The Court Review News

Challenge Fisheries LLC, Quinn Fisheries Inc., Charles Quinn II, and Charles Quinn III have agreed to pay a total of $414,000 in civil penalties and to perform fleet-wide improvements and other compliance assurance measures to resolve federal Clean Water Act claims stemming from oily bilge discharges from the commercial fishing vessel Challenge, and a related fuel oil discharge in August 2017 in New Bedford Harbor, Mass., the Department of Justice and the Coast Guard announced.In its complaint filed Monday, along with the lodging of a consent decree in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the United States alleges…

Tri-Marine Management Co., Tri-Marine Fishing Management and Cape Mendocino Fishing (Tri-Marine) have agreed to pay $1.05 million in civil penalties and to perform fleet-wide inspections and other corrective measures to resolve claims stemming from an October 2014 oil spill in American Samoa and related violations of spill prevention regulations, the Department of Justice and the Coast Guard announced today. In its complaint, filed today along with the lodging of a consent decree in the U.S.

BP Plc deserves the right to have a federal appeals court review some damage claims awarded under the settlement to compensate people and businesses harmed by the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said BP did not expressly waive its right to appeal various claims determinations made under the 2012 settlement following review by a district court. BP argued that rules adopted by the federal judge who oversees that settlement compromised that right. BP is trying to hold down the costs of the settlement arising from the April 20, 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which killed 11 workers and caused the largest U.S. offshore oil spill.

Under a settlement agreement with the United States, ATP Infrastructure Partners, LP (ATP-IP) will pay a $1 million civil penalty and perform corrective measures to resolve claims by the U.S. under the Clean Water Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of unauthorized discharges of oil and chemicals from an oil platform into the Gulf of Mexico, announced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). This is the first joint judicial enforcement action involving EPA and BSEE claims in response to alleged violations of both the Clean Water Act and OCSLA. The United States’ complaint, which was filed in February 2013, in the U.S.

The Court did not provide an explanation of why it decided not to take this particular case. No further legal action is being considered. All ocean-going vessels calling at California’s ports are required to comply with these regulations when the vessel comes within 24 miles of the Californian coast. See the article in WN 27/2012 for the most recent advisory issued by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regarding these regulations. In July 2011 INTERTANKO joined an industry coalition in filing an amicus curiae brief in support of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association’s (PMSA) petition Supreme Court review of the 9th Circuit’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the California vessel fuel sulphur restrictions.

Polembros Shipping Ltd., a ship management company headquartered in Greece, pleaded guilty on Sept. 30 in federal court in New Orleans for violating anti-pollution laws, ship safety laws, and making false statements during a U.S. Coast Guard investigation of the M/V Theotokos, the Justice Department announced. According to the plea agreement, Polembros will pay a $2.7m criminal fine and a separate $100,000 community service payment to the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, a subunit of Smithsonian Institute. The money will be used to research and mitigate the effects of marine invasive species suspected to be transported in ballast waters of ocean-going vessels. Invasive species can threaten native species and damage the ecosystems of the United States.

In this case, Ecology argues the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) prematurely awarded a license in September to Northern Star Natural Gas for a liquefied natural gas terminal and pipeline that impacts Washington and communities. The proposed pipeline route for the Bradwood Landing project would cross the Columbia River and extend 17 miles underground through . Federal law requires FERC to perform a detailed environmental impact review. Ecology takes issue with the adequacy of FERC's review which guided the Commission's license decision. Rather than wait for FERC's decision on the request for rehearing, Gov. Chris Gregoire directed Ecology to help conduct a thorough environmental review through the State Environmental Policy Act.

On June 23, 2008, the Supreme Court accepted a request by the Navy that the Court review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the Navy's use of sonar in training exercises off the coast of . The original injunction, handed down in August 2007 by a U.S. District Court in and later amended, was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February. In March, the Navy requested the review that the Supreme Court has now accepted. "My primary job is to ensure that Navy ships in the Pacific are prepared to fight and win in combat," said Vice Adm. Samuel J. Locklear, Commander, U.S.

Nine separate organizations, including a foreign sovereign government, leading trade associations and other groups have filed amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court of the United States urging the Court agree to hear the Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. United States case. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. expressed its appreciation that these organizations urged review of a decision by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which held that federal courts lack the authority to enforce prosecutors' promises pre-indictment, which is in conflict with the decisions of the Seventh Circuit. "In breaching its promises with Stolt-Nielsen, the Department of Justice overstepped any legitimate prosecutorial boundary," James B.

The AP has reported that Stolt-Nielsen will seek a Supreme Court review of a federal appeals court reversal of a decision that would allow the company to be prosecuted for antitrust activity. Previously, Stolt-Nielsen cooperated with the government in criminal antitrust prosecutions of the international carrier industry. The Department of Justice kicked Stolt-Nielsen out of the government's corporate leniency program for allegedly continuing illegal anticompetitive activity longer than it acknowledged. In January 2005, a district court judge issued an injunction stopping the Department of Justice from prosecuting Stolt-Nielsen. However, in March, a federal appeals court reversed the injunction. Earlier this month, the U.S.

INTERTANKO's long fight to overturn what it sees as unfair and damaging tanker legislation in the U.S. West Coast region is gaining ground, as on Friday, September 10, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a writ to the federal appellate court that reviews decisions in the western U.S. directing a review of that court's disposition of litigation challenging tanker regulations imposed by the State of Washington. The challenged Washington State regulations imposed on U.S. and foreign tankers carrying oil in Washington waters a number of unique regulations governing on-board equipment, technology, crew training and qualifications, and operational requirements.

The proliferation of national, regional and local regulations which effectively dictate the design and outfitting of oceangoing ships are viewed with great disdain by the international shipping community, which contends that - given the shipping industry's global nature - that only one organization, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), should be empowered to implement sweeping changes. Local populations and politicians, however, who view ships at sea as a real threat to valuable local environmental havens - whether deserved or not - attempt to staunchly defend their territory under the shield of restrictive rules and regulations.

On Friday, September 10, 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued a writ to the federal appellate court that reviews decisions in the western U. S. directing a review of that court's disposition of litigation challenging tanker regulations imposed by the State of Washington. INTERTANKO had petitioned the Supreme Court for issuance of the writ. The challenged Washington State regulations imposed on U.S. and foreign tankers carrying oil in Washington waters a number of unique regulations governing on-board equipment, technology, crew training and qualifications, and operational requirements. INTERTANKO brought suit in 1995 challenging these rules as being constitutionally invalid given the substantial federal presence in the same areas of regulation.