U.S. Code » Title 33 » Chapter CHAPTER 33— PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS

33 U.S.C. § 1910

Legal actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Persons with adversely affected interests as plaintiffs; defendantsExcept as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person having an interest which is, or can be, adversely affected, may bring an action on his own behalf—(1) against any person alleged to be in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or regulations issued hereunder;(2) against the Secretary where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Secretary;(3) against the Administrator where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary; or(4) against the Secretary of the Treasury where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary of the Treasury to take action under section 1908(e) of this title.(b) Commencement conditionsNo action may be commenced under subsection (a) of this section—(1) prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice, in writing and under oath, to the alleged violator, the Secretary concerned or the Administrator, and the Attorney General; or(2) if the Secretary or the Administrator has commenced enforcement or penalty action with respect to the alleged violation and is conducting such procedures diligently.(c) VenueAny suit brought under this section shall be brought—(1) in a case concerning an onshore facility or port, in the United States district court for the judicial district where the onshore facility or port is located;(2) in a case concerning an offshore facility or offshore structure under the jurisdiction of the United States, in the United States district court for the judicial district nearest the offshore facility or offshore structure;(3) in a case concerning a ship, in the United States district court for any judicial district wherein the ship or its owner or operator may be found; or(4) in any case, in the District Court for the District of Columbia.(d) Costs; attorney fees; witness fees

The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to this section, may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party including the Federal Government.

(e) Federal intervention

In any action brought under this section, if the Secretary or Attorney General are not parties of record, the United States, through the Attorney General, shall have the right to intervene.

(Pub. L. 96–478, § 11, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2302; Pub. L. 110–280, § 12, July 21, 2008, 122 Stat. 2615.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2008—Subsec. (a)(3), (4). Pub. L. 110–280, § 12(1), added par. (3) and redesignated former par. (3) as (4).

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 110–280, § 12(2), substituted “concerned or the Administrator,” for “concerned,”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 110–280, § 12(3), inserted “or the Administrator” after “Secretary”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Mylonakis v. The M/T Georgios M., 909 F. Supp. 2d 691 (S.D. Tex. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mylonakis v. The M/T Georgios M., 909 F. Supp. 2d 691 (S.D. Tex. 2012). · cites it 14× “Prokopakis, for violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (“APPS”), 33 U.S.C. § 1910 , general maritime claims for unseaworthiness, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, breach of the duty to defend, maintenance and cure, double wages under 46 U.”
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). · cites it 2× “2302 , 33 U. S. C. § 1910 (d). 37. Safe Drinking Water Act, 88 Stat.”
Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cnty., 493 U.S. 20 (1990). · cites it 2× “); § 11(b)(1) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U. S. C. § 1910 (b)(1) (1982 ed.); § 117(b) of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, 30 U.”
Angelex Ltd. v. United States, 123 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 4× “See 33 U.S.C. § 1910 . Section 1910(a) provides four grounds for any person having an adversely affected interest to bring an action: (1) against “any person alleged to be in violation of the provisions” of APPS or its regulations; (2) against the Secretary of Homeland Security…”
Giuseppe Bottiglieri Shipping Co. S.P.A. v. United States, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (S.D. Ala. 2012). · cites it 5× “To a great extent, the Motion to Dismiss focuses on the judicial review provisions of APPS, as set forth in 33 U.S.C. § 1910 . 8 By Order (doc. 29) entered on February 13, 2012, the undersigned concluded that judicial review under § 1910 is inappropriate and unavailable because…”
Int'l Woodworkers of Am., Afl-Cio & Its Local No. 5-376 v. Champion Int'l Corp., 790 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1986). “§ 1515 (d) (citizen’s action against persons in violation of deepwater port provisions); (16) Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. § 1910 (d) (actions authorized by provisions governing prevention of pollution from ships); (17) Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.”
Kenny A. Ex Rel. Winn v. Perdue, 547 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 1515 (d); Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. § 1910 (d); Patent Infringement Act, 35 U.”
Wilmina Shipping AS v. United States, 824 F. Supp. 2d 749 (S.D. Tex. 2010). · cites it 2× “33 U.S.C. § 1910 (a). 4 Subsection 1910(a)(1) refers to actions against alleged APPS violators; subsection (a)(2) refers to actions against the Secretary of Transportation for failure to perform any action which is “not discretionary,” which does not encompass granting *753 of…”
Nederland Shipping Corp v. United States, 18 F.4th 115 (3rd Cir. 2021). “” 33 U.S.C. § 1910 (a), (c)(3). Because we read § 1904(h) to expressly waive sovereign immunity, we need not resort to other sections of the APPS to reach our conclusion.”
Angelex Ltd. v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 3d 64 (D.D.C. 2017). “, 33 U.S.C. § 1910 (a)(2)-(3); 28 ] U.S.C. § 2680(a) (FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for tort cases against the government “based upon the exercise or performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty .”
Nimmrich & Prahm Reederei Gmbh & Co. KG MS Sonja v. United States, 925 F. Supp. 2d 850 (S.D. Tex. 2012). · cites it 2× “Respondents, in their Motion for Summary Judgment, argue that the Court does not have admiralty jurisdiction over the case, that jurisdiction cannot be based on the APPS because Petitioners did not wait the required 60 days before filing this case, as is provided for in 33…”
Coulter v. Tennessee, 805 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1986). “Belton for his services after taking into account the rationale expressed by this court herein.”
Show all 16 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.