How People Voted
13% For, 87% Against
Take Action
![]() ![]() |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
![]() ![]() |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
| del.icio.us | |
| Digg | |
| Yahoo! | |
P.L. 110-299, A bill to clarify the circumstances during which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and applicable States may require permits for discharges from certain vessels, and to require the Administrator to conduct a study of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Comparing original version (created by webmaster) with revision saved on October 8, 2008, 19:59:21 (webmaster):
S. 3298 would clarify the circumstances during which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and applicable States may require permits for discharges from certain vessels, and it would require the Administrator to conduct a study of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels.
== Detailed Summary ==
<summary>
(Log<b>(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)</b>
Prohibits the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a state with an approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, from requiring an NPDES permit for a covered vessel for the next two years for any discharge: (1) of effluent from properly functioning marine engines; (2) of laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes; or (3) that is incidental to the normal operation of a covered vessel. Defines "covered vessel" to mean a vessel that is less than 79 feet in length or a fishing vessel.
Requires the Administrator to editevaluate the wikiimpacts of such discharges, excluding discharges: (1) from a vessel of the Armed Forces; (2) of sewage from a vessel, other than the discharge of graywater from a vessel operating on the Great Lakes; and be(3) of ballast water. Requires the first toAdministrator to: (1) provide for public comment on a detailed summarydraft of such evaluation; and (2) submit a final report to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
Provides that such prohibition does not apply with respect to: (1) rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard; (2) other discharges when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation; (3) ballast water discharges; or (4) any discharge that contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the bill!)environment.
</summary>
<!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Status of the Legislation ==
<status>
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)Latest Major Action: 7/31/2008: Signed by President.
</status>
<!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Points in Favor ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
== Points Against ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
Learn More
There was no up-or-down vote in the House.
There was no up-or-down vote in the Senate.
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)




Visitor Comments
Jane Marie
August 15, 2008, 12:10pm (report abuse)In 1995 my family and I were exposed to a chemical called Dinitrogen Tetroxide, N2O4. It was reported that there were only 40 persons who were seriously injured, but, attorneys decided to make it a mass class action. 17 people went to trial in Hinds County, Mississippi none were found to have injuries so the total of awards was put on my family. We still have not been compensated since the attorneys involved wish for us to die.
http://www.mftms13.wordpress.com