Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: February 13, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 30)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7121-7127]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13fe04-10]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 19 and 27
[FRL-7623-5]

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is issuing this
final Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule, as mandated by
the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, to adjust EPA's civil
monetary penalties (``CMPs'') for inflation on a periodic basis. The
Agency is required to review its penalties at least once every four
years and to adjust them as necessary for inflation according to a
formula specified in the statute. A complete version of Table 1 from
the regulatory text, which lists all of the EPA's civil monetary
penalty authorities, appears near the end of this rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Abdalla, Office of Regulatory
Enforcement, Special Litigation and Projects Division, Mail Code 2248A,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-2413.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 3701 note, (``DCIA''),
each federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for
inflation the maximum civil monetary penalties that can be imposed
pursuant to such agency's statutes. The purpose of these adjustments is
to maintain the deterrent effect of CMPs and to further the policy
goals of the laws. The DCIA requires adjustments to be made at least
once every four years following the initial adjustment. The EPA's
initial adjustment to each CMP was published in the Federal Register on
December 31, 1996, at (61 FR 69360) and became effective on January 30,
1997.
This rule adjusts the amount for each type of CMP that EPA has
jurisdiction to impose in accordance with these statutory requirements.
It does so by revising the table contained in 40 CFR 19.4. The table
identifies the statutes that provide EPA with CMP authority and sets
out the inflation-adjusted maximum penalty that EPA may impose pursuant
to each statutory provision. This rule also revises the effective date
provisions of 40 CFR 19.2 to make the penalty amounts set forth in 40
CFR 19.4 apply to all applicable violations that occur after the
effective date of this rule.
The DCIA requires that the adjustment reflect the percentage
increase in the Consumer Price Index between June of the calendar year
preceding the adjustment and June of the calendar year in which the
amount was last set or adjusted. The DCIA defines the Consumer Price
Index as the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by
the Department of Labor (``CPI-U''). As the initial adjustment was made
and published on December 31, 1996, the inflation adjustment for the
CMPs set forth in this rule was calculated by comparing the CPI-U for
June 1996 (156.7) with the CPI-U for June 2003 (183.7), resulting in an
inflation adjustment of 17.23 percent. In addition, the DCIA's rounding
rules require that an increase be rounded to the nearest multiple of:
$10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100; $100 in the
case of penalties greater than $100 but less than or equal to $1,000;
$1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but less than or
equal to $10,000; $5,000 in the case of penalties greater than $10,000
but less than or equal to $100,000; $10,000 in the case of penalties
greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000; and $25,000
in the case of penalties greater than $200,000.
The amount of each CMP was multiplied by 17.23 percent (the
inflation adjustment) and the resulting increase amount was rounded up
or down according to the rounding requirements of the statute. Certain
CMPs were adjusted for the first time and were increased by only 10
percent without being subject to the rounding procedures as required by
the DCIA. The table below shows the inflation-adjusted CMPs and
includes only the CMPs as of the effective date of this rule. EPA
intends to readjust these amounts in the year 2008 and every four years
thereafter, assuming there are no further changes to the mandate
imposed by the DCIA.
On June 18, 2002, the EPA published a direct final rule and a
parallel proposed rule in the Federal Register (67 FR 41343). The
direct final rule would have amended the Civil Monetary Penalty
Inflation Adjustment Rule, as mandated by the DCIA, to adjust EPA's
civil monetary penalties for inflation. EPA stated in the direct final
rule that if we received adverse comment by July 18, 2002, EPA would
publish a timely notice of withdrawal on or before the August 19, 2002
effective date, and then address that comment in a subsequent final
action based on the parallel proposal published at (67 FR 41363). EPA
subsequently received one adverse comment on the direct final rule from
the General Accounting Office (``GAO''), which asserted that EPA had
misinterpreted the rounding formula provided in the DCIA. Accordingly,
EPA withdrew the direct final rule on August 19, 2002 (67 FR 53743).
The formula for the amount of the penalty adjustment is prescribed
by Congress in the DCIA and these changes are not subject to the
exercise of discretion by EPA. However the

[[Page 7122]]

rounding requirement of the statute is subject to different
interpretations. Some agencies rounded the increase based on the amount
of the current penalty before adjustment, while other agencies have
rounded the increase based on the amount of the increase resulting from
the CPI percentage calculation. Still other agencies first added the
CPI increase to the amount of the current penalty and then rounded the
total based on the amount of the increased penalty. The penalties in
EPA's direct final rule were rounded based on the amount of the
increase resulting from the CPI percentage increase because this
approach appears to achieve the intent of the DCIA by steadily tracking
the CPI over time. However, the GAO's adverse comment asserts that a
strict reading of the DCIA requires rounding the CPI increase based on
the amount of the current penalty before adjustment.
On July 3, 2003, EPA published a proposed rule that appeared in the
Federal Register at (68 FR 39882), entitled ``Civil Monetary Penalty
Inflation Adjustment Rule,'' as mandated by the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996, to adjust EPA's civil monetary penalties for
inflation on a periodic basis. EPA subsequently published a technical
correction in the Federal Register on August 4, 2003 at (68 FR 45788)
to correct errors in the language of the proposal that mistakenly
referred to the proposed effective date as July 3, 2003. EPA proposed
to adopt GAO's interpretation of the DCIA rounding rules and, thus,
proposed to round the CPI increases in the proposed rule based on the
amount of the current penalty before adjustment.
In accordance with the DCIA, EPA's proposed rule used the CPI-U
from June 2002 to calculate the penalty adjustments. EPA also stated in
the proposal that it intends to use this formula for calculating future
adjustments to the CMPs and will not provide additional comment periods
at the time future adjustments are made. EPA received comments on the
proposed rule from two commenters.
One commenter supported the ``greatest legal increase possible'' to
discourage polluters from treating the fines as just a ``cost of doing
business.'' This final rule enables EPA to impose the maximum fines
provided under the law, but is not intended to address when a maximum
fine is appropriate. Instead, EPA makes that decision on a case-by-case
basis, and considers numerous factors in determining the appropriate
penalty in each case, including the gravity of the violation and the
extent to which the violator gained an economic benefit as a result of
violating the law.
Another commenter argued that any ambiguity in the rounding
requirement of the statute was due to a ``scrivener's error.'' This
commenter supported an interpretation that penalties be rounded based
on the amount of the increase resulting from the CPI adjustment, rather
than the amount of the penalty. However, we determined after carefully
considering GAO's comment and examining the practices of other
agencies, that following the plain meaning of the statutory language is
appropriate. As GAO's adverse comment states ``[n]othing in the plain
language of the statute, nor the legislative history, permits an agency
to use the size of the increase to determine the appropriate category
of rounding.'' This commenter also noted that EPA had not published
this second round of adjustments within four years of the initial
adjustments as set forth in the statute. EPA's earlier direct final
rulemaking was delayed due to EPA's need to analyze and reconcile the
potential ambiguities arising from the statutory language including
review of other agencies rulemakings under DCIA and discussions with
other agencies regarding their approaches to interpreting the DCIA.
Prior to GAO's involvement in the process, no federal agency had
assumed a leadership in providing guidance on how the DCIA rounding
rule should be implemented. Since the time that GAO became involved in
the process, including the submission of its adverse comment on EPA's
direct final rule, EPA has worked with GAO and other agencies to
resolve the appropriate interpretation of the statutory language.
Finally, the commenter also suggested that all of the penalties should
be adjusted from their original base and not their adjusted base. The
statute does not provide for a return to the original base penalty in
calculating the adjustment but provides that the adjustment ``shall be
determined by increasing the maximum civil penalty * * * by the cost-
of-living adjustment.''
As discussed above, EPA's proposed rule used the CPI-U from June
2002 because EPA proposed the rule in 2003. However, since EPA is
issuing the final rule in 2004 and DCIA requires EPA to use the CPI-U
for June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment, the penalty
adjustments in this final rule use the CPI-U for June 2003 which result
in an inflation adjustment of 17.23 percent rather than the 14.8
percent adjustment in the proposed rule. Thus, to derive the CMPs for
this final rule, the amount of each CMP was multiplied by 17.23 percent
and the resulting increase was rounded according to the rounding rules
of DCIA as EPA proposed and is adopting in this final rule. As a result
of using the June 2003 CPI-U, some of the adjusted CMPs in this final
rule are different than those in the July 2003 proposed rule. However,
this difference results solely from the requirement in DCIA to use the
June 2003 CPI-U and application of the same rounding rules that EPA
proposed in July 2003.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), EPA finds that there is good cause to
promulgate this rule without providing for further public comment even
though the rule uses a CPI-U value different than the CPI-U value used
in the proposal. EPA already provided an opportunity for public comment
on the rounding rules that EPA has used in this final rule and the DCIA
requires that an agency use the CPI-U from June of the year prior to
the adjustment. Therefore, further public comment is unnecessary
because EPA has no discretion to do other than to use the June 2003 CPI-U.

Statutory and Executive Order Review

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)] the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is
therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

[[Page 7123]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Burden means the total time, effort, financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small
business as defined in the Small Business Administration regulations at
13 CFR Part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town school district, or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA is
required by the DCIA to adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation.
The formula for the amount of the penalty adjustment is prescribed by
Congress and is not subject to the exercise of discretion by EPA. EPA's
action implements this statutory mandate and does not substantively
alter the existing regulatory framework. This rule does not affect
mechanisms already in place, including statutory provisions and EPA
policies, that address the special circumstances of small entities when
assessing penalties in enforcement actions.
Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. Small entities may be
affected by this rule only if the federal government finds them in
violation and seeks monetary penalties. EPA's media penalty policies
generally take into account an entity's ``ability to pay'' in
determining the amount of a penalty. Additionally, the final amount of
any civil penalty assessed against a violator remains committed to the
discretion of the federal judge or administrative law judge hearing a
particular case.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed a
small government agency plan under section 203 of the UMRA. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
This rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector because the rule implements
mandate(s) specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress
without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. Thus, this rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This rule
does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this rule.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' As this rule will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal

[[Page 7124]]

governments, on the relationship between the federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
& Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
Because this action does not involve technical standards, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards under the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus standards. Because this action does
not involve technical standards, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards under the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

This action does not require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 19

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Penalties.

40 CFR Part 27

Administrative practice and procedure, Assessments, False claims,
False statements, Penalties.

Dated: February 8, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

? 1. Revise part 19 to read as follows:

PART 19--ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES FOR INFLATION

Sec.
19.1 Applicability.
19.2 Effective Date.
19.3 [Reserved].
19.4 Penalty Adjustment and Table.

Authority: Pub. L. 101-410, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; Pub. L. 104-
134, 31 U.S.C. 3701 note.

Sec. 19.1 Applicability.

This part applies to each statutory provision under the laws
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the
maximum civil monetary penalty which may be assessed in either civil
judicial or administrative proceedings.

Sec. 19.2 Effective Date.

The increased penalty amounts set forth in this part apply to all
violations under the applicable statutes and regulations which occur
after March 15, 2004.

Sec. 19.3 [Reserved].

Sec. 19.4 Penalty Adjustment and Table.

The adjusted statutory penalty provisions and their maximum
applicable amounts are set out in Table 1. The last column in the table
provides the newly effective maximum penalty amounts.

[[Page 7125]]

Table 1 of Section 19.4.--Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalties effective
U.S. code citation Civil monetary penalty between January 30, New maximum penalty
description 1997 and March 15, 2004 amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 U.S.C. 136l.(a)(1)................. FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, $5,500................. $6,500
FUNGICIDE, &
RODENTICIDE ACT CIVIL
PENALTY--GENERAL--
COMMERCIAL
APPLICATORS, ETC.
7 U.S.C. 136l.(a)(2)................. FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, $550/$1000............. $650/$1,200
FUNGICIDE, &
RODENTICIDE ACT CIVIL
PENALTY--PRIVATE
APPLICATORS--FIRST AND
SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES OR
VIOLATIONS.
15 U.S.C. 2615(a).................... TOXIC SUBSTANCES $27,500................ $32,500
CONTROL ACT CIVIL
PENALTY.
15 U.S.C. 2647(a).................... ASBESTOS HAZARD $5,500................. $6,500
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT
CIVIL PENALTY.
15 U.S.C. 2647(g).................... ASBESTOS HAZARD $5000.................. $5,500
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT-
-CONTRACTOR VIOLATIONS.
31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(1)................. PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL $5,500................. $6,500
REMEDIES ACT/VIOLATION
INVOLVING FALSE CLAIM.
31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(2)................. PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL $5,500................. $6,500
REMEDIES ACT/VIOLATION
INVOLVING FALSE
STATEMENT.
33 U.S.C. 1319(d).................... CLEAN WATER ACT $27,500................ $32,500
VIOLATION/CIVIL
JUDICIAL PENALTY.
33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(2)(A).............. CLEAN WATER ACT $11,000/$27,500........ $11,000/$32,500
VIOLATION/
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
PER VIOLATION AND
MAXIMUM.
33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(2)(B).............. CLEAN WATER ACT $11,000/$137,500....... $11,000/$157,500
VIOLATION/
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
PER VIOLATION AND
MAXIMUM.
33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(B)(I)........... CLEAN WATER ACT $11,000/$27,500........ $11,000/$32,500
VIOLATION/ADMIN
PENALTY OF SEC
311(b)(3)&(j) PER
VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM.
33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(B)(ii).......... CLEAN WATER ACT $11,000/$137,500....... $11,000/$157,500
VIOLATION/ADMIN
PENALTY OF SEC
311(b)(3)&(j) PER
VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM.
33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(A).............. CLEAN WATER ACT $27,500 or $1,100 per $32,500 or $1,100 per
VIOLATION/CIVIL barrel or unit. barrell or unit
JUDICIAL PENALTY OF
SEC 311(b)(3)--PER
VIOLATION PER DAY OR
PER BARREL OR UNIT.
33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(B).............. CLEAN WATER ACT $27,500................ $32,500
VIOLATION/CIVIL
JUDICIAL PENALTY OF
SEC 311(c)&(e)(1)(B).
33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(C).............. CLEAN WATER ACT $27,500................ $32,500
VIOLATION/CIVIL
JUDICIAL PENALTY OF
SEC 311(j).
33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(D).............. CLEAN WATER ACT $110,000 or $3,300 per $130,000 or $4,300 per
VIOLATION/MINIMUM barrel or unit. barrel or unit.
CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY
OF SEC 311(b)(3)--PER
VIOLATION OR PER
BARREL/UNIT.
33 U.S.C. 1414b(d)................... MARINE PROTECTION, $660................... $760
RESEARCH & SANCTUARIES
ACT VIOL SEC 104b(d).
33 U.S.C. 1415(a).................... MARINE PROTECTION $55,000/$137,500....... $65,000/$157,500
RESEARCH AND
SANCTUARIES ACT
VIOLATIONS--FIRST &
SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS.
42 U.S.C. 300g-3(b).................. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ $27,500................ $32,500
CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY
OF SEC 1414(b).
42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c).................. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ $27,500................ $32,500
CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY
OF SEC 1414(c).
42 U.S.C. 300g-3(g)(3)(A)............ SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ $27,500................ $32,500
CIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY
OF SEC 1414(g)(3)(a).
42 U.S.C. 300g-3(g)(3)(B)............ SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ $5,000/$25,000......... $6,000/$27,500
MAXIMUM
ADMINISTRATIVE
PENALTIES PER SEC
1414(g)(3)(B).
42 U.S.C. 300g-3(g)(3)(C)............ SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT/ $25,000................ $27,500
THRESHOLD REQUIRING
CIVIL JUDICIAL ACTION
PER SEC 1414(g)(3)(C).
42 U.S.C. 300h-2(b)(1)............... SDWA/CIVIL JUDICIAL $27,500................ $32,500
PENALTY/VIOLATIONS OF
REQS--UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL
(UIC).
42 U.S.C. 300h-2(c)(1)............... SDWA/CIVIL ADMIN $11,000/$137,500....... $11,000/$157,500
PENALTY/VIOLATIONS OF
UIC REQS--PER
VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM.
42 U.S.C.300h-2(c)(2)................ SDWA/CIVIL ADMIN $5,500/$137,500........ $6,500/$157,500
PENALTY/VIOLATIONS OF
UIC REQS--PER
VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM.
42 U.S.C. 300h-3(c)(1)............... SDWA/VIOLATION/ $5,500................. $6,500
OPERATION OF NEW
UNDERGROUND INJECTION
WELL.
42 U.S.C. 300h-3(c)(2)............... SDWA/WILLFUL VIOLATION/ $11,000................ $11,000
OPERATION OF NEW
UNDERGROUND INJECTION
WELL.
42 U.S.C. 300i(b).................... SDWA/FAILURE TO COMPLY $15,000................ $16,500
WITH IMMINENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL
ENDANGERMENT ORDER.
42 U.S.C. 300i-1(c).................. SDWA/ATTEMPTING TO OR $22,000/$55,000........ $100,000/$1,000,000
TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC
WATER SYSTEM/CIVIL
JUDICIAL PENALTY.
42 U.S.C. 300j(e)(2)................. SDWA/FAILURE TO COMPLY $2,750................. $2,750
W/ORDER ISSUED UNDER
SEC. 1441(c)(1).
42 U.S.C. 300j-4(c).................. SDWA/REFUSAL TO COMPLY $27,500................ $32,500
WITH REQS. OF SEC.
1445(a) OR (b).
42 U.S.C. 300j-6(b)(2)............... SDWA/FAILURE TO COMPLY $25,000................ $27,500
WITH ADMIN. ORDER
ISSUED TO FEDERAL
FACILITY.
42 U.S.C. 300j-23(d)................. SDWA/VIOLATIONS/SECTION $5,500/$55,000......... $6,500/$65,000
1463(b)--FIRST OFFENSE/
REPEAT OFFENSE.

[[Page 7126]]

42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(5)................ RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED $11,000................ $11,000
PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION
ACT OF 1992, SEC 1018--
CIVIL PENALTY.
42 U.S.C. 4910(a)(2)................. NOISE CONTROL ACT OF $11,000................ $11,000
1972--CIVIL PENALTY.
42 U.S.C. 6928(a)(3)................. RESOURCE CONSERVATION & $27,500................ $32,500
RECOVERY ACT/VIOLATION
SUBTITLE C ASSESSED
PER ORDER.
42 U.S.C. 6928(c).................... RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ $27,500................ $32,500
CONTINUED
NONCOMPLIANCE OF
COMPLIANCE ORDER.
42 U.S.C. 6928(g).................... RESOURCE CONSERVATION & $27,500................ $32,500
RECOVERY ACT/VIOLATION
SUBTITLE C.
42 U.S.C. 6928(h)(2)................. RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ $27,500................ $32,500
NONCOMPLIANCE OF
CORRECTIVE ACTION
ORDER.
42 U.S.C. 6934(e).................... RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ $5,500................. $6,500
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH
SECTION 3013 ORDER.
42 U.S.C. 6973(b).................... RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ $5,500................. $6,500
VIOLATIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.
42 U.S.C. 6991e(a)(3)................ RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ $27,500................ $32,500
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH UST
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.
42 U.S.C. 6991e(d)(1)................ RES. CONS. & REC. ACT/ $11,000................ $11,000
FAILURE TO NOTIFY OR
FOR SUBMITTING FALSE
INFORMATION.
42 U.S.C. 6991e(d)(2)................ RCRA/VIOLATIONS OF $11,000................ $11,000
SPECIFIED UST
REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS.
42 U.S.C. 14304(a)(1)................ BATTERY ACT VIOLATIONS. $10,000................ $11,000
42 U.S.C. 14304(g)................... BATTERY ACT/VIOLATIONS $10,000................ $11,000
OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
ORDERS.
42 U.S.C. 7413(b).................... CLEAN AIR ACT/VIOLATION/ $27,500................ $32,500
OWNERS & OPERATORS OF
STATIONARY AIR
POLLUTION SOURCES-
JUDICIAL PENALTIES.
42 U.S.C. 7413 (d)(1)................ CLEAN AIR ACT/VIOLATION/ $27,500/$220,000....... $32,500/$270,000
OWNERS & OPERATORS OF
STATIONARY AIR
POLLUTION SOURCES-
ADMINISTRATIVE
PENALTIES PER
VIOLATION & MAX.
42 U.S.C. 7413(d)(3)................. CLEAN AIR ACT/MINOR $5,500................. $6,500
VIOLATIONS/STATIONARY
AIR POLLUTION SOURCES--
FIELD CITATIONS.
42 U.S.C. 7524(a).................... TAMPERING OR $2,750................. $2,750
MANUFACTURE/SALE OF
DEFEAT DEVICES IN
VIOLATION OF
7522(a)(3)(A) OR
(a)(3)(B)--BY PERSONS.
42 U.S.C. 7524(a).................... VIOLATION OF $27,500................ $32,500
7522(a)(3)(A) OR
(a)(3)(B)--BY
MANUFACTURERS OR
DEALERS; ALL
VIOLATIONS OF
7522(a)(1),(2),
(4),&(5) BY ANYONE.
42 U.S.C. 7524(c).................... ADMINISTRATIVE $220,000............... $270,000
PENALTIES AS SET IN
7524(a) & 7545(d) WITH
A MAXIMUM
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY.
42 U.S.C. 7545(d).................... VIOLATIONS OF FUELS $27,500................ $32,500
REGULATIONS.
42 U.S.C. 9604(e)(5)(B).............. SUPERFUND AMEND. & $27,500................ $32,500
REAUTHORIZATION ACT/
NONCOMPLIANCE W/
REQUEST FOR INFO OR
ACCESS.
42 U.S.C. 9606(b)(1)................. SUPERFUND/WORK NOT $27,500................ $32,500
PERFORMED W/IMMINENT,
SUBSTANTIAL
ENDANGERMENT.
42 U.S.C. 9609(a)&(b)................ SUPERFUND/ADMIN. $27,500................ $32,500
PENALTY VIOLATIONS
UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECT.
9603, 9608, OR 9622.
42 U.S.C. 9609(b).................... SUPERFUND/ADMIN. $82,500................ $97,500
PENALTY VIOLATIONS--
SUBSEQUENT.
42 U.S.C. 9609(c).................... SUPERFUND/CIVIL $27,500................ $32,500
JUDICIAL PENALTY/
VIOLATIONS OF SECT.
9603, 9608, 9622.
42 U.S.C. 9609(c).................... SUPERFUND/CIVIL $82,500................ $97,500
JUDICIAL PENALTY/
SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS
OF SECT. 9603, 9608,
9622.
42 U.S.C. 11045(a)&(b) (1),(2)&(3)... EMERGENCY PLANNING AND $27,500................ $32,500
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT CLASS I & II
ADMINISTRATIVE AND
CIVIL PENALTIES.
42 U.S.C. 11045(b) (2)&(3)........... EPCRA CLASS I & II $82,500................ $97,500
ADMINISTRATIVE AND
CIVIL PENALTIES--
SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS.
42 U.S.C. 11045(c)(1)................ EPCRA CIVIL AND $27,500................ $32,500
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORTING PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS OF
SECTIONS 11022 OR
11023.
42 U.S.C. 11045(c)(2)................ EPCRA CIVIL AND $11,000................ $11,000
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORTING PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS OF
SECTIONS 11021 OR
11043(b).
42 U.S.C. 11045(d)(1)................ EPCRA--FRIVOLOUS TRADE $27,500................ $32,500
SECRET CLAIMS--CIVIL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE
PENALTIES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 27--[AMENDED]

? 2. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890,
28 U.S.C. 2461 note; Pub L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 31 U.S.C. 3701
note.

? 3. Section 27.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and
(b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec. 27.3 Basis for civil penalties and assessments.

(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which
the person has not provided as claimed, shall be

[[Page 7127]]

subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law,
to a civil penalty of not more than $6,500 \1\ for each such claim [The
regulatory penalty provisions of this part effective on January 30,
1997 remain in effect for any violation of law occurring between
January 30, 1997 and March 15, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ As adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890),
as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L.
104-134, 110 Stat. 1321).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Contains, or is accompanied by, an express certification or
affirmation of the truthfulness and accuracy of the contents of the
statement, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may
be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than 6,500 \2\ for
each such statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ As adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890),
as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L.
104-134, 110 Stat. 1321).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-3231 Filed 2-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule

Local Navigation