[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   THE TRUTH ABOUT TOBACCO REGULATION

                                 ______


                          HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 7, 1994

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record the 
following article that dispels the myth that tobacco products are under 
regulated. Tobacco is a perfect example of the excessive burden 
government regulations have on businesses. In addition, it helps dispel 
the myth that some people have advanced in their effort to have 
Congress step in and place more stringent new regulatory controls on 
this industry. This article clearly shows that the claim that tobacco 
are underregulated is unjustified.

          Tobacco Products and the Myth of ``Underregulation''

       A favorite claim of the antitobacco lobby is that tobacco 
     products are virtually unregulated and accordingly should be 
     subject to stringent new regulatory controls. This claim has 
     been advanced by the antismoking lobby as well as by their 
     supporters in Congress. The Director of the Office on Smoking 
     and Health and the Chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission were quoted to this effect in a July 4 news story 
     by Reuters, ``Government Tobacco Regulation--Burden or Free 
     Ride.'' In fact, the claim that tobacco products are 
     underregulated is untenable.
       At every level of government--federal, state and local--
     there is extensive regulation of tobacco products. Perhaps no 
     other product is regulated in so many ways, or by so many 
     agencies, as tobacco products. Moreover, while federal 
     agencies typically regulate consumer product labeling, 
     advertising and promotion, Congress itself has stepped in to 
     regulate the tobacco industry directly in these areas, and 
     over the past 30 years Congress has held frequent hearings to 
     consider whether additional regulation may be warranted. From 
     seed-bed to sales-counter, from how the product is produced 
     to where and when it may be used, tobacco products are among 
     the most highly regulated products in the nation. And beyond 
     these more direct forms of regulation, tobacco is subject to 
     exceptionally heavy regulation by taxation.
       The true aim of the antitobacco lobby is not to ensure that 
     tobacco products are adequately regulated but to put the 
     tobacco industry out of business and eliminate a product that 
     fifty million American adults use and enjoy. Any system of 
     regulation that fails to guarantee these results will be 
     decried by the antitobacco lobby as ``underregulation.'' But 
     no additional regulation is warranted. Indeed, Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services Louis W. Sullivan himself told 
     Congress in 1990 that legislation giving HHS additional 
     regulatory authority would not add measurably to the agency's 
     current or planned efforts and was therefore 
     ``unnecessary.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           federal regulation

       1. Congress as Regulator. To a unique degree, and far more 
     so than any other consumer product, cigarettes historically 
     have been subject to direct regulation by Congress. 
     Principally through the Federal Cigarette Labeling and 
     Advertising Act in 1965, the Public Health Cigarette Smoking 
     Act of 1969 and the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 
     1984, Congress has imposed an extensive and detailed regime 
     of controls over cigarettes. It is and has long been ``the 
     clear mandate of the Congress that the basic regulation of 
     tobacco and tobacco products is governed by the legislation 
     dealing with the subject, * * * and that any further 
     regulation in this sensitive and complex area must be 
     reserved for specific Congressional action.''\2\ 
     Congressional bodies hold hearings with extraordinary 
     frequency to review and reconsider existing federal policy in 
     this area.
       2. Production. Federal regulation of tobacco begins with 
     the setting of production quotas and price levels for tobacco 
     leaf by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 
     Service and the Commodity Credit Corporation of the United 
     States Department of Agriculture.\3\ In addition, USDA's 
     Agricultural Marketing Service employs graders who determine 
     the categorization of individual lots of tobacco for auction 
     purposes in accordance with federal regulations.\4\ All 
     pesticides used on tobacco are registered by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency. USDA also inspects tobacco 
     imported into the United States\5\ and regulates the use of 
     pesticides on tobacco in cooperation with the EPA.\6\ 
     Congress itself has specified the percentage of domestic 
     tobacco that must be used in cigarettes.\7\
       3. Labeling and Advertising. The Federal Cigarette Labeling 
     and Advertising Act bans cigarette advertising on television 
     and radio and other electronic media, and requires cigarette 
     packages and advertising to carry specified health 
     warnings.\8\ The Department of Justice, in consultation with 
     the Federal Communications Commission, ensures compliance 
     with the ban on advertising in the electronic media,\9\ while 
     the Federal Trade Commission ensures compliance with the 
     provisions of the Act regarding the format and rotation of 
     the specified health warnings.\10\ Information concerning 
     ``tar'' and nicotine is included in cigarette advertising 
     pursuant to a 1970 agreement between the FTC and the major 
     United States cigarette manufacturers,\11\ and the Commission 
     oversees testing of ``tar'' and nicotine yields under a 1987 
     agreement with the manufacturers.\12\
       The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising act also 
     directs the FTC to submit annually to Congress a report 
     concerning cigarette advertising and promotion, along with 
     any agency recommendations for legislation.\13\ To meet those 
     obligations, the Commission has for many years required the 
     cigarette manufacturers to submit annually detailed 
     information concerning cigarette advertising and promotional 
     expenditures. The Commission has authority to address 
     assertedly unfair or deceptive cigarette advertising under 
     the Federal Trade Commission Act,\14\ and the agency has 
     exercised that authority.\15\
       The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regulates still 
     other aspects of the packaging of tobacco products. BATF's 
     regulations include provisions requiring the disclosure of 
     certain information on every tobacco product carton or 
     package.\16\ Other BATF regulations govern the type of 
     packaging in which tobacco products can be marketed and 
     prohibit certain promotional practices.\17\
       4. Product Regulation. Ingredients. The ingredients used in 
     cigarettes are monitored by the Office on Smoking and Health 
     in the Department of Health and Human Services.\18\ Under 
     this regulatory system, cigarette manufacturers are required 
     to submit annually to HHS  a complete list of all ingredients 
     added to tobacco in the manufacture of cigarettes, and 
     they have submitted additional ingredient information at 
     the request of HHS as well. Congress considered this 
     reporting system to be adequate to ``permit the federal 
     government to initiate the toxicologic research necessary 
     to measure any health risk posed by the addition of 
     additives and other ingredients to cigarettes during the 
     manufacturing process.''\19\ HHS is required, in turn, to 
     submit to Congress reports advising Congress of any 
     information pertaining to any such ingredient ``which in 
     the judgement of the Secretary poses a health risk to 
     cigarette smokers.''\20\
       Constituents. Pursuant to a voluntary agreement with the 
     FTC, the major cigarette manufactures, monitored closely by 
     an on-site representative of the Commission, operate the 
     Tobacco Institute Testing Laboratory (TITL), which measures 
     the ``tar,'' nicotine and carbon monoxide levels of 
     cigarettes sold in the United States, and the Commission 
     annually publishes these ratings.\21\ Testing is conducted 
     according to a standardized test method prescribed by the 
     Commission in 1967.\22\ The Commission has stated that the 
     ratings produced by this test method provide ``valid 
     standards for making comparisons among different 
     cigarettes.''\23\ A representative of the Oak Ridge National 
     Laboratory (ORNL) told Congress in 1988, based on research 
     conducted by ORNL, that testing for other constituents would 
     not affect the relative ranking of cigarettes as determined 
     by ``tar'' and nicotine or provide information that would 
     affect a smoker's choice among the different brands of 
     cigarettes that are available.\24\
       The Commission told Congress in 1987 that it was satisfied 
     that its arrangement with TITL enables it to ensure the 
     accuracy of the ``tar,'' nicotine and carbon monoxide 
     figures.\25\ More recently, however, the Commission has asked 
     the National Cancer Institute to assist it in assessing 
     ``possible alternatives to, or modifications of,'' the 
     current cigarette testing methodology and rating system.\26\ 
     The Commission's views on ``tar'' and nicotine have changed 
     over the years. It severely restricted ``tar'' and nicotine 
     claims in cigarette advertising in 1955\27\ and prohibited 
     such claims altogether in 1960, but it subsequently lifted 
     the ban on ``tar'' and nicotine claims in cigarette 
     advertising in 1966\28\ and acted to require ``tar'' and 
     nicotine ratings to be disclosed in all cigarette advertising 
     in 1970.\29\ The cigarette manufacturers have complied with 
     all of the Commission's directives.
       Food and Drug Administration. Notwithstanding claims by 
     some antismoking advocates that tobacco is ``exempt'' from 
     regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA in fact 
     has asserted jurisdiction over cigarettes as a "`drug'' when 
     health claims were made by vendors or manufacturers, and the 
     courts have sustained the agency's assertions of 
     jurisdiction.\30\ FDA traditionally has taken the position 
     that in the absence of such health claims cigarettes are not 
     a ``drug'' within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit has upheld FDA's position.\31\ Cigarettes 
     have been treated no differently from other products in this 
     regard. At the behest of anti-smoking groups,  FDA considered 
     regulation of the ``Premier'' cigarette before that 
     product was withdrawn from the market.
       Fire Safety. Congress has twice passed legislation 
     establishing research programs to investigate the 
     technological and commercial feasibility of a cigarette with 
     ``reduced ignition propensity.'' Under the Cigarette Safety 
     Act of 1984, an Interagency Committee was given authority to 
     direct, oversee and review the efforts of a Technical Study 
     Group (TSG) focusing on ways to alter cigarettes and little 
     cigars to reduce their ignition propensity. The Interagency 
     Committee transmitted to Congress the conclusion of the TSG 
     that it is technically feasible and may be commercially 
     feasible to develop a reduced ignition propensity cigarette.
       Congress subsequently passed the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 
     1990, directing further research into issues left open by the 
     Technical Study Group. In August 1993, the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission submitted to Congress a report summarizing 
     the results of research conducted under the 1990 Act. Among 
     other things, the report concluded that it may be possible to 
     develop a standard for a reduced ignition propensity 
     cigarette but questioned whether it would affect the number 
     of careless smoking fires. The report made no recommendation 
     that Congress enact further legislation.
       5. When and Where the Product Can Be Used. Following 
     several years of study, the EPA in January 1993 released a 
     report classifying environmental tobacco smoke (``ETS'') as a 
     Group A (known human) carcinogen, largely based on studies of 
     reported exposure to ETS in residential settings.\32\ 
     Industry groups have challenged EPA's report and 
     classification in a lawsuit filed in federal court, and the 
     court recently agreed with the plaintiffs that the report and 
     classification were intended to have, and have had, a 
     regulatory impact with ``direct practical effects.''\33\ 
     EPA's report and classification have been cited by proponents 
     of sweeping smoking ban legislation in California and New 
     York City, to name just two jurisdictions.
       The agency's report and classification played a key role in 
     recent decisions by state regulatory authorities in Maryland 
     and Washington to ban smoking in places of employment. EPA's 
     action also was a central factor in the decision by the U.S. 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration to propose an 
     indoor air quality rule that, unless modified, would 
     drastically restrict smoking in all places of employment.\34\ 
     Prior to the issuance of EPA's report, OSHA had considered 
     but rejected repeated calls by anti-smoking groups to issue 
     regulations that would ban or severely restrict smoking in 
     the workplace, on the ground that the available data did not 
     permit the agency to quantify sufficiently the degree of risk 
     associated with workplace exposure to ETS.\35\
       Congress, of course, has banned smoking on domestic 
     flights.\36\ This ban is enforced by the Department of 
     Transportation.\37\ Congress also has required WIC programs 
     to ban smoking as a condition of receiving continued federal 
     funding.\38\ Earlier this year, Congress additionally banned 
     smoking in schools and other facilities that provide 
     children's services using federal funds.\39\ Meanwhile, 
     smoking in most federal buildings is severely restricted 
     under regulations issued by the General Services 
     Administration.\40\ The Department of Defense and other 
     federal agencies have banned smoking or taken other 
     additional action.\41\ The Postal Service has banned smoking 
     in its facilities and Amtrak has banned smoking on its 
     trains. The House of Representatives recently adopted rules 
     restricting smoking in its buildings.
       6. Research and Public Education. HHS is required by 
     statute to conduct and support research and to inform the 
     public concerning any relationship between tobacco products 
     and health.\42\ In addition, HHS must submit an annual report 
     to Congress on tobacco and health issues, together with any 
     recommendations for legislation or administrative action.\43\ 
     HHS has submitted to Congress more than two dozen reports of 
     the Surgeon General concerning smoking and health--reports 
     which powerfully influence the legislative and regulatory 
     climate. The Surgeon General's 1964 report, of course, played 
     a significant role in the enactment of the Federal Cigarette 
     Labeling and Advertising Act in 1965,\44\ and his 1986 report 
     on environmental tobacco smoke\45\ and his 1988 report on 
     ``nicotine addiction''\46\ have helped to stimulate 
     significant legislative and regulatory activity.
       In the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984, 
     Congress took the further step of establishing the 
     Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, whose members 
     are appointed by the Secretary of HHS or, in some case, by 
     the heads of other federal departments or agencies.\47\ 
     Representatives of a number of federal agencies and 
     departments--including HHS, the Federal Trade Commission, the 
     Department of Labor and the Department of Education--serve on 
     the Interagency Committee. The Interagency Committee's 
     primary functions are to review on an ongoing basis both 
     public and private sector initiatives with respect to smoking 
     and to recommend to Congress any policy initiatives that are 
     thought to be appropriate.\48\ In 1990, HHS launched a seven-
     year, $165 million antismoking program known as ``ASSIST'' to 
     fund antismoking campaigns in 17 states, and the Centers for 
     Disease Control has made funds available for similar 
     activities.


                                taxation

       Because it has the potential to influence production and 
     demand, taxation is a powerful, albeit indirect, form of 
     regulation. No other consumer product is as heavily taxed as 
     tobacco. In fiscal year 1993, tobacco products generated 
     nearly $12 billion in federal, state and local excise taxes--
     a figure representing $47 for every man, woman and child in 
     the United States--and an additional $2 billion in state and 
     local sales taxes. Cigarette taxes were levied in FY 1993 by 
     50 states and the District of Columbia, along with more 
     than 440 cities, towns and counties across the nation and 
     federal and state excise taxes accounted for 31.4 percent 
     of the retail price of cigarettes.\49\


                       state and local regulation

       Nearly every state--and more than 1,500 localities--have 
     enacted numerous laws restricting or even banning smoking in 
     places of employment and various public settings. All states 
     prohibit the sale or distribution of tobacco products to 
     persons under the age of 18. Legislation passed by Congress 
     in 1990 requires that states, as a condition of receiving 
     federal substance abuse prevention and treatment block grant 
     funding, to enforce these prohibitions conscientiously.\50\ 
     In addition, 30 states and more than 250 localities have 
     adopted restrictions on the sale of cigarettes through 
     vending machines, while 11 states and more than 105 
     localities have limited the distribution of tobacco product 
     samples. Approximately 45 local governments restrict or 
     prohibit displays of tobacco products that permit customer 
     access without the assistance of a clerk. California requires 
     health warnings regarding environmental tobacco smoke to be 
     posted in businesses that permit smoking,\51\ and both 
     California and Massachusetts have imposed special sales taxes 
     on tobacco products to finance high-visibility anti-smoking 
     campaigns.\52\


                         other federal statutes

       Antitobacco advocates complain that cigarettes are not 
     subject to regulation under the Federal Hazardous Substances 
     Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act or the Controlled 
     Substances Act. Cigarettes in fact either do not fit within 
     the classes of products and substances addressed by these 
     statutes or the agencies responsible for administering them 
     lack the expertise and resources to regulate cigarettes.


                               conclusion

       For the reasons given above, no additional regulation of 
     tobacco products is warranted.


                                 notes

     1. Tobacco Product Education and Health Protection Act of 
     1990: Hearing on S. 1883 before the Senate Comm. on Labor and 
     Human Resources, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 23 (1990).
     2. S. Rep. No. 251, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 43 (1975) 
     (statement of Senators Hartke, Hollings, Ford, Stevens and 
     Beall).
     3. 7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.; 7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.
     4. 29 C.F.R. Part 29.
     5. 7 U.S.C. 511r.
     6. 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 7 U.S.C. 511r(e); 7 C.F.R. 
     1464.7(b)(2), 1464.8(e) (2)-(3).
     7. Pub. L. No. 103-66, Title I, Sec. 1106(a), 107 Stat. 318 
     (1993).
     8. 15 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.
     9. 15 U.S.C. 1335, 1339. See Action for Children's Television 
     v. FCC, 999 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1993). See also Marketing 
     Technologies Group, Inc., 4 F.C.C.R. 2694 (1984); J. Brian 
     DeBoice, Esquire, 1 F.C.C.R. 28 (1986); Fonawin Corporation, 
     62 F.C.C. 2d 432 (1976); Stuart Scheftel, 37 F.C.C. 2d 621 
     (1972). A series of letters setting forth the Justice 
     Department's views regarding the scope of the advertising ban 
     was sent to lawyers for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip 
     Morris Incorporated and media outlets in 1982. These letters 
     are reprinted in 8.3 Tob. Prod. Liab. Rptr. 8.39.
     10. 15 U.S.C. 1334(c). See H.R. Rep. No. 805, 98th Cong., 2d 
     Sess. 17-19 (1984).
     11. See 35 Fed. Reg. 12,671 (1970) (proposing rule); Letter 
     dated October 23, 1970, from cigarette manufacturers to 
     Federal Trade Commission (agreeing to disclose ``tar'' and 
     nicotine ratings in all cigarette advertising).
     12. See FTC Nicotine Program: Hearing before the Subcomm. on 
     Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Materials of the House 
     Com. on Energy and Commerce, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987).
     13. 15 U.S.C. 1337(b).
     14. 15 U.S.C. 45.
     15. E.g., In the Matter of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 
     Inc., Docket No. 9206, 55 Fed. Reg. 25,885 (June 15, 1990); 
     FTC v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 580 F. Supp. 981 
     (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd in relevant part, 778 F.2d 35 (D.C. Cir. 
     1985); FTC v. Carter, 636 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1980); FTC v. 
     Lorillard Co., 80 F.T.C. 455 (1972); FTC v. American Brands, 
     Inc., 79 F.T.C. 255 (1971); 37 Fed. Reg. 9108 (1972). See 
     also In the Matter of the Pinkerton Tobacco Co., File No. 
     902-3006, 56 Fed. Reg. 57,009 (Nov. 7, 1991) (alleged 
     violation of Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education 
     Act of 1986).
     16. E.g., 27 C.F.R. 295.42.
     17. E.g., 27 C.F.R. 295.41.
     18. 15 U.S.C. 1335a.
     19. H.R. Rep. No. 805, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 21 (1984).
     20. 15 U.S.C. 1335a(b)(1)(B).
     21. See e.g., Federal Trade Commission, Report of Tar, 
     Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Content of 475 Varieties of 
     Domestic Cigarettes, 56 Fed. Reg. 8196-202 (Feb. 27, 1991).
     22. See 31 Fed. Reg. 14,278 (1966); 32 Fed. Reg. 11,178 
     (1967).
     23. 43 Fed. Reg. 11,856 (1978).
     24. Cigarettes--Advertising, Testing, and Liability: Hearings 
     on H.R. 4543 before the Subcomm. on Transportation, Tourism, 
     and Hazardous Materials of the House Com. on Energy and 
     Commerce, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 204 (1988) (statement of 
     Michael D. Guerin).
     25. FTC Nicotine Program: Hearing before the Subcomm. on 
     Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Materials of the House 
     Com. on Energy and Commerce, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-6 
     (1987) (statement of the Federal Trade Commission); id. at 
     10-11, 47 (testimony of William C. MacCleod, Director, Bureau 
     of Consumer Protection, FTC); id. at 13, 47 (testimony of 
     Daniel Oliver, Chairman, FTC).
     26. Letter dated July 20, 1994 from Janet D. Steiger, 
     Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, to Samuel Boder, M.D., 
     Director, National Cancer Institute.
     27. See 6 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH), p. 41,602, 39,012.2.
     28. 6 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH), p. 41,602, 39012.70.
     29. See 35 Fed. Reg. 12,671 (1970) (proposing rule); Letter 
     dated October 23, 1970, from cigarette manufacturers to 
     Federal Trade Commission (agreeing to disclose ``tar'' and 
     nicotine ratings in all cigarette advertising).
     30. See United States v. 46 Cartons, More or Less, Containing 
     Fairfax Cigarettes, 113 F. Supp. 336 (D.N.J. 1953); United 
     States v. 354 Bulk Cartons * * * Trim Reducing--Aid 
     Cigarettes, 178 F. Supp. 847 (E.N.J. 1959); see also FTC v. 
     Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.,  108 F. Supp. 573 (S.D.N.Y. 
     1952), aff'd, 203 F.2d 955 (2d Cir. 1953).
     31. Action on Smoking and Health v. Harris,  655 F.2d 236 
     (D.C. Cir. 1980).
     32. EPA, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung 
     Cancer and Other Disorders  (Dec. 1992).
     33. Memorandum Opinion, July 20, 1994, pp. 9-14, Flue-Cured 
     Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation, et al., v. 
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Civ. No. 
     6:93CV00370 (M.D.N.C.).
     34. 59 Fed. Reg. 15,968 (April 5, 1994).
     35. Letter from OSHA to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), 
     Sept. 1, 1989 (denying request for an emergency temporary 
     standard on ETS in the workplace), aff'd, ASH v. OSHA, No. 
     89-1656 (D.C. Cir. May 10, 1991); ASH v. OSHA, Nos. 91-1037, 
     91-1038 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 29, 1992) (dismissing ASH's request 
     for a writ of mandamus to compel promulgation of a permanent 
     standard controlling workplace smoking).
     36. 49 App. U.S.C.A. 1374(d)(1)(A).
     37. Id. 1374(d)(1)(B).
     38. Pub. L. No. 103-111, Title IV, 107 Stat. 1046, 1072 
     (1993).
     39. Pub. L. No. 103-227, Title X, Part C, 108 Stat. 125, 271 
     (1994).
     40. 41 C.F.R. 101-20.109-10; 51 Fed. Reg. 44258 (1986).
     41. E.g., 41 C.F.R. 101-20.109-10(a) note; ``Military Gets 
     Smoking Ban Order,'' Washington Post, March 9, 1994, p. A20.
     42. 15 U.S.C. 1341, 4407(a).
     43. 15 U.S.C. 1337(a), 4407(a).
     44. Smoking and Health--Report of the Advisory Committee to 
     the Surgeon General (1964).
     45. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking--A Report 
     of the Surgeon General (1986). See also National Research 
     Council, Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and 
     Assessing Health Effects (1986).
     46. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction--A 
     Report of the Surgeon General (1988).
     47. 15 U.S.C. 1341(b).
     48. 15 U.S.C. 1341(a).
     49. The Tobacco Institute, The Tax Burden on Tobacco, Volume 
     28 (1993).
     50. ADAMHA Reorganization Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-331, 
     106 Stat. 394 (1992).
     51. See Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 
     1986, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25249.6.
     52. See Cal. Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 30121 et seq.; Mass. Ann. 
     Code c. 64C Sec. 7, c. 29 Sec. 2T.

                          ____________________