Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 187

529US1

Unit: $U35

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

112

UNITED STATES v. LOCKE

Opinion of the Court

Title I will be applicable in some, although not all, cases.
We recognize that the terms used in § 3703(a) are quite
broad.
In deﬁning their scope, and the scope of the result-
ing ﬁeld pre-emption, it will be useful to consider the type
of regulations the Secretary has actually promulgated under
the section, as well as the section’s list of speciﬁc types of
regulation that must be included. Useful inquiries include
whether the rule is justiﬁed by conditions unique to a partic-
ular port or waterway. See id., at 175 (a Title I regulation
is one “based on water depth in Puget Sound or on other
local peculiarities”). Furthermore, a regulation within the
State’s residual powers will often be of limited extraterrito-
rial effect, not requiring the tanker to modify its primary
conduct outside the speciﬁc body of water purported to jus-
tify the local rule. Limited extraterritorial effect explains
why Ray upheld a state rule requiring a tug escort for cer-
tain vessels, id., at 171, and why state rules requiring a reg-
istered vessel (i. e., one involved in foreign trade) to take on
a local pilot have historically been allowed, id., at 159–160.
Local rules not pre-empted under Title II of the PWSA pose
a minimal risk of innocent noncompliance, do not affect ves-
sel operations outside the jurisdiction, do not require adjust-
ment of systemic aspects of the vessel, and do not impose a
substantial burden on the vessel’s operation within the local
jurisdiction itself.

IV

The ﬁeld pre-emption rule surrounding Title II and
§ 3703(a) and the superseding effect of additional federal
statutes are illustrated by the pre-emption of four of Wash-
ington’s tanker regulations. We address these because the
attempted reach of the state rules is well demonstrated by
the briefs and record before us; other parts of the state regu-
latory scheme can be addressed on remand.

First, Washington imposes a series of training require-
ments on a tanker’s crew. WAC § 317–21–230; see also Ap-
pendix, infra, at 118. A covered vessel is required to certify