Penalties violations

As stated in 383.53 Penalties, violations of these prohibitions can result in many thousands of dollars in fines. 

The vast majority of federal environmental issues are handled at the EPA level. There are, however, some critical cases that do wind up in the federal courts. Many environmental statutes contain provisions for criminal penalties. Violations of the criminal provisions are prosecuted in the courts rather than through administrative actions. Under certain, rather narrow circumstances companies may appeal adverse EPA decisions on regulatory violations to the courts. 

Federal regulations (40 CFR 261) classify acrylonitrile as a hazardous waste and it is Hsted as Hazardous Waste Number U009. Disposal must be in accordance with federal (40 CFR 262, 263, 264), state, and local regulations only at properly permitted faciUties. It is Hsted as a toxic pollutant (40 CFR 122.21) and introduction into process streams, storm water, or waste water systems is in violation of federal law. Strict guidelines exist for clean-up and notification of leaks and spills. Federal notification regulations require that spills or leaks in excess of 100 lb (45.5 kg) be reported to the National Response Center. Substantial criminal and civil penalties can result from failure to report such discharges into the environment. 

Because there is no "federal law of trade secrets," protection of trade secrets is often left to the variabHity of the criminal and civil laws of the 50 states. To the extent that a trade secret is property, violation, theft, or misappropriation of the trade secret may be the subject of criminal penalty. To the extent that a trade secret is bound to rights, violation or misappropriation of the trade secret may be the subject of civil penalty. Significant effort, however, has been made in developing a uniform body of law to apply to ideas and innovations which may be the subject of this form of protection. 

Penalties for noncompHance are based on the severity of the violation, but is typically 25,000 per day for each day of noncompHance. When a noncompHance is deemed to be willful, ie, the company knew they were committing a violation, the penalty can include a jail term in addition to the fine. When people or the environment suffer damage, a company can be sued as weU. 

For most processes, the optimum operating point is determined by a constraint. The constraint might be a product specification (a product stream can contain no more than 2 percent ethane) violation of this constraint causes off-specification product. The constraint might be an equipment hmit (vessel pressure rating is 300 psig) violation of this constraint causes the equipment protection mechanism (pressure relief device) to activate. As the penalties are serious, violation of such constraints must be very infrequent. 

Has the facility received a notice of violation, penalty or fine concerning an environmental or health condition If yes, explain the cause of the violation, penalty or fine and agency involved. 

The limitation of the gradient of the potential is particularly important for calculations with ADRs and for data sets that potentially contain noise peaks, since it facilitates the appearance of violations due to incorrect restraints. A standard hannonic potential would put a high penalty on large violations and would introduce larger distortions into the structure. 

The CAAA90 contains a broad array of authorities to make the law more readily enforceable, thus bringing it up to date with the other major environmental statutes. EPA has new authorities to issue administrative penalty orders up to U.S. 200,000 and field citations up to U.S. 5,000 for lesser infractions. Civil judicial penalties are enhanced. Criminal penalties for knowing violations are upgraded from misdemeanors to felonies, and new criminal authorities for knowing and negligent endangerment will be established. 

The citizen suit provisions have also been revised to allow citizens to seek penalties against violators, with the penalties going to a U.S. Treasury fund for use by EPA for compliance and enforcement activities. The U.S. government s right to intervene is clarified and citizen plaintiffs will be required to provide the U.S. government with copies of pleadings and draft settlements. 

Confidentiality of records can be important to occupants, especially if they are concerned that lAQ complaints will lead to negative reactions from their employers. There may be legal penalties for violating confidentiality of medical records. By reassuring occupants that privacy will be respected, investigators are more likely to obtain honest and complete information. It is advisable to explain the nature of investigative activities, so that rumors and suspicions can be countered with factual information. 

The Oil Pollution Act, wliich prohibits the discluirge of oil from any vessel into navigable waters, was passed in 1924. The penalties for violators were the same is those for the Refuse Act of 1899 with one addition tlie Coast Guard had the authority to suspend or revoke licenses held by the officers of vessels found to be in viohition of the act. 

If there is a Iiigh level of citizen involvement or there is significant media attention, the resulting penalty for any of the above violations will nonnally become exacerbated. In addition, Wilcox and Tlieodore Iiave provided information on probable criminal prosecution for unetlrical conduct. 

Civil administrative penalties for each violation were set at ... 

The FTC can assess penalties under the Rule against manufacturers for violations of the above requirements. The Rule also states that energy-use-related representations regarding covered products, including print and broadcast advertisements, must be based on the DOE test procedures. 

The inspection is undertaken primarily to ensure the continuous safe operation of the equipment and to direct repairs or changes in operation if questions of safety or adequacy for service arise. To be of significant value, an inspection must be carried out thoroughly and the results and conclusions compared with those of previous inspections. Local or state authorities may demand annual inspection and provide for penalties if a violation of the appropriate industrial pressure vessel or administrative code is found. 

Under this act, the Department of Labor sets safety standards, inspects workplaces, and sets penalties for violations. This act also established the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to develop and establish health standards. 

Sale of a deficient or misbranded economic poison is a violation of law, for which the seller is subject to prosecution as a misdemeanor. The maximum penalty is a fine of 500 or 6 months in jail. Repeated violations are cause for revocation of registration. This is a very drastic penalty and is seldom required. 

The OSHAct makes employers responsible for providing safe and healthy working conditions for their employees. OSHA is authorized, however, to conduct inspections, and when violations of the safety and health standards are found, they can issue citations and financial penalties. Highlights of OSHA enforcement rights are illustrated in Table 3-2. 

The explicit feasibility constraints of (MASTER) are given by the linear first-stage constraints in (9.4.2). In a classical penalty function approach, the explicit feasibility constraints are relaxed while the violation of these constraints is considered by an additional penalty term in the fitness function. However, this method would waste valuable CPU time since the MILP subproblems (SUB) have to be solved also for the fitness evaluation of infeasible individuals. A similar method which does not require the solution of the MILP subproblems for infeasible individuals is the use of a modified objective Junction that separates the objective and the feasibility... 

The parameter/max denotes a conservative upper bound off (x). For the 2S-MILP it is easily calculated by maximizing the integer relaxation of (DEP). A positive penalty term p(x) is used to measure the amount of infeasibility. This steers the search in infeasible regions towards the feasible region. The penalty for the violation of the first-stage constraints is provided by ... 

The maximum-squared term ensures that a positive penalty is incurred only when the gj < 0 constraint is violated. 

This weighted sum of absolute values in e(x) was also discussed in Section 8.4 as a way of measuring constraint violations in an exact penalty function. We proceed as we did in that section, eliminating the nonsmooth absolute value function by introducing positive and negative deviation variables dpt and dnt and converting this nonsmooth unconstrained problem into an equivalent smooth constrained problem, which is... 

Gupta/Maranas (2003) as one example for a demand uncertainty model present a demand and supply network planning model to minimize costs. Production decisions are made here and now and demand uncertainty is balanced with inventories independently incorporating penalties for safety stock and demand violations. Uncertain demand quantity is modeled as normally distributed random variables with mean and standard deviation. The philosophy to have one production plan separated from demand uncertainty can be transferred to the considered problem. Penalty costs for unsatisfied demand and normally distributed demand based on historical data... 

Sections 15 and 16 - define prohibited acts under TSCA and prescribe penalties for violating the Act. 

The Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987 includes civil penalties for violation of the drug sample provisions of the FD C Act. The law provides that a manufacturer or distributor who violates these provisions is subject to a civil penalty of not more than 50 000 for each of the first two violations resulting in a conviction in any 10-year period, and for not more than 1 million for each violation resulting in a conviction after the second conviction in any 10-year period. These penalties may be imposed only by a Federal District Court. FDA has no administrative authority to impose any civil penalties imder these provisions. 

Compensating slack variables accounting for shortfall and/or surplus in production are introduced in the stochastic constraints with the following results (i) inequality constraints are replaced with equality constraints (ii) numerical feasibility of the stochastic constraints can be ensured for all events and (iii) penalties for feasibility violations can be added to the objective function. Since a probability can be assigned to each realization of the stochastic parameter vector (i.e., to each scenario), the probability of feasible operation can be measured. In this... 

---