C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER D—WATER PROGRAMS › PART 110—DISCHARGE OF OIL

40 C.F.R. § 110.3

Discharge of oil in such quantities as “may be harmful” pursuant to section 311(b)(4) of the Act

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

For purposes of section 311(b)(4) of the Act, discharges of oil in such quantities that the Administrator has determined may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment of the United States include discharges of oil that:

(a) Violate applicable water quality standards; or

(b) Cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines.

[61 FR 7421, Feb. 28, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases, 1974–2016 · leading case: United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 3d 1249 (C.D. Cal. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 3d 1249 (C.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 12× “§ 1321 (b)(3), and 40 C.F.R. § 110.3 .” (See Dkt. 56, FAC at ¶ 123).”
United States v. Healy Tibbitts Constr. Co., 713 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 4× “21,243 (1973), the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated 40 C.F.R. § 110.3 . This regulation defines a “harmful quantity” of oil for the purpose of section 311(b) as a quantity which violates applicable water quality standards, causes a film or sheen upon or discoloration…”
Pepperell Assocs. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 246 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2001). “” 40 C.F.R. § 110.3 . Because the oil spill here caused a sheen, the EAB determined that that criterion was met.”
United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., 437 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Tex. 2006). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 110.3 (2006). 7 Finally, Chevron contends that this Court should interpret the statutes at issue so as not to implicate a constitutional challenge involving Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause — and that to interpret them in the manner urged by the United…”
United States v. Chevron Oil Co., the California Div., 583 F.2d 1357 (5th Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 110.3 (1977). 5 Chevron challenges the validity of this regulation known as the “sheen test” as applied to the facts of this case in which the uncontra-dicted evidence showed that Chevron’s oil spill caused a sheen but was not “harmful.”
Rudd v. Electrolux Corp., 982 F. Supp. 355 (M.D.N.C. 1997). “That regulation states that the quantity of oil which must be charged in order to violate the Clean Water Act is an amount that either violates “applicable water standards” or causes “a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines____”…”
United States v. Slade, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 638 (E.D. Tex. 1978). · cites it 2× “The quantity was “harmful” within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. 110.3(b) in that it produced a film or sheen upon or a discoloration of the surface of the river, the heaviest concentrations having been observed in the vicinity of Dupont Cut and Cow Bayou.”
United States v. Jones, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (M.D. Ga. 2003). “” 40 C.F.R. § 110.3 (2002). “Any person who is the owner, operator, or person in charge of any .”
Pickens v. Kanawha River Towing, 916 F. Supp. 702 (S.D. Ohio 1996). “40 C.F.R. 110.3. A relatively small amount of oil will produce a sheen.”
Ward v. Coleman, 423 F. Supp. 1352 (W.D. Okla. 1976). “The resulting regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 110.3 , provides: “For purposes of section 11(b) of the Federal Act, discharges of such quantities of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines determined to be harmful to the public health or welfare…”
United States v. W. B. Enter., Inc., 378 F. Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). · cites it 2× “” 40 C.F.R. § 110.3 . While defendant concedes that the discharge created a sheen upon or discoloration of the water’s surface, it contends that since it removed all of the oil from the water there was no harm and, so, no violation of § 311(b)(3) of the Act.”
Orgulf Transp. Co. v. United States, 711 F. Supp. 344 (W.D. Ky. 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 1321 and 40 CFR 110.3; and 4) that based upon expert testimony presented at the hearing and “until such time as contrary testimony is presented by the Coast Guard, spills of petroleum products of a magnitude up to 42 gallons [be held to be] de minimus in nature and not spills…”
Show all 24 citing cases →
40 C.F.R. § 110.3(b): 2 cases
United States v. Slade, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 638 (E.D. Tex. 1978). “The quantity was “harmful” within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. 110.3(b) in that it produced a film or sheen upon or a discoloration of the surface of the river, the heaviest concentrations having been observed in the vicinity of Dupont Cut and Cow Bayou.”
United States v. Hollywood Marine, Inc., 519 F. Supp. 688 (S.D. Tex. 1981).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.