Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 191.0

529US1

Unit: $U35

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

116

UNITED STATES v. LOCKE

Opinion of the Court

prescribe regulations on the marine casualties to be reported
and the manner of reporting,” and the statute lists the kinds
of casualties that the regulations must cover. See also
§ 3717(a)(4) (requiring the Secretary of Transportation to
“establish a marine safety information system”). Congress
did not intend its reporting obligations to be cumulative to
those enacted by each political subdivision whose jurisdiction
a vessel enters. The State’s reporting requirement is a sig-
niﬁcant burden in terms of cost and the risk of innocent non-
compliance. The Roanoke, 189 U. S. 185, 195 (1903) (the
master of a vessel is in a position “such that it is almost
impossible for him to acquaint himself with the laws of each
individual State he may visit”). Furthermore, it affects a
vessel operator’s out-of-state obligations and conduct, where
a State’s jurisdiction and authority are most in doubt. The
state reporting requirement under WAC § 317–21–130 is
pre-empted.

V

As to conﬂict pre-emption under Title I, Washington ar-
gues that certain of its regulations, such as its watch require-
ment in times of restricted visibility, are of limited extrater-
ritorial effect and necessary to address the peculiarities of
Puget Sound. On remand, the Court of Appeals or District
Court should consider whether the remaining regulations
are pre-empted under Title I conﬂict pre-emption or Title II
ﬁeld pre-emption, or are otherwise pre-empted by these
titles or under any other federal law or international agree-
ment raised as possible sources of pre-emption.

We have determined that Washington’s regulations re-
garding general navigation watch procedures, English lan-
guage skills, training, and casualty reporting are pre-
empted. Petitioners make substantial arguments that the
remaining regulations are pre-empted as well.
It is prefera-
ble that the remaining claims be considered by the Court of
Appeals or by the District Court within the framework we
have discussed. The United States did not participate in