Title: State, Bd. of Marine Pilots v. Renwick

State: alaska

Issuer: Alaska Supreme Court

Document:

936 P.2d 526 (1997) STATE of Alaska, BOARD OF MARINE PILOTS, State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Occupational Licensing, Appellants, v. David RENWICK, Appellee. No. S-7379. Supreme Court of Alaska. February 21, 1997. Rehearing Denied April 4, 1997. *527 Gayle A. Horetski and Stephen C. Slotnick, Assistant Attorneys General, and Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellants. Richard D. Kibby and Dan E. Dennis, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before COMPTON, C.J., and RABINOWITZ, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH and FABE, JJ. COMPTON, Chief Justice. The Board of Marine Pilots (Board) appeals the superior court's reversal of the Board's order summarily suspending David Renwick's marine pilot's license. We reverse and direct the superior court to remand the case to the Board. These are the facts as found by the Board:[1] In May 1994 the Division of Occupational Licensing (Division) petitioned the Board for an immediate suspension of Renwick's marine pilot license. The Board granted the petition, finding that Renwick's continued licensure "posed a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety." See AS 08.01.075(c).[4] Renwick appealed the suspension and requested a hearing. Testimony was taken and evidence introduced at several hearings. In December 1994 the Board issued a decision in which it found the facts referenced above. The Board upheld the suspension, finding that Renwick violated applicable statutes and regulations by abandoning the REEFER BADGER in mandatory pilotage waters when it was in extremis. Renwick appealed the Board's suspension order to the superior court.[5] The superior court held that Renwick had no duty to remain on board the REEFER BADGER after the master of the vessel countermanded Renwick's orders. The court reversed the Board's order and directed the Board to vacate its finding that Renwick failed in his duty aboard the Reefer Badger.[6] The Board appeals. This court gives no deference to the decision of the superior court when it acts as an intermediate court of appeal. Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Natural Resources, 921 P.2d 1134, 1141 (Alaska 1996). We review the Board's decision using the reasonable basis standard and defer to the Board's interpretation of its own regulations. Rose v. Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 647 P.2d 154, 161 (Alaska 1982) ("[W]here an agency interprets its own regulation ... a deferential standard of review properly recognizes that the agency is best able to discern its intent in promulgating the regulation at issue."). The Alaska Marine Pilotage Act (Act) requires vessels traveling through Alaska's inland or coastal waters to employ state-licensed marine pilots for safe navigation. AS 08.62.160. A pilot so employed "has a primary duty to safely navigate vessels under *531 the pilot's direction and control and to protect life and property and the marine environment while engaged in the provision of pilot services." AS 08.62.157(a). The Act gives the Board broad authority to adopt regulations providing for "proper and safe pilotage...." AS 08.62.040(b). Among other regulations, the Board has promulgated 12 AAC 56.960(a), which provides that pilots "shall be on duty piloting the vessel at all times when the vessel is in transit in compulsory pilotage waters." Another regulation, 12 AAC 56.990(14), defines "on duty" to mean "being on the navigating bridge of the vessel and having control of the vessel, or being on the navigating bridge of the vessel and assisting the master or navigational officer." In the present case, the Board concluded that Renwick's "decision to abandon the REEFER BADGER while it was in extremis was in violation of AS 08.62.157, and 12 AAC 56.960(a) as defined by 12 AAC 56.990(14)...." In reversing the Board, the superior court stated that the legislative history of AS 08.62.157(a) "does not suggest the legislature intended to change the duties of pilots at common law." From this premise, and from the unsupported assumption that at common law pilots had no duty to remain on board a vessel after the master had reasserted command, the superior court concluded that 12 AAC 56.990(14) was "at variance" with AS 08.62.157(a): Consistent with the superior court's reasoning, Renwick argues that the Board's definition of "on duty" in 12 AAC 56.990(14) contravenes AS 08.62.157(a). Administrative agencies are given wide latitude when they are interpreting statutes they have been charged to administer. Whaley v. State, 438 P.2d 718, 722 (Alaska 1968) ("[T]he well settled rule [] requires courts to give consideration and respect to the contemporaneous construction of a statute by those charged with its administration, and not to overrule such construction except for weighty reasons."); Kelly v. Zamarello, 486 P.2d 906, 911 (Alaska 1971) ("[W]hen a regulation has been adopted under a delegation of authority from the legislature to the administrative agency to formulate policies and to act in the place of the legislature, we should not examine the content of the regulation to judge its wisdom, but should exercise a scope of review not unlike that exercised with respect to a statute."). Regulations are presumptively valid, State, Dep't of Revenue v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621, 624 (Alaska 1993), and will be upheld as long as they are "consistent with and reasonably necessary to implement the statutes authorizing [their] adoption." Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. LeResche, 663 P.2d 923, 927 (Alaska 1983). We explained in Cosio, however, that reasonable necessity is not a requirement separate from consistency. If it were, courts would be required to judge whether a particular administrative regulation is desirable as a matter of policy. We stated in Cosio: Cosio, 858 P.2d at 624 n. 1. Thus the review we conduct in this case is a review for consistency with the authorizing statute. 12 AAC 56.960(a) and 12 AAC 56.990(14), when read together, require a pilot to remain on board a vessel and assist in its navigation even if the master of the vessel countermands the pilot's orders. These requirements are consistent with the purpose of the Act. The Act is designed to insure "safe and proper pilotage" upon Alaska's inland and coastal waters. AS 08.62.040(b). Marine pilots are employed because of their "particular knowledge of local conditions." Barbey Packing Co. v. The S.S. Stavros, 169 F. Supp. 897, 903 (D.Or. 1959). Because of their familiarity with local conditions, marine pilots are "indispensable" to a vessel's safe passage. Bach v. Trident Steamship Co., Inc., 947 F.2d 1290, 1293 (5th Cir.1991) (Brown, J., dissenting). If pilots were at liberty to jump ship at their choosing, the Board could reasonably conclude that vessels would be left to navigate Alaska's inland waters at their peril, without the valuable knowledge of local conditions pilots offer. The Board's rule arguably furthers the Act's goal of providing safe and proper pilotage by requiring compulsory pilots to remain on the navigating bridge of vessels at all times. Renwick argues that the Board's rule creates an unacceptable division of authority aboard ship and contravenes the common law rule that a compulsory pilot's orders must be obeyed. It is true that in the ordinary course a compulsory pilot "is in supreme command of the vessel while he is navigating it." Evans v. United Arab Shipping Co. S.A.G., 4 F.3d 207, 218 (3d Cir.1993). However, at common law, the master of the vessel retained the authority to countermand a pilot's orders in limited circumstances. Delta Transload, Inc. v. The Navios Commander, 818 F.2d 445, 451 n. 17 (5th Cir.1987) ("[T]he master retains authority to countermand the pilot's orders which would place the vessel in a position of apparent and avoidable danger."); Avondale Indus. v. Int'l Marine Carriers, 15 F.3d 489, 493 (5th Cir.1994) (the master of the vessel "has a responsibility to monitor the pilot's decision making."); Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. State, 768 F.2d 1558, 1576 (11th Cir.1985) ("[A] pilot's presence on board a vessel does not relieve the master or watch officer of their duties and obligations."); Barbey, 169 F. Supp. at 902 ("[S]hould it be apparent to the master that his vessel is entering a zone of danger and ... the pilot fail[s] to ... respond to the situation in a manner which will insure the safety of the vessel, then the master should and must relieve the pilot."); Camp v. The Marcellus, 4 F. Cas. 1141, 1145 (D.Mass. 1860) ("[T]he power of the pilot does not so far supersede the authority of the master, that the latter may not, in case of obvious and certain disability, or gross ignorance and palpable and imminently dangerous mistake, disobey his orders and interfere for the protection of the ship and the lives of those on board."). While the Board's decision that Renwick was not relieved of responsibility to remain "on duty" by the master's countermand is consistent with the common law, the Board's decision need not mirror the common law to be valid. The relevant inquiry is whether 12 AAC 56.990(14), which the Board applied to reach its decision, is consistent with the Act. The Board could reasonably decide that life, property, and the marine environment are better served by a rule requiring pilots to remain on duty even if their orders are countermanded. While "[d]ivided authority in a ship with reference to the same subject-matter is certainly not to be encouraged," The Marcellus, 4 F. Cas. at 1145, the fact that a pilot's orders are countermanded does not mean that the pilot is at liberty to leave the ship. 12 AAC 56.990(14), which recognizes this rule, is consistent with the Act's goal of promoting safe pilotage. We REVERSE the judgment of the superior court, and direct that it REMAND the case to the Board for such further proceedings as may come before it. [1] "Respondent" has been changed to "Renwick." Paragraph numbers and record citations have been deleted. [2] AS 08.62.160 provides: A vessel subject to this chapter navigating the inland or coastal water of or adjacent to the state as determined by the board in regulation shall employ a pilot holding a valid license under this chapter. The board shall define the mandatory pilotage water of the state. [3] Pursuant to the terms of an agreement which settled a prior licensing action against Renwick, if Renwick became subject to sanction again the Board could take into account "the fact that Captain Renwick was the pilot when the President Madison grounded in Dutch Harbor in 1984, when the Kyokushin Maru grounded in Sand Point in February 1991, and when the Kyokushin Maru grounded in Popof Strait in March 1991." [4] AS 08.01.075(c) provides in part: A board may summarily suspend a licensee from the practice of the profession before a final hearing is held or during an appeal if the board finds that the licensee poses a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety. [5] The superior court and the parties treated the proceeding as an administrative appeal from a final judgment of the Board. Because the Board addressed only the issue of the propriety of the summary interim suspension, and a proceeding to revoke Renwick's pilot's license was still pending before the Board, Renwick's appropriate remedy was to petition the superior court for discretionary review under Appellate Rule 401. See Appellate Rule 601(c). However, since the judgment of the superior court directed the Board to dismiss the proceeding pending against Renwick, the Board was required only to perform a ministerial act to dispose of the case. Hence, the judgment of the superior court can be deemed a "final judgment" for the purposes of appeal to this court. Municipality of Anchorage v. Coffey, 893 P.2d 722, 725 n. 6 (Alaska 1995) (remand ordering agency to perform purely ministerial act qualified as final judgment for purposes of supreme court review). [6] On motion of the State, this court stayed the judgment of the superior court pending resolution of this appeal.