Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n v. Goldstene
639 F.3d 1154
9th Cir.2011Background
- PMSA challenges CARB's Vessel Fuel Rules, which require cleaner marine fuels within Regulated California Waters (24 nautical miles from shore).
- Rules implement phased sulfur limits and require recordkeeping, with penalties for noncompliance; sunset clause contingent on federal equivalence.”
- The SLA is invoked as potential preemption grounds; district court denied PMSA summary judgment on multiple preemption theories.
- PMSA interveners argued preemption under SLA and dormant Commerce Clause, as well as general maritime law preemption; district court denied; appellate review granted on interlocutory basis.
- The Ninth Circuit analyzes statutory preemption under SLA and the dormant Commerce Clause/general maritime law preemption, applying an effects-based approach to extraterritorial regulation.
- The court ultimately affirms the district court’s denial of PMSA’s summary judgment, ruling the Vessel Fuel Rules are not preempted at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SLA preempt Vessel Fuel Rules seaward of 3 miles? | PMSA asserts SLA preempts extraterritorial regulation. | Goldstene contends SLA does not preempt here. | SLA preemption not established; issues remain on the record. |
| Do dormant Commerce Clause effects render rules invalid? | PMSA argues rules burden interstate/foreign commerce. | Goldstene argues incidental burden is permissible. | Dormant Commerce Clause challenges rejected; sustained under balancing. |
| Do general maritime law preemption principles bar rules? | PMSA asserts conflict with federal maritime law. | Goldstene contends no interference with uniform maritime regime. | General maritime law preemption rejected; no outright conflict. |
| Are extraterritorial California regulations permissible under effects test? | PMSA argues ambiguity in effects and impact on commerce. | Goldstene relies on effects-based justification for state environmental regulation. | Extrateritorial regulation survives under effects test; not precluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. United States, 332 U.S. 19 (1947) (California I; federal paramount rights in marginal seas)
- Louisiana II, 363 U.S. 1 (1960) (Congress’s power to admit states and establish boundaries; national regulation scope)
- Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69 (1941) (extraterritorial regulation upheld when effect within state; police power)
- Maine v. State, 469 U.S. 504 (1985) (Maine II; state boundary and regulation of navigation context)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (presumption against preemption applied to federal drug labeling)
- Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978) (tug escort costs; regulation deemed not to impede commerce)
- Barber v. Hawai'i, 42 F.3d 1185 (1994) (state regulation of pollution and police powers in maritime context)