The Fifth Circuit Rejects the DOJ’s Attempt to Charge Black Elk Contractors with OCSLA Felonies

by Liskow & Lewis
Contact

In the aftermath of a 2012 platform explosion in the Gulf of Mexico in which three workers were killed, the Department of Justice ultimately indicted the contractors who supervised the work (along with the lease holder, Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC) with violating the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act (“OCSLA”), a felony carrying a maximum penalty of up to ten years imprisonment.  The contractors were also charged with certain misdemeanor Clean Water Act violations.  The contractors moved to dismiss the OCSLA charges on the basis that their conduct – as contractors – was not covered by OCSLA because they were not the lease holder or operator.  The district court agreed and dismissed those charges, after which the government appealed.  Earlier this week, the Fifth Circuit ruled against the government finding that contractors cannot criminally violate these OCSLA regulations.  United States v. Moss, et al, No. 16-30561 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2017).

In 2010, Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC (“Black Elk”) owned and operated a production facility on the West Delta 32 Lease Block located in the Gulf of Mexico.  As is customary for a typical oil and gas operation, Black Elk hired several contractors to perform various tasks on its platforms.  Grand Isle Shipyards, Inc. (“GIS”), for example, provided platform workers, the supervisor of which was Curtis Dantin.  Wood Group PSN, Inc. (“Wood Group”) also provided platform workers and supplied a “Person-in-Charge” of the platform, Christopher Srubar.  Srubar, along with other Wood Group personnel conducted safety inspections on the platforms and were in charge of issuing “hot work” permits for tasks that could emit sparks, such as welding.

In September 2012, Black Elk hired Compass Engineering and Consulting, LLC (“Compass”) to draft construction plans for maintenance on the platforms.  Compass hired Don Moss as an onsite inspector to ensure the plans were being followed properly.  During the installation of a divert valve on the Lease Automatic Custody Transfer unit, a Black Elk manager ordered that certain missing piping be rebuilt, which necessarily involved welding by GIS personnel.  Wood Group issued the hot work permit for this task on November 16, 2010.  That morning, an explosion occurred—the cause of which is still in dispute—killing three men and injuring several others.

Almost three years later, the United States brought criminal indictments against multiple parties.  Among other charges, the contractor parties (GIS, Wood Group, Srubar, Moss, and Dantin) were charged with eight counts of knowing and willful violations of the OCSLA enabling regulations.  See 43 U.S.C. § 1350(c).  The contractors moved to dismiss all counts.  The district court denied all of the motions to dismiss except the contractors’ motions regarding the OCSLA charges, which it granted for failure to state an offense on the grounds that OCSLA did not create criminal liability for contractors.  The government appealed.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit faced a question of statutory interpretation: did OCSLA criminal liability apply to contractors or instead only to lease holders?

The government raised several highly nuanced arguments supporting its interpretation of the statute.  The government asserted that because part of the statute states that “any person” who violates a regulation promulgated under OCSLA is subject to criminal penalties, a contractor – indeed anyone – who violates the regulations may be criminally charged. The Fifth Circuit rejected that interpretation finding that such a reading flies in the face of an explicit limitation found earlier in the statute that limits criminal liability to the lessees and permittees.  Ultimately, however, the Court found it did not need to reach the question of whether that statutory provision triggers criminal liability for contractors because the underlying regulations did not.  Those regulations, which were issued pursuant to OCSLA and formed the basis of the alleged improper conduct, did not apply to contractors.

Turning to the regulations promulgated under OCSLA, the government seized upon a section stating that a lessee and “the person actually performing the activity to which the requirement applies are jointly and severally responsible for complying with the regulation.”  30 C.F.R. § 250.146(C).  This, the government argued, created joint and several criminal liability for contractors.  The Fifth Circuit rejected that interpretation pointing to an earlier section of the regulation that again limits the regulations to a lessee or permit holder.  The Court also voiced skepticism that criminal liability could be based upon a theory of joint and several liability, which is traditionally a civil tort theory.

Fundamentally, the Court ruled that under OCSLA, while the lease holder is criminally liable for the conduct of its contractors (because the lease holder is tasked with ensuring the contractors comply with OCSLA regulations), the statute does not operate in reverse allowing the contractors to be criminally liable by way of the lessee’s liability.  This was purposeful, the Court found, and ensured that “lessees cannot escape responsibility for regulatory compliance by hiring out work to contractors.”  Id. at 13.  Moreover, the Court emphasized that the “virtually non-existent past enforcement of OCSLA regulations against contractors confirms that the regulations were never intended to apply to” contractors.  Id. at 15.

While the Court acknowledged that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) changed its policy following the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 to include contractors within its regulatory sphere, it found that those changes contradicted the agency’s sixty year history of enforcement.  And even if those policy changes were valid in the civil enforcement context (of which the Court was skeptical), the Court ruled that changing criminal law – which carries with it the potential of imprisonment – by such policy adjustments runs afoul of basic due process and fairness.

Also importantly, the Court noted that were the government’s position to prevail, the DOJ itself, without the input of other branches of government, would have significantly changed the commercial landscape in the oil and gas industry for contractors, “who heretofore have had no need to price their services according to regulatory risk; no ability to engage insurance protection for regulatory violations; no need to personally review and apply the exact regulations (because they followed the directives of the designated operator or lessee); and no incentive to impose themselves in the offshore workplace as self-protection against others’ potential regulatory violations.”  Id. at 20.

While this week’s decision may ease offshore contractors’ fears of criminal prosecution under OCSLA, the Fifth Circuit has yet to address BSEE’s civil enforcement of contractor conduct under the agency’s increasingly aggressive civil penalty programId. at 2-3.  In fact, the question of BSEE’s authority to issue civil penalties to offshore contractors is currently before the Fifth Circuit in Island Operating Co., Inc. v. Jewell, a related case which is presently stayed pending resolution of United States v. Moss.  While it is uncertain how the Fifth Circuit will rule in Island Operating, this week’s decision suggests that the court may find that BSEE lacks authority to issue civil penalties to offshore contractors, at least under the agency’s current regulations.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Liskow & Lewis | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Liskow & Lewis
Contact
more
less

Liskow & Lewis on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.