Agency IQ

DECEMBER 15, 2023

For this routine MUR, EPA will only consider new methods or method revisions for which a complete, acceptable method package has been received by January 7, 2022. This routine Methods Update Rule (rMUR) was proposed in February 2023. EPA is not considering methods for new analytes in this routine MUR. On September 14, 2018, the U.S.

Regulations 40

Regulations Compliance Production Government 40

Agency IQ

MARCH 29, 2024

March 2024 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste Incineration Units Review (Final Rule Stage) 2060-AU60 EPA promulgated emissions standards for Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) units on December 16, 2005. On September 14, 2018, the U.S.

Regulations 40

Regulations Compliance Production Government 40

Agency IQ

JUNE 16, 2023

This package would propose updates to the alternative work practice as appropriate based on the review and address the issues raised for reconsideration. Since promulgation, advancements have been made in leak detection technologies that warrant review of the alternative work practice. On September 14, 2018, the U.S.

Regulations 40

Regulations Compliance Production Science 40

Codon

FEBRUARY 2, 2025

In 1965, Congress mandated labeling on all cigarette packaging that warned consumers about the risks of smoking. But in 2005, Consumer Reports discovered that they emitted dangerous levels of ozone, which can aggravate conditions like asthma.

Disease 77

Disease Vaccine Nurses Engineering 77

Agency IQ

JUNE 9, 2023

The EPA first enacted NSPS and emissions guidelines for OSWI units on December 16, 2005. Under the 2005 regulations, and in all enacted regulations since that point, the agency has stated that “pyrolysis/combustion units” are within the ambit of OSWI.

Regulations 40

Regulations Packaging Treatment Production 40

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 11, 2024

Section 136v(b) mandates that states may “not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter” (emphasis added). 431 (2005). . §360k(a)) protecting medical devices − albeit limited to labeling. Dow Agrosciences LLC , 544 U.S. After PR v.

Regulations 52

Regulations Government Production Packaging 52

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 7, 2024

PREP, at least on these pages, generally refers to the sweeping immunity for COVID-19 counter-measures pursuant to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005. packaging, marketing, promotion, [and] sale” of the drug would trigger immunity. Gilead Sciences, Inc. , 2:23-cv-2853 WBS DB, 2024 WL 732965 (E.D.

Hospitals 52

Hospitals FDA Packaging Virus 52

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 25, 2024

308 (2005), which comes up not infrequently in drug and device product liability cases. The bottom line, however, is that the package of benefits that the MAO offers is up to the MAO. That is how plaintiff bought his medical walker and why we are talking about federal officer removal. Darue Eng’g & Mfg. ,

Production 52

Production Regulations FDA Compliance Compliance 52

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 4, 2024

The relevant legislative history demonstrates that Congress enacted the PREP Act in 2005: To encourage the expeditious development and deployment of medical countermeasures during a public health emergency. . . [by] 247d-6d(b)(8). “To Alabama State Board of Pharmacy , 61 F.4th 4th 902, 905 (11th Cir.

Vaccine 59

Vaccine FDA FDA Approval Production 59

Drug & Device Law

JULY 31, 2023

The 2005 revisions to Article 2 excludes “information” from the definition of goods and also defines computer software as “information.” Alaska 2005), predicted that Alaska would follow the Third Restatement “defin[ition] of a product as ‘tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption.” Id. Munhoven v.

Production 52

Production Trials International Government 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 6, 2022

2000) (no causation where prescribing physician “testified that, had the packaging contained an extra warning as to [the plaintiff’s condition], he still would have prescribed it for the plaintiff”), aff’d , 21 F. even with the addition of the language now found in the package insert”); McDaniel v. 2005 WL 3440440, at *5-6 (D.N.J.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Drugs 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

1988) (no causation where prescriber “read the warning on the package insert and decided not to warn the [plaintiffs]”); Dunn v. 2005) (no causation where prescriber “testified that he selected. . . Accord Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. Fortenberry , 530 So.2d 2d 688, 691 (Miss. Lederle Laboratories , 328 N.W.2d 2d 576, 583-84 (Mich.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59