<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Worked: Part II—National Pollution Funds Center and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1852382</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was passed in response to several large oil spills occurring in 1989 and 1990. It provided a more robust federal response to spills, increased the liability of polluters, or responsible parties (RPs), for such spills, and provided for compensation to those that incurred removal costs and damages as a result of these spills. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (the Fund) was established in 1986 and plays a critical role in the OPA regime, paying federal costs for oil removal when a discharge occurs, and reimburses third-party claims for uncompensated removal costs and damages when a responsible party does not pay or is not identified. The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) was created to manage the Fund. The fund carries out two primary functions. First, it is responsible for the adjudication and payment of claims for certain uncompensated removal costs and damages. Second, it administers Congressional appropriations to various federal agencies, including the Coast Guard, responsible for implementation, administration, and enforcement of OPA, and oil spill research and development. Oil spill response capability in Alaska remains a significant concern 30 years after the passing of OPA 90. Alternative planning criteria (APCs) are the regulatory compliance focus since national planning criteria (NPC) is inappropriate for much of the state. Currently, there are five Coast Guard approved APCs in Alaska, but substantial gaps in response capability still exist. The Coast Guard has established the Maritime Oil Spill Response Plan Advisory Group (MORPAG) to evaluate the Vessel Response Plan (VRP) program and make recommendations for policy and other changes to improve the program.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2021 12:38:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1852382</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>U.S. Coast Guard National Pollution Funds Center: Improved Controls Needed for Oil Removal Disbursements and Action Needed for Sustainable Funding</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1368885</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 included a provision for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the Coast Guard's National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC). This report addresses the extent to which (1) NPFC has designed and implemented internal controls over damage claim and oil removal disbursements to reasonably assure that amounts are appropriately disbursed from the Fund; (2) NPFC has designed and implemented internal controls to reasonably assure that responsible parties are designated and billed, as appropriate, for disbursements from the Fund that are over $500,000; and (3) the Fund was reimbursed for damage claim and oil removal costs in fiscal years 2011 through 2013. GAO also reviewed the Fund’s primary source of revenues. GAO obtained and analyzed data on damage claim and oil removal disbursements from fiscal years 2011 through 2013. GAO also obtained and analyzed data on billings and collections for fiscal years 2011 through August 2014 in order to determine which disbursements had been billed and paid. GAO reviewed relevant policies and procedures and interviewed officials and staff at the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Congress should consider options for sustaining the Fund, as well as the optimal level of funding, to address uncertainty regarding future funding. In addition, GAO is making several recommendations to improve the U.S. Coast Guard’s internal controls for oil removal disbursements from the Fund. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with the recommendations and described actions taken or planned for each recommendation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:17:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1368885</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Oil Pollution Act (OPA) Liability Limits: Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2009</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214055</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report is the third annual update to the report submitted on January 5, 2007 pursuant to section 603(c) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (CG&MT Act), P.L. 109-241.  The report includes: (1) An analysis of the extent to which oil discharges from vessels and non-vessel sources have resulted or are likely to result in removal costs and damages, as defined in the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), for which no defense to liability exists and that exceed the liability limits established in OPA as amended by section 603 of the CG&MT Act.  (2) An analysis of the impacts that claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ("the Fund") for amounts exceeding such liability limits will have on the Fund.  (3) Recommendations, based on the above analyses and other factors impacting the Fund, on whether the liability limits need to be adjusted in order to prevent the principal of the Fund from declining to levels that are likely to be insufficient to cover expected claims.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:54:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214055</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Oil Pollution Act Liability Limits in 2011: Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report to Congress</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214396</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report is the fifth annual update to the report submitted on January 5, 2007 pursuant to section 603(c) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (CG&MT Act), P.L. 109-241. The report includes: (1) An analysis of the extent to which oil discharges from vessels and non-vessel sources have resulted or are likely to result in removal costs and damages, as defined in the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), for which no defense to liability exists and that exceed the liability limits established in OPA as amended by section 603 of the CG&MT Act. (2) An analysis of the impacts that claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ("the Fund") for amounts exceeding such liability limits will have on the Fund. (3) Recommendations, based on the above analyses and other factors impacting the Fund, on whether the liability limits need to be adjusted in order to prevent the principal of the Fund from declining to levels that are likely to be insufficient to cover expected claims.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:54:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214396</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Oil Pollution Act (OPA) Liability Limits: Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Congress</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214394</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report is the fourth annual update to the report submitted on January 5, 2007 pursuant to section 603(c) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (CG&MT Act), P.L. 109-241. The report includes: (1) An analysis of the extent to which oil discharges from vessels and non-vessel sources have resulted or are likely to result in removal costs and damages, as defined in the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), for which no defense to liability exists and that exceed the liability limits established in OPA as amended by section 603 of the CG&MT Act. (2) An analysis of the impacts that claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ("the Fund") for amounts exceeding such liability limits will have on the Fund. (3) Recommendations, based on the above analyses and other factors impacting the Fund, on whether the liability limits need to be adjusted in order to prevent the principal of the Fund from declining to levels that are likely to be insufficient to cover expected claims.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:54:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214394</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Maritime Transportation: Major Oil Spills Occur Infrequently, but Risks Remain. Testimony</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/842228</link>
      <description><![CDATA[When oil spills occur in U.S. waters, federal law places primary liability on the vessel owner or operator—that is, the responsible party—up to a statutory limit. As a supplement to this “polluter pays” approach, a federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund administered by the Coast Guard pays for costs when a responsible party does not or cannot pay. This testimony is based on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO’s) September 2007 report on oil spill costs and select program updates on the recent San Francisco spill. Specifically, it answers three questions: (1) How many major spills (i.e., at least $1 million) have occurred since 1990, and what is their total cost? (2) What factors affect the cost of spills? and (3) What are the implications of major oil spills for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund? On the basis of cost information collected from a variety of sources, GAO estimates that 51 spills with costs of at least $1 million have occurred from 1990 to 2006 and that responsible parties and the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund) have spent between $860 million and $1.1 billion for oil spill removal costs and compensation for damages (e.g., lost profits and natural resource damages). Since removal costs and damage claims may stretch out over many years, the costs of the spills could rise. The 51 spills varied greatly from year to year in number and cost. All vessel types were involved with the 51 major spills GAO identified, with cargo/freight vessels and tank barges involved with 30 of the 51 spills. According to industry and agency officials, three main factors affect the cost of spills: a spill’s location, the time of year, and the type of oil spilled. Spills that occur in remote areas, for example, can increase costs involved in mobilizing responders and equipment. Similarly, a spill occurring during tourist or fishing season might produce substantial compensation claims, while a spill occurring during another time of year may not be as costly. The type of oil affects costs in various ways: fuels like gasoline or diesel fuel may dissipate quickly but are extremely toxic to fish and plants, while crude oil is less toxic but harder to clean up. The total costs of the recent San Francisco oil spill are unknown, but these identified factors are likely to influence the costs. To date, the Fund has been able to cover costs from major spills that responsible parties have not paid, but risks remain. Specifically, GAO’s analysis shows that the new 2006 limits of liability for tank barges remain low relative to the average cost of such spills. Since 1990, the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) required that liability limits be adjusted above the limits set forth in statute for significant increases in inflation, but such changes have never been made. Not making such adjustments between 1990 and 2006 potentially shifted an estimated $39 million in costs from responsible parties to the Fund. In its September 2007 report, GAO recommended that that the Coast Guard (1) determine whether and how liability limits should be changed, by vessel type, and make recommendations about these changes to the Congress and (2) adjust the limits of liability for vessels every 3 years to reflect significant changes in inflation, as appropriate.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:25:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/842228</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Maritime Transportation: Major Oil Spills Occur Infrequently, but Risks to the Federal Oil Spill Fund Remain</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/836035</link>
      <description><![CDATA[When oil spills occur in U.S. waters, federal law places primary liability on the vessel owner or operator—that is, the responsible party—up to a statutory limit. As a supplement to this “polluter pays” approach, a federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund administered by the Coast Guard pays for costs when a responsible party does not or cannot pay. The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 directed the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine spills that cost the responsible party and the Fund at least $1 million. This report answers three questions: (1) How many major spills (i.e., $1 million or more) have occurred since 1990, and what is their total cost? (2) What factors affect the cost of spills? and (3) What are the implications of major oil spills for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund? On the basis of cost information collected from a variety of sources, GAO estimates that 51 spills with costs above $1 million have occurred since 1990 and that responsible parties and the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund) have spent between about $860 million and $1.1 billion for oil spill removal costs and compensation for damages (e.g., lost profits and natural resource damages). Responsible parties paid between about 72 percent and 78 percent of these costs; the Fund has paid the remainder. Since removal costs and damage claims may stretch out over many years, the costs of the spills could rise. The 51 spills, which constitute about 2 percent of all vessel spills since 1990, varied greatly from year to year in number and cost. Three main factors affect the cost of spills: a spill’s location, the time of year, and the type of oil spilled. Spills that occur in remote areas, for example, can increase costs involved in mobilizing responders and equipment. Similarly, a spill occurring during tourist or fishing season might produce substantial compensation claims, while a spill occurring during another time of year may not be as costly. The type of oil affects costs in various ways: fuels like gasoline or diesel fuel may dissipate quickly but are extremely toxic to fish and plants, while crude oil is less toxic but harder to clean up. Each spill’s cost reflects a unique mix of these factors. To date, the Fund has been able to cover costs from major spills that responsible parties have not paid, but risks remain. Specifically, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 increased liability limits, but GAO’s analysis shows the new limit for tank barges remains low relative to the average cost of such spills. Since 1990, the Oil Pollution Act required that liability limits be adjusted above the limits set forth in statute for significant increases in inflation, but such changes have never been made. Not making such adjustments between 1990 and 2006 potentially shifted an estimated $39 million in costs from responsible parties to the Fund. GAO recommends that the Coast Guard (1) determine whether and how liability limits should be changed, by vessel type, and make recommendations about these changes to the Congress and (2) adjust the limits of liability for vessels every 3 years to reflect changes in inflation, as appropriate.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:01:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/836035</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Report on Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/756010</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report is provided pursuant to section 707 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, P.L. 108-293, 118 Stat. 1076. Section 707 calls on the Coast Guard to report on the implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), including: 1. The status of the level of funds currently in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and projections for level of funds over the next 5 years, including a detailed accounting of expenditures of funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 by all agencies that receive such funds. 2. The domestic and international implications of changing the phase-out date for single hull vessels pursuant to section 3703a of title 46 U.S.C., from 2015 to 2010. 3. The costs and benefits of requiring vessel monitoring systems on tank vessels used to transport oil or other hazardous cargo, and of using additional aids to navigation, such as RACONs. 4. A summary of the extent to which the response costs and damages for oil spills have exceeded the liability limits established in section 1004 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704), and a description of the steps that the Coast Guard has taken or plans to take to implement subsection (d)(4) of that section. 5. A summary of manning, inspection, and other safety issues for tank barges and towing vessels used in connection with them.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 08:38:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/756010</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VIEWS AND ESTIMATES OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FY 2002</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/672861</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure presents its views on the Administration's FY 2002 budget proposal.  The detailed views and estimates urge that the Congressional budget resolution meet the important needs discussed to improve the nation's infrastructure and transportation safety and ensure that vital services are maintained.  The Committee believes that many of these needs can be met by allowing the Transportation Trust Funds to spend all revenues that they take in, and that adhering to this principle will permit the improvement of our decaying infrastructure, without requiring significant general fund expenditures. Following an overview and brief conclusion, the views and estimates are organized and presented by subcommittee as follows:  Aviation; Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation; Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management; Highways and Transit (includes Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation); Railroads; and Water Resources and Environment.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/672861</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>QUANTITATIVE RISK OF OIL TANKER GROUNDINGS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/478870</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The culture, design, and operation of the maritime industry all contribute to create an error-inducing system.  As oil tankers have become larger, the tolerance for error has decreased as the consequences have increased.  Tankers are the largest contributor by vessel type to worldwide oil spill volume.  Human error has consistently been attributed to 80% of the maritime accidents.  A closer look reveals that many accidents attributed to human error are system errors.  In fact, the term human error is unwarranted in many high-risk accidents and its use is a perforation of the context.  The maritime industry has been identified as a high risk operation, requiring an active risk management program.  A probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) provides a formal process of determining the full range of possible adverse occurrences, probabilities, and expected costs for any undesirable event.  A PRA can identify those areas that offer the greatest risk-reducing potential.  This thesis focuses on the first level of a proposed three-level risk model to determine the probability of a tanker grounding.  The approach utilizes fault trees and event trees and incorporates the Human Error Rate Prediction data to quantify individual errors.  The result allows the identification of high-leverage factors in order to determine the most effective and efficient use of resources to reduce the probability of grounding; showing that the development of the Electronic Chart Display and Information System incorporated with the International Safety Management Code can significantly reduce the probability of grounding.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/478870</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SLIKTRAK--A COMPUTER SIMULATION OF OFFSHORE OIL SPILLS, CLEANUP, EFFECTS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS PROCEEDINGS OIL SPILL CONF., NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, MARCH 8-10, 1977</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/73568</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The computer program simulates the continued creation of an oil spill and applies weather data to predict movements of each day's spillage for successive days at sea and quantities of oil left after each day until the oil either disappears or reaches a coastline.  Cumulative probability curves for the oil volumes cleaned up, oil arriving at specified shores, and total costs are produced by random selection of input variables such as well location, weather data, and the possibility of well bridging, and repetition of simulated spill incidents over a large number of cycles. Traceplots of individual spills can be generated.  Results of a study based on the North Sea area are presented, and further development of the program is discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 1989 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/73568</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS IN ARAB PORTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/165976</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The paper discusses the legal limits of port authorities, applicable law, congestion, arrest/detention of ships, handling of dangerous goods, handling of chemicals and gas carriers, oil pollution, port traffic control, liability of port authorities, and liability for damage caused by vessels.  Order from NSFI as No. 21083.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/165976</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PROCEEDINGS: WORKSHOP ON REDUCING TANKBARGE POLLUTION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/156439</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This workshop provided an information source for MTRB's Committee on Reducing Tankbarge Pollution and a forum for all interested parties to discuss the Coast Guard's proposals for reducing tankbarge pollution.  The workshop was divided into five groups with the following topics: Congressional Mandates; Technical Options; Personnel; Operating environment; and Insurance, Liabilities, and Penalties.  Each group was instructed to focus on the various ways of reducing tankbarge pollution and the problems and costs of each.  The Congressional Mandates group was asked to look at all congressional mandates that interact with barge transportation, in addition to the environmental mandates.  The papers in these Proceedings present a cross-section of the views, issues, and costs of reducing tankbarge pollution.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/156439</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE PROPOSED IMCO CONVENTION ON LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE CARRIAGE OF NOXIOUS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES BY SEA</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/154343</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In order to consider the subject of liability in any detail, one has to look at the relevant history of recent years. That history is of the development of unprecedented voluntary and legal arrangements for the compensation of Governments and other "persons" harmed by oil pollution, and widespread discussions of the possibility of extending those arrangements to include pollution by other cargoes.  The "oil" arrangements have to be looked at first in order to understand the possible "HPS" (Hazardous Polluting Substances) arrangements.  This paper is therefore divided into sections.  (1) The "TORREY CANYON" and its effects. (2) The 1969 Oil Civil Liability Convention.  (3) The 1969 Intervention Convention.  (4) The Fund Convention. (5) TOVALO. (6) CRISTAL.  (7) MARPOL 73 and pollutants other than oil. (8) Compensation for HPS Pollution.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/154343</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PROCEEDINGS OF CONFERENCE ON OIL TANKER TRANSPORTATION: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY AND PRACTICE HELD AT GEORGETOWN, SOUTH CAROLINA ON 8-10 NOVEMBER 1978</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/150568</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Partial Contents: The Role of the Tanker Industry in Transport of Energy Resources--Crude Oil and The Energy Crisis, What is the Tanker Industry, Tanker Demand Models; Protection of the Marine Environment--Marine Pollution-How Big a Problem, Environmental and Socioeconomic Effects of Oil Pollution Incidents; Pollution Prevention Initiatives and Tankers--California State Activities Related to Tanker Safety and Pollution Abatement, The Environment and Navigational Freedoms, Sources of Initiatives Designed to Prevent Pollution by Tankers; Overview of Transportation of Oil and Natural Gas by Tankers in Alaskan Waters; and Impact of New Laws and Regulations on the Tanker Industry--Pollution Prevention Rules and Tankers-Putting Requirements into Practice, Liability and Damage Compensation for Tanker Oil Spills, New Technology in Shipping Crude Oil and Refined Products.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/150568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>