Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 185

529US1

Unit: $U35

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

110

UNITED STATES v. LOCKE

Opinion of the Court

emptive effect over conﬂicting state laws. City of New York
v. FCC, 486 U. S. 57, 63–64 (1988) (“ ‘[A] federal agency acting
within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority
may pre-empt state regulation’ and hence render unenforce-
able state or local laws that are otherwise not inconsistent
with federal law”). Ray deﬁned the relevant inquiry for
Title I pre-emption as whether the Coast Guard has promul-
gated its own requirement on the subject or has decided that
no such requirement should be imposed at all. 435 U. S., at
171–172; see also id., at 178 (“ ‘[W]here failure of . . . federal
ofﬁcials afﬁrmatively to exercise their full authority takes on
the character of a ruling that no such regulation is appro-
priate or approved pursuant to the policy of the statute,’
States are not permitted to use their police power to enact
such a regulation. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State
Labor Relations Board, 330 U. S. 767, 774 (1947)”). Ray
also recognized that, even in the context of a regulation re-
lated to local waters, a federal ofﬁcial with an overview of
all possible ramiﬁcations of a particular requirement might
be in the best position to balance all the competing interests.
Id., at 177.

While Ray explained that Congress,

in Title I of the
PWSA, preserved state authority to regulate the peculiari-
ties of local waters if there was no conﬂict with federal regu-
latory determinations, the Court further held that Congress,
in Title II of the PWSA, mandated federal rules on the sub-
jects or matters there speciﬁed, demanding uniformity.
Id.,
at 168 (“Title II leaves no room for the States to impose
different or stricter design requirements than those which
Congress has enacted with the hope of having them interna-
tionally adopted or has accepted as the result of international
accord. A state law in this area . . . would frustrate the
congressional desire of achieving uniform,
international
standards”). Title II requires the Coast Guard to impose
national regulations governing the general seaworthiness of
Id., at 160. Under Ray’s inter-
tankers and their crews.