6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has authority under section 110 of the Clean Air Act to adopt disincentives other than parking surcharges if he finds them necessary components of state implementation plans to achieve ambient air quality standards. States are not pre-empted from adopting disincentives applicable to sources of air pollution other than new motor vehicles, aircraft or fuels. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has no authority under the Solid Waste Disposal Act to adopt disincentives but states are not pre-empted from doing so. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency The Oregon and Vermont laws imposing mandatory deposits on non-returnable beverage containers are constitutional. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. The City of New York ordinance levying a tax based on levels The City of New York tax on sales of plastic containers but The Vermont tax on capital gains from speculative land sales The charges imposed on discharges of wastewaters and emissions Enforcement of federal and state pollution control laws prior Proposals for national sulfur emission taxes produced con- The tax on lead additives was proposed by the administration 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. refining capacity for production of such fuels. The House Ways and Means Committee held hearings on the proposal and failed to report it. Little outside support was obtained for it and industry voiced considerable opposition on economic grounds. Parking surcharges were proposed by EPA as part of state transportation control plans. Its actions were highly controversial and resulted in congressional action forbidding EPA from requiring parking surcharges as part of state transportation control plans. At this time, it is unclear whether the existing, complex regulatory system established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 is going to succeed or whether it is going to founder under a deluge of litigation, missed deadlines and unsatisfied unrealistic expectations. States may question the feasibility of adopting disincentives given the present difficulties of statutory implementation and charges' potential for overburdening municipalities and industries. Charges (such as sulfur emissions charges) other than parking surcharges could be used as a supplementary means of encouraging compliance with the deadlines established for state implementation plans under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Pollution charges might be desirable as supplements to new The structure of hazardous emission regulation under section 112 of the Clean Air Act does not lend itself to inclusion of supplementary disincentive devices. It may be feasible to incorporate disincentives into the Criteria used in evaluating applications for ocean dumping permits might serve as the basis for establishing ocean dumping disincentive charge rates. However, these criteria could be improved and there is still much to be learned about 26. the effects of ocean dumping. The decibel A-scale (dB(A)) is a commonly accepted indicator RECOMMENDATION 1. The Environmental Protection Agency should consider adopting SECTION II A DEFINITION OF DISINCENTIVE At the outset, this report should set forth its authors' definition of a disincentive and distinguish a disincentive from several mechanisms (e.g., fines, user charges, license fees) commonly employed by legislatures to encourage or regulate or sanction certain conduct. A disincentive is a monetary charge levied by government on conduct which is not illegal but which does impose social costs, for the principal purpose of discouraging the conduct. The mechanism which is employed may be called a charge, a tax, or a fee, but if its principal purpose is to discourage the conduct it applies to (rather than to compensate the public for the use of public resources or to raise revenues or to punish illegal conduct) then it may properly be characterized as a disincentive. This report confines itself to disincentives. Similar devices are often discussed in the literature of economics, (e.g., proposals for effluent charges), where they are justified theoretically as promoting internalization of social costs and proper allocation of resources. In the next section Vermont pollution charges and Michigan surveillance fees, which are often mentioned as "effluent charges", are described and distinguished from disincentives, but first the following mechanisms are distinguished. These mechanisms are not disincentives because their purpose is not usually to discourage conduct. 1. Fines: The most common sanction for violating a law or regulation is payment of an amount of money determined, after a trial or hearing, on the basis of the seriousness of the infraction. Fines may be imposed for committing a misdemeanor or felony, i.e., for being convicted of violating a provision of law which states it is a crime to behave in ways it proscribes, or they may be imposed as so-called "civil money penalties" for behavior which is not defined as criminal but which is nevertheless deemed illegal. The distinctions between fines and civil money penalties are not important here. What is important is the distinction between both of them and disincentives: both are imposed as the result of a judicial or quasi-judicial determination that a violation of law has occurred. Examples of fines and civil money penalties are thosel providing for fines of $2,500-$25,000 for willful or negligent violations of several 1See 33 U.S.C. §1319 (c) and (d). |