Opinion ID: 1208919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Act to Prevent Pollution on Ships

Text: Congress enacted the APPS, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1912, to implement two related marine environmental treaties to which the United States is a party: (1) the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Nov. 2, 1973, 1340 U.N.T.S. 184, and (2) the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Feb. 17, 1978, 1340 U.N.T.S. 61. United States v. Jho, 534 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir.2008). These two international conventions, jointly referred to as MARPOL, aim to achieve the complete elimination of international pollution of the marine environment by oil and other harmful substances, MARPOL, 1340 U.N.T.S. at 128, and consequently address how oceangoing vessels are to dispose of wastes generated onboard. Specifically, MARPOL's Annex I contains regulations for the prevention of oil pollution. United States v. Abrogar, 459 F.3d 430, 432 (3d Cir.2006). During normal operation, vessels like the Kriton accumulate large volumes of oily waste water in their bilges, engine rooms, and mechanical spaces. The provisions of Annex I prohibit ships from discharging these wastes at sea, except under certain prescribed conditions. For instance, a vessel may only discharge en route if the discharged material is processed through specified oil filtration equipment, such as an Oily Water Separator, that traps most of the oil. MARPOL, reg. 4(c), 1340 U.N.T.S. at 67; Id. Reg. 9, 1340 U.N.T.S. at 202. Moreover, Annex I mandates that vessels record all oil transfer operations, including overboard discharge of bilge water, in an ORB that is retained on board and available for inspection by the competent authority of any government party to MARPOL. Id. reg. 20, 1340 U.N.T.S. at 211-12; see also Abrogar, 459 F.3d at 432 (explaining that Annex I requires that the ORB include records of all transfers of oil, disposals of oily waste generated on the vessel, the disposal of sludge, emergency discharges, among others). MARPOL is not a self-executing treaty; instead, each party agrees to give effect to it. MARPOL, art. 1(1), 1340 U.N.T.S. at 63, 184. In particular, each party to the treaty agrees to set up rules for ships that fly that party's flag, and each is responsible for certifying that such ships comply with the treaty rules. Parties to MARPOL are required to set sanctions for violations by ships flying their flag wherever the violation occurs. Id. Art. 4(1), 1340 U.N.T.S. at 185-86. When another country observes or suspects that a ship is violating the treaty, Article 6(2) provides that a port state should send the flag state a report of those possible violations so that proceedings may be initiated in the flag state. Id. at 187. The United States law executing MARPOL  the APPS  authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe any necessary or desired regulations to carry out the provisions of ... MARPOL. 33 U.S.C. § 1903(c)(1). Pursuant to this authority, the Coast Guard has issued regulations that generally track the requirements set forth in Annex I. The particular APPS regulation at issue here is 33 C.F.R. § 151.25(a), which states that [e]ach oil tanker of 150 gross tons and above ... shall maintain an [ORB] (emphasis added), which it must keep readily available for inspection, id. at 151.25(i); see also Abrogar, 459 F.3d at 432 (explaining that member states conduct inspections to ensure compliance in their ports and waters, and that a ship's failure to comply with MARPOL requirements can form a basis for refusing to let a ship enter port, referring the matter to the flag state, or, where appropriate, prosecuting the violation in the United States). There are two pertinent limitations to the application of the APPS. First, the record book requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 151.25 apply to U.S.-registered ships wherever they are (including beyond U.S. waters), but to any foreign-flagged ships only while in the navigable waters of the United States, or while at a port or terminal under the jurisdiction of the United States. 33 C.F.R. § 151.09(a)(1)-(5); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1902(a)(2). Second, the APPS states that [a]ny action taken under [the APPS] shall be taken in accordance with international law. 33 U.S.C. § 1912; see also Jho, 534 F.3d at 402.
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.