Opinion ID: 1208919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Maintain an Oil Record Book

Text: The crux of the dispute before us focuses on the words shall maintain in the APPS regulations regarding ORBs. Ionia argues that the word maintain obligates it only to keep possession of an ORB, while the Government submits that the APPS requires Ionia to keep the ORB accurately. Shortly after Ionia filed its appeal in this case, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Jho, 534 F.3d 398 (5th Cir.2008), which presented a similar fact scenario and essentially identical arguments. In Jho, a crew member tipped off the Coast Guard that the Chief Engineer had manipulated some of the ship's pollution-detection equipment so that it would not recognize discharges with higher oil content than allowed under U.S. law. Id. at 400. The indictments charged the operators of the foreign-flagged ship with failing to maintain an ORB under 33 C.F.R. § 151.25. Id. at 401. As in the case sub judice, the defendants argued that international law prohibited the government from prosecuting these offenses that, they alleged, occurred on the high seas. Id. at 403. The Fifth Circuit, reversing the district court, disagreed. It first held that the district court was incorrect in concluding that the alleged conduct  failing to maintain an ORB  occurred outside of U.S. waters. Id. at 402-03. The court reasoned that if the requirement to maintain an ORB included only an obligation to record entries when discharges were made (an obligation violated on the high seas), and not to keep the book accurate (an obligation existent at U.S. ports), then the regulation would be at odds with MARPOL and Congress' clear intent under the APPS to prevent pollution at sea according to MARPOL. Id. at 403. Because [a]ccurate oil record books are necessary to carry out the goals of MARPOL and the APPS, the court found if record books did not have to be `maintained' while in the ports or navigable waters of the United States, then a foreign-flagged vessel could avoid application of the record book requirements simply by falsifying all of its record book information just before entry into a port or navigable waters, and thus avoid detection. Id. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit held that the requirement to maintain an ORB impos[es] a duty upon a foreign-flagged vessel to ensure that its oil record book is accurate (or at least not knowingly inaccurate) upon entering the ports of navigable waters of the United States. Id. Furthermore, the Jho court rejected the defendants' argument that international law  i.e., the law of the flag doctrine embodied in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and MARPOL  limited the government's jurisdiction to prosecute violations of domestic law committed in port. Id. at 409. Because the failure to maintain the ORB occurred in U.S. waters, there was no obligation to let the flag state prosecute the violation. The Fifth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has recognized that the law of the flag doctrine does not completely trump a sovereign's territorial jurisdiction to prosecute violations of its laws: The law of the flag doctrine is chiefly applicable to ships on the high seas, where there is no territorial sovereign; and as respects ships in foreign territorial waters it has little application beyond what is affirmatively or tacitly permitted by the local sovereign. Id. at 406 (quoting Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 123, 43 S.Ct. 504, 67 L.Ed. 894 (1923)) (alterations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the court found that the ORB offenses were charged in accordance with the law of the flag. Id. We agree for substantially the reasons stated by the Fifth Circuit in Jho. Any other reading would defeat the purpose of MARPOL and the APPS, and would be inconsistent with international law. The law of the flag doctrine depends on member states being able to report violations to flag states. If ships such as the Kriton did not have to maintain an accurate ORB, member states would be severely hampered in their ability to report violations to the flag state for enforcement, and the international system of reporting and accountability under MARPOL would collapse. The reading the Fifth Circuit adopted in Jho also is strongly supported by the plain text of the regulation. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (2002) defines maintain as, inter alia, to keep in a state of repair, efficiency, or validity.... In the context of a regulation imposing record-keeping requirements, the duty to maintain plainly means a duty to maintain a reasonably complete and accurate record. No reasonable reader of this regulation could conclude, given the context, that the regulation merely imposes an obligation to preserve the ORB in its existing state. We therefore hold that the APPS's requirement that subject ships maintain an ORB, 33 C.F.R. § 151.25, mandates that these ships ensure that their ORBs are accurate (or at least not knowingly inaccurate) upon entering the ports or navigable waters of the United States. This requirement is in compliance with international law, supported by the plain text of the regulation, and necessary to advance the aims of the international treaties governing international pollution in marine environments. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in instructing the jury on the APPS charges.