Since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill began on April 20, 2010, Congress has given much attention to the compensatory liability provisions in the Oil Pollution Act. These set out the liability of an oil spill's "responsible parties" for the costs inflicted on others by the oil spill—in particular, cleanup costs and economic damages (such as injury to natural resources, destruction of private property, and loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity). Congress has also addressed the compensatory liability provisions of the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act in connection with the deaths of 11 workers when the Deepwater Horizon platform exploded on April 20. To reiterate, the function of these liability provisions is to compensate those injured; that function determines the dollar amount of the liability. Also discussed in relation to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are federal statutory provisions of a very different nature. These provisions, the topic of this report, impose civil and criminal penalties . Their function is not to compensate, but rather, like all civil and criminal penalties, to punish and/or deter. On June 1, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. Department of Justice had launched a civil and criminal investigation into the Gulf spill, including the deaths of the 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit. Observers have noted that civil and criminal penalties under federal law—leaving aside those under state law —could be substantially greater than responsible party liability for cleanup costs and economic damages. This report summarizes selected federal civil and criminal penalty provisions that may be found violated in connection with the Gulf spill and related worker fatalities. It does not purport to be exhaustive. CRS stresses that it has no knowledge of the facts surrounding the Gulf spill other than what has been publicly reported; hence the provisions listed here are only an informed guess as to those that ultimately may be found violated . That the federal laws listed herein extend to the Gulf spill seems clear, notwithstanding that the spill site is 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana, well beyond the territorial limits of the United States on the Outer Continental Shelf. Except for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act, all the included laws expressly apply beyond the U.S. territorial sea, either out to the limit of the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone at 200 nautical miles offshore, or, as applied to persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, anywhere on the high seas. As for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act broadly declares that the laws of the United States are extended to the subsoil and seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf, "and to all artificial islands, and all installations and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed" to explore for or produce resources. Thus, by one route or the other, the extraterritorial location of the Deepwater Horizon spill is not an obstacle to the imposition of civil and criminal penalties under the covered statutes. At the outset, the reader should note that the penalty ceilings stated in the program statutes listed here may not be the applicable ones. As for civil penalty ceilings, Congress has enacted the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 to ensure that inflation over a long period does not erode the deterrent force of a penalty ceiling. This act requires federal agencies to adjust at least once every four years the maximum (and minimum, if any) dollar amount on civil penalties within their jurisdiction to reflect movement in the Consumer Price Index. It applies whether the civil penalty is administratively or judicially imposed. (The Occupational Safety and Health Act, listed below, is expressly exempted.) Under one statute covered here, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, this inflation-adjustment requirement also is imposed by the individual program statute. By whatever authority imposed, these inflation adjustments to the program-statute maximums are indicated in the following list by the phrase "(adjusted to [dollar amount])." As for ceilings on criminal penalties, the Criminal Fine Improvements Act (CFIA) often applies. This statute, enacted in 1984 and amended in 1987, reflected Congress's sense that some fines in the U.S. Code were too low. The CFIA was intended to substantially increase them. Under this statute, the maximum criminal fine a court may impose may be up to the greater of the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense or various alternative ceilings in the CFIA. For organizations, the CFIA alternative ceilings are (1) the greater of twice any person's gross gain from the offense or twice any non-defendant person's gross loss; (2) for a felony or a misdemeanor resulting in death, $500,000; (3) for a Class A misdemeanor not resulting in death, $200,000; (4) for a Class B or C misdemeanor not resulting in death or for an "infraction," $10,000. For individuals, the penalty caps are half those for organizations. The indicated categories of offenses—Class A, B, and C misdemeanors, and infractions—are defined elsewhere in the U.S. Code based on the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense. There are two circumstances when the CFIA does not, or may not, apply. First, the CFIA says that if a law setting forth an offense explicitly exempts the offense from the CFIA, then the defendant may not be fined more than the caps in that law. None of the statutes discussed in this report contains such a CFIA exemption. Second, a district court has held that CFIA penalty caps do not trump the lower penalty caps in the Endangered Species Act, enacted as they were subsequent to the 1984 and 1987 enactment of the CFIA. Though the Endangered Species Act does not explicitly exempt itself from the CFIA, the court argued convincingly that applying the CFIA cap to override the post-CFIA-amended lower cap would reduce the latter to a nullity, contrary to the rule of statutory construction that a statute should be read to give every word operative effect. At the same time, the court acknowledged that "other courts have summarily stated that [the CFIA] controls over other statutes that do not specifically exempt themselves." It remains to be seen whether this one court's view will win acceptance by other courts, as to the Endangered Species Act specifically or as to smaller-than-CFIA penalty caps enacted post-CFIA generally. Ci vil administrative penalties CWA section 311(b)(6) states that the owner, operator, or person in charge of a vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility who (1) violates the section 311(b)(3) ban on discharging oil in harmful quantities or (2) fails to comply with the National Contingency Plan, may be assessed a Class I or Class II civil penalty by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A Class I penalty may be up to $10,000 (adjusted to $16,000 ) per violation, with a maximum penalty of $25,000 (adjusted to $37,500 ). A Class II penalty also may be up to $10,000 (adjusted to $16,000 ) per day of violation, but with a maximum penalty of $125,000 (adjusted to $177,500 ). In determining the amount of the administrative penalty, CWA section 311(b)(8) states that DHS or EPA shall consider the seriousness of the violation, the economic benefit to the violator, the degree of culpability, past violations, etc. Civil judicial penalties CWA section 311(b)(7) states the following civil penalties for the owner, operator, or person in charge of a vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility: (A) for violating section 311(b)(3)'s ban on discharging oil into covered waters, up to $25,000 (adjusted to $37,500 ) per day of violation, or up to $1,000 (adjusted to $1,100 ) per barrel discharged; (B) for failing without sufficient cause to carry out a removal order by the President, up to $25,000 (adjusted to $37,500 ) per day of violation or up to three times the costs incurred by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund established under the Oil Pollution Act; (C) for failing to comply with the National Contingency Plan, up to $25,000 (adjusted to $37,500 ) per day of violation; and (D) for violating the aforementioned discharge ban as the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct, not less than $100,000 (adjusted to $140,000 ) for the violation, nor more than $3,000 (adjusted to $4,300 ) per barrel discharged. In determining the amount of the judicial penalty, CWA section 311(b)(8) states that the court shall consider the same factors as mentioned above under "Civil administrative penalties." Criminal penalties CWA section 309(c)(1) states that any person who violates the section 311(b)(3) discharge ban: (A) negligently, may be fined $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or imprisoned up to one year, or both. For second and later convictions, such person may be fined up to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisoned up to two years, or both. (B) knowingly , may be fined $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisoned up to three years, or both. For second and later convictions, such person may be fined up to $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisoned up to six years, or both.