Hancock v. Train
Citation: 6 ELR 20555
No. No. 74-220, 426 U.S. 167/8 ERC 2100/(U.S., 06/07/1976) Aff'd
Although § 118 of the Clean Air Act obligates federal installations discharging air pollutantsto join with nonfederal facilities in complying with state "requirements respecting control and abatement of air pollution," obtaining a permit from a state with a federally approved implementation plan is not among such requirements. The Court does not find in § 118, either on its face or in relation to the Act as a whole, nor can it derive from the legislative history of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, any clear and unambiguous declaration by Congress that such federal installations may not operate without a state permit. Furthermore, Kentucky's claim that it is only through the permit system under the state's federally approved plan that compliance schedules and other requirements may be administratively enforced against federal installations in no way demonstrates a congressional intention to subject federal activity to state control. The court of appeals decision, Kentucky ex rel. Hancock v. Ruckelshaus, 4 ELR 20484 (6th Cir. 1974) is affirmed.
Stewart and Rehnquist, JJ., in dissent, adopt the reasoning of Alabama v. Seeber, 4 ELR 20793 (5th Cir. 1974), vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of the instant case, 44 U.S.L.W. 3718, 426 U.S. , (1976).
Counsel for Plaintiff
David D. Beals, Asst. Attorney General
Frankfort KY 40601
David C. Short
113 West 3d St.
Frankfort KY 40601
Counsel for Federal Defendant
Robert H. Bork, Solicitor General
Daniel M. Friedman, Deputy Solicitor General
Wallace H. Johnson, Asst. Attorney General
A. Raymond Randolph, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General
Jacques B. Gelin
Robert L. Klarquist
Department of Justice
Washington DC 20530
Robert H. Marquis, General Counsel
Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Deputy General Counsel
Beauchamp B. Brogan, Assoc. General Counsel
Tennessee Valley Authority
Knoxville TN 37901
White, J. for Burger, C.J., Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST dissent. They agree substantially with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Alabama v. Seeber, 502 F. 2d 1238, and they would reverse the judgment before us on the grounds set out in that opinion.