## Facts

- Apex Oil Company (Apex) was a Missouri corporation engaged in the transportation and storage of fuel oil and operated onshore oil-storage facilities in the St. Louis, Missouri area.
- Oil was discharged from Apex’s onshore facilities into waters covered by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act’s oil-spill provisions.
- Apex employees became aware of the discharges.
- Apex did not immediately notify the appropriate agency of the United States Government after the discharges were known, as required by 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(5).
- The United States charged Apex in a three-count indictment alleging violations of § 1321(b)(5) based on failures to report separate discharges.
- Count one was dismissed on the government’s motion, and Apex proceeded to trial on counts two and three.
- Apex was convicted on counts two and three.
- The district court imposed a total fine of $20,000 and three years’ probation, staying execution of $15,000 of the fine on the condition that Apex commit no further pollution-related violations during probation.
- Apex appealed, arguing (1) a corporation cannot be prosecuted as a “person in charge” under § 1321(b)(5) and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether a corporation that owns and operates an onshore facility may be prosecuted as a “person in charge” under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(5) for failing to report a known oil discharge.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Apex, through the knowledge and actions of its employees and agents, knew of the discharges and failed to give immediate notice to the proper federal agency.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Apex’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held that a corporation may qualify as a “person in charge” within the meaning of § 1321(b)(5).
- The court held that the evidence permitted the jury to find Apex was in charge of the facilities, had the required knowledge through its personnel, and failed to provide immediate notice.

## Legal Principles

- Under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(7), “person” includes a corporation; therefore, the reporting duty in § 1321(b)(5) may apply to a corporate entity when it is “in charge” of an onshore facility.
- The phrase “person in charge” is not limited to natural persons; it can include the owner-operator responsible for the facility’s operations and compliance with spill-reporting obligations.
- A corporation acts through its employees and agents and may be held criminally liable for statutory violations based on acts and omissions within the scope of their duties, including failures to carry out mandatory reporting.
- For § 1321(b)(5), the government may prove knowledge and failure to report by showing that responsible employees learned of the discharge and that the corporation did not ensure immediate notice to the proper federal agency.
- Interpreting § 1321(b)(5) to include corporate operators serves the statute’s function of securing rapid governmental notice of oil discharges so response actions can be initiated without delay.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Apex Oil Company’s convictions for failing to immediately report known oil discharges under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(5), holding that a corporation operating an onshore facility can be a “person in charge” and that the jury could find Apex had knowledge through its employees and did not provide the required immediate notice.


Apex Oil Company v. United States, 530 F.2d 1291 (1976)