MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                                 541

WHICH STATES THAT IF THE DIVISION DETERMINES THAT THE
VIOLATOR HAS NOT CORRECTED THE VIOLATION AND COMPLIED
WITH THE ORDER WITHIN 30 DAYS FOLLOWING SERVICE OF THE
ORDER, THE DIVISION SHALL PROCEED WITH ENFORCEMENT
PURSUANT TO THIS SUBTITLE.

(2) IF, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE
DIVISION DETERMINES ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT
THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR DID NOT VIOLATE THIS TITLE, THE
DIVISION SHALL STATE ITS FINDINGS AND ISSUE AN ORDER
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.

(C) CIVIL ACTION.

(1)   IF, AT ANY TIME AFTER A COMPLAINT HAS
BEEN FILED, THE DIVISION BELIEVES THAT AN APPROPRIATE
CIVIL ACTION TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO OR PREVENT
IRREPARABLE HARM IS ADVISABLE, IT MAY FILE AN ACTION IN
COURT, INCLUDING AN ACTION WHICH SEEKS A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

(2)    TO OBTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH ITS ORDER, THE
DIVISION MAY INSTITUTE A CIVIL PROCEEDING, INCLUDING A
PROCEEDING WHICH SEEKS A RESTRAINING ORDER AND A
TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section presently appears as
Art. 83, §20G.

Throughout this section, reference to
violation of "this title" is substituted for
the somewhat less clear and apparently
unintended "these regulations."

In subsection (a)(3) of this section, the
statement that hearings "shall be open to the
public" is deleted as unnecessary in light of
the term used in (a)(1), "public hearing."
Reference to evidence "by affirmation" is
deleted as unnecessary since under Art. 1, §9
of the Code an "oath" may be made by
affirmation.

In subsection (b)(1) of this section, the
phrase "but not limited to" is deleted as
unnecessary since use of the word "including"
is not intended in any sense to be
exclusionary or limiting; the maxim of
expressio unius est exclusio alterius and
doctrines of similar implication are not
intended, therefore, to be made applicable by
reason of this deletion.

The only other changes are in style and