announced a monumental agreement with the Soviet Union whereby the Soviet Union would purchase virtually al l surplus grain produced in the United States. U.S. grain and food prices escalated rapidly owing to this new demand, causing great public skepticism about the deal, except in the rural United States, where farm values and incomes escalated. Another method used by the government to subsidize agricultural products is the combina- tion of target prices, deficiency payments, and mandatory acreage reduction. This approach is used primarily for corn and wheat, the main U.S. grain crops. Under this method, the government sets an ideal price, or target price, for a COMMODITY. If the market price falls below that target price, the government pays the farmer the difference—that is, makes a deficien- cy payment to the farmer. This prevents the farmer from being forced to sell the product at a price the government deems unfairly low, and supports the farmer’s income during difficult economic periods. Programs using this method are not mandatory, so the farmer must enlist in one to be involved. In return for a guaranteed minimum income and price stability, the farmer normally is required to take a specified portion of land out of production—that is, make a mandatory acreage reduction—at least for pro- gram commodities. In any given year, it is impossible to predict how expensive the deficiency payment programs will be, because weather conditions and uncon- trolled market forces often greatly affect prices. These types of agriculture subsidies often have been quite expensive, especially durin g years when market prices are low owing to high production and low exports. To reduce the government’s cash payments to farmers during one particularly disastrous market swing, the Reagan administration implemented the Pay- ment in Kind (PIK) Program in 1983. Under the PIK Program, instead of paying farmers with cash, the government paid them with certificates good for federal surplus grain. Farmers could then exchange the certificates for actual grain or trade them like stock certificates. PIK, combined with a drought in 1983, succeeded in reducing the cash cost ofthe deficiency payment programs and the excessive grain surplus. In the dairy industry, the government sub- sidizes milk production by agreeing to purchase milk from processors at a predetermined price. Dairy farmers receive no direct deficiency pay- ments; rather, they receive from their processor a milk check that includes the federal money. The international community often attacks the U.S. dairy subsidy programs as predatory, although similar and even greater subsidies are given to many dairy farmers in European countries. U.S. dairy producers claim that until the other producing nations drop their subsi- dies, it would be economic SUICIDE for the United States to lower subsidies. The government also subsidizes agriculture through nonrecourse loans. With this type of subsidy, the government loans money to farmers using the farmers’ future harvest as collateral. The government sets a per-bushel loan rate at which farmers can borrow money prior to harvest, so that they can hold their crops for later sale when the market price rises. The government determines how much a farmer can borrow by multiplying the loan rate (which is usually equal to the government target price for the crop) by the farmer’s base acreage (which is determined by calculating the number of acres the farmer planted of a target crop over several years, and multiplying that total by the farmer’s average yield). The crop is the collateral for the loan, and the farmer can either repay the loan in cash and sell the crop, or default and FORFEIT the crop to the government. If the market price is lower than the loan rate or target price, or if the farmer’s actual production rate is below the farmer’s base acreage rate, the government’s only RECOURSE for recouping part of its loan is to take the collateral crop. This subsidy is used primarily for corn and wheat, with a modified form of the program applying to soybeans, rice, and cotton. The government still enforces restrictive tariffs to subsidize certain domestic crops, especially sugar, for which the U.S. tariff virtually eliminates all foreign imports. The tariff protects U.S. sugar producers and costs the government little, but opponents argue that the cost of this domestic MONOPOLY is passed on to consumers, who are forced to pay sugar prices almost four times higher than the world mar ket rates, to the benefit of a few large sugar manufacturers. For peanuts and TOBACCO, the government allows legal monopolies for a few government- licensed growers and imposes large tariffs on imports of these products. Cigarette companies are allowed to help determine the price of tobacco and the volume of foreign imports, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 188 AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES creating a dual-monopoly relationship between tobacco growers and the cigarette industry. Supporters of subsidies attribute the rela- tively low cost of food and the stability of food production to the assistance of the federal government. They argue that if agriculture subsidies did not exist, food prices would vary wildly from year to year, and that many farmers would be unable to support themselves through market lows and weather catastrophes. Suppor- ters often state that government support for family farms keeps farm monopolies from dominating production and raising prices. They also cite the great advances in PER CAPITA production since the New Deal revisions in farm policy as evidence of the success of agriculture subsidies. In addition, supporters point out that the government has encouraged soil conservation through subsidies. They point to laws such as the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C.A. § 608-1 et seq., 16 U.S. C.A. § 590 et seq., which required that farmers who received income subsidies plant soil- conserving crops like legumes rather than soil- depleting crops such as corn, and that farmers use contour crop-stripping methods to hinder soil erosion resulting from water runoff. Opponents of agriculture subsidies say the farm economy is overly dependent on govern- ment, and that market forces woul d be a more efficient and inexpensive method of regulating production and market price. They contend that in the 1970s and 1980s, up to 30 percent of farmers’ incomes were made up of government payments, primarily during years when guaran- teed deficiency payments ballooned, and that farm programs have become the third largest federal program expense, behind SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE. Another primary criticism of farm commod- ity programs, especially corn and wheat pro- grams, is that they encourage farmers to expand their operation in order to acquire more base acres and higher guaranteed government pay- ments. Opponents believe that this leads to a concentration of production in the hands of fewer and fewer farm CORPORATIONS, and actually undermines the concept of family farms. Oppo- nents also state that although a primary goal of agriculture subsidies always has been to control production, most programs have had little success in doing so because farmers who are paid to keep part of their land out of production tend to remove the least productive acres. The Republican Congress of 1994–95 pro- posed large cuts in farm subsidies as a means to reduce the federal DEFICIT. In March 1996 Congress passed the Federal Agriculture Im- provement and Reform Act, which came to be known as the Freedom to Farm Act (Pub.L. 104–127, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 888). This act threatened to spell the end of agriculture subsidies, as it set out a plan to phase out subsidies by 2003. The six-year period, however, contradicted the avowed purpose of the 1996 act. The law sought to soften the blow to farmers by increasing subsidies through the use of market transition payments. These payments differed from traditional subsidies because they were not tied to commodity prices, so even if the market prices rose, the farmers would receive payments. In addition, the payment schedules were almost three times higher than the amounts paid out in previous farm bills. Advocates of a free market without subsidies were angered as Congress started to back away from the basic concept of the Freedom to Farm Act. As farm incomes started to fall in 1998, members of both political parties agreed to authorize additional funds for farm subsidies. This process continued through 2001 as farmers cited bad weather, natural disasters, and other forces for a decline in farm income. In addition, the 1996 law authorized a dairy “compact” for six New England states. This provision sets a minimum farm price for milk consumed in the six New England states. When federally regulated milk price s drop below the compact price, processors are required to pay farmers the difference. Midwest dairy farmers have argued this is unfair because the compact erects a trade barrier and encourages New England farmers to overproduce milk. The Farm Security and Rural INVESTMENT Act of 2002 (Farm Bill 2002), Pub. L. 107–171, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 134, set agriculture policy through 2008. Some in Congress lamented the retreat from the Freedom to Farm Act, but others faced the political reality that agribusiness and family farmers are a potent LOBBYING force that few congressional representatives want to frus- trate. The 2002 Farm Bill made clear that subsidies would not wither away. In fact, the law outlined an increase in subsidy payments by 74 percent over a ten-year period. In addition, the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES 189 law added new crops to be included in the subsidies, and it established a new price-guaran- tee scheme called the “counter-cyclical” pro- gram. Under this program, farmers with an eligible historical production of covered com- modities (wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, soybeans, oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas) and peanuts, are able to enroll annually to receive payments from the federal government when the commodity’s effective price is lower than the target price. The effective price of a commodity is the direct payment rate, plus the higher of either the national commodity loan rate or the national average farm price for that year. The purpose of the counter-cyclical payments is t o support and stabilize farm income in the years when market prices fall. In 2008 Congress enacted law the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (2008 Farm Act). The act governs the majority of federal agricul- ture and agriculture-related programs through 2012. Many of the commodity programs that were introduced in previous farm legislation were continued in this act, as well as the implementation of a new average crop revenue election program. In addition, the 2008 Farm Act introduced a permanent disaster-assistance program. Another major change in the act, which reflected the changes and trends of the United States in the move towards buying organic products, was the establishment of new programs to support agricultural producers who were transitioning to organic agriculture. The act, also provided funding to increase research into organic agriculture. Not only did the 2008 Farm Act implement new programs, but it also impr oved some of the existing programs. For example, in 2007 a congressional committee hearing disclosed that billions of dollars of waste, FRAUD, and abuse were prevalent in the then-existing Federal CROP INSURANCE Program. Specifically, the TESTIMONY at the hearing revealed that over 40 percent of the program’s funding, more than $10 billion, never reached the farmers whom it was intended to assist. Additionally , billions of dollars in excess subsidies for the private insurers that adminis- tered the program were also disclosed. The changes in the 2008 Farm Act included substan- tial reforms to the Crop Insurance Program that significantly reduced excessive subsidies for insurance and provided new funding for the enforcement of that program as well as other programs that had significant waste and abuse by farmers and insurers. The changes were estimat- ed to save over $3.4 billion over ten years. Many environmentalists oppose farm subsi- dies, such as corn and wheat programs, for different reasons. These groups claim that the base acreage and deficiency-payment system encourage farmers to produce soil-depleting and erosion-prone crops such as corn year after year, even if the market offers a better price for a different crop. Soil depletion and the need to increase average yields lead to heavy use of chemical fertilizers, which in turn add to soil and WATER POLLUTION, they argue. Others who oppose farm subsidies argue that the subsidies redistribute wealth by transferring the tax- payer’s money to a small group of well-off farm businesses and landowners. Another argument against farm subsidies is that it DAMAGES the economy by causing overproduction, overuse of marginal farmland, and price inflation. Other opponents contend that the subsidies not only damage the United States’ trade relations, but also that agriculture in the United States would still thrive without the subsidies. FURTHER READINGS Cochrane, Willard, and Mary Ryan. 1976. American Farm Policy, 1948–1973. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. “Congress Passes Farm Legislation Cutting Crop Insurance Waste by $3.4 Billion.” Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Available online at http://oversight .house.gov/story.asp?ID=2231; website home page: http:// oversight.house.gov (accessed September 16, 2009). Edwards, Chris. Agricultural Subsidies Downsizing the Federal Government. Available online at http://www. downsizinggovernment.org/print/agriculture/subsidies; website home page: http://www.downsizinggovern- ment.org (accessed September 15, 2009). “Farm and Commodity Policy: Program Provisions: Counter- Cyclical Payments.” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Briefing Rooms.Availableonlineathttp://www.ers.usda.gov/ Briefing/FarmPolicy/countercyclicalpay.htm;website home page: http://www.ers.usda.gov(access ed September 18, 2009). Helmberger, Peter G. 1991. Economic Analysis of Farm Programs. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rapp, David. 1988. How the United States Got into Agriculture: And Why It Can’t Get Out. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. Rehka, Mehra. 1989. “Winners and Losers in the U.S. Sugar Program.” Resources 94 (winter). “2008 Farm Bill Side-by-Side.” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Overview.htm; GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 190 AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES website home p age: ht tp://www.ers.usda.gov (accessed September 16, 2009). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online at www .usda.gov (accessed May 29, 2003). Wuerthner, George, and Mollie Matteson, eds. 2002. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. CROSS REFERENCES Agricultural Law; Agriculture Department; General Agree- ment on Tariffs and Trade. AID AND ABET To assist another in the commission of a crime by words or conduct. The person who aids and abets participates in the commission of a crime by performing some OVERT ACT or by giving advice or encouragement. He or she must share the criminal intent of the person who actually commits the crime, but it is not necessary for the aider and abettor to be physically present at the scene of the crime. An aider and abettor is a party to a crime and may be criminally liable as a principal, an accessory before the fact, or an accessory after the fact. AID AND COMFORT To render assistance or counsel. Any act that deliberately strengthens or tends to strengthen enemies of the United States, or that weakens or tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies is characterized as aid and comfort. Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the giving of AID AND COMFORT to the enemy is an element in the crime of TREASON. Aid and comfort may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support; actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there was a great deal of concern expressed about terrorist “sleeper cells” in the United States. Sleeper cells can be individual terrorists or groups of terrorists who blend in with society at large; they remain inactive, even for years, until they receive orders to carry out their mission. Some of the perpetrators of the September 1 1 attacks belonged to such sleeper cell s. Widespread concern over terrorist sleeper cells fueled suspicion that some U.S. citizens were knowingly providing aid and comfort to terrorist cells located in the United States. Aid and comfort was allegedly provided by shielding the identities of terrorists from U.S. authorities, and providing funds, transportation, and other forms of assistance to terrorists who plotted against U.S. interests. In the subsequent U.S. military action against the Taliban government in Afghanistan and members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization located there, which started in October 2001, U.S. forces captured John Walker Lindh, a 20-year- old American citizen who was trained by and was fighting for the Taliban against the U.S. govern- ment. The Walker Lindh case garnered enor- mous coverage in the press, with many claiming that Walker Lindh’s role as a combatant for the Taliban was tantamount to treason as it gave aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. AIDING THE ENEMY ACTS The outbreak of war normally ends all forms of normal relations between belligerent states. In support of the war effort MUNICIPAL laws may be implemented to prevent citizens and other persons within a belligerent state’s jurisdiction from assisting an enemy state through trade or other forms of contact. In the United States, for example, the Trading with the Enemy Act (40 Stat. 411 as amended [1917]) suspends all forms of trade or communication with persons in enemy TERRITORY. The statutory or executive restrictions imposed under the Trading with the Enemy Act are limited to formal periods of war, although other authority exists permitting the president to impose restrictions on trade or communications with a country without a DECLARATION of war. Because the Trading with the Enemy Act and similar statutes apply specifically to other nations in times of war, their provisions do not apply easily to dealings between citizens of the United States and members of terrorist organi- zations. After the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS were perpetrated by terrorist organizations against the United States, Congress enacted the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Ap- propriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct TERRORISM (USA PATRIOT Act) (Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 277) in order to strengthen the ability of the United States to protect itself from terrorist activities. The USA PATRIOT Act amended the existing statutory provisions permitting the president to restrict transactions and other transfers with foreign countries, organizations, and persons in order GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AIDING THE ENEMY ACTS 191 to respond to unusual and extraordinary threats against the United States. The current statutory provisions allowing the president to impose economic sanctions against a nation that the president deems to be a threat against the United States are provided by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Pub. L. No. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626 (50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701–1702). Under this act, the president may, with respect to any person or property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, investigate, regulate, or prohibit transactions in foreign exchange; transfers of credit or payments by or to any banking institute; or importation or exportation of SECURITIES or currency. The president and the federal government may also confiscate property owned by certain foreign countries, organiza- tions, or nationals. Violation of an EXECUTIVE ORDER issued pursuant to the IEEPA prohibiting trade with a foreign nation or organization may result in criminal sanctions. During the Gulf War in 1991, President GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH issued an executive order prohibiting citizens of the United States from traveling to or dealing with the government of Iraq. Arch Trading Company, Inc., a corporation based in Virginia, violated this DECREE by completing a contract with Iraq. The U.S. government brought criminal charges against the company for conspiring to commit an offense against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 371 (2000). Despite arguments by the company that violation of the order was not an “offense” under federal law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the company could be properly charged ( United States v. Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087 [4th Cir. 1993]). FURTHER READINGS Bordwell, Percy. 2008. The Law of War between Belligerents: A Commentary (1908). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. Green, Leslie C. 1999. Essays on the Modern Law of War. 2d ed. Ardsley, NY: Transnational. Williams, Nathan. 2001. “How Has the Onset of War Coincided with Limitations on Press Freedom Throughout Our Nation’s History?” George Mason Univ.’s History News Network Web site. Available online at http://hnn.us/articles/392.html; website home page: http://hnn.us (accessed August 29, 2009). CROSS REFE RENCES Rules of War; War. AIDS See ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME. AIR POLLUTION Air pollution has plagued communities since before the Industrial Revolution. Airborne pollutants, such as gases, chemicals, smoke particles, and other substances, reduce the value of, and ability to enjoy, affected property and cause significant health and environmental problems. Despite the lon g history and signifi- cant consequences of this problem, effective legal remedies only began to appear in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Though some U.S. cities adopted air quality laws as early as 1815, air POLLUTION at that time was seen as a problem best handled by local laws and ordinances. Only as cities continued to grow, and pollution and health concerns with them, did federal standards and a nationwide approach to air quality begin to emerge. The earliest cases involving air pollution were likely to be brought because of a noxious smell, such as from a slaughterhouse, animal herd, or factory, that interfered with neighbor- ing landowne rs’ ability to enjoy their property. These disputes were handled through the application of the nuisance doctrine, which provides that possessors of land have a duty to make a reasonable use of their property in a manner that does not harm other individuals in the area. A person who polluted the air and caused harm to others was liable for breaching this duty and was required to pay DAMAGES or was enjoined (stopped through an INJUNCTION issued by a court) from engaging in the activities that created the pollution. In determining whether to enjoin an alleged polluter, courts balanced the damage to the PLAINTIFF land- owner’s property against the hardship the DEFENDANT polluter would incur in trying to eliminate, or abate, the pollution. Courts often denied injunctions because the economic dam- age suffered by the defendant—and, by exten- sion, the surrounding community if the defen- dant was essential to the local economy—in trying to eliminate the pollution often out- weighed the damage suffered by the plaintiff. Thus, in many cases, the plaintiff was left only with the remedy of money damages—a cash payment equal to the estimated monetary value of the damage caused by the pollution—and the polluting activities were allowed to continue. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 192 AIDS Using a nuisance action to control wide- spread air pollution proved inadequate in other ways as well. At COMMON LAW, only the attorney general or local PROSECUTOR could sue to abate a public nuisance (one that damages a large number of persons) unless a private individual could show “special” damage that was distinct from, and more severe than, that suffered by the general public. The private plaintiff with SPECIAL DAMAGES had the necessary standing (legally protected interest) to seek injunctive relief. In some states, the problem of standing has been corrected through laws that allow a private citizen to sue to abate public nuisances such as air pollution, though these laws are by no means the norm. Moreover, with the nuisance doctrine the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the harm he or she has experienced was caused by a particular defendant. However, because pollu- tants can derive from many sources, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a particular polluter is responsible for a particular problem. Last, nuisance law was useful only to combat particular polluters; it did not provide an ongoing and systematic mechanism for the regulation and control of pollution. Early in the nineteenth century, a few U.S. cities recognized the shortcomings of common law remedies and enacted local laws that attempted to address the problem of air pollution. Pittsburgh, in 1815, was one of the first to institute air-quality laws. Others, such as Chicago and Cincinnati, passed smoke-control ordinances in 1881, and by 1912, 23 U.S. cities with populations of more than 200,000 had passed smoke-abatement laws. Though the early court cases usually addressed polluted air as an interference with the enjoyment of property, scientists quickly discovered that air pollution also poses significant health and environmental risks. It is believed to contribute to the incidence of chronic diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis, and other respi- ratory illnesses and has been linked to higher mortality rates from other diseases, including cancer and heart disease. The shortcomings associated with the com- mon law remedies to control air pollution and increasing alarm over the problem’s long-range effects finally resulted in the development of state and federal legislation. The first significant legislation concerning air quality was the Air Pollution Control Act, enacted in 1955 (42 U.S. C.A. § 7401 et seq. [1955]). Also known as the CLEAN AIR ACT, it gave the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare the power to undert ake and recommend research programs for air- pollution control. Amendments passed during the 1960s authorized federal agencies to inter- vene to help abate interstate pollution in limited circumstances, to control emissions from new motor vehicles, and to provide some supervi- sion and enforcement powers to states trying to control pollution. By the end of the 1960s, when it became clear that states had made little progress in combating air pollution, Congress toughened the Clean Air Act through a series of new laws, which were known as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 [Dec. 31, 1970]). The 1970 amendments greatly increased federal authority and responsibility for addres- sing the problem of air pollution. They provid- ed for, among other things, uniform national emissions standards for the hazardous air pollutants most likely to cause an increase in mortality or serious illness. Under the amend- ments, each state retained some regulatory authority, having “primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such state. ” Thus, states could not “opt out” of air pollution regulation and, for the first time, were required to attain certain air-quality standards within a specified period of time. In addition, the amendments directed the administrator of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC- TION AGENCY (EPA), which was also established in 1970, to institute national standards regard- ing ambient air quality for air pollutants Drivers in downtown Phoenix are advised to utilize public transportation in order to help reduce the area’s high levels of air pollution. ª JACK KURTZ/ZUMA/ CORBIS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION AIR POLLUTION 193 endangering public health or welfare, in partic- ular sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and photochemical oxidants in the atmosphere. The EPA was also granted the auth ority to require levels of harmful pollutants to be brought within set standards before further industrial expansion would be permitted. Despite the ambitious scope of the 1970 legislation, many of its goals were never attained. As a result, the Clean Air Act was extensively revised again in 1977 (Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685 [Aug. 7, 1977]). One significant component of the 1977 amendments was the formulation of programs designed to inspect, control, and monitor vehicle emissions. The 1977 revisions also sought to regulate parking on the street, discourage automobile use in crowded areas, promote the use of bicycle lanes, and encourage employer-sponsored carpooling. Unlike the goals of several of the 1970 amendments, many of the 1977 reforms were achieved. Many states, with the help of federal funding, developed programs that require AUTOMOBILES to be tested regularly for emissions problems before they could be licensed and registered. The 1977 amendments also directed the EPA to issu e regulations to reduce “haze” in national parks and other wilderness areas. Under these regula- tions the agency sought to improve air quality in a number of areas, including the Grand Canyon in Arizona. During the 1980s and 1990s, several environ- mental issues, including acid rain, global climate change, and the depletion of the ozone layer, gave rise to further federal regulation. Acid rain, which has caused significant damage to U.S. and Canadian lakes, is created when the sulfur from fossil fuels, such as coal, combines with oxygen in the air to create sulfur dioxide, a pollutant. The sulfur dioxide then combines with oxygen to form sulfate, which, when washed out of the air by fog, clouds, mist, or rain, becomes acid rain, with potentially catastrophic effe cts on vegeta- tion and ground water. Amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 [Nov. 15, 1990]) sought to address the challenges posed by acid rain by commissioning a number of federally sponsored studies, includ- ing an analysis of Canada’s approach to dealing with acid rain and an investigation of the use of National Air Pollutant Emissions, 1970 to 2008 154.2 110.2 0 50 100 150 200 250 204.0 163.2 1970 188.4 153.5 1975 185.4 143.8 1980 176.8 134.2 1985 1990 126.8 83.9 1995 114.5 68.1 2000 96.6 48.2 2005 77.7 38.9 2008 Year Million short tons SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data,” available online at http://www.epa. g ov/ttnchie1/trends/ (accessed on Au g ust 14, 2009). Total emissions Highway vehicle ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 194 AIR POLLUTION buffering and neutralizing agents to restore lakes and streams. The 1990 laws also directed the EPA to prepare a report on thefeasibility of developing standards related to acid rain that would “protect sensitive and critically sensitive aquatic and terrestrial resources.” In addition, the amend- ments provided for a controversial system of “marketable allowances,” which authorize in- dustries to emit certain amounts of sulfate and which can be transferred to other entities or “banked” for future use. The problem ofglobal climate change is linked to the accumulation of gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. The 1990 amendments implemented a number of strategies to address changes in the global climate, including the commissioning of studies on options for controlling the emission of methane. The amendments also contained provisions to deal with the depletion of the ozone layer, which shields the earth from the harmful effects of the sun’s radiation. Though the long-term conse- quences were hard to determine inthe early 2000s, damage had already been seen in the form of a “hole” in the ozone layer over Antarctica. The destruction of the ozone layer was believed to be caused by the release into the atmosphere of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other similar substances. The 1990 laws included a ban on “nonessential uses” of ozone-depleting chemicals, and the placement of conspicuous warning labels on certain substances, indicating that their use harms public health and the environment by destroying the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Regulatory interpretation of the Clean Air Act shifted between the late 1990s and early 2000s. Under President WILLIAM J. CLINTON, the Environmental Protection Agency sought to close loopholes in the law’s enforcement through the New Source Review (NSR) program. Essen- tially, these rules used an industrial facility’s age to determine when higher pollution emissions would require the facility to go through a permitting process and install pollution-control equipment. The agency sued some 50 companies in an effort to hold them to the highest pollution- control standards. But the EPA shifted direction under President GEORGE W. BUSH, who favored less stringent regulations. Under its so-called Clear Skies initiative, the Bush administration pro- posed issuing individual utilities pollution cred- its, which would allow the utility to lawfully generate a fixed amoun t of pollution, and if unused, any remaining credits could be sold to other utilities exceeding their permitted limit (“cap and trade system”). Environmentalists criticized the proposals for gutting protections, while industry embraced them as flexible cost- savings measures. Greenhouse Gases Meanwhile, in 1999, various environmental groups filed an administrative “rule-making” PETITION asking the EPA to establish standards for motor vehicle “greenhouse gas” emissions (pri- marily carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases). The EPA announced a review of the Clinton-era policy, then issued proposed rule changes in December 2002 that would relax requirements governing pollution levels and mandatory equipment upgrades. The EPA state d that it lacked authority to regulat e such gases. It argued, in part, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were naturally occurring sub- stances in the atmosphere and therefore did not constitute “air pollutants” within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 549 U.S 497 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the EPA had the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether EPA’s stated reasons for declining to act were consistent with the statute. The Court narrowly decided, in a 5–4 landmark decision, that gases that cause global warming were pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. The Court further held that EPA did indeed have the statutory authority to regulate them, and that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to exercise that authority. The long-winded controversy centered on Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, specifically, 42 USC §7521(a)(1), which states in relevant part: The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare The Act defines air pollut- ants to incl ude “any air pollution agent including any physical, chemical sub- stance emitted into the ambient air.” [§7602(g)]. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AIR POLLUTION 195 Tobacco Smoke Although the trend has been toward adoption of smoking bans, advocates and opponents have fought pitched battles. Advocates point to successes such as stringent statewide bans in New York, California, and Delaware, along with an estimated 400 bans in cities such as Boston and Dallas, according to the American Non- smokers’ Rights Foundation. They also cited evidence presented at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting in 2002 showing that the city of Helena, Montana, enjoyed dramatically reduced heart attack rates the year following enactment of its ban. Ironically, enforcement was subsequently halted while a court battle was waged over the ban. By 2008 a clear majority of states (more than 30) had implemented state -wide smoking bans in public places, but legal challenges at the local level continued across the country. Opposition to indoor smoking bans has come from the bar, restaurant, and TOBACCO industries. Commercial gr oups argue that bans result in revenue loss, burdensome COMPLIANCE regulation, and even a diminished labor force. They have achieved some success. Some city councils rejected proposed ordinances after heavy LOBBYING, such as in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and the city of Pueblo, Colorado, was forced to suspend its ordinances following a successful public signature drive calling for a public REFERENDUM in 2003. FURTHER READINGS Findley, Roger W., and Daniel A. Farber. 2008. Environ- mental Law in a Nutshell. 7th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West. Jackson, Ted. 2003. “Activists Fret President’s Plan Hurts Effort on FPL Emissions.” Palm Beach Post (February 28). Kaiser Family Foundation. 2008. “Public Place Smoking Bans-Kaiser State Health Facts.” February 2008. Text available online at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/ comparetable.jsp?ind=86&cat=2 (accessed August 25, 2009). Menell, Peter S., ed. 2002. Environmental Law. Aldershot, England; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate/Dartmouth Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2008. “Solving Global Warming: Your Guide to Legislation.” January 2008. Text available online at http://www.nrdc.org/ legislation/factsheets/leg_07032601a.pdf; website home page: http://www.nrdc.org/policy (accessed August 5, 2009). Rodgers, William H., Jr. 1986. Environmental Law: Air and Water. Vol. 2. St. Paul, Minn.: West. Stagg, Michael K. 2001. “The EPA’s New Source Review Enforcement Actions: Will They Proceed?” Trends 33 (November-December). CROSS REFERENCES Automobiles; Environmental Law; Environmental Protec- tion Agency; Pollution; Surgeon General; Tobacco. AIRLINES In 1978 the airline industry, which had been heavily regulated and controlled, was liberated from government oversight and released to the vagaries of the marketplace. As a result, the industry underwent significant change during the 1980s and 1990s. At the same time, several major air disasters took place, including the 1996 Valujet and TWA 800 aircraft crashes. In response to the post-accident events, Congress passed the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act (ADFAA) the same year. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, wrought further change on the airline industry. Just weeks after the attacks, President GEORGE W. BUSH signed the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabiliza- tion Act (ATSSSA). According to a statement released by Pres ident Bush on September 22, 2001, the act was intended to ensure passenger safety and to “assure the safety and immediate stability of the nation’s commercial airline system.” It also created financial turmoil for nearly all the major carriers. What followed was a period of evolution and metamorphosis that changed the nature of flying conside rably. Deregulation When the first commercial airlines appeared after WORLD WAR I, fewer than 6,000 passengers per y ear traveled by air. By the 1930s the Big Four—Eastern Air Lines, United Air Lines, American Airline s, and Trans World Airlines (TWA)—dominated commercial air transport. These companies had garnered exclusive rights from the federal government to fly domestic airmail routes, and Pan American (Pan Am) held the rights to international routes. The hold of these four airlines on their lucrative CONTRACTS went virtually unchallenged until deregulation in 1978. Even after the formation of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in 1938, formed to license new airlines, grant new routes, approve mergers, and investigate acci- dents, the Big Four and Pan Am continued to be guaranteed permanent rights to these routes. In fact, no new major scheduled airline was licensed for the next four decades. In October 1978 Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act (49 U.S.C.A. § 334 et seq.), ending the virtual MONOPOLY held by the Big GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 196 AIRLINES Four and Pan Am. The government’s goal was to promote competition within the industry. The act gave airlines essentially unrestricted rights to enter new routes without CAB approval. The companies could also exit any market and raise and lower fares at will. The immediate effect of deregulation was a drop in fares and an increase in passengers. New cut-rate, no-frills airlines, such as People Express Airlines and New York Air, offered travelers the lowest fares ever seen in the industry. Forced to compete to fill their planes, the larger companies lowered their prices as well. Then the oil-producing countries in the Middle East formed a cartel and raised the price of jet fuel 88 percent in 1979 and an additional 23 percent in 1980. Combined with tumbling fares and increased passenger loads, the higher cost of jet fuel caused airline profits to drop. Labor strife also affected the industry in the early days following deregulation. In 1981, after years of working under stressful conditions made worse by deregulation, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) called a strike, demanding shorter working hours and higher pay. The union expected support and cooperation from the Reagan administration because of a sympathetic letter that President RONALD REAGAN had sent to PATCO when he was campaigning for the presidency. In the letter, he pledged to do whatever was necessary to meet PATCO’s needs and to ensure the public’s safety. But Reagan ordered the strikers to return to work within three days or be fired. Most did not return. The FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) ordered all carriers to temporarily reduce their number of flights by one-third. Newer and smaller carriers found themselves increasingly unable to gain access to lucrative routes. Rebuilding the air traffic co ntroller force took years, during which landing slots at the largest airports remained restricted, and small carriers, unable to compete, simply abandoned their attempts to break into the larger markets. To some extent, competitive pricing actually had the opposite effect of what the deregulators intended. When the small “upstart” companies offered extremely low fares, the larger companies responded aggressively. For example, in 1983, People Express announced a $99 round-trip fare between Newark, New Jersey, and Minneapolis– St. Paul. Northwest Airlines, which had always dominated the Twin Cities market, undercut People by instituting a $95 fare for the same destination and scheduling extra departures. As a result, People decided it could not compete and withdrew from the market. Passengers enjoyed the benefit of lower fares, but only for a short time before the competitive effect faded and high fares returned. When deregulation brought competitive pricing, the large carriers began to realize that it was not profitable for them to do business the way they had in the past. The first major change they made was to abandon the practice of criss- crossing the continent with nonstop flights to many different cities. Instead, the major airlines scheduled most of their flights into and out of a central point, or “hub,” where passengers might need to change to a different flight to complete their journey. One airline controlled most of the reservation desks and gates at a particular hub— for example, United in Chicago, Northwest in Minneapolis–St. Paul, American in Dallas–Fort Worth, and Delta in Atlanta. For this reason, and because passengers tend to dislike changing carriers in the middle of a trip, the dominant company in a hub had a tremendous advantage over the competition in influencing what carrier a passenger would choose. By 1990 two-thirds of Passengers preparing to board an airplane must discard all liquids weighing more than 3 ounces, a limit enacted by the U.S. Transportation Security Adminis- tration in 2006 after an alleged liquid bomb plot was exposed in the United Kingdom. GEORGE RIZER-POOL/ GETTY IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION AIRLINES 197 . investigation of the use of National Air Pollutant Emissions, 19 70 to 2008 15 4.2 11 0.2 0 50 10 0 15 0 200 250 204.0 16 3.2 19 70 18 8.4 15 3.5 19 75 18 5.4 14 3.8 19 80 17 6.8 13 4.2 19 85 19 90 12 6.8 83.9 19 95 11 4.5 68 .1 2000 96.6 48.2 2005 77.7 38.9 2008 Year Million. on imports of these products. Cigarette companies are allowed to help determine the price of tobacco and the volume of foreign imports, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 18 8 AGRICULTURE. http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Overview.htm; GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 19 0 AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES website home p age: ht tp://www.ers.usda.gov (accessed September 16 , 2009). U.S. Department of Agriculture.