# Appendix — Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_1695%3A04 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1978 - **Citation:** 435 U.S. 151 ## Text Lt) PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED FEBRUARY 2m, 1977 APPENDIX Supreme Court of the Huited States OCTOBER TERM, 1976 No. 76-930 Dixy LEE Ray, et ai., Appellants, —VY— ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, et al., Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (THREE.JUDGE COURT) FILED NOVEMBER 19, 1976 PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED FEBRUARY 28, 1977 INDEX UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (THREE-JUDGE COURT) 1. Docket Entries 2. Complaint (Atlantic Richfield Company) 3. Pre-Trial Order 4. Exhibit A (Chapter 125 and Governor's Message) 5. Exhibit B (Order, Board of Pilotage Commissioners 6. Exhibit C (Tankers at ARCO’s Cherry Point refinery) 7. Exhibit D (Tankers over 125,000 DWT at ARCO’'s Cherry Point refinery) 8. Exhibit F (Tankers at ARCO’s Long Beach refinery) 9. Exhibit G (part thereof, viz, Chart Nos. 18400 and 18421) 10. Exhibit N (Public parks, Puget Sound) 11. Exhibit O (Puget Sound tanker casualties) 12. Exhibit Q (Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972) 13. Exhibit R (Title | regulations, Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972) 14. Exhibit T (Puget Sound vessel traffic system rules) 15. Exhibit U (Puget Sound Vesse! Traffic System Operatir., Manual) 16. Exhibit Y (Letter and Testimony of Governor Evans) . ; 115 Found in at tached envelope 117 INDEX 17. Exhibit X (Coast Guard Final Environmental Impact Statement) 18. Exhibit XX (Proposed Whatcom County ordinance) 19. Exhibit BBB (Washington Coastal Zone Man- agement Program Approval, and Knecht Affidavit) 20. Coast Guard Memorandum (R.A. Ratti) 21. Affidavit of Byron E. Milner 22. Affidvait of Herbert H. Zachow Note: Order, Order of Permanent Injunction, Opinion, and Judgment of the United States District Court, Western District of Washington (Three-Judge Court), may be found at pages 1a, 3a, 5a, and 12a, re- , of the Junsdictiona! Statement, previously 23. Order Suspending Processing of Appeals (Judge McGovern) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 24. Opinion and Order on Application of Stay, Mr. Justice Rehnquist (Circuit Justice) 25. Memorandum Decision, Granting Application for Stay 369 370 373 Docket Entries ! DOCKET ENTRIES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON THREE-JUDGE COURT PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC RicnPireLp COMPANY SeaTrain Lines, INc., Intervenor Plaintiff Younc LAWYERS SECTION, Kine Co. Bar Association, Amicus Curiae Plaintiff Unitep STATES, Amicus Curiae Plaintiff DEFENDANTS Evans, Danirer J., Governor of the State of Washington; SLape Gorton, Attorney General of the State of Washington, Wiitam C. Jacons, Chairman, and Harry A. GREENWOOD, Bensamin W. Jover, Poise H. Lutwer and J. Q Patt, Members, Board of Pilotage Commissioners; and Davin S McFacnwran, Whatcom County Prosecutor and COALITION AGAINST OIL POLLUTION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION SIERRA CLUB. and FNVIR ONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., : Intervenor Defendants Kine Co. Prosecutor, ‘Interven or Defendant STaTe OF MARYLAND, Amicus Curiae CAUSE Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Enforcement of Washington Tanker Law, Seeks 3 Judge Court to declare State law unconstitutional. ATTORNEYS O’Me:veny & Myers 611 W. Sixth St Los Angeles, CA 90017 and Davin FE. Waconer Perkins, Com, Stone, OLSEN & Wiitams 1%) Washington Bidg Seattle, WA QGRI10! (206) 6R2-8770 (Judges Goodwin-MecGovern. Fast) 2 Docket Entries ATTORNEYS--Continued State of Maryland Office of Attorney General Dept. of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Bldg. Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301) 267-1251 CHARLES MANSFIELD (McEacuern) Wiiuiam Gwar, Il! Attorney in Charge, West Coast Office Admiralty & Shipping Section U.S. Dept. of Justice 16152 Federal Bidg., P.O. Box 36028 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Wiuttam A. GARDINER Deputy Prosecuting Atty. Whatcom County, Washington tor David S. McEachran 311 Grand Ave., Bellingham, WA 98225 Cnarces B. Roe, Jr. Sr Assist. Atty. Genl. Temple of Justice Olympia, Washington 98504 for Dan Evans (206) 753-2354 Tuomas H. S. Brucker DuRNING & SMITH 1411 Fourth Avenue 624-8901 for Coalition Against Oil Pollution Larry Carter, RayMonD HAMAN Lane, Power, Moss & MILLER 1700 Washington Bldg. Seattle, Wn. 98101 (206) 223-7000 for Intervenor Seatrain Lines King Co. Prosecutor JOHN KEEGAN Eipon V. C. GREENBERG, Ricnarp A. FRANK Center for Law & Social Policy 1751 N Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 344-3939 Docket Entries t PROCEEDINGS DATE Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Oct. Oct. Oct. Oct. Oct. Oct. s 8 10 19 18 8 9 NR. ~ PROCEEDINGS Filed complaint and issued summons. Filed Notice of Requirement of Three-Judge Court. Transferred to Judge McGovern as Judge Sharp has disqualified himself. Notified counsel. Ent. order transferring to Judge Goodwin for reassignment. Filed return on s/c (7) Transferred to Judge McGovern. Filed order. Filed certificate as to Three Judge Court. Filed designation of Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, Senior Judge William G. East, and District Judge Walter T. McGovern, to hold a three judge court. Notified counsel. Filed return on s/c. Ent. order setting chambers confer- ence for 2:00 p.m. on 10/9/75. Ent. record of conference. Filed notice of appearance of Wm. A. Gardiner for David S. McEachran, Whatcom County Prosecutor. Filed notice of appearance of Charles B. Roe, Jr. for Dan Evans. Filed notice of appearance of What- com County Filed letter setting schedule of case including setting 2/23/76 for oral argumeat and submission of case to three judge court. Dec. : Dec. Dec. . 28 3 5 18 19 20 Docket Entries PROCEEDINGS Ent. order setting hearing of this cause for 9:30 a.m. on 2/23/76. Filed motion to intervene. Filed affidavit of Rbt. Lynette. Filed affidavit of Thomas Kimbail. Filed affidavit of Wm. Butler. Filed affidavit of Brock Evans. Filed memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion of coalition against oil pollution, The Natl. Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. to intervene as defts. Filed notice of motion, 11/28/75 at 9:30 a.m. Filed certificate of service. Lodged order granting leave to file motion to intervene without a pleading. Ent. order continuing motion of Coalition Against Oil Pollution, etc., to intervene to 12/5/75. Filed memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to motion to intervene. Filed affidavit of Thomas H. S. Bruker. Filed reply memorandum in support of motion of Coalition Against Oil Pollution, Natl. Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and environmental defense Fund, Inc. to intervene as defts. Filed certificate of service. Filed response of defts. Daniel J. Evans, Slade Gorton, Wm. C. Jacobs, Harry Greenwood, Ben. Joyce, Philip Luther, J. Q. Paull, to motion to intervene by Coalition Against . Oil DATE . 10 to . 16 NR. 34 Docket Entries - 5 PROCEEDINGS Pollution, Natl Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and Environmental De- fense Fund. Inc. Motions to intervene submitted without argument. Filed response of deft. Whatcom Co. Prosecutor, no objection to motion to intervene. Ent. order granting motion to inter- vene by Coalition Against Oil Pollution, Natl. Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., per letter of counsel of record this date. Filed motion to intervene, Seatrain "ines, Ine. Filed memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion of Seatrain Lines, Inc. to intervene as a pitt. Filed notice of intent to file pleading within five calendar days. Filed affidavit of Howard M. Pack. Filed notice of motion, 1/16/76 at 9:30 a.m. Filed certificate of service. Filed letter from Thomas Brucker. Lodged proposed complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against entorcement. Filed statement re Seatrain Lines, Inc. motion to intervene. Jan. Jan. Jan. ‘ Jan. Jan. Feb. Feb. 22 22 to ~ 28 2 6 Feb. 6 NR. 35 37 39 40 Docket Entries PROCEEDINGS Ent. order taking motion of Seatrain Lines to intervene under advisement. Filed response of intervenors to motion of Seatrain Lines, Inc. to intervene as a party-pltf. Filed memoranduta of points and authorities in. opposition to motion of Seatrain Lines, Inc., to intervene as a pitf. Filed certificate of service of memo. of points, ete. Filed reply memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion of Seatrain Lines, Inc. to intervene as a pitf. Filed certificate of service of accept- ance of Roe’s schedule. Ent. record of chambers conference. The court denies the application and motion of Seatrain Lines to intervene pursuant to FRCP 24(a)(2) as a matter of right. Seatrain Lines motion for permissive intervention is granted. Filed notice of withdrawal and substitution of attorneys for Seatrain Lines, Inc. Lane, Powell, Moss substituted. Filed proposed complaint for declara- tory and injunctive relief against enforcement of Washington Tug Escort Act. Filed complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of Washington Tug Escort Act. Filed certificate of service of above complaint. Apr. . oe. ~ 1 NR. 45 46 45 49 51 Docket Entries PROCEEDINGS Ent. order setting hearing for 9:30 a.m. on 6/25/76. Filed acknowledgement of service. Filed acknowledgement of service. Filed acknowledgement of service. Filed acknowledgement of service. Ent. order granting permission to appear amicus curiae of Young Lawyers Section, King Co. Bar Assoc. and to file an amicus brief. Croil Anderson appear- ing for the Assoc. Filed Motion to intervene as a defendant, King Co. Prosecuting Atty. Lodged Order granting intervention. Lodged Pretrial Order with exhibits. Filed Statement of plaintiff and intervening plaintiff regarding King County prosecuting attorney's motion to intervene. Ent. order granting the motion of the King Co. Prosecutor to intervene as a defendant in this action upon condition that Prosecutor agree to PTO submit- ted to Court 4/6/76 and to be bound by time table for presenting briefs as presently established; that prosecutor not seek additional time for oral argument over the time allocated to defendant McEachran, Whatcom Co. Prosecuting attornev. Aili counsel and Judges notified. Filed Statement of King County Prosecuting Attorney accepting condi tions of intervention. May y dl 12 12 12 12 NR. 52 53 60 61 Docket Entries 8 PROCEEDINGS Ent. order denying motion of Amer- ican Institute of Merchant Shipping Co. to appear Amicus Curiae. Counsel advised. Filed Plaintiff's Trial Brief. Filed Intervening Plaintiff's Brief in support of complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Filed Notice of motion of the United States of America to intervene as amicus curiae for 5/14/76. Filed Motion of the United States of America to intervene as Amicus Curiae. Filed Certificate of service of motion. Lodged Order granting motion of the US of A to intervene as Amicus Curiae. Filed Response in opposition to the motion of the United States to file brief Amicus Curiae. Filed Motion to strike portions of brief of intervening plaintiff Seatrain Lines, Inc. Filed Notice of motion of environ- mental intervenors to strike portion of brief of Seatrain Lines, Inc. for 5/21/76. Filed Certificate of service. Filed Response of environmental! intervenors in opposition to motion of United States to intervene as Amicus Curiae. DATE May May May May May May May May May * May : May 12 13 14 14 14 17 18 21 + June 1 June 7 63 65 6s 6Y Docket Entries 4 PROCEEDINGS Filed Response in support of the motion of the United States to file brief Amicus Curiae. Filed Response of the United States to opposition to its motion to intervene as Amicus Curiae. Lodged Order granting motion of the US.A. to intervene as Amicus Curiae. Ent. order granting U.S. motion to intervene amicus curiae. Counsel no- tified. Amicus brief due on or before 5/24/76. , Filed Order granting motion of the United States of America to intervene as amicus curiae. Filed Response of intervening plain- tiff Seatrain Lines, Inc. to intervening defendants’ motion to strike. Ent. order denying environmental intervenors’ motion to strike portions of brief of Seatrain Lines, Inc. Counsel advised. Ent. order granting state of Maryland leave to file an amicus brief due no later than 6/4/76. Counsel notified. Filed letter from State of Maryland re filing of amicus brief. Filed Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae. Filed Brief of Amici Curiae of State of Marvland and Maine. Filed Application for leave to file brief amicus curiae by the State of 10 DATE June 7 June 8 *5/3 **5/13 6/10 NR. 53a Docket Entries PROCEEDINGS California (joined by the states of Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) in support of defendants Danie! J. Evans, et al. Lodged Brief of the California Attorney General Amicus Curiae (joined by the States of Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) in sup- port of defendants Daniel J. Evans, et al. Filed Environmental intervenors’ Trial Brief. Filed Brief of State of Washington defendants, Daniel J. Evans, et al. Filed Memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to dismiss of defendants Daniei J. Evans, et al, and State of Washington. Filed Trial Brief of Intervening defen- dant, King County Prosecuting Attorney Filed Application of the Maritime Law Assoc. of the U.S. to file Amicus Curiae brief. Ent. order authorizing the Maritime Law Assoc. o. the U.S. to file Amicus Curiae brief. Filed Brief on behalf of the Maritime Law Assoc. of the U.S.. Amicus Curiae Filed Statement of David S. McEach- ran, Prosecuting Attorney for Whatcom County, supporting Brief of Chris- topher T. Bayley, King County Pro- secutor, Intervening defendant. DATE 6/14 6/16 June 17 June 18 June 21 76 84 m4 Docket Entries ii PROCEEDINGS Filed Supplemental Memorandum of Environmental! Intervenors Filed Application of State of New York to file Amicus Curiae Brief. Ent. order denying application of the State of New York to be deemed a party Amicus Curiae on the State of Mary- land's memorandum of law as being untimely. Counsel notified. Filed Motion to supplement the Pretrial Order Filed Notice of motion to supplement the pretrial order for 6/25/76 Filed Reply Brief of Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Co. Filed letter with documents (two) published subsequent to filing Pretrial Order Filed ®Reply Brief of intervening plaintiff Seatrain Lines, Inc. Filed Memorandum of Points and authorities of plaintiff Atlantic Rich- field Company in opposition to “Motion to dismiss of defendants Daniel 4. Evans, et al, and = State of Washington” Filed Affidavit setting forth facts concerning notice of motion to sup- plement the pretrial order with attachments Ent. order granting State of Califor- nia (joined by States of Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) to file amicus brief. Counsel advised. Filed Brief of the California Attorney (Jeneral as amicus curiae (joined by the DATE June 22 June 23 June 24 lune 25 NR. 85 90 91 93 94 Docket Entries 12 PROCEEDINGS States of Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) in support of defendants Daniel J. Evans, et al. Filed Plaintiff's consent to defen- dants’ motion to supplement the pretrial order Filed Certificate of Service. Filed Affidavit of delivery letter from Mr. Sherwood, Memo of Points and Authorities, and Reply Brief of ARCO to Charles Roe Filed Affidavit of delivery of above- mentioned documents to Christopher Bayley Filed Affidavit of Delivery of above- mentioned documents to Ray Haman Filed Affidavit of delivery of above- mentioned documents to Tom Brucker Filed Motion of United States as Amicus Curiae intervenor for leave to file reply brief and affidavit Filed Notice of motion of United States as Amicus Curiae intervenor for leave to file reply brief and affidavit for 6/25/76 Lodged Order granting motion Lodged Reply Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Filed Seatrain’s Response to defen- dants’ motion to supplement Pretrial Order Filed Reply Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Filed Motion to supplement Pre- Trial order DATE June 25 July 2 July July July Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. 18 Sept. 24 Sept Be 14 15 NR 97 ” 1 10s Docket Entries 3 = PROCEEDINGS Filed Pretrial Order Def. State of Washington's motion to amend PTO granted. Deft. Evans’ motion to dismiss denied. Pitf. arco's motion to supplement pretrial order granted. Ent. hearing on merits. Argument heard. Case taken under advisement. Filed Motion of Young Lawyers Section to Withdraw as Amicus Curiae and Order. Counsel notified. Filed Supplemental Brief of Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company on Injunc- tive relief Filed Affidavit of Mailing. Filed Affidavit of delivery of arco brief on The Prosecuting Attorney, Tom Brucker, Lee Johnson, Raymond W. Haman Filed brief of defendants and inter vening defendants on injunctive relief Filed transcript of proceedings Filed Reply Brief of Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company on _ injunctive reliet Filed Certificate of Service Filed and entered Opinion. Copy to counsel by Court. Filed and entered Order declaring the Washington State Tank Law as null and void. No party shall recover costs. Copy to counsel by Court Filed and entered Judgment. Copy to counsel Filed Motion of Plaintiff Atlanti Kichtield Company tor Permanent 14 DATE Sept. NR. 109 110 112 114 15 Docket Entries PROCEEDINGS Injunction in Support of Declaratory Judgment Filed Notice of Motion of Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company for Permanent Injunction in Support of Declaratory Judgment; Affidavit of Byron E. Milner and Richard E. Sherwood; and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof Filed Affidavit of Richard E. Sher- wood in Support of Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company's Motion for Permanent Injunction in Support of Declaratory Judgment Filed Affidavit of Byron E. Milner in Support of Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company's Motion for Permanent Injunction in Support of Declaratory Judgment Filed Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company's Motion for Permanent Injunction in Support of Declaratory Judgment Filed Motion for Order Shortening Time to give Notice Lodged Order Shortening Time to Give Notice Lodged Order of Permanent Injunction Filed Response of Environmental Intervenors in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Shortening of time for hearing Filed Reponse of Governor Daniei J. Evans and Other State defendants in DATE Oct. Oct. «31 9 NR. 116 17 118 124 Docket Entries 5 PROCEEDINGS Opposition to Atlantic Richfield Com- pany’s Motion for Shortening Time to Give notice Fiied Response of Defendant Bayley in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time Filed Defendant Bayley’s Motion Requesting Hearing of ARCO's Motion for Permanent Injunction Filed Notice of defendant Bayley’s Motion Requesting Hearing for October 8 or October 15 Filed Certificate of Service Filed Affidavit of Service Filed Defendant Prosecutor Bayley’s Memorandum in Opposition to arco’s Motion for Permanent Injunction and in Support of Defendants’ Motion tor Stay. Filed defs.’s Motion to Stay Enfor- cement of Judgment and Any Injunc- tive Relief Ordered by the Court Filed Memorandum of Governor Daniel J. Evans and Other State defendants in Oppesition to Motion for Permanent Injunction and in Support of Stay of Judgment of Court Pending Appeal Filed Notice of Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment and any Injunctive Relef Ordered by the Court fer 10/15/76 Lodged Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Permanent Injunction Lodged Order Granting Plaintitf's Motion for Permanent Injunction and 16 DATE Oct. 15 Oct. 21 Oct. 26 NR. 130 Docket Entries PROCEEDINGS Staying Effective Date of Order of Permanent Injunction Lodged Order Granting Permanent Injunction and Denying a Stay Filed Certificate of Service Filed Response of Environmental Intervenors to Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunction in Support of Declaratory judgment. Def.’s motion to stay enforcement continued subject to call. Filed def. State of Wash.'’s Notice of Appeal Filed cost bond in amount of $300 thru Fireman's Fund for appeal Filed Reply Memorandum of Plain- tiff Atlantic Richfield Company in Support of its motion for injunctive relief and in opposition to Defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of judgment. Ent. order setting hearing on Plain- tiffs’ Motion for permanent injunction in support of declaratory judgment for 11/12/76 at 9:30 A.M. Counsel advised by letter. Mailed certified copies of Notice of Appeal and docket entries to Circuit Court of Appeals Filed Affidavit of Herbert H. Zachou in Support of plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company's Motion for permanent injunction Ent. record of hearing on Prelim. Inj and motion for stay in Support of Declaratory Judgment DATE Nov. 19 Nov. 22 Nov. 22 Nov. 23 Dec. 20 NR. 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140) 14) Docket Entries 17 PROCEEDINGS Filed and entered Order of Perman- ent Injunction. Order is stayed until the 15th day of December 1976. Copy to all counsel. Filed Notice of Appeal (by State of Wa.) to the Supreme Court of the United States. Filed Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States by Intervenor defendants. Copy to Filed Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States by Prosecuting Attorney Filed Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by State of Wash. Filed def. State of Wash.’s Motion for Order Suspending Processing of Ap- peals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Lodged Order Suspending Processing of Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed Certificate of Service. Filed Order Suspending Processing of Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Copy to counsel. Filed Certified copy of Order from Supreme Court continuing stay of order of permanent injunction until further order of that Court. Filed Opinion on Application of Stay, from Circuit Justice of Supreme Court Filed Request for Certification of Record 18 Docket Entries Complaint 19 DATE TR. PROCEEDINGS - COMPLAINT FOR or DECLARATORY AND , . INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Jan. 13 142 Filed copy of letter from Supreme Leone Geeenemener Court granting stay of order of permanent injunction. oF WASHINGTON TANKER LAW Jan. 12 Mailed record on appeal to Supreme (Three Judge Court) Court. Mar. 7 143 Filed certified copy of Statement of Mea: +e " \ Cru. ACTION jurisdiction from Supreme Court. No. C 75-648 (Names, addresses, and telephone numb-rs of attorneys omitted in printing.) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Plaintiff, Vv. DANIEL J. EVANS, Governor of the State of Washington; SLADE GORTON, Attorney General of the State of Washington; WILLIAM C. JACOBS, Chairman, and HARRY A. GREENWOOD, BENJAMIN W. JOYCE, PHILIP H. LUTHER and J. Q. PAULL, Members, Board of Pilotage Commissioners; and DAVID S. McEACHRAN, Whatcom County Prosecutor, Defendants Plaintiff for its complaint herein alleges as follows: Nature of the Case 1. This is an action to declare unconstitutional and void and to enjoin the enforcement of Chapter 125, 1975 Laws of the State 20 Complaint of Washington, enacted as Substitute House Bill No. 527, 44th Legislature, Ist Extraordinary Session (hereinafter “the Tanker Law”). The Tanker Law prohibits oil tankers of a certain size from entering Puget Sound and imposes certain design, equipment, pilotage and tugboat requirements on other oil tankers entering Puget Sound. The Tanker Law is unconstitutional on the following grounds: (a) It invades a field of regulation which has been preempted by the federal government, and is thus invalid under the Supremac lause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2); (b) It conflicts with federal stat....s and regulations and is thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause; ic) It imposes undue burdens u interstate and foreign commerce, and thereby conflicts with federal power under t Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section $, Clause 3) to regulate such commerce. (d) It invades a field of regulation in which the federal government has recognized the primacy of international agreement and cooperation, and thereby conflicts with federal power to late foreign affairs, to regulate foreign commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), and to make treaties (Article Il, Section 2, Clause 2). (e) It conflicts with international agreements to which the United States is a party, and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause; Jurisdiction and Venue 2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §$§ 1331(a) and 1337. The matter in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This action presents an actual case or controversy appropriate for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 3. This action seeks injunctive relief against the enforcement of the State statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional, and therefore it must be heard and determined by a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281. Complaint 21 4. The venue of this action is in this Court pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Parties 5. Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at Los Angeles, California. Atlantic Richfield is an integrated petroleum company, active in all phases of exploration, development, production, transportation, refining and marketing of petroleum and petroleum products. Atlantic Richfield owns and operates a refinery on Puget Sound, at Cherry Point, near Ferndale, Washington, which is primarily supplied by oil tankers subject to the challenged Tanker Law. 6. Defendant Daniel J. Evans is Governor of the State of Washington, and, as the State's chief executive, is charged with overall responsibility for enforcement of the state's laws, including the Tanker Law challenged herein. Defendant Slade Gorton is Attorney General of the State of Washington, and in such capacity is responsible for enforcing the State's laws, including the Tanker Law challenged herein. Defendant William C. Jacobs is Chairman of the Board of Pilotage Commissioners, an administrative body established by Revised Code of Washington (hereinafter R.C.W.) § 88.16.010 which, pursuant to Section 88.16.030, is charged with administration of the Tanker Law. Defendants Harry A. Greenwood, Benjamin W. Joyce, Philip H. Luther, and J. Q. Paull are the other members of the Board of Pilotage Commissioners. Defendant Davis S. McEachran is Prosecutor of Whatcom County, in which Atlantic Richfield’s Cherry Point refinery is located, and has jurisdiction to bring criminal prosecution against Atlantic Richfield for violation of the Tanker Law taking place in that county. The Challenged Statute 7. The Tanker Law was enacted by the State Legislature in May 1975 and signed into law by Governor Evans on May 29, 1975. A copy of the statute is annexed hereto as Appendix I. The statute goes into effect on September 8, 1975; the Board of Pilotage Commissioners, by order dated August 11, 1975, has ts te Complaint declared its intention to begin enforcement of the statute on such date. 8. The Tanker Law imposes substantial restrictions on the operation of oil tankers in Puget Sound, for the stated purpose of protecting Puget Sound and adjacent waters and shorelines from the danger of oil spills. Section 2 of the statute provides that any oil tanker, whether enrolled (i.e., engaged solely in interstate as opposed to foreign commerce) or registered (i.e., entitled to engage in foreign commerce), of 50,000 deadweight tons (DWT) or more, must employ a pilot licensed by the State of Washington while navigating Puget Sound. Section 3(1) of the statute prohibits any oil tanker of more than 125,000 DWT from entering Puget Sound. Section 3(2) prohibits any oil tanker between 40,000 DWT and 125,000 DWT from entering Puget Sound unless it has all of the following: shaft horsepower of at least one horsepower for each 2.5 DWT; twin screws; double bottoms; two radars, one of which must be collision-avoidance radar; and any other navigational systems as may te prescribed by the Board of Pilotage Commissioners. A proviso to Section 3(2), however, waives compliance with that Section if the tanker is under the escort of tugboats with an aggregate horsepower of 5‘. of its deadweight tonnage. 9. The Tanker Law adds these statutory provisions to the State Pilotage Act, R.C.W. Chapter 88.16. Pursuant to R.C.W. Section 88.16.030, the Board of Pilotage Commissioners is charged with administration of the Tanker Law and is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations thereunder. Pursuant to Section 88.16.150, violation of the Tanker Law is a misdemeanor. Federal Preemption 10. The Tanker Law is invalid and unconstitutional because it invades a field of regulation which has been preempted by federal law. The United States has undertaken comprehensive regulation of oi] tanker design and construction, safety and equipment requirements, navigational controls and _ vessel movement control systems. The relevant federal statutes and regulations evidence a congressional intention completely to Complaint 23 occupy this field and to establish a uniform system of federal regulation of oil tankers to the exclusion of state authority. 11. Federal occupation of the relevant field is demonstrated by the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (hereinafter PWSA), Pub. L. 92-340, 86 Stat. 424 (July 10, 1972). A copy of this statute is annexed hereto as Appendix II. PWSA establishes a comprehensive regulatory scheme for vessel design, equipment and navigational control, and thus embraces both the objective and the regulatory scheme of the Tanker Law. While Titles I and Il of PWSA overlap, Title I is primarily concerned with vessel traffic and navigational control, while Title II is primarily concerned with vessel design and equipment. 12. Title I of PWSA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1221 et seq., gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to promulgate regulations “to protect the navigable waters and the resources therein from environmental harm resulting from vessel or structural damage, destruction, or loss” (§ 101). This broad authority specifically includes regulation of vessel traffic in hazardous areas (§ 101[3]) by a) limitation of vessel size (§ 101[3)[iii] and b) restriction of vessel operation to those having particular characteristics or capabilities necessary for safe operation (§ 101[3}fiv}). 13. Title | guarantees that State and local governments have an opportunity to participate in the development of federal regulations and standards by providing in Section 104: “In preparing proposed rules, regulations and standards, the Secretary shall provide an adequate opportunity for consultation and comment to State and local governments, representatives of the marine industry, port and harbor authorities, environmental groups, and other interested parties.” 24 Complaint 14. In determining the need for and substance of such regulations, Section 102(e) directs the Secretary to consider a wide range of factors including environmental considerations, the need for efficient conduct of maritime commerce and the economic impact of such regulations. 15. Section 102(b) of Title I confirms congressional intent to preempt as to vessels by specifically permitting stricter state regulation “for structures only.” 16. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1.46(0)(4)(1974), the Secretary of Transportation has delegated his rulemaking authority under the PWSA to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has promulgated regulations to implement Title I of the PWSA. Such rules delegate authority to the Captain of the Port to determine on a case-by-case basis whether conditions require establishment of vessel size and speed limitations or restriction of vessel operations to vessels having particular operating characteristics and capabilities necessary for safety. 40 Fed. Reg. 6653 (Fed. 13, 1975), 33 C.F.R. Part 160. Additional regulations proposed by an advance notice of proposed rulemaking would direct the Captain of the Port, in exercising such authority, to consider, among other factors, the hull design of the tanker, including the presence or absence of a double bottom and cargo segregation; the tanker’s propulsion system, including its horsepower, number of shafts, and other variables which affect controllability and maneuverability; whether tugboats are in attendance; and whether a pilot is aboard. 39 Fed. Reg. 24157 (June 28, 1974). The advance notice of proposed regulations would also require various navigational devices, including two radars, one of which must be equipped with an anti-collision device, on oil tankers over 10,000 gross tons. Jd. The Coast Guard has promulgated one set of regulations directed specifically to Puget Sound, establishing a vessel traffic control system to reduce the likelihood of an accident. 39 Fed. Reg. 25430 (July 10, 1974), 33 C.F.R. Part 161, Subpart B. 17. Title II of the PWSA amended the Tank Vessel Act, 46 U.S.C. § 391a, for the express purpose of “protecting the marine environment” by establishing comprehensive standards of design, sll Complaint 25 construction, equipment and operation of oil tankers. Section 3 of the amended statute gives the Secretary of Transportation broad authority to adopt regulations with respect, inter alia, to “the design and construction * * * of such vessels, including * * * gsuperstructures, hulls, * * * equipment, appliances, [and] propulsive machinery, * * * and with respect to the operation of such vessels,” thereby including all of the subject matter of the Washington Tanker Law. 18. Title Il identifies the objectives of the regulations to be adopted by the Secretary of Transportation: “Such rules and regulations shall, to the extent possible, include but not be limited to standards to improve vessel maneuvering and stopping ability and otherwise reduce the possibility of collision, grounding, or other accident, to reduce cargo loss following collision, grounding, or other accident, and to reduce damage to the marine environment by normal vessel operations such as ballasting and deballasting, cargo handling, and other activities.” (Sec. 7) 19. Title I] also establishes requirements for inspection of both domestic and foreign tankers (Sec. 5 and 6) and further provides that the Secretary may deny entry to the U. S. waters of tankers in violation of the statute or regulations 20. Pursuant to the authority of Title II, the Coast Guard published proposed comprehensive desigt: and construction regulations applicable to tankers in the coastwise (interstate) trade. 39 Fed. Reg. 24150 (Jume 28, 1974). In a Final Environmental Impact Statement dated August 15, 1975, the Coast Guard announced that such regulations are to be made final, with minor changes, on or about September 15, 1975, It also announced that substantially similar, if not identical, regulations to implement Title I] as to tankers engaged in foreign commerce would be promulgated in the near future. Section 7(C) of PWSA directs that such regulations be promulgated not later than January 1, 1976. 21. The regulations referred to in Paragraph 20 completely cover the field of tanker design, construction and required equipment. They require segregated ballast tanks on new tankers 26 Complaint over 70,000 DWT, which must be distributed between the cargo tanks and the vessel's hull or between cargo wing tanks so as to mitigate the effects of collisions or groundings. They impose restrictions on the size and arrangement of cargo tanks in new tankers, including requirements for segregation of cargo tanks, in order to limit the outflow of oil in case of accident. The regulations provide incentive for the adoption of double bottoms and/or double sides by relaxing restrictions otherwise applicable to cargo tank arrangement and size. The regulations do not require double bottoms, twin screws, or increased horsepower. Imposing such requirements was considered by the Coast Guard and expressly rejected, as explained in the environmental impact statement, in large part because of the importance of avoiding unilateral action by the United States not in conformance with international agreements. 22. In its consideration of the PWSA, Congress recognized that regulation of oil tanker design, construction, equipment and operation was international in scope. Congress was particularly aware of the then impending 1973 International Conference on Marine Pollution held under the auspices of the Inter- Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), an arm of the United Nations. Therefore, in section 7(C) Congress authorized the Secretary to delay implementation of Title II until after this Conference, and to defer to such rules and regulations as might be established by “international treaty, convention, or agreement, which generally address the regulation of similar topics for the protection of the marine environment.” 23. Congress’ concern for international uniformity in the regulation of tanker design was recognized by the Coast Guard, for its proposed regulations under Title II are consistent with and incorporate the standards enunciated in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, adopted by the International Conference on Marine Pollution. 24. Congress has demonstrated in other statutes both its intent to preempt the regulation of the field and its concern for international uniformity. Complaint Conflict With Federal Statutes 25. The Tanker Law is invalid and unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with various federal statutes and regulations. 26. Section 2 of the Tanker Law, requiring all tankers over 50,000 DWT, whether enrolled or registered, to employ a pilot licensed by the State, conflicts with federal pilotage laws to the extent that it requires an enrolled vessel to employ a local pilot, and is thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause. 46 U.S.C. § 264 provides, in pertinent part: | | “[E}very coastwise seagoing steam vessel [including oil tankers, however propelled, 46 U.S.C. § 391a] subject to the navigation laws of the United States, and to the rules and regulations aforesaid, not sailing under register, shall, when under way, except on the high seas, be under the control and direction of pilots licensed by the Coast Guard. 46 U.S.C. § 215 provides: “No State or municipal government shall impose upon pilots of steam vessels any obligation to procure a State or other license in addition to that issued by the United States ¥- While Section 215 further provides that the statute shall not be construed “to annul or affect any regulation established by the laws of any State, requiring vessels entering or leaving a port in any such State ily lls to take a pilot duly licensed or authorized by the laws of such State,” this proviso applies only to vessels “other than coastwise steam vessels.” The net effect of these statutes, as they have been consistently interpreted for over 106 years, is that a State may require State-licensed pilots on rezistered vessels, but may not require such pilots on enrolled vessels. 27. Section 3(1) of the Tanker Law, proh‘biting any oil tanker over 125,000 DWT, whether enrolled or registered, from entering Puget Sound, conflicts with the federal shipping laws which authorize enrolled and licensed vessels to engage in interstate commerce. 46 U.S.C, § 319 requires that every vessel of twenty tons or more engaged in interstate commerce, other than 28 Complaint registered vessels, be enrolled and licensed. 46 U.S.C. § 251 grants to enrolled and licensed vessels “the privileges of vessels employed in the coasting trade,” ie, the right to engage in interstate commerce. Pursuant to these statutes and the rights granted thereunder, a State may not prohibit a federally enrolled and licensed vessel from entering its navigable waters. 28. Section 3(1) of the Tanker Law also conflicts with the tederal shipping laws which authorize registered vessels to engage in interstate and foreign commerce. 46 U.S.C. § 221 grants to registered versels “the rights and privileges appertaining to * * * vessels of the United States.” Pursuant to this statute and the rights granted thereunder, a state may not prohibit a federally registered vessel engaged in the exercise of these rights from entering its navigable waters. 29. The Tanker Law conflicts with the PWSA by imposing requirements beyond those contained in regulations promulgated by the Coast Guard. In promulgating such regulations, the Coast Guard is required to consider a broad range of factors, including the efficient conduct of maritime commerce, the extent of interference with the flow of commercial traffic, the economic impact of such regulations, the extent to which such regulations will contribute to protection of the marine environment, and the practicability of compliance therewith, including cost and feasibility (PWSA §§ 102(e), 201(4)). The Coast Guard's decision not to impose more stringent requirements with respect to tanker design, construction, equipment, and navigational controls than those imposed by the present regulations and those to be promulgated represents a controlling federal determination that further requirements should not be imposed. For example, as noted in Paragraphs 20 and 21 herein, the Coast Guard has expressly rejected requiring double bottoms, twin screws or increased horsepower. 30. The Tanker Law conflicts with the PWSA by prohibiting tankers over 125,000 DWT holding certificates or permits issued pursuant to Sections 5 and 6 of Title II from entering Puget Sound and by imposing on smaller tankers requirements beyond those Complaint 29 necessary to obtain such certificates or permits. Sections 5 and 6 require that all oil tankers be inspected by the Coast Guard; that foreign tankers obtain a certificate of compliance with rules and regulations promulgated for protection of the marine environment; that domestic tankers obtain a certificate of compliance with rules and regulations promulgated for vessei safety and for protection of the marine environment; and that domestic tankers obtain a permit authorizing the carriage of oil. This inspection, certification and permit procedure represents a controlling federal determination that the particular vessel meets all necessary safety and environmental standards and is entitled as a matter of right to engage in the carriage of oil. Invalidity Under Commerce Clause 31. The Tanker Law impinges upon federal power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and imposes an undue burden upon such commerce, and !s cherefore invalid under the Commerce Clause-of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). 32. The establishment of standards governing the design, construction, equipment, and operation of oil tankers vitally affects a phase of interstate and foreign commerce in which national uniformity is essential and which therefore demands exclusive federal regulation. If the State of Washington can constitutionally impose such standards, so may each of the other coastal states, and each state is likely to impose differing and inconsistent requirements. Such a patchwork of state regulation would substantially and adversely affect the transportation of crude oil to the United States. Because of the enormous capital expenditures required to construct oil tankers, neither Atlantic Richfield nor any other company can maintain a separate fleet of tankers to serve refineries in each state in which it operates. Economical use of tankers requires the flexibility for each to serve many ports. The Tanker Law, alone or in conjunction with differing requirements of other states, would restrict the ports at which tankers can call and thereby prevent the efficient use of tankers. The threat of proliferation of differing state laws makes planning and censtruction of new tankers to serve the United . hs Complaint States difficult if not impossible. The cumulative effect of these burdens would substantially increase the cost of crude cil to American refineries and the cost of petroleum products to American consumers. 33. The Tanker Law unduly burdens interstate commerce. For example, Atlantic Richfield’s Cherry Point refinery was designed and constructed specifically to refine crude oil from the North Slope of Alaska. Such oil is to be transported by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, presently under construction, to the Port of Valdez, Alaska, and from there by tanker to the lower 48 states. Section 3(1) will require use of greater numbers of tankers, thus slowing the movemert and increasing the cost of such oil to refineries in Washington and increasing the cost of petroleum products to consumers in Washington and other states. The proviso to Section 3(2) will require the use of tugboats to avoid the economic impact of the design and equipment requirements of that Section, and Section 2 will require the use of local pilots, — slowing the movement and increasing the cost of Alaskan oil. 34. The Tanker Law unduly burdens the foreign commerce of the United States. For example, it will slow the movement and increase the cost of oi] from the Persian Gulf to Cherry Point. It will also exclude from Puget Sound ports a large number of vessels of foreign registry and disrupi trade and other relations with such foreign countries. 35. The Tanker Law adversely affects settled practices of international trade in the oil industry. Tankers over 125,000 DWT are in general use throughout the world, and many more are under construction, including four being constructed for Atlantic Richfield. No smaller tanker currently afloat meets the design and eyuipment standards of Section 3(2). While this Section permits a smaller tanker to escape those standards by use of tugboats, it does so only at substantial cost. The local pilot requirement of Section 2 adds additional cost. Invalitity Under Foreign Affairs Power 36. The Tanker Law conflicts with the federal power to make C omplaini Ad treaties (Article I], Section 2, Clause 2), to regulate foreign commerce (Article 1, Section &, Clause 3), and to regulate foreign affairs. 37. The conduct of international shipping of oil by nkers is a matter of major world-wide concern. Most of the Ate of is carried from producing countries to consuming, countries by tanker, and such tanker operations constitute a substantial percentage of the total international mariti commerce. The international tanker fleet contains ships flying the flags of many different countries. Many tankers of foteign registry, including tankers exceeding 125,000 DWT, have ca at Cherry Point or other United States ports, and will be adversely affected, if not excluded, by the Tanker Law or the enactment of similar state laws. Oil tankers are constructed by shipbuilders in a number of foreign nations, shipbuilders will also be adversely affected by the Tanker Law or the enactment of similar state laws. To the extent that regulation of oil tankers affects the availability and cost of oil to consuming nations, such regulation is vitally important to virtually every nation in the world. To the extent that regulation of oil tankers imposes limitations on the use of the world’s tanker fleet and affects the shipbuilding industry of many foreign nations, such regulation is of significant concern to the principal maritime trading nations. Because of the international nature of tanker ownership, construction, and trade patterns, the regulation of tanker design, construction and operations by international agreement is desirable, if not essential. 38. Prevention of oi! pollution by establishment of standards of tanker construction, design, equipment and operation is also an issue of major international concern. As is more particularly described in paragraphs 43-47 below, several international conferences have been held in recent years and have achieved substantial progress in obtaining international agreement on measures to prevent oil pollution resulting from oil tanker operations. Further conferences to consider additional regulations to prevent such pollution are planned. As these efforts recognize, pollution of the seas by oil tankers is an international problem which requires a coordinated international solution to achieve any significant progress. $2 Complaint 39. The federal government has recognized that international agreement and cooperation is essential in this area. The United States has been active in the several international conferences, and has been instrumental in securing the international agreements and cooperation thus far achieved. Congress in its passage of the PWSA recognized the necessity for international solution of the pollution problem and specifically authorized the Coast Guard to defer to the standards established by international agreement. The regulations to be promulgated by the Coast Guard under the PWSA in fact incorporate and are substantiaily based upon the standards established by international agreement. The Coast Guard rejected additional regulations in large part because of its view that international cooperation in oil pollution control efforts is essential. 40. Unilateral action by the State of Washington to impose standards of tanker construction, design, equipment and operation substantially undercuts the efforts of the federal government to secure international agreement on tanker regulation, and thus infringes the treaty-making and foreign affairs powers of the federal government. 41. Unilateral action by the State of Washington to impose standards of tanker construction, design, equipment and operation substantially and adversely affects the foreign trade and foreign relations of the United States. Such action by the State could cause loss of foreign trade, retaliatory actions by foreign governments against United States shipping, and adverse effects on foreign relations, particularly with major shipping and shipbuilding nations. Such regulation of oil tankers must be prescribed exclusively by the federal government. Conflict With International Agreements 42. The Tanker Law conflicts with the obligations of the United States under several international agreements and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause. 43. The Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1960 (SOLAS), to which the United States is a party, requires periodic inspection Complaint 433 by the government of the country in which a ship is registered of its “hull, machinery and equipment * * * in order to insure that their condition is in all respects satisfactory * * * for the service for which the ship is intended.” Chapter I, Regulation 10. Regulation 12 provides that the government shall thereafter issue the ship a certificate attesting to the satisfactory condition of the ship for such service. Regulation 17 requires that each nation party to the Convention shall accept the certificate issued by the government of registry for all purposes under the Convention. The Tanker Law, by excluding certificated oil tankers of foreign registry from entering Puget Sound, or penalizing such tankers for not meeting the additional requirements of the Washington law, constitutes a refusal to recognize the certificate of the foreign, government that the vessel is fit for the service in which it is engaged, and therefore conflicts with the obligations of the United States under SOLAS. 44. SOLAS contains a number of provisions specifying construction standards, design features, and required navigational equipment applicable to oil tankers, as well as cargo and passenger ships. Among such provisions are Chapter II, Regulation 29, specifying required steering gear; Chapter II, Regulation 54, specifying standards of construction and materials for ships of 4,000 gross tons or more; Chapter II, Regulation 65, requiring certain fire fighting equipment; and Chapter IV, Regulation 3 requiring radiotelegraph equipment on ships of 1,600 gross tons or more. Additional requirements imposed by the Tanker Law in the area of vessel design and construction and required safety and navigation equipment are in derogation of the international scheme to which the United States has subscribed, and are therefore invalid. 45. The Tanker Law also conflicts with the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended on October 15, 1971, pursuant to Resolution A.246 of the Seventh IMCO Assembly. Annex C of this Convention, as amended, establishes standards governing cargo tank arrangement and segregation, and imposes limitations upon tank size for new oil tankers, for the purpose of protecting the marine environment. The standards adopted by IMCO were those 34 Complaint advanced by the United States in the IMCO Assembly. The United States has not yet ratified the Convention, but the Oni Pollution Act Amendments of 1973, Pub. L. 93-119, 87 Stat. 424 October 4, 1973), adopted its standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1004a. This statute will become operative only upon ratification of the Convention by the United States. In the meantime, however ‘ine Coast Guard has published proposed regulations which would put the IMCO standards into effect administratively. The Washington Tarker Law, by imposing additional and differing standards intended to achieve the same purposes, is in conflict with the international scheme in which the United States has played a central part. 46. The ‘Tanker Law aiso conflicts with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, adopted in November 1973 by the International Conference on Marine Pollution. This Convention establishes a comprehensive scheme regulating the discharge of oil from tankers and the design and construction of new oil tankers in order to protect the marine environment. In Regulation 13, the Convention requires each new ot] tanker of 70,000 DWT or more to have segregated baliast tanks. Chapter III imposes design and construction standards intended to minimize oil pollution from tankers in the event of accident. Regulation 24 adopts the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil respecting limitation of size, and segregation and arrangement of cargo tanks. Regulation 25 establishes standards designed to insure the stability of tankers in the event of accident so as to jimit the amount of oil spilled in such event. Regulation 23 specifies the calculations required to determine the precise standards imposed by Regulations 24 and 25, and in such calculations provides for credit if the tanker is fitted with a double bottom. Regulation 4 requires periodic tanker inspection to insure that the standards of the Convention are met, and Regulation 5 provides for issuance of a certificate of compliance to tankers meeting such requirements. 47. The United States actively participated in the proceedings leading to adoption of the Convention. While the Convention has not yet been ratified by the United States, Section Complaint 35 TIC) of Title Il of the PWSA authorizes che Coast Guard to defer to standards established by the Convention, and Coast Guard regulations scheduled to become effective September 15 in fact do adopt these standards. The Washington Tanker Law establishing additional and differing standards for the construction, design and operation of oil tankers is in conflict with the international scheme in which the United States has played a substantial part. Irreparable Injury 48. Enforcement of the Tanker Law by the defendants will cause Atlantic Richfield great and immediate irreparable injury. 49. Tankers over 125,000 DWT have been constructed in recent years and are now in general use throughout the world because they lower the cost of transporting oil in large quantities and are the most economically efficient means of transporting such oil. Tankers over 125,000 DWT have been calling regularly at Atlantic Richfield’s Cherry Point refinery. Atlantic Richfield has under construction four tankers over 125,000 DWT, at an aggregate cost in excess of $200,000,000. Section 3(1) of the Tanker Law, prohibiting all tankers over 125,000 DWT from entering Puget Sound, thereby will deprive Atlantic Richfield of the most efficient use of its existing and planned tanker fleet, including tankers available on the world charter markets, and will adversely affect the cost of serving and operating its Cherry Point refinery. 50. No tanker currently meets the design, construction and equipment requirements of Section 3(2) of the Tanker Law. Modification of existing tankers to comply with these requirements would be prohibitively expensive. As a result, Atlantic Richfield will be compelled to employ unnecessary tugboats to escort each of its tankers to Cherry Point, at considerable continuing cost. If such tugboats are unavailable in sufficient sizes or numbers, Atlantic Richfield will incur further costs as well as delays. 36 Complaint 51. Tanker construction requires exceptionally long lead times. The design, construction and equipment requirements of Section 3 of the Tanker Law, coupled with the threat of similar statutes elsewhere, at the same time that the federal government is imposing different standards, create uncertainty and make it impracticable for Atlantic Richfield to plan effectively to meet its future oil transportation needs. 52. The requirernent of Section 2 of the Tanker Law ‘hat local pilots be employed on all tankers over 50,000 DWT imposes an additional continuing cost on most tankers used by Atlantic Richfield to serve its Cherry Point refinery. WHEREFORE, piaintiff prays: 1. That the Tanker Law be declared unconstitutional, void and unenforceable; 2. That defendants, their agents, and any person acting on their behalf, at their direction or under their control be permanently enjoined from taking any action to implement or enforce the provisions of the Tanker Law; 3. That pending final determination of this action, defendants, their agents, and any person acting on their behalf, at their direction or under their control be, upon further application by plaintiff, preliminarily enjoined from taking any action to implement or enforce the provisions of the Tanker Law; and 4. That plaintiff recover its costs of suit herein together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: September 8, 1975 O'MELVENY & MYERS WARREN CHRISTOPHER RICHARD E. SHERWOOD Complaint 47 B. BOYD HIGHT IRA M. FEINBERG By: Richard E. Sherwood PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN & WILLIAMS DAVID E. WAGGONER THEODORE J. COLLINS By: David E. Wagoner Attorneys for Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company ni oil Pre-Trial Order 39 PRE-TRIAL ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE No. C 75-648 ATLANTIC RicnFieLD Company, Plaintiff, and SEaATRAIN LINES, INCORPORATED, Intervening Plaintiff, vs. Dantes. J. Evans, et al., Defendants, and CoaLiTion AGAINST On POLLUTION, et al., Intervening Defendants. TABLE OF CONTENTS * Page RE a RS a ee a ee JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................. DT ditdduassandheikne ad ohd 6606646020 hae THE CHALLENGED STATUTE................ Il. FACTS NOT TO BE CONTESTED ................ Il. NONEXCLUSIVE LIST OF STATUTES, REGULA- TIONS AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS. .... FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ... INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS............. STATE AND LOCAL STATUTES AND i, tie wtindeninenhvteeeeebewwhen sees “ee eee ee ee eee ee epeeeewneeaeaeaeenuneaneenneaeeewaneeaewneaneaeeee (*Page references omitted in printing ) 40 Pre-Trial Order PRETRIAL ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON THREE JUDGE COURT (Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of attorneys omitted in printing.) As the result of a pretrial conference between attorneys for plaintiff, defendants and intervenors, the following facts were agreed upon, issues of fact and law framed and exhibits identified: I. ADMITTED FACTS 1. This is an action seeking to declare unconstitutional and void and to enjoin the enforcement of Chapter 125, 1975 Laws of the State of Washington, enacted as Substitute House Bill No. 527, 44th Legislature, Ist Extraordinary Session (hereinafter H.B. 527). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) and 1337. The matter in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This action presents an actual case or controversy appropriate for declaratory re.ief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Defendants represented by tise Office of the Attorney General contend that the Eleventh Amendmeni to the United States Constitution precludes this Court’s jurisdiction. 3. This action seeks injunctive relief against the enforcement of a State statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional, and therefore it must be heard and determined by a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281. 4. The venue of this action is in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Pre-Trial Order 41 PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Atlantic Richfield Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. Atlantic Richfield is an integrated petroleum company in domestic and international commerce, active in all phases of exploration, development, production, transportation, refining and marketing of petroleum and petroleum products. Atlantic Richfield owns and operates a refinery at Cherry Point, near Ferndale, Washington, which is primarily supplied oy oil tankers subject to challenged H.B. 527. 6. Seatrain Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. Seatrain Lines, Inc. owns and operates vessels in domestic and international commerce and is a shipbuilder in the United States. Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp.. a wholly owned subsidiary of Seatrain Lines, Inc., operates a shipyard in Brooklyn, New York. (Both Seatrain Lines, Inc. and Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. are hereinafter referred to as “Seatrain”™.) 7. Defendant Danie! J. Evans is Governor of the State of Washington, and, as the State's chief executive, is charged with seeing that the laws of the State, including H.B. 527, are faithfully executed. Defendant Slade Gorton is Attorney General of the State of Washington, and in such capacity is required to serve as the legal advisor of state officers and to perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law. Among these duties is to institute and prosecute all actions and proceedings for, or for the use of the state, which may be necessary in the execution of the duties of any state officer. Defendant William C. Jacobs is Chairman of the Board of Pilotage Commissioners, an admmistrative agency of the State of Washington established by Section 88.16.010 of the Revised Code of Washington (hereinafter “R.C.W.”), which, pursuant to R.C.W. § 88.16.030, is charged with administration of H.B. 527. Defendants Harry A. Greenwood, Benjamin W. Joyce, Philip H. Luther, and J. Q. Paull are the other members of the Board of Pilotage Commissioners. Defendant David S. McEachran is Prosecuting Attorney of Whatcom County, 42 Pre-Trial Order in which Atlantic Richfield’s Cherry Point refinery is located, and is empowered to prosecute actions involving violations of H.B. 527 occurring in Whatcom 7 Oe through the waters of Whatcom County when the place of violation by the vessel cannot be determined. 8. Intervening defendant The Coalition Against Oil Pollution is a non-partisan, non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, established for the stated purposes of preservation of the beauty and natural resources of Puget Sound; development of aquaculture and other marine industries; encouragement of oceanographic research; and creation of stringent laws governing the exploration, transporta- tion, handling and refining of oil in the Puget Sound region. Its principal office is located in Redmond, Washington. Intervening defendant National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is a national, non-profit organization incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, with a principal place of business in that city. NWF is a conservation-education organization the stated purpose of which is to foster an awareness of the need to conserve and restore the human environment and the natural resources of the United States. Intervening defendant Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF) is a non-profit, public benefit membership corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Its principal office is located in East Setauket, New York, and it maintains branch offices in Berkeley, California; Denver, Colorado; New York, New York; and Washington, DC. EDF is with information relevant to environmental issues, and to Pre-Trial Order 43 Sound and who use the waters and shoreline of Puget Sound for recreational and other purposes. THE CHALLENGED STATUTE 9. H.B. 527 was passed by the Washington Legisiature in May 1975 and signed into law by Governor Evans on May 29, 1975. A copy of the statute, now codified in R.C.W. ch. 88.16, together with a message of the Governor relating to its approval, is annexed as Exhibit A. The statute went into effect on September 8, 1975; the Board of Pilotage Commissioners began enforcement of the statute on that date. 10. H.B. 527 states, inter alia: wTa8 ° °° ee tanker, whether enrolled or mahal Puget Sound end edjecont woters” (hereinafter “Pugst Seund”) io defined in H._B. 527 as these waters east of a line extending from Discovery Island Light ~ 44 Pre-Trial Order (c) Double bottoms, underneath all oil and liquid cargo compartments; and (d) Two radars in working order and operating, one of which must be collision avoidance radar; and (e) Such other navigational position location systems oo easy bn qoanettned Gam Gens to Gane to ho bansd of pilotage commissioners: Provided, That, if such forty to one hundred and twenty-five thousand deadweight ton tanker is in ballast POS ee SON eS eee horsepower equivalent to five percent tons of that tanker, subsection (2) of this section shall a tanker of less than forty thousand deadweight tons is not subject to the provisions of this act.” 11. The Board of Pilotage Commissioners, on August 11, 1975, issued an order implementing H.B. 527. A true copy of such order is filed herewith as Exhibit B. 12. H.B. 527 has been and will be applied to all oil tankers in excess of 40,000 DWT which enter Puget Sound regardless of the national flag such tankers fiy. 13. Atlantic Richfield has been complying with H.B. 527 since it became effective. No Seatrain tanker has entered Puget Sound since the effective date of H.B. 527. Il. FACTS NOT TO BE CONTESTED The following facts, while not admitted, are not to be contested for purposes of this litigation. Each shall be admissible in evidence, but each party reserves the right to contest the materiality or relevance of such facts. 14. Atlantic Richfield owns and operates a refinery at Cherry Point, near Ferndale, Washington. This refinery is located Pre-Trial Order 45 adjacent to the Straits of Georgia, east of the line extending from Discovery Island Light south to New Dungeness Light and within the waters regulated by H.B. 527. It has docking facilities on these waters. The Cherry Point refinery has the capacity to process approximately 96,000 barrels’ of crude oil per day. 15. The Cherry Point refinery and associated facilities were built and began operation in 1971 and are presently valued by the Whatcom County assessor at approximately $154 million. The refinery was designed and built to refine crude oil from the North Slope of Alaska when it becomes available. The refinery is capable of refining and has refined crude oil from other sources. Since 1971 the refinery has received sufficient crude oil to operate at above 85 per cent of capacity each year, and Atlantic Richfield presently plans to continue to operate the refinery at or above that level. Alaskan North Slope oil is now expected to begin to flow in 1977 and Atlantic Richfield presently intends to transport its share of that oil from the southern terminus of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline at Valdez, Alaska to Cherry Point and other West Coast ports by tanker. 16. The following table sets out the approximate amounts and sources of crude oil received by Atlantic Richfield’s Cherry Point Refinery since 1972: ~ Total Crude Canedian Crude Tanker Crude Percentage Receipte (bar- Receipts (ber- Receipte (bar- Received Year rele per day) rels per day) rels per day) by Tanker 1972 84.800 74,400 10,400 12°, 1973 97,000 60,700 36,300 27": 1974 90,800 40,800 50,000 56", 1975 94,200 31,500 62,700 67°. The crude oil received by tanker has originated primarily in the Persian Gulf; the Canadian crude was received primarily through the Canadian Transmountain Pipeline. The Canadian Minister of Energy, Mines and Resourc “A review of the 'terature (Table 4-1) shows that a -~y ~ number of documented studies exist that biological, chemical, and physical acute and long-term effects of oil in the marine environment. Because most studies have been made in estuaries, little data are available concerning effects on the open ocean. However, certain generalizations 0 bee 2 RE Ria Pre-Trial Order 77 > various aspects of oil in the marine environment can “Whereas the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons dissolved in water is generally low (10 ppb) ( and coastal shelf, concentration in sediments might be as high as a Farrington and Quinn, 1973; —— and Sass, “In general, where da was severe, the oil spill was massive relative to the size of the affected area, and the spill was confined naturally or artificially to a limited area of relatively shallow water for a period of several days. Deleterious effects may have been increased by storms or heavy surf water mixed with oil and sediments in the affected area. These effects were also generally localized, ranging from he ht J - environmental circumstances; however, for a given quantity of oil, the more localized the distribution of the spill, the greater is the mortality. “Different oils were found to have different effects, with toxicity being most pronounced for refined distillates and ysical smothering most severe with viscous crude oils or nker C crude oil. Refined No. 2 fuel oil was among the oils having the most toxic effects. Variations in physical environment in coastal areas were also considered in determining effects; i.e.. a polluted area might experience sudden unpredictable stresses from synergistic interac- tions between variable environmental factors and the oil. “The amount of oil and the type of organism afflicted was also found to be important. For example, a single coating of fresh or weathered crude oil or its derivatives on certain bird species or on seeds of plants caused death, whereas marsh plants were killed only after several coatings. In general, emergent plant life was less likely to be affected than marine biota, unless the spill occu in tropical waters where es were present. Very low concentrations of the solu fractions of kerosene interfered with searching behavior of a marine snail. Crude oil on the shells of oysters had no effects. The photosynthesis of marine phytoplankton was reported to be reduced by 100 of No. 2 fuel oil. Mortality of some organ'sms has been found in all major spills for which studies have been published, with the pelagic diving 78 leases of oil were confined to inshore areas where natura! seas enseusenn Gone chumaent, Sanestael tended reprod ; a characteristic increases the vulnerability of a _ in time, they would be chronic animals might never recover from ‘ifspring of the residen nit this is fi the « ing of ident . this scpetation were completely destroyed by pollution, recolonization by chance immigration from a distant estuary would probably take a very long time. The resident population te ae ms ll le. MT tl, tt ~ eek | ee oe 79 Pre-Trial Order of estuaries provides shelter and food for the young stages KK many SEED important marine organisms (shrimp, , etc.). “Partly because of their isolation, the ical communities of coastal marshes and estuaries are particularly vulnerable to the activities associated ses exploration and production. The dredging to i rigs and pelines may severely alter an estuary, and changes in the ydrology that bri about a greater incursion of higher salinity water may have severe effects on the aquatic life attuned to 2. given amount — an tag example, the increase in salinity may greatly decrease yield — acre. ie Loulslans ths cverail vield of oysters and shrimp not changed much, but dredging, channelization, and other activities have so altered the marshes that the oyster industry has been forced to move into less favorable habitats, with a consequent decline in the yield per oe since 1945. At the same time, the species composition of the shrimp catch has changed: The white shrimp ined from 96 to 50 percent of the catch, while brown shrimp increased to about 50 percent. Such changes in shrimp species are often associated with changes in the salinity of the water. “There is very little data on the effect of oil on pelagic species. Without more research, it is clearly premature to conclude anything about the effects of oil on the open ocean. “Conclusions regarding the effects of oil in the marine environment on human health are based on limited information. From our interpretation of this information, modest concern rather than alarm appears to be justified. Although it is known that petroleum contains small amounts of carcinogens and possibly small amounts of other harmful materials, the amounts of carcinogens known to be in petroleum that could be ingested by eating marine organisms is estimated to be no greater than that acquired from eati any other foods. Nonetheless, to reduce potentially harmfu ects to man, all sources of carcinogens, including the large source from terrestrial activities, should be investigated and, if possible, eliminated. “The field of carcinogens and man's exposure to them needs more research. As part of this research, more studies should be performed to determine how these materials enter the ocean and, subsequently, man. Studies to detect whether there are other materials in petroleum in small quantities, such as mutagens or teratogens, are also needed because such enormous amounts of petroleum are used ard handled by man. At present, the admittedly very inadequate available 80 Pre-Trial Order evidence does not make it appear that dangers of this sort from petroleum in the sea are nearly as great as other exposures to man of carcinogenic and toxic materials. ss ies in Puget 10. Known tanker collisions and other casualties in ge Sound during the period 194! to 1973 are set forth in Exhibit 0. 111. Known oil spills in Puget Sound since 1971 are set forth in Exhibit P. 112. Although tankers of the same deadweight tonnage -_ substantially in dimensions and operating characteristics, following table sets forth designs used by the United States at the 1973 International Conference on Marine Pollution: Deadweight (DWT) 21,000 75,000 120,000 190,000 250,000 Displacement 26,700 90,700 145,300 220,500 286,600 Length 528° 763° 850) 1,000° 1,085 Breadth 17 125 138° 155° 170’ Depth 40 54 68 82) R4 Draft a1 4 52’ 61 65 oe 7,200 19,000 26,000 30,000 32,000 te es ——— 18 14 13 13 18 Volume of Single te 1,800m? 7,500m? 14,000m? 17,000m’ 30,000° Volume of Single toe _ 900m? 4,700m*? = 8,700m?)—10,500m* = 15,000m* Horsepower to Ratio 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.135 0.11 16 Knots 6000 ~=—s«10,500 13,000 «617900 «=: 20,000" yy Knots _— 1,500 2,500 3,000 3,600 4,000 ®Astern horsepower (maximum) ranges 30°. to 40% of the maximum ahead : 3 barrels. *One cubic meter equals approximately 6. reported here as two accidents. eee eee 8] Pre-Trial Order 113. The amount of oil discharged as a result of a tanker accident which results in a spill may vary widely, e.g., from tens or hundreds of gallons to thousands of tons. In the year immediately preceding enactment of H.B. 527 in May 1975, three tanker polluting incidents of major proportion occurred worldwide: in August, 1974, the 206,000 DWT Metula ran aground in the Strait of Magellan, resulting in a loss of approximately 50,000 tons of oil; in January, 1975, the 237,000 DWT Showa Maru struck a reef in the Strait of Malacca, spilling approximately 4,500 tons of oil; and in January, 1975, the 88,000 DWT Jakob Maersk ran aground off Oporto, Portugal, and lost its entire cargo, either by spillage into the ocean or fire. 114. The following table summarizes tanker accidents” and resulting spills involving all tankers in excess of 3,000 DWT, both worldwide and within the United States, for the past five years. The U.S. Coast Guard reports that tanker accidents contribute 200,000 tons per year of oil (petroleum in any form) input to the oceans worldwide. The Coast Guard also reports that tanker accidents within 50 miles of the U.S. coast have been estimated to contribute spillage of over 12,000 tons per year during the past five years. WORLD WIDE ACCIDENTS 1969-73 All Tankers Tankers 40,000 Tankers Greater Greater Than To 120,000 Than 120,000 3,000 DWT DWT DWT _ Total number of accidents: 3,183 1,341 161 Total number of accidents causing pollu tion, 452 164 29 Total oil spilled in these accidents (tons): 951,317 404,992 158,403 Pre-Trial Order 42 Accidents in U.S. Waters within 50 Miles of Shore 1969-73 Total number of accidents: 1,106 N.A. N.A. Total number of accidents causing pollution: 91 N.A. N.A. Total oil spilled in these accidents (tons): 63,147 N.A. N.A. The U.S. Coast Guard studies of worldwide tanker accidents for 1969-73 show little change in annual averages. Historically, a few major accidents each year have been the principal — to oil outflow. 115. Oil enters the marine environment from many different sources. Although the rate at which crude petroleum and its by-products are actually entering the ocean is impossible to determine with complete accuracy, the following table shows major sources and estimated amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons entering the world’s oceans annually: Best Estimate Source (Metric Tons Per Year) Natural seeps 600,006 Offshore production 80,000 Transportation: LOT" tankers 310,000 Non-LOT tankers 770,000 Drydocking 250,000 Terminal operations 3,000 ‘LOT (Load on Top) refers to a method of ballasting and tank washing whereby vily water left in tanks is not pumped directly overboard, but instead is diverted to slop tanks where it is held while the oil and water are separated by gravity. The water is pumped overboard, artes Go 8 & Ge PS Sree ee a tn a alc pee ee ee ee ee = ee ~ om Pre-Trial Order a Tanker accidents 200,000 Nontanker accidents 100,000 Coastal refineries 200,000 Atmosphere 600,000 Coastal municipal waste 300,000 Coastal nonrefining, industrial wastes 300,000 Urban runoff 200,000 River runoff 1,600,000 Total 6,113,000 116. There are some private and public cleanup materials and equipment in or accessible to the Puget Sound area in the event of an oil spill. 117. The success and the cost of oil spill cleanup efforts depends on a number of variables as referred to in paragraph 108(c) supra. The average cost per gallon for oil spill cleanup operations in Puget Sound has been estimated by the Washington Department of Ecology, as follows: Size Average Cleanup Number of Spills of Spill Cost From Which a (Gallons) Per Gallon Average is Obtained 0O— 100 $19.36 6 100— 1000 5.26 a L000. — 10000 3.67 5 84 Pre-Trial Order Sound. The Washington excess of | os oh @ toaduin of oil spillage compared to TEER CROVEERENS CF amount of oil by a larger number of smaller tankers in Puget Sound. 120. Experts differ and there is good faith dispute as to whether use of a tugboat escort with aggregate shaft horsepower equal to 5 percent of the DWT of the tanker reduces the likelihood of spills in Puget Sound. 121. Experts differ and there is good faith dispute as to the efficacy in preventing oil spills of (a) minimum shaft horsepower of one h.p. for each 2'» DWT; (b) twin screws; (c) double bottoms underneath all oil and liquid cargo spaces; (d) two radars, one of which must be collision-avoidance radar. a | SS ee eee Pre-Trial Order a5 ill. NONEXCLUSIVE LIST OF STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 122. The primary federal statute on which Plaintiffs base their preemption contentions is the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-340, 86 Stat. 424 (July 10, 1972) (“PWSA”), codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1221 et seg. and 46 U.S.C. § 39la. A true copy of the Act is annexed to the complaint as Appendix II and filed herewith as Exhibit Q. 123. The Secretary of Transportation had delegated his rulemaking authority under the PWSA to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. 49 C.F.R. § 1.46(m)(4) (1975). 124. In the exercise of its authority under Title I of the PWSA, the Coast Guard has promulgated certain regulations governing the powers of the Captains of Port and District Commanders. 40 Fed. Reg. 6653 (Feb. 13, 1975), 33 C.F.R. Part 160. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit R. 125. In the exercise of its authority under Title I of the PWSA, the Coast Guard announced in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, that it has under consideration additional proposed regulations. 39 Fed. Reg. 24157 (June 28, 1974). A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit S. To date, the text of such proposed regulations has not been published. 126. In the exercise of its authority under Title | of the PWSA, the Coast Guard has promulgated regulations establishing a vessel traffic control system in Puget Sound. 39 Fed. Reg. 25430 (July 10, 1974), 33 C.F.R. Part 161, Subpart B. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit T. 127. In connection with such vessel traffic system, the Coast Guard has promulgated an operating manual dated September 1974. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit U. 86 Pre-Trial Order 128. In the exercise of its authority under Titie II of the PWSA, the Coast Guard has promulgated certain regulations for protection of the marine environment with respect to design, i t and operating requirements for tankers in interstate trade: (a) 40 Fed. Reg. 48280 (October 14, 1975), 33 C.F.R. Part 157, a true copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit V; and (b) 41 Fed. Reg. 1479 (January 8, 1976), amending 33 C.F.R. Part 157, a true copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit Ww. 129. The Coast Guard has published a Final Environmental Impact Statement dated August 15, 1975, with respect to such regulations. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit X. This document is offered for the purpose of showing the steps taken and the matters considered by the Coast Guard in the exercise of its authority under the PWSA and pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ~f 969, and not for the truth of the substantive conclusions stated therein. 130. Section 7(C) of Title Il of the PWSA directs that regulations for protection of the marine environment with respect to design, equipment, and operating requirements for tankers engaged in foreign commerce be effective not later than January . oe Ee Cus Cae Se eee © on one promulgate regulations for U.S. flag vessels in oreign trade identical to those for vessels in interstate trade. 40 Fed. Reg. 48280 (October 14, 1975). To date, the Coast Guard has neither formally proposed nor promulgated regulations to implement this 131. On January 21, 1976, Governor Evans wrote a letter to President Gerald R. Ford requesting that the President direct the Coast Guard and Maritime Administration to ng Ape regulatory powers and require that all U.S. tankers wit double bottoms, inert gas systems, segregated ballast systems, collision avoidance radar, Loran-C systems and any other safety devices readily available to the industry. In addition, he suggested that any tanker designed for use where tug assistance is unavailable should be equipped with bow thrusters. A true copy of the letter is filed herewith as Exhibit Y. 131A. On March 2, 1976, Governor Evans submitted written testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce. A true copy of this testimony is filed herewith as a part of Exhibit Y. This document is offered for the purpose of showing the position taken by Governor Evans and not for the truth of the substantive conclusions stated therein. Other witnesses at such hearings, including the Coast Guard, took positions in particular respects different from those espoused by Governor Evans. 132. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 46, Chapter 14 of the United States Code, 46 U.S.C. §§ 361-445, the Coast Guard is responsible for inspecting all “steam vessels”, including tankers, to assure that they comply with applicable federal regulations. Regulations promulgated by the Coast Guard relating to vessel design, equipment, and inspection are codified generally in Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 133. Pursuant to the Tank Vessel Act, 49 Stat. 1889, 46 U.S.C. § 391a, as amended by Title II of the PWSA, the Coast Guard is responsible for inspecting tankers to assure that they comply with all federal reguiations for vessel safety and protection of the marine environment, and issuing complying tankers a certificate of inspection, upon which must be endorsed a permit showing the kinds of cargo the tanker is authorized to transport. Regulations promulgated by the Coast Guard relating to tanker design, equipment and inspection are set out in Subchapter D of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Coast Guard recently promulgated amendments to such regulations relating to structural fire protection and gas inerting system requirements, 41 Fed. Reg. 3838 (January 25, 1976), 46 C.F.R. Parts 30, 32, 34, a true copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit Z. 48 Pre-Trial Order 134. Several bills to amend the Tank Vessel Act to require particular design features have been introduced in the current session of Congress, including the following: . = hich would require segregated ballast tanks and aH, A on all tankers over 20,000 DWT carrying oil to United States ports situated on internal waters or straits; b. H.R. 6091 which would require segregated ballast tanks, double bottoms, and if necessary, double sides on all tankers over 20,000 DWT; _ HR. 569 which would specify detailed tanker design and a. t standards, including segregated ballast tanks, double toms, additional horsepower, multiple screws, multiple rudders, and bow and stern thrusters. A true copy of each of the bills is filed herewith as Exhibit AA. 135. Vessels of the United States are vessels documented under the laws of the United States. Documented vessels are those registered, enrolled and licensed, or licensed by the US. Coast Guard. 46 C.F.R. §§ 66.03-7, -9. “Enrolled and licensed vessels are United States flag vessels in excess of 20 tons engaged exclusively in domestic trade and authorized to engage in a particular trade. “Registered vessels” are United States flag vessels entitled to engage in international trade, though such vessels may on occasion also engage in domestic trade. Licensed vessels” are United States flag vessels authorized to engage in a particular domestic trade. United States vessels must, with some exceptions, be om in American shipyards, owned by United States citizens or corporations, and served by an American crew. Only American built United States flag vessels may engage in the coastwise (interstate) trade. 137. Enrolled vessels must obtain a federal license in the form prescribed by 46 U.S.C. § 263. a Pre-Trial Order 89 138. Under 46 U.S.C. § 264 a registered U.S. flag vessel may be enrolled and licensed upon surrender of its registry. 139. 46 U.S.C. § 251, a true copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit BB, grants to enrolled and licensed or licensed vessels the right to engage in domestic trade. 140. 46 U.S.C. § 221, a true copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit CC, grants to registered vessels “the benefits and privileges appertaining to * * * vessels fof the United States]”’. 141. 46 U.S.C. § 364, a true copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit DD, provides that enrolled vessels shail be under the control and direction of pilots licensed by the Coast Guard when operating within U.S. Territorial waters. 142. 46 U.S.C. § 215, a true copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit EE, provides that a state may require state licensed pilots on registered vessels, but may not require such pilots on enrolled vessels. 143. Other federal statutes and regulations relating to vessel design, construction and required equipr.ent; vessel safety; and control of tanker-related oil pollution include the following: a. The Oil Pollution Act of 1961, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., implements the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended in 1962, by establishing, inter alia, certain restrictions on the discharge of oil. ulations pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act are found in 33 C.F.R. Part 151. b. The Oil Pollution Act Amendments of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-119, 87 Stat. 424, amended the Oil Pollution Act of 1961, to add 33 U.S.C. § 1004a. Section 1004a requires that all tankers built after specified dates must comply with the standards of the 1971 Amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, with respect to cargo tank arrangement and size. These standards are set out in Coast Guard interpretative Pre-Trial Order 90 rules, 33 C.F.R. § 151.50. Section 1004a is effective, as to U.S. flag tankers, upon ratification of the Amendments to the Convention by the United States, 33 U.S.C. § 1016(a), or, as to foreign tankers, upon entry into force of the Amendments, 33 U.S.C. § 1016(c), neither of which has yet occurred. The Coast Guard has incorporated these standards into its regulations for tankers in interstate trade referred to in paragraph 128 supra. c. The Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act, Pub. L. No. 92-63, 85 Stat. 164, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et seq., and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, 33 C.F.R. Part 26, require every vessel over 300 gross tons to have radiotelephone equipment on its bridge. d. The International Voyage Load Line Act of 1973, Pub, L. No. 93-115, 87 Stat. 418, 46 U.S.C. 1 86 et seq., implements the isions of the Internati vention on Load Lines, 1966, by authorizing the Coast Guard to prescribe and enforce load limits for vessels engaged ir international ae The Coastwise Load Line Act, as amended, 46 U.S.C. §§ 88 et seq., gives the Coast Guard similar authority with respect to vessels engaged in coastwise voyages. Coast Guard regulations implementing these Acts are set forth in Subchapter E of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations. e. The Merchant Marine Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-469, 84 Stat. 1018, amended the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 46 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seg., to extend application of the federal ship construction and operating subsidy programs to bulk cargo carriers, including tankers. Pursuant to this Act, the Maritime Administration has promulgated regulations and orders setting out design and construction standards for oil tankers as part of its Standard Specifications for Merchant Ship Construction. f. The International Regulations for Preventing Colli- sions at Sea, Pub. L. No. 88-131, 77 Stat. 194, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq, implement the international convention eee apn Rp p- standards for lights, sound signals, rey en | rules and maneuvering a my my for vessels on the high seas. Similar navigation rules for rivers, harbors and other inland waters of the United States are prescribed by 33 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seg. and by Coast Guard lations set forth in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. ee Eat o~ 91 Pre-Trial Order g. Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., authorizes, inter alia, federal regulations which specify procedures, methods, equipment and other requirements to prevent and contain the discharge of oil from vessels, onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and which jovern the inspection of tankers in order to reduce the ikelihood of discharges in violation of the Section. § 311(j), 33 U.S.C. § 1321(j). lations under § 311(j) appear in 33 C.F.R. Parts 154-156. ion 311(0), 33 U.S.C. § 1321(o), provides that § 311 does not preempt any state from imposing any requirement or liability with respect to the discharge of oil into its waters and that § 311 does not affect any state law not in conflict with the Section. h. The intervention on the High Seas Act, Pub. L. No. 93-248, 88 Stat. 8, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1471 ef sey., implemenis ihe International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, by authorizing the Coast Guard to take necessary action to protect the United States against oil pollution or the threat of oil lution resulting from a casualty on the high seas outside its territorial waters. 144. Section 8 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, 46 U.S.C. § 867, provides that the Maritime Administration is responsible for the promotion of efficiency and lower costs in transportation of commodities in U.S. foreign commerce, including the importation of oil. 145. The Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 407, provides that the creation of any unauthorized obstruction to the navigable capacity of U.S. waters is prohibited. A true copy of the section is filed herewith as Exhibit FF. 146. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280, establishes a program of federal grants to coastal states to develop coastal zone management programs. Pursuant to this program the State of Washington has submitted a coastal zone management program which is awaiting action by the Secretary of Commerce. Pre-Trial Order 92 147. The Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-627, 88 Stat. 2126, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seg., authorizes the Coast Guard to issue licenses for the construction and operation of deepwater offshore oil terminals beyond the territorial limits of the United States. 148. Several bills intended to regulate liability for oil pollution damage have been introduced in the current session of Congress, including S. 1754, H.R. 9294, and H.R. 10756, which would establish a comprehensive oil pollution liability and compensation scheme. True copies of these bills are filed herewith as Exhibit GG. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 149. The convention on the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, adopted by the United Nations Maritime Conference held in Geneva in 1948, came into force in March, 1958. 9 U.S.T. 621, T.LA.S. 4044, 289 U.N.T.S. 48. It created the Inter-Governmenta! Maritime Consultative Organiza- tion (“IMCO”), an agency of the United Nations with responsibilities in the maritime field. Membership in IMCO is open to all members of the United Nations. As of the end of 1975, there were 92 full Members of IMCO. The United States is a Member of IMCO, as are all other major maritime nations. IMCO has served as a forum for the development of international standards in the fields of vessel safety and pollution prevention, including the negotiation and adoption of many of the international agreements referred to in paragraph 150. 150. The following are international conventions relating to vessel safety and pollution prevention: a. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960, 16 US.T. 185, T.LAS. 5780, 536 U.N.T.S. 27 (“SOLAS”). SOLAS contains numerous provisions designed _— Pe ee a. hee ee ere Se nS iain. . 93 Pre-Trial Order to insure the safety of human life on all types of vessels engaged in international voyages, including oil tankers. These SS include vessel design and equipment requirements. LAS also provides for periodic inspection and certification of ships their nation of ~~ SOLAS was ratified by the United States in 1°62 and entered into force in 1965. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit HH. b. International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, 18 U.S.T. 1857, T.LA.S. 6331, 640 U.N.T.S. 133. This Convention establishes load limits for vessels in international voyages by ibing the maximum draft to which the ship is permitted to be loaded. The Convention was ratified by the United States in 1966, and entered into force in 1968. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit II. c. Internationa! Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1960, 16 U.S.T. 794, T.LA.S. 5813, revised in 1972. These regulations establish certain standards for lights, sound signals, steering rules, and maneuvering requirements for vessels on the high seas. The regulations have been in force since 1965. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit JJ. d. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, 12 U.S.T. 2989, T.LA.S. 4900, 327 U.N_T.S. 3, as amended, 17 U.S.T. 1523, T.LAS. 6109, 600 U.N.T.S. 332. This Convention was ratified by the United States in 1961 and has been in force for the United States since that year. The 1962 Amendments were ratified by the United States and entered into force in 1967. The principal provision of the Convention, as amended, ribes discharge of oil from vessels into the sea within fifty miles of land. Further amendments to the Convention were adopted by IMCO Conferences in 1969 and 1971, and to date only the 1969 amendments have been ratified by the United States and neither set of amendments has entered into force. The 1969 amendments establish more stringent oil discharge criteria. The 1971 amendments establish standards for cargo tank arrangement and size. A true copy of the Convention as amended in 1962 is filed herewith as Exhibit KK. True copies of the 1969 and 1971 amendments are filed herewith as Exhibits LL and MM respectively. e. International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969, __ US.T. —. T.LAS. 8068, _. U.N.TS. This Convention establishes the right of a coastal nation to take Pre-Trial Order 94 necessary action to protect itself against oil pollution or the threat of oil pollution resulting from a casualty on the high seas outside its territorial waters. The Convention was ratified by the United States in 1971 and entered into force in 1975. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit NN. f. International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, U.N.T.S. ——. This Convention imposes u owners of ships transporting oil strict, but limited, liability for oil pollution damage. The Convention entered into force in 1975, but to date it has not been ratified by the United States. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit OO. g. Three other conventions dealing with ion from oil pollution or compensation in the event of lution have been adopted by conferences convened by IMCO, but have to date neither been ratified by the United States nor entered into force: (i). International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, opened for signature at London, November 2, 1973. The Convention incorporates the provisions of and, if it comes into force, will supersede, as between parties, the International Convention for the Prevention of Poliution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, including the 1971 Amendments thereto relating to cargo tank arrangement and size. The Convention also contains certain additional tanker design and construction requirements for the purpose of preventing oil pollution. The Convention further provides for periodic inspection and certification of tankers by wAng of registry. A true copy is filed herewith as ibit PP. (ii). The Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution By Substances r Than Oil, 1973, opened for signature at London, November 2, 1973. This Protocol would extend the isions of the International Convention Relating to Sesvenstion on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties to hazardous substances other than crude or heavy oils (e.g., light refined oil products). A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit QQ. (iii). International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil ity Vibe erwi te wire ig ~ ae oe Pre-Trial Order 95 Pollution Damage, 1971, opened for signature at Brussels, December 18, 1971. This Convention would establish a fund to insure adequate compensation for pollution damage above the limitation specified in the 1969 Civil Liability Convention. A true copy is filed herewith as Exhibit RR. 151. No treaty, convention, or agreement described in paragraph 150 supra contains any provision which by its terms prohibits or would prohibit the United States from prescribing additional, more stringent standards for any vessel entering its ports or territorial waters. 152. Various treaties and international agreements define the international boundary line between the United States and Canada. These international agreements establish a boundary line running westward along the forty-ninth parallel to the middle of the channel which separates Vancouver Island from the mainland, and then southerly through the middle of Haro Strait and then westerly through the middle of the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Pacific Ocean. Treaty Relating to Boundary Waters between the United States and Canada, 36 Stat. 2448, signed at Washington, January 11, 1909; proclaimed May 13, 1910. Treaty concerning the Canadian International Boundary, 35 Stat. 2003, signed at Washington April 11, 1908; proclaimed June 4, 1908. Treaty with Great Britain [in regard to the Canadian boundary] Westward of the Rocky Mountains, 9 Stat. 869, signed at Washington June 15, 1846, entered into force July 17, 1846. Protocol of a Conference Respecting the Northwest Water Boundary, 18 Stat. (pt. 2, Public Treaties) 369, signed at Washington March 10, 1873; entered into force March 10, 1873. STATE AND LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 153. Other states and political subdivisions have under consideration or have passed laws or promulgated regulations which purported to control various aspects of the design, navigation and operation of oil tankers. Such laws and regulations include the following: Pre-Trial Order a. The Alaska Ports, Harbors and Navigable Waterwa Act, Senate Bili No. 405, now pending in the A Legislature. Section 30.20.240 of this Act would require any oil tanker, whether enrolled or registered, of 40,000 DWT or more to employ a state-licensed pilot in Alaska waters. It would also require any oil tanker over 40,000 DWT to have while navigating in A waters the assistance of tugboats with aggregate horsepower of five percent of the tanker’s DWT unless it had all of the f ing safety features: horsepower in the ratio of one horsepower to each 2.5 DWT; lateral bow thrusters; double bottoms; segregated ballast; midship warning lights; double boilers or an auxiliary power source; docking-collision avoidance systems; two radars; and such other navigational systems as my | be prescribed by the Alaska State Port Commission. The Act would not require twin screws. A true copy of the bill is filed herewith as Exhibit SS. SW ee. se er er RR. vee Ee ws i ee de as Exhibit A 97 EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON THREE JUDGE COURT CHAPTER 125 A ey House Bill No. 527} OIL TANKER TRANSPORTATION ON PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS AN ACT Relating to water pollution from petroleum spills; and adding new sections to chapter 88.16 RCW. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington: NEW SECTION. Section 1. There is added to chapter 88.16 RCW a new section to read as follows: Because of the danger of spills, the legislature finds that the transportation of crude oil and refined petroleum products by tankers on Puget Sound and adjacent waters creates a great potential hazard to important natural resources of the state and to jobs and incomes dependent on these resources. The legislature also recognizes Puget Sound and adjacent waters are a relatively confined salt water environment with irregular shorelines and therefore there is a greater than usual likelihood of long-term damage from any large oil spill. The legislature further recognizes that certain areas of Puget Sound and adjacent waters have limited space for maneuvering a large oil tanker and that these waters contain many natural navigational obstacles as well as a high density of commercial and pleasure boat traffic. For these reasons, it is important that large oil tankers be piloted by highly skilled persons who are familiar with local waters and that such tankers have sufficient capability for rapid maneuvering responses. Exhibit A YS It is therefore the intent and purpose of sections 2 and 3 of this 1975 act to decrease the likelihood of oil spills on Puget Sound and its shorelines by requiring all oil tankers above a certain size to employ Washington state licensed pilots and, if lacking certain safety and maneuvering capability requirements, to be — by a tug or tugs while navigating on certain areas of Puget Sou and adjacent waters. NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. There is added to chapter 88.16 RCW a new section to read as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 88.16.070, any oil tanker, whether enrolled or registered, of fifty thousand deadweight tons or greater, shall be required to take a Washington state licensed pilot while navigating Puget Sound and adjacent waters and shall be liable for and pay pilotage rates pursuant to RCW 88.16.030 as now or hereafter amended. NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. There is added to chapter 88.16 RCW a new section‘to read as follows: f (1) Any oil tanker, whether enrolied or registered, of greater than one hundred and twenty-five thousand deadweight tons shall be prohibited from proceeding beyond a point east of a line extending from Discovery Island light south to New Dungeness light. (2) An oil tanker, whether enrolled or registered, of forty to one hundred and twenty-five thousand deadweight tons may proceed beyond the points enumerated in subsectiog (1) if such tanker possesses all of the following standard safety features: (a) Shaft horsepower in the ratio of one horsepower to each two and one-half deadweight tons; and (b) Twin screws; and (c) Double bottoms, underneath all oil and liquid cargo compartments, and ee he ae en BT Le ew ee en ee ee a” O*% 99 Exhibit A (d) Two radars in working order and operating, one of which must be collision avoidance radar; and (e) Such other navigational position location systems as may be prescribed from time to time by the board of pilotage PROVIDED, That, if such forty to one hundred and twenty-five thousand deadweight ton tanker is in ballast or is under escort of a tug or tugs with an aggregate shaft horsepower equivalent to five percent of the deadweight tons of that tanker, subsection (2) of this section shall not apply: PROVIDED FURTHER, That additional tug shaft horse- power equivalencies may be required under certain conditions as established by rule and regulation of the Washington utilities and tion commission pursuant to chapter 34.04 RCW: PROVIDED FURTHER, That a tanker of less than forty thousand deadweight tons is not subject to the provisions of this act. *NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. There is added to chapter 88.16 RCW a new section to read as follows: The Washington utilities and transportation commission is authorized to make rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this act. *Sec. 4. was vetoed, see message at end of chapter. NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. The House and Senate Transporta- tion and Utilities Committees are authorized and directed to study the feasibility, benefits, and disadvantages of requiring similar pilot and tug assistance for vessels carrying other potentially hazardous materials and to submit their findings and recommendations prior to the 45th session of the Washington legislature in January, 1977. Such study shall also include a report on the feasibility, benefits and disadvantages of requiring vessels under tug escort to observe a speed limit, and such study shall include a discussion of the impact of a speed limit on the maneuverability of the vessel, the effectiveness of the tug escort and other legal and technical considerations material and relevant 100 Exhibit A to the required study. Such study shall also include an evaluation and recommendations as to whether there should be a transfer of all duties and responsibilities of the board of pilotage commissioners to the Weshington utilities and transportation commission or other state agency, and alternate methods for’ establishing fair and equitable rates for tug escort and pilot transfer. NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. *NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. The provisions of this 1975 act shall expire on June 30, 1978. *Sec. 7. was vetoed, see message at end of chapter. Passed the House May 21, 1975. Passed the Senate May 9, 1975. Approved by the Governor May 29, 1975, with the exception of sections 4 and 7 which are vetoed. Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 29, 1975. Note: Governor's explanation of partial veto is as follows: “I am returning herewith without my approval as to two sections Substitute House Bill No. 527 entitled: “AN ACT Relating to water pollution from petroleum spills.” This bill provides, among other things, safety standards for oil tankers and other precautionary measures for prevention of major oil spills in Puget Sound and adjacent waters. Section 4 of the bill authorizes the Utilities and Transportation Commission to implement the provisions of the act by rules and regulations. | am puzzled over this nant Sdoeeln Mee hon Exhibit A tion of major responsibility to the commission, which has Paes experience or expertise in the area. Nor is there funding provided which might allow the commission to do a creditable job in this new field of responsibility. Elsewhere in the bill a study is authorized on the desirability of transferring the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Pilotage Commissioners to the Utilities and Transportation Commission or any other appropriate state ney. Until there are findings determined in such study which confirm the need to assign the responsibility of implementing and enforcing the provisions of this act to the commission, I am not willing to allow a situation to exist where separate ncies in state government have substantially overlapping uties in this area of increasing importance without clear direction from the Legislature. Section 7 provides an expiration date for the act of June 30, 1978. Few would disagree that this state must soon decide and act on long solutions to the problems created by the transportation of oil in massive quantities in Puget Sound waters. By passing this bill, the Legislature has decided that at least in the near future, oil tankers exceeding 125,000 deadweight tons should not be permitted to enter these waters. study provided in section 5 may well offer some additional alternatives. The expiration date, however, rather than encouraging all parties to eo sound long range solutions, would instead discourage such efforts. This state could, conceivably, find itself in the second half of 1978 faced with unprecedented supertanker traffic in Puget Sound waters with all the attendant hazards but without any capability to prevent or reduce the risk of oil spills likely to produce catastrophic and ae damage to the unique environment of the area. The expiration date would also leave the oil industry and others affected in an untenable state of uncertainty over permissible and impermissible activities in the transportation of oil into this area. Neither public nor private interests would be benefited by such uncertainty. For the foregoing reasons, I have determined to veto sections 4 and 7 of the bill. With the exception of those sections, the remainder of the bill is approved.” Exhibit B 103 EXHIBIT B UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON THREE JUDGE COURT (Letterhead omitted in printing.) August 11, 1975 TO: All Pilots Licensed by the State of Washington All FI aren or Agents Registered with the Board of Pilotage Commissioners All Other Interested Parties FROM: State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries SUBJECT: Order Implementing New Requirements for Oil Tankers on Puget Sound Waters in Accordance with SHB 527 On September 8, 1975, the Board of Pilotage Commissioners will begin enforcing several new requirements relating to oil tankers on Puget Sound waters. These requirements were added to the Washington State Pilotage Act by the recent passage of SHB 527 by the Legislature. A copy of SHB 527, as partially vetoed and signed by the Governor is enclosed. The following paragraphs summarize the new requirements as they will be administered by the Board of Pilotage Commissioners: NOTE: The term “deadweight tons” (DWT) is defined as the cargo carrying capacity of a vessel, to include necessary fuel oils, stores, and potable water, as expressed in long tons (2,240 pounds equals one long ton). A. Any enrolled oil tanker of 50,000 DWT or greater and every registered oil tanker regardless of cargo carrying capacity shall have on board a Washington State licensed pilot while navigating Puget Sound and adjacent inland waters. B. Any oil tanker, enrolled or registered, greater than 125,000 DWT shall be prohibited from proceeding beyond a point east 104 Exhibit B of a line extending from the Discovery Island light southward to the New Dungeness light. C. Any oil tanker, enrolled or registered, of 40,000 to 125,000 DWT may proceed into Puget Sound waters provided it has all of the following safety features: (1) shaft horsepower in the ratio of one horsepower to each two and one-half DWT; and (2) twin screws; ar.d (3) double bottoms underneath all oil and liquid cargo compart ments; and (4) two radars in working order and operating, one of which must be collision avoidance radar; and (5) such other navigational position location systems as may be prescribed from time to time by the Board of Pilotage Commissioners. D. Any oil tanker, enrolled or registered, of 40,000 to 125,000 DWT which does not have ali the safety features prescribed in section C above, may proceed into Puget Sound waters only if it has a tug escort with an aggregate shaft horsepower equivalent to five percent of the DWT of the oil tanker. For example, an oil tanker of 125,000 DWT would require a tug escort having 6,250 aggregate shaft horsepower, wheveas an oil tanker of 40,000 DWT would require a 2,000 horsepower tug escort. (NOTE: Oil tankers of less than 40,000 DWT are not required to have either the safety features listed above or any tug escorts.) 1. Tug escorts shall begin and end at a point east of a line extending from the Discovery Island light southward to the New Dungeness light. 2. Any oil tanker of 40,000 to 125,000 DWT which is fully in ballast may move in Puget Sound waters without the safety features prescribed in Section C above and without a tug escort. 3. Any enrolled oil tanker between 40,000 and 50,000 DWT is not required to have on board a State licensed pilot, but must have either the safety features prescribed in C above or the appropriate tug escort. E. The steamship companies or their agents shall be responsible for ordering any required tugs and for contacting the Exhibit B 105 pilot dispatch station for required pilotage services as set forth in this order. Additionally, the State licensed pilot is required to advise the master of oil tankers of such requirements. In the event of any violation of these rules that comes to the attention of the Pilot, he is required to immediately notify the appropriate authorities. Further, the clear intent of the legislation is expressed in Section i in which it states in part that “the intent and purpose of the Act is to decrease the likelihood of oil spills on Puget Sound and its shorelines * * *”. Accordingly, it is the Board's interpretation that all such requirements contained in SHB 527 apply to oil tankers engaged in the business of transporting petroleum products. The provisions of this Act do not apply if such vessels defined as oil tankers are engaged exclusively in transporting cargo other than petroleum products; however, it should be understood that this interpretation applies to the provisions of SHB 527 and does not remove existing requirements for any such vessels already included in the Washington State Pilotage Act. (Signed): William C. Jacobs, Chairman Board of Pilotage Commissioners Exhibu C 107 EXHIBIT C UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON THREE JUDGE COURT List of all crude oil tankers received at Atlantic Richfield’s Cherry Point refinery since it commenced operations through 1975. Date of DWT Arrival Name (900) Flag 5/15/72 San Juan Voyager 131 Liberia 7/10/72 Joseph D. Potts 81 US.* 8/9/72 Arco Sag River 70 US 10/14/72 San Juan Voyager 131 Libera 11/10/72 Harima Maru 115 Japan 11/22/72 Arco Prudhoe Bay 70 US 12/12/72 Arco Prudhoe Bay 70 US 12/29/72 San Juan Voyager 131 Liberia 1/19/73 Golden Gate 62 US 1/31/73 Arco Sag River 70 US 3/2/73 Kinna Dan 72 Denmark 3/13/73 San Juan Voyager 131 Liberia 3/18/73 Arco Prudhoe Bay 70 US 4/2/73 Arco Colombia 58 Liberia 4/23/73 Harima Maru 115 Japan 6/3/73 Toxon 63 Liberia 6/13/73 Trident 70 Liberia 7/3/73 Almuzar 109 Liberia 7/19/73 Arco Prudhoe Bay 70 US 8/3/73 Arco Colombia 58 Liberia 8/10/73 San Juan Voyager 131 Liberia 8/28/73 Biscay Maru 100 Japan 9/8/73 Seven Stars 98 Sweden 9/18/73 Lily Prime 134 Italy 9/26/73 Eugenie 64 Liberia 10/1/73 Byorgfyell 73 Norway 10/5/73 Slavisa Vayner 70 Yugoslavia 10/10/73 Arco Anchorage 120 US. “United States abbreviated as |S in prinuing 108 Exhibit C San Juan Venturer (now Marcona Venturer) Arco Prudhoe Bay ee 5 = eer | - 10/5/75 10/21/75 10/21/75 Exhibit C Name Arco Anchorage Seatiger Arco Fairbanks Arco Juneau Arco Anchorage Arco Anchorage Arco Fairbanks Sinclair Texas Burmah Pear! Arco Juneau Toba Maru Arco Anchorage Arco Fairbanks Seatiger Arco Juneau Clementina New Star Arco Anchorage Ania Grand West Burmah Pear! Arco Juneau Clementina Shirley Arco Fairbanks Sinclair Texas Arco Anchorage Wind Endeavour Arco Juneau Allegro Sinclair Texas Seatiger Arco Fairbanks Kongshav Penny Conway Universe Defender Arco Prudhoe Bay Sinclair Texas 109 DWT (000) Fleg 120 US. 122 Liberia 120 US. 120 US. 120 US. 120 US. 120 US. 50 US. 138 Britain 120 US. 126 Japan 120 US. 120 US. 122 Liberia 120 US. 96 Liberia 60 Liberia 120 US. 128 Liberia 49 Panama 138 Brita [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_1695%3A04. Public record. Not legal advice.