PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 326.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 29, 2010
Oil Spill Accountability and Environmental Protection Act of 2010 - Amends the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to: (1) repeal the limitation on the liability of the responsible party for an offshore facility for damages and removal costs that result from a discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the U.S. exclusive economic zone; (2) increase the amount of financial responsibility required for offshore facilities to $1.5 billion; (3) make responsible parties for vessels or facilities from which oil is discharged liable for damages to human health; and (4) authorize the President to require a responsible party to provide information about claims in the event of a spill of national significance.
Repeals provisions of the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 that limit the liability of the owner of a vessel from claims, debt, or liability to the value of the vessel and pending freight.
Amends the Death on the High Seas Act to allow a civil action in law to benefit a decedent's survivors for the death of an individual that is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond three nautical miles from the U.S. shore. Amends the Jones Act to authorize a decedent's survivors to recover fair compensation for nonpecuniary losses and the decedent's pain and suffering.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits the exploration, development, or production of resources in, on, above, or below the exclusive economic zone to vessels owned by U.S. citizens.
Sets forth provisions concerning safety management systems and standards for mobile offshore drilling units. Requires the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to designate positions to be in the Coast Guard's marine safety workforce to perform vessel and marine casualty investigations.
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to revoke the President's authorization to allow tank vessels and facilities to operate without a plan to respond to the discharge of oil or hazardous substances. Requires the President to: (1) issue a revised regulation for the development of the schedule for the use of dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances; (2) undertake a rulemaking concerning standards for ceasing and removing a worst case discharge of oil or a hazardous substance and for mitigating or preventing a substantial threat of such discharge; (3) create a database to track all discharges of oil or hazardous substances; and (4) delegate specified responsibilities with respect to oil discharges to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, and the Secretary of Transportation (DOT). Revises provisions concerning: (1) responses to discharges of oil or hazardous substances by vessels and facilities; and (2) penalties for such discharges.
Requires a pipeline facility operator in an area affected by a disaster to notify the Secretary of Transportation of changes to the operational status of such facility within 12 hours of cessation of the disaster.
Requires the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling to develop recommendations for: (1) improvements to federal laws, regulations, and industry practices applicable to offshore drilling to ensure effective oversight, inspection, monitoring, and response capabilities and protect human and occupational health and safety and the environment; and (2) reforms of federal agencies or processes to ensure that such improvements are implemented and maintained.
Requires the Comptroller General to report on the employment during the preceding year of individuals who were Coast Guard officials in the previous five-year period by recognized organizations contracted to administer maritime programs for foreign flag administrations.
People & committees
Rep. Oberstar, James L. [D-MN-8] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 326.
Committee on Natural Resources discharged.
Committee on Natural Resources discharged.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 111-567, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 111-567, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1244-1246)
Referred to House Natural Resources
Referred to House Judiciary
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure
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: Apr 7, 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.5629 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.5629 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.5629 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.5629 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.