U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 82— SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IX— REGULATION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

42 U.S.C. § 6991e

Federal enforcement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Compliance orders(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whenever on the basis of any information, the Administrator determines that any person is in violation of any requirement of this subchapter, the Administrator may issue an order requiring compliance within a reasonable specified time period or the Administrator may commence a civil action in the United States district court in which the violation occurred for appropriate relief, including a temporary or permanent injunction.(2) In the case of a violation of any requirement of this subchapter where such violation occurs in a State with a program approved under section 6991c of this title, the Administrator shall give notice to the State in which such violation has occurred prior to issuing an order or commencing a civil action under this section.(3) If a violator fails to comply with an order under this subsection within the time specified in the order, he shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day of continued noncompliance.(b) Procedure

Any order issued under this section shall become final unless, no later than thirty days after the order is served, the person or persons named therein request a public hearing. Upon such request the Administrator shall promptly conduct a public hearing. In connection with any proceeding under this section the Administrator may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and documents, and may promulgate rules for discovery procedures.

(c) Contents of order

Any order issued under this section shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of the violation, specify a reasonable time for compliance, and assess a penalty, if any, which the Administrator determines is reasonable taking into account the seriousness of the violation and any good faith efforts to comply with the applicable requirements.

(d) Civil penalties(1) Any owner who knowingly fails to notify or submits false information pursuant to section 6991a(a) of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each tank for which notification is not given or false information is submitted.(2) Any owner or operator of an underground storage tank who fails to comply with—(A) any requirement or standard promulgated by the Administrator under section 6991b of this title;(B) any requirement or standard of a State program approved pursuant to section 6991c of this title;(C) the provisions of section 6991b(g) of this title (entitled “Interim Prohibition”); or 11 So in original. The word “or” probably should not appear.(D) 22 So in original. Two subpars. (D) have been enacted. the requirements established in section 6991b(i) of this title, 33 So in original. The comma probably should be a semicolon.(D) 2 the training requirements established by States pursuant to section 6991i of this title (relating to operator training); or(E) the delivery prohibition requirement established by section 6991k of this title,shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each tank for each day of violation. Any person making or accepting a delivery or deposit of a regulated substance to an underground storage tank at an ineligible facility in violation of section 6991k of this title shall also be subject to the same civil penalty for each day of such violation.(e) Incentive for performanceBoth of the following may be taken into account in determining the terms of a civil penalty under subsection (d):(1) The compliance history of an owner or operator in accordance with this subchapter or a program approved under section 6991c of this title.(2) Any other factor the Administrator considers appropriate.(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, § 9006, as added Pub. L. 98–616, title VI, § 601(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3285; amended Pub. L. 109–58, title XV, §§ 1524(c), 1526(d), 1527(b), 1530(d), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 1096, 1098, 1099, 1104.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2005—Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 109–58, § 1527(b)(2), inserted at end “Any person making or accepting a delivery or deposit of a regulated substance to an underground storage tank at an ineligible facility in violation of section 6991k of this title shall also be subject to the same civil penalty for each day of such violation.”

Subsec. (d)(2)(B). Pub. L. 109–58, § 1530(d)(1), which directed amendment of subpar. (B) by striking out “or” at end, could not be executed because “or” did not appear subsequent to amendment by Pub. L. 109–58, § 1524(c)(1). See below.

Pub. L. 109–58, § 1524(c)(1), struck out “or” at end.

Subsec. (d)(2)(C). Pub. L. 109–58, § 1530(d)(2), inserted “; or” at end.

Subsec. (d)(2)(D). Pub. L. 109–58, § 1530(d)(3), added subpar. (D) relating to requirements established in section 6991b(i) of this title.

Pub. L. 109–58, § 1524(c)(2), added subpar. (D) relating to training requirements established by States pursuant to section 6991i of this title.

Subsec. (d)(2)(E). Pub. L. 109–58, § 1527(b)(1), added subpar. (E).

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 109–58, § 1526(d), added subsec. (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2005 Amendment

Amendment by section 1530(d) of Pub. L. 109–58 effective 18 months after Aug. 8, 2005, see section 1530(b) of Pub. L. 109–58, set out as a note under section 6991b of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1991–2020 · leading case: United States v. DiPaolo, 466 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. DiPaolo, 466 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 15× “Specifically, the ALJ assessed civil penalties in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 6991e and the U.S. EPA Penalty Guidance for Violations of UST Requirements, as amended by "Modifications to EPA Penalty Policies to implement the Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Rule (pursuant to the…”
United States v. Ownbey Enter., Inc., 780 F. Supp. 817 (N.D. Ga. 1991). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff seeks the imposition of statutory civil penalties pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 6991e(3) and 1118 & 19 of the Administrative Order, while Defendant’s counterclaim seeks damages and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful acts.”
Hernandez v. Esso Stand. Oil Co.(Puerto Rico), 599 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D.P.R. 2009). “42 U.S.C. § 6991e(d). But, the citizen suit provision in 6972(a) only authorizes a district court to apply civil penalties under Subchapter III, not Subchapter IX.”
Dydio v. Hesston Corp., 887 F. Supp. 1037 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “42 U.S.C. § 6991e(d)(2) authorizes civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 for each tank for each day of violation to be assessed against any owner of a UST who fails to comply with the regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency…”
GJ Leasing Co., Inc. v. Union Elec. Co., 825 F. Supp. 1363 (S.D. Ill. 1993). “42 U.S.C. § 6991e. RCRA allows states to implement and enforce the federal TJST law as long as the state's laws and regrlations are no less stringent than the federal requirements and as long as the EPA has given approval for the program.”
Agric. Excess & Surplus Ins. v. A.B.D. Tank & Pump Co., 878 F. Supp. 1091 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “Dominick’s, 1993 WL 524808 at * 3 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a)(1)). Subchapter IX also allows states to impose and enforce more stringent regulations.”
Waldschmidt v. Amoco Oil Co., 924 F. Supp. 88 (C.D. Ill. 1996). “42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a). “While subehapter IX only explicitly provides for the Administrator to issue orders requiring compliance with the subehapter and authorizes the Administrator to bring a civil action to enforce such orders, nothing in subchapter IX indicates that that…”
Coll. Park Holdings, LLC v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (N.D. Ga. 2002). “42 U.S.C. § 6991e(d). But, the citizen suit provision in 6972(a) only authorizes a district court to apply civil penalties under Subchapter III, not Subchapter IX.”
NORTH CAROLINA EX REL. McDEVITT v. Acme Petroleum & Fuel Co., 142 F. Supp. 2d 710 (W.D.N.C. 2001). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(b). The State argues that the Notices of Regulatory Requirements and the Notice of Violation letters sent to Defendants on January 15, 1993 and April 5, 1993 constituted “orders” within the meaning of the § 6991b(h)(2)(D).”
United States v. Yetim, 251 F. Supp. 3d 461 (E.D.N.Y 2017). · cites it 5× “Bianco, District Judge: Plaintiff the United States of America (the “government”) filed a complaint on February 7, 2014 alleging violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6991e, and its implementing regulations by two individual…”
United States v. Ownbey Enter., Inc., 789 F. Supp. 1145 (N.D. Ga. 1992). · cites it 2× “In addition, the ability to levy fines and the amount of the fines imposed comes from the Consent Order itself, not 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a)(3). See Consent Order 1120.”
United States v. Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6991e(a)(1), (d)(2). Second, the Proposed Consent Decree is clear if it “properly define[s] its key provisions.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(3) — 1 case
United States v. Ownbey Enter., Inc., 780 F. Supp. 817 (N.D. Ga. 1991). “Plaintiff seeks the imposition of statutory civil penalties pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 6991e(3) and 1118 & 19 of the Administrative Order, while Defendant’s counterclaim seeks damages and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful acts.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a) — 1 case
Waldschmidt v. Amoco Oil Co., 924 F. Supp. 88 (C.D. Ill. 1996). “42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a). “While subehapter IX only explicitly provides for the Administrator to issue orders requiring compliance with the subehapter and authorizes the Administrator to bring a civil action to enforce such orders, nothing in subchapter IX indicates that that…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a)(1) — 2 cases
Agric. Excess & Surplus Ins. v. A.B.D. Tank & Pump Co., 878 F. Supp. 1091 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “Dominick’s, 1993 WL 524808 at * 3 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a)(1)). Subchapter IX also allows states to impose and enforce more stringent regulations.”
United States v. Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6991e(a)(1), (d)(2). Second, the Proposed Consent Decree is clear if it “properly define[s] its key provisions.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a)(3) — 3 cases
United States v. DiPaolo, 466 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “Specifically, the ALJ assessed civil penalties in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 6991e and the U.S. EPA Penalty Guidance for Violations of UST Requirements, as amended by "Modifications to EPA Penalty Policies to implement the Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Rule (pursuant to the…”
United States v. Ownbey Enter., Inc., 780 F. Supp. 817 (N.D. Ga. 1991). “Plaintiff seeks the imposition of statutory civil penalties pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 6991e(3) and 1118 & 19 of the Administrative Order, while Defendant’s counterclaim seeks damages and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful acts.”
United States v. Ownbey Enter., Inc., 789 F. Supp. 1145 (N.D. Ga. 1992). “In addition, the ability to levy fines and the amount of the fines imposed comes from the Consent Order itself, not 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a)(3). See Consent Order 1120.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a)(l) — 2 cases
United States v. Ownbey Enter., Inc., 780 F. Supp. 817 (N.D. Ga. 1991). “Plaintiff seeks the imposition of statutory civil penalties pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 6991e(3) and 1118 & 19 of the Administrative Order, while Defendant’s counterclaim seeks damages and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful acts.”
EPA Assessment of Penalties Against Fed. Agencies for Violation of the Underground Storage Tank Requirements of the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (OLC 2000).
— 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(b) — 1 case
NORTH CAROLINA EX REL. McDEVITT v. Acme Petroleum & Fuel Co., 142 F. Supp. 2d 710 (W.D.N.C. 2001). “” 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(b). The State argues that the Notices of Regulatory Requirements and the Notice of Violation letters sent to Defendants on January 15, 1993 and April 5, 1993 constituted “orders” within the meaning of the § 6991b(h)(2)(D).”
— 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(c) — 3 cases
United States v. DiPaolo, 466 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “Specifically, the ALJ assessed civil penalties in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 6991e and the U.S. EPA Penalty Guidance for Violations of UST Requirements, as amended by "Modifications to EPA Penalty Policies to implement the Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Rule (pursuant to the…”
NORTH CAROLINA EX REL. McDEVITT v. Acme Petroleum & Fuel Co., 142 F. Supp. 2d 710 (W.D.N.C. 2001). “” 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(b). The State argues that the Notices of Regulatory Requirements and the Notice of Violation letters sent to Defendants on January 15, 1993 and April 5, 1993 constituted “orders” within the meaning of the § 6991b(h)(2)(D).”
EPA Assessment of Penalties Against Fed. Agencies for Violation of the Underground Storage Tank Requirements of the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (OLC 2000).
— 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(d) — 2 cases
Hernandez v. Esso Stand. Oil Co.(Puerto Rico), 599 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D.P.R. 2009). “42 U.S.C. § 6991e(d). But, the citizen suit provision in 6972(a) only authorizes a district court to apply civil penalties under Subchapter III, not Subchapter IX.”
Coll. Park Holdings, LLC v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (N.D. Ga. 2002). “42 U.S.C. § 6991e(d). But, the citizen suit provision in 6972(a) only authorizes a district court to apply civil penalties under Subchapter III, not Subchapter IX.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(d)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. DiPaolo, 466 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “Specifically, the ALJ assessed civil penalties in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 6991e and the U.S. EPA Penalty Guidance for Violations of UST Requirements, as amended by "Modifications to EPA Penalty Policies to implement the Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Rule (pursuant to the…”
Dydio v. Hesston Corp., 887 F. Supp. 1037 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “42 U.S.C. § 6991e(d)(2) authorizes civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 for each tank for each day of violation to be assessed against any owner of a UST who fails to comply with the regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency…”
United States v. Yetim, 251 F. Supp. 3d 461 (E.D.N.Y 2017). “Bianco, District Judge: Plaintiff the United States of America (the “government”) filed a complaint on February 7, 2014 alleging violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6991e, and its implementing regulations by two individual…”
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.