there is no such express provision, the 1976 Amendments took effect July 14, 1976, rather than in mid-October.
First, the language of § 412 of the 1972 Act delayed the effective date of the act's Title. The 1976 Amendments, which made some changes in Title IV and redesignated § 412, nevertheless do not constitute the "title" of the original act. Had Congress desired to expressly delay the effective date of the 1976 Amendments, a further alteration of § 412 could have been made by providing in § 412 that the "title And its amendments " would become effective 90 days after enactment. See Letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the United States Department of Transportation to Robert Katzenstein, Consumer Affairs Section of the United States Department of Justice (Jan. 6, 1978) Accompanying Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Indictment (filed Jan. 19, 1978).
Instead, Congress merely redesignated § 412, renumbering it as § 419. This renumbering was apparently prompted by a desire to put new, more important sections in an earlier position within Title IV, and to keep the more technical sections at the end. It is arguable that this redesignation did not constitute re-enactment, and that the 1976 Amendments altered only the section number of the 1972 Act without renewing its applicability. However, even if the redesignation had the effect of re-enactment, such a re-enactment neither would be unusual nor would require applying the 90-day delay to the amendments. See Yahn & McDonnell v. Board of Finance, 68 Dauph. 79, 5 Pa.D. & C.2d 183 (1955). In Yahn & McDonnell, the court stated that, although the section in the original act with an effective date had been re-enacted every other year from 1937 to 1947, the effective date of the original act applied only in 1935, the first year.
Finally, defendants argue that the purported ambiguity in the effective date of the 1976 Amendments should be resolved by finding the 90-day provision applicable. While laws must be sufficiently definite with regard to the conduct that they proscribe, See, e. g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S. Ct. 839, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1972), as already discussed, statutes are presumed effective on their date of enactment unless a delay in an effective date is made express. Were the court to find an ambiguity in the effective date of the 1976 Amendments, that ambiguity would be resolved by finding no delay. Moreover, the relevant substantive provisions of Title IV, i. e. the conduct proscribed, were already in effect when the 1976 Amendments were signed and the acts in the indictment were allegedly committed. The Amendments only added criminal penalties, and a delay in the effective date for a change in a criminal penalty is not required. Cf. Casson, 140 U.S.App.D.C. at 148, 434 F.2d at 422 (statute effective in afternoon applied to burglary committed evening of same day).
The motion to dismiss the indictment will be denied.