33 U.S.C. § 1904

Certificates

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Issuance by authorized designees; restriction on issuance

Except as provided in section 1903(b)(1) of this title, the Secretary shall designate those persons authorized to issue on behalf of the United States the certificates required by the MARPOL Protocol. A certificate required by the MARPOL Protocol shall not be issued to a ship which is registered in or of the nationality of a country which is not a party to the MARPOL Protocol.

(b) Validity of foreign certificates

A certificate issued by a country which is a party to the MARPOL Protocol has the same validity as a certificate issued by the Secretary or the Administrator under the authority of this chapter.

(c) Location onboard vessel; inspection of vessels subject to jurisdiction of the United StatesA ship required by the MARPOL Protocol to have a certificate—(1) shall carry a valid certificate onboard in the manner prescribed by the authority issuing the certificate; and(2) is subject to inspection while in a port or terminal under the jurisdiction of the United States.(d) Onboard inspections; other Federal inspection authority unaffected

An inspection conducted under subsection (c)(2) of this section is limited to verifying whether or not a valid certificate is onboard, unless clear grounds exist which reasonably indicate that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not substantially agree with the particulars of its certificate. This section shall not limit the authority of any official or employee of the United States under any other treaty, law, or regulation to board and inspect a ship or its equipment.

(e) Detention orders; duration of detention; shipyard optionIn addition to the penalties prescribed in section 1908 of this title, a ship required by the MARPOL Protocol to have a certificate—(1) which does not have a valid certificate onboard; or(2) whose condition or whose equipment’s condition does not substantially agree with the particulars of the certificate onboard;shall be detained by order of the Secretary at the port or terminal where the violation is discovered until, in the opinion of the Secretary, the ship can proceed to sea without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment or the public health and welfare. The detention order may authorize the ship to proceed to the nearest appropriate available shipyard rather than remaining at the place where the violation was discovered.(f) Ship clearance; refusal or revocation

If a ship is under a detention order under this section, the Secretary may refuse or revoke the clearance required by section 60105 of title 46.

(g) Review of detention orders; petition; determination by Secretary

A person whose ship is subject to a detention order under this section may petition the Secretary, in the manner prescribed by regulation, to review the detention order. Upon receipt of a petition under this subsection, the Secretary shall affirm, modify, or withdraw the detention order within the time prescribed by regulation.

(h) Compensation for loss or damage

A ship unreasonably detained or delayed by the Secretary acting under the authority of this chapter is entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered thereby.

(Pub. L. 96–478, § 5, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2298; Pub. L. 110–280, § 6, July 21, 2008, 122 Stat. 2614; Pub. L. 115–232, div. C, title XXXV, § 3548(c), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2328.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2018—Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 115–232 amended subsec. (f) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (f) related to refusal or revocation of ship clearance or permits.

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–280, § 6(1), substituted “Except as provided in section 1903(b)(1) of this title, the Secretary” for “The Secretary”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–280, § 6(2), substituted “Secretary or the Administrator under the authority of this chapter.” for “Secretary under the authority of the MARPOL Protocol.”

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 110–280, § 6(3), substituted “environment or the public health and welfare.” for “environment.” in concluding provisions.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Subsec. (a) of this section effective Oct. 21, 1980, see section 14(b) of Pub. L. 96–478, set out as a note under section 1901 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Nederland Shipping Corp v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nederland Shipping Corp v. United States (2021) ca3 · cites it 11× “He also highlighted Nederland’s right to pursue damages under 33 U.S.C. § 1904 (h).5 In particular, he emphasized the economic losses that the Vessel would experience if the delay continued, including the costs associated with making alternative arrangements for its perishable…”

Angelex Ltd. v. United States (2017) dcd · cites it 10× “(“Angelex”), the owner of the ship, has filed suit against Defendant the United States of America (the “Government”) under 33 U.S.C. § 1904 (h), seeking compensation for losses incurred as a result of the nearly five-month delay of the vessel.”

Angelex Ltd. v. United States (2015) dcd · cites it 5× “PAPPADAKIS (the “Pappadak-is”), filed his action against Defendant the United States of America (the “Government”) under 33 U.S.C. § 1904 (h) seeking compensation for losses and damages that Angelex incurred as a result of what it alleges was an unreasonable detention and delay…”

United States v. Nikolaos Vastardis (2021) ca3 · cites it 3× “Vastardis argues that the United States had no right to investigate the Evridiki because a valid international oil pollution prevention certificate was presented and no clear ground for further investigation was identified at the time of inspection, citing 33 U.S.C. § 1904 (d)…”

Angelex, Ltd. v. United States (2018) cadc · cites it 2× “" 33 U.S.C. § 1904 (h). Until today, no circuit has considered the contours of this cause of action.”

Angelex LTD. v. United States (2013) ca4 “” 33 U.S.C. § 1904 (h). This provision is, as the government asserts, an “after-the-fact damages remedy against the United States for unreasonable detention or delay.”

United States v. Noel Abrogar (2006) ca3 “33 U.S.C. § 1904 (c); 33 C.F.R. § 151.23 (a)(3) and (c).”

Watervale Marine Co. v. United States Department of Homeland Security (2015) cadc · cites it 2× “6 See 33 U.S.C. § 1904 (h). 10 such a purpose, it seems to follow that the Coast Guard can agree to notify Customs to release the ship only upon condition that a civil or criminal proceeding would not be jeopardized.”

Watervale Marine Co., Ltd. v. United States Department of Homeland Security (2014) dcd “In addition, the APPS also provides an alternative avenue for relief for unwarranted detention of a vessel — an action for compensation for unlawful detention, see 33 U.S.C. § 1904 ; see also Wilmina Shipping AS v.”

Giuseppe Bottiglieri Shipping Co. S.P.A. v. United States (2012) alsd “To the contrary, the Owner indicated that it would undertake these responsibilities only “provisionally” and "in the first instance,” while reserving the right “to seek recovery of such costs and other damages” from the Coast Guard or others, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1904 . (Id.)…”

Wilmina Shipping AS v. United States (2010) txsd “” 33 U.S.C. § 1904 (g). Petitioner has not so far followed these administrative procedures.”

Nederland Shipping Corporation v. United States (2020) ded · cites it 3× “14 at 10; citing 33 U.S.C. § 1904 (h)). But Plaintiffs do not offer any explanation why the statutory cause of action would give me jurisdiction over a breach of contract case.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.