Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 164.0

529US1

Unit: $U35

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

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

89

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. LOCKE, GOVERNOR OF
WASHINGTON, et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the ninth circuit

No. 98–1701. Argued December 7, 1999—Decided March 6, 2000*

After the supertanker Torrey Canyon spilled crude oil off the coast of
England in 1967, both Congress, in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act
of 1972 (PWSA), and the State of Washington enacted more stringent
regulations for tankers and provided for more comprehensive remedies
in the event of an oil spill. The ensuing question of federal pre-emption
of the State’s laws was addressed in Ray v. Atlantic Richﬁeld Co., 435
In 1989, the supertanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in
U. S. 151.
Alaska, causing the largest oil spill in United States history. Again,
both Congress and Washington responded. Congress enacted the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The State created a new agency and di-
rected it to establish standards to provide the “best achievable protec-
tion” (BAP) from oil spill damages. That agency promulgated tanker
design, equipment, reporting, and operating requirements. Petitioner
International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko),
a trade association of tanker operators, brought this suit seeking declar-
atory and injunctive relief against state and local ofﬁcials responsible for
enforcing the BAP regulations. Upholding the regulations, the District
Court rejected Intertanko’s arguments that the BAP standards invaded
an area long pre-empted by the Federal Government. At the appeal
stage, the United States intervened on Intertanko’s behalf, contending
that the District Court’s ruling failed to give sufﬁcient weight to the
substantial foreign affairs interests of the Federal Government. The
Ninth Circuit held that the State could enforce its laws, save one requir-
ing vessels to install certain navigation and towing equipment, which
was “virtually identical to” requirements declared pre-empted in Ray.

Held: Washington’s regulations regarding general navigation watch pro-
cedures, crew English language skills and training, and maritime cas-
ualty reporting are pre-empted by the comprehensive federal regula-
tory scheme governing oil tankers; these cases are remanded so the

*Together with No. 98–1706, International Association of Independent
Tanker Owners (Intertanko) v. Locke, Governor of Washington, et al.,
also on certiorari to the same court.