美国清洁空气法研究
|
摘要
世界八大环境公害事件中的两件发生在美国,一件是1943年的洛杉矶烟雾事件,另一件是1948年的多诺拉事件。这两大公害事件都是因严重的空气污染造成的。美国国家和社会痛定思痛的选择是建立清洁空气法。美国的清洁空气法不仅帮助美国有效地改善了空气质量,而且也因此成为世界上许多国家清洁空气法建设中的学习样板。我国面临着大气污染防治的艰巨任务,完成这一任务的重要条件是完善我国的大气污染防治法。学习借鉴美国的清洁空气法对我国相关法律的完善,对我国大气污染防治任务的完成应当是由助益的。
美国的《空气污染控制法》颁行于1955年,但美国与空气污染防治立法的历史并非自1955年开始。早在1881年,芝加哥和辛辛那提市就开始了进行保护空气质量的立法尝试。美国的清洁空气法是经过一个世纪的反复加工修改而形成的一个法律部门。仅就联邦层次的立法而言,它是从1955年的《空气污染控制法》到1963年的《清洁空气法》、1967年的《空气质量控制法》,再到1970年的《清洁空气法》以及后来的1977年修正案、1990年修正案等多次修正而逐步完善起来的一个法律规范体系。
经过半个世纪的不断修改完善,美国的清洁空气法确立的一系列行之有效的原则。其中包括：1、国家空气质量标准原则。国家空气质量标准原则是美国清洁空气法贯穿始终的最为重要的原则。其基本含义是：空气质量标准由联邦政府制定,各州和地区应制定具体实施方案以实现联邦政府的标准。国家空气质量标准原则的雏形最早出现于1970年《清洁空气法》中,其主要的创设目的在于建立一个覆盖联邦各州的空气质量标准框架,由各州和地区依据其自身的实际情况设置满足联邦标准的具体实施方案。依据该原则所设立的国家空气质量标准目前主要涉及六种污染物质。分别为二氧化硫、空气污染微粒、氮氧化物、一氧化碳、臭氧、铅。对于以上六种空气污染物质,经授权的联邦环境保护总署依据《清洁空气法》的规定,对污染标准进行更加细致的分类,制定保护公众健康的严格的“首要国家空气质量标准”和保护公共福利的“次要国家空气质量标准”。2、州政府独立实施原则。州政府独立实施原则是指各州政府根据国家空气质量标准,在其辖区内独立行使空气质量监管职责。依据《清洁空气法》的规定,联邦环境保护总署须要在“国家空气质量标准原则”的指导下,建立相应的“主要国家空气质量标准”和“次要国家空气质量标准”。各州政府对上述标准负有执行的任务,但州政府在执行中享有独立实施的自由。州政府可以对每一种空气污染物质制定具体的管理计划,可以在本州内自设“空气质量控制区”等。3、新源控制原则。新源控制原则是指在新建一项固定排放源企业或者对某项原有的固定排放源企业进行实质性的“改建”时,必须首先进行“新源排放分析”,并报环境监管机构备案,获取“预防重大危害”行政许可之后方可施工。确立这一原则的目的是确保新建项目能够切实达到国家空气质量标准的要求。“新源控制原则”的主要理念形成于二十世纪七十年代。1970年《清洁空气法》要求各州在依据“州政府独立实施原则”建立的州政府管理计划中起草相应的条款用以减少新建空气污染企业对空气环境造成的恶劣影响。1972年联邦环境保护总署规定,各州应当对新建或者有重大改建项目的空气污染企业设立一定的前置许可制度,并应当将这一制度收录于州政府管理计划当中,供联邦环境保护总署审查。此后,国会又为“新源控制原则”设置了前置审批程序。“新源控制原则”的确立标志着美国的清洁空气法已实现了由“末端治理”向“重在预防”的转变,由“被动治理”向“主动治理”的转变。4、视觉可视性原则。视觉可视性原则是指在国家所规定的一级保护地区,以保护自然环境可视性为目的采取严格的控制标准和措施,防止和减轻可视性的损害。“视觉可视性原则”实质上是以美感为标准的高层次的环境保护,是对空气清洁的较高水平的要求。1977年美国国会首次将“视觉可视性原则”纳入到《清洁空气法》中。国会为保护自然环境的可视性制定了一个“联邦可视性目标”。根据“视觉可视性原则”纳入到国家一级保护范围的地区,均详细规定于《清洁空气法》第162条a款,其中主要包括国家公园、国家野生动物保护区、面积大于五千英亩的国家人文公园、大于六千英亩的国家公园。
在“联邦可视性目标”的指导下,“视觉可视性原则”被赋予三项重要因素：(1)“视觉可视性原则”所适用的地区应当是国家所规定的一级保护地区,在这些地区视觉的可视性应当具有较高的价值,并且可视性主要包括视觉可视的广度和地表附近空气的色度；(2)依据“视觉可视性原则”所采取的措施应当同时具有预防作用和补救作用,既可以达到防患于未然的效果,又可以对空气污染已经造成的不利影响有所减轻；(3)所采取的措施应当主要针对人为造成的空气环境污染,并且既包括人类行为直接造成的空气污染,也保护间接造成的空气污染。
对移动空气污染物质排放源的管理是美国清洁空气法规定的处于首位的管理项目。该法将移动空气污染物质排放源区分为三种,即(1)可供驾驶的交通工具如汽车、卡车、公共汽车；(2)飞行器；(3)非用于交通而附有发动机的其他设备如：起重机和其他建设施工设备、拖拉机、除草机、电锯、可移动式马达发动机、摩托艇、轮船、铲车、机车运输设备等等。
美国联邦政府则于1965年发布了《机动车空气污染管理法》。根据这部法律的规定,健康部、教育部、福利部可以对新生产的汽车设置一定的标准,要求其充分考虑开发和使用最先进的技术,减轻对空气污染物质的排放。
《清洁空气法》为加强移动空气污染物质排放源的管理,采取了分类管理的办法,设置了轻型汽车管理项目、重型汽车管理项目和非陆上交通使用发动机管理项目。轻型汽车主要包括普通轿车和轻型卡车。轻型卡车主要是指载重量低于八千五百磅用于运载货物的车辆、运载超过十二名以上乘客的车辆和供其他非公路使用的车辆。
《清洁空气法》第206条g款对于轻型轿车和载重量低于六千磅的轻型卡车设置了甲烷碳氢化物、一氧化碳和氮氧化物的排放标准,对于载重量超过六千磅的轻型卡车另行设置了较低的要求标准,并且要求以上车型应当在1996年达到标准。由于以柴油为燃料的机动车一直以来都较难实现标准要求,《清洁空气法》第202条g款和h款为此类车辆设置了更为宽松的标准,并且将达标期限延长至2003年。
1990年《清洁空气法》修正案第202条a款要求联邦环境保护总署对重型汽车尾气排放问题做出管理规定,而且既要节约成本,又必须运用尽可能先进的技术实现良好的减排效果。并且授权联邦环境保护总署可以依据载重量、马力等标准,对不同的车辆种类设置不同的标准。这就是移动空气污染物质排放源治理中的重型汽车管理项目。
《清洁空气法》1990年修正案要求联邦环境保护总署在1998年之前,将重型汽车的氮氧化物排放量削减至每小时排放四克。联邦环境保护总署在1993年依照法律制定了相应的标准,并且在1997年设置了更为严厉的标准,要求汽车制造企业自2004年起将重型汽车的低温一氧化碳的排放削减至每小时2.5克。
非陆上交通使用发动机是一个非常宽泛的概念,包括了所有非用于陆上交通而具有可移动性的发动机装置,如：起重机和挖土机等工程设备、拖拉机、割草机、电锯、可移动发动机组、摩托艇、轮船、火车头、机场移动设施等等。在1990年以前,国会并未授权联邦环境保护总署对以上非陆上交通使用发动机做出管理。然而随着对机动车尾气排放越来越严格的限制,非陆上交通使用发动机的污染物质排放逐渐在空气污染物质总体排放中,占有越来越显著的地位。于是国会认为,联邦环境保护总署应当得到授权对于非陆上交通使用发动机的排放进行管理。1990年《清洁空气法》新增的213条规定,联邦环境保护总署应当在“未达标区”内测试非陆上交通使用发动机所排放的空气污染物质所占的比重,如果测试结果显示非陆上交通使用发动机所排放的空气污染物质在该区域排放总量中占有显著的地位,则必须综合考虑经济、公众健康、公共福利等因素,制定相关的管理策略,运用尽可能先进的科学技术,尽可能地削减非陆上交通使用发动机对地表附近空气的污染。
联邦环境保护总署立足于从源头上防止超标排放车辆的生产,制定了认证制度、检测制度、减排配件应用制度等多项制度,以保证各类管理项目的落实。从而较好地控制了移动空气污染物质的排放,也标志着对机动车辆尾气排放管理进入到较高层次。
美国清洁空气法在防治大气污染上非常注意从“源头”治理。其机动车使用燃油管理项目就是关注源头的一个项目。早在1967年的《空气质量管理法就要求机动车使用燃料的生产商公布燃料添加成分、使用目的等信息。1970年《清洁空气法》授权联邦环境保护总署在为新型号的机动车使用燃料注册时应当进行人体健康影响测试。考虑到机动车使用燃料所含的污染物质对人体健康的潜在影响,国会通过对《清洁空气法》第211条c款的追加,要求联邦环境保护总署对燃料生产商的商业行为做出合理的规制。根据《清洁空气法》第211条c款的授权,联邦环境保护总署对含铅汽油的使用还是制定了一些的卓有成效的管理项目,其中包括禁止装配有“催化剂转炉减排器”的机动车辆使用含铅汽油、要求汽油生产商大量生产无铅汽油等。1990年《清洁空气法》第211条k款规定了“改良汽油项目”,目的在于削减汽油中所含有的挥发性有机化学物质和其他空气污染物质。在对挥发性污染物质管理的过程中发现,燃料生产企业用于替代铅和辛烷的香欣型化学物质等,是造成空气质量恶化的主要原因。国会认为如果用含有氧成分的有机化合物也即氧化剂,作为汽油添加剂的替代品的话,则可以大大降低空气污染物质的排放。
为了改善机动车使用燃料,减少污染,美国清洁空气法还建立的氧化剂汽油项目。该项目是通过添加氧化剂促进燃料的充分燃烧,以减少一氧化碳的形成。该项目要求所有一氧化碳“未达标区”的地区只能销售氧化剂汽油,所有进入一氧化碳“未达标区”的机动车必须使用氧化剂汽油。
美国清洁空气法有专门针对酸雨的管理项目。该项目是在1990年的清洁空气法修正案中确立的。修正案确定的目标是将二氧化硫的年排放量削减至低于1980年的排放水平一千万吨以下,将氮氧化物的年排放量削减至1980年排放水平的二百万吨以下。实现该目标的法律措施主要有：(1)“排放配额”制调控排放总量；(2)采用新技术方法降低排放；(3)实行认证制度控制排放；(4)建立排放监测定期报告制度,监督排放；(5)用罚款、扣减下一年度排放指标等处罚督促企业减少排放、遵守管理制度。
针对酸雨的管理项目包括二氧化硫管理项目、氮氧化物管理项目。在二氧化硫管理项目中《清洁空气法》赋予了联邦环境保护总署向有关企业分配“排放配额”(Allowances)的权力,每一个“排放配额”准许排放一吨的二氧化硫。“排放配额”可以交易。联邦环境保护总署还采用了奖励“排放配额”的方法,鼓励发电厂使用符合要求的能源节约手段和可再生能源。氮氧化物管理项目的内容是指：联邦环境保护总署通过要求燃煤发电厂采用“低氮氧化物燃烧技术”(Low NO burner technology)和清洁燃煤的使用,使氮氧化物的排放总量应当在1980年水平的基础上削减二百万吨。
美国清洁空气法针对酸雨管理项目还采取了排放许可制度。根据《清洁空气法》第408条的规定,每个合法的酸雨污染物排放许可仅有五年的使用期限。在管理项目的第一阶段,申请者应当向联邦环境保护总署提交许可申请以及履行计划,将所有可能的污染影响进行预先合理的规划。
美国清洁空气法较早实施了针对同温臭氧层的管理项目。与简单的要求削减排放和强制安装一定的减排设备不同,该法规定,应当通过限制臭氧层破坏物质的产量,进而逐渐将臭氧层破坏物质排出市场的办法,来达到最终保护臭氧层的目的。同时,《清洁空气法》第四章还规定了独特的与国际条约自动接轨的制度,即当《蒙特利尔议定书》得到新的修正,并且其要求的标准高于《清洁空气法》现有标准的情况下,将自动适用《蒙特利尔议定书》修正案的新规定。
《清洁空气法》将限制臭氧层破坏物质的排放分为过渡期和全面禁止期两个阶段。总的设计是通过“生产配额”和“消费配额”的分段调控,最终全面禁止生产和消费臭氧层破坏物质。《清洁空气法》第604条和605条详细的列举了过渡时期的减排限制要求,以及最终禁止生产和消费臭氧层破坏物质的时间表。此外,考虑到情势变迁,该法还赋予联邦环境保护总署缩短过渡期间、加快禁止进程的权力。该权力在局部以下条件时可以行使：(1)有科学证据证明有必要加速进程；(2)有足够的科学技术手段支持进程的加速；(3)蒙特利尔议定书经过修正要求加快禁止进程。
在针对同温臭氧层的管理项目中,美国清洁生产法采用了强制标示制度。强制标示制度要求所有装载第一类和第二类臭氧层破坏物质的容器、含有以上两类物质的产品、以及这些容器和产品在运输过程中,都必须标注明显警告标示。此外还专门实施了机动车车载空调设备的管理项目。
美国清洁空气法不仅规定旨在减少污染空气排放的制度、项目等,也为法律的有效实施规定了一些保障措施。这主要包括行政保障措施、民事诉讼和刑事保障措施等。清洁空气法规定的行政实施保障措施有以下特点：1、行政实施保障措施的适用主体是国家行政主管机构,包括联邦环境保护总署和州政府。2、行政实施保障措施的性质是行政管理行为。3、行政实施保障措施的适用是主动性的。因为行政实施保障措施是行政管理机构的职责所在,主动执法是积极履责,反之则应因不作为而受到责任追究。4、具体行政措施的适用要受到司法审查。
根据《清洁空气法》第113条b款的规定,联邦环境保护总署可以向污染排放源的经营者和拥有者提起民事诉讼,请求法院对其违规行为进行民事制裁或者实施永久禁令。此外,1970年的《清洁空气法》还规定了公民诉讼条款。公民诉讼的原告可以是公民、地方政府或非政府组织。也就是说,任何人均可对违反环保法律的行为提起诉讼,而不要求与诉讼标的有直接利害关系。公民诉讼的被告有两类：第一,任何人。包括私人的和官方的主体；第二,享有管理权而不作为的执法管理机构。
美国清洁空气法规定的刑事实施保障措施是指对严重污染环境触犯刑法的行为,联邦环境保护总署和司法部向法院提起刑事诉讼,请求追究违法的企业和实体刑事责任的措施。其特点是：(1)追究的对象是造成严重空气污染的企业和实体及其负责人；(2)只能对法律明文规定的违法行为采取刑事执行措施；(3)是《清洁空气法》最为严厉的执行措施；(4)对《清洁空气法》所要求的各项报告、文件、证明作虚假陈述,也构成犯罪。
Two of the eight most critical environment damaging events took place in the United States, one is Los Angeles Smog Event in 1943,.the other is Donora Event in 1948. Both of these two events severely damaged the air quality. The United States govenment and domestic society intended to form the national air quality protection program, which aiming to improve the air condition. The Clean Air Act legislated by the United States congress sets an example for all the countries in the world including China. At present, China is facing urgent air quality improvement demand. The research on the Clean Air Act, in terms of the rationality and operability, should be constructive for China to improve the environmental protection regulative system.
In 1955, United States built the first national air quality regulation, but form 1881,air qulity improvement programs had been already implemented in Chicago and Cincinnati. The air improvement legislation evolution phased from 1955 to 1963, when Clean Air Act was enected, and several amendments were made in the year 1970,1977,1990. The Air qulity protection system was fianlly formed in the United States.
A fter years of improvement, the Clean Air Act was enacted. The Clean Air Act aims to advance the air quality; protect the public health and welfare; enhance the productivity. The major principles are National Ambient Air Quality Standards Principle, State Implementation Principle, New Source Review Principle, Visibility Protection Principle. National Ambient Air Quality Standards are devided into Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the financial and scientific limitation should not be considered while setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The State govenments are rendered tremendous power to implement all those standards according to the State Implementation Principle. The newly established pollution sources are strictly regulated by the New Source Review Principle, only after accquiring the admit of prevention of significant deterioration, then the production can be commenced. Obviously prevention before the pollution is the main purpose of the Clean Air Act, after years of practices, the promising outcome also can prove the sufficient effect of the legal system setted by the Clean Air Act.
Regulation of Mobile Sources is one of the major portion of the Clean Air Act. Because of unbeleivable number of motor vehicles in the United States, the emission is strictly critical. According to the different types of emission partical, the Clean Air Act sets light-duty vehicle, heavy-duty vehicle, non-road vehicle engines control programs. Strict inspection and maintenance programs and vehicles control measures are setted. Certification and selective enforcement audit and recal program are aslo required in the Clean Air Act. According to common conventional fuels such as gasoline and diesel fuel contain hundreds of chemical pollutants, the substantially similar regulation was stipulated in the Clean Air Act. Manufacturers of new fuels and addictives have the burden of showing that their products will not harm emission control equipment and perfprmance before they can be introduced into commerce. This requirement effectively prevents the pollutants to be emited from the beginning.
In order to control the acid rain, the Clean Air Act adopted sulfur dioxide regulation and nitrogen oxides regulation. the Clean Air Act imposes limits on sulfur dioxide emmissions through a system of marketable allowances. The Environmental Protection Agency is to issue allowances to the designated representative of each existing affected unit. The number of allowances are determined by the quantity and valocity emited by each unit. The allowances may be freely transfered among units, and the transfers become effective upon the Environmental Protection Agency' s receipt and recordation of a written certification of the transfer. The Environmental Protection Agency is able to hold direct sales and auctions of allowances to ensure tha availability of allowances to the market. In the nitrogen oxides regulation, low nitrogen oxides burner technology is the most useful promulgation, which means on the degree of reduction achievable through the retrofit application of the best system of continuous emission reduction, taking into account available technology, costs and energy and environmental impacts. Compared between sulfur dioxide regulation and nitrogen oxides regulation, obviously the allowances transfer system is more practical, through the allowances can be move from unit to another unit, the overall quantity will not be exceeded.
Ozone protection is another main aim of the Clean Air Act. Warning labels must be placed on products containing hazadous pollutants. The Environment Protection Agency's lableing regulations provide that a manufacturer must label its product as manufactured with a controlled substance only if that manufacturer itself used a controlled substance in making the product. This limitation is intended to simplify compliance for manufacturers who purchase components from any venders. No doubt Ozone protection regulations form the Clean Air Act influence greatly, even in the international society.
Enforcement is the only path leading to the fully implementation of the law.The civil enforcement and criminal enforement are deeply researched in this thesis. Citizen Suits are the major concern in this discussion. The Citizen Suits, which is typical commonwealth civil suits, tromendously changes the traditional judicial system. The analysis of Citizen Suits should be precious reference to China, and brings significant influence.
美国的《空气污染控制法》颁行于1955年,但美国与空气污染防治立法的历史并非自1955年开始。早在1881年,芝加哥和辛辛那提市就开始了进行保护空气质量的立法尝试。美国的清洁空气法是经过一个世纪的反复加工修改而形成的一个法律部门。仅就联邦层次的立法而言,它是从1955年的《空气污染控制法》到1963年的《清洁空气法》、1967年的《空气质量控制法》,再到1970年的《清洁空气法》以及后来的1977年修正案、1990年修正案等多次修正而逐步完善起来的一个法律规范体系。
经过半个世纪的不断修改完善,美国的清洁空气法确立的一系列行之有效的原则。其中包括：1、国家空气质量标准原则。国家空气质量标准原则是美国清洁空气法贯穿始终的最为重要的原则。其基本含义是：空气质量标准由联邦政府制定,各州和地区应制定具体实施方案以实现联邦政府的标准。国家空气质量标准原则的雏形最早出现于1970年《清洁空气法》中,其主要的创设目的在于建立一个覆盖联邦各州的空气质量标准框架,由各州和地区依据其自身的实际情况设置满足联邦标准的具体实施方案。依据该原则所设立的国家空气质量标准目前主要涉及六种污染物质。分别为二氧化硫、空气污染微粒、氮氧化物、一氧化碳、臭氧、铅。对于以上六种空气污染物质,经授权的联邦环境保护总署依据《清洁空气法》的规定,对污染标准进行更加细致的分类,制定保护公众健康的严格的“首要国家空气质量标准”和保护公共福利的“次要国家空气质量标准”。2、州政府独立实施原则。州政府独立实施原则是指各州政府根据国家空气质量标准,在其辖区内独立行使空气质量监管职责。依据《清洁空气法》的规定,联邦环境保护总署须要在“国家空气质量标准原则”的指导下,建立相应的“主要国家空气质量标准”和“次要国家空气质量标准”。各州政府对上述标准负有执行的任务,但州政府在执行中享有独立实施的自由。州政府可以对每一种空气污染物质制定具体的管理计划,可以在本州内自设“空气质量控制区”等。3、新源控制原则。新源控制原则是指在新建一项固定排放源企业或者对某项原有的固定排放源企业进行实质性的“改建”时,必须首先进行“新源排放分析”,并报环境监管机构备案,获取“预防重大危害”行政许可之后方可施工。确立这一原则的目的是确保新建项目能够切实达到国家空气质量标准的要求。“新源控制原则”的主要理念形成于二十世纪七十年代。1970年《清洁空气法》要求各州在依据“州政府独立实施原则”建立的州政府管理计划中起草相应的条款用以减少新建空气污染企业对空气环境造成的恶劣影响。1972年联邦环境保护总署规定,各州应当对新建或者有重大改建项目的空气污染企业设立一定的前置许可制度,并应当将这一制度收录于州政府管理计划当中,供联邦环境保护总署审查。此后,国会又为“新源控制原则”设置了前置审批程序。“新源控制原则”的确立标志着美国的清洁空气法已实现了由“末端治理”向“重在预防”的转变,由“被动治理”向“主动治理”的转变。4、视觉可视性原则。视觉可视性原则是指在国家所规定的一级保护地区,以保护自然环境可视性为目的采取严格的控制标准和措施,防止和减轻可视性的损害。“视觉可视性原则”实质上是以美感为标准的高层次的环境保护,是对空气清洁的较高水平的要求。1977年美国国会首次将“视觉可视性原则”纳入到《清洁空气法》中。国会为保护自然环境的可视性制定了一个“联邦可视性目标”。根据“视觉可视性原则”纳入到国家一级保护范围的地区,均详细规定于《清洁空气法》第162条a款,其中主要包括国家公园、国家野生动物保护区、面积大于五千英亩的国家人文公园、大于六千英亩的国家公园。
在“联邦可视性目标”的指导下,“视觉可视性原则”被赋予三项重要因素：(1)“视觉可视性原则”所适用的地区应当是国家所规定的一级保护地区,在这些地区视觉的可视性应当具有较高的价值,并且可视性主要包括视觉可视的广度和地表附近空气的色度；(2)依据“视觉可视性原则”所采取的措施应当同时具有预防作用和补救作用,既可以达到防患于未然的效果,又可以对空气污染已经造成的不利影响有所减轻；(3)所采取的措施应当主要针对人为造成的空气环境污染,并且既包括人类行为直接造成的空气污染,也保护间接造成的空气污染。
对移动空气污染物质排放源的管理是美国清洁空气法规定的处于首位的管理项目。该法将移动空气污染物质排放源区分为三种,即(1)可供驾驶的交通工具如汽车、卡车、公共汽车；(2)飞行器；(3)非用于交通而附有发动机的其他设备如：起重机和其他建设施工设备、拖拉机、除草机、电锯、可移动式马达发动机、摩托艇、轮船、铲车、机车运输设备等等。
美国联邦政府则于1965年发布了《机动车空气污染管理法》。根据这部法律的规定,健康部、教育部、福利部可以对新生产的汽车设置一定的标准,要求其充分考虑开发和使用最先进的技术,减轻对空气污染物质的排放。
《清洁空气法》为加强移动空气污染物质排放源的管理,采取了分类管理的办法,设置了轻型汽车管理项目、重型汽车管理项目和非陆上交通使用发动机管理项目。轻型汽车主要包括普通轿车和轻型卡车。轻型卡车主要是指载重量低于八千五百磅用于运载货物的车辆、运载超过十二名以上乘客的车辆和供其他非公路使用的车辆。
《清洁空气法》第206条g款对于轻型轿车和载重量低于六千磅的轻型卡车设置了甲烷碳氢化物、一氧化碳和氮氧化物的排放标准,对于载重量超过六千磅的轻型卡车另行设置了较低的要求标准,并且要求以上车型应当在1996年达到标准。由于以柴油为燃料的机动车一直以来都较难实现标准要求,《清洁空气法》第202条g款和h款为此类车辆设置了更为宽松的标准,并且将达标期限延长至2003年。
1990年《清洁空气法》修正案第202条a款要求联邦环境保护总署对重型汽车尾气排放问题做出管理规定,而且既要节约成本,又必须运用尽可能先进的技术实现良好的减排效果。并且授权联邦环境保护总署可以依据载重量、马力等标准,对不同的车辆种类设置不同的标准。这就是移动空气污染物质排放源治理中的重型汽车管理项目。
《清洁空气法》1990年修正案要求联邦环境保护总署在1998年之前,将重型汽车的氮氧化物排放量削减至每小时排放四克。联邦环境保护总署在1993年依照法律制定了相应的标准,并且在1997年设置了更为严厉的标准,要求汽车制造企业自2004年起将重型汽车的低温一氧化碳的排放削减至每小时2.5克。
非陆上交通使用发动机是一个非常宽泛的概念,包括了所有非用于陆上交通而具有可移动性的发动机装置,如：起重机和挖土机等工程设备、拖拉机、割草机、电锯、可移动发动机组、摩托艇、轮船、火车头、机场移动设施等等。在1990年以前,国会并未授权联邦环境保护总署对以上非陆上交通使用发动机做出管理。然而随着对机动车尾气排放越来越严格的限制,非陆上交通使用发动机的污染物质排放逐渐在空气污染物质总体排放中,占有越来越显著的地位。于是国会认为,联邦环境保护总署应当得到授权对于非陆上交通使用发动机的排放进行管理。1990年《清洁空气法》新增的213条规定,联邦环境保护总署应当在“未达标区”内测试非陆上交通使用发动机所排放的空气污染物质所占的比重,如果测试结果显示非陆上交通使用发动机所排放的空气污染物质在该区域排放总量中占有显著的地位,则必须综合考虑经济、公众健康、公共福利等因素,制定相关的管理策略,运用尽可能先进的科学技术,尽可能地削减非陆上交通使用发动机对地表附近空气的污染。
联邦环境保护总署立足于从源头上防止超标排放车辆的生产,制定了认证制度、检测制度、减排配件应用制度等多项制度,以保证各类管理项目的落实。从而较好地控制了移动空气污染物质的排放,也标志着对机动车辆尾气排放管理进入到较高层次。
美国清洁空气法在防治大气污染上非常注意从“源头”治理。其机动车使用燃油管理项目就是关注源头的一个项目。早在1967年的《空气质量管理法就要求机动车使用燃料的生产商公布燃料添加成分、使用目的等信息。1970年《清洁空气法》授权联邦环境保护总署在为新型号的机动车使用燃料注册时应当进行人体健康影响测试。考虑到机动车使用燃料所含的污染物质对人体健康的潜在影响,国会通过对《清洁空气法》第211条c款的追加,要求联邦环境保护总署对燃料生产商的商业行为做出合理的规制。根据《清洁空气法》第211条c款的授权,联邦环境保护总署对含铅汽油的使用还是制定了一些的卓有成效的管理项目,其中包括禁止装配有“催化剂转炉减排器”的机动车辆使用含铅汽油、要求汽油生产商大量生产无铅汽油等。1990年《清洁空气法》第211条k款规定了“改良汽油项目”,目的在于削减汽油中所含有的挥发性有机化学物质和其他空气污染物质。在对挥发性污染物质管理的过程中发现,燃料生产企业用于替代铅和辛烷的香欣型化学物质等,是造成空气质量恶化的主要原因。国会认为如果用含有氧成分的有机化合物也即氧化剂,作为汽油添加剂的替代品的话,则可以大大降低空气污染物质的排放。
为了改善机动车使用燃料,减少污染,美国清洁空气法还建立的氧化剂汽油项目。该项目是通过添加氧化剂促进燃料的充分燃烧,以减少一氧化碳的形成。该项目要求所有一氧化碳“未达标区”的地区只能销售氧化剂汽油,所有进入一氧化碳“未达标区”的机动车必须使用氧化剂汽油。
美国清洁空气法有专门针对酸雨的管理项目。该项目是在1990年的清洁空气法修正案中确立的。修正案确定的目标是将二氧化硫的年排放量削减至低于1980年的排放水平一千万吨以下,将氮氧化物的年排放量削减至1980年排放水平的二百万吨以下。实现该目标的法律措施主要有：(1)“排放配额”制调控排放总量；(2)采用新技术方法降低排放；(3)实行认证制度控制排放；(4)建立排放监测定期报告制度,监督排放；(5)用罚款、扣减下一年度排放指标等处罚督促企业减少排放、遵守管理制度。
针对酸雨的管理项目包括二氧化硫管理项目、氮氧化物管理项目。在二氧化硫管理项目中《清洁空气法》赋予了联邦环境保护总署向有关企业分配“排放配额”(Allowances)的权力,每一个“排放配额”准许排放一吨的二氧化硫。“排放配额”可以交易。联邦环境保护总署还采用了奖励“排放配额”的方法,鼓励发电厂使用符合要求的能源节约手段和可再生能源。氮氧化物管理项目的内容是指：联邦环境保护总署通过要求燃煤发电厂采用“低氮氧化物燃烧技术”(Low NO burner technology)和清洁燃煤的使用,使氮氧化物的排放总量应当在1980年水平的基础上削减二百万吨。
美国清洁空气法针对酸雨管理项目还采取了排放许可制度。根据《清洁空气法》第408条的规定,每个合法的酸雨污染物排放许可仅有五年的使用期限。在管理项目的第一阶段,申请者应当向联邦环境保护总署提交许可申请以及履行计划,将所有可能的污染影响进行预先合理的规划。
美国清洁空气法较早实施了针对同温臭氧层的管理项目。与简单的要求削减排放和强制安装一定的减排设备不同,该法规定,应当通过限制臭氧层破坏物质的产量,进而逐渐将臭氧层破坏物质排出市场的办法,来达到最终保护臭氧层的目的。同时,《清洁空气法》第四章还规定了独特的与国际条约自动接轨的制度,即当《蒙特利尔议定书》得到新的修正,并且其要求的标准高于《清洁空气法》现有标准的情况下,将自动适用《蒙特利尔议定书》修正案的新规定。
《清洁空气法》将限制臭氧层破坏物质的排放分为过渡期和全面禁止期两个阶段。总的设计是通过“生产配额”和“消费配额”的分段调控,最终全面禁止生产和消费臭氧层破坏物质。《清洁空气法》第604条和605条详细的列举了过渡时期的减排限制要求,以及最终禁止生产和消费臭氧层破坏物质的时间表。此外,考虑到情势变迁,该法还赋予联邦环境保护总署缩短过渡期间、加快禁止进程的权力。该权力在局部以下条件时可以行使：(1)有科学证据证明有必要加速进程；(2)有足够的科学技术手段支持进程的加速；(3)蒙特利尔议定书经过修正要求加快禁止进程。
在针对同温臭氧层的管理项目中,美国清洁生产法采用了强制标示制度。强制标示制度要求所有装载第一类和第二类臭氧层破坏物质的容器、含有以上两类物质的产品、以及这些容器和产品在运输过程中,都必须标注明显警告标示。此外还专门实施了机动车车载空调设备的管理项目。
美国清洁空气法不仅规定旨在减少污染空气排放的制度、项目等,也为法律的有效实施规定了一些保障措施。这主要包括行政保障措施、民事诉讼和刑事保障措施等。清洁空气法规定的行政实施保障措施有以下特点：1、行政实施保障措施的适用主体是国家行政主管机构,包括联邦环境保护总署和州政府。2、行政实施保障措施的性质是行政管理行为。3、行政实施保障措施的适用是主动性的。因为行政实施保障措施是行政管理机构的职责所在,主动执法是积极履责,反之则应因不作为而受到责任追究。4、具体行政措施的适用要受到司法审查。
根据《清洁空气法》第113条b款的规定,联邦环境保护总署可以向污染排放源的经营者和拥有者提起民事诉讼,请求法院对其违规行为进行民事制裁或者实施永久禁令。此外,1970年的《清洁空气法》还规定了公民诉讼条款。公民诉讼的原告可以是公民、地方政府或非政府组织。也就是说,任何人均可对违反环保法律的行为提起诉讼,而不要求与诉讼标的有直接利害关系。公民诉讼的被告有两类：第一,任何人。包括私人的和官方的主体；第二,享有管理权而不作为的执法管理机构。
美国清洁空气法规定的刑事实施保障措施是指对严重污染环境触犯刑法的行为,联邦环境保护总署和司法部向法院提起刑事诉讼,请求追究违法的企业和实体刑事责任的措施。其特点是：(1)追究的对象是造成严重空气污染的企业和实体及其负责人；(2)只能对法律明文规定的违法行为采取刑事执行措施；(3)是《清洁空气法》最为严厉的执行措施；(4)对《清洁空气法》所要求的各项报告、文件、证明作虚假陈述,也构成犯罪。
Two of the eight most critical environment damaging events took place in the United States, one is Los Angeles Smog Event in 1943,.the other is Donora Event in 1948. Both of these two events severely damaged the air quality. The United States govenment and domestic society intended to form the national air quality protection program, which aiming to improve the air condition. The Clean Air Act legislated by the United States congress sets an example for all the countries in the world including China. At present, China is facing urgent air quality improvement demand. The research on the Clean Air Act, in terms of the rationality and operability, should be constructive for China to improve the environmental protection regulative system.
In 1955, United States built the first national air quality regulation, but form 1881,air qulity improvement programs had been already implemented in Chicago and Cincinnati. The air improvement legislation evolution phased from 1955 to 1963, when Clean Air Act was enected, and several amendments were made in the year 1970,1977,1990. The Air qulity protection system was fianlly formed in the United States.
A fter years of improvement, the Clean Air Act was enacted. The Clean Air Act aims to advance the air quality; protect the public health and welfare; enhance the productivity. The major principles are National Ambient Air Quality Standards Principle, State Implementation Principle, New Source Review Principle, Visibility Protection Principle. National Ambient Air Quality Standards are devided into Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the financial and scientific limitation should not be considered while setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The State govenments are rendered tremendous power to implement all those standards according to the State Implementation Principle. The newly established pollution sources are strictly regulated by the New Source Review Principle, only after accquiring the admit of prevention of significant deterioration, then the production can be commenced. Obviously prevention before the pollution is the main purpose of the Clean Air Act, after years of practices, the promising outcome also can prove the sufficient effect of the legal system setted by the Clean Air Act.
Regulation of Mobile Sources is one of the major portion of the Clean Air Act. Because of unbeleivable number of motor vehicles in the United States, the emission is strictly critical. According to the different types of emission partical, the Clean Air Act sets light-duty vehicle, heavy-duty vehicle, non-road vehicle engines control programs. Strict inspection and maintenance programs and vehicles control measures are setted. Certification and selective enforcement audit and recal program are aslo required in the Clean Air Act. According to common conventional fuels such as gasoline and diesel fuel contain hundreds of chemical pollutants, the substantially similar regulation was stipulated in the Clean Air Act. Manufacturers of new fuels and addictives have the burden of showing that their products will not harm emission control equipment and perfprmance before they can be introduced into commerce. This requirement effectively prevents the pollutants to be emited from the beginning.
In order to control the acid rain, the Clean Air Act adopted sulfur dioxide regulation and nitrogen oxides regulation. the Clean Air Act imposes limits on sulfur dioxide emmissions through a system of marketable allowances. The Environmental Protection Agency is to issue allowances to the designated representative of each existing affected unit. The number of allowances are determined by the quantity and valocity emited by each unit. The allowances may be freely transfered among units, and the transfers become effective upon the Environmental Protection Agency' s receipt and recordation of a written certification of the transfer. The Environmental Protection Agency is able to hold direct sales and auctions of allowances to ensure tha availability of allowances to the market. In the nitrogen oxides regulation, low nitrogen oxides burner technology is the most useful promulgation, which means on the degree of reduction achievable through the retrofit application of the best system of continuous emission reduction, taking into account available technology, costs and energy and environmental impacts. Compared between sulfur dioxide regulation and nitrogen oxides regulation, obviously the allowances transfer system is more practical, through the allowances can be move from unit to another unit, the overall quantity will not be exceeded.
Ozone protection is another main aim of the Clean Air Act. Warning labels must be placed on products containing hazadous pollutants. The Environment Protection Agency's lableing regulations provide that a manufacturer must label its product as manufactured with a controlled substance only if that manufacturer itself used a controlled substance in making the product. This limitation is intended to simplify compliance for manufacturers who purchase components from any venders. No doubt Ozone protection regulations form the Clean Air Act influence greatly, even in the international society.
Enforcement is the only path leading to the fully implementation of the law.The civil enforcement and criminal enforement are deeply researched in this thesis. Citizen Suits are the major concern in this discussion. The Citizen Suits, which is typical commonwealth civil suits, tromendously changes the traditional judicial system. The analysis of Citizen Suits should be precious reference to China, and brings significant influence.
引文
①田磊:《环境危机:阴影下和希望》载《南风窗》,2007年12期下,第44页
① The Clean Air Act divides mobile sources into three categories:on-highway motor vehicles, like cars, trucks, and buses; aircraft, and nonroad vehicles and engines, which is a catch-all category for vechiles and equipment that are not generally used on the highways but are self-propelled or portable or transportable. Robert J. Martineau, Jr. The Clean Air Act Handbook,2004:page 323
①查尔斯.E.迪.里瓦(Charles E.Di Leva)著：《通过法律的和市场的手段保护自然环境与自然资源》,载王曦主编《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》,上海交通大学出版社2008年3月版,第31页
①徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社,2008年版,第47页
①由于列入该目录中的空气污染物质具有特殊的地位,需要在全国范围内进行严格的监管和控制以维护整体的公共利益,因此该空气污染物质必须首先属于空气污染物质：其次,必须具有较广泛的排放来源而不是单一、暂时、小范围内的排放；再次对,其疏于管理将有可能导致对公众健康和公共福利的损害。
② The EPA administrator has a duty to list a substance if he or she determines that:(1) the substance is an air pollutant as defined by Scetion 302(g);(2) the pollutant is emitted by numerous or diverse sources; and (3) the pollutant's presence in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.《清洁空气法》第108条(a)(1)款
③ S. Rep. No.91-1196, at 18 (1970)
④ Id. At 9,18
①《清洁空气法》第108条(a)(2)款
② Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards is defined as ambient air quality standards that will protect the public health with and adequate margin of safety, Clean Air Act, Section 109 (b) (1)
③ See, e.g.,52 Feb. Reg.24634,24641 (1987)
④ Sen. Comm. On Oublic Works Rep., National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, at 10
①647 F.2d 1130 (D.C Cir), cert. denied,449 U.S.1042 (1980)
② 59 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir.1978)
③The Court held that the statue and its legislative history make clear that economic considerations play no part in the promulgation of ambient air quality standards under Sction 109.59 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir.1978). At 1149
① Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards are defined by Section 109(b)(2) as ambient air quality standards that will protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air
② ATA I, supra
①68 Feb.Reg.614(Jan 6,2003)
②Id at 464
③40 Feb.Reg.8.202(1979)
① 61 Feb. Reg.65,730-31 legislation.
② The Clinton memo was published at Fed. Reg.38,421 (July 18,1997). It was later codified in federal highway
③李虎军：《直面细尘埃》, 《财经》2009/07/20总第242期,第81页
①Id.At 38.656
②38 Fed.Reg.25.679(1973)
③61 Fed.Reg.25,566(1996)
④36 Fed.Reg.8186(1971)
① 中国新闻网2007年04月12日讯
② EPA "National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report,1993 Executive Summary and Selected Graphics" (released Oct.19,1994)
③ 49 Fed. Reg.6,866,6,872 (1984)
①Lead Industries,647 F.2d at 1130
②45 Fed.Reg.55,066(1980)
①《清洁空气法》第110条(a)(2)(C)款
②《清洁空气法》第110条(a)(2)(E)款
③64 Fed.Reg.43,255-59(1999)
④Id.At 43,255(1999)
⑤Id.At 43,256
① Id
②《清洁空气法》第110条(k)(1)(B)款
③《清洁空气法》第110条(k)(4)款
①《清洁空气法》第110条(c)(1)(B)款
②《清洁空气法》第179条(a)款
③ The old Clean Air Act set the ambient baseline for ozone for 0.12ppm over a one- hour period, the revised standard measures ozone exposure over an eight-hours time period at a level of 0.08ppm.62 Fed. Reg.38,856-75 (1997)
④ Id at 38,858
① Ultimately the EPA announced that the old standard of 0.12ppm in one hour would not be revoked in a given area until that area had met the standard for three consecutive years.513 U.S.457,486 (2001)
① 62 Fed. Reg.38,428
② General Preamble-PM Supp.,at Fed. Reg.41,998, Addendum (1994)
③《清洁空气法》第187条(a)(3)款
④《清洁空气法》第179条(c)(1)款
⑤《清洁空气法》第191条(b)款
①《清洁空气法》第107条(e)款
②《清洁空气法》第176A条
③《清洁空气法》第176A条(b)(1)款
①《清洁空气法》第176A条(c)款
②《清洁空气法》第107条(d)(1)(A)款
③《清洁空气法》第107条(d)(3)(F)款
④《清洁空气法》第107条(d)(3)(E)款
①39 Fed.Reg.42,510(1974)
②《清洁空气法》第171条
① 68 Fed. Reg.61,248 at 61,252
② To achieve and maintain desired air quality goals, the NSR focuses on controlling and limiting the emissions of criteria pollutants from certain major stationary sources regulated under the CAA.40 C.F.R.52.21 (b) (1) (i), (b) (23)
①40 C.F.R.pt.51,app.S(offset ruling)
②《清洁空气法》第165条
③40 C.F.R.52.21 (p)(2)
④40 C.F.R.52.21 (p)(4)
⑤《清洁空气法》第165条,第173条
①40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(5)
②40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(6)
③40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(1)(Ⅲ)；NSRWM at A.9-A.16
④40 C.F.R.51.165 (a)(1)
⑤本文将专章论述行政制裁和民事处罚
⑥40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(2)(Ⅲ)
①40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(23)(Ⅰ)
②40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(1)
③NSRWM at A.45
④NSRWM at A.35
⑤NSRWM at A.36；see In re Hibbing Taconite Co.,PSD App.No.87-3,1989 WL266359
⑥See e.g.,Murphy Oil,143 F.Supp.2d 1054,1080(W.D.Wis.2001)
⑦28 U.S.C.2462 (2000)
⑧3M Co.v.Browner,17 F.3D 1453,1462(d.c.cir.1994)
①NPCA V.TVA I,502 F.3d 1316.1318(11th Cir.2007)
②NPCA V.TVA I,502 F.3d 1318
③NPCA V.TVA I,480 F.3d 1322
④Duke Energy, 278 F.Supp.2d 619(M.D.N.C.2003)
①在此类案件中,联邦环境保护总署代表美国政府起诉
② 144 F.Supp.2d 441 (D.Md.2001).
③ 144 F. Supp.2d 439 (D. Md.2001).
④ The court saw these references to operation simply as steps that must be taken prior to construction rather than ongoing obligations.144 F. Supp.2d 445 (D. Md.2001).
⑤ 263 F. Supp.2d 666 (W.D.N.Y.2003).
⑦ 263 F. Supp.2d 657 (W.D.N.Y.2003).
The court reasoned that the operating permit program is the right program to cite for ongoing violations of PSD 263 F. Supp.2d 661 (W.D.N.Y.2003).
① 263 F. Supp.2d 665 (W.D.N.Y.2003).
② 278 F. Supp.2d 619 (M.D.N.C.2003)
③ 278 F. Supp.2d 623-624 (M.D.N.C.2003)
④ 81 F.3d 1329 (5th Cir.1996).
The court pointed out that Title V does not provide a permit shield against provisions not included in a Title V permit, such as avoided PSD requirements, and in fact Title V explicitly calls out construction and modification requirements as provisions from which a source does not receive automatic protection.278 F. Supp. 2d 652 (M.D.N.C.2003)
①Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,42 U.S.C.§§6901-6992k(2000)
②Marine Shale Processom,81 F.3d at 1352
③Marine Shale Processom,81 F.3d at 1357
④137 F.Supp.2d 1060(S.D.Ohio 2001)
⑤137 F.Supp.2d 1062(S.D.Ohio 2001)
⑥137 F.Supp.2d 1067(S.D.Ohio 2001)
⑦137 F.Supp.2d 1063(S.D.Ohio 2001)
① 137 F. Supp.2d 1066 (S.D. Ohio 2001)
② 137 F. Supp.2d 1066 (S.D. Ohio 2001)
③ No.2:99-CV-1181,2003 WL 23415140, at*1 (S.D. Ohio Jan.17,2003)
the court found it illogical to conclude that the CAA only contemplated violations for construction and not operation of a source in violation of PSD, and thus ruled that the violations were continuing in nature No. 2:99-CV-1181,2003 WL 23415140, at*1 (S.D. Ohio Jan.17,2003)
①42 U.S.C.§7470(2000)
②42 U.S.C.§7470(1)-(2)(2000)
③42 U.S.C.§7475(a)(1)(2000)
④Best available control technology aiming to reduce the air pollutants 42 U.S.C.§7479(a)(1)(2000)
①汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞编译：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣——美国联邦法院环境诉讼经典判例选》,北京大学出版社2006年6月版,第287页
②United States v Shimer,367 U. S.,at383.
①实际上该案是由联邦环境保护总署首先发起,随后由环境保护基金会、北卡罗来纳州塞拉俱乐部、北卡罗来纳州公共利益研究集团组织共同作为原告提起的诉讼案件。
①Envtl. Def. v. Duke Energy Corp.,127 S. Ct.1423,1430 (2007)
③ United States v. Duke Energy Corp.,278 F. Supp.2d 619,625 (M.D.V.C.2003)
④ United States v. Duke Energy Corp.,278 F. Supp.2d 625 (M.D.V.C.2003)
⑤ United States v. Duke Energy Corp.,278 F. Supp.2d 626 (M.D.V.C.2003)
① Mills, supra note 24, at 264
② 40 C.F.R.51.166 (b) (2) (i)
③ Justice Souter declared that nothing suggests that Congress had details of regulatory implementation in mind when it imposed PSD requirements on modified source; the cross-reference alone is certainly no unambiguous congressional cade for eliminationg the customary agency discretion. Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1430
④ Robertson, supra note 36, at 160-161
① Mathew D. Zinn, Policing Environmental Regulation Enforcement:Cooperation, Capture, and Citizen Suits,21 STAN. ENVTL. L. J.81,107-111 (2002)
② Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1432
③ Justice Souter opined that absent any iron rule to ignore the reason for regulating PSD and NSPS modifications differently, tnr EPA's constrction need do no nore that fall within the limits of what is reasonable, as set by the Act's common definition.Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1433
④ Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1432
⑤ Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1436
①注：美国法院允许持不同意见的法官在判决书中阐明自己的意见。
②Envtl.Def.v.Duke Energy Corp.,127 S.Ct.1432,1436(2007)
③Envtl.Def.v.Duke Energy Corp.,127 S.Ct.1438(2007)
①Pub. L. No.95-95,91 Sat.685,742-45 (1977)
②《清洁空气法》第169条(a)(1)款
①《清洁空气法》第169条(g)(6)款
②H.R. Rep. No.95-294, at 203-04 (1977)
③EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulation Matter, vol.1 at 3-99 (April 1996)
④National Park Service, Air Quality in The National Parks,2d. ed. (Sept.2002)
①《清洁空气法》第169条(a)(4)款
②《清洁空气法》第169条(b)(2)款
③《清洁空气法》第169条(c)(1)款
④45 Fed.Reg.at 80,084
① (1)smoke, dust, colored gas fumes, or layered haze emitted from stacks that obscure the sky or horizon and are relatable to a single source or small group of sources; (2) widespread, reginally homogeneous haze from a multitude of sources that impairs visibility in every direction over a large area.45 Fed. Reg. at 80.085
② 51 Fed. Reg. at 43,389 (1986)
③ Vermont,850 F.2d at 102
④ Vermont,850 F.2d at 103
①《清洁空气法》、第169条(d)(2)(C)款
②40 C.F.R.51.300(b)(3)
③40 C.F.R.51.308(d)(1)
④40 C.F.R.51.308(d)(1)(Ⅰ)
⑤40 C.F.R.51.308(d)(1)(Ⅱ)
① 40 C.F.R.51.308 (e)
②《清洁空气法》第169条(b)(2)(A)款
③《清洁空气法》第169条(g)(2)款
④ H.R. Rep. No.294, at 206
⑤ Any fossil fuel-fired power plant with a total generating capacity of 750 megawatts or greater must demonstrate that it is located at such a distance from all mandatory Class Ⅰ areas that it similarly could not cause to significant impairment40 C.F.R.51.303 (b)
① 40 C.F.R.51.308 (e)
② 40 C.F.R.51.308 (e) (2)
③ States must therefore, consider the full suite of anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment in designing a long-term strategy including major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources and area sources.40 C.F.R. 51.308 (d) (3)
④ 40 C.F.R.51.308 (d) (4) (v)
①其他章节几乎都是对固定空气污染物质排放源规制的规定。
②U.S. EPA, Heaith Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust:SAB Review Draft, EPA/600/8-90/057E(2000)
③钱易、唐孝炎主编：《环境保护与可持续发展》,高等教育出版社,2000年7月版,第63页
④陶建国：《日本东京大气污染诉讼及启示》,《承德民族师专学报》第28卷第3期,2008年8月,第57页
①Pub.L.No.89-272
②31 Fed.Reg.5170(1966)
① The Actprovided that HEW could waive the preemption for any state that had adopted standards for the control emission on new vehicles before March 30,1966,(the only state meeting the condition for the preemption waiver was California)Pub. L. No.89-272
② Congressional Research Service, History and Future of Spark Ignition Engines, Report for The Senate COMM. On Public Works
①Pub. L. No.91-604
②《清洁空气法》第202条(a)(1)款
③本章第三节将专门论述
① 478 F.2d 615 (D.C.Cir.1973)
② The court found out in particular that the EPA had not supported its decision that the technology would be available in time and that there would be enough catalytic converters available to the model-year automotive fleet. International Harvester v. Ruckleshaus
③ Husqvarna v. EPA,254 F.3d 195,201
①本章第四节将做详细分析
①40 C.F.R.86.1803.01
① EPA 420.R.98.800
②65 Fed.Reg.6608(2000)
③65 Fed.Reg.6071(2000)
④65 Fed.Reg.6698(2000)
①62 Fed.Reg.31-192(1997)
① 63 Fed.Reg.11,374(1998)
②《清洁空气法》第206条(h)款
③ 61 Fed.Reg.54,851(1996)
④ 65 Fed.Reg.6790-91(2000)
① 57 Fed. Reg.13,220(1992)
② 467 U.S.837(1984)
③ The court rejected the EPA's position that it could substitute Stage Ⅱ controls for onboard controls, set aside the EPA decision, and ordered the agency to adopt onboard control regulations.59 Fed. Reg.16,262 (1994)
①65 Fed.Reg.6790-91(2000)
②57 Fed.Reg.31,888(1992)
③55 Fed.Reg.30,620(1990)
④《清洁空气法》第202条(j)(4)款
①62 Fed.Reg.54,694(1997)
②66 Fed.Reg.5002(2001)
③National Petrochemical & Rediners Ass'n,et al.v.EPA,287 F.3d 1130(D.C.Cir. 2002)
④The EPA estimated that there would be excess emissions totaling 15 million excess tons of NO over the life of the engines.65 Fed.Reg.59,899(2000)
⑤63 Fed.Reg.59,330(1998)
① Internional Truck, el al. v. EPA, No.00-1510 (D.C.Cir)
② 58 Fed. Reg.21,359(1993)
① U.S. E.P.A. EPA-21A-2001 (1991)
② 59 Fed. Reg.31,306 (1994)
③ The court found among other things, EPA did not act arbitrarily by classifying engines in large mining equipment with other large CI in making the finding that such engine' cause or contribute'to ozone or CO pollution. Engine Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA,88 F.3d 1075 (D.C.Cir.1996)
① 68 Fed. Reg.9745 (2003)
② 64 Fed. Reg.'15,208 (1999)
③ The court found out that the statute required standards that achieve the greastest degree of emission reduction achievable through available technology, taking into account factors such as cost, thus putting air quality as a overriding goal of Sction 213, with cost being an important but subordinate secondary factor. Husqvarna v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (D.C.Cir.2001)
①40 C.F.R.86.610
① With respect to a substantial number of failing vehicles, the courts have required any number large enough to show that a systematic or pervasive problem in a particular class or category of vehicles exsits. Chrysler Corp. v. EPA,631 F.2d 865 (D.C.Cir 1980)
② Chrysler Corp. v. EPA,631 F.2d 888 (D.C.Cir 1980)
③ Chrysler Corp. v. EPA,631 F.2d 889 (D.C.Cir 1980)
①清洁空气法》第177条
②是加州空气污染控制机构,也是加州环保局的一个部门,委员会由11名受委任成员组成,制定并执行规章以为全加州居民提供安全、清洁空气,监督35个地方空气质量管理区。
① CAL. Exec. Order No. S-3-05(June 1,2005)
② California v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No.08-70011 (9th Cir. Field Jan.3,2008)
① CAL. Health & Safety Code 38500-38560 (2006)
② http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reporys/2007-04-20_ARB_early_action_report.pdf.
①http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1495_brownchallengescounties.pdf.
①林灿铃等著：《国际环境法理论与实践》,知识产权出版社,2008年5月版,第245页
② Pub. L. No.90-148,2,81 Stat.502
③ 40 C.F.R. pt 80
④ The initial panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the EPA's action on the grounds that the EPA had known, under the 1970 version of Section 211 (c), that lead emissions will endanger the public health or welfare.Ethyl Corp. v. EPA,7 Env't Rep. Cas.1353(D.C.Cir.1976)
① The court, en banc, reversed the original panel, holding that the will endanger language authorized the EPA to take precationary o preventive action. Ethyl,541 F.2d at 13
② 1977 Legislative History at 759
③ 1977 Legislative History at 2775
④ This provision shifts the burden to manufacturers to show that a fuel or additive will not have a harmful impact on emissions control equipment 1977 Legislative History at 362
①55 Fed.Reg.34,138(1990)
① The dominant oxygenant in use were ethanol and MTBE. Ethanol is an alcohol derived from grain and primarily corn. MTBE is an ether made by combining isobutylene, a refinery component that canbe made from natural gas or other hydrocarbons,and methanol derived from natual gas.1990 Legislative History at 1073
② 1990 Legislative History at 851
① The court of appeals made clear that there is no requirement under Section 21 (f) that the new fuels or additives will not endanger public health and welfare through emissions that are not the subject of vehicle or engine certification standards.51 F.3d 2053 (D.C.Cir.1995)
①59 Fed. Reg.42,227(1994)
①43 Fed.Reg.11,258(1978)
②56 Fed.Reg.5352(1991)
③56 Fed.Reg.24,362(1991)
① 46 Fed. Reg.38,584(1981)
② The EPA finally determined that Ethyl Corpration had demonstrated that MMT would not cause or contribute to vehicle or engine failure to vomply with certification emissionsstandards.58 Fed. Reg.64,761 (1993)
③ Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, No.94-1516,1995 WL 612905 (D.C.Cir. Oct.20,1995)
④ 60 Fed. Reg.36,414(1995)
①989 F.2d at 524
②Ethyl Corp.v.Browner, No.94-1516,1995 WL 612905(D.C.Cir. Oct.20,1995)
①749 F.2d at 837
②749 F.2d at 836
③749 F.2d at 840
④768 F.2d at 385(D.C.Cir 1985)
⑤768 F.2d at 390
⑥768 F.2d at 392
①60 Fed.Reg.47,907(1995)
②55 Fed.Reg.12,154(1990)
③57 Fed.Reg.47,849(1992)
① 58 Fed. Reg.32,531(1993)
② 57 Fed. Reg.47,769(1992)
③ The EPA also satisfied its obligations to promulgate guidelines for an oxgen credit-trading system so that those using more oxgyen than required could offset those using less, within the same area.57 Fed. Reg.47,849 (1992)
① The EPA concluded in its initial assessment that, based on animal studies, MTBE is a low-potency possible human carcinogen U.S.EPA Report No. EPA/600/R-93-206 (Nov.1993)
① Richard 0. Faulk et. Al, Salem Revisited:Updating the MTBE Controversy, SF97 ALI-ABA 949-950 (2001)
② 65 Fed. Reg.16,903(2000)
③ Faulk, supra, at 949,966 (2001)
④ Faulk, supra, at 969-970 (2001)
⑤ 163 F. Supp.2d 1182 (E.D. Cal.2001)
⑥ The court relied primarily on another CAA provision allowing California to prescribe its own fuel regulations, the court also ruled that the ban did not violate the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.158 F. Supp. 2d 248 (N.D.N.Y.2001)
①吕忠梅：《环境法新视野》,中国政法大学出版社2007年修订版,第19页
②薛志钢、郝吉明等：《国外大气污染控制经验》, 载《重庆环境科学》2003年11期,第159页
③关于有害气体跨境污染的问题,美国和加拿大曾因特雷尔冶炼厂二氧化硫污染发生过争执。特雷尔冶炼厂是加拿大一家私人冶炼厂,该厂从1896年开始冶炼锌和锡,由于提炼的矿物质含有硫磺,生成二氧化硫进入大气,并跨境给美国华盛顿州造成污染。在协商不成的情况下,美加两国接受国际联合会的建议,成立仲裁法庭解决此项争端。仲裁庭主席由比利时法学家霍斯蒂耶担任,美、加各出一名仲裁员。仲裁法庭于1941年做出最终裁决,认定加拿大对特雷尔冶炼厂负有国际法上的责任。该案是第一个,也是迄今为止跨境空气污染的唯一案例。见：林灿铃等著：《国际环境法理论与实践》,知识产权出版社,北京,2008,第10页
④《清洁空气法》第401条
①《清洁空气法》第403条(a)款
②《清洁空气法》第403条
③《清洁空气法》第407条
④《清洁空气法》第409条
① The S02 and Norequirements established by Title IV and by EPA administrator through regulations are enforced through a permit program. In phase Ⅰ, the permit program was run by the administrator but, beginning in Phase Ⅱ, is being administrated by the states. Acid rain permits are subject to the requirementsof Title V, the operating permits program.《清洁空气法》第411条
②《清洁空气法》第404条(f)款
③赵鹏高：《加拿大和美国的电力环保政策》载《节能环保》2005.N0.1第7页
④《清洁空气法》第402条(1)款
①《清洁空气法》第402条(8)款
②《清洁空气法》第402条(10)款
③《清洁空气法》第403条
④ The number o allowances that each Phase Ⅰ affected unit received during Phase Ⅰ is listed in Scetion 404, the number of allowances that each affected unit receives in Phase Ⅱ was not specified in a list; instead, Section 405 contains numerous formulas for determing the number of allowances that each unit receives.《清洁空气法》第403条(g)款
① The EPA administrator was required to ensure that, by Phase Ⅱ, no more than 8.9 million allowances could beallocated per year, with the exception of allowences allocated pursuant to Section 405,bonus allowances, extra allowance for certain big high-emitting units, allowances for units that opt into the SO2 program. The administrator was required to reduce the basic Phase Ⅱ allowance allocations pro rota to ensure that this limit was not exceeded《清洁空气法》第403条(a)款
② 63 Fed. Reg.51,706(1998)
①清洁空气法》第402条(4)款
②清洁空气法》第402条(19)款
①《清洁空气法》第404条(f)(1)(A)款
② Qualified renewable energy isdefined as energy derived from biomass, solar, geothermal, or wind as identifiedby the administrator in consultation with the Secretary of Energy.《清洁空气法》第404条(f)(1)(B)款
①Units that submitted satisfactory documentation for repowering, pursuant to Section 409(a), received a for-yearextension from the Phase Ⅱ compliance date. In the interim they were allocted allowances based on the emission rate in the applicable SIP. These allowances may not be transferred.《清洁空气法》第409条(c)款
②《清洁空气法》第409条(d)款
③ 56 Fed. Reg.65,592(1991)
①《清洁空气法》第416条(c)款
① Industrial sources also are the subject of an emissions inventory that was conducted by the administrator pursuant to Scetion 406 of the CAA Amendments. Under this provision, if the inventory indicated that CO2 emissions from industrial sources were likely to exceed 5.6 million tons per year, the administrator was required to take actions to control those emissions so that the 5.6-million-ton cap would not be exceeded《清洁空气法》第406条(c)款
②曹凤中、周国梅、吴迪、李玉琪：《美国实施清洁空气法的效益与启迪》载《环境科学与技术》,2000年第3期,第22页
③周训芳、李爱年主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,长沙,2008念月版,第170页
④曹凤中、周国梅、吴迪、李玉琪：《美国实施清洁空气法的效益与启迪》载《环境科学与技术》,2000年第3期,第21页
① 55 Fed. Reg.52,709(1980)
② 63 Fed. Reg.36,129(1998)
③ Section 407(b)(1) specifies that the maximum rates of NO emitted from Group 1 units should be 0.451b/mmBtu for tangentially fired boilers and 0.50 lb/mmBtu for dry bottom wall-fired boilers,provided that the administrator may set a rate higher than that listed for any type of utility boiler if the administrator finds that the maximum listed rate for that boiler type connot be achieved using low NO burner technology. The section thus implies that the administrator should promulgate the Group 1 emission limitations based on low NO burner technology. The precise meaning of the term low NO burner technology, however, was a subject of much dispute in the course of the NO rule making.《清洁空气法》第407条款
① The owner or operator of two or more units subject to the Title IV NO emission limitations may request permission to average the emissions of the units in question and have the average meet the applicable emission limitations. This compliance option was available in Phase Ⅰ and continues to be available in Phase Ⅱ. The units must comply with alternative emission limitations that ensure that the actual annual NO emission rate averaged over the units in question is less than or equal to the average annual NO emission rate for the units if they had been operated according to the applicable emission limitation under statute.
① Section 411 provides that any affected unit that emits SO2 or NO in excess of allowances held or the applicable emissions limitation is liable for a penalty of ＄2,000 per ton of excess emissions, adjusted yearly for inflation. This penalty is in addition to any other penalty that may be assessed against the unit for the same violation under any other provision of CAA.《清洁空气法》第411条
①《清洁空气法》第602条
②《清洁空气法》第614条
③ Section 602 sets forth initial lists of Class Ⅰ and Ⅱ ODS, including isomers of listed substances. The class I ODS listed in the CAA and CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and mothyl chloroform. Only HCFCs are listed as Class Ⅱ ODS. Pursuant to Section 602(c), the EPA has authority to add substances to either list based on the substances potential harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer. Such action may be taken sua sponte or in response to a listing petition. The EPA may move a Class Ⅱ substance onto the Class Ⅰlisted, but it may not otherwise remove a Class Ⅱ substance from the Class Ⅰ or Class Ⅱ lists.《清洁空气法》第602条(c)(4)款
④ 58 Fed. Reg.65,018(1993)
①58 Fed. Reg.65,018(1993)
② At the same time, the EPA took steps to implement the 1992 Copenhagen Amendments to the Mentreal Protocol. 40 C.F.R.82.4
③ 40 C.F.R.82.16 (c)
④ 40 C.F.R.82.16 (e)
⑤ The EPA's first initiative in this area was the establishment of the'allowance program'for Class I substances. Under this program, each person who was producing or consuming a listed Class I substance in the applicable baseline year was apportioned a chemical-specific production or consumption baseline.40 C.F.R.82.5
⑥40 C.F.R.82.4 (b)
① 68 Fed. Reg. at 2823
② 68 Fed. Reg. at 2836
③ 40 C.F.R.82.9 (a)
④ The EPA requires each person granted Article 5 allwances to report each quarter on exports to Aricle 5 countries. Interpollutant and intercompany transfers of Article 5 allowances are permitted, subject to an offset requirement of one percent in the case of Class I substances and one-tenth of a persent in the case of Class II substances.40 C.F.R. 82.12 (b)
① 60 Fed. Reg.24,971-72
② If a U.S, compony were to sell its HCFC-22 production allowances to another U.S. compony, it would be perform an'inter-compony' transfer. Alternatively, the company could convert its HCFC-22 production allowances into its HCFC-142b production allowances, on an ODP weight basis.40 C.F.R.82.10 (a)
③ CAA Section611 requires that a warning label be placed on containers containg a Class Ⅰ or Class Ⅱ substance,products contanining Class Ⅰ substances, and products manufactured with Class Ⅰ substances.《清洁空气法》第611条(b)款
④ 40 C.F.R.82.104 (n)
⑤ 40 C.F.R.82.104 (s)
① 40 C.F.R.82.104 (f)
②The EPA's labeling regulations provide that a manufacturer must label its product as'manufactured with a controlled sustance' only if that manufacturer itself used a controlled substance in making the product.40 C.F.R. 82.104(0)
③《清洁空气法》第611条(d)款
④《清洁空气法》第611条(c)款
①40 C.FR.82.106 (b)
②40 C.F.R.82.120(c)
③40 C.F.R.82.104(q)
④40 C.F.R.82.110(a)
⑤40 C.F.R.82.110(c)
①《清洁空气法》第608条(a)(1)款
②58 Fed.Reg.28,660(1993)
③40 Fed.Reg.82,150(b)
④58 Fed.Reg.28,665(1993)
⑤40 Fed.Reg.82,156(a)(1)
⑥ 40 Fed.Reg.82,164
⑦40 Fed.Reg.82,158(j)
① Owners of commercial refrigeration equipment containing at least fifty pounds charge and owners of industrial process refrigeration equipment must repair any leaks causing a loss of refrigerant that exceeds 35 percent of the total charge during a 12 months period.40 Fed. Reg.82,156 (i)
② 40 Fed. Reg.82,152 (i) (9)
③ 40 Fed. Reg.82,156 (f) (3)
④ 40 Fed. Reg.82,164 (g)
⑤ Only certified technicians may open appliances, except MVACs, for maintenance, servise, repair. Only certified technicians may dispose of appliances, except small appliances, MVACs,and MVAC-like appliance.40 Fed. Reg. 82,161 (a)
⑥ 40 Fed. Reg.82,166
①40 Fed.Reg.82.34(b)
① 40 Fed. Reg.82.34 (c)
② As of 1993, all persons serving MVACs are also required to certify to the EPA that they have acquired approved equipment and that they are properly trained and certified to use the equipment.40 Fed. Reg.82.42 (a)
③ 40 Fed. Reg.82.42 (b)
④ 40 Fed. Reg.82.42 (c)
⑤ 40 Fed. Reg.82.38
⑥ 40 Fed. Reg.82.38 (d)
① The 1997 rule making filled another gap, this one relating to the handling of refrigerants recovered during the diposal of motor vehicles. The EPA clarified that certified technicians and disposal facility personnel may recycle and resell such refrigerants under specified conditions, such persons are not limited to sending the refrigerants to a reclaimer.62 Fed. Res. at 68.029 col.1
① John M. Reilly, et al., Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Multi-Gas Approaches to Global Climate Changes (2003)
② U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1990-2000 (April 2002)
①42 U.S.C.7671
②66 Fed.Reg.51,7486(2001)
① International Center for Technology Assessment v. Whitman, No DC-102 CV 2376 (D.C.Cir. filed Dec.5,2002)
② Letter from Peter Lehner. Assistant Attorney General; to Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S. EPA
① Peter Glaser, et al., CO2:A Pollutant? The Legal Affairs Committee Report to the National Mining Assosation Board of Directors on the Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide under the Clean Air Act 22-23 (2001)
② Testimony of Gary S. Guzy, supra note 13
③ 42 U.S.C.7403 (g)
①Massachusetts vs.EPA 127 S.Ct.1438(2007)
②《清洁空气法》第108条
③Glaser,supra note 14
① Reitze, supra note 5, at 417
②he CAA defines HAPs as pollutants that have adverse effects on human health through inhalation or other routes of exposure.《清洁空气法》第112条(b)款
③ Reitze, supra note 5, at 417
①http://www.epa.gov/apti/course422/apc1.hcml
②42 U.S.C.7543(b)(2006)
① http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reporys/2007-04-20_ARB_early_action_report.pdf.
② CAL. Pub. Res. Code 21080.4(2006)
③ County of San Bernardino, No. CIVSS-0700329,at 2-3
①加里.贝克尔(美国芝加哥大学教授,1992年诺贝尔经济学奖得主)：《清洁能源立法》,《财经》杂志2009年7月20日总第242期,第52页
② T. Hargave, U.S. Carbon Emmissions Tradeing:Description of an Upstream Approach. Center for Clean Air Policy (1998)
① Nordhaus and Danish, supra note 79
② Heinz Center, supra note 79, at Appendix 5
① Anne E. Smith and Martin T. Ross, Allowance Allocation:Who Win and Loses under a Carbon Dioxide Cntrol Program? Center for Clean Air Policy (Feb 2002)
② Smith and Ross, supra note 85
③ Burtraw, supra note 85
① www.stockstar.com
①掌握了产品的国际标准制定权,就意味着基本控制了这个产品的国际市场。
②刘军红：《构建未来国际气候秩序》载《瞭望》,2008年第50期12月15日,第47页
①“低碳经济”的概念由英国于2003年首先提出,它是指以低能耗、低排放、低污染为基础的生态经济模式。传统高碳经济以透支人类生存环境而换取短期快速发展,低碳经济是可持续发展的重要路径。
①周训芳、李爱年、主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,2008年第一版,第129页
②(美)庞德著：《法理学》第一卷,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第353页
③张文显主编：《法理学》,北京大学出版社1999年版,第295页
①这里需要特别说明的是,行政法法官(Administrative Law Judges)是联邦行政机关内的法官,其权力和职责都由联邦行政程序法界定。联邦机构中还有另外一种听证官,称为行政法官(Administrative Judges)。两者虽然只有一字之差,但在法律地位上有较大差别。1、行政法法官受到联邦行政程序法所确立的“功绩选任”制度的保护,由美国人事管理署负责考核管理,因而具有较强的独立性。而行政法官不是行政程序法规定的,在法律上从属于雇佣他们的行政机关,独立性弱于行政法法官；2、行政法法官应当是律师,而行政法官则无此要求,但应具有专业知识；3、行政法法官主持的是行政程序法规定的正式听证(即审讯性听证),行政法官则在行政程序法规定之外,官主持的是行政程序法规定的正式听证(即审讯性听证),行政法官则在行政程序法规定之外,主持非正式的听证。两类法官虽有区别,但职能相似：即都是行政机关的听证官员,在听证后作出初步裁决,再由行政机关负责人作出本机关的最终决定。刘梓：《美国行政程序法概念辨析》,《行政法学研究,》1999年第二期,第82-84页
②汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞、编著：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣》,北京大学出版社,2007年11月版
③汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞、编著：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣》,北京大学出版社,2007年11月版
①秦虎、张建宇：《以“清洁空气法”为例简析美国环境管理体系》,载《环境科学研究》,2005年4期,第55页
①《清洁空气法》第114条(a)(1)款
② The EPA frequently relies on this authority as the basis for the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements in substantive standards as well as for developing the factual record for its rule makings concering emissions standards. The authority may be delegated to the State.《清洁空气法》第114条(b)款
③《清洁空气法》第114条(c)款
④ 40 C.F.R.19.1 et. seq
① BNA Daily Environment Report, AA-1, July 21,1998
② Manufacturers of new motor vehicles, engines, or engine parts and components, and any other persons subject to the requirements of CAA Title Ⅱ,may be required to establish and maintain records, make reports, and provide information as necessary to demonstrate compliance with CAA requirements and regulations.《清洁空气法》第208条
③《清洁空气法》第114条(d)款
④ U.S. v. Tivian Laboratories, Inc.
①《清洁空气法》第206条(c)款
②《清洁空气法》第206条(b)款
③ Failure to comply with mobile source information collection and inspection requests may subject a person to civil penalties of up to $27,500 per day of violation.《清洁空气法》第203条(a)(2)款
④ 40 C.F.R.70.6 (c) (2)
⑤ 589 F.2d 49,53 (D.C.Cir.1978)
①EPA..Alyeska Pipeline Serv.Co.,
②Holmes & Reitze,supra note 19,at 71-75
③《清洁空气法》第307条(a)款
④40 C.F.R.p.t.2
⑤40 C.F.R.2.301(f)
① U.S. v. Tivian Laboratories, Inc.
②《清洁空气法》第2113条(c)(1)款
③ EPA, The Timely and Appropriate (T&A) Enforcement Response to High Priority Violation (Dec 22,1998)
①《清洁空气法》第120条(a)(2)款
②《清洁空气法》第120条(d)(3)款
③《清洁空气法》第120条(a)(1)(B)款
④Section 120 specifies that noncompliance penalties shall not bar or otherwise limit additional civil or criminal enforcement proceedings under the CAA or state or local law.《清洁空气法》第120条(f)款
⑤ 67 Fed. Reg.33,734 (2002)
①《清洁空气法》第113条(a)(3)款
②An order issued to a corporation must be issued to appropriate corporate officers. In addition, a copy of the order must be sent to the relevant state air pollution control agency.《清洁空气法》第113条(a)(4)款
③《清洁空气法》第112条
④《清洁空气法》第113条(b)款
⑤ In re Chevron USA, Inc., Docket No 9-94-4 (Sept.29,1993)
①《清洁空气法》第113条(a)(1)款
②S.Rep.No.228,101st Cong.,1st Sess.(1989)
③《清洁空气法》第113条(a)(5)款
④U.S.v.Solar Turbines,Inc.,732 F.Supp.535,538-40(M.D.Pa.1989)
①Chafee-Baucus Statement of Senate Managers,136 CONG. REC.S16,933(Oct.27,1990)
②《清洁空气法》第113条(d)(2)(A)款
③40 C.F.R.22.19(f)
①《清洁空气法》第113条(d)(4)款
②《清洁空气法》第113条(d)(5)款
①U.S. v. Dale Valentine,38 ERC 2086 (BNA) (D. Wyo. June 1,1994)
① Failure to comply with an emergency order may subject the source to potential civil penalties of ＄27,500 perday for each violation.《清洁空气法》第113条(b)(2)款
②《清洁空气法》第112条(r)(9)(A)款
③《清洁空气法》第112条(r)(2)(A)款
① U.S. v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., No.99-1692,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20936 (S.D. Ind. Oct 24, 2002)
② Annual Report on Environment and Compliance Assurance Accmplishments in 1999, June 2000
①环境民事侵权诉讼不是本文研究的范围,因而不展开论述。
②虽然美国制定有《行政程序法》,但这只是行政机构在行政执法时所应依据的程序性规定,而非法院诉讼的程序法律。
③《清洁空气法》中对本章内容的规定为民事执行诉讼(Civil Enforcement Action),而并非普通的民事诉讼(Civil Action).
④ 42 U.S.C.7401 (a) (3)
① U.S. V. Hugo Key and Son,731 F.Supp.1135,1144-45 (D.R.I.1989)
②也就是说,当污染排放源的经营者和拥有者的行为违反了《清洁空气法》第一章规定的有关基本原则、第303条规定的“突发事件应急机制”、第四章规定的“酸雨项目”、第六章规定的“许可制度”、第七章规定的臭氧层保护项目、以及“州政府独立管理项目”等有关规定,联邦环境保护总署都有权利向地区法院提起民事诉讼。
③ United States v. B&W Investment Properties,38 F.3d 363,367 (7th Cir.1994)
① EPA, Process for Conducting Pre-Referral Settlement Negotiations, GM-73 (March 9,1988)
② 57 Fed. Reg.2213(1992)
③ 61 Fed. Reg.65,391 (1996)
① EPA. Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy (Oct 25.1991)
② 28 C.F.R.50.7
③ Harold Feld, "Saving the Citizn Suit:the Effect of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and the Role of Citizen Suits in Environmental Enforcement",19 Colum. J. Envtl. L.141, (1994).
①徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社2008年8月版,第214页
②徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社2008年8月版,第215页
③http://www.epa.gov/regulation/caa/.html
①塞拉俱乐部是美国历史最悠久、最有影响的环保组织。成立于1892年,创始人是约翰.缪尔(John Muir).其宗旨是：1、探究、享受并保护地球的荒野；2、开展和促进对地球生态系统和资源负责任的使用；3、教育人们以人性化的方式保护和恢复环境质量；4、使用一切合法方式实行这些目标。参见塞拉俱乐部官方网站：http://www.sierraclub.or/inside/.最后访问日期：2009-11-21。
②环境权可以分为四个层次：1、安全。即生活环境质量要符合生态学上的安全要求,对人体健康和生命安全没有威胁和危害；2、卫生。即环境质量要达到卫生标准,符合人类健康的生理活动。3、舒适。即生活环境质量达到心情舒适、愉快的要求。4、美感。即环境赏心悦目,给人以享受的感觉。这是环境权最高层次的标准。
①李艳芳：《从“马萨诸塞州等诉环保局”案看美国环境法的新发展》,中国人民大学学报,2007年第6期,第108页
② Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
③ Lujan v. Defender s of Wildlife
④ Antonin Scalia. The doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers[J],1983 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev.881(1983)
① Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services
② Percival, Schroeder, Miller, Leapel Environmental Regulation:Law, Science, and Policy [M]1. Fifth Edi tion, Aspen Publishers,2006
①由于该案意义重大,本节(三)将做专门分析。
①Massachusetts vs. EPA 127 S.Ct.1438 (2007)
① http://www.epa.gov/regulation/caa/.html
② Antonin Scalia. The doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers[J],1983 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev.881(1983)
①Massachusetts Et Al vl Ul Sl EPA Et Al,549 Ul Sl (2007)1
①常纪文、杨朝霞著：《环境法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,北京,2008年10月版,第220页
②李清宇：《环境公益诉讼原告资格研究》,《环境法治与建设和谐社会》,2007年全国环境资源法学研讨会论文集,第1053页
③42 U.S.C.E9601——9657(1982)
①《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(2)款
① 9 Pace Envtl. L. Rev.281.374 n.370 (1992)
② Daniel Riesel. Environmental Enforcement:Civil and Criminal (Law Journal Seminar-Press,1997)
③《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(1)款
① 18U.S.C.3571 (b)(3)
②《清洁空气法》第113条(h)款
③ The criminal level of scienter required for establishing the mens rea element requires only proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant generally intended to commit certain acts, as opposed to a specific intent to violate the regulatory requirements. However, as concerns low-level employees, the CAA imposes criminal liability only for violations that are knowing and willful, a standard that would appear to approach a level of scienter warranting proof of specific intent.《清洁空气法》第113条(h)款
④ Criminal liability maybe imposed under the CAA on any person who knowingly makes any false material statement, representation, or certification in a document required to be filed or maintained under the act, including any omission, knowing alteration, or concealment regarding any such application, record, report, plan, or decument.《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(2)款
①《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(3)款
H.R. Conf. Rep. No.952, at 347-48 (1990)
H.R. Conf. Rep. No.952, at 348 (1990)
④《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(2)款
⑤《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(A)款
① An affirmative defence is provided when the conduct comprising the violation was consented to by the endangered person, provided that the danger and conduct were reasonably foreseeable hazards, of an occupation, business, profession, or medical experimentation or treatment.《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(C)款
②《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(A)款
③《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(B)款
④《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(4)款
⑤《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(E)款
①《大气污染防治法》第十五条
②吴健：《排污权交易——环境容量管理制度创新》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版,第208页
①详见本文第二章第第三节
②《“十一五”期间全国主要污染物排放总量控制计划》
①王立：《中国环境法的新视角》,中国检察出版社2001年版,第173页
②《大气污染防治法》第十五条
①唐珍妮：《排污许可证制度存在的问题及对策》, 载于《长沙大学学报》,2008年第5期,第59页
①任洪岩：《我国机动车污染防治政策及状况》,载于《管理与法制》,2005年第6期,第230页
②中国环境保护产业协会机动车污染防治专业委员会：《我国机动车污染防治2007年行业技术发展综述》,载于《中国环保产业》,2008年第9期,第14页
③胡唯元：《控制移动源污染：变被动为主动》,载于《科技日报》,2007年5月10日,第5版
①《大气污染防治法》第三十五条
②68 Fed.Reg.9745(2003)
①周玉华：《环境行政法学》,东北林业大学出版社2002年版,第153页
①《大气污染防治法》第四十八条
②《大气污染防治法》第五十九条
③刘春焱：《重庆环保实行按日计罚的立法与时间效果分析》,载于《环境保护》,2007年第12B期,第43页
①《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(2)款
②摘自2005年国务院制定的《关于落实科学发展观加强环境保护的决定》
①《大气污染防治法》第六十二条
①张瑞丹、李增新：《中美“绿色共赢”悬念》,《财经》杂志,2009/02/16,第98页
①新华网：温家宝总理在哥本哈根气候变化会议领导人会议上的讲话2009年12月19日
[1]S. Rep.No.91-1196, at 18 (1970)
[2]52 Feb. Reg.24634,24641 (1987)
[3]Sen. Comm. On Oublic Works Rep., National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, at 10
[4]647 F.2d 1130 (D. C Cir), cert. denied,449 U.S.1042 (1980)
[5]59 F.2d 62 (D. C. Cir.1978)
[6]68 Feb. Reg.614 (Jan 6,2003)
[7]40 Feb. Reg.8.202 (1979)
[8]61 Feb. Reg.65,730-31
[9]38 Fed. Reg.25,679 (1973)
[10]61 Fed. Reg.25,566 (1996)
[11]36 Fed. Reg.8186 (1971)
[12]EPA "National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report,1993 Executive Summary and Selected Graphics" (released Oct.19,1994)
[13]49 Fed. Reg.6,866,6,872 (1984)
[14]45 Fed. Reg.55,066 (1980)
[15]64 Fed. Reg.43,255-59 (1999)
[16]62 Fed. Reg.38,856-75 (1997)
[17]513 U.S.457,486 (2001)
[18]62 Fed. Reg.38,428
[19]General Preamble-PM Supp., at Fed. Reg.41,998, Addendum (1994)
[20]39 Fed. Reg.42,510 (1974)
[21]68 Fed. Reg.61,248 at 61,252
[22]40 C. F. R. pt.51, app. S (offset ruling)
[23]40 C.F.R.52.21 (p) (2)
[24]40 C.F.R.52.21 (b) (5)
[25]40 C.F.R.52.21 (b) (1) (Ⅲ); NSRWM at A.9-A.16
[26]NSRWM at A.36; see In re Hibbing Taconite Co., PSD App. No.87-3, 1989 WL266359
[27]Murphy Oil,143 F. Supp.2d 1054,1080 (W. D. Wis.2001)
[28]3M Co. v. Browner,17 F.3D 1453,1462 (d. c. cir.1994)
[29]NPCA V. TVA I,502 F.3d 1316,1318 (11th Cir.2007)
[30]NPCA V. TVA I,502 F.3d 1318
[31]Duke Energy,278 F. Supp.2d 619 (M. D. N. C.2003)
[32]144 F. Supp.2d 441 (D. Md.2001)
[33]263 F. Supp.2d 666 (W. D. N. Y.2003)
[34]263 F. Supp.2d 657 (W. D. N. Y.2003)
[35]278 F. Supp.2d 619 (M. D. N. C.2003)
[36]81 F.3d 1329 (5th Cir.1996)
[37]Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,42 U. S. C. §§ 6901-6992k (2000)
[38]Marine Shale Processom,81 F.3d at 1352
[39]137 F. Supp.2d 1060 (S. D. Ohio 2001)
[40]No.2:99-CV-1181,2003 WL 23415140, at*1 (S. D. Ohio Jan.17,2003)
[41]42 U.S. C.§ 7470 (1)-(2) (2000)
[42]United States v Shimer,367 U. S., at383
[43]Envtl. Def. v. Duke Energy Corp.,127 S. Ct.1423,1430 (2007)
[44]United States v. Duke Energy Corp.,278 F. Supp.2d 619,625 (M. D. V. C. 2003)
[45]Mills, supra note 24, at 264
[46]40 C. F. R.51.166 (b) (2) (i)
[47]Robertson, supra note 36, at 160-161
[48]Mathew D. Zinn, Policing Environmental Regulation Enforcement: Cooperation, Capture, and Citizen Suits,21 STAN. ENVTL. L. J.81,107-111 (2002)
[49]Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1432
[50]Envtl. Def. v. Duke Energy Corp.,127 S. Ct.1432,1436 (2007)
[51]Pub. L. No.95-95,91 Sat.685,742-45 (1977)
[52]H. R. Rep. No.95-294, at 203-04 (1977)
[53]EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulation Matter, vol.1 at 3-99 (April 1996)
[54]National Park Service, Air Quality in The National Parks,2d. ed. (Sept.2002)
[55]45 Fed. Reg. at 80,084
[56]51 Fed. Reg. at 43,389 (1986)
[57]Vermont,850 F.2d at 102
[58]40 C. F.R.51.300 (b) (3)
[59]H. R. Rep. No.294, at 206
[60]40 C. F. R.51.308 (e)
[61]40 C. F.R.51.308 (d) (4) (v)
[62]U.S. EPA, Heaith Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust:SAB Review Draft, EPA/600/8-90/057E(2000)
[63]31 Fed. Reg.5170 (1966)
[64]Pub. L. No.91-604
[65]478 F.2d 615 (D. C. Cir.1973)
[66]Husqvarna v. EPA,254 F.3d 195,201
[67]40 C. F. R.86.1803-01
[68]65 Fed. Reg.6608 (2000)
[69]62 Fed. Reg.31-192 (1997)
[70]63 Fed. Reg.11,374 (1998)
[71]61 Fed. Reg.54,851 (1996)
[72]57 Fed. Reg.13,220 (1992)
[73]467 U.S.837 (1984)
[74]59 Fed. Reg.16,262 (1994)
[75]65 Fed. Reg.6790-91 (2000)
[76]57 Fed. Reg.31,888 (1992)
[77]55 Fed. Reg.30,620 (1990)
[78]62 Fed. Reg.54,694 (1997)
[79]National Petrochemical & Rediners Ass'n, et al. v. EPA,287F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir.2002)
[80]Internional Truck, el al. v. EPA, No.00-1510 (D.C. Cir)
[81]58 Fed. Reg.21,359 (1993)
[82]U.S. E. P. A. EPA-21A-2001 (1991)
[83]59 Fed. Reg.31,306 (1994)
[84]Engine Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA,88 F.3d 1075 (D.C.Cir.1996)
[85]Husqvarna v. EPA,254 F.3d 195 (D. C. Cir.2001)
[86]Chrysler Corp. v. EPA,631 F.2d 888 (D.C.Cir 1980)
[87]CAL. Exec. Order No. S-3-05(June 1,2005)
[88]California v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No.08-70011 (9th Cir. Field Jan.3,2008)
[89]CAL. Health & Safety Code 38500-38560 (2006)
[90]Pub. L. No.90-148,2,81 Stat.502
[91]1977 Legislative History at 2775
[92]55 Fed. Reg.34,138 (1990)
[93]1990 Legislative History at 1073
[94]51 F.3d 2053 (D. C. Cir.1995)
[95]43 Fed. Reg.11,258 (1978)
[96]56 Fed. Reg.5352 (1991)
[97]6 Fed. Reg.38,584 (1981)
[98]58 Fed. Reg.64,761 (1993)
[99]Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, No.94-1516,1995 WL 612905 (D. C. Cir. Oct. 20,1995)
[100]989 F.2d at 524
[101]768 F.2d at 385 (D.C.Cir 1985)
[102]60 Fed. Reg.47,907 (1995)
[103]55 Fed. Reg.12,154 (1990)
[104]57 Fed. Reg.47,849 (1992)
[105]58 Fed. Reg.32,531 (1993)
[106]57 Fed. Reg.47,769 (1992)
[107]U. S. EPA Report No. EPA/600/R-93-206 (Nov.1993)
[108]SF97 ALI-ABA 949-950 (2001)
[109]Faulk, supra, at 949,966 (2001)
[110]163 F. Supp.2d 1182 (E.D. Cal.2001)
[111]U.S. Constitution.158 F. Supp.2d 248 (N. D. N. Y.2001)
[112]63 Fed. Reg.51,706 (1998)
[113]56 Fed. Reg.65,592 (1991)
[114]55 Fed. Reg.52,709 (1980)
[115]63 Fed. Reg.36,129 (1998)
[116]58 Fed. Reg.65,018 (1993)
[117]58 Fed. Reg.65,018 (1993)
[118]40 C. F.R.82.16 (c)
[119]40 C.F.R.82.4 (b)
[120]68 Fed. Reg. at 2823
[121]40 C.F.R.82.9 (a)
[122]60 Fed. Reg.24,971-72
[123]40 C. F. R.82.104 (n)
[124]40 C.F.R.82.120 (c)
[125]58 Fed. Reg.28,660 (1993)
[126]40 Fed. Reg.82,150 (b)
[127]40 Fed. Reg.82,156 (a) (1)
[128]40 Fed. Reg.82,156 (f) (3)
[129]40 Fed. Reg.82.34 (b)
[130]40 Fed. Reg.82.38 (d)
[131]62 Fed. Reg. at 68,029 col.1
[132]U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1990-2000 (April 2002)
[133]42 U.S.C.7671
[134]66 Fed. Reg.51,7486 (2001)
[135]International Center for Technology Assessment v. Whitman, No DC-102 CV 2376 (D. C. Cir. filed Dec.5,2002)
[136]Letter from Peter Lehner, Assistant Attorney General; to Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S. EPA
[137]Testimony of Gary S. Guzy, supra note 13
[138]42 U. S. C.7403 (g)
[139]Massachusetts vs. EPA 127 S.Ct.1438 (2007)
[140]Glaser, supra note 14
[141]Reitze, supra note 5, at 417
[142]Reitze, supra note 5, at 417
[143]42 U.S.C.7543 (b) (2006)
[144]CAL. Pub. Res. Code 21080.4(2006)
[145]County of San Bernardino, No. CIVSS-0700329, at 2-3
[146]T. Hargave, U.S. Carbon Emmissions Tradeing:Description of an Upstream Approach, Center for Clean Air Policy (1998)
[147]Nordhaus and Danish, supra note 79
[148]Heinz Center, supra note 79, at Appendix 5
[149]Smith and Ross, supra note 85
[150]40 C. F. R.19.1 et. seq
[151]BNA Daily Environment Report, AA-1, July 21,1998
[152]U.S. v. Tivian Laboratories, Inc.
[153]40 C. F.R.70.6 (c) (2)
[154]589 F.2d 49,53 (D.C. Cir.1978)
[155]EPA.. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co.
[156]Holmes&Reitze, supra note 19, at 71-75
[157]40 C. F.R.2.301 (f)
[158]EPA, The Timely and Appropriate (T&A) Enforcement Response to High Priority Violation (Dec 22,1998)
[159]67 Fed. Reg.33,734 (2002)
[160]In re Chevron USA, Inc., Docket No 9-94-4 (Sept.29,1993)
[161]S. Rep. No.228,101st Cong.,1st Sess. (1989)
[162]U. S. v. Solar Turbines, Inc.,732 F. Supp.535,538-40 (M. D. Pa. 1989)
[163]Chafee-Baucus Statement of Senate Managers,136 CONG. REC. S16,933 (Oct.27,1990)
[164]U.S. v. Dale Valentine,38 ERC 2086 (BNA) (D. Wyo. June 1,1994)
[165]U. S. v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., No.99-1692,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20936 (S. D. Ind. Oct 24,2002)
[166]Annual Report on Environment and Compliance Assurance Accmplishments in 1999, June 2000
[167]U.S. V. Hugo Key and Son,731 F. Supp.1135,1144-45 (D.R.I.1989)
[168]42 U. S.C.7401 (a) (3)
[169]United States v. B&W Investment Properties,38 F.3d 363,367 (7th Cir.1994)
[170]EPA, Process for Conducting Pre-Referral Settlement Negotiations, GM-73 (March 9,1988)
[171]57 Fed. Reg.2213 (1992)
[172]61 Fed. Reg.65,391 (1996)
[173]EPA, Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy (Oct 25, 1991)
[174]Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
[175]Antonin Scalia. The doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers[J],1983 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev.881(1983)
[176]Friends of t he Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services
[177]Percival, Schroeder, Miller, Leapel Environmental Regulation Law, Science, and Policy [M]1. Fifth Edition, Aspen Publishers,2006
[178]Massachusetts vs. EPA 127 S.Ct.1438 (2007)
[179]Antonin Scalia. The doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers[J],1983 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev.881(1983)
[180]Massachusetts Et Al vl UlSI EPA Et Al,549 Ul Sl (2007) 1
[181]9 Pace Envtl. L. Rev.281,374 n.370 (1992)
[182]18 U. S.C.3571 (b) (3)
[183]H. R. Conf. Rep. No.952, at 347-48 (1990)
[184]68 Fed. Reg.9745 (2003)
[1]Robert J. Martineau, Jr.:The Clean Air Act Handbook, (2004)
[2]John M. Reilly, et al., Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Multi-Gas Approaches to Global Climate Changes (2003)
[3]Peter Glaser, et al., C02:A Pollutant? The Legal Affairs Committee Report to the National Mining Assosation Board of Directors on. the Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide under the Clean Air Act 22-23 (2001)
[4]Anne E. Smith and Martin T. Ross, Allowance Allocation:Who Win and Loses under a Carbon Dioxide Cntrol Program? Center for Clean Air Policy (Feb 2002)
[5]Harold Feld, " Saving the Citizn Suit:the Effect of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and the Role of Citizen Suits in Environmental Enforcement",19 Colum. J. Envtl. L.141, (1994)
[6]Daniel Riesel, Environmental Enforcement:Civil and Criminal (Law Journal Seminar-Press,1997)
[1]田磊：《环境危机：阴影下的希望》载《南风窗》,2007年12期下,第44页
[2]查尔斯.E.迪.里瓦(Charles E. Di Leva)著：《通过法律的和市场的手段保护自然环境与自然资源》,载王曦主编《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》,上海交通大学出版社2008年3月版,第31页
[3]李虎军：《直面细尘埃》,《财经》2009/07/20总第242期,第81页
[4]汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞编译：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣——美国联邦法院环境诉讼经典判例选》,北京大学出版社2006年6月版,第287页
[5]钱易、唐孝炎主编：《环境保护与可持续发展》,高等教育出版社,2000年7月版,第63页
[6]陶建国：《日本东京大气污染诉讼及启示》,《承德民族师专学报》第28卷第3期,2008年8月,第57页
[7]林灿铃等著：《国际环境法理论与实践》,知识产权出版社,2008年5月版,第245页
[8]吕忠梅：《环境法新视野》,中国政法大学出版社2007年修订版,第19页
[9]薛志钢、郝吉明等：《国外大气污染控制经验》, 载《重庆环境科学》2003年11期,第159页
[10]赵鹏高：《加拿大和美国的电力环保政策》载《节能环保》2005年第一期,第7页
[11]曹凤中、周国梅、吴迪、李玉琪：《美国实施清洁空气法的效益与启迪》载《环境科学与技术》,2000年第3期,第22页
[12]周训芳、李爱年主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,长沙,2008念月版,第170页
[13]加里.贝克尔(美国芝加哥大学教授,1992年诺贝尔经济学奖得主)：《清洁能源立法》,《财经》杂志2009年7月20日总第242期,第52页
[14]王明远：《“看得见的手”为中国可再生能源产业撑起一片明亮的天空?》《现代法学》2007-6-155-166
[15]张瑞丹：《绿色和平公布中国电企气候影响排名》,《财经》杂志2009年8 月3日总第243期,第73页
[16]刘军红：《构建未来国际气候秩序》载《瞭望》,2008年第50期12月15日,第47页
[17]周训芳、李爱年、主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,2008年第一版,第129页
[18](美)庞德著：《法理学》第一卷,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第353页
[19]张文显主编：《法理学》,北京大学出版社1999年版,第295页
[20]刘梓：《美国行政程序法概念辨析》,《行政法学研究,》1999年第二期,第82-84页
[21]秦虎、张建宇：《以“清洁空气法”为例简析美国环境管理体系》,载《环境科学研究》,2005年4期,第55页
[22]徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社2008年8月版,第214页
[23]李艳芳：《从“马萨诸塞州等诉环保局”案看美国环境法的新发展》,中国人民大学学报,2007年第6期,第108页
[24]常纪文、杨朝霞著：《环境法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,北京,2008年10月版,第220页
[25]李清宇：《环境公益诉讼原告资格研究》,《环境法治与建设和谐社会》,2007年全国环境资源法学研讨会论文集,第1053页
[26]吴健：《排污权交易——环境容量管理制度创新》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版,第208页
[27]王立：《中国环境法的新视角》,中国检察出版社2001年版,第173页
[28]唐珍妮：《排污许可证制度存在的问题及对策》, 载于《长沙大学学报》,2008年第5期,第59页
[29]任洪岩：《我国机动车污染防治政策及状况》,载于《管理与法制》,2005年第6期,第230页
[30]中国环境保护产业协会机动车污染防治专业委员会：《我国机动车污染防治2007年行业技术发展综述》,载于《中国环保产业》,2008年第9期,第14页
[31]胡唯元：《控制移动源污染：变被动为主动》,载于《科技日报》,2007年5月10日,第5版
[32]周玉华：《环境行政法学》,东北林业大学出版社2002年版,第153页
[33]刘春焱：《重庆环保实行按日计罚的立法与时间效果分析》,载于《环境保护》,2007年第12B期,第43页
[34]徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社2008年8月版,第215页
[35]张瑞丹、李增新：《中美“绿色共赢”悬念》,《财经》杂志,2009/02/16,第98页
[1]徐祥民主编：《环境法学》,北京大学出版社,2005年9月版
[2]徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社,北京,2008年8月版
[3]徐祥民主编：《中国环境资源法学评论》,中国政法大学出版社,2006年8月版
[4]金瑞林主编：《环境法学》,北京大学出版社,,2005年8月版
[5]汪劲：《中国环境法原理》,北京大学出版社,2000年3月版
[6]吕忠梅：《环境法学》,法律出版社,北京,2004年9月版
[7]钱易、唐孝炎主编：《环境保护与可持续发展》,高等教育出版社,北京,2000年7月版
[8]常纪文、杨朝霞：《环境法的新发展》中国社会科学出版社,北京,2008年10月版
[9]李清宇：《环境公益诉讼原告资格研究》,《环境法治与建设和谐社会》,2007年全国环境资源法学研讨会论文集
[10]林灿铃等：《国际环境法理论与实践》,知识产权出版社,北京,2008年5月版
[11]汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞编译：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣——美国联邦法院环境诉讼经典判例选》,北京大学出版,2006年6月版
[12]王曦：《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》,上海交通大学出版社。2008年3 月版
[13]王曦：《美国环境法概论》,武汉大学出版社,1992年版
[14]王曦：《国际环境法》,法律出版社,1998年版
[15]孟庆瑜：《环境法——英美法经典判例选读》,北京大学出版社2008年版
[16]金瑞林、汪劲：《20世纪环境法学研究评述》,北京大学出版社2003年版
[17]周训芳、李爱年、主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,长沙,2008年2月版
[18]杰弗里.C.哈泽德、米歇尔.塔鲁伊著,张茂译：《美国民事诉讼导论》,中国政法大学出版社,1998年9月
[19]吕忠梅：《环境法新视野》,中国政法大学出版社,2007年7月版。
[20]蔡守秋主编：《环境与资源法教程》,高等教育出版社,北京,2004年7月版
[1]http://www.epa.gov/apti/course422/apcl.html
[2]http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reporys/2007-0 4-20_ARB_early_action_report.pdf
[3]http://www.stockstar.com
[4]http://www.epa.gov/regulation/caa/.html
[5]http://www.sierraclub.or/inside/
[6]http://www.epa.gov/regulation/caa/.html
① The Clean Air Act divides mobile sources into three categories:on-highway motor vehicles, like cars, trucks, and buses; aircraft, and nonroad vehicles and engines, which is a catch-all category for vechiles and equipment that are not generally used on the highways but are self-propelled or portable or transportable. Robert J. Martineau, Jr. The Clean Air Act Handbook,2004:page 323
①查尔斯.E.迪.里瓦(Charles E.Di Leva)著：《通过法律的和市场的手段保护自然环境与自然资源》,载王曦主编《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》,上海交通大学出版社2008年3月版,第31页
①徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社,2008年版,第47页
①由于列入该目录中的空气污染物质具有特殊的地位,需要在全国范围内进行严格的监管和控制以维护整体的公共利益,因此该空气污染物质必须首先属于空气污染物质：其次,必须具有较广泛的排放来源而不是单一、暂时、小范围内的排放；再次对,其疏于管理将有可能导致对公众健康和公共福利的损害。
② The EPA administrator has a duty to list a substance if he or she determines that:(1) the substance is an air pollutant as defined by Scetion 302(g);(2) the pollutant is emitted by numerous or diverse sources; and (3) the pollutant's presence in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.《清洁空气法》第108条(a)(1)款
③ S. Rep. No.91-1196, at 18 (1970)
④ Id. At 9,18
①《清洁空气法》第108条(a)(2)款
② Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards is defined as ambient air quality standards that will protect the public health with and adequate margin of safety, Clean Air Act, Section 109 (b) (1)
③ See, e.g.,52 Feb. Reg.24634,24641 (1987)
④ Sen. Comm. On Oublic Works Rep., National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, at 10
①647 F.2d 1130 (D.C Cir), cert. denied,449 U.S.1042 (1980)
② 59 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir.1978)
③The Court held that the statue and its legislative history make clear that economic considerations play no part in the promulgation of ambient air quality standards under Sction 109.59 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir.1978). At 1149
① Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards are defined by Section 109(b)(2) as ambient air quality standards that will protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air
② ATA I, supra
①68 Feb.Reg.614(Jan 6,2003)
②Id at 464
③40 Feb.Reg.8.202(1979)
① 61 Feb. Reg.65,730-31 legislation.
② The Clinton memo was published at Fed. Reg.38,421 (July 18,1997). It was later codified in federal highway
③李虎军：《直面细尘埃》, 《财经》2009/07/20总第242期,第81页
①Id.At 38.656
②38 Fed.Reg.25.679(1973)
③61 Fed.Reg.25,566(1996)
④36 Fed.Reg.8186(1971)
① 中国新闻网2007年04月12日讯
② EPA "National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report,1993 Executive Summary and Selected Graphics" (released Oct.19,1994)
③ 49 Fed. Reg.6,866,6,872 (1984)
①Lead Industries,647 F.2d at 1130
②45 Fed.Reg.55,066(1980)
①《清洁空气法》第110条(a)(2)(C)款
②《清洁空气法》第110条(a)(2)(E)款
③64 Fed.Reg.43,255-59(1999)
④Id.At 43,255(1999)
⑤Id.At 43,256
① Id
②《清洁空气法》第110条(k)(1)(B)款
③《清洁空气法》第110条(k)(4)款
①《清洁空气法》第110条(c)(1)(B)款
②《清洁空气法》第179条(a)款
③ The old Clean Air Act set the ambient baseline for ozone for 0.12ppm over a one- hour period, the revised standard measures ozone exposure over an eight-hours time period at a level of 0.08ppm.62 Fed. Reg.38,856-75 (1997)
④ Id at 38,858
① Ultimately the EPA announced that the old standard of 0.12ppm in one hour would not be revoked in a given area until that area had met the standard for three consecutive years.513 U.S.457,486 (2001)
① 62 Fed. Reg.38,428
② General Preamble-PM Supp.,at Fed. Reg.41,998, Addendum (1994)
③《清洁空气法》第187条(a)(3)款
④《清洁空气法》第179条(c)(1)款
⑤《清洁空气法》第191条(b)款
①《清洁空气法》第107条(e)款
②《清洁空气法》第176A条
③《清洁空气法》第176A条(b)(1)款
①《清洁空气法》第176A条(c)款
②《清洁空气法》第107条(d)(1)(A)款
③《清洁空气法》第107条(d)(3)(F)款
④《清洁空气法》第107条(d)(3)(E)款
①39 Fed.Reg.42,510(1974)
②《清洁空气法》第171条
① 68 Fed. Reg.61,248 at 61,252
② To achieve and maintain desired air quality goals, the NSR focuses on controlling and limiting the emissions of criteria pollutants from certain major stationary sources regulated under the CAA.40 C.F.R.52.21 (b) (1) (i), (b) (23)
①40 C.F.R.pt.51,app.S(offset ruling)
②《清洁空气法》第165条
③40 C.F.R.52.21 (p)(2)
④40 C.F.R.52.21 (p)(4)
⑤《清洁空气法》第165条,第173条
①40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(5)
②40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(6)
③40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(1)(Ⅲ)；NSRWM at A.9-A.16
④40 C.F.R.51.165 (a)(1)
⑤本文将专章论述行政制裁和民事处罚
⑥40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(2)(Ⅲ)
①40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(23)(Ⅰ)
②40 C.F.R.52.21 (b)(1)
③NSRWM at A.45
④NSRWM at A.35
⑤NSRWM at A.36；see In re Hibbing Taconite Co.,PSD App.No.87-3,1989 WL266359
⑥See e.g.,Murphy Oil,143 F.Supp.2d 1054,1080(W.D.Wis.2001)
⑦28 U.S.C.2462 (2000)
⑧3M Co.v.Browner,17 F.3D 1453,1462(d.c.cir.1994)
①NPCA V.TVA I,502 F.3d 1316.1318(11th Cir.2007)
②NPCA V.TVA I,502 F.3d 1318
③NPCA V.TVA I,480 F.3d 1322
④Duke Energy, 278 F.Supp.2d 619(M.D.N.C.2003)
①在此类案件中,联邦环境保护总署代表美国政府起诉
② 144 F.Supp.2d 441 (D.Md.2001).
③ 144 F. Supp.2d 439 (D. Md.2001).
④ The court saw these references to operation simply as steps that must be taken prior to construction rather than ongoing obligations.144 F. Supp.2d 445 (D. Md.2001).
⑤ 263 F. Supp.2d 666 (W.D.N.Y.2003).
⑦ 263 F. Supp.2d 657 (W.D.N.Y.2003).
The court reasoned that the operating permit program is the right program to cite for ongoing violations of PSD 263 F. Supp.2d 661 (W.D.N.Y.2003).
① 263 F. Supp.2d 665 (W.D.N.Y.2003).
② 278 F. Supp.2d 619 (M.D.N.C.2003)
③ 278 F. Supp.2d 623-624 (M.D.N.C.2003)
④ 81 F.3d 1329 (5th Cir.1996).
The court pointed out that Title V does not provide a permit shield against provisions not included in a Title V permit, such as avoided PSD requirements, and in fact Title V explicitly calls out construction and modification requirements as provisions from which a source does not receive automatic protection.278 F. Supp. 2d 652 (M.D.N.C.2003)
①Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,42 U.S.C.§§6901-6992k(2000)
②Marine Shale Processom,81 F.3d at 1352
③Marine Shale Processom,81 F.3d at 1357
④137 F.Supp.2d 1060(S.D.Ohio 2001)
⑤137 F.Supp.2d 1062(S.D.Ohio 2001)
⑥137 F.Supp.2d 1067(S.D.Ohio 2001)
⑦137 F.Supp.2d 1063(S.D.Ohio 2001)
① 137 F. Supp.2d 1066 (S.D. Ohio 2001)
② 137 F. Supp.2d 1066 (S.D. Ohio 2001)
③ No.2:99-CV-1181,2003 WL 23415140, at*1 (S.D. Ohio Jan.17,2003)
the court found it illogical to conclude that the CAA only contemplated violations for construction and not operation of a source in violation of PSD, and thus ruled that the violations were continuing in nature No. 2:99-CV-1181,2003 WL 23415140, at*1 (S.D. Ohio Jan.17,2003)
①42 U.S.C.§7470(2000)
②42 U.S.C.§7470(1)-(2)(2000)
③42 U.S.C.§7475(a)(1)(2000)
④Best available control technology aiming to reduce the air pollutants 42 U.S.C.§7479(a)(1)(2000)
①汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞编译：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣——美国联邦法院环境诉讼经典判例选》,北京大学出版社2006年6月版,第287页
②United States v Shimer,367 U. S.,at383.
①实际上该案是由联邦环境保护总署首先发起,随后由环境保护基金会、北卡罗来纳州塞拉俱乐部、北卡罗来纳州公共利益研究集团组织共同作为原告提起的诉讼案件。
①Envtl. Def. v. Duke Energy Corp.,127 S. Ct.1423,1430 (2007)
③ United States v. Duke Energy Corp.,278 F. Supp.2d 619,625 (M.D.V.C.2003)
④ United States v. Duke Energy Corp.,278 F. Supp.2d 625 (M.D.V.C.2003)
⑤ United States v. Duke Energy Corp.,278 F. Supp.2d 626 (M.D.V.C.2003)
① Mills, supra note 24, at 264
② 40 C.F.R.51.166 (b) (2) (i)
③ Justice Souter declared that nothing suggests that Congress had details of regulatory implementation in mind when it imposed PSD requirements on modified source; the cross-reference alone is certainly no unambiguous congressional cade for eliminationg the customary agency discretion. Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1430
④ Robertson, supra note 36, at 160-161
① Mathew D. Zinn, Policing Environmental Regulation Enforcement:Cooperation, Capture, and Citizen Suits,21 STAN. ENVTL. L. J.81,107-111 (2002)
② Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1432
③ Justice Souter opined that absent any iron rule to ignore the reason for regulating PSD and NSPS modifications differently, tnr EPA's constrction need do no nore that fall within the limits of what is reasonable, as set by the Act's common definition.Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1433
④ Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1432
⑤ Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1436
①注：美国法院允许持不同意见的法官在判决书中阐明自己的意见。
②Envtl.Def.v.Duke Energy Corp.,127 S.Ct.1432,1436(2007)
③Envtl.Def.v.Duke Energy Corp.,127 S.Ct.1438(2007)
①Pub. L. No.95-95,91 Sat.685,742-45 (1977)
②《清洁空气法》第169条(a)(1)款
①《清洁空气法》第169条(g)(6)款
②H.R. Rep. No.95-294, at 203-04 (1977)
③EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulation Matter, vol.1 at 3-99 (April 1996)
④National Park Service, Air Quality in The National Parks,2d. ed. (Sept.2002)
①《清洁空气法》第169条(a)(4)款
②《清洁空气法》第169条(b)(2)款
③《清洁空气法》第169条(c)(1)款
④45 Fed.Reg.at 80,084
① (1)smoke, dust, colored gas fumes, or layered haze emitted from stacks that obscure the sky or horizon and are relatable to a single source or small group of sources; (2) widespread, reginally homogeneous haze from a multitude of sources that impairs visibility in every direction over a large area.45 Fed. Reg. at 80.085
② 51 Fed. Reg. at 43,389 (1986)
③ Vermont,850 F.2d at 102
④ Vermont,850 F.2d at 103
①《清洁空气法》、第169条(d)(2)(C)款
②40 C.F.R.51.300(b)(3)
③40 C.F.R.51.308(d)(1)
④40 C.F.R.51.308(d)(1)(Ⅰ)
⑤40 C.F.R.51.308(d)(1)(Ⅱ)
① 40 C.F.R.51.308 (e)
②《清洁空气法》第169条(b)(2)(A)款
③《清洁空气法》第169条(g)(2)款
④ H.R. Rep. No.294, at 206
⑤ Any fossil fuel-fired power plant with a total generating capacity of 750 megawatts or greater must demonstrate that it is located at such a distance from all mandatory Class Ⅰ areas that it similarly could not cause to significant impairment40 C.F.R.51.303 (b)
① 40 C.F.R.51.308 (e)
② 40 C.F.R.51.308 (e) (2)
③ States must therefore, consider the full suite of anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment in designing a long-term strategy including major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources and area sources.40 C.F.R. 51.308 (d) (3)
④ 40 C.F.R.51.308 (d) (4) (v)
①其他章节几乎都是对固定空气污染物质排放源规制的规定。
②U.S. EPA, Heaith Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust:SAB Review Draft, EPA/600/8-90/057E(2000)
③钱易、唐孝炎主编：《环境保护与可持续发展》,高等教育出版社,2000年7月版,第63页
④陶建国：《日本东京大气污染诉讼及启示》,《承德民族师专学报》第28卷第3期,2008年8月,第57页
①Pub.L.No.89-272
②31 Fed.Reg.5170(1966)
① The Actprovided that HEW could waive the preemption for any state that had adopted standards for the control emission on new vehicles before March 30,1966,(the only state meeting the condition for the preemption waiver was California)Pub. L. No.89-272
② Congressional Research Service, History and Future of Spark Ignition Engines, Report for The Senate COMM. On Public Works
①Pub. L. No.91-604
②《清洁空气法》第202条(a)(1)款
③本章第三节将专门论述
① 478 F.2d 615 (D.C.Cir.1973)
② The court found out in particular that the EPA had not supported its decision that the technology would be available in time and that there would be enough catalytic converters available to the model-year automotive fleet. International Harvester v. Ruckleshaus
③ Husqvarna v. EPA,254 F.3d 195,201
①本章第四节将做详细分析
①40 C.F.R.86.1803.01
① EPA 420.R.98.800
②65 Fed.Reg.6608(2000)
③65 Fed.Reg.6071(2000)
④65 Fed.Reg.6698(2000)
①62 Fed.Reg.31-192(1997)
① 63 Fed.Reg.11,374(1998)
②《清洁空气法》第206条(h)款
③ 61 Fed.Reg.54,851(1996)
④ 65 Fed.Reg.6790-91(2000)
① 57 Fed. Reg.13,220(1992)
② 467 U.S.837(1984)
③ The court rejected the EPA's position that it could substitute Stage Ⅱ controls for onboard controls, set aside the EPA decision, and ordered the agency to adopt onboard control regulations.59 Fed. Reg.16,262 (1994)
①65 Fed.Reg.6790-91(2000)
②57 Fed.Reg.31,888(1992)
③55 Fed.Reg.30,620(1990)
④《清洁空气法》第202条(j)(4)款
①62 Fed.Reg.54,694(1997)
②66 Fed.Reg.5002(2001)
③National Petrochemical & Rediners Ass'n,et al.v.EPA,287 F.3d 1130(D.C.Cir. 2002)
④The EPA estimated that there would be excess emissions totaling 15 million excess tons of NO over the life of the engines.65 Fed.Reg.59,899(2000)
⑤63 Fed.Reg.59,330(1998)
① Internional Truck, el al. v. EPA, No.00-1510 (D.C.Cir)
② 58 Fed. Reg.21,359(1993)
① U.S. E.P.A. EPA-21A-2001 (1991)
② 59 Fed. Reg.31,306 (1994)
③ The court found among other things, EPA did not act arbitrarily by classifying engines in large mining equipment with other large CI in making the finding that such engine' cause or contribute'to ozone or CO pollution. Engine Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA,88 F.3d 1075 (D.C.Cir.1996)
① 68 Fed. Reg.9745 (2003)
② 64 Fed. Reg.'15,208 (1999)
③ The court found out that the statute required standards that achieve the greastest degree of emission reduction achievable through available technology, taking into account factors such as cost, thus putting air quality as a overriding goal of Sction 213, with cost being an important but subordinate secondary factor. Husqvarna v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (D.C.Cir.2001)
①40 C.F.R.86.610
① With respect to a substantial number of failing vehicles, the courts have required any number large enough to show that a systematic or pervasive problem in a particular class or category of vehicles exsits. Chrysler Corp. v. EPA,631 F.2d 865 (D.C.Cir 1980)
② Chrysler Corp. v. EPA,631 F.2d 888 (D.C.Cir 1980)
③ Chrysler Corp. v. EPA,631 F.2d 889 (D.C.Cir 1980)
①清洁空气法》第177条
②是加州空气污染控制机构,也是加州环保局的一个部门,委员会由11名受委任成员组成,制定并执行规章以为全加州居民提供安全、清洁空气,监督35个地方空气质量管理区。
① CAL. Exec. Order No. S-3-05(June 1,2005)
② California v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No.08-70011 (9th Cir. Field Jan.3,2008)
① CAL. Health & Safety Code 38500-38560 (2006)
② http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reporys/2007-04-20_ARB_early_action_report.pdf.
①http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1495_brownchallengescounties.pdf.
①林灿铃等著：《国际环境法理论与实践》,知识产权出版社,2008年5月版,第245页
② Pub. L. No.90-148,2,81 Stat.502
③ 40 C.F.R. pt 80
④ The initial panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the EPA's action on the grounds that the EPA had known, under the 1970 version of Section 211 (c), that lead emissions will endanger the public health or welfare.Ethyl Corp. v. EPA,7 Env't Rep. Cas.1353(D.C.Cir.1976)
① The court, en banc, reversed the original panel, holding that the will endanger language authorized the EPA to take precationary o preventive action. Ethyl,541 F.2d at 13
② 1977 Legislative History at 759
③ 1977 Legislative History at 2775
④ This provision shifts the burden to manufacturers to show that a fuel or additive will not have a harmful impact on emissions control equipment 1977 Legislative History at 362
①55 Fed.Reg.34,138(1990)
① The dominant oxygenant in use were ethanol and MTBE. Ethanol is an alcohol derived from grain and primarily corn. MTBE is an ether made by combining isobutylene, a refinery component that canbe made from natural gas or other hydrocarbons,and methanol derived from natual gas.1990 Legislative History at 1073
② 1990 Legislative History at 851
① The court of appeals made clear that there is no requirement under Section 21 (f) that the new fuels or additives will not endanger public health and welfare through emissions that are not the subject of vehicle or engine certification standards.51 F.3d 2053 (D.C.Cir.1995)
①59 Fed. Reg.42,227(1994)
①43 Fed.Reg.11,258(1978)
②56 Fed.Reg.5352(1991)
③56 Fed.Reg.24,362(1991)
① 46 Fed. Reg.38,584(1981)
② The EPA finally determined that Ethyl Corpration had demonstrated that MMT would not cause or contribute to vehicle or engine failure to vomply with certification emissionsstandards.58 Fed. Reg.64,761 (1993)
③ Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, No.94-1516,1995 WL 612905 (D.C.Cir. Oct.20,1995)
④ 60 Fed. Reg.36,414(1995)
①989 F.2d at 524
②Ethyl Corp.v.Browner, No.94-1516,1995 WL 612905(D.C.Cir. Oct.20,1995)
①749 F.2d at 837
②749 F.2d at 836
③749 F.2d at 840
④768 F.2d at 385(D.C.Cir 1985)
⑤768 F.2d at 390
⑥768 F.2d at 392
①60 Fed.Reg.47,907(1995)
②55 Fed.Reg.12,154(1990)
③57 Fed.Reg.47,849(1992)
① 58 Fed. Reg.32,531(1993)
② 57 Fed. Reg.47,769(1992)
③ The EPA also satisfied its obligations to promulgate guidelines for an oxgen credit-trading system so that those using more oxgyen than required could offset those using less, within the same area.57 Fed. Reg.47,849 (1992)
① The EPA concluded in its initial assessment that, based on animal studies, MTBE is a low-potency possible human carcinogen U.S.EPA Report No. EPA/600/R-93-206 (Nov.1993)
① Richard 0. Faulk et. Al, Salem Revisited:Updating the MTBE Controversy, SF97 ALI-ABA 949-950 (2001)
② 65 Fed. Reg.16,903(2000)
③ Faulk, supra, at 949,966 (2001)
④ Faulk, supra, at 969-970 (2001)
⑤ 163 F. Supp.2d 1182 (E.D. Cal.2001)
⑥ The court relied primarily on another CAA provision allowing California to prescribe its own fuel regulations, the court also ruled that the ban did not violate the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.158 F. Supp. 2d 248 (N.D.N.Y.2001)
①吕忠梅：《环境法新视野》,中国政法大学出版社2007年修订版,第19页
②薛志钢、郝吉明等：《国外大气污染控制经验》, 载《重庆环境科学》2003年11期,第159页
③关于有害气体跨境污染的问题,美国和加拿大曾因特雷尔冶炼厂二氧化硫污染发生过争执。特雷尔冶炼厂是加拿大一家私人冶炼厂,该厂从1896年开始冶炼锌和锡,由于提炼的矿物质含有硫磺,生成二氧化硫进入大气,并跨境给美国华盛顿州造成污染。在协商不成的情况下,美加两国接受国际联合会的建议,成立仲裁法庭解决此项争端。仲裁庭主席由比利时法学家霍斯蒂耶担任,美、加各出一名仲裁员。仲裁法庭于1941年做出最终裁决,认定加拿大对特雷尔冶炼厂负有国际法上的责任。该案是第一个,也是迄今为止跨境空气污染的唯一案例。见：林灿铃等著：《国际环境法理论与实践》,知识产权出版社,北京,2008,第10页
④《清洁空气法》第401条
①《清洁空气法》第403条(a)款
②《清洁空气法》第403条
③《清洁空气法》第407条
④《清洁空气法》第409条
① The S02 and Norequirements established by Title IV and by EPA administrator through regulations are enforced through a permit program. In phase Ⅰ, the permit program was run by the administrator but, beginning in Phase Ⅱ, is being administrated by the states. Acid rain permits are subject to the requirementsof Title V, the operating permits program.《清洁空气法》第411条
②《清洁空气法》第404条(f)款
③赵鹏高：《加拿大和美国的电力环保政策》载《节能环保》2005.N0.1第7页
④《清洁空气法》第402条(1)款
①《清洁空气法》第402条(8)款
②《清洁空气法》第402条(10)款
③《清洁空气法》第403条
④ The number o allowances that each Phase Ⅰ affected unit received during Phase Ⅰ is listed in Scetion 404, the number of allowances that each affected unit receives in Phase Ⅱ was not specified in a list; instead, Section 405 contains numerous formulas for determing the number of allowances that each unit receives.《清洁空气法》第403条(g)款
① The EPA administrator was required to ensure that, by Phase Ⅱ, no more than 8.9 million allowances could beallocated per year, with the exception of allowences allocated pursuant to Section 405,bonus allowances, extra allowance for certain big high-emitting units, allowances for units that opt into the SO2 program. The administrator was required to reduce the basic Phase Ⅱ allowance allocations pro rota to ensure that this limit was not exceeded《清洁空气法》第403条(a)款
② 63 Fed. Reg.51,706(1998)
①清洁空气法》第402条(4)款
②清洁空气法》第402条(19)款
①《清洁空气法》第404条(f)(1)(A)款
② Qualified renewable energy isdefined as energy derived from biomass, solar, geothermal, or wind as identifiedby the administrator in consultation with the Secretary of Energy.《清洁空气法》第404条(f)(1)(B)款
①Units that submitted satisfactory documentation for repowering, pursuant to Section 409(a), received a for-yearextension from the Phase Ⅱ compliance date. In the interim they were allocted allowances based on the emission rate in the applicable SIP. These allowances may not be transferred.《清洁空气法》第409条(c)款
②《清洁空气法》第409条(d)款
③ 56 Fed. Reg.65,592(1991)
①《清洁空气法》第416条(c)款
① Industrial sources also are the subject of an emissions inventory that was conducted by the administrator pursuant to Scetion 406 of the CAA Amendments. Under this provision, if the inventory indicated that CO2 emissions from industrial sources were likely to exceed 5.6 million tons per year, the administrator was required to take actions to control those emissions so that the 5.6-million-ton cap would not be exceeded《清洁空气法》第406条(c)款
②曹凤中、周国梅、吴迪、李玉琪：《美国实施清洁空气法的效益与启迪》载《环境科学与技术》,2000年第3期,第22页
③周训芳、李爱年主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,长沙,2008念月版,第170页
④曹凤中、周国梅、吴迪、李玉琪：《美国实施清洁空气法的效益与启迪》载《环境科学与技术》,2000年第3期,第21页
① 55 Fed. Reg.52,709(1980)
② 63 Fed. Reg.36,129(1998)
③ Section 407(b)(1) specifies that the maximum rates of NO emitted from Group 1 units should be 0.451b/mmBtu for tangentially fired boilers and 0.50 lb/mmBtu for dry bottom wall-fired boilers,provided that the administrator may set a rate higher than that listed for any type of utility boiler if the administrator finds that the maximum listed rate for that boiler type connot be achieved using low NO burner technology. The section thus implies that the administrator should promulgate the Group 1 emission limitations based on low NO burner technology. The precise meaning of the term low NO burner technology, however, was a subject of much dispute in the course of the NO rule making.《清洁空气法》第407条款
① The owner or operator of two or more units subject to the Title IV NO emission limitations may request permission to average the emissions of the units in question and have the average meet the applicable emission limitations. This compliance option was available in Phase Ⅰ and continues to be available in Phase Ⅱ. The units must comply with alternative emission limitations that ensure that the actual annual NO emission rate averaged over the units in question is less than or equal to the average annual NO emission rate for the units if they had been operated according to the applicable emission limitation under statute.
① Section 411 provides that any affected unit that emits SO2 or NO in excess of allowances held or the applicable emissions limitation is liable for a penalty of ＄2,000 per ton of excess emissions, adjusted yearly for inflation. This penalty is in addition to any other penalty that may be assessed against the unit for the same violation under any other provision of CAA.《清洁空气法》第411条
①《清洁空气法》第602条
②《清洁空气法》第614条
③ Section 602 sets forth initial lists of Class Ⅰ and Ⅱ ODS, including isomers of listed substances. The class I ODS listed in the CAA and CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and mothyl chloroform. Only HCFCs are listed as Class Ⅱ ODS. Pursuant to Section 602(c), the EPA has authority to add substances to either list based on the substances potential harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer. Such action may be taken sua sponte or in response to a listing petition. The EPA may move a Class Ⅱ substance onto the Class Ⅰlisted, but it may not otherwise remove a Class Ⅱ substance from the Class Ⅰ or Class Ⅱ lists.《清洁空气法》第602条(c)(4)款
④ 58 Fed. Reg.65,018(1993)
①58 Fed. Reg.65,018(1993)
② At the same time, the EPA took steps to implement the 1992 Copenhagen Amendments to the Mentreal Protocol. 40 C.F.R.82.4
③ 40 C.F.R.82.16 (c)
④ 40 C.F.R.82.16 (e)
⑤ The EPA's first initiative in this area was the establishment of the'allowance program'for Class I substances. Under this program, each person who was producing or consuming a listed Class I substance in the applicable baseline year was apportioned a chemical-specific production or consumption baseline.40 C.F.R.82.5
⑥40 C.F.R.82.4 (b)
① 68 Fed. Reg. at 2823
② 68 Fed. Reg. at 2836
③ 40 C.F.R.82.9 (a)
④ The EPA requires each person granted Article 5 allwances to report each quarter on exports to Aricle 5 countries. Interpollutant and intercompany transfers of Article 5 allowances are permitted, subject to an offset requirement of one percent in the case of Class I substances and one-tenth of a persent in the case of Class II substances.40 C.F.R. 82.12 (b)
① 60 Fed. Reg.24,971-72
② If a U.S, compony were to sell its HCFC-22 production allowances to another U.S. compony, it would be perform an'inter-compony' transfer. Alternatively, the company could convert its HCFC-22 production allowances into its HCFC-142b production allowances, on an ODP weight basis.40 C.F.R.82.10 (a)
③ CAA Section611 requires that a warning label be placed on containers containg a Class Ⅰ or Class Ⅱ substance,products contanining Class Ⅰ substances, and products manufactured with Class Ⅰ substances.《清洁空气法》第611条(b)款
④ 40 C.F.R.82.104 (n)
⑤ 40 C.F.R.82.104 (s)
① 40 C.F.R.82.104 (f)
②The EPA's labeling regulations provide that a manufacturer must label its product as'manufactured with a controlled sustance' only if that manufacturer itself used a controlled substance in making the product.40 C.F.R. 82.104(0)
③《清洁空气法》第611条(d)款
④《清洁空气法》第611条(c)款
①40 C.FR.82.106 (b)
②40 C.F.R.82.120(c)
③40 C.F.R.82.104(q)
④40 C.F.R.82.110(a)
⑤40 C.F.R.82.110(c)
①《清洁空气法》第608条(a)(1)款
②58 Fed.Reg.28,660(1993)
③40 Fed.Reg.82,150(b)
④58 Fed.Reg.28,665(1993)
⑤40 Fed.Reg.82,156(a)(1)
⑥ 40 Fed.Reg.82,164
⑦40 Fed.Reg.82,158(j)
① Owners of commercial refrigeration equipment containing at least fifty pounds charge and owners of industrial process refrigeration equipment must repair any leaks causing a loss of refrigerant that exceeds 35 percent of the total charge during a 12 months period.40 Fed. Reg.82,156 (i)
② 40 Fed. Reg.82,152 (i) (9)
③ 40 Fed. Reg.82,156 (f) (3)
④ 40 Fed. Reg.82,164 (g)
⑤ Only certified technicians may open appliances, except MVACs, for maintenance, servise, repair. Only certified technicians may dispose of appliances, except small appliances, MVACs,and MVAC-like appliance.40 Fed. Reg. 82,161 (a)
⑥ 40 Fed. Reg.82,166
①40 Fed.Reg.82.34(b)
① 40 Fed. Reg.82.34 (c)
② As of 1993, all persons serving MVACs are also required to certify to the EPA that they have acquired approved equipment and that they are properly trained and certified to use the equipment.40 Fed. Reg.82.42 (a)
③ 40 Fed. Reg.82.42 (b)
④ 40 Fed. Reg.82.42 (c)
⑤ 40 Fed. Reg.82.38
⑥ 40 Fed. Reg.82.38 (d)
① The 1997 rule making filled another gap, this one relating to the handling of refrigerants recovered during the diposal of motor vehicles. The EPA clarified that certified technicians and disposal facility personnel may recycle and resell such refrigerants under specified conditions, such persons are not limited to sending the refrigerants to a reclaimer.62 Fed. Res. at 68.029 col.1
① John M. Reilly, et al., Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Multi-Gas Approaches to Global Climate Changes (2003)
② U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1990-2000 (April 2002)
①42 U.S.C.7671
②66 Fed.Reg.51,7486(2001)
① International Center for Technology Assessment v. Whitman, No DC-102 CV 2376 (D.C.Cir. filed Dec.5,2002)
② Letter from Peter Lehner. Assistant Attorney General; to Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S. EPA
① Peter Glaser, et al., CO2:A Pollutant? The Legal Affairs Committee Report to the National Mining Assosation Board of Directors on the Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide under the Clean Air Act 22-23 (2001)
② Testimony of Gary S. Guzy, supra note 13
③ 42 U.S.C.7403 (g)
①Massachusetts vs.EPA 127 S.Ct.1438(2007)
②《清洁空气法》第108条
③Glaser,supra note 14
① Reitze, supra note 5, at 417
②he CAA defines HAPs as pollutants that have adverse effects on human health through inhalation or other routes of exposure.《清洁空气法》第112条(b)款
③ Reitze, supra note 5, at 417
①http://www.epa.gov/apti/course422/apc1.hcml
②42 U.S.C.7543(b)(2006)
① http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reporys/2007-04-20_ARB_early_action_report.pdf.
② CAL. Pub. Res. Code 21080.4(2006)
③ County of San Bernardino, No. CIVSS-0700329,at 2-3
①加里.贝克尔(美国芝加哥大学教授,1992年诺贝尔经济学奖得主)：《清洁能源立法》,《财经》杂志2009年7月20日总第242期,第52页
② T. Hargave, U.S. Carbon Emmissions Tradeing:Description of an Upstream Approach. Center for Clean Air Policy (1998)
① Nordhaus and Danish, supra note 79
② Heinz Center, supra note 79, at Appendix 5
① Anne E. Smith and Martin T. Ross, Allowance Allocation:Who Win and Loses under a Carbon Dioxide Cntrol Program? Center for Clean Air Policy (Feb 2002)
② Smith and Ross, supra note 85
③ Burtraw, supra note 85
① www.stockstar.com
①掌握了产品的国际标准制定权,就意味着基本控制了这个产品的国际市场。
②刘军红：《构建未来国际气候秩序》载《瞭望》,2008年第50期12月15日,第47页
①“低碳经济”的概念由英国于2003年首先提出,它是指以低能耗、低排放、低污染为基础的生态经济模式。传统高碳经济以透支人类生存环境而换取短期快速发展,低碳经济是可持续发展的重要路径。
①周训芳、李爱年、主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,2008年第一版,第129页
②(美)庞德著：《法理学》第一卷,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第353页
③张文显主编：《法理学》,北京大学出版社1999年版,第295页
①这里需要特别说明的是,行政法法官(Administrative Law Judges)是联邦行政机关内的法官,其权力和职责都由联邦行政程序法界定。联邦机构中还有另外一种听证官,称为行政法官(Administrative Judges)。两者虽然只有一字之差,但在法律地位上有较大差别。1、行政法法官受到联邦行政程序法所确立的“功绩选任”制度的保护,由美国人事管理署负责考核管理,因而具有较强的独立性。而行政法官不是行政程序法规定的,在法律上从属于雇佣他们的行政机关,独立性弱于行政法法官；2、行政法法官应当是律师,而行政法官则无此要求,但应具有专业知识；3、行政法法官主持的是行政程序法规定的正式听证(即审讯性听证),行政法官则在行政程序法规定之外,官主持的是行政程序法规定的正式听证(即审讯性听证),行政法官则在行政程序法规定之外,主持非正式的听证。两类法官虽有区别,但职能相似：即都是行政机关的听证官员,在听证后作出初步裁决,再由行政机关负责人作出本机关的最终决定。刘梓：《美国行政程序法概念辨析》,《行政法学研究,》1999年第二期,第82-84页
②汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞、编著：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣》,北京大学出版社,2007年11月版
③汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞、编著：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣》,北京大学出版社,2007年11月版
①秦虎、张建宇：《以“清洁空气法”为例简析美国环境管理体系》,载《环境科学研究》,2005年4期,第55页
①《清洁空气法》第114条(a)(1)款
② The EPA frequently relies on this authority as the basis for the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements in substantive standards as well as for developing the factual record for its rule makings concering emissions standards. The authority may be delegated to the State.《清洁空气法》第114条(b)款
③《清洁空气法》第114条(c)款
④ 40 C.F.R.19.1 et. seq
① BNA Daily Environment Report, AA-1, July 21,1998
② Manufacturers of new motor vehicles, engines, or engine parts and components, and any other persons subject to the requirements of CAA Title Ⅱ,may be required to establish and maintain records, make reports, and provide information as necessary to demonstrate compliance with CAA requirements and regulations.《清洁空气法》第208条
③《清洁空气法》第114条(d)款
④ U.S. v. Tivian Laboratories, Inc.
①《清洁空气法》第206条(c)款
②《清洁空气法》第206条(b)款
③ Failure to comply with mobile source information collection and inspection requests may subject a person to civil penalties of up to $27,500 per day of violation.《清洁空气法》第203条(a)(2)款
④ 40 C.F.R.70.6 (c) (2)
⑤ 589 F.2d 49,53 (D.C.Cir.1978)
①EPA..Alyeska Pipeline Serv.Co.,
②Holmes & Reitze,supra note 19,at 71-75
③《清洁空气法》第307条(a)款
④40 C.F.R.p.t.2
⑤40 C.F.R.2.301(f)
① U.S. v. Tivian Laboratories, Inc.
②《清洁空气法》第2113条(c)(1)款
③ EPA, The Timely and Appropriate (T&A) Enforcement Response to High Priority Violation (Dec 22,1998)
①《清洁空气法》第120条(a)(2)款
②《清洁空气法》第120条(d)(3)款
③《清洁空气法》第120条(a)(1)(B)款
④Section 120 specifies that noncompliance penalties shall not bar or otherwise limit additional civil or criminal enforcement proceedings under the CAA or state or local law.《清洁空气法》第120条(f)款
⑤ 67 Fed. Reg.33,734 (2002)
①《清洁空气法》第113条(a)(3)款
②An order issued to a corporation must be issued to appropriate corporate officers. In addition, a copy of the order must be sent to the relevant state air pollution control agency.《清洁空气法》第113条(a)(4)款
③《清洁空气法》第112条
④《清洁空气法》第113条(b)款
⑤ In re Chevron USA, Inc., Docket No 9-94-4 (Sept.29,1993)
①《清洁空气法》第113条(a)(1)款
②S.Rep.No.228,101st Cong.,1st Sess.(1989)
③《清洁空气法》第113条(a)(5)款
④U.S.v.Solar Turbines,Inc.,732 F.Supp.535,538-40(M.D.Pa.1989)
①Chafee-Baucus Statement of Senate Managers,136 CONG. REC.S16,933(Oct.27,1990)
②《清洁空气法》第113条(d)(2)(A)款
③40 C.F.R.22.19(f)
①《清洁空气法》第113条(d)(4)款
②《清洁空气法》第113条(d)(5)款
①U.S. v. Dale Valentine,38 ERC 2086 (BNA) (D. Wyo. June 1,1994)
① Failure to comply with an emergency order may subject the source to potential civil penalties of ＄27,500 perday for each violation.《清洁空气法》第113条(b)(2)款
②《清洁空气法》第112条(r)(9)(A)款
③《清洁空气法》第112条(r)(2)(A)款
① U.S. v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., No.99-1692,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20936 (S.D. Ind. Oct 24, 2002)
② Annual Report on Environment and Compliance Assurance Accmplishments in 1999, June 2000
①环境民事侵权诉讼不是本文研究的范围,因而不展开论述。
②虽然美国制定有《行政程序法》,但这只是行政机构在行政执法时所应依据的程序性规定,而非法院诉讼的程序法律。
③《清洁空气法》中对本章内容的规定为民事执行诉讼(Civil Enforcement Action),而并非普通的民事诉讼(Civil Action).
④ 42 U.S.C.7401 (a) (3)
① U.S. V. Hugo Key and Son,731 F.Supp.1135,1144-45 (D.R.I.1989)
②也就是说,当污染排放源的经营者和拥有者的行为违反了《清洁空气法》第一章规定的有关基本原则、第303条规定的“突发事件应急机制”、第四章规定的“酸雨项目”、第六章规定的“许可制度”、第七章规定的臭氧层保护项目、以及“州政府独立管理项目”等有关规定,联邦环境保护总署都有权利向地区法院提起民事诉讼。
③ United States v. B&W Investment Properties,38 F.3d 363,367 (7th Cir.1994)
① EPA, Process for Conducting Pre-Referral Settlement Negotiations, GM-73 (March 9,1988)
② 57 Fed. Reg.2213(1992)
③ 61 Fed. Reg.65,391 (1996)
① EPA. Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy (Oct 25.1991)
② 28 C.F.R.50.7
③ Harold Feld, "Saving the Citizn Suit:the Effect of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and the Role of Citizen Suits in Environmental Enforcement",19 Colum. J. Envtl. L.141, (1994).
①徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社2008年8月版,第214页
②徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社2008年8月版,第215页
③http://www.epa.gov/regulation/caa/.html
①塞拉俱乐部是美国历史最悠久、最有影响的环保组织。成立于1892年,创始人是约翰.缪尔(John Muir).其宗旨是：1、探究、享受并保护地球的荒野；2、开展和促进对地球生态系统和资源负责任的使用；3、教育人们以人性化的方式保护和恢复环境质量；4、使用一切合法方式实行这些目标。参见塞拉俱乐部官方网站：http://www.sierraclub.or/inside/.最后访问日期：2009-11-21。
②环境权可以分为四个层次：1、安全。即生活环境质量要符合生态学上的安全要求,对人体健康和生命安全没有威胁和危害；2、卫生。即环境质量要达到卫生标准,符合人类健康的生理活动。3、舒适。即生活环境质量达到心情舒适、愉快的要求。4、美感。即环境赏心悦目,给人以享受的感觉。这是环境权最高层次的标准。
①李艳芳：《从“马萨诸塞州等诉环保局”案看美国环境法的新发展》,中国人民大学学报,2007年第6期,第108页
② Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
③ Lujan v. Defender s of Wildlife
④ Antonin Scalia. The doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers[J],1983 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev.881(1983)
① Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services
② Percival, Schroeder, Miller, Leapel Environmental Regulation:Law, Science, and Policy [M]1. Fifth Edi tion, Aspen Publishers,2006
①由于该案意义重大,本节(三)将做专门分析。
①Massachusetts vs. EPA 127 S.Ct.1438 (2007)
① http://www.epa.gov/regulation/caa/.html
② Antonin Scalia. The doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers[J],1983 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev.881(1983)
①Massachusetts Et Al vl Ul Sl EPA Et Al,549 Ul Sl (2007)1
①常纪文、杨朝霞著：《环境法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,北京,2008年10月版,第220页
②李清宇：《环境公益诉讼原告资格研究》,《环境法治与建设和谐社会》,2007年全国环境资源法学研讨会论文集,第1053页
③42 U.S.C.E9601——9657(1982)
①《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(2)款
① 9 Pace Envtl. L. Rev.281.374 n.370 (1992)
② Daniel Riesel. Environmental Enforcement:Civil and Criminal (Law Journal Seminar-Press,1997)
③《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(1)款
① 18U.S.C.3571 (b)(3)
②《清洁空气法》第113条(h)款
③ The criminal level of scienter required for establishing the mens rea element requires only proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant generally intended to commit certain acts, as opposed to a specific intent to violate the regulatory requirements. However, as concerns low-level employees, the CAA imposes criminal liability only for violations that are knowing and willful, a standard that would appear to approach a level of scienter warranting proof of specific intent.《清洁空气法》第113条(h)款
④ Criminal liability maybe imposed under the CAA on any person who knowingly makes any false material statement, representation, or certification in a document required to be filed or maintained under the act, including any omission, knowing alteration, or concealment regarding any such application, record, report, plan, or decument.《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(2)款
①《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(3)款
H.R. Conf. Rep. No.952, at 347-48 (1990)
H.R. Conf. Rep. No.952, at 348 (1990)
④《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(2)款
⑤《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(A)款
① An affirmative defence is provided when the conduct comprising the violation was consented to by the endangered person, provided that the danger and conduct were reasonably foreseeable hazards, of an occupation, business, profession, or medical experimentation or treatment.《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(C)款
②《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(A)款
③《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(B)款
④《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(4)款
⑤《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(5)(E)款
①《大气污染防治法》第十五条
②吴健：《排污权交易——环境容量管理制度创新》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版,第208页
①详见本文第二章第第三节
②《“十一五”期间全国主要污染物排放总量控制计划》
①王立：《中国环境法的新视角》,中国检察出版社2001年版,第173页
②《大气污染防治法》第十五条
①唐珍妮：《排污许可证制度存在的问题及对策》, 载于《长沙大学学报》,2008年第5期,第59页
①任洪岩：《我国机动车污染防治政策及状况》,载于《管理与法制》,2005年第6期,第230页
②中国环境保护产业协会机动车污染防治专业委员会：《我国机动车污染防治2007年行业技术发展综述》,载于《中国环保产业》,2008年第9期,第14页
③胡唯元：《控制移动源污染：变被动为主动》,载于《科技日报》,2007年5月10日,第5版
①《大气污染防治法》第三十五条
②68 Fed.Reg.9745(2003)
①周玉华：《环境行政法学》,东北林业大学出版社2002年版,第153页
①《大气污染防治法》第四十八条
②《大气污染防治法》第五十九条
③刘春焱：《重庆环保实行按日计罚的立法与时间效果分析》,载于《环境保护》,2007年第12B期,第43页
①《清洁空气法》第113条(c)(2)款
②摘自2005年国务院制定的《关于落实科学发展观加强环境保护的决定》
①《大气污染防治法》第六十二条
①张瑞丹、李增新：《中美“绿色共赢”悬念》,《财经》杂志,2009/02/16,第98页
①新华网：温家宝总理在哥本哈根气候变化会议领导人会议上的讲话2009年12月19日
[1]S. Rep.No.91-1196, at 18 (1970)
[2]52 Feb. Reg.24634,24641 (1987)
[3]Sen. Comm. On Oublic Works Rep., National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, at 10
[4]647 F.2d 1130 (D. C Cir), cert. denied,449 U.S.1042 (1980)
[5]59 F.2d 62 (D. C. Cir.1978)
[6]68 Feb. Reg.614 (Jan 6,2003)
[7]40 Feb. Reg.8.202 (1979)
[8]61 Feb. Reg.65,730-31
[9]38 Fed. Reg.25,679 (1973)
[10]61 Fed. Reg.25,566 (1996)
[11]36 Fed. Reg.8186 (1971)
[12]EPA "National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report,1993 Executive Summary and Selected Graphics" (released Oct.19,1994)
[13]49 Fed. Reg.6,866,6,872 (1984)
[14]45 Fed. Reg.55,066 (1980)
[15]64 Fed. Reg.43,255-59 (1999)
[16]62 Fed. Reg.38,856-75 (1997)
[17]513 U.S.457,486 (2001)
[18]62 Fed. Reg.38,428
[19]General Preamble-PM Supp., at Fed. Reg.41,998, Addendum (1994)
[20]39 Fed. Reg.42,510 (1974)
[21]68 Fed. Reg.61,248 at 61,252
[22]40 C. F. R. pt.51, app. S (offset ruling)
[23]40 C.F.R.52.21 (p) (2)
[24]40 C.F.R.52.21 (b) (5)
[25]40 C.F.R.52.21 (b) (1) (Ⅲ); NSRWM at A.9-A.16
[26]NSRWM at A.36; see In re Hibbing Taconite Co., PSD App. No.87-3, 1989 WL266359
[27]Murphy Oil,143 F. Supp.2d 1054,1080 (W. D. Wis.2001)
[28]3M Co. v. Browner,17 F.3D 1453,1462 (d. c. cir.1994)
[29]NPCA V. TVA I,502 F.3d 1316,1318 (11th Cir.2007)
[30]NPCA V. TVA I,502 F.3d 1318
[31]Duke Energy,278 F. Supp.2d 619 (M. D. N. C.2003)
[32]144 F. Supp.2d 441 (D. Md.2001)
[33]263 F. Supp.2d 666 (W. D. N. Y.2003)
[34]263 F. Supp.2d 657 (W. D. N. Y.2003)
[35]278 F. Supp.2d 619 (M. D. N. C.2003)
[36]81 F.3d 1329 (5th Cir.1996)
[37]Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,42 U. S. C. §§ 6901-6992k (2000)
[38]Marine Shale Processom,81 F.3d at 1352
[39]137 F. Supp.2d 1060 (S. D. Ohio 2001)
[40]No.2:99-CV-1181,2003 WL 23415140, at*1 (S. D. Ohio Jan.17,2003)
[41]42 U.S. C.§ 7470 (1)-(2) (2000)
[42]United States v Shimer,367 U. S., at383
[43]Envtl. Def. v. Duke Energy Corp.,127 S. Ct.1423,1430 (2007)
[44]United States v. Duke Energy Corp.,278 F. Supp.2d 619,625 (M. D. V. C. 2003)
[45]Mills, supra note 24, at 264
[46]40 C. F. R.51.166 (b) (2) (i)
[47]Robertson, supra note 36, at 160-161
[48]Mathew D. Zinn, Policing Environmental Regulation Enforcement: Cooperation, Capture, and Citizen Suits,21 STAN. ENVTL. L. J.81,107-111 (2002)
[49]Duke Energy,127 S. Ct. at 1432
[50]Envtl. Def. v. Duke Energy Corp.,127 S. Ct.1432,1436 (2007)
[51]Pub. L. No.95-95,91 Sat.685,742-45 (1977)
[52]H. R. Rep. No.95-294, at 203-04 (1977)
[53]EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulation Matter, vol.1 at 3-99 (April 1996)
[54]National Park Service, Air Quality in The National Parks,2d. ed. (Sept.2002)
[55]45 Fed. Reg. at 80,084
[56]51 Fed. Reg. at 43,389 (1986)
[57]Vermont,850 F.2d at 102
[58]40 C. F.R.51.300 (b) (3)
[59]H. R. Rep. No.294, at 206
[60]40 C. F. R.51.308 (e)
[61]40 C. F.R.51.308 (d) (4) (v)
[62]U.S. EPA, Heaith Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust:SAB Review Draft, EPA/600/8-90/057E(2000)
[63]31 Fed. Reg.5170 (1966)
[64]Pub. L. No.91-604
[65]478 F.2d 615 (D. C. Cir.1973)
[66]Husqvarna v. EPA,254 F.3d 195,201
[67]40 C. F. R.86.1803-01
[68]65 Fed. Reg.6608 (2000)
[69]62 Fed. Reg.31-192 (1997)
[70]63 Fed. Reg.11,374 (1998)
[71]61 Fed. Reg.54,851 (1996)
[72]57 Fed. Reg.13,220 (1992)
[73]467 U.S.837 (1984)
[74]59 Fed. Reg.16,262 (1994)
[75]65 Fed. Reg.6790-91 (2000)
[76]57 Fed. Reg.31,888 (1992)
[77]55 Fed. Reg.30,620 (1990)
[78]62 Fed. Reg.54,694 (1997)
[79]National Petrochemical & Rediners Ass'n, et al. v. EPA,287F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir.2002)
[80]Internional Truck, el al. v. EPA, No.00-1510 (D.C. Cir)
[81]58 Fed. Reg.21,359 (1993)
[82]U.S. E. P. A. EPA-21A-2001 (1991)
[83]59 Fed. Reg.31,306 (1994)
[84]Engine Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA,88 F.3d 1075 (D.C.Cir.1996)
[85]Husqvarna v. EPA,254 F.3d 195 (D. C. Cir.2001)
[86]Chrysler Corp. v. EPA,631 F.2d 888 (D.C.Cir 1980)
[87]CAL. Exec. Order No. S-3-05(June 1,2005)
[88]California v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No.08-70011 (9th Cir. Field Jan.3,2008)
[89]CAL. Health & Safety Code 38500-38560 (2006)
[90]Pub. L. No.90-148,2,81 Stat.502
[91]1977 Legislative History at 2775
[92]55 Fed. Reg.34,138 (1990)
[93]1990 Legislative History at 1073
[94]51 F.3d 2053 (D. C. Cir.1995)
[95]43 Fed. Reg.11,258 (1978)
[96]56 Fed. Reg.5352 (1991)
[97]6 Fed. Reg.38,584 (1981)
[98]58 Fed. Reg.64,761 (1993)
[99]Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, No.94-1516,1995 WL 612905 (D. C. Cir. Oct. 20,1995)
[100]989 F.2d at 524
[101]768 F.2d at 385 (D.C.Cir 1985)
[102]60 Fed. Reg.47,907 (1995)
[103]55 Fed. Reg.12,154 (1990)
[104]57 Fed. Reg.47,849 (1992)
[105]58 Fed. Reg.32,531 (1993)
[106]57 Fed. Reg.47,769 (1992)
[107]U. S. EPA Report No. EPA/600/R-93-206 (Nov.1993)
[108]SF97 ALI-ABA 949-950 (2001)
[109]Faulk, supra, at 949,966 (2001)
[110]163 F. Supp.2d 1182 (E.D. Cal.2001)
[111]U.S. Constitution.158 F. Supp.2d 248 (N. D. N. Y.2001)
[112]63 Fed. Reg.51,706 (1998)
[113]56 Fed. Reg.65,592 (1991)
[114]55 Fed. Reg.52,709 (1980)
[115]63 Fed. Reg.36,129 (1998)
[116]58 Fed. Reg.65,018 (1993)
[117]58 Fed. Reg.65,018 (1993)
[118]40 C. F.R.82.16 (c)
[119]40 C.F.R.82.4 (b)
[120]68 Fed. Reg. at 2823
[121]40 C.F.R.82.9 (a)
[122]60 Fed. Reg.24,971-72
[123]40 C. F. R.82.104 (n)
[124]40 C.F.R.82.120 (c)
[125]58 Fed. Reg.28,660 (1993)
[126]40 Fed. Reg.82,150 (b)
[127]40 Fed. Reg.82,156 (a) (1)
[128]40 Fed. Reg.82,156 (f) (3)
[129]40 Fed. Reg.82.34 (b)
[130]40 Fed. Reg.82.38 (d)
[131]62 Fed. Reg. at 68,029 col.1
[132]U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1990-2000 (April 2002)
[133]42 U.S.C.7671
[134]66 Fed. Reg.51,7486 (2001)
[135]International Center for Technology Assessment v. Whitman, No DC-102 CV 2376 (D. C. Cir. filed Dec.5,2002)
[136]Letter from Peter Lehner, Assistant Attorney General; to Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S. EPA
[137]Testimony of Gary S. Guzy, supra note 13
[138]42 U. S. C.7403 (g)
[139]Massachusetts vs. EPA 127 S.Ct.1438 (2007)
[140]Glaser, supra note 14
[141]Reitze, supra note 5, at 417
[142]Reitze, supra note 5, at 417
[143]42 U.S.C.7543 (b) (2006)
[144]CAL. Pub. Res. Code 21080.4(2006)
[145]County of San Bernardino, No. CIVSS-0700329, at 2-3
[146]T. Hargave, U.S. Carbon Emmissions Tradeing:Description of an Upstream Approach, Center for Clean Air Policy (1998)
[147]Nordhaus and Danish, supra note 79
[148]Heinz Center, supra note 79, at Appendix 5
[149]Smith and Ross, supra note 85
[150]40 C. F. R.19.1 et. seq
[151]BNA Daily Environment Report, AA-1, July 21,1998
[152]U.S. v. Tivian Laboratories, Inc.
[153]40 C. F.R.70.6 (c) (2)
[154]589 F.2d 49,53 (D.C. Cir.1978)
[155]EPA.. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co.
[156]Holmes&Reitze, supra note 19, at 71-75
[157]40 C. F.R.2.301 (f)
[158]EPA, The Timely and Appropriate (T&A) Enforcement Response to High Priority Violation (Dec 22,1998)
[159]67 Fed. Reg.33,734 (2002)
[160]In re Chevron USA, Inc., Docket No 9-94-4 (Sept.29,1993)
[161]S. Rep. No.228,101st Cong.,1st Sess. (1989)
[162]U. S. v. Solar Turbines, Inc.,732 F. Supp.535,538-40 (M. D. Pa. 1989)
[163]Chafee-Baucus Statement of Senate Managers,136 CONG. REC. S16,933 (Oct.27,1990)
[164]U.S. v. Dale Valentine,38 ERC 2086 (BNA) (D. Wyo. June 1,1994)
[165]U. S. v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., No.99-1692,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20936 (S. D. Ind. Oct 24,2002)
[166]Annual Report on Environment and Compliance Assurance Accmplishments in 1999, June 2000
[167]U.S. V. Hugo Key and Son,731 F. Supp.1135,1144-45 (D.R.I.1989)
[168]42 U. S.C.7401 (a) (3)
[169]United States v. B&W Investment Properties,38 F.3d 363,367 (7th Cir.1994)
[170]EPA, Process for Conducting Pre-Referral Settlement Negotiations, GM-73 (March 9,1988)
[171]57 Fed. Reg.2213 (1992)
[172]61 Fed. Reg.65,391 (1996)
[173]EPA, Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy (Oct 25, 1991)
[174]Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
[175]Antonin Scalia. The doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers[J],1983 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev.881(1983)
[176]Friends of t he Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services
[177]Percival, Schroeder, Miller, Leapel Environmental Regulation Law, Science, and Policy [M]1. Fifth Edition, Aspen Publishers,2006
[178]Massachusetts vs. EPA 127 S.Ct.1438 (2007)
[179]Antonin Scalia. The doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers[J],1983 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev.881(1983)
[180]Massachusetts Et Al vl UlSI EPA Et Al,549 Ul Sl (2007) 1
[181]9 Pace Envtl. L. Rev.281,374 n.370 (1992)
[182]18 U. S.C.3571 (b) (3)
[183]H. R. Conf. Rep. No.952, at 347-48 (1990)
[184]68 Fed. Reg.9745 (2003)
[1]Robert J. Martineau, Jr.:The Clean Air Act Handbook, (2004)
[2]John M. Reilly, et al., Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Multi-Gas Approaches to Global Climate Changes (2003)
[3]Peter Glaser, et al., C02:A Pollutant? The Legal Affairs Committee Report to the National Mining Assosation Board of Directors on. the Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide under the Clean Air Act 22-23 (2001)
[4]Anne E. Smith and Martin T. Ross, Allowance Allocation:Who Win and Loses under a Carbon Dioxide Cntrol Program? Center for Clean Air Policy (Feb 2002)
[5]Harold Feld, " Saving the Citizn Suit:the Effect of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and the Role of Citizen Suits in Environmental Enforcement",19 Colum. J. Envtl. L.141, (1994)
[6]Daniel Riesel, Environmental Enforcement:Civil and Criminal (Law Journal Seminar-Press,1997)
[1]田磊：《环境危机：阴影下的希望》载《南风窗》,2007年12期下,第44页
[2]查尔斯.E.迪.里瓦(Charles E. Di Leva)著：《通过法律的和市场的手段保护自然环境与自然资源》,载王曦主编《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》,上海交通大学出版社2008年3月版,第31页
[3]李虎军：《直面细尘埃》,《财经》2009/07/20总第242期,第81页
[4]汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞编译：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣——美国联邦法院环境诉讼经典判例选》,北京大学出版社2006年6月版,第287页
[5]钱易、唐孝炎主编：《环境保护与可持续发展》,高等教育出版社,2000年7月版,第63页
[6]陶建国：《日本东京大气污染诉讼及启示》,《承德民族师专学报》第28卷第3期,2008年8月,第57页
[7]林灿铃等著：《国际环境法理论与实践》,知识产权出版社,2008年5月版,第245页
[8]吕忠梅：《环境法新视野》,中国政法大学出版社2007年修订版,第19页
[9]薛志钢、郝吉明等：《国外大气污染控制经验》, 载《重庆环境科学》2003年11期,第159页
[10]赵鹏高：《加拿大和美国的电力环保政策》载《节能环保》2005年第一期,第7页
[11]曹凤中、周国梅、吴迪、李玉琪：《美国实施清洁空气法的效益与启迪》载《环境科学与技术》,2000年第3期,第22页
[12]周训芳、李爱年主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,长沙,2008念月版,第170页
[13]加里.贝克尔(美国芝加哥大学教授,1992年诺贝尔经济学奖得主)：《清洁能源立法》,《财经》杂志2009年7月20日总第242期,第52页
[14]王明远：《“看得见的手”为中国可再生能源产业撑起一片明亮的天空?》《现代法学》2007-6-155-166
[15]张瑞丹：《绿色和平公布中国电企气候影响排名》,《财经》杂志2009年8 月3日总第243期,第73页
[16]刘军红：《构建未来国际气候秩序》载《瞭望》,2008年第50期12月15日,第47页
[17]周训芳、李爱年、主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,2008年第一版,第129页
[18](美)庞德著：《法理学》第一卷,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社,2004年版,第353页
[19]张文显主编：《法理学》,北京大学出版社1999年版,第295页
[20]刘梓：《美国行政程序法概念辨析》,《行政法学研究,》1999年第二期,第82-84页
[21]秦虎、张建宇：《以“清洁空气法”为例简析美国环境管理体系》,载《环境科学研究》,2005年4期,第55页
[22]徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社2008年8月版,第214页
[23]李艳芳：《从“马萨诸塞州等诉环保局”案看美国环境法的新发展》,中国人民大学学报,2007年第6期,第108页
[24]常纪文、杨朝霞著：《环境法的新发展》,中国社会科学出版社,北京,2008年10月版,第220页
[25]李清宇：《环境公益诉讼原告资格研究》,《环境法治与建设和谐社会》,2007年全国环境资源法学研讨会论文集,第1053页
[26]吴健：《排污权交易——环境容量管理制度创新》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版,第208页
[27]王立：《中国环境法的新视角》,中国检察出版社2001年版,第173页
[28]唐珍妮：《排污许可证制度存在的问题及对策》, 载于《长沙大学学报》,2008年第5期,第59页
[29]任洪岩：《我国机动车污染防治政策及状况》,载于《管理与法制》,2005年第6期,第230页
[30]中国环境保护产业协会机动车污染防治专业委员会：《我国机动车污染防治2007年行业技术发展综述》,载于《中国环保产业》,2008年第9期,第14页
[31]胡唯元：《控制移动源污染：变被动为主动》,载于《科技日报》,2007年5月10日,第5版
[32]周玉华：《环境行政法学》,东北林业大学出版社2002年版,第153页
[33]刘春焱：《重庆环保实行按日计罚的立法与时间效果分析》,载于《环境保护》,2007年第12B期,第43页
[34]徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社2008年8月版,第215页
[35]张瑞丹、李增新：《中美“绿色共赢”悬念》,《财经》杂志,2009/02/16,第98页
[1]徐祥民主编：《环境法学》,北京大学出版社,2005年9月版
[2]徐祥民主编：《环境与资源保护法学》,科学出版社,北京,2008年8月版
[3]徐祥民主编：《中国环境资源法学评论》,中国政法大学出版社,2006年8月版
[4]金瑞林主编：《环境法学》,北京大学出版社,,2005年8月版
[5]汪劲：《中国环境法原理》,北京大学出版社,2000年3月版
[6]吕忠梅：《环境法学》,法律出版社,北京,2004年9月版
[7]钱易、唐孝炎主编：《环境保护与可持续发展》,高等教育出版社,北京,2000年7月版
[8]常纪文、杨朝霞：《环境法的新发展》中国社会科学出版社,北京,2008年10月版
[9]李清宇：《环境公益诉讼原告资格研究》,《环境法治与建设和谐社会》,2007年全国环境资源法学研讨会论文集
[10]林灿铃等：《国际环境法理论与实践》,知识产权出版社,北京,2008年5月版
[11]汪劲、严厚福、孙晓璞编译：《环境正义：丧钟为谁而鸣——美国联邦法院环境诉讼经典判例选》,北京大学出版,2006年6月版
[12]王曦：《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》,上海交通大学出版社。2008年3 月版
[13]王曦：《美国环境法概论》,武汉大学出版社,1992年版
[14]王曦：《国际环境法》,法律出版社,1998年版
[15]孟庆瑜：《环境法——英美法经典判例选读》,北京大学出版社2008年版
[16]金瑞林、汪劲：《20世纪环境法学研究评述》,北京大学出版社2003年版
[17]周训芳、李爱年、主编：《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社,长沙,2008年2月版
[18]杰弗里.C.哈泽德、米歇尔.塔鲁伊著,张茂译：《美国民事诉讼导论》,中国政法大学出版社,1998年9月
[19]吕忠梅：《环境法新视野》,中国政法大学出版社,2007年7月版。
[20]蔡守秋主编：《环境与资源法教程》,高等教育出版社,北京,2004年7月版
[1]http://www.epa.gov/apti/course422/apcl.html
[2]http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reporys/2007-0 4-20_ARB_early_action_report.pdf
[3]http://www.stockstar.com
[4]http://www.epa.gov/regulation/caa/.html
[5]http://www.sierraclub.or/inside/
[6]http://www.epa.gov/regulation/caa/.html
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |