|
Federal vs. state: Court to pick rules on tankers Supreme Court hears arguments defending states’ rights to add tanker regulations to those imposed by U.S. government Laurie Asseo Associated Press Writer
The Clinton administration asked the Supreme Court Dec. 7 to rule that federal regulations intended to prevent oil-tanker spills override states’ authority to set their own standards.
“Congress made it clear it wanted there to be one decision-maker,” assistant solicitor general David C. Frederick told the justices. “It would greatly upset uniformity if each state ... were able to pick and choose which of the federal regulations they wanted to adopt.”
But Washington state’s lawyer said that state’s rules complement federal regulations. “It’s a second set of eyes on the ground, at sea,” said William B. Collins. “Working together, we think, will make the waters safer.”
Rulings expected by next summer The justices are expected to issue rulings by next summer that could further clarify the balance of federal and state powers. In recent years, the court has tipped that balance increasingly toward the states.
In the oil-tanker case, a lower court upheld Washington state’s 1994 rules on staffing and operation of oil tankers although the federal government says they conflict with national and international standards.
“Is uniformity of maritime regulations an important objective?” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked Collins.
Collins responded that a state probably could not require a vessel to have more crew members than federal rules require, but that it could require a third officer to be on deck during times of low visibility.
Frederick said Congress directed the Coast Guard to take local views into account when making rules affecting local areas. “There is a role for the states to play,” he said.
“But a very limited one,” interjected Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Intertanko challenged state rules The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, known as Intertanko, challenged the state rules in federal court. A judge upheld them, saying a 1990 federal law let the states impose additional requirements. The federal law aims to prevent oil spills and to govern liability for those that occur.
The federal government joined Intertanko’s appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court decided some of Washington’s rules were pre-empted by federal law, but upheld the state’s rules on staffing and operation of oil tankers.
The cases are U.S. vs. Locke, 98-1701 and International Association of Independent Tanker Owners vs. Locke, 98-1706.
Alaska filed brief in case Alaska and a citizens watchdog group filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation joined with California and 17 other states in a court filing that urges the justices to uphold the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.
“The subject is one we really hold dear to our hearts,” Alaska DEC Commissioner Michele Brown said Nov. 19. “We fought long and hard to develop what is probably the best oil spill prevention and response system in the world. We would hate to see any backpedaling of our authority.”
The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council also filed as a friend of the court. It contends that states are allowed to impose rules as long as those rules don’t conflict with federal law.
Washington state officials in 1994 adopted standards for training, language, staffing and drug-testing of oil tanker crews. The state also required tankers to have certain navigation and towing equipment.
A federal district court ruled that the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 — enacted after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill — set federal liability standards for oil spills and said states could impose additional requirements.
Intertanko countered that the 1990 federal law allows states to impose their own fines for oil spills, but not to set prevention requirements.
States at risk of oil spills Brown said it only makes sense for states to be able to enact rules aimed at preventing spills.
“We’re the ones left holding the consequences (of a spill),” she said. “We ought to be able to protect ourselves.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the lower-court ruling. It decided the state’s rules on navigation and towing equipment were pre-empted by federal law, but supported state rules on staffing and operation of oil tankers.
Intertanko was joined in its appeal by the Clinton administration. Government lawyers said the current system “gravely impairs the Coast Guard’s longstanding authority to adopt uniform national rules” and the government’s ability to comply with international standards.
The United States received diplomatic protests from 14 nations and the European Community, its lawyers say.
| 