968 F.3d 165
2d Cir.2020Background
- The Power Authority of the State of New York (the Authority) owns and operates the Y-49 submarine high‑voltage cable system across Long Island Sound; the cables contain dielectric fluid (a petroleum‑based oil) and connect to onshore self‑contained fluid‑filled (SCFF) pressurization plants that pump fluid to maintain cable pressure.
- The four cables together hold roughly 10,000 gallons of dielectric fluid; the pressurization plants and cables routinely move fluid to regulate pressure.
- On January 6, 2014, a barge dropped anchor, rupturing Cable No. 3 and causing a sudden pressure loss and a discharge of dielectric fluid; remediation and containment followed and the Authority claims about $9.85 million in cleanup costs.
- The Authority sued the vessels and owners under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., and New York Oil Spill Law (NYOSL); vessel owners filed a Limitation of Liability Act proceeding.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding the submarine cable was not a “facility” under the OPA because it was not “used for” the statute’s enumerated purposes, and transferred the Authority’s state‑law claims to the Limitation Act proceeding.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the cables are structures/equipment used to “transfer” dielectric fluid and therefore fall within the OPA definition of “facility”; it declined to decide whether the dielectric fluid is legally “oil” and did not resolve the savings‑clause issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the submarine cable is a “facility” under OPA (33 U.S.C. §2701(9)) because it is “used for” an enumerated purpose (e.g., transferring oil) | Cables are structures/equipment regularly used to transfer dielectric fluid between cables and pressurization plants to maintain pressure, so they are "used for" transferring oil | Cables are primarily used to transmit electricity; any movement of dielectric fluid is incidental; OPA targets oil‑industry facilities, not equipment with incidental oil use | Court: Cables are structures/equipment that are used to transfer dielectric fluid; that use satisfies the statutory "used for" requirement, so the cables can be a "facility" under the OPA; district court erred and case remanded |
| Whether district court properly transferred NYOSL claims to Limitation Act proceeding because Authority lacked a viable OPA claim | Authority: OPA claim valid, so NYOSL claims need not be forced into Limitation Act; savings clause and remediative frameworks matter | Defendants: No viable OPA claim means Limitation Act governs and state claims should proceed in limitation proceeding | Court: Because district court incorrectly concluded there was no OPA claim, its transfer of NYOSL claims on that basis was error; court did not resolve the savings‑clause question and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayward v. IBI Armored Servs., Inc., 954 F.3d 573 (2d Cir. 2020) (de novo review applies where disposition raises pure statutory‑interpretation question)
- United States v. Balde, 943 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2019) (statutory interpretation begins with plain text)
- Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018) (give statutory words their ordinary meaning)
- Greathouse v. JHS Sec. Inc., 784 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015) (turn to canons of construction only if text is ambiguous)
- Power Auth. of N.Y. v. Tug M/V Ellen S. Bouchard, 377 F. Supp. 3d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (district court opinion granting summary judgment to defendants, which the Second Circuit vacated and remanded)