3

On July 10, 2019, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Marine Safety Detachment (MSD) Fort 

Macon responded to the incident in its capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the 

incident. The FOSC contacted the homeowner, Mr. , who indicated the vessel owner, Mr. 

, was a former renter of the property.At 1522 hours, the homeowner contacted MSD Fort Macon 

to notify Coast Guard that the vessel owner was on scene.11

FOSC personnel arrived on scene at 1526 hours and issued a Notice of Federal Interest to Mr. 

.

12 On July 10, 2019, the RP signed a contract with Atlantic Coast Marine Group, “Doing 

Business as” (dba) Tow Boat US,13 to remove the vessel and cleanup the oil discharge.14 The FOSC 

monitored all cleanup activities.15 

 

Responsible Party 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner/operator of the source which caused the 

oil spill is the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.16 The FOSC identified Mr. as the 

owner of the Lady Di III.17 The NPFC issued a Responsible Party Notification Letter to the RP on 

December 14, 2021.18 The NPFC has received no response from Mr. . Mr. also has not 

responsed to ACMG regarding payment of the invoiced costs. 

Recovery Operations 

On July 10, 2019, Mr. hired ACMG and signed a contract with ACMG dba Tow Boat US, to 

assist with cleanup of the oil spill and removal of the vessel.19 ACMG arrived on-site and began oil 

cleanup and vessel removal operations on December 17, 2019. 

 

ACMG boomed off the area surrounding the Lady Di III and deployed absorbents to remove the 

discharged oil.20 The FOSC confirmed that not all fuel was removed by ACMG due to non-payment by 

the RP.21 The FOSCR agreed with ACMG leaving all contaminated absorbent materials inside the vessel 

for the RP to dispose of along with the remainder of the fuel that Mr. was directed to remove by 

the FOSC.22 The RP was ordered to remove all remaining fuel and mitigate the threat. Removal of the 

vessel and all oils was completed on July 10, 2019. 

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

 

11 USCG Investigator statement dated July 10, 2019. 

12 Notice of Federal Interest dated July 10, 2019. 

13 See, North Carolina Certificates of Assumed Name state filing information. 

14 ACMG Standard Form Marine Salvage Contract dated July 10, 2019. 

15 USCG Investigator statement dated July 10, 2019. 

16 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 

17 Notice of Federal Interest dated July 10, 2019. 

18 RP Notification Letter dated December 14, 2021. 

19 ACMG Standard Form Marine Salvage Contract dated July 10, 2019. 

20 Original Claim Submission dated November 10, 2021. 

21 Email from FOSC dated December 22, 2021 providing FOSC coordination of actions performed by ACMG. 

22 USCG Investigator statement dated July 10, 2019. 

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
4

Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(OPA)23 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the responsible party before 

seeking compensation from the NPFC.24

ACMG submitted its request for compensation to Mr. for $4,368.77 on July 11, 2019.2526

ACMG has received no response or payment from the RP.27

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC: 

 When a RP denies payment on a claim or fails to reply to a request for compensation within 90 days 

of the claims receipt, a claimant may elect to present its claim to the NPFC.28 ACMG submitted its costs 

to the RP on July 11, 2019, and has received no reply from the RP. On December 7, 2021, the NPFC 

received a claim for $4,368.77 from ACMG, dated November 10, 2021.29

ACMG provided the NPFC with a contract agreement signed by both the Claimant and the RP, an 

invoice associated with the costs claimed, photo documentation of the spill incident and a fully filled-out, 

signed and dated copy of an OSLTF form. 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

 The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund (OSLTF).30 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a brief statement explaining 

its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement. 

 When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this role, the 

NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and evidence obtained 

independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining the facts of the claim.31

The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, or conclusions reached by other 

entities.32 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the NPFC makes a determination as to what 

evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, and makes its determination based on the 

preponderance of the credible evidence. 

V. DISCUSSION: 

 OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where the 

responsible party has failed to do so. Removal costs are defined as “the costs of removal that are incurred 

 

23 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 

24 33 CFR 136.103(c)(1). 

25 Original Claim Submission dated November 10, 2021. 

26 Email from Claimants Legal Representative to the NPFC dated January 4, 2022. 

27 See, OSLTF Claim Form, question #6 dated November 10, 2021. 

28 33 CFR 136.103. 

29 Original Claim Submission received December 7, 2021. 

30 33 CFR Part 136. 

31 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)).

32 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them). 

(b) (6)
5

after a discharge of oil has occurred or, in any case in which there is a substantial threat of a discharge of 

oil, the costs to prevent, minimize, or mitigate oil pollution from an incident.”33 The term “remove” or 

“removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from water and shorelines or the taking of other 

actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, 

but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”34 

 The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP).35 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.36 The claimant bears 

the burden of providing all evidence, information, and documentation deemed relevant and necessary by 

the Director of the NPFC, to support and properly process the claim.37

 Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the incident; 

(b) That the removal costs were incurred as a result of these actions; 

(c) That the actions taken were directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan.38

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.39

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that the majority of costs incurred and 

submitted by ACMG herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation 

provided. All costs approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the appropriate rate sheet 

pricing and all costs were supported by adequate documentation which included invoices and/or proof of 

payment where applicable. 

The amount of compensable costs is $4,200.00, while $168.77 is deemed non-compensable for the 

following reasons: 

1. ACMG submitted a Standard Form Marine Salvage Contract signed by the Responsible Party; 

Mr. ,

40 in support of the costs submitted with the claim.41 The contract specifies 

ACMG will perform salvaging of discharged fuel on a no cure/no pay agreement for the fixed 

rate of $4,200.00. ACMG invoiced $4,368.77 in costs associated with the fuel spill cleanup from 

the sunken vessel on July 10, 2019.42 In accordance with the terms of the contract agreement 

between ACMG and the RP for fixed rate price of $4,200.00, the NPFC approves payment of 

$4,200.00 for the response costs determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the NCP43, but 

denies payment of all additional unsupported costs, totaling $168.77. 

Overall Denied Costs: $168.77 

 

33 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 

34 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 

35 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 

36 33 CFR Part 136. 

37 33 CFR 136.105. 

38 USCG Investigator statement dated July 10, 2019. 

39 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 

40 ACMG Standard Form Marine Salvage Contract, dated July 10, 2019. 

41 Original Claim Submission dated November 10, 2021. 

42 ACMG Invoice #2019-S0656 dated July 11, 2019. 

43 FOSC coordination statement letter dated December 22, 2021. 

(b) (6)