Enforcement Amendments

Food, Drug, Cosmetic, and Device Enforcement Amendments of 1991 (H.R. 2597, I02nd Congress) http // thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z7c 102 H.R.2597. (accessed September, 2000). 

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments Hst 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that the EPA must regulate to enforce maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to standards which are to be set by the year 2000. The 33/50 project calls for reduction of emissions of 17 specified solvents to predetermined levels by 1995. The SARA statute provides a mechanism by which the community can be informed of the existence, quantities, and releases of toxic chemicals, and requires that anyone releasing specific toxic chemicals above a threshold level to annually submit a toxic chemical release form to the EPA. The status of various ketones under these regulations is shown in Table 4. 

A primary responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the enforcement of the Federal Food, Dmg, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and its various amendments, eg. May, 1976, in which dental materials, instmments, and equipment are included. Premarketing clearance requirements apply for estabhshing the safety and effectiveness of new products. There is a close Haison between the FDA and the ADA standards and certification programs. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) was passed. This act and its various amendments are often referred to as tne Clean Water Act (CWA). It provided loans for treatment plant construction and temporary authority for federal control of interstate water pollution. The enforcement powers were so heavily dependent on the states as... 

EC Directive amending 95/21/EC on the enforcement of shipping using community ports, etc. 

EC Directive amending Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement of international standards for... 

Other Titles - The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 continue the federal acid rain research program and contain several provisions relating to research, development and air monitoring. They also contain provisions to provide additional unemployment benefits through the Job Training Partnership Act to workers laid off as a consequence of compliance with the Clean Air Act. The Act also contains provisions to improve visibility near National Parks and other parts of the country. Strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments is the driving force behind pollution abatement. Non-compliance is simply not an option, since there are both financial and criminal liabilities that outweigh any benefits derived from a business. 

The J 984 Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA, pronounced "hiss-wa") to RCRA requires phasing-out land disposal of hazardous waste. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program. 

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 reauthorized CERCLA to continue cleanup activities around the country. Several site-specific amendments, definitions, clarifications, and technical requirements were added to the legislation, including additional enforcement authorities. Title HI of SARA also authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

The tliird major set of amendments was the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. Tliis aet resoh es the legal question of w hether federal faeilities are subjeet to enforcement actions under RCRA by wai ing the go crnmcnt s so crcign iimnunity from prosecution. As a result, states, USEPA, and the Department of Justice can enforce the pro isions of RCRA against federal facilities, and federal departments and agencies can be subjected to injunctions, administrative orders, and/or pciuiltics for noncomplianec. ... 

Section 6607(c) of the Pollution Prevention Act provides enforcement autliority under Title 111 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (also known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). Civil, administrative, and criminal penalties are autliorized for non-compliance against a facility, USEPA, a Governor, or a SERC. The Act requires USEPA to... 

The prerequisite that the laboratory chosen to conduct the ILV trials must not be involved in the method development and/or in its subsequent use is not applicable for multi-methods. If the applicability of a multi-method is published in an official manual, an ILV is not obligatory for this particular a.i. ILV is always required for single methods. Communications between the chosen laboratory and the method developers must be reported, provided that these communications were required to carry out the analysis successfully. Also, any subsequent amendments or modifications to the original method must be reported. Furthermore, the ILV report must contain a statement as to the applicability of the method. In contrast, it is not necessary to confirm fhe resulfs of fhe enforcement methods for soil, water, body fluids, tissues, and air by an independent laboratory validation. 

As discussed before, the efficiency of the extraction step is one of the fundamental performance characteristics of an analytical method. Unfortunately, the provisions regarding extraction efficiency in Council Directive 91/414/EEC (amended by Directive 96/68/EG) are listed in the metabolism section of the directive (Annex IIA 6.1 and 6.2). Nevertheless, results obtained in these studies are essential for the development of enforcement methods and must be reflected in this context. 

This proposed amendment forbids the United States or any State to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of sex. If adopted, it will make several millions of female voters, totally inexperienced in political affairs, quite generally dependent upon the other sex, all incapable (5) of performing military duty and without the power to enforce the laws which their numerical strength may enable them to make, and comparatively very few of whom wish to assume the irksome and responsible political duties which this measure thrusts upon them. 

In contrast, as a Directive by the EEC Council to the Member States, the Sixth Amendment is not self-implementing, and it is not directly enforceable against individual companies. Rather, each EEC country must implement its own premarket notification laws, regulations, and administrative provisions. These must be consistent with the overall framework of the Sixth Amendment, and they must not create the types of conflicts or intra-EEC barriers that the Directive was intended to prevent in the first place. Nonetheless, they may be different from one another, to reflect local policies and approaches to specific regulatory matters. 

CERCLA, or Superfund, was enacted in 1980, and amended in 1986, for the basic purpose of providing funding and enforcement authority to clean up any site where there is a past unremedied release of a hazardous substance or hazardous substance spill. Such sites are typically characterized as areas where hazardous waste or materials have been disposed of improperly, with litde if any responsible action being taken to mitigate the situation. Standards for financial responsibility were promulgated by the SARA of 1986 which further amended Section 9003 of RCRA and mandated that the EPA establish financial responsibility requirements for UST owners and operators to guarantee cost recovery for corrective action and third-party liability caused by accidental releases of USTs containing petroleum products. 

Upjohn V Finch upholds enforcement of the 1962 drug effectiveness amendments by ruling that commercial success alone does not constitute substantial evidence of drug safety and efficacy. FDA requires the first patient package insert. 

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 have made significant changes in the basic Clean Air Act enacted in 1970. The Clean Air Act allowed the establishment of air qnality standards and provisions for their implementation and enforcement. This law was strengthened in 1977, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 imposed many new standards that included controls for indnstrial pollutants. 

This chapter will focus on (1) basic principles of search and seizure law (2) the balance between law enforcement s use of science and technological advances to the Fourth Amendment (3) when exploitation of technology should be governed by the Fourth Amendment constraints of unreasonable searches as it pertains to explosives and dangerous chemicals and (4) effect of the USA Patriot Act and related legislation on the Fourth Amendment. The question of what constitutionally determines a reasonable search is simple, its answer and application are not. 

Search and seizure is generally defined as the search by law enforcement officials, or their agents, of a person or place to seize evidence to be used in the investigation and prosecution of a crime. The security of one s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the poHce, which is the core of the Fourth Amendment, is basic to a free society, and therefore, implicit in the concept of ordered liberty [36]. 

---