Opinion ID: 196673
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legislative History and Precedent.

Text: [the citizen suit] provision, Congress expanded federal court jurisdiction by circumventing the diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional amount, and traditional standing requirements. Wilder v. Thomas, 854 F.2d 605, 613 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1053 (1989). See S. Rep. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 64 (1970), reprinted at Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692, 725, Appendix B (D.C. Cir. 1974). Prior to the enactment of the citizen suit provision, [g]overnment initiative in seeking enforcement under the Clean Air Act [had] been restrained. S. Rep. No. 91-1196, reprinted at 510 F.2d at 723. By authorizing citizens to bring suit for violations of CAA standards, Congress sought to motivate governmental agencies charged with the responsibility to bring enforcement and abatement proceedings. Id. In recognition of the fact that [f]ederal facilities generate considerable air pollution, the citizen suit provision allowed suits to be brought against an individual or government agency. Id. at 724. -13- As Congress opened the door to citizen suits, however, it also sought to limit that jurisdiction to claims that would not require reanalysis of technological or other considerations at the enforcement stage and would have to meet an objective evidentiary standard. Id. To that end, Congress carefully restricted [citizen suit jurisdiction] to actions where violations of standards and regulations or a failure on the part of officials to act are alleged. Id. at 723. Conscious of the concerns expressed in the legislative history, courts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction have largely focused on whether the particular standard or requirement plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as limited to claims for violations of specific provisions of the act or specific provisions of an applicable implementation plan, the Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to enforce specific measures, strategies, or commitments designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, but not to enforce the NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d at 613-14. Courts have repeatedly applied this test as the linchpin of citizen suit jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition Against Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 F.2d 764, 769-71 (2d Cir. 1992); Cate v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 904 F. Supp. 526, 530-32 (W.D. Va. 1995); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454-59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 (1990). -14- Our decision in CLF and plaintiffs' arguments have therefore focused on whether the conformity provision meets the requisite level of specificity to serve as the basis of a citizen suit. Before asking whether the conformity provision passes the specificity test, however, we must consider the threshold issue whether the conformity provision falls within one of the statutory categories of violations for which citizen suits are authorized.