ruf1967
New Member
Got this off the Boattest website:
Appeals Court Hears EPA Permit Arguments - 08/22/2007
NMMA President says EPA permits could cost boaters “$800 or more.â€
Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and William A. Fletcher — all President Clinton judicial appointees — were selected as the appeal panel. The NMMA says judges “were clearly engaged in the case,†and Department of Justice attorneys actively defended the EPA permitting exemption during arguments for the appeal.
DOJ told the judges that the nation’s estimated 18 million recreational boats would have to be covered under this decision, underscoring the magnitude of the permitting impact, and that EPA would need more time than the District Court allowed to decide out how to address recreational vessels.
Judge Fletcher said during the hearing he is listening sympathetically to the industry and the EPA, and that this is a complicated affair. He is hesitant to have this deadline come “hell or high water,†the NMMA reports. Fletcher also responded to the shipping coalition’s safety arguments that “no one wants to run ships ashore.â€
However, Judge Wardlaw asked the government lawyers “how can you exempt other [non-ballast] discharges and remain consistent with the Clean Water Act as it is written?â€
The final outcome of the appeal will not be known for some time. However, the NMMA says the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “clearly recognizes that the case now goes beyond large commercial ship ballast water and impacts recreational boats as well.â€
We will keep you posted as Judge Wardlaw puzzles his way through this conundrum.
Here's how HR 2550 actually is worded:
H.R. 2550: To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels
HR 2550 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2550
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 24, 2007
Mr. TAYLOR (for himself and Mrs. MILLER of Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Recreational Boating Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Pollutant- Section 502(6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking `or (B)' and inserting `(B)'; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: `; or (C) any deck runoff from a recreational vessel, any engine cooling water, gray water, bilge water effluent from properly functioning recreational marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes from a recreational vessel, or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel; except that this subparagraph does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard by a recreational vessel'.
(b) Recreational Vessel- Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following:
`(25) `recreational vessel' means a vessel--
`(A) manufactured for operation, or operated, primarily for recreational purposes; or
`(B) leased, rented, or chartered to an individual for recreational purposes.'.
Appeals Court Hears EPA Permit Arguments - 08/22/2007
NMMA President says EPA permits could cost boaters “$800 or more.â€
Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and William A. Fletcher — all President Clinton judicial appointees — were selected as the appeal panel. The NMMA says judges “were clearly engaged in the case,†and Department of Justice attorneys actively defended the EPA permitting exemption during arguments for the appeal.
DOJ told the judges that the nation’s estimated 18 million recreational boats would have to be covered under this decision, underscoring the magnitude of the permitting impact, and that EPA would need more time than the District Court allowed to decide out how to address recreational vessels.
Judge Fletcher said during the hearing he is listening sympathetically to the industry and the EPA, and that this is a complicated affair. He is hesitant to have this deadline come “hell or high water,†the NMMA reports. Fletcher also responded to the shipping coalition’s safety arguments that “no one wants to run ships ashore.â€
However, Judge Wardlaw asked the government lawyers “how can you exempt other [non-ballast] discharges and remain consistent with the Clean Water Act as it is written?â€
The final outcome of the appeal will not be known for some time. However, the NMMA says the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “clearly recognizes that the case now goes beyond large commercial ship ballast water and impacts recreational boats as well.â€
We will keep you posted as Judge Wardlaw puzzles his way through this conundrum.
Here's how HR 2550 actually is worded:
H.R. 2550: To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels
HR 2550 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2550
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 24, 2007
Mr. TAYLOR (for himself and Mrs. MILLER of Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational vessels.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Recreational Boating Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Pollutant- Section 502(6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking `or (B)' and inserting `(B)'; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: `; or (C) any deck runoff from a recreational vessel, any engine cooling water, gray water, bilge water effluent from properly functioning recreational marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes from a recreational vessel, or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel; except that this subparagraph does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard by a recreational vessel'.
(b) Recreational Vessel- Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following:
`(25) `recreational vessel' means a vessel--
`(A) manufactured for operation, or operated, primarily for recreational purposes; or
`(B) leased, rented, or chartered to an individual for recreational purposes.'.