Washington State Regulations Imposing Stricter Safety Standards Struck Down as Preempted by Federal Law

Chapman, Matthew
August 2001
Ecology Law Quarterly;2001, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p547
Academic Journal
Discusses a United States (U.S.) Supreme Court decision in 2000 which held that four sections of a Washington State regulation designed to help prevent oil spills were preempted by the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. Precedents to the case; Discussion on the rulings of the District Court for the Western District of Washington and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Reasons of the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision; Implications of the decision.


Related Articles

  • The BP B1 Bundle Ruling: Federal Statutory Displacement of General Maritime Law (Part I). Costonis, John J. // Environmental Law Reporter: News & Analysis;Jan2014, Vol. 44 Issue 1, p10022 

    Among the many unresolved legal questions posed by the Deepwater Horizon well blowout are whether and to what extent maritime tort negligence remedies escape displacement by relevant federal statutes, including, principally, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. OPA jurisprudence over two decades holds...

  • Still drunk on oil. Ring, Ray // Missoula Independent;6/24/2010, Vol. 21 Issue 25, p11 

    The author reflects on the issues surrounding legislation on oil spills in the U.S.

  • Hill acts on oil spills. Dance, Betsy // Environmental Action;Mar/Apr90, Vol. 21 Issue 5, p6 

    Reports on pending legislation in the United States Senate and House of Representatives on oil spill cleanup and liability. Experience in the 1989 Valdez spill; Legislation as a belated response from Congress; Differences in the proposed legislation.

  • Still waiting for tanker safety rules. Charles, Dan // New Scientist;2/13/93, Vol. 137 Issue 1860, p5 

    Reveals that a new law passed by the United States Congress in a bid to prevent more oil spills like the Exxon Valdez disaster has done little to increase protection for the country's coasts and wildlife. What the new law provides for; Why the law has not been put into effect; California's...

  • The oil complex.  // Sierra;Jan/Feb91, Vol. 76 Issue 1, p134 

    Suggests that the passage of the 1990 Oil Spill Liability Act was only the beginning step in making oil transport safer. Alaskan oil spills; Conservationists will continue protection work.

  • Big oil scores big in California.  // Earth Island Journal;Winter96/97, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p16 

    Reports on the impact of a bull that would make it difficult to prosecute firms for oil spills on oil companies and other industries in California.

  • Water appreciation events, oil spill show need for new ocean policies.  // Hill;6/10/2010, Vol. 17 Issue 65, p40 

    The author reflects on the significance oil spill show for ocean policies in the U.S.

  • The lesson of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  // New Scientist;5/15/2010, Vol. 206 Issue 2760, p3 

    The authors opine on the legal consequences that should befall polluters who cause oil spills of the nature of BP's Deepwater Horizon failure.

  • Insurers wait for spill rules. Nelson, Kristin L. // Best's Review / Property-Casualty Insurance Edition;Dec93, Vol. 94 Issue 8, p46 

    Reports on the United States Coast Guard's failure to promulgate regulations. Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act; Conflict between the insurers and the government over the oil spill rules; Financial responsibilities of an oil tanker.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics