42 U.S.C. § 6991e
Federal enforcement
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.
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.
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).
Amendment by section 1530(d) of Pub. L. 109–58 effective 18 months after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1991–2020 · leading case: United States v. DiPaolo
United States v. DiPaolo (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 Enterprises, Inc. (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.”
Hernandez v. Esso Standard Oil Co.(Puerto Rico) (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. (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. (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.”
Agricultural Excess & Surplus Insurance v. A.B.D. Tank & Pump Co. (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. (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…”
College Park Holdings, LLC v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. (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 and Fuel Co. (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).”
United States v. Yetim (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…”
United States v. Ownbey Enterprises, Inc. (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.”
United States v. Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. (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(3) — 1 case
United States v. Ownbey Enterprises, Inc. (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. (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
Agricultural Excess & Surplus Insurance v. A.B.D. Tank & Pump Co. (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. (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 (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 Enterprises, Inc. (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 Enterprises, Inc. (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 Enterprises, Inc. (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(b) — 1 case
NORTH CAROLINA EX REL. McDEVITT v. Acme Petroleum and Fuel Co. (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 (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 and Fuel Co. (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(d) — 2 cases
Hernandez v. Esso Standard Oil Co.(Puerto Rico) (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.”
College Park Holdings, LLC v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. (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 (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. (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 (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.