District Court Preempts Massachusetts’ Oil Spill Prevention Act

United States v. Massachusetts, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 50093 (D. Mass. July 24, 2006)

Rick Silver, 3L, University of Mississippi School of Law

On July 24, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that several provisions of Massachusetts’ Oil Spill Prevention Act (OSPA) were preempted by federal law and are therefore unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the state has been enjoined from enforcing certain provisions of OSPA.

Background
In April 2003, the Bouchard Barge was transporting oil when it collided with an outcropping of rocks, sending thousands of gallons of oil into Buzzards Bay. The Bouchard oil spill “soiled about ninety miles of Buzzards Bay beaches and coastline, killed hundreds of birds and marine life, contaminated thousands of acres of shellfish beds, and seriously harmed the overall marine environment of the Bay.”1 In an attempt to prevent future oil spills, the Massachusetts legislature enacted OSPA, which regulated vessels transporting oil in state waters.

Federal Preemption
The federal government and various members of the shipping industry filed suit against Massachusetts, arguing that several provisions of OSPA were preempted by federal law governing maritime oil transportation. The challenged provisions of OSPA (1) “[prohibit] vessels with certain design characteristics from docking, loading, or unloading in Massachusetts waters, (2) [set] forth manning and navigation watch requirements for towing vessels and tank barges, (3) [require] vessels carrying oil in certain Massachusetts waters to ‘take on and employ’ a Massachusetts licensed pilot, (4) [require] tank vessel operators to implement alcohol and drug testing policies and procedures, and to equip their vessels to carry out such testing, (5) [mandate] tugboat escorts for tank vessels traveling in certain waters of Massachusetts, (6) [require] tank vessels to follow mandatory vessel routes through Massachusetts waters, and (7) [require] any vessel carrying oil in Massachusetts waters to present a certificate of financial assurance to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.”2
The U.S. argued that those provisions were in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and subject to preemption, since they were already being regulated by federal statutes and the U.S. Coast Guard via the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA). The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the Supreme Law of the land.”3 Under the Supremacy Clause, state law may be preempted by federal law when Congress enacts a regulatory scheme so comprehensive that it occupies the entire field of regulation (field preemption) or when compliance with both state and federal law is not possible (conflict preemption). Federal regulations issued by a federal agency also may preempt state law, as long as the agency is acting within authority delegated to it by Congress.

After analyzing each one of the challenged provisions, the court determined that those areas were already regulated by federal law. For instance, the court noted that since Title II of the PWSA grants the federal government the exclusive authority to regulate the manning of tank vessels, then there is simply no room for further OSPA requirements. The court also found that the extent of the federal regulations was quite broad and that each challenged provision of OSPA was already being regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard. For example, the court found that the OSPA drug and alcohol testing provision directly conflicted with Coast Guard testing regulations and was therefore preempted. As a result, the court held OSPA was preempted by either the PWSA or other federal statutes.

The court also relied, in part, on the Supreme Court decision of U.S. v. Locke, which involved a similar regulatory scheme by the state of Washington.4 Both the court here and in Locke believed that allowing individual states to enact regulation in this area would frustrate the congressional desire of achieving a uniform and national scheme of tank vessel regulation.5

Conclusion
The court did not rule on the merits of the OSPA, only whether or not federal law in the area of tank vessel regulation preempted it. Massachusetts has appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. “We will fight the federal government to ensure our waters and our coastlines are protected from the types of accidents that necessitated the [OSPA] in the first place,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly. “We must continue fighting for these important regulations for the health and well-being of our environment.”6.

Endnotes
1. U.S. v. Massachusetts, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50093 at *3-4 (D. Mass. July 24, 2006).
2. Id. at *4-5.
3. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
4. U.S. v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000).
5. Id. at 110; U.S. v. Massachusetts, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50093 at *16.
6.Press Release, Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General, AG Reilly Fights Feds to Protect Buzzards Bay (Sept. 7, 2006), available at http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1718.