Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 189.0

529US1

Unit: $U35

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

114

UNITED STATES v. LOCKE

Opinion of the Court

who is capable of clearly understanding English.” The stat-
ute may not be supplemented by laws enacted by the States
without compromising the uniformity the federal rule itself
achieves.

The third Washington rule we ﬁnd invalid under ﬁeld pre-
emption is a navigation watch requirement in WAC § 317–21–
200; see also Appendix, infra, at 118. Washington has dif-
ferent rules for navigation watch, depending on whether
the tanker is operating in restricted visibility or not. We
mention the restricted visibility rule below, but now evaluate
the requirement which applies in general terms and reads:
“[T]he navigation watch shall consist of at least two licensed
deck ofﬁcers, a helmsman, and a lookout.” The general
watch requirement is not tied to the peculiarities of Puget
Sound; it applies throughout Washington’s waters and at all
times.
It is a general operating requirement and is pre-
empted as an attempt to regulate a tanker’s “operation” and
“manning” under 46 U. S. C. § 3703(a).

We have illustrated ﬁeld pre-emption under § 3703(a) by
discussing three of Washington’s rules which, under the cur-
rent state of the record, we can determine cannot be en-
forced due to the assertion of federal authority found in that
section. The parties discuss other federal statutory pro-
visions and international agreements which also govern
In ap-
speciﬁc aspects of international maritime commerce.
propriate circumstances, these also may have pre-emptive
effect.

For example, the record before us reveals that a fourth
state rule cannot stand in light of other sources of federal
regulation of the same subject. Washington requires ves-
sels that ultimately reach its waters to report certain marine
casualties. WAC § 317–21–130; see also Appendix, infra, at
117–118. The requirement applies to incidents (deﬁned as
a “collision,” “allision,” “near-miss incident,” “marine cas-
ualty” of listed kinds, “accidental or intentional grounding,”
“failure of the propulsion or primary steering systems,”