Analysis of the permitting processes associated with exploration of Federal OCS leases. Final report. Volume II. Appendices Page: 163 of 282
Pages: 277View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
EXHIBIT 6 - (Continued)
4. Some confusion has been generated by the usage of the term
"operator" as used in Title III. The Coast Guard administration of
Title III of Public Law 95-372 is governed by regulations published in
33 CFR Parts 135 and 136. The term "operator," as defined in the
regulations at Section 135.5(a) and 136.5(a), has the same meaning as
it does in the underlying statute. The statute and regulations both
recognize that many possible variations can occur in the ownership and
operations of offshore oil production facilities. The definition of
"operator" within the statute explicity states that the "operator" is
any person, except the owner, who is responsible for the operation of
s:rh facility by agreement with the owner." Liability for oil
pollution removal cost damage is, therefore, tied to ownership of such
facilities and to those who may operate them by agreement with the
owner and is not directly related to ownership of the Outer
Continental Shelf lease site.
5. It is important to distinguish between liability and
certification. Financial responsibility may be assumed by persons
other 'than offers or operators, but only owners or operators (or in
combination) may apply for certificates. Under the statutory and
regulatory scheme, it is possible for the lessee of the seabed lease
to be the operator of. a drilling or well facility ifs he- has no
ownership in that facility. If, however, the holder of the lease- site'
has some ownership in the facility, he is excluded from operator
status by the rems of the statute. The determination of who is the
"operator" must, therefore, be resolved on a case-by-case basis from
the information submitted in the application for certification of
financial responsibility. The lessee of the lease site, even if he is
not the "operator," may act as guarantor or indemnitor of the
facility. Failure, of some owners/operators to apply for certification
may presently be generated by doubt as to facility definition or by
lack of coordination between owner and operator. Initial
identification of facilities is made by the applicant for
certification of financial responsibility. Follow up by the Fund
certification staff will present the Administrator's interpretation of
a structure's status should there be a difference from that submitted
or should there be no application for facilities identified from the
data bank. A hearing under 33 CFR 135.223 may be requested before
final agency action on a structure's status.
2C-i 2
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Analysis of the permitting processes associated with exploration of Federal OCS leases. Final report. Volume II. Appendices, report, November 1, 1980; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1184664/m1/163/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.