PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 15, 2003
Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2003 - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to distribute to States at least 80 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to pay the reasonable costs incurred under cooperative agreements of: (1) certain corrective actions and compensation programs; (2) directly related administrative expenses; or (3) enforcement of State or local requirements regulating underground storage tanks (USTs). Allows undistributed funds to be used for enforcing UST regulations. Requires the Administrator or a State with an approved program to require compliance inspections of USTs at least once every two years.Directs the Administrator to publish operator training guidelines and States to develop and implement a training strategy consistent with stated requirements.Authorizes the use of funds made available for the petroleum response program to carry out corrective actions with respect to methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) releases. Requires implementation reports by any Federal or State agency responsible for USTs. Authorizes a State or the Administrator to prohibit the delivery of regulated substances (motor fuels) to non-compliant tanks. Provides temporary relief for certain tanks in remote locations. Includes underground storage tank systems and release response activity (as well as underground storage tanks) that are under Federal jurisdiction under the UST control and abatement requirements. Requires implementation reports by any Federal agency responsible for USTs which list the USTs and describe compliance actions. Requires the Administrator and Indian Tribes to correct UST releases on Indian lands.Permits States to establish requirements more stringent than the Federal requirements.
People & committees
Rep. Burr, Richard [R-NC-5] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2733 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2733 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2733 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2733 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.