15 C.F.R. § 990.10

Purpose

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The goal of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., is to make the environment and public whole for injuries to natural resources and services resulting from an incident involving a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil (incident).

This goal is achieved through the return of the injured natural resources and services to baseline and compensation for interim losses of such natural resources and services from the date of the incident until recovery. The purpose of this part is to promote expeditious and cost-effective restoration of natural resources and services injured as a result of an incident. To fulfill this purpose, this part provides a natural resource damage assessment process for developing a plan for restoration of the injured natural resources and services and pursuing implementation or funding of the plan by responsible parties. This part also provides an administrative process for involving interested parties in the assessment, a range of assessment procedures for identifying and evaluating injuries to natural resources and services, and a means for selecting restoration actions from a reasonable range of alternatives.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2008–2016 · leading case: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Apex Oil Co., 113 F. Supp. 3d 807 (D. Maryland 2015).
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Apex Oil Co., 113 F. Supp. 3d 807 (D. Maryland 2015). “§ 4-403 ("It is the purpose of this subtitle to provide additional and cumulative remedies to prevent, abate, and control the pollution of the waters of the State”); 15 C.F.R. § 990.10 ("The goal of the [OPA] .”
Gulf Restoration Network v. Jewell, 161 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (S.D. Ala. 2016). “1997); 15 C.F.R. § 990.10 et seq. If the trustees determine that an oil discharge caused injury to natural resources and that restoration is required, they must “identiffy] a ‘reasonable range’ of restoration alternatives, evaluating them against several factors, including cost,…”
United States v. M/V Cosco Busan, 557 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2008). “…it is not relevant to Defendants’ Motion. 4 . The NRDA is provided for in regulations promulgated under OPA. See 15 C.F.R. § 990.10 et seq.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.