...
首页> 外文期刊>Boston College environmental affairs law review >RESURRECTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: ENFORCEMENT OF EPA'S DISPARATE-IMPACT REGULATIONS THROUGH CLEAN AIR ACT CITIZEN SUITS
【24h】

RESURRECTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: ENFORCEMENT OF EPA'S DISPARATE-IMPACT REGULATIONS THROUGH CLEAN AIR ACT CITIZEN SUITS

机译:恢复环境正义:通过清洁的空气法公民服执行EPA的影响空间法规

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The environmental justice movement aims to eradicate disparate siting of environmental hazards in minority and low-income communities. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, environmental justice advocates had focused their efforts on enforcement of EPA's disparate-impact regulations. These regulations prohibit recipients of federal funding from administering any program that has the effect of racial discrimination. However, the Sandoval decision declared that no private right of action existed to enforce the regulations. Despite this significant setback, the regulations may still be enforceable in circumstances where an appropriate statutory handle exists. For example, section 110(a) (2) (E) of the Clean Air Act requires states to provide assurances that their plans comply with federal law. To the extent the disparate-impact regulations remain valid federal law, they may be enforced through actions to compel EPA to reject plans that do not include the requisite assurances. This Note explores the substantive and procedural issues surrounding such actions.
机译:环境正义运动旨在消除少数民族和低收入社区中环境危害的不同情况。在最高法院在亚历山大诉桑多瓦尔(Alexander v。Sandoval)案做出判决之前,环境正义主义者一直将他们的精力集中在执行EPA完全不同的法规上。这些法规禁止联邦资金的接受者管理任何可能引起种族歧视的计划。但是,桑多瓦尔的决定宣布,不存在执行该法规的私人诉讼权。尽管有很大的挫折,但在存在适当法定手柄的情况下,法规仍可实施。例如,《清洁空气法》第110(a)(2)(E)条要求各州保证其计划符合联邦法律。在影响力完全不同的法规仍然有效的联邦法律的范围内,可以通过迫使EPA拒绝不包括必要保证的计划的行动来实施这些法规。本说明探讨了围绕此类行动的实质性和程序性问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号