ELR Citation: ELR 21138
No(s). 89-2223 (10th Cir. May 21, 1990)

The court holds that Resource Conservation and Recovery Act §6001 does not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity from a state's administrative civil penalties. While §6001 waives immunity from state "requirements," the term does not unambiguously include civil penalties. "Requirements" can reasonably be interpreted to mean substantive standards and the means to implement them, without including punitive measures such as civil penalties. Although the legislative history shows that Congress enacted §6001 to overturn a Supreme Court decision limiting the waiver, Congress continued to use the word "requirements." Other statutes enacted to overturn the same decision added "sanctions" to the immunity waiver. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations can be read to stand for the proposition that federal agencies are subject to state fines, but the regulations do not constitute a deliberate statement of EPA policy on the issue, and EPA does not have authority or expertise on waiving sovereign immunity.

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Felicia L. Orth, Special Ass't Attorney General
Health and Hospital Group — EI Group
Harold Runnels Bldg., 4th Fl. N., Rm. 4050, Santa Fe NM 87504
(505) 827-2997

Counsel for Defendant-Appellee
Jeffrey P. Kehne, David J. Kaplan, Jacques B. Gelin
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 517-2000

Before ANDERSON, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,^* District Judge.