be necessary, as the cooperation of those conducting recombinant DNA 
abtivitiei is anticipated. Only in the case of repeated or serious viola- 
tions, where thbse responsible for the conduct of recombinant DNA 
a<^ivi l ti^s a|'e.' clearly not cooperating with the inspectors or the bio- 
haiards cOmmittee, would fortPal action by the Secretary be desirable. 
In these cases, if the project involved were supported by Federal 
funds^.tne first action Would bC expected to be r suspension of a research 
grant or a formal! request by the Secretary to the entity sponsoring 
support 7 of th^ activity to withhold funds. Permanent revocation of 
grant support should be Considered a rather drastic punitive measure 
and reserved for flagrant violations. 
The maximum penalties, however, must be severe enough to discour- 
age a company or institution from proceeding with experiments which 
the Gui4^i n &s require, to he, conducted under a high level physical or 
bjological containment in willful disregard of the safety requirements. 
If the only sanction under the law were a 'small civil fine, then it might 
well turn out to Jbe more economical to conduct an activity in an ordi- 
nary laboratory, and pay the penalties, rather than to construe! a P-3 
or P-y^ facility, such cqses, should arise the Secretary is expected to 
seek injunctions to restrain the violations immediately. 
The ps&essment of. all penalties is, however, expected to be done 
fairly, with the nmgnitude of the penalty appropriate to the nature 
and severity of the violation. It is not intended that the fear of maxi- 
mum, penalties become an impediment to engaging in recombinant 
DNA a(CUvities. In practice, it is expected that, as long as entities com- 
ply ydth, requests of the Secretary bnd his agents, there would be no 
need to assess any monetary penalties, withdraw grant funds or seek! 
injunctions in courtiin order to restrain violations. 
SECTION 104. INJUNCTION AUTHORITY ; EMERGENCY PROCEDURE 
104 -' (a) • Ik junctions 
\ Civil action may be brought in the TJ.S. district court to restrain any 
“act, omission, pr transaction” constituting a violation of section 478 
(a). An injunction oy restraining order would provide an additional 
means of enforcement of the requirements and regulations of the Re- 
combinant DNA Act, Such' action coiild.be used to stop any illegal 
action in addition to or in lieu of the civil action described in 103(b) , 
or the suspension of grant funds described in section 103 (c) . The con- 
tinuance of such illegal action would then constitute contempt of court 
and subject the violator to contempt penalties, in addition to the civil 
penalties authorized in section 103. Such action would normally be 
brought by the! Attorney General or local U.S.; Attorney* and would 
generally, but not necessarily, be taken at the request of the Secretary. 
' The committee views this provision as one which citizens can use to 
ensure enforcejnent of the guidelines. In order to gain access to the 
Federal district court, all that need be demonstrated is that the plain- 
tiff has suffered “souie : threatened or actual injury resulting from the 
putatively illegal action >f R, L inda R, S. v. Richard D., 410 TJ.S. 614, 
617, (1973). Thus, the committee intends that an individual living 
within reasonable proximity to a research facility in which recom- 
binant DNA activity 'is being conducted would have standing to seek 
to enjoin the facility’s alleged violations of the proposed legislation. 
In such an instance, the plaintiff would have alleged a sufficient per- 
[Appendix B — 152] 
