Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 190

529US1

Unit: $U35

[09-26-01 09:32:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 89 (2000)

115

Opinion of the Court

“failure of a component or control system,” “ﬁre, ﬂood, or
other incident that affects the vessel’s seaworthiness,” and
“spills of oil”), regardless of where in the world they might
have occurred. A vessel operator is required by the state
regulation to make a detailed report to the State on each
incident, listing the date, location, and weather conditions.
The report must also list the government agencies to whom
the event was reported and must contain a “brief analysis of
any known causes” and a “description of measures taken to
prevent a reoccurrence.” WAC § 317–21–130.

The State contends that its requirement is not pre-empted
because it is similar to federal requirements. This is an in-
It is not always a sufﬁcient
correct statement of the law.
answer to a claim of pre-emption to say that state rules sup-
plement, or even mirror, federal requirements. The Court
observed this principle when Commerce Clause doctrine was
beginning to take shape, holding in Sinnot v. Davenport, 22
How. 227 (1859), that Alabama could not require vessel own-
ers to provide certain information as a condition of operating
in state waters even though federal law also required the
owner of the vessel “to furnish, under oath, . . . all the infor-
mation required by this State law.”
Id., at 242. The appro-
priate inquiry still remains whether the purposes and objec-
tives of the federal statutes, including the intent to establish
a workable, uniform system, are consistent with concurrent
state regulation. On this point, Justice Holmes’ later obser-
vation is relevant: “When Congress has taken the particular
subject-matter in hand coincidence is as ineffective as opposi-
tion, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it
attempts to go farther than Congress has seen ﬁt to go.”
Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co. v. Varnville Furni-
ture Co., 237 U. S. 597, 604 (1915).

We hold that Congress intended that the Coast Guard reg-
ulations be the sole source of a vessel’s reporting obligations
with respect to the matters covered by the challenged state
statute. Under 46 U. S. C. § 6101, the Coast Guard “shall