Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation

Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation

Order Code RL34368
Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for
Inflation
February 11, 2008
Curtis W. Copeland
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation
Summary
Civil monetary penalties are one way agencies enforce federal laws and
regulations. The minimum and maximum size of civil penalties may be established
administratively by federal agencies, or may be established in statute. Over time,
inflation can reduce the original deterrent value of civil penalties. To prevent that
from happening, in 1996, Congress amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act of 1990 (“Inflation Adjustment Act”) and required federal agencies
to adjust their covered penalties for inflation by October 1996; and to examine their
covered penalties at least once every four years thereafter and make any required
penalty adjustments.
In 2003, the General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government
Accountability Office) said that several elements of the Inflation Adjustment Act had
prevented federal agencies from fully adjusting their civil penalties for inflation: (1)
a 10% cap on agencies’ initial penalty adjustments (even if the penalties would have
to have been adjusted by hundreds of percent to maintain their original deterrent
value); (2) the exemption of 238 penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
the Tariff Act of 1930, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the
Social Security Act from the Inflation Adjustment Act’s coverage; and (3) a rounding
formula and other procedures in the act that can prevent agencies from adjusting their
penalties for as much as 15 years. GAO recommended that Congress consider
changing the Inflation Adjustment Act to address these issues, and also said Congress
should consider giving one or more federal agencies the authority and responsibility
to monitor the act’s implementation and provide guidance to the agencies. To date,
Congress has taken no action on GAO’s recommendations. Proponents of the
adjustment of civil penalties for inflation assert that, in addition to maintaining the
penalties’ deterrent effects, the adjustments could increase federal revenues by
hundreds of millions of dollars each year — all from individuals and organizations
that GAO described as “the worst offenders of health, safety, environmental, and
other statutes guilty of the most egregious violations of federal laws.” In 2007, GAO
reported that if the fixed dollar amounts of just four civil tax penalties had been
adjusted for inflation, the estimated potential increase in collections would have
ranged from $38 million to $61 million per year from 2000 to 2005.
Given the reported inability of federal agencies to adjust all (or in some cases,
any) of their civil penalty maximums for inflation under the Inflation Adjustment
Act’s procedures, Congress currently appears to have at least three general types of
legislative options: (1) maintain the status quo, (2) adjust certain civil penalty
maximums through separate legislation, or (3) implement some or all of the
recommendations in GAO’s 2003 report.
This report will be updated if any actions are taken to amend the Inflation
Adjustment Act.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Civil Penalties as a Form of Regulatory Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Procedures Established by the Inflation Adjustment Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
GAO Recommends Changes to the Inflation Adjustment Act . . . . . . . . . . . 5
GAO Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Effects of the Inflation Adjustment Act’s Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10% Cap on Initial Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Rounding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Exempted Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Recent Agency Efforts to Adjust Civil Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Congressional Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Maintain Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Statute- or Agency-Specific Penalty Adjustment Legislation . . . . . . . 11
Amend the Inflation Adjustment Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for
Inflation
Introduction
Civil monetary penalties are one way agencies enforce federal laws and
regulations. The maximum size of civil penalties may be established
administratively by federal agencies, or may be established in statute. Large civil
penalties can be assessed to punish the most serious violations, deter others from
committing similar offenses, or both. Over time, however, inflation can reduce the
original punitive and deterrent value of civil penalty maximums.
For example, in 1958, Congress established a $1,000 maximum penalty for
possession of a firearm discovered at a baggage security checkpoint. By 1996, in
order to keep up with inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and
have the same punitive and deterrent value that it had in 1958, that penalty maximum
would have to have been increased by more than 400% to $5,277.1 However, the
penalty was unchanged as of 1996, so it had lost more than 80% of its value.
Until 1996, agencies generally did not have the authority to adjust civil penalty
maximums that were established in statute. That year, Congress amended the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (hereafter, the “Inflation
Adjustment Act”) and required federal agencies to adjust each of their covered civil
penalties for inflation.2 The stated purpose of the original Inflation Adjustment Act
was “to establish a mechanism that shall (1) allow for regular adjustment for inflation
of civil monetary penalties; (2) maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary
penalties and promote compliance with the law; and (3) improve the collection by the
Federal Government of civil monetary penalties.” The 1990 act established a set of
reporting requirements, but did not give agencies the authority to adjust their civil
penalties for inflation. The 1996 amendments to the act established a relatively
automatic penalty adjustment process — agencies were to make their first penalty
adjustments within 180 days after enactment (i.e., by October 1996); and were
required to examine and, if necessary, adjust their civil penalties for inflation at least
once every four years thereafter. The amendments also specified how the
adjustments were to be calculated.
1 The CPI is published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is the most widely
used measure of inflation. There are actually several measures of the CPI. In this report,
the CPI for all urban consumers is used. See [http://www.bls.gov/cpi/] for more
information.
2 The 1990 act was amended in 1996 by the Debt Collection Improvement Act, which added
the requirement for agencies to adjust their civil penalties by regulation (P.L. 104-134, Sec.
31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1321-373). See 28 U.S.C. §2461 note.

CRS-2
However, a 2003 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO, now the
Government Accountability Office) and information developed subsequently indicate
that the penalty adjustment process established by the Inflation Adjustment Act in
1996 was not accomplishing the act’s stated purpose.3 This report provides
information on the use of civil penalties as an enforcement procedure, the Inflation
Adjustment Act’s adjustment procedures, GAO’s findings and recommendations, and
the effects that the act has had on certain civil penalty maximums. The report
concludes by discussing legislative options that Congress could consider.
Civil Penalties as a Form of Regulatory Enforcement
In the enforcement of federal statutes and regulations, agencies can impose
various forms of legal sanctions as a cost of non-compliance. Section 551(10) of the
Administrative Procedure Act defines “sanctions” as including the “imposition of a
penalty or fine.”4 GAO has concluded that civil penalties play a key role in
regulatory enforcement “by deterring violators and by ensuring that regulated entities
are treated fairly and consistently so that no one gains a competitive advantage.”5
News reports indicate that civil penalties are assessed with some regularity
during the regulatory and statutory enforcement process. For example:
! In September 2007, the Department of Justice announced that Hunt
Refining Company and Hunt Southland Refining Company had
agreed to pay a $400,000 civil penalty to settle alleged violations of
the Clean Air Act.6
! In October 2007, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
announced that TAP Enterprises Incorporated had agreed to pay a
$100,000 civil penalty for failing to report to the government in a
timely manner about defective air compressors it imported and sold.7
! In November 2007, the Federal Trade Commission announced that
six cases enforcing provisions of the National Do-Not-Call Registry
resulted in about $7.7 million in civil penalties.8
3 U.S. General Accounting Office, Civil Penalties: Agencies Unable to Fully Adjust
Penalties for Inflation Under Current Law, GAO-03-409, Mar. 14, 2003.
4 Other forms of “sanctions” listed in the Administrative Procedure Act include withholding
of relief; destruction, taking, seizure, or withholding of property; and “prohibition,
requirement, limitation, or other condition affecting the freedom of a person.”
5 U.S. General Accounting Office, Water Pollution: Many Violations Have Not Received
Appropriate Enforcement Attention, GAO/RCED-96-23, Mar. 20, 1996, p. 12.
6 Barney Tumey, “Hunt Refining Agrees to Pay $49 Million to Settle Alleged Violations of
Clean Air Act,” BNA Daily Report for Executives, Oct. 1, 2007, p. A-7.
7 “Air Compressor Importer Agrees to Pay $100,000 Fine for Not Reporting Hazard,” BNA
Daily Report for Executives,” Oct. 17, 2007, p. A-9.
8 “Do-Not-Call Registry Enforcement Suits Net Nearly $7.7 Million in Civil Penalties,” BNA
(continued...)

CRS-3
! Also in November 2007, Chevron Corporation agreed to pay a total
of $30 million to settle charges by the Departments of Justice and
Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the
Manhattan District Attorney’s Office that it made improper
payments to the former Iraqi government to obtain oil under the
United Nations’ “Oil for Food” program.9
! In December 2007, a San Francisco investment firm agreed to pay
a $1.1 million civil penalty in response to a complaint filed by the
Federal Trade Commission for failing to make appropriate and
timely premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Act.10
! Also in December 2007, in a settlement reached with EPA, a mining
firm agreed to pay a $177,000 civil penalty for an allegedly
unreported hazardous chemical release at a mine in West Virginia.11
Agencies investigate possible violations of statutes and associated regulations, and
determine the amount of any civil penalty to be sought based on a variety of factors,
including the severity of an incident, whether the individual or organization involved
has a previous history of violations, and the individual’s or organization’s ability to
pay the fine. Civil penalty maximums are generally reserved for the most egregious
cases (e.g., those involving willful intent to violate the law, fatalities, or both). GAO
has criticized certain regulatory agencies for not using civil penalties more forcefully
as part of their enforcement processes.12
During the Administration of President William J. Clinton, the National
Performance Review (NPR) recommended that civil monetary penalties be adjusted
for inflation.13 Specifically, NPR recommended that a “catch-up” penalty adjustment
be made to bring civil penalties up to date, and that the need for additional inflation
8 (...continued)
Daily Report for Executives,” Nov. 8, 2007, p. A-8.
9 “Chevron to Pay $30 Million to Settle Charges Over ‘Oil for Food’ Violations,” BNA Daily
Report for Executives, Nov. 15, 2007, p. A-1.
10 “Investment Fund Will Pay $1.1 Million Civil Penalty for Noncompliance with §7A,”
BNA Daily Report for Executives, Dec. 20, 2007, p. A-14.
11 Bebe Raupe, “EPA, West Virginia Mining Firm Settle Over Unreported Anhydrous
Ammonia Release,” BNA Daily Report for Executives, Dec. 19, 2007, p. A-7
12 See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Pension Plans: Stronger Labor ERISA
Enforcement Should Better Protect Plan Participants, GAO/HEHS-94-157, Aug. 8, 1994;
U.S. General Accounting Office, Nursing Homes: Additional Steps Needed to Strengthen
Enforcement of Federal Quality Standards, GAO/HEHS-99-46, Mar. 18, 1999; and U.S.
General Accounting Office, Pipeline Safety: The Office of Pipeline Safety Is Changing How
It Oversees the Pipeline Industry, GAO/RCED-00-128, May 15, 2000.
13 National Performance Review, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That
Works Better and Costs Less (Washington: Sept. 7, 1993), recommendations DOJ13 and
TREAS14.

CRS-4
adjustments be automatically reassessed every four years. NPR estimated that doing
so would increase federal receipts by nearly $200 million in the FY1994 through
FY1999 period.
Procedures Established by the Inflation Adjustment Act
As amended, the Inflation Adjustment Act requires agencies to follow specific
procedures when making civil penalty adjustments. For example, Section 5 of the
act defines a “cost-of-living adjustment” as the following:
the percentage (if any) for each civil monetary penalty by which (1) the
Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the
adjustment, exceeds (2) the Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the
calendar year in which the amount of such civil monetary penalty was last set or
adjusted pursuant to law.
Therefore, if an agency made its first round of penalty adjustments in October 1996
and the penalty was last set or adjusted in October 1990, the agency was required to
calculate the unrounded cost-of-living adjustment by comparing the June 1995 CPI
with the CPI for June 1990. If the agency made its second round of penalty
adjustments in October 2000 (four years after the first round), the agency was
required to calculate the unrounded cost-of-living adjustment by comparing the June
1996 CPI with the CPI for June 1999.
The Inflation Adjustment Act also provides specific criteria for how agencies
should round any penalty increase. Section 5 of the act says the following:
Any increase determined under this subsection shall be rounded to the nearest (1)
multiple of $10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100; (2) multiple
of $100 in the case of penalties greater than $100 but less than or equal to
$1,000; (3) multiple of $1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but
less than or equal to $10,000; (4) multiple of $5,000 in the case of penalties
greater than $10,000 but less than or equal to $100,000; (5) multiple of $10,000
in the case of penalties greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000;
and (6) multiple of $25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $200,000.
For example, if a maximum civil penalty of $5,000 was last set in 1990, and there
had been 17% inflation from June 1990 through June 1995 (the relevant time frame
for an adjustment in 1996), the unrounded increase would be $850 ($5,000 times
0.17). Because the $5,000 penalty was greater than $1,000 but less than $10,000, the
statute indicates that the $850 increase should be rounded to the nearest multiple of
$1,000, which is $1,000. Therefore, the adjusted penalty after rounding would be
$6,000.
However, Section 6 of the Inflation Adjustment Act states that the first penalty
adjustment under these procedures “may not exceed 10 percent of such penalty.”
Therefore, in the above example, the $1,000 rounded increase would be limited to
10% of the $5,000 penalty amount, or $500. As a result, the adjusted penalty after the
10% cap would be $5,500.

CRS-5
Finally, the Inflation Adjustment Act exempted all penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, the Tariff Act of 1930, the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970, and the Social Security Act. The legislative history of the Inflation
Adjustment Act does not explain why Congress exempted these penalties, established
the 10% cap on initial adjustments, or required the use of the adjustment procedures
delineated in the act.
GAO Recommends Changes to the Inflation Adjustment Act
In a 2003 report on the implementation of the Inflation Adjustment Act, GAO
said that several elements of the act had prevented federal agencies from fully
adjusting their civil penalties for inflation.14
! The 10% cap on initial penalty adjustments severely limited
agencies’ ability to maintain the original deterrent value of certain
penalties — particularly if the penalties had not been adjusted for
decades and inflation had increased several hundred percent during
that period. For example, the above-mentioned $1,000 penalty for
possession of a firearm in a baggage security area that was last set or
adjusted in 1958 could only be increased in 1996 by $100 to $1,100
— more than $4,000 less than the amount needed to fully account
for inflation. Several agencies with penalties covered by the act told
GAO that, because of the 10% cap, their penalties had lost
effectiveness and their enforcement options had been limited.
! The act’s exemption of all penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, the Tariff Act of 1930, the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, and the Social Security Act prevented the
adjustment of a total of 238 civil penalties. GAO said that many of
these exempted penalties had not been adjusted for decades, and
more than half would have been at least 50% higher if fully adjusted
for inflation.
! The act’s requirements on how the penalty adjustments should be
calculated and rounded prevented agencies from capturing all of the
inflation that occurred between adjustments, and prevented agencies
from increasing certain penalties until inflation had increased by
45% or more. Specifically, GAO said, the act requires agencies (1)
to lose a year of inflation each time penalties are adjusted (because
it requires use of the CPI from June of the previous year), and that
lost year of inflation can never be recovered; and (2) to round based
on the size of the penalty rather than the size of the penalty increase,
thereby sometimes resulting in long periods of time between
adjustments. Because of these two factors, at recent rates of
inflation, GAO said agencies might not be able to adjust some of
their penalties for 15 years or more. GAO reported that elimination
14 U.S. General Accounting Office, Civil Penalties: Agencies Unable to Fully Adjust
Penalties for Inflation Under Current Law, GAO-03-409, Mar. 14, 2003.

CRS-6
of the CPI lag and rounding based on the size of the penalty increase
would yield results that more closely track inflation. Agency
officials frequently told GAO that these provisions in the act were
unclear and produced undesirable effects, and each agency said that
it supported changes to the act to allow more timely and accurate
penalty adjustments.
GAO also reported that several other provisions in the Inflation Adjustment Act
were unclear. For example, although the act clearly covers civil penalty maximums
that are set in statute, it is not clear whether agencies are required to adjust penalties
that are administratively set by the agencies. Also, GAO said it was not clear
whether the term “last set or adjusted” refers to the date when an adjustment was last
published in the Federal Register, or the date when the penalty adjustment took
effect. Finally, GAO said it was unclear whether agencies’ second rounds of penalty
adjustments were to be made within four years of the initial deadline (i.e., by October
2000) or within four years of the initial adjustments — whenever they occurred.
(Some agencies still had not made their first rounds of adjustments when GAO issued
its report in March 2003.)
Congress did not give any federal agency the authority or responsibility to
monitor agencies’ compliance with the Inflation Adjustment Act or to provide
guidance on how the act should be implemented. In contrast, other crosscutting
regulatory reform statutes assign these tasks to a particular executive branch agency.
For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act gives the Office of Management and
Budget the authority and responsibility to approve agencies’ proposed information
collections and to provide guidance to the agencies on how the act should be
implemented.15 The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Small Business
Administration’s Chief Counsel for Advocacy to monitor and report at least annually
on agencies’ compliance with the act.16 GAO said that an oversight agency for the
Inflation Adjustment Act could have taken a number of actions that might have
improved the act’s implementation (e.g., developing a database that could
automatically determine when penalties require adjustment and notify the agencies
of their responsibilities under the act).
GAO Recommendations. As a result of these findings, GAO made several
recommendations that it said could help ensure that agencies will keep their civil
penalties in pace with inflation.
! First, GAO said that if Congress wants federal civil penalties to
retain their original deterrent values, it should consider amending the
Inflation Adjustment Act to require or permit agencies to make
catch-up adjustments accounting for all of the inflation that occurred
since Congress last set or adjusted those penalties.
! Second, GAO said that if Congress wants agencies to make timely
and accurate adjustments of their civil penalties, Congress should
15 See 44 U.S.C. §3504.
16 See 5 U.S.C. §612.

CRS-7
consider amending the calculation and rounding procedures in the
act to be more consistent with changes in inflation.
! Third, GAO said that if Congress finds that currently exempted
penalties should be adjusted, it could amend the statute to permit or
require agencies to make the adjustments.
! Finally, to improve compliance with the statute, GAO said Congress
could give one or more entities in the executive branch the authority
and responsibility to monitor the act’s implementation and provide
guidance to agencies. Even if the other recommendations are not
enacted, GAO said improving compliance with the existing act could
prevent the loss of “millions of dollars in lost penalties from
individuals and organizations that are the worst offenders of health,
safety, environmental, and other statutes.”17
As of the date of this report, Congress has not acted on GAO’s recommendations.
Effects of the Inflation Adjustment Act’s Provisions
Because of the lack of consistent, governmentwide enforcement data and for
other reasons, it is impossible to determine the extent to which the civil penalties that
are imposed each year have been affected by the 10% cap on initial adjustments, the
adjustment procedures, or the statutory exemptions in the Inflation Adjustment Act.
However, the act’s provisions appear to have had a clear impact on the penalty
maximums that could be levied by certain agencies with regard to certain violations.
10% Cap on Initial Adjustments. For example, GAO reported that,
because of the Inflation Adjustment Act’s 10% cap on initial adjustments:
! an $800,000 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) penalty (for violations involving the failure to meet
bumper testing criteria) that should have increased in 1996 by 275%
to more than $3 million to fully account for inflation was limited to
an increase of $80,000. Overall, NHTSA had 16 civil penalties
whose initial adjustments were capped at 10%.
! a $25,000 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) penalty (for
violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act) that should have
increased in 1996 by nearly 170% to more than $67,000 if fully
adjusted for inflation was limited to an increase of $2,500. Overall,
EPA had 74 civil penalties whose initial adjustments were capped at
10%.
! penalties imposed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for
17 U.S. General Accounting Office, Civil Penalties: Agencies Unable to Fully Adjust
Penalties for Inflation Under Current Law, GAO-03-409, Mar. 14, 2003, p. 37.

CRS-8
unlawful acts pertaining to the employment of illegal aliens were
adjusted by 10% in 1999; if fully adjusted for inflation, the penalties
would have increased by nearly 50%.18
The 10% cap is still in effect for newly established civil penalties, and for
penalties that were not initially adjusted in 1996 as the Inflation Adjustment Act
required. For example, in February 2007, the Minerals Management Service (MMS)
within the Department of the Interior published a final rule adjusting a $25,000 per
day per violation civil penalty that had been authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of
1990.19 However, because it was the first adjustment of the penalty, the amount of
the increase was capped at 10%, raising the penalty to $27,500. If not capped at
10%, the unrounded penalty would have increased to about $39,000.
As noted previously, the inflation adjustments that are not made because of the
10% cap cannot be corrected through the act’s procedures. In fact, the size of any
“inflation gap” created by the 10% cap grows with each penalty adjustment. The
Inflation Adjustment Act defines the term “cost of living adjustment” as the
percentage by which the CPI for the year preceding the adjustment exceeds the CPI
for the year in which the penalty was last set or adjusted. Therefore, agencies’
adjustments under the statute can take into consideration only the amount of inflation
since the previous adjustment. As a result, any inflation gap that is not captured
because of the 10% cap becomes permanent, and because the capped penalties are
smaller than they would have been without the 10% restriction, the size of
subsequent adjustments using that smaller base are also smaller — resulting in a
further widening of the inflation gap.
Rounding Rules. GAO also pointed out in its report that, under the act’s
rounding rules, all seven penalties that had been administered by the Pension Welfare
Benefits Administration (now the Employee Benefits Security Administration) and
that were adjusted for the first time under the act in 1997 could not be adjusted again
until the CPI increased by 45.5%. Assuming a 2.5% annual rate of inflation (the
average since the Inflation Adjustment Act was passed in 1996), the agency would
not be able to increase any of these civil penalties under the act’s procedures for 17
years — i.e., until 2014. Other agencies faced similar limitations.
! The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) increased the $1,000
penalty for possession of a firearm discovered at a baggage security
checkpoint by $100 in 1996 (which was the maximum allowed
under the 10% cap). Under the rounding rules in the Inflation
Adjustment Act, FAA would not be able to increase the penalty
18 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Civil Monetary
Penalties Inflation Adjustment,” 64 Federal Register 47099, Aug. 30, 1999. GAO noted this
10% adjustment in U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Enforcement:
Weaknesses Hinder Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement Efforts, GAO-05-
813, Aug. 31, 2005, p. 8.
19 U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, “Oil and Gas and Sulphur
Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf and Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for
Offshore Facilities — Civil Penalties,” 72 Federal Register 8897, Feb. 28, 2007.

CRS-9
again until inflation increased 45.5%, or 17 years (assuming 2.5%
inflation per year, compounded annually).20
! The U.S. Coast Guard has a total of 27 civil penalties that cannot be
increased under the act until inflation increases 45.5% since their
last adjustment; for 32 other penalties, inflation must increase 22.8%
before an adjustment is possible.
! EPA has two penalties that cannot be adjusted until inflation
increases 45.5%, and 11 that cannot be adjusted until inflation goes
up 22.8%.
On the other hand, GAO also said that, when the penalty adjustments finally do
occur, the act can require agencies to adjust their penalties much more than the
amount of inflation that occurred. In the previously mentioned examples, although
the CPI must increase 45.5% since they were last set or adjusted before the agencies
can make further adjustments, the adjustments that are ultimately provided under the
act’s rounding rules will be twice that amount — 90.9%.
The inability of agencies to adjust civil penalties for inflation may be having a
deleterious effect on public policy in certain areas. For example, in August 2007,
GAO reported that penalties for violating the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards had not increased since 1997, when they were increased pursuant
to the Inflation Adjustment Act’s procedures by 10%, from $5 to $5.50 per vehicle
for every 0.1 mile per gallon by which a manufacturer’s fleet fell short of the CAFE
standard. Since then, because of the rounding rules and other factors, NHTSA has
been unable to adjust those penalties for inflation. Several experts told GAO that the
penalties are not enough of a monetary incentive for manufacturers to comply with
CAFE.21
Exempted Penalties. GAO also reported that many of the civil penalties in
the statutes that had been exempted from coverage by the Inflation Adjustment Act
had not been adjusted in years. For example, GAO said that eight penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code had not been changed since 1954, and that as of June 2002,
inflation had increased by 569%. Six penalties under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act had not been adjusted since 1990, and they were 38% less than they
would have been had they kept pace with inflation. One penalty under the Tariff Act
of 1930 had not been adjusted since 1879, resulting in an inflation gap of more than
1,700%.
In August 2007, GAO reported that some civil tax penalties had been
significantly eroded because of inflation. For example, a $100 minimum penalty for
20 As noted later in this report, in November 2002, Congress increased the $1,000 penalty
to $10,000 as part of the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (P.L.
107-296, Sec. 1602).
21 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Vehicle Fuel Economy: Reforming Fuel
Economy Standards Could Help Reduce Oil Consumption by Cars and Light Trucks, and
Other Options Could Complement These Standards, GAO-07-921, Aug. 2, 2007, p. 23.

CRS-10
failing to file a tax return that had not been adjusted since it was created in 1982
would have to be increased to $214 just to have the same deterrent value. A penalty
for failure to file a partnership return that was $50 per partner per month when last
adjusted in 1979 would have to be increased to $145 per partner per month to
maintain its original value. Overall, GAO said that if the fixed dollar amounts of
civil tax penalties had been adjusted for inflation, the estimated potential increase in
IRS collections would have ranged from $38 million to $61 million per year from
2000 to 2005. Therefore, GAO said “Congress should consider requiring IRS to
periodically adjust for inflation, and round appropriately, the fixed dollar amounts of
civil tax penalties to account for the decrease in real value over time.”22
Recent Agency Efforts to Adjust Civil Penalties
Federal agencies are continuing to examine their civil penalties and, where
possible, adjust them pursuant to the provisions of the Inflation Adjustment Act. In
some cases, however, the act’s provisions have continued to prohibit penalty
adjustments.
! In January 2007, the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation
published a notice regarding its review of its civil penalties under the
Farm Credit Act, which were last adjusted in 2001. Although the
CPI had increased 14% between June 2001 and June 2006, the
agency said that the rounding rules in the Inflation Adjustment Act
prevented it from adjusting those penalties for inflation.23
! In February 2007, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development published a final rule adjusting 15 of its civil penalties
for inflation. However, the department said it was unable to adjust
several other penalties because of the calculation procedures
stipulated in the Inflation Adjustment Act.24
! In September 2007, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT)
Federal Railroad Administration examined its civil penalties and
increased its ordinary maximum penalty under the Rail Safety
Improvement Act from $11,000 to $16,000. However, because of
the rounding rules in the Inflation Adjustment Act, the agency was
not able to adjust the minimum penalty or the aggravated maximum
penalty.25
22 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Tax Compliance: Inflation Has Significantly
Decreased the Real Value of Some Penalties, GAO-07-1062, Aug. 23, 2007.
23 U.S. Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, “Adjusting Civil Money Penalties for
Inflation,” 72 Federal Register 1514, Jan. 12, 2007.
24 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Inflation
Adjustment of Civil Money Penalty Amounts,” 72 Federal Register 5586, Feb. 6, 2007.
25 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, “Inflation
Adjustment of Ordinary Maximum Civil Monetary Penalty for a Violation of a Federal
(continued...)

CRS-11
! Also in September 2007, DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration adjusted several of its civil penalties pursuant to the
Inflation Adjustment Act’s procedures. However, the agency said
that “Because of the relatively low rate of inflation and the rounding
formulas required by the Act, most penalties remain unchanged from
their previous levels.”26
Congressional Options
Given the inability of federal agencies to adjust all (or in some cases, any) of
their civil penalty maximums for inflation under the Inflation Adjustment Act’s
procedures, Congress appears to have at least three general types of legislative
options: (1) maintaining the status quo, (2) adjusting certain civil penalty maximums
through separate legislation, or (3) implementing some or all of the recommendations
in GAO’s 2003 report.
Maintain Status Quo. Congress could elect to take no action in this area for
a variety of reasons. For example, Congress might view the statutory maximum civil
penalties as having been originally set too high, and by taking no action Congress
would allow inflation to erode the penalty amounts to what it then would consider to
be more reasonable levels. Congress might also take into account the ability of some
agencies to impose substantial penalties under current statutory provisions. For
example, officials from some agencies told GAO that certain civil penalties could be
compounded monthly, weekly, or daily, resulting in higher penalty maximums if
needed. Similarly, officials at another agency said penalties could be assessed on a
violation-by-violation basis, allowing the amount of the penalty imposed to rise to
or even exceed the statutory maximums. Finally, officials at the Internal Revenue
Service said that some of the agency’s civil penalties contain formulas that implicitly
account for inflation (e.g., by basing the penalty on a percentage of the tax due or the
amount invested). For any or all of these reasons, the lack of adjustment of at least
some of the agencies’ civil penalty maximums might not be seen by Congress as
problematic.
Statute- or Agency-Specific Penalty Adjustment Legislation. From
time to time, Congress enacts legislation that adjusts statutory penalty maximums —
which can have the effect of compensating for the effects of inflation on those
penalties. For example, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-177) amended the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
and required that the penalties for two violations be increased from $11,000 to
$50,000. The Department of Commerce later published a final rule making those
25 (...continued)
Railroad Safety Law or Federal Railroad Safety Regulation,” 72 Federal Register 51194,
Sept. 6, 2007.
26 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, “Civil
Penalties Adjustments,” 72 Federal Register 55100, Sept. 28, 2007.

CRS-12
changes to its regulations.27 In some cases, these statute- or agency-specific
adjustments have been more than the amounts needed to maintain the deterrent power
of the original penalties. For example, in November 2002, Congress increased the
previously mentioned $1,000 penalty for possession of a firearm at a baggage
security checkpoint to $10,000 as part of the establishment of the Department of
Homeland Security (P.L. 107-296, Sec. 1602). If fully adjusted for inflation between
1958 (the year the penalty was established) and 2002, it would have increased to
about $6,200.
Legislation introduced in the 110th Congress would adjust certain civil penalties,
or would give agencies more authority to adjust those penalties. For example:
! H.R. 3691, the SAFE Consumer Product Act, was introduced in
September 2007, and would, among other things, eliminate the
statutory maximum civil penalty of $1,250,000 for a series of
violations and allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
determine the penalty maximum.
! H.R. 4626, the CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2007, was introduced
in December 2007, and would, among other things, increase civil
penalties that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission could
impose for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.
Congress has also established other procedures for the adjustment of certain
civil penalties. For example, Section 107 of the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-608) established a five-year civil penalty
inflation adjustment authority and process that, because it is statute-specific,
supercedes the Inflation Adjustment Act’s requirements.28 Similarly, Section 8201
of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-380, codified at 43 U.S.C. §1350) requires
the Secretary of the Interior to adjust a $20,000 civil penalty for inflation “at least
every three years ... to reflect any increases in the Consumer Price Index.” However,
a $25,000 civil penalty established by another section of the same act (Section 4303,
codified at 33 U.S.C. §2716a) has no specific adjustment requirement, and therefore
is covered by the Inflation Adjustment Act’s provisions.29
Amend the Inflation Adjustment Act. Although Congress could continue
to enact legislation adjusting particular civil penalties, or give particular agencies
27 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary, “Civil Monetary Penalties;
Adjustments,” 72 Federal Register 900, Jan. 9, 2007. In 2004, the Department of
Commerce was unable to adjust the $11,000 penalties for inflation. See U.S. Department
of Commerce, Office of the Secretary, “Civil Monetary Penalties; Adjustment for Inflation,”
69 Federal Register 74416, Dec. 14, 2004.
28 Section 107 of the legislation amended Section 20(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act
(15 U.S.C. §2069(a)) and required the Consumer Product Safety Commission to adjust
certain penalties for inflation every five years, and to use specific rounding methods.
29 See U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, “Oil and Gas and
Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf and Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for
Offshore Facilities — Civil Penalties,” 72 Federal Register 8897, Feb. 28, 2007.

CRS-13
their own inflation adjustment procedures, if Congress’s intention is simply to
maintain the penalties’ original punitive and deterrent power, this statute-by-statute
or agency-by-agency approach would appear to be less efficient than just amending
the Inflation Adjustment Act consistent with GAO’s recommendations. On the other
hand, though, if Congress’s intention is to reassess its original decisions with regard
to those penalties, then amendments to the Inflation Adjustment Act would not
accomplish that purpose. Both approaches are also possible; Congress could amend
the act to better enable agencies to keep pace with inflation while examining
individual statutes for possible changes in the base penalties.
Amendments to the Inflation Adjustment Act could address all or only some of
GAO’s recommendations (e.g., requiring catch-up adjustments for penalties affected
by the 10% cap and changing the rounding rules, but continuing to exempt certain
penalties from the act’s requirements). Congress could also continue to allow
agency- or statute-specific procedures to take precedence over the procedures
stipulated in the Inflation Adjustment Act, or Congress could amend the act in such
a way that it would supersede the particularized adjustment procedures and schedules
and put all civil penalties under the same adjustment process.