People of State of California v. Stastny

Decision Date17 July 1972
Docket NumberCiv. No. 72-112-WPG.
Citation382 F. Supp. 222
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California
PartiesPEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, etc., Plaintiff, v. Captain C. E. STASTNY, Commanding Officer of the Long Beach Naval Station, etc., et al., Defendants.

William D. Keller U.S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Civil Div., Donald J. Merriman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.

John D. Maharg, County Counsel, Andrew C. Schutz, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

WILLIAM P. GRAY, District Judge.

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Honorable William P. Gray, judge presiding, at 9:30 a. m., on Thursday, July 6, 1972, upon the motion of defendants for partial summary judgment in their favor on the issue of whether applicable law requires defendants to apply for and obtain permits from the Air Pollution Control Officer of the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District prior to operating or using certain equipment and machines at the United States Naval Base at Long Beach, California, a federal facility.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Defendant, United States Navy, is an agency of the United States, and has direct administrative and operational control of the naval base at Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California.

2. The naval base at Long Beach is a federal facility within the meaning and definition of the term "federal facility" as used in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857 et seq.

3. The individual defendants are employees of defendant United States Navy vested with executive authority over the operations at the naval base at Long Beach, and are sued herein in their official capacities as such.

4. The Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District is a duly organized and constituted board in accordance with statutes of the State of California, and is charged with the duty of promulgating rules and regulations pertaining to the regulation and control of sources of air pollution within the County of Los Angeles.

5. The various activities of the Navy at Long Beach include extensive industrial operations designed to accomplish major maintenance and repairs of capital ships in support of fleet operations in the Asiatic-Pacific areas. Such industrial operations involve sources of emissions (solvent cleaning tanks, paint sprayers, furnaces, etc.), which, if not controlled, contain objectionable ambient air contaminants in the form of fumes, dusts, particulate matters, etc.

6. At the time of the commencement of this action the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control Board had adopted and there was, and continues to be, in full force and effect a regulation designated "Rule 10", which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"a. Authority to Construct. Any person building, erecting, altering or replacing any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants or the use of which may eliminate or reduce or control the issuance of air contaminants, shall first obtain authorization for such construction from the Air Pollution Control Officer. An authority to construct shall remain in effect until the permit to operate the equipment for which the application was filed is granted or denied, or the application is canceled.
"b. Permit to Operate. Before any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance described in Rule 10(a) may be operated or used, a written permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Office. No permit to operate or use shall be granted either by the Air Pollution Control Officer or the Hearing Board for any article, machine, equipment or contrivance described in Rule 10(a), constructed or installed without authorization as required by Rule 10(a), until the information required is presented to the Air Pollution Control Officer and such article, machine, equipment or contrivance is altered, if necessary, and made to conform to the standards set forth in Rule 20
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hancock v. Train
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 7 de junho de 1976
    ...with state "enforcement mechanisms." Alabama v. Seeber, 502 F.2d 1238 (1974), cert. pending, No. 74-851. See also California v. Stastny, 382 F.Supp. 222 (CD Cal.1972). 30 Art. VI, cl. 2. 31 Art. I, § 8, cl. 17: "(The Congress shall have Power to) exercise exclusive Legislat(ive) . . . Autho......
  • United States ex rel. Dumas v. Patterson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 4 de outubro de 1974
    ... ...         Petitioner was tried and convicted in the New York State Supreme Court by a jury, and sentenced on June 20, 1972, to twelve years' ... Division unanimously affirmed the conviction without opinion, People v. Dumas, 42 A.D.2d 1052, 348 N.Y.S.2d 547 (2d 382 F. Supp. 218 Dep't ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT