FOR RELEASE:  February 16, 1994           CONTACT:   John Barclay
                                                   (202) 208-3983

        THREE FEDERAL AGENCIES SIGN MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING
        ON THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER OIL POLLUTION ACT (#40011)

     The U.S. Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Transportation
(DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have reached an
agreement on the division of regulatory duties mandated by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).

     The Memorandum of Understanding, which became effective Feb.3,
1994, allocates responsibilities including oil spill prevention and
control, response planning, and response equipment inspection for
offshore facilities.  

     The duties will be shared among the agencies based on the
locations of facilities being regulated, with the coast line
marking the boundary.  EPA will be responsible for non-
transportation-related facilities located landward of the coast
line.  The U.S. Coast Guard and the Research and Special Programs
Administration of the DOT will handle transportation-related
facilities, including pipelines, located landward of the coast
line.  The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS)
will be responsible for facilities, including pipelines, located
seaward of the coast line.

     MMS Director Tom Fry noted that the understanding is separate
from MMS's current effort to gather information concerning new
requirements for evidence of financial responsibility for oil
spills, though both issues are covered by the same law.  "This
agreement," he said, "simply spells out specific areas of
responsibility for the agencies involved in regulating the
industry.  It's in line with President Clinton's determination to
create a more streamlined government that works better and costs
less.

     "The result," he said, "will be more efficiency, better
coordination among agencies, stronger protection for the
environment and better service for our stakeholders." 

     Fry said MMS had pressed for the agreement after receiving a
number of comments from the public.  "Without an understanding such
as this," he said, "there was a possibility that four Federal
agencies could have had overlapping responsibilities.  That would
have resulted in confusion and inefficiency."
                              -MMS-
Subject: PR-02/16/94 OPA'90 MOU/3 Fed. Agencies...MOU...OPA'90
Respons. (#40011)