Opinion ID: 411783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: applicability of the i.n.a. to the outer continental shelf

Text: 15 A writ of mandamus may issue only if the A.G. and the INS owe a clear duty to the Union. The existence and nature of any duty owed depends on whether section 1182(a)(14) of the I.N.A. applies to the outer continental shelf. 16 Appellees contend that the 1978 amendments to the O.C.S.L.A. render the I.N.A. inapplicable to the outer continental shelf even if applicable before that time. The O.C.S.L.A., enacted in 1953, was designed to extend [t]he Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States ... to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and to all artificial islands and fixed structures which may be erected thereon.... 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(a)(1). A limitation on the employment of aliens on the outer continental shelf was deleted from the final version of the bill: [S]ince all applicable Federal laws are extended to the seabed and subsoil of the outer shelf, the specific provisions respecting aliens are believed unnecessary. S.Rep. No. 411, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1953). 17 In 1978, section 1333(a)(1) was amended to include all installations and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed. 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(a)(1) (as amended in 1978). This amendment is meant to restate and clarify and not change existing law. H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 1474, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 80 (1978), reprinted in [1978] U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1450, 1674, 1679. We will not lightly infer that Congress intended to remove the general applicability of the I.N.A. to the outer continental shelf. We see no irreconcilable conflict between section 1356 and the I.N.A. We must read the Statutes to give effect to each if we can do so while preserving their sense and purpose. Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 267, 101 S.Ct. 1673, 1678, 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981). 18 Sections 1356(a)(3) and (c), which outline employment restrictions for aliens, were added in 1978. Appellees contend that the addition of employment provisions in the 1978 amendments means that the I.N.A. is no longer applicable to the outer continental shelf. The Union disagrees. It contends that section 1356(c) is an exception to the I.N.A., but in all other respects, that the I.N.A. remains applicable to the outer continental shelf. The Union's interpretation appears more plausible because it is consistent with Congress's announced intent that the amendments were meant only to restate and clarify ... existing law. We, therefore, hold that the I.N.A. applies to the outer continental shelf except as modified by 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1356. 19 The Union contends that section 1356(a)(3) is not effective yet. The statute requires the Coast Guard to implement section 1356(a)(3)'s manning requirements by regulations within six months after September, 1978, effective one year after the regulations are promulgated. 4 It was not until March, 1982 that the Coast Guard promulgated regulations which set out manning requirements. They become effective in April, 1983. 20 Although there is language in the statute that regulations are necessary to effectuate the manning requirements, there is no such language for the exceptions to those requirements. Congress adopted exceptions to the manning requirements to avoid any disruption in OCS [outer continental shelf] activities by this manning requirement. H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 1474, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 124 (1978), reprinted in [1978] U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1674, 1723. Congress also sought to eliminate the likelihood of retaliation by foreign nations against American workers. 5 21 As we have already pointed out, the worker certification requirements of the I.N.A. are virtually the same as the manning requirements of section 1356(a)(3), and since the I.N.A. is applicable to the outer continental shelf, it is highly unlikely that Congress intended to delay implementing those exceptions. We, therefore, hold that the exceptions to the manning requirements as set forth in 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1356 are now in effect and the INS is bound by them. See Robertson v. Bradbury, 132 U.S. 491, 493, 10 S.Ct. 158, 158-59, 33 L.Ed. 405 (1889); 2 C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction Sec. 33.08 (4th ed. 1973). 22 One of these exceptions is:(c) The regulations issued under subsection (a)(3) of this section shall not apply-- 23 .... 24 (2) to any vessel, rig, platform, or other vehicle or structure, over 50 percent of which is owned by citizens of a foreign nation or with respect to which the citizens of a foreign nation have the right effectively to control, except to the extent and to the degree that the President determines that the government of such foreign nation or any of its political subdivisions has implemented, by statute, regulation, policy, or practice, a national manning requirement for equipment engaged in the exploration, development, or production of oil and gas in its offshore areas. 25 Id. Sec. 1356(c)(2). 26 Challenger I is owned by foreign citizens. We, therefore, hold that the foreign ownership exception is applicable here, and that the crew of Challenger I is exempt from the certification requirements of the I.N.A. 27 The judgment of the district court denying mandamus and dismissing the action is AFFIRMED.