U.S. Code » Title 33 » Chapter CHAPTER 10— ANCHORAGE GROUNDS AND HARBOR REGULATIONS GENERALLY

33 U.S.C. § 476

Restrictions on tanker traffic in Puget Sound and adjacent waters

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Congress finds that—(1) the navigable waters of Puget Sound in the State of Washington, and the natural resources therein, are a fragile and important national asset;(2) Puget Sound and the shore area immediately adjacent thereto is threatened by increased domestic and international traffic of tankers carrying crude oil in bulk which increases the possibility of vessel collisions and oil spills; and(3) it is necessary to restrict such tanker traffic in Puget Sound in order to protect the navigable waters thereof, the natural resources therein, and the shore area immediately adjacent thereto, from environmental harm.(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on and after October 18, 1977, no officer, employee, or other official of the Federal Government shall, or shall have authority to, issue, renew, grant, or otherwise approve any permit, license, or other authority for constructing, renovating, modifying, or otherwise altering a terminal, dock, or other facility in, on, or immediately adjacent to, or affecting the navigable waters of Puget Sound, or any other navigable waters in the State of Washington east of Port Angeles, which will or may result in any increase in the volume of crude oil capable of being handled at any such facility (measured as of October 18, 1977), other than oil to be refined for consumption in the State of Washington.(Pub. L. 95–136, § 5, Oct. 18, 1977, 91 Stat. 1168.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–2005 · leading case: Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (W.D. Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (W.D. Wash. 2001). · cites it 5× “Specifically, it requests the following declaratory relief: (1) the Corps’ decision to issue and extend ARCO’s permit violated the Magnuson Amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 33 U.S.C. § 476 ; (2) the Corps’ decision not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement…”
No Oilport! v. Carter, 520 F. Supp. 334 (W.D. Wash. 1981). · cites it 3× “2 No Oilport has moved for summary judgment with respect to its claims under PURPA, NEPA, MLA, the Magnuson Amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 33 U.S.C. § 476 , and the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.”
Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “33 U.S.C. § 476 . BP cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment on grounds that OA lacks standing and that laches bars this action.”
Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 361 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “§ 4332 , and the Magnuson Amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 33 U.S.C. § 476 . BP cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment on grounds that OA lacks standing and that laches bars this action.”
Ocean Advocates v. US Army (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “§ 4332 , and the Magnuson Amend- ment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 33 U.S.C. § 476 . BP cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment on grounds that OA lacks standing and that laches bars this action.”
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.