e a s o n in g , if th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le do es am ou ntt o a re vi si on of the S IP ; i nst ea d, i tfocuse s i t s argum enton the “ i f” pr e m i s e . T V A c ont e nds , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d, tha tA D E M ’ s us e of the 2 % d e m in im is ru le is s im p ly A D E M ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le . T he c r e di bl e e vi de nc e rul e , w hi c h i s c ont a i ne d i n the S I P , pr ovi de s tha ta ny c r e di bl e e vi de nc e m a y be us e d t o e s t abl i s h avi ol a t i on of apol l ut i on l i m i t a t i on, in c lu d in g th e o p a c ity lim ita tio n . A la . A d m in . C o d e r . 3 3 5 - 3 - 1 - .1 3 ( 2 ) . B e f o r e th e c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le w a s a d d e d to A lab a m a ’s S I P , th e o p a c ity p r o v is io n in th e S I P s ta te dth a t th e o n ly au th o r iz e d m e th o d f o rd e te rm in in g o p a c ity vi ol at i on s w as by use of R ef er ence M etho d 9 , A l a. A dm i n. C od e r . 33 5-3-4-. 01 (2), w h i ch , as w e h av e d i scu ssed , d ep en d s o n read i n g s p erfo rm ed o n l y a few t i m es a y e a rb y o b s e rv e r s i n th e f i e l d . Se e PartI I . A, ab o v e . Th i s i s h o w a f o rme rAD EM de puty di r e c t orde s c r i be d the M e thod 9 e nf or c e m e nts i tua t i on: B e c aus e c om pl i a nc e w i th the opa c i ty s t a nda r d us i ng M e thod 9 r e a di ngs i s de t e rm i ne d f orm os ts our c e s dur i ng 1- 15 da y s /y e a r , atypi c a l s our c e w oul d be s ubj e c t e d t o 2- 30 hour s of

c om pl i a nc e de t e rm i na t i ons pe ry e a rus i ng M e thod 9. T hi s r e pr e s e nt s l e s s tha n 0. 5% of the a va i l abl e ope r a t i ng hour s . I f pl a ntva r i abi l i ty a nd m al funct i on s c ausi ng el evat ed op ac i ty occ ur ata s ou rc e 3% of the t i m e , the c ha nc e s of s uc h e ve nt s c oi nc i di ng w i th a M etho d 9 ob se rvat i on ar e r em ot e.23

(A ff i davi tof R i char d E . G rusni ck i n sup po rtof T V A ’ s m ot i on for s um m ary ju d g m en t. ) T h e c re d ib le ev id en ce ru le, ad d ed to A lab am a’s S IP at E P A ’s in s is te n c e , c h a n g e d th e s itu a tio n e n tir e ly , b e c au s e it a llo w e d u s e o f C O M S d a tato det erm i ne op ac i ty vi ol at i on s. Inst ea d o f e nforcement bei ng base d o n l es s than o neha l f of one pe r c e ntof

as our c e ’ s ope r a t i on, a nd onl y tha toc c urr i ng dur i ng da y l i ght h o u rs, en fo rcem en ti s n o w b ased u p o n al l em i ssi o n s. T V A , j oi ne d by i t s f

r i e nd the S t a t e of

A l aba m a , c ont e nds tha ti nc r e a s i ng the e f f e c t i ve ne s s of

e nf or c e m e nti nc r e a s e s the s tr i nge nc y of a ny s t a nda r d tha ti s be i ng e n f o r c e d . U n d e rth is v ie w , A D E M ’s u s e o f th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le is n e c e s s a ry to of f s e tthe i nc r e a s e d e f

f e c t i ve ne s s of

C O M S i n di s c ove r i ng vi ol a t i ons of the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on. T he gi s tof T V A ’ s a r gum e nti s tha ta2% s a f e ha rborf

r om the opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on i s ne e de d t o l oos e n the t i ght e rpi nc h of the opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on w he n e nf or c e d thr ough the r e l e nt l e s s l y e f f e c t i ve C O M S m e thod w i th the hi t - a ndm is s ( m o s tly m is s ) e n f

o r c e m e n t p o s s ib le w ith M e th o d 9 . I t’s ab r a s s y a r g u m e n t. T V A poi nt s t o nothi ng i n the r e c or d tha tgi ve s the s l i ght e s ts upportf orthe not i on tha tA D E M i n pr opos i ng the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on, orE P A i n appr ovi ng i t , c ount e d on i ndus tr i e s ge tt i ng a w a y w i th m or e pol l ut i on tha n s t a t e d i n the l i m i t at i on because of i neff ec t i ve enforce m ent . N or i s there anythi ng i n the re cord to in d ic a te th a t w h e n E P A in s is te d o n , a n d th e n ap p r o v e d a s an a m e n d m e n t to24

A l aba m a ’ s S I P , the c r e di bl e e vi de nc e rul e , E P A i nt e nde d t o m odi f y i m pl i c i t l y a nd dow nw a r d the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on. T o the c ontr a ry , E P A i s a da m a nttha tthe c r e di bl e e vi de nc e rul e s houl d notbe i nt e rpr e t e d orappl i e d t o a l t e rthe e m i s s i on s ta n d a r d b e in g e n f

o r c e d . I n e x p la in in g w h y , E P A u s e s th is h e lp f u l m e tap h o r :

“ [ A ] l l ow i ng the us e of

r a da rguns ori nc r e a s i ng the num be rof pol i c e c he c ki ng f

or s pe e di ng m a y r a i s e the c ha nc e tha tas pe e de rw i l l be de t e c t e d, butthi s doe s not al t er th e l eg al stri n g en cy o f a p o st ed sp eed l i m i t . ” C red i b l e E v i d en ce R ev i si o n s, 6 2 F e d . R e g . a t 8 3 2 6 . S i m i l a r l y , a l though us i ng C O M S da t at o de t e rm i ne vi ol a t i ons of the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on i nc r e a s e s the l i ke l i hood tha tpol l ut i on vi ol a t or s w i l l be de t e c t e d, it d o e s n o t a lte rth e p o s te d e m is s io n lim it. T he C l ean A i r A ctdo es no tas sum e an a c c e pt e d l e ve l of

unde t e c t e d non- c om pl i a nc e ; i tpr ovi de s tha tthe r e i s t o be c ont i nuous c om pl i a nc e w i th pol l ut i on l i m i t a t i ons . S e e 42 U . S . C . § 7602( k) ( “ T he t erm s ‘ em i ss i on l i m i t at i on ’ and ‘ em i ss i on st andard’ m ean a re qu i re m ent. . . w hi ch l i m i t s the qua nt i ty , r a t e , orc onc e ntr a t i on of e m i s s i ons of

a i rpol l ut a nt s on a cont i nu ou s bas i s . . . . ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). A st at e’ s “ i nt erpret at i on ” of i t s S IP cann otchange the ac t ’ s m andat e of c on t i nu ou s c om pl i ance . A D E M ’s 2 % d e m in im is ru le is a n a tte m p t to u n ila te r a lly r e v is e th e o p a c ity l i m i t a t i on w i thouts ubm i tt i ng the r e vi s i on t o the r i gor s of the S I P a m e ndm e nt25

proces s. W hatw as m i ss ed by thi s uni l at er al re vi si on or “ i nt erpret at i on ” app roac h is illu s tr a te d b y th e p r o c e d u r e s e m p lo y e d w h e n A D E M f in a lly s ta rte d in 2 0 0 3

— l o n g aft er th e co n d u ctrel ev an tt o th i s case h ad o ccu rred

— th e p ro cess nece ss ary t o revi se the S IP t o i ncl ud e the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e. A tthatt i m e, as r e q u ir e d b y 4 0 C .F .R . § 5 1 .1 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 7 4 1 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A D E M h e ld pu bl i c hea ri ng s and ac ce pt ed pu bl i c c om m ent(i ncl ud i ng som e f rom the S i erra C lu b ) o n th e p r o p o s a l to a d d th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le to th e A lab a m aS I P . P r io rto tha t2003 pr opos a l , how e ve r , A D E M ne ve rga ve a ny not i c e a nd ne ve rhe l d a ny h e a r in g s ab o u t th e ru le th a t it w a s in f o rm a lly u s in g to e x c u s e th o u s a n d s o f o p a c ity v i o l at i o n s. M oreover, nei ther A D E M no r T V A has off er ed any f

orm al doc um e nt a t i on of

A D E M ’ s “ i nt e rpr e t a t i on” of the A l aba m aS I P t o a l l ow f orthe 2% de m i ni m i s rul e pri or t o 2 00 3, other than d ocum ent s gener at ed af t erthe S i erra C lu b a n n o u n c e d its in te n tio n to s u e . T hi s l a c k of

pr e - l i t i ga t i on doc um e nt a ry s upportf ore s t abl i s hi ng the 2% de m in im is ru le g iv e s r is e to s o m e o b v io u s q u e s tio n s . W h e r e d id th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le c o m e f

r o m ? W h o a c tu a lly p r o p o s e d it to A D E M ? W h y w a s th e d e m in im is l i ne dr a w n a t2% , i ns t e a d of 1% , 3% , 5% , or10% ? I n the “ S um m a ry of R e a s ons S upport i ng the A dopt i on of the P r opos e d A m e ndm e nt , ” w hi c h di s c us s e d the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e and w as pu bl i shed af t erthi s l i t i gat i on began, A D E M st at ed on l y that26

i tw a s pr opos i ng tha tS I P r e vi s i on t o “ c odi f y [ i t s ] pr a c t i c e s ” a nd t o “ pr ovi de c e rta in ty to th e r e g u la te d c o m m u n ity a s to w h a t is e x p e c te d w ith r e s p e c t to o p a c ity pe r f orm a nc e a s m e a s ur e d by aC O M S . ” I tpr ovi de d no othe re xpl a na t i on f or , or h is to ry o f

, th e ru le . T he r e i s no pr e - 2003 e vi de nc e m e nt i oni ng the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e . T he re co rd d o es in clu d e n in etee n lett er s f ro m A D E M to T V A co n tain in g th e a g en cy ’s r e s pons e s t o the qua rt e r l y e m i s s i ons r e port s T V A f i l e d f orthe C ol be rtpl a nt . N one of thos e l e tt e r s c i t e d T V A f orvi ol a t i ons of

the 20% opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on, butnone of th e m m e n tio n e d th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le e ith e r . E a r lie rin th is o p in io n w e d is c u s s e d th e f o u re x c e p tio n s to th e 2 0 % o p a c ity l i m i t a t i o n th a ta r e c o n t a i n e di n th e S I P , wh i c h E P A ap p r o v e d . S e e P a rtI I . A, ab o v e . T h e 2 % d e m in im is ru le is n o le s s a n e x c e p tio n th a n th e f o u rc o n ta in e d in the S IP . T he cr i t i ca l di ff er ence i s thatdu ri ng the t i m e per i od i nv ol ved i n thi s c as e, th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le , u n lik e th e o th e rf o u re x c e p tio n s , h a d n o t b e e n s u b je c te d to th e f o rm a l ru le m a k in g p r o c e s s o rs u b m itte d to E P A f o rap p r o v a l. B y us i ng a n i nf

orm a l , non- publ i c , undoc um e nt e d “ i nt e rpr e t a t i on” m e thod of r e vi s i ng the S I P be f

or e 2003, A D E M s hort - c i r c ui t e d the i m port a ntpr ot e c t i ons a g a in s t u n in f

o rm e d a n d a rb itr a ry ru le m a k in g , a n d it a tte m p te d to a v o id e n tir e ly E P A ove r s i ghtof

the S I P pr oc e s s . I ttr i e d a n i m pe rm i s s i bl e e nd- run a r ound theIn Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e adopte d as 3 binding prece dent all dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to Oc tober 1, 1981. I d. at 1209. 27 S IP re vi si on proces s. S ee P ennzoi l C o. v. F E R C , 64 5 F . 2d 36 0, 37 1 (5th C i r. M ay 1981) ( “ T he purpos e of the A dm i ni s tr a t i ve P r oc e dur e A c t. . . not i c e a nd c om m e nt 3 r e q u ir e m e n t is th a t th e a g e n c y e d u c a te its e lf b e f o r e a d o p tin g af

in a l o r d e r . T h is a s s ur e s f a i rne s s a nd m a tur e c ons i de r a t i on of rul e s ha vi ng as ubs t a nt i a l i m pa c ton thos e r e gul a t e d. ” ) ; s e e a l s o D i s m a s C ha r i t i e s , I nc . v. D e p’ tof J us t i c e , 401 F . 3d 666, 678 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ one of the c e ntr a l purpos e s of

the re qu i re m entof no t i ce and com m enti s t o g i ve tho se w i th i nt er es t s a ff ec t ed by rul es the chance t o p art i ci pat e i n the prom ul gat i on of the rul es . . . [i n o rdert o] ensure f a i rtr e a tm e ntf

orpe r s ons t o be a f

f e c t e d by r e gul a t i ons ” ) ; M C I T e l e c om m s . C orp. v. F C C , 57 F . 3d 11 36 , 11 42 (D . C . C i r. 19 95 ) ( st at i ng that“ an agency may not turn the prov i si on of no t i ce i nt o a bu re aucr at i c gam e of hi de and seek”) . T he E P A has ne ve rs a nc t i one d A D E M ’ s us e of the 2% de m i ni m i s rul e a nd ha s y e tt o a c c e ptor r e je c t it a s ap r o p o s e d S I P r e v is io n . F o ra ll o f th e s e r e a s o n s , A D E M ’s p r a c tic e o f e m p lo y in g th e 2 % d e m in im is rul e t o d et erm i ne vi ol at i on s of the 20 % op ac i ty l i m i t at i on usi ng C O M S dat a w as in v alidu n d erC lean A ir A ct § 1 1 0 (i). B ec au se w e r ejec t th e d istrict co u rt’s co n cl u si o n an d T V A ’ s co n t en t i o n th atA D E M ’ s u se o f th e 2 % d e m i n i m i s ru l e i s a28

p e rm is s ib le in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e A lab a m ac r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le , w e d o n o t n e e d to di s c us s f urthe rthe pa rt i e s ’ a r gum e nt s c onc e rni ng de f e r e nc e t o s t a t e a dm i ni s tr a t i ve in te rp r e ta tio n s u n d e rC h e v r o n , U .S .A ., I n c . v . N a tu r a l R e s o u r c e s D e f e n s e C o u n c il, I n c ., 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 7 7 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , a n d its p r o g e n y . T V A is n o t e n title d to s u m m a ry j u d g m e n to n th e b r o a d g r o u n d th a tth e C OMS d a t ad i d n o ts h o w a v io la tio n o f

th e o p a c ity lim ita tio n w h e n v ie w e d in lig h t o f th e 2 % d e m in im is ru le . V II. W e now turn t o the m or e na rr ow gr ound on w hi c h T V A s oughta nd the d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t c o n c e rn in g th e e x is te n c e o f v io la tio n s : tha tthe C ol be rtpl a nt ’ s C O M S da t am a y notbe us e d t o de t e rm i ne vi ol a t i ons of the 2 0 % o p a c i ty l i mi t a t i o n p r i o rt o M a y 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , th e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f

th e A l ab a ma cr edi bl e e vi dence rul e. B ec ause the S i erraC l ub has onl y the C O M S dat a, i f that typ e o f d a tam a y n o t b e u s e d to e s tab lis h v io la tio n s b e f o r e M a y 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , T V A is ent i t l ed t o sum m ary j ud gm enti nsofaras al l vi ol at i on s bef ore thatdat e are c onc e rne d. A. A lab a m a ’s o p a c ity r e g u la tio n p r o v id e s th a t “[ c ]o m p lia n c e w ith o p a c ity s ta n d a r d s . . . s h a ll b e d e te rm in e d b y c o n d u c tin g o b s e rv a tio n s in a c c o r d a n c e w ith R e f e r e n c e M e th o d 9 . . . .” A la . A d m in . C o d e r . 3 3 5 - 3 - 4 - .0 1 ( 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) .TVA’ s ADEM- issue d air permitsre fl e c t th e sere gulator y re quirements : TVAmus t 4 install COMS to measureopacity and include “ averag e and max imum ex cess emissions over

29 Th e k e y w o r d i s “ s h a l l ” a n d i t s u s a g e h e r e i s n o ta mb i g u o u s . A s th e Su p r e me C ou rthas s t at ed, “ ‘ shal l ’ . . . no rm al l y c re at es an ob l i gat i on i m pervi ou s t o j ud i ci al d i s c r e t i o n . ” Le x e c o n , I n c . v . M i l b e r g W e i s s Be r s h a d H y n e s & Le r a c h , 5 2 3 U . S. 26 , 35 , 11 8 S . C t . 95 6, 96 2 (19 98 ) ( i nt erpret i ng “ shal l ” i n the m ul t i di stri ct l i t i ga t i on s t a tut e , 28 U . S . C . § 1407) ; s e e a l s o A nde r s on v. Y ungkau, 329 U . S . 482, 485, 67 S . C t . 428, 430 ( 1947) ( “ T he w or d ‘ s ha l l ’ i s or di na r i l y ‘ [ t ] he l a ngua ge of c o m m a n d . ’ ” ) ( c i t a t i o n o m i tt e d ) ; Gl o b a l S a t e l l i t e C o m m c ’ n C o . v . S t a rm i l l U. K. L td ., 3 7 8 F .3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “T h e c o n tr a c t p r o v is io n , ‘V e n u e s h a ll b e in B r o w a r d C o u n ty ,’ b e c au s e it u s e s th e im p e r a tiv e ‘s h a ll,’ is m o s t r e a s o n ab ly in te rp r e te d to m a n d a te v e n u e in B r o w a r d C o u n ty , a n d B r o w a r d C o u n ty a lo n e .” ) . T he pl ai n l angu age of thi s r egul at i on i s acom m and thaton l y opaci ty dat a c ol l ec t ed b y af ie ld o b s e rv e ru s in g M e th o d 9 m a y b e u s e d to d e te rm in e c o m p lia n c e . T h e S ie rr aC lu b a r g u e s th a t th e p la in la n g u a g e o f A lab a m a ’s o p a c ity r e gul a t i on s houl d notbe r e a d a s rul i ng outthe us e of C O M S da t af

orde t e rm i ni ng vi ol at i on s bef

ore the cr edi bl e e vi dence rul e w as adop t ed, because of the exi st ence of tw o o ther r egul at i on s, bo th o f w hi ch have been around for y ears . O ne of them re qu i re s C O M S i nst al l at i on , A l a. A dm i n. C od e r . 33 5-3-12 -. 02 (3), and the other req u i res th atC O M S d at a b e rep o rt ed t o A D E M , i d . r. 3 3 5 -3 -1 -. 0 4 (2 )(d ). T h o se 420% [opacity] computed from six -minute averag es” in qua rterly repor ts to ADEM. ADEM Permit No. 701-0010-Z 009 at 3. 30 r e q u ir e m e n ts , h o w e v e r , h a v e ap u rp o s e ap a rt f r o m th e u s e o f

C O M S d a tato m e a s u r e c o m p lia n c e . T he r e c or d s how s tha ta l though A D E M di d notus e C O M S da t at o de t e rm i ne com pl i ance w i th the 20 % op ac i ty l i m i t at i on before the cr edi bl e e vi dence rul e w as a d o p te d , A D E M d id u s e th a t d a taa s a n in d ic a to ro f w h e th e rap la n t’s p a rtic u la te em i ss i on control t ec hn ol og i es w er e w orki ng prop er l y and t o d et erm i ne w hether a n e x t e n s i v e p a rt i c u l a t e c o mp l i a n c e t e s twa s n e c e s s a ry . ( Re p o rto f Ri c h a r d E. G ru s n ic kin s u p p o rt o f

T V A ’s m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.) G i ve n the al t ernat i ve pu rpose f

or gatheri ng and report i ng C O M S dat a, any i m pl i ca t i on that c a n b e d r a w n f

r o m th e tw o C O M S - r e la te d r e g u la tio n s is n o t s tr o n g e n o u g h to ov er com e the cl ear c om m and o f A l abam a’ s opaci ty r egul at i on i t se l f. S ee A l a. A dm i n. C ode r . 335- 3- 4- . 01( 2) . T he c om m a nd i s tha tonl y M e thod 9 da t am a y be u se d to d eter m in e o p ac ity v io lati o n s, an d th at co m m an d g o v er n ed u n ti l A lab am a’s c r e di bl e e vi de nc e rul e , A l a . A dm i n. C ode r . 335- 3- 1- . 13( 2) , be c a m e e f f e c t i ve on M a y 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 . A lth o u g h it r e la te s to e v id e n c e , th e c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le d o e s n o t ap p ly r e tr oa c t i ve l y . R e tr oa c t i ve appl i c a t i on of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve rul e s i s hi ghl y di s f a vor e d, a nd the y “ ‘ w i l l notbe c ons true d t o ha ve r e tr oa c t i ve e f f e c tunl e s s the i rl a ngua ge31

r e q u ir e s th is r e s u lt.’” L a n d g r a f v . U S I F ilm P r o d s ., 5 1 1 U .S . 2 4 4 , 2 6 4 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 1483, 1496 ( 1994) ( quot i ng B ow e n v. G e or ge t ow n U ni v. H os p. , 488 U . S . 204, 20 8, 10 9 S . C t . 46 8, 47 1 (19 88 )) . T he l angu age of the rul e does notre qu i re r e tr o a c tiv e ap p lic a tio n . I t a c tu a lly p o in ts th e o th e rw a y . T h e ru le e x p r e s s ly pr ovi de s tha ti tw i l l be c om e e f f e c t i ve on ada t e c e rt a i n, M a y 20, 1999. T he r e i s no p o i n ti n sp eci fyi n g an effecti v e d at e i f a p ro v i si o n i s t o b e ap p l i ed retro act i v el y. F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c lu d e , a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id , th a t C O M S d a ta c a nnotbe us e d t o de t e rm i ne w he the rpr e - M a y 20, 1999 e m i s s i ons vi ol a t e d the op ac i ty l i m i t at i on , atl ea stno tso far a s A l abam a’ s r egul at i on s are concerned. T hat c onc l us i on l e a ds t o the S i e rr aC l ub’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i on r e l a t i ng t o the e m i s s i ons dur i ng tha tt i m e pe r i od. B. T h e S ie rr aC lu b c o n te n d s th a t th e f e d e r a l c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le , 4 0 C .F .R . § 52. 12( c ) , w hi c h be c a m e e f f e c t i ve i n A pr i l 1997, author i z e d the us e be f or e M a y 20, 19 99 of C O M S dat a t o p rove op ac i ty vi ol at i on s a tthe C ol bertpl ant . T he fe dera l cred i b l e ev i d en ce ru l e p ro v i d es:

F o r p u rp o ses o f F ed eral en fo rcem en t , th e fo l l o w i n g t est pr oc e dur e s a nd m e thods s ha l l be us e d, pr ovi de d tha tf or the pu rpose of e st abl i shi ng w hether or nota per son h as vi ol a t e d ori s i n vi ol a t i on of a ny pr ovi s i on of

the pl a n, nothi ng i n thi s pa rts ha l l pr e c l ude the us e , i nc l udi ng the e xc l us i ve us e , of

a ny c r e di bl e e vi de nc e ori nf orm a t i on,This provision was revise d alongwith four other provisions, including 40 C.F.R. § 5 51.212(c)as noted in Part II . C, above, a s part of EPA’ s Credible Evidenc e Revisions final rulemakingof F ebrua

ry 24, 1997. See 62 F ed. Reg . at 8314-28. Revisions were also madeto 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.30, 60.11, and 61.12. Credible EvidenceRevisions, 62 Fed. Reg . at 8328. 32 r e le v a n t to w h e th e ras o u r c e w o u ld h a v e b e e n in c om pl i a nc e w i th appl i c abl e r e qui r e m e nt s i f the approp ri at e per form ance or com pl i ance t es tprocedures orm e thods ha d be e n pe r f orm e d: ( 1) S our c e s s ubj e c tt o pl a n pr ovi s i ons w hi c h do not s pe c i f y at e s tpr oc e dur e a nd s our c e s s ubj e c tt o pr ovi s i ons pr om ul ga t e d by the A dm i ni s tr a t orw i l l be t e s t e d by m e a ns of the appr opr i a t e pr oc e dur e s a nd m e thods p rescri b ed i n p art6 0 o f th i s ch ap t er u n l ess o th erw i se s p e c if ie d in th is p a rt. (2) S ou rc es subj ec tt o app roved p rovi si on s of apl an w he r e i n at e s tpr oc e dur e i s s pe c i f i e d w i l l be t e s t e d by the spec i fi ed procedure. 40 C . F . R . § 5 2. 12 (c )) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). 5 T he S i e rr aC l ub’ s pos i t i on i s tha ton i t s e f f e c t i ve da t e i n A pr i l 1997 the f e de r a l c r e di bl e e vi de nc e rul e aut om a t i c a l l y be c a m e partof the e nf or c e m e nt pr ovi s i ons i n e ve ry s t a t e S I P . W e don’ tthi nk s o. W he n E P A a dopt e d the r e gul a t i on c ont a i ni ng the f e de r a l c r e di bl e e vi de nc e rul e i n 1997, i ti nc l ude d a s e p a r a t e p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r i n g e a c h s t a t e t o a d o p tth r o u g h th e S I P p r o c e s s i t s o wn c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e ru l e . Se e 4 0 C. F. R. § 5 1 . 2 1 2 ( c ) . Al ab a mac o mp l i e d . AD EM p ro m u l g at ed i t s o w n cred i b l e ev i d en ce ru l e, su b m i tt ed i tt o E P A fo r ap p ro v al as a S I P pr ovi s i on, a nd i n N ove m be r1999 E P A appr ove d i t . S e e A ppr ova l a ndRecall that the Alabama credible evidencerule’s e ffe ctive datein the ADEM 6 regulations was May

20, 1999, which is the datethat the district court found, a nd the par ties agree , is proper to be g in consideration of COMS data to prove opac ity violations. However , EPA’s approval of the Alaba ma credible evidence r

ule took eff

ect January

3, 2000, which is the date the r ule bec ame a

part of theAlabama

SIP. Approval and Promulg ation of Implementation Plans : Revis ion s totheAl a bama Depa rtment o f Env ironmental Ma nag ement (AD EM ) Administrative Code for theAir Polluti on Control Progra m, 64 Fed. Re g . at 59,633. 33 P r om ul ga t i on of

I m pl e m e nt a t i on P l a ns : R e vi s i ons t o the A l aba m aD e pa rtm e ntof E nvi r onm e nt a l M a na ge m e nt( A D E M ) A dm i ni s tr a t i ve C ode f orthe A i rP ol l ut i on C o n tr o l P r o g r a m , 6 4 F e d . R e g . 5 9 ,6 3 3 ( N o v . 3 , 1 9 9 9 ) . I f th e f e d e r a l c r e d ib le ev i d en ce ru l e w as al read y a p arto f th e A l ab am a S IP , as th e S i erra C l u b co n t en d s, th e r e wo u l d h a v e b e e n n o p o i n ti n E P A’ s i n s i s t i n g th a te a c h s t a t e a d o p ti t s o wn ru le a n d in A lab a m a ’s d o in g s o . T he E P A ’ s ow n s t a t e m e nt s i n r e f e r e nc e t o the C r e di bl e E vi de nc e R e vi s i ons s u p p o rt th is a n a ly s is : “O n F e b ru a ry 2 4 , 1 9 9 7 , E P A p r o m u lg a te d r e g u la tio n s . . . th a t g a v e E P A th e au th o r ity to u s e a ll a v a ilab le d a tato p r o v e [ C le a n A irA c t] vi ol at i on s. ” 64 F ed. R eg. at59 , 63 3 (em ph as i s a dd ed). Itdi d n otgi ve any other p ar ty th e a u th o rity to u se all av ailab le d ata to p ro v e a v io lati o n . B ef o re E P A ’s ap p r o v a l o f

th e A lab a m ac r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le , th e s ta te ’s S I P d id n o t c o n ta in o n e . Se e Cl e a n A i rI mp l e me n t a t i o n Pr o j e c tv . EPA , 1 5 0 F. 3 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 6 ( D . C. 6 C i r. 19 98 ) ( no t i ng thati n res po nse t o com m ent s duri ng the cr edi bl e e vi dence ru le m a k in g th a t th e C r e d ib le E v id e n c e R e v is io n s w e r e u n au th o r iz e d , E P A s ta te d :Section 113 ref ers to § 304 (which is § 7604(a)of Title 42) only in its provisi on for 7 “Penalty assessment criteria.”42 U.S.C. § 7413(e)(1)–(2) ( “In deter mining the amount of any penalty to be assesse d under this sec tion or section 7604(a) of this title . . . .”) 34 “ E P A i s notby thi s rul em aki ng re vi si ng any S IP ; ra ther, E P A i s a m endi ng the rul es go verni ng S IP s. ”) . M o r e o v e r , b y its o w n te rm s , th e f e d e r a l c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le ap p lie s o n ly

“ [ f ] orpurpos e s of

F e de r a l e nf

or c e m e nt . ” 40 C . F . R . § 52. 12( c ) . S e c t i on 113 of the C l ean A i r A ct , “ F ed eral en fo rcem en t , ” au th o ri zes E P A t o i ssu e n o t i ces an d o rd ers, a s s e s s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pe na l t i e s , a nd br i ng c i vi l a c t i ons a ga i ns t“ a ny pe r s on [ w ho] h a s v io la te d o ris in v io la tio n o f a n y r e q u ir e m e n t o rp r o h ib itio n o f a n ap p lic ab le [ S I P ] orpe rm i t. . . . ” 42 U . S . C . § 7413( a ) ( 1) –( 2) , i nva l i da t e d i n pa rtby T V A v. W hi tm an, 336 F . 3d 1236, 1260 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( de c l a r i ng a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c ons e nt or de r s unde rS e c t i on 113 unc ons t i tut i ona l unde rthe D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e of the F i fth A m endm ent“ t o the ext entthatm er e non com pl i ance w i th the t erm s of an [a dm i ni stra t i ve consentorder] can b e the sol e bas i s f or the i m po si t i on of se vere c i v i l a n d c r i mi n a l p e n a l t i e s ” ) , c e rt . d e n i e d , Le a v i ttv . TV A , 5 4 1 U . S. 1 0 3 0 , 1 2 4 S. C t . 20 96 (200 4). T he E P A m ayal so “ re qu es tthe A tt orney G ener al t o com m ence a c r i m i na l a c t i on . . . . ” 42 U . S . C . § 7413( a ) ( 3) ( D ) . T he a ge nc y , how e ve r , c a nnot br i ng c i t i z e n s ui t s , w hi c h a r e s e pa r a t e l y author i z e d by S e c t i on 304 a nd a r e not

“ f e de r a l e nf

or c e m e nt ” unde rS e c t i on 113. T he r e f or e , the pl a i n l a ngua ge of the 735

r e g u la tio n c o n ta in in g th e f e d e r a l c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le m a k e s it u n a v a ilab le in c i t i z e n s ui t s t o e nf

or c e the e m i s s i on l i m i t a t i ons c ont a i ne d i n as t a t e i m pl e m e nt a t i on pl a n. I ti s tru e th a ti n a d o p t i n g th e f e d e r a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e ru l e p r o v i s i o n s , EPA d ecl ared th ati t s act i o n : “ creat es n o n ew ri g h t s o r p o w ers fo r ci t i zen en fo rcers; i n st ead , th e ru l e cl ari fi es ex i st i n g E P A reg u l at i o n s. C i t i zen s h av e b een free t o u se cr edi bl e e vi dence i n C l ean A i r A ctenforc em ent , and h ave w on atl ea sttw o cou rt ca se s usi ng i t . ” C re di bl e E vi dence R evi si on s, 62 F ed. R eg at83 18 (c i t i ng U ni t ek E n v t l . S e rv s . , I n c . v . Hawa i i a n C e m e n t , 1 9 9 7 U. S . Di s t . L E XI S 1 9 2 6 1 ( D. Haw. 1 9 9 7 ) (al l o w i n g u se o f d at a fro m ai r m o n i t o ri n g an d m o d el i n g , ex p ertt est i m o n y, a nd e y e w i tne s s obs e rva t i ons t o e s t abl i s h vi ol a t i ons of pr i m a ry pa rt i c ul a t e e m i s s i on lim ita tio n in as u it b e tw e e n a d ja c e n t la n d o w n e r s f

o rc iv il p e n a ltie s u n d e rC le a n A ir A c t § 1 1 3 ( e ) , w h ic h s p e c if ic a lly p r o v id e s f

o rth e u s e o f

“a n y c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ” to e s t abl i s h the dur a t i on of avi ol a t i on) a nd S i e rr aC l ub v. P ub. S e rv. C o. of C ol or a do, In c. , 8 9 4 F . S u p p . 1 4 5 5 (D . C o l o . 1 9 9 5 ) (al l o w i n g u se o f C O M S d at a t o est ab l i sh opa c i ty vi ol a t i ons w he r e the C ol or a do r e gul a t i on pr ovi de d s ol e l y f orus e of Re f e r e n c e M e th o d 9 ) . El s e w h e r e i n i t s e x p l a n a t i o n o f th e r e v i s i o n s , h o w e v e r , EPA s t a t e d: “ T oda y ’ s rul e m a ki ng i s i nt e nde d t o c l a r i f y tha tE P A ’ s r e gul a t i ons do not c o n s tr a in E P A to u s in g r e f e r e n c e te s ts to p r o v e av io la tio n o f a n e m is s io n s ta n d a r d .Clean Air Act § 113(e)( 1) explicitl y provides that “a

ny cre dible evidenc e” ma

y be used 8 to e sta bli shtheduratio n o f a

vio latio n f

or purp os e s o f a sse ssingc ivi l penalti e s in c iti zen suits under § 304 a s well as fe deral enforc ement actions under § 113. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e)( 1). That provision does not mention declaratory and injunctive re lief but only civil penalties. B eca

use, as we explain in Part VIII ., civil penalties ca nnot be awa

rded in this case , that provision of the Ac t has no bea

ringon this case. 36 R ath er, E P A ret ai n s i t s fu l l au th o ri ty u n d er [C l ean A i r A ct ] S ect i o n 1 1 3 (a) t o u se

‘ any i nform at i on ’ as the basi s f or an enforce m entac t i on . ” C re di bl e E vi dence R evi si on s, 62 F ed. R eg at83 20 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T ho se com m ent s i nd i ca t e, as do es the pl ai n l angu age of the fe dera l rul e i t se l f ( “ F or pu rposes of F eder al e n f o r c e m e n t . . .” ) , th a t th e f e d e r a l c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le d id n o t a m e n d a n y s ta te S I P a n d d o e s n o t ap p ly d ir e c tly to c itiz e n s u its . T h e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e ru le c oupl e d w i th s om e c ons i s t e nti ndi c a t i on i n the a c c om pa ny i ng e xpl a na t i on trum ps a n i nc ons i s t e nti ndi c a t i on e l s e w he r e i n the e xpl a na t i on. 8 B e c aus e w e hol d tha tthe A l aba m ac r e di bl e e vi de nc e rul e di d notappl y pr i or to its a d o p tio n o n M a y 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , a n d b e c au s e th e f e d e r a l c r e d ib le e v id e n c e ru le d o e s n o tap p l y , we a f

f i rm th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s g r a n to f s u m m a ry j u d g m e n tt o T VA on the a l l e ge d opa c i ty vi ol a t i ons oc c urr i ng be f or e M a y 20, 1999. V III. F i n a l l y , we a d d r e s s th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s g r a n to f s u m m a ry j u d g m e n tt o T VA on the S i e rr aC l ub’ s c l a i m f orac i vi l pe na l ty of

$27, 500 pe rda y on w hi c h a vi ol at i on occurre d. H er e w e are t al ki ng abou tvi ol at i on s thatoccurre d o n o r a ft er37

M a y 20, 1999 be c aus e , i n l i ghtof ourhol di ng i n the pr e c e di ng part , the y a r e the onl y a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons l e f ti n the c a s e . T he i s s ue i s w he the rC ongr e s s w a i ve d the sovere i gn i m m un i ty of T V A , a f eder al agency , fr om l i abi l i ty f or pu ni t i ve fi nes im p o s e d f

o rp a s t c o n d u c t— a s o p p o s e d to c o e r c iv e f in e s f o ro n g o in g c o n d u c t— in c i t i z e n s ui t s unde rC l e a n A i rA c t§ 304. S ect i o n 3 0 4 (a) p ro v i d es as fo l l o w s: ( a ) A uthor i ty t o br i ng c i vi l a c t i on; j ur i s di c t i on E xc e pta s pr ovi de d i n s ubs e c t i on ( b) of thi s s e c t i on, a ny pers on m aycom m ence a c i vi l ac t i on on hi s ow n b ehal f- - (1 ) ag ai n stan y p erso n (i n cl u d i n g (i ) th e U n i t ed S t at es, and (i i ) any other gov ernm ent al i nstrum ent al i ty or a gency to th e e x te n t p e rm itte d b y th e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t to the C on st i tut i on ) w ho i s a l l eged t o h ave vi ol at ed (i f there i s e vi de nc e tha tthe a l l e ge d vi ol a t i on ha s be e n r e pe a t e d) ort o be i n vi ol a t i on of

( A ) a n e m i s s i on s t a nda r d or l i m i t a t i on unde rthi s c hapt e ror( B ) a n or de ri s s ue d by the A dm i ni stra t or or a S t at e w i th res pectt o such a st andard orl i m i t a t i on, ( 2) a ga i ns tthe A dm i ni s tr a t orw he r e the r e i s a l l e ge d a f a ilu r e o f th e A d m in is tr a to rto p e r f o rm a n y a c t o rd u ty unde rthi s c hapt e rw hi c h i s notdi s c r e t i ona ry w i th the A dm i ni s tr a t or , or ( 3) a ga i ns ta ny pe r s on w ho pr opos e s t o c ons truc tor c o n s tru c ts a n y n e w o rm o d if ie d m a jo re m ittin g f

a c ility w i thoutape rm i tr e qui r e d unde rpa rtC of s ubc hapt e rI of th is c h ap te r( r e la tin g to s ig n if ic a n t d e te r io r a tio n o f

a ir qua l i ty ) orpa rtD of

s ubc hapt e rI of

thi s c hapt e r( r e l a t i ng to n o n a tta in m e n t) o rw h o is a lle g e d to h a v e v io la te d ( if38 there i s e vi dence thatthe al l eged vi ol at i on has bee n re peat ed) or t o b e i n v i ol at i on of any c on di t i on of such p e rm it. T he di stri ctcourt s s hal l have j uri sdi ct i on , w i tho utre gard t o the a m ounti n c ontr ove r s y orthe c i t i z e ns hi p of the pa rt i e s , t o e nf

or c e s uc h a n e m i s s i on s t a nda r d or l i m i t a t i on, ors uc h a n or de r , ort o or de rthe A dm i ni s tr a t or to p e r f o rm s u c h a c t o rd u ty , a s th e c a s e m a y b e , a n d to appl y a ny appr opr i a t e c i vi l pe na l t i e s ( e xc e ptf ora c t i ons u n d e rp a r a g r ap h ( 2 ) ) . . . . 42 U . S . C . § 7604( a ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he pa rt i e s a gr e e tha ti nj unc t i ve r e l i e f a nd coer ci ve fi nes t o enforce c om pl i ance w i th an i nj un ct i on ar e a vai l abl e i n ci t i ze n s ui t s a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s unde rthe C l e a n A i rA c t . T he di s tr i c tc ourt , r e l y i ng on D epartm entof E nergy v. O hi o, 50 3 U . S . 60 7, 11 2 S . C t . 16 27 (199 2), hel d that § 3 0 4 (a) d o es n o tw ai v e th e fed eral g o v ern m en t ’ s so v erei g n i m m u n i ty ag ai n st puni t i ve f

i ne s f orpa s tvi ol a t i ons , a nd f ortha tr e a s on i tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nt to T V A o n th e S ie rr aC lu b ’s r e q u e s t f o rc iv il p e n a ltie s . In D epartm entof E nergy v. O hi o, the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe ci t i ze n s ui tpr ovi s i on of

the C l e a n W a t e rA c t , 33 U . S . C . § 1365( a ) , doe s notw a i ve the fed eral g o v ern m en t ’ s so v erei g n i m m u n i ty w i th resp ectt o p u n i t i v e fi n es fo r p astThe SupremeCourt also interpreted the citizen suit provision of the Resource 9 Conservation and Rec overy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a) ; however , beca use the two provisions were so simil ar, theCourt used the same a nalysis for both. Dep’ t of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. at 615–18, 112 S. Ct . at 1633–35. 39 cond uct . 50 3 U . S . at61 9-20 , 11 2 S . C t . at16 35 –3 6. T he C l ean W at erA ctci t i ze n

9 s u it p r o v is io n p r o v id e s , in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

[ A] n y c i t i z e n m a y c o m m e n c e ac i v i l a c t i o n o n h i s o wn behal f– (1 ) ag ai n stan y p erso n (i n cl u d i n g (i ) th e U n i t ed S t at es, and (i i ) any other gov ernm ent al i nstrum ent al i ty or a gency t o the e xt e ntpe rm i tt e d by the e l e ve nth a m e ndm e ntt o the C on st i tut i on ) w ho i s a l l eged t o b e i n v i ol at i on of (A ) an e f f lu e n t s ta n d a r d o rlim ita tio n u n d e rth is c h ap te r. . . .

. . . . T he di stri ctcourt s s hal l have j uri sdi ct i on . . . t o enforce s u c h a n e f

f lu e n t s ta n d a r d o rlim ita tio n , . . . a n d to ap p ly a ny appr opr i a t e c i vi l pe na l t i e s unde rs e c t i on 1319( d) of thi s t i t l e. 33 U . S . C . § 1 36 5(a) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). S ec t i on 13 19 (d), i n turn, prov i des f or a m a x im u m $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 p e rd a y c iv il p e n a lty a g a in s t “a n y p e r s o n ” w h o v io la te s c e rta in s e c t i ons of

the C l e a n W a t e rA c t , aw a t e rpe rm i t , ora n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve or de r . 33 U .S .C . § 1 3 1 9 ( d ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt r e a s o n e d th a t th e in c o rp o r a tio n o f th e c iv il p e n a lty se ct i on i nt o the ci t i ze n sui tprov i si on of the C l ean W at erA ct“ m ustbe re ad as encom pass i ng al l the t erm s of the penal ty provi si on [] , i ncl ud i ng [i t s] l i m i t at i on s. ”40

D e p’ tof E ne r gy v. O hi o, 503 U . S . a t617, 112 S . C t . a t1634. I m port a nt l y , f or pu rposes of C l ean W at erA ct§ 1 31 9(d), “ pers on ” does noti ncl ud e the U ni t ed S t at es , w hi ch m eans thatthe ci vi l penal ty s ec t i on do es no tappl y t o the U ni t ed S t a t e s . I d. a t617–18, 112 S . C t . a t1634–35. T he C ourtr e j e c t e d O hi o’ s a r gum e nt tha tthe i nc l us i on of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n the c i t i z e n s ui tpr ovi s i on ove rr i de s the l i m i t at i on s on the ci vi l penal ty s ec t i on , expl ai ni ng thatre j ec t i on on the grou nd that th e “s p e c ia l d e f

in itio n ” o f

“a n y p e r s o n ” in C le a n W a te rA c t § 1 3 6 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) “g o [ e s ] to th e c l au s e s s u b

j e c t i n g th e U n i t e d St a t e s t o s u i t , b u tn o f u rth e r . ” I d . a t6 1 9 , 1 1 2 S. C t . a t1635. A bs e nt“ [ a ] c l e a ra nd une qui voc a l w a i ve r ” of s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty , the S u p rem e C o u rth el d th atth e U n i t ed S t at es i s n o tsu b j ectt o p u n i t i v e fi n es fo r p ast c onduc tunde rthe C l e a n W a t e rA c t . I d. , 112 S . C t . a t1635. In C i ty of J ac kson vi l l e v. D epartm entof the N avy, deci ded aft erthe di stri ct c ourt ’ s rul i ng a ti s s ue he r e , w e s t a t e d the ge ne r a l pr i nc i pl e s gove rni ng w a i ve r s of so v erei g n i m m u n i ty as fo l l o w s:

I n or de rf

orthi s C ourtt o f

i nd aw a i ve rof

s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty w i th r e ga r d t o puni t i ve pe na l t i e s , i tm us tbe une qui voc a l l y e xpr e s s e d i n the s t a tut ory t e xt . S e e L a ne v. P e n a , 5 1 8 U .S . 1 8 7 , 1 9 2 , 1 1 6 S .C t. 2 0 9 2 , [ 2 0 9 6 . . .] ( 1 9 9 6 ) . A n y w a iv e ro f

im m u n ity m u s t b e s tr ic tly c ons true d i n f

a vorof the s ove r e i gn, a nd i tc a nnotbe enl ar ged b ey on d w hatthe st atut ory l angu age a l l ow s. S ee i d. S e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s D e p’ tof E ne r gy [ v. O hi o] , 503 U . S . 60 7 at61 5, 11 2 S . C t . [a t16 33 . . . ] . M oreover, w he r e aw a i ve rw oul d author i z e pa y m e nt s f r om the41 f e d e r a l tr e a s u ry , [ . . .] it “m u s t e x te n d u n a m b ig u o u s ly to s u c h m o n e ta ry c la im s .” L a n e , 5 1 8 U .S . a t 1 9 2 , 1 1 6 S .C t. [a t 2 0 9 7 ]. 3 4 8 F .3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e w e n t o n to h o ld in C ity o f J a c k s o n v ille tha tthe C l e a n A i rA c t ’ s ge ne r a l w a i ve rof s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty c ont a i ne d i n §1 18 (a ), 42 U . S . C . § 7 41 8(a) , w hi ch i s s om et i m es ca l l ed the “ fe dera l fa ci l i t i es p r o v is io n ,” is lim ite d to c o e r c iv e f in e s . 3 4 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 7 . W e a ls o h e ld th a t § 304( e ) , 42 U . S . C . §7604( e ) , w hi c h gove rns s t a t e e nf or c e m e nta c t i ons a ga i ns tthe f e de r a l gove rnm e nti n s t a t e ve nue s , doe s notw a i ve the U ni t e d S t a t e s ’ s ove r e i gn im m u n ity a s to p u n it iv e f in es . Id . at 1 3 1 9 . G iv en th o se h o ld in g s, th e S ierr a C lub ’s po si t i on com es do w n t o an ass ert i on that§ 3 04 (a ), by autho ri zi ng ci vi l sui t s, w ai ves th e f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t’s s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity a s to p u n itiv e f in e s . I t d o e s n o t. T here i s onl y one re l evantdi ff er ence betw ee n the C l ean W at erA ctci t i ze n s u it p r o v is io n in v o lv e d in D e p a rtm e n t o f E n e r g y v . O h io a n d C le a n A irA c t § 304( a ) . T he C l e a n W a t e rA c tpr ovi s i on i s t i e d t o tha ta c t ’ s c i vi l pe na l ty pr ovi s i on, w h ile § 3 0 4 ( a ) d o e s n o t r e f e rto th e C le a n A irA c t’s c iv il p e n a lty p r o v is io n , § 1 1 3 ( e ) ( 1 ) , 4 2 U .S .C . § 7 4 1 3 ( e ) ( 1 ) , b u t in s te a d p r o v id e s th a t “ap p r o p r ia te c iv il pe na l t i e s ” a r e author i z e d. T he S i e rr aC l ub a r gue s be c aus e § 304( a ) doe s not i ncorpo ra t e al i m i t at i on fr om another partof the C l ean A i r A ctas do es the C l ean W a t e rA c tc i t i z e n s ui tpr ovi s i on, the i nc l us i on of “ U ni t e d S t a t e s ” i n § 304( a ) ( 1)42

c ons t i tut e s as uf

f i c i e ntw a i ve rof

the s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty a ga i ns tpuni t i ve f i ne s f or p a s t c o n d u c t. If w e h eld th at, w e w o u ldb e ig n o rin g a c riti ca l asp ec t o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s a n a ly s is in D e p a rtm e n t o f E n e r g y v . O h io , w h ic h ap p lie s e q u a lly to th e C le a n A ir A c t’s § 3 0 4 ( a ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt e x p la in e d th a t in c lu s io n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s in apr ovi s i on author i z i ng s ui t“ a ga i ns ta ny pe r s on” i s l i m i t e d t o tha t“ c l aus e or se nt ence al on e. ” 503 U . S . at61 9, 11 2 S . C t . at16 35 . F or ou r purpo se s, § 3 04 (a ), as exce rpt ed abov e, cont ai ns tw o rel evantse nt ence s. T he fi rs ton e, w hi ch i ncl ud es three nu m bere d cl ause s, autho ri ze s s ui tagai nstany per son, i ncl ud i ng the U ni t ed S t a t e s , w ho i s i n vi ol a t i on of a n e m i s s i on s t a nda r d orl i m i t a t i on. T he s e c ond s e n te n c e g r a n ts f

e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u rts ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth o s e s u its a n d th e p o w e rto im p o s e “a n y ap p r o p r ia te c iv il p e n a ltie s .” T h o s e tw o g r a n ts o f p o w e ra r e d is tin c t. T h e f ir s t g r a n t v e s ts p o w e rin c itiz e n p la in tif f s to b r in g s u it; th e s e c o n d o n e v e s ts e n f o r c e m e n t p o w e rin th e d is tr ic t c o u rts , in c lu d in g th e p o w e rto im p o s e ap p r o p r ia te c iv il p e n a ltie s . A p p ly in g th e S u p r e m e C o u rt’s r e a s o n in g in D e p a rtm e n t o f E n e r g y v . O h io , it f ol l ow s tha tthe gr a ntof

author i ty i n the f

i r s ts e nt e nc e of

§ 304( a ) f

orc i t i z e ns t o s ue the fe dera l go vernm entfor C l ean A i r A ctvi ol at i on s does notnece ss ar i l y c arryov er t o the grantof po w ert o federa l di stri ctcourt s t o i m po se ci vi l penal t i es i n ci t i ze n43

s ui t s unde rthe a c t . T he i nc l us i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n the f i r s ts e nt e nc e doe s not i ncl ud e i tby nece ss ary i m pl i ca t i on i n the se cond on e. Itdo es no tbecause there ar e author i z e d r e m e di e s a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s , s uc h a s de c l a r a t ory a nd i nj unc t i ve rel i ef, o th er th an th e i m p o si t i o n o f p u n i t i v e ci v i l p en al t i es fo r p astco n d u ct . A s a r e s u lt, in c lu d in g th e U n ite d S ta te s in th e f ir s t s e n te n c e ’s lis t o f

p o te n tia l d e f

e n d a n ts s e rve s apurpos e , e ve n though puni t i ve c i vi l pe na l t i e s a ga i ns ti tw oul d notbe

“ approp ri at e” w i thi n the m eani ng of the se cond se nt ence . T he prov i si on s m ay ra t i on al l y be r ea d t o p erm i tdecl ar at ory and i nj un ct i ve re l i ef agai nstthe U ni t ed S ta te s a n d its a g e n c ie s b u t n o t p u n itiv e f in e s o rc iv il p e n a ltie s f

o rp a s t c o n d u c t. A nd s o l ong a s w e m a y r e a d the s t a tut ory pr ovi s i ons i n ar a t i ona l w a y nott o w a i ve sovere i gn i m m un i ty, w e m ustre ad them thatw ay . C i ty of J ac kson vi l l e, 34 8 F . 3d at 1314 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ [ a ] ny w a i ve rof i m m uni ty m us tbe s tr i c t l y c ons true d i n f a vor o f th e s o v e r e ig n ” ) . H a v in g d e c id e d th a t th e w a iv e rc o n ta in e d in § 3 0 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) d o e s n o t its e lf au th o r iz e th e im p o s itio n a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s o f p u n itiv e f

in e s f o rp a s t c o n d u c t, w e a r e l e f

tw i th the S i e rr aC l ub’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe gr a ntof j ur i s di c t i on i n the seco n d sen t en ce o f § 3 0 4 (a) i s en o u g h t o w ai v e so v erei g n i m m u n i ty ag ai n st puni t i ve f

i ne s . T ha ts e nt e nc e author i z e s f e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourt s “ t o appl y a ny ap p r o p r ia te c iv il p e n a ltie s ” in c itiz e n s u its . 4 2 U .S .C . § 7 6 0 4 ( a ) . A l tho ug h the t erm44

“ ci vi l penal t i es ” e ncom pass es bo th p un i t i ve and coerci ve fi nes, the m od i fi er “ap p r o p r ia te ” lim its th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s p o w e rto im p o s e c iv il p e n a ltie s a n d s u g g e s ts thatsom e c i vi l penal t i es ar e notapprop ri at e. A s ap p lie d to f

e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t e n titie s , p u n itiv e f in e s a r e n o t ap p r o p r ia te unl e s s C ongr e s s “ une qui voc a l l y e xpr e s s e [ s ] ” i n the s t a tut ory t e xtthe i nt e ntt o w a i ve sovere i gn i m m un i ty f

or pu ni t i ve fi nes. S ee L ane, 51 8 U . S . at19 2, 11 6 S . C t . at 2096; s e e a l s o R uc ke l s haus v. S i e rr aC l ub, 463 U . S . 680, 682–86, 103 S . C t . 3274, 3276–78 ( 1983) ( hol di ng tha tC l e a n A i rA c t§ 307( f ) , w hi c h author i z e s a n a w a r d of

“ approp ri at e” att orney f ee s, “ m od i fi es bu tdo es no tcom pl et el y r ej ec tthe tra di t i on al rul e tha taf

e e c l a i m a ntm us t‘ pr e va i l ’ be f or e i tm a y r e c ove ra tt orne y ’ s f e e s ” ) . T he fe dera l fa ci l i t i es prov i si on of the R es ou rc e C on se rvat i on and R ec ov ery A ct exem pl i fi es an un equi vo ca l expres si on : “ T he . . . subst ant i ve and p roce du ra l r e qui r e m e nt s r e f

e rr e d t o i n thi s s ubs e c t i on i nc l ude . . . a l l c i vi l a nd a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pe na l t i e s a nd f

i ne s , r e ga r dl e s s of

w he the rs uc h pe na l t i e s orf i ne s a r e puni t i ve or c o e r c iv e in n a tu r e . . . . T h e U n ite d S ta te s h e r e b y e x p r e s s ly w a iv e s a n y im m u n ity othe rw i s e appl i c abl e t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . . . i nc l udi ng . . . a ny . . . c i vi l or a d mi n i s tr a t i v e p e n a l ty o rf i n e r e f e rr e d t o i n th e p r e c e d i n g s e n t e n c e . . . . ” 4 2 U . S. C. § 6 9 6 1 ( a ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h is la n g u a g e illu s tr a te s th a t C o n g r e s s k n o w s h o w to45

w r ite a n u n e q u iv o c a l a n d u n a m b ig u o u s w a iv e ro f s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity w h e n it w a n ts to d o s o . C ongr e s s di d notus e i n § 304( a ) of the C l e a n A i rA c tthe ki nd of c l e a ra nd u n a m b ig u o u s la n g u a g e it u s e d in th e R e s o u r c e C o n s e rv a tio n a n d R e c o v e ry A c t. Inst ea d, i tused l angu age that , atbest , perm i t s an i nfer ence thatC on gres s i nt ended t o w ai v e th e U n i t ed S t at es’ so v erei g n i m m u n i ty ag ai n stp u n i t i v e fi n es fo r p ast c onduc t . T ha ti s note nough: W he r e “ [ a ] c l e a ra nd une qui voc a l w a i ve r. . . c a nnot be f ound[ , ] abr oa de rw a i ve rm a y notbe i nf e rr e d. ” D e p’ tof

E ne r gy v. O hi o, 503 U . S . a t619, 112 S . C t . a t1635; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N or di c V i l l a ge , I nc . , 503 U . S . 30 , 37 , 11 2 S . C t . 10 11 , 10 16 (199 2) (not i ng thatw here there i s a“ pl ausi bl e” r e a d in g o f

as ta tu te th a t d o e s n o t r e s u lt in aw a iv e ro f s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity , th a t “is e nough t o e s t abl i s h tha t. . . i m pos i ng m one t a ry l i abi l i ty on the G ove rnm e nti s not

‘ un am bi gu ou s’ and there fore shou l d n otbe adop t ed”) . B ecau se th e C l ean A i r A ct§ 3 0 4 (a) d o es n o tw ai v e th e U n i t ed S t at es’ sovere i gn i m m un i ty a gai nstpu ni t i ve fi nes f or pastcond uct , w e a ff

i rm the di stri ct c o u rt’s g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to T V A o n th e S ie rr aC lu b ’s c la im f o rc iv il p en al t i es fo r p asto p aci ty v i o l at i o n s.46 I X. W e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o T V A on the S i erraC l ub ’ s c l ai m as t o v i ol at i on s of the 20 % op ac i ty l i m i t at i on occurri ng before M ay 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , an d o n i t s req u estfo r ci v i l p en al t i es fo r an y v i o l at i o n s. W e rev erse s um m a ry j udgm e ntf

orT V A on the S i e rr aC l ub’ s c l a i m a s t o vi ol a t i ons of the opa c i ty l i m i t a t i on on ora f t e rM a y 20, 1999. W e r e m a nd f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. AF F I RME D i n p a r t , RE V E RS E D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.