Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 167.0

529US1

Unit: $U35

[09-26-01 09:32:43] PAGES PGT: OPIN

92

UNITED STATES v. LOCKE

Syllabus

licensed deck ofﬁcer on the navigation bridge who is capable of clearly
understanding English. Third, Washington’s general requirement that
the navigation watch consist of at least two licensed deck ofﬁcers, a
helmsman, and a lookout is pre-empted as an attempt to regulate a tank-
er’s “operation” and “manning” under 46 U. S. C. § 3703(a). Fourth, the
requirement that vessels in Washington waters report certain marine
casualties regardless of where in the world they occurred cannot stand
in light of Coast Guard regulations on the same subject that Congress
intended be the sole source of a vessel’s reporting obligations, see
§§ 6101, 3717(a)(4). On remand, Washington may argue that certain of
its regulations, such as its watch requirement in times of restricted visi-
bility, are of limited extraterritorial effect, are necessary to address the
peculiarities of Puget Sound, and therefore are not subject to Title II
ﬁeld pre-emption, but should instead be evaluated under Title I conﬂict
pre-emption analysis. Pp. 112–116.

(d) It is preferable that petitioners’ substantial arguments as to pre-
emption of the remaining Washington regulations be considered by the
Ninth Circuit or by the District Court within the framework this Court
has herein discussed. The United States did not participate in these
cases until appeal, and resolution of the litigation would beneﬁt from
the development of a full record by all interested parties.
If, pending
adjudication on remand, Washington threatens to begin enforcing its
regulations, the lower courts would weigh any stay application under
the appropriate legal standards in light of the principles discussed
herein and with recognition of the national interests at stake. Ulti-
mately,
it is largely for Congress and the Coast Guard to confront
whether their regulatory scheme, which demands a high degree of
uniformity, is adequate. States, as well as environmental groups and
local port authorities, will participate in the process. See § 3703(a).
Pp. 116–117.

148 F. 3d 1053, reversed and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

David C. Frederick argued the cause for the United States
in No. 98–1701. With him on the briefs were Solicitor Gen-
eral Waxman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Ogden,
Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Douglas N. Letter, Mi-
chael Jay Singer, H. Thomas Byron III, David R. Andrews,
Judith Miller, Nancy E. McFadden, Paul M. Geier, Dale C.
Andrews, James S. Carmichael, Malcolm J. Williams, Jr.,
and Paul M. Wasserman. C. Jonathan Benner argued the