MI Ballast Water Statute Upheld

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld the permit requirement of the Michigan Ballast Water Statute as a valid exercise of state authority.

Plaintiff ship owners, shipping associations, port terminal, and port association had challenged the permit requirement and treatment system requirement of the state statute, asserting that they were preempted by federal law and violated the United States Constitution. The federal district court disagreed with these contentions and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s appealed. The appellate court looked first at the standing of each of the plaintiffs. It recognized that the ship owners and shipping associations were directly impacted by the state law, but found that the other plaintiffs were not affected and thus lacked standing to challenge the law.

The court then examined the pleadings and found them wanting as to the challenge against the treatment system requirement. This requirement provides that each ship that intends to discharge ballast water during port operations in the state must treat its ballast water with an approved system prior to such discharge. In the pleadings, though, plaintiffs never alleged that any of their vessels would discharge ballast water into waters of the state of Michigan. Therefore, the court found that the plaintiff ship owners and shipping associations lacked standing to challenge the treatment system requirement because their vessels would not be covered by its provisions.

Finally, the court held that the state permit requirement was not preempted by federal law and that the state requirement was not barred by the US Constitution. The court noted that the state permit requirement was not onerous, requiring only the payment of $225 in fees and completion of several forms. In this circumstance, a state statute that is not preempted by federal law need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose; it need not provide a perfect solution. Fednav, Limited v. Chester, No.07-2083 (6th Cir., November 21, 2008).

(Source: Holland & Knight)

Maritime Reporter February 2015 Digital Edition
FREE Maritime Reporter Subscription
Latest Maritime News    rss feeds

Legal

UK Will Force Fridman to sell N.Sea Assets

Britain is ready to force the sale of Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman's recently acquired North Sea energy assets unless it receives unspecified assurances within the next week,

General Dynamics Board Increases Dividend

The board of directors of General Dynamics today declared a regular quarterly dividend of 69 cents per share on the company's common stock, payable May 8, 2015,

MacGregor Wins Chinese Shipyard Order

MacGregor, part of Cargotec, has received an order from Wuhu Xinlian Shipyard in China for eight MacGregor dry bulk cement handling systems.   The fully automated

 
 
Maritime Careers / Shipboard Positions Maritime Contracts Maritime Security Maritime Standards Navigation Pipelines Pod Propulsion Port Authority Salvage Ship Repair
rss | archive | history | articles | privacy | terms and conditions | contributors | top maritime news | about us | copyright | maritime magazines
maritime security news | shipbuilding news | maritime industry | shipping news | maritime reporting | workboats news | ship design | maritime business

Time taken: 0.1652 sec (6 req/sec)