PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.2693 / 111th Congress

Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Official summary

Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 21, 2010

Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to revise provisions concerning the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research, including by: (1) revising the structure of the committee so that its membership consists of representatives from the Coast Guard, the Department of Commerce, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and (2) requiring the Committee to collaborate with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Directs the Committee to: (1) ensure that research, development, and demonstration efforts are coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis; (2) meet at least once per year to plan the program's activities; and (3) determine whether the program is producing new or improved methods and technologies to prevent, detect, respond to, contain, and mitigate oil discharge.

Requires the Committee, acting through NOAA, to develop a national information clearinghouse on oil discharge that: (1) includes scientific information and research on preparedness, response, and restoration; and (2) serves as a single electronic access and input point for federal agencies, emergency responders, and the research community for such information.

Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.

Read full official summaryShow less

(Sec. 3) Requires the Committee to submit to Congress a plan for the implementation of the oil pollution research, development, and demonstration program at least every five years.

Revises provisions concerning oil pollution research and technology plans, including by requiring such plans to identify: (1) regional oil pollution research needs, including natural seeps and pollution resulting from importing oil; (2) the information needed to conduct risk assessment and risk analysis research to effectively prevent oil discharges; and (3) a methodology that provides for the solicitation, evaluation, preapproval, funding, and utilization of technologies and research projects developed by the public and private sector in advance of future oil discharges and ensures that such technologies are readily available for rapid testing and potential deployment and that research projects can be implemented during an incident response.

Requires the Committee Chair to solicit advice in the development of the research plan from the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, the National Institute of Standards and Technology on issues relating to quality assurance and standards measurements, third party standard-setting organizations on issues relating to voluntary consensus standards, and the public.

(Sec. 4) Requires the oil pollution research, development, and demonstration program to provide for research, development, and demonstration of new or improved technologies which are effective in preventing, detecting, containing, recovering, or mitigating (currently preventing or mitigating) oil discharges and which protect the environment, including technologies and methods to address oil discharge on land and in inland waters, coastal areas, offshore areas, and polar and other icy areas and modeling and simulation capabilities that can be used to facilitate effective recovery and containment of oil discharge during incident response. Revises provisions concerning the evaluation of such technologies, including requiring the evaluation of oil pollution prevention, containment, and mitigation technologies.

Requires the Committee, in establishing a research program to monitor and scientifically evaluate the environmental effects of oil discharge (including long-term effects), to act through the Administrator of NOAA. Revises requirements for program elements, including by requiring the program to include: (1) the preparation of scientific monitoring and evaluation plans for ecologically sensitive areas at particular risk from oil discharges to be implemented in the event of major oil discharges in such area; (2) the use of both onshore and offshore air quality monitoring to study the effects of an oil discharge and oil discharge cleanup technologies on air quality and making the results, health, and safety warnings readily available to the public; and (3) research on technologies, methods, and standards for protecting removal personnel and for volunteers who may participate in incident responses.

Requires the Committee, acting through the Administrator of NOAA (currently the Department of Commerce), to monitor and scientifically evaluate the long-term environmental effects of oil discharges under certain circumstances.

Removes requirements that the Coast Guard conduct port oil pollution minimization demonstration projects with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana.

Requires oil pollution technology testing and evaluations to be given priority over all other activities performed at the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank Research Center in New Jersey.

Requires peer-review of grants to research institutions for conducting a research program related to the regional aspects of oil pollution. Requires the Committee, in carrying out such research grant program, to consider awarding grants to Minority Serving Institutions. Authorizes appropriations for such program for FY2011-FY2015.

(Sec. 5) Requires the Committee to engage in international cooperation by: (1) harnessing global expertise through collaborative partnerships including with nongovernmental organizations and private sector companies; and (2) leveraging capital, technology, expertise, and services towards innovative models that can be instituted to conduct collaborative oil pollution research, development, and demonstration activities.

(Sec. 6) Requires the Chair to report to Congress on the Committee's activities and the National Academy of Science's recommendations on the research plan concurrently with the President's annual budget request submission.

(Sec. 7) Requires the Chair to establish the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee to: (1) review, advise, and comment on Interagency Committee activities; and (2) submit biennial reports to Congress on the Interagency Committee's function, activities, and progress.

(Sec. 8) Increases the maximum amount that may be authorized for the oil pollution research, development, and demonstration program from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Authorizes appropriations to NOAA to carry out this Act and appropriations for FY2011-FY2014 for demonstration projects.

(Sec. 9) Requires any entity that receives federal funding for research, the methodologies or results of which may be useful for response activities in the event of an oil discharge incident, to make such methodologies or results of such research available to the Interagency Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act).

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6] · D–CA

Committees

  • Homeland Security Committee
  • Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
  • Science, Space, and Technology Committee
4 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

  2. Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  3. On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5869-5871)

  4. Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5869-5871)

  5. DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2693.

  6. Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5869-5874)

  7. Mr. Gordon (TN) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

  8. Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 316.

  9. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-553.

  10. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-553.

  11. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  12. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

  13. Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .

  14. Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  15. Subcommittee Hearings Held.

  16. Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

  17. Referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.

  18. Introduced in House

  19. Introduced in House

  20. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Prior to Introduction and Referral.

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.2693 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.2693 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.2693 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.2693 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.

View full prompt & sources