The federal government procurement process has long been used as an engine for social change, including in the environmental area.¹ At the present time, it is also driving toward adoption of commercial and private-sector quality and management systems standards in order to integrate the public and private-sector industrial base.

Editors' Summary: This Article is the first of a two-part series that examines the promise and reality of Clean Air Act enforcement by reviewing four central enforcement issues: (1) the development of the "any credible evidence" rule; (2) the evolution of the compliance assurance monitoring proposal; (3) the controversy over the requirement of federal enforceability of limitations on a source's potential to emit pollutants for purposes of determining its status as a "major source" under the Act; and (4) the tension between state-law voluntary disclosure, immunity, and environmental audit

It is no secret that on coming to Washington in January 1995, the 104th Congress launched an assault on the nation's landmark environmental laws. In all, the 104th Congress considered over 60 legislative proposals that were intended to weaken environmental protection statutes. These proposals included bills to scale back or eliminate central elements of the Clean Air Act (CAA),¹ the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),² the Endangered Species Act (ESA),³ and other environmental laws.

Editors' Summary: This Article is the second in a two-part series that examines the promise and reality of Clean Air Act enforcement by reviewing four central enforcement issues: (1) the development of the "any credible evidence" rule; (2) the evolution of the compliance assurance monitoring proposal; (3) the controversy over the requirement of federal enforceability of limitations on a source's potential to emit pollutants for purposes of determining its status as a "major source" under the Act; and (4) the tension between state-law voluntary disclosure, immunity, andenvironmental audit

Editors' Summary: The tax treatment of a company's environmental remediation costs is crucial to its determination of what the total cost of a remedial action actually is. Whether costs are deductible expenses that the company can offset against current income or are capital expenditures that it must depreciate over time can have a significant impact on its bottom line. This Article examines the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS') current and historic treatment of these expenditures. The Article begins by examining the distinction between deductibility and capitalization of costs.

Editors' Summary: At the heart of China's economic development boom lies the investment of an increasing number of foreign companies. China's transition to a more market-based economy, however, has brought about swift regulatory changes that serve to confound the investment community, particularly in the environmental arena. This Article seeks to alleviate this confusion by describing China's environmental regulatory regime and what it requires of foreign investment projects.

The pursuit of environmental protection traditionally meant the imposition of command-and-control regulation and enforcement by federal and state environmental authorities. For at least 25 years, the protection of this country's air, water, and land resources relied on the development of complex, increasingly sophisticated environmental laws and regulations. Environmental officials ensured the success of these protective measures by establishing aggressive enforcement programs aimed at identifying and prosecuting violators.

Editors' Summary: Determining the impact that environmental forces have on human health is an integral part of environmental law and policy. A determination of this impact must, of course, begin with a determination of whether there has been any impact at all. Evaluating the causal relationship between environmental forces and human illness is, therefore, essential.

Introduction

One of the most popular recent trends in the environmental arena is reinvention. The groups recommending changes to our system of environmental management are notable by their breadth, their high level of credibility, and the consistency of their message.¹ Yet, despite the consistent message, it seems "the system" is resistant to change, with the entrenched interests it supports being the first to defend the status quo despite the downsides for the environment and management efficiencies.