# Amicus Curiae Brief — Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 914 (2019) (No. 18-389) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0855%3A12 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2019 ## Text No. 18-389 p___________H_____H____—____- In the Supreme Court of the United States PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LTD., PETITIONER v. BRIAN NEWTON ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitor General CHRISTOPHER G. MICHEL Assistant to the Solicitor General MARK B. STERN JENNIFER L. UTRECHT Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs(@usdoj.gov (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seqg., extends federal law to the Outer Continen- tal Shelf (OCS) “to the same extent as if the [OCS] were” a federal enclave, 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1). The laws of the adjacent State are “declared to be” federal law to “the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with” other federal law. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). The question presented is whether California wage-and- hour law is “applicable and not inconsistent” with fed- eral wage-and-hour law and therefore “declared to be” federal law on a drilling platform attached to the OCS off the coast of California. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Interest of the United States..............sssssessssessssssresesesssecereees 1 Statutory and regulatory provisions involved ............:00:000000 1 TERRI cccccsnssecnenscencemesoceneserscesneescensassententartnsnsscsnemnesnessnaseneteetes 2 UII 25 GERRI cccanessescrersncsscrscsnsesmsscanssactoensccsueneetnsscacusccies 7 Argument: The Fair Labor Standards Act, and not California wage-and-hour law, provides the enforceable federal law on the outer continental shelf ............csessseesereeeseeneeees i) A. California wage-and-hour law is not “applicable” to the OCS within the meaning of 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(a) paspaseassnscosen 10 1. Under OCSLA, state law is “applicable” only if needed to fill a gap in existing federal law.......... 10 2. The meaning of “applicable” adopted by respondent and the court below conflicts with OCSLA’s text, context, history, and purpose ........ 20 3. The FLSA leaves no gap to fill, so California wage-and-hour law is not applicable under te cicerionscnennccqnnescdeesibtontcesiamammnemssscsssensetocsemecesce 21 B. California wage-and-hour law is “inconsistent with” federal law under 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2\(a).......00ceceee 22 1. The meaning of “not inconsistent with” in Section 1333(a)(2)(A) derives from federal- 2. The California wage-and-hour law governing respondent’s claims is inconsistent with the IF Titi sncoscsmnesstienssdeenenpentnasasnensesnscscansstscssmsencsecenesceceee 26 3. The court of appeals’ holding that California law is “not inconsistent with” the FLSA is I cecccccrestessnsetnesstsninncnmmasninarsersnscssessetseceeneee 28 C. The decision below would disrupt settled expectations and orderly administration on the IV Table of Contentsa—Continued: Page COOITIIIN, cocsneseverecssssccescsssiounsesoenncsesecconcasmnnpsecsceseoreessonmnemanensts 33 Appendix — Statutory and regulatory provisions ............++ la TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Air Terminal Servs., Inc. v. Rentzel, 81 F. Supp. 611 CEE. Filhs BD enicterrcecesonenincssncssciiigugtentversianinteemetnenssccsinns 25 American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, Se ris Gir i ee erscnssteseneccernivenncentcnciensesvecesconsseneccsensssn 28 Blackburn v. United States, 100 F.3d 1426 (9th Cir. 1996) .......scvssensnensnserennereenenenenens 25 Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, GB Be Gare i carrensscvemscrscccesssarnecsseerenesenrncseeseses 10, 17, 20 Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma, 615 F.2d 665 (10th Cir, 1980) .......cccccseenenseees 26 Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co. v. McGlinn, SOG TEE, GE Co cccvircsetevnscrectessnsenessnctvesonassasemncscts 12, 13, 23 Continental Oil Co. v. London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mut. Ins. Ass'n, 417 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 911 (1970) .....cccccesererereneneeenes passim Department of the Treasury v. FLRA, a Te Fa ee ecnincteapicenincintsrnninnntneniensisencnencnn 11, 20 Ervin v. OS Rest. Servs., Inc., 682 F.3d 971 Ge Gai I i osenesesnaeescenencesencentsitipnstinnanesecsensscsvcccetecseqseeneneees 29 Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symezyk, A Te, Bo Ge crencentccsnctsscnsneensntcestconnsncemnsceeciomseresnesvenst 22 Gilf Offshore Co. v. ener ery 453 U.S. 473 (1981)... sanannesspioeusnesantisbsencoosemasennenitanens 10, 11, 14, 17, 18 INS v. Canines Pension, 430 oe | 30 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) .....csesesenerensseneneenanens 20 LeSassier vy. Chevron USA, Inc., 776 F.2d 506 (Sth Cir. 1985) ......ccssrssseserseseeeseseesenseenses 19 Cases—Continued: Page Lewis v. United States, BR Cre Bie Git cccccesereccssccscsesscerescessececnnssecemerenvens passim Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., ee Ee CRIED tescctniscecceniecteveresesvcnscescccsotssouien 27, 31 Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, I tinct iicciniendscintendnimeruminnmnbimienenes 29, 30 Nations v. W. W. Morris, 483 F.2d 577 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1071 (1978) .......cscssseseeeeceeeessersenes 19 Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agric. of Cal., Se ee ini iiciichinadceissineieaebehidandicremniemibseswrennanies 12 Pauw v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (1968) .0.....ccccccee 12, 23 Powell vy. United States Cartridge Co., ne Ohta aestinpainiicstonctnaniamegseneneneates 27 Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., Be es Se I eaitececnitnrccdeevcctedsosccesssncansssaqeamacenanes 11,13 Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., ee ls i ccrerencetesencaiitiscnticnpeansagecensqrensemnetens passim Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. B05 (2010) .....cccceccceeeeennenes 20 Shell Oil Co. v. lowa Dep't of Revenue, a EE catiistintetniencesittsignensinninntenicenneisemenscens 2, 11, 13 Tetra Techs., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 814 F.3d 733 (Sth Cir. 2016) ......ccccssssesseceeseeeeseeerseeseeensnres 19 United States v. California, 382 U.S. 19 (1947) ....cccccccrereeee 2 United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941).....cccccecseeeeeeees 22 United States v. Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699 (1950) .......ccccccee 2 United States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515 (1975)............ 3, 10, 32 United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286 (1958)......... 13, 14 United States v. Texas, 389 U.S. 707 (1950) ....cccccccccccceeenees 2 Williams v. United States, SBT UB, TEE (ay pccccccecccsccescccccoceccscesenesnossecsecssesees 13, 24, 27 VI Constitution, statutes, regulations, and rules: Page U.S. Const.: Re ak a eenerneenetencineiensetineatineuicdmameninneés 12 Art. V1, Cl. 2 (Supremacy Clause)...........0cssserersnerenes 30 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et 809. .......c.scscssssssseessssesssseees 31 es ee attsninantntenbrtedesiniuermcnstisnierneninmnpnaneds 32 Fe 32 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C 1251 et 809. ...cccccccccescessreesnesennees 31 Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, Ss Be Oe OOD catcteneeanstensntestnssscsecmsnsciiesanresnsccccssencsees 31 Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-627, EE ee ea 14 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Se I OI dacitnninrstaiincnsterstedecsnessccesncemasccscecsetnesnapas 5 REE RES PR SSSR se eee eA 26, 8a I oid tisernalidaiaiaciiataiieetniienial 26, 9a re I iliintitidaciccetstnneeieneeenisistniindsettiadaneiiighiesel 28, 9a Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, SD A, Be Oe GR reesscrnresccsnncicnisnccencnsemnesemnemnmnesesnarecseneces 31 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, ee IE eitriicttctnetnsettenccitinmssersertentinnmsnentes 1,3 TTT isinntirsienigitncichivimmnanibiisuiaiiiaamentniiiiaaints 3 le EE cincctenenicctnsitersaiitdiimmicioinias 1, 3, 10, 31, la i HI nicntceeceudntaeentinsssiniinpapabeepiandsonent 14, 15, 3a er, Fa etctncsccsesinstinncencnnsemsseineel passim, 3a | Acne passim, 3a 4B UBC. TBBBA GEA) nccccccccsccccvecscccvesseccssccseses passim, 3a 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(3)....... suniienprasstentanidduedaipemadintinen 4 es I icicteciicicinsidinnstnsiiicdeapiistipnamantimesniataiappiiaiin 3 aes ir adinichiciaidatsinninestsinsintarnicenmctcieenteineeidaumniamenes 31 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, es Ge 0 OO cccnerincttimintneniciiininmn 31 Vil Statutes, regulations, and rules—Continued: Page Service Contract Act of 1965, I eretisctnnetiictinceecmmeitnmnm 31 Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301 ef 809. ......0:00ersereees 2 ee I areniccessecsicciestanniascedertnttinnentiniceeniibcnes 3 es ee ictericicdensebinienttntncsnnticnnstmeincsrssineseatens 3 Walsh-Healey Act, 41 U.S.C. 6501 ef 809. ......cccccccsereeeneeeenes 27 Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, is ee OS GID cccenncsscnnsnccnenscnncssncsnscensecssessenscsccenssenecs 32 i HE icterincidertrnecsncienionenseeasseeneneenntnenmmaneomennieian 13, 7a is Pe nescintnnnsncscnssancapnininensiesuntusiatesnatninnaneninaniss 26, 10a 30 C.F.R.: Sis TIE sicciteiciceeieciipsehaintipciitinsiabcensdiintbihipinsininbediaiantenmambentedti 32 Ea Ta sciihashcsceetniserepasehetidinandiseianiciidniianagliabanmdapeineecesheptabeuspaiens 32 Ta IES OW cictsinntccnsntaniccincerettnionintsnnicinenmadiniaiis 31 Cal. Lab. Code: IND insschtiscitieninditcecemsnanscteeninesiitunsecianeendin 27 § 1182.12(b) (West Supp. 2019) .......ccccseserseerereeeeseeeene 26 Miscellaneous: Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)........ccccsenseeeeerenees 11 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gad of Mexico OCS Region, https://www.boem.gov/ Gulf-of-Mexico-Region (last visited Feb. 27, 2019)......... 19 Warren M. Christopher, The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: Key to a New Frontier, 6 Stan. L. Rev. 23 (1958) ......csssesersreesenenees 2, 3, 14, 15, 16 99 Cong. Rec. (1953): So Cid cnnseseosenspscensessennsonsonnsnsenscesesepepsccenanensesnssensesteantanauease 14 £0) Fiiiiiinstasceremneseccmsecseccnscssnesvssessnsesnenmnneneuiannenscsseneasennanessens 15 Vill Miscellaneous—Continued: Page Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States: Ca aR Lae Sa Oe ee 12 ES aaa eee 12, 23, 24, 26 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1031, 83d Cong., ist Sess. (1953) sthdiniiiieibiiedabeitiagiieigniiea 15 H.R. Rep. No. 413, 83d Cong., Ist Sess. (1953)... 16 S. Rep. No. 411, 83d Cong., Ist Sess. (1953)............. 2, 14, 15 S. Rep. No. 1217, 938d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974) ........cesesees 14 Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (2d ed. 1958)... 11, 13, 21, 23 In the Supreme Court of the United States PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LTD., PETITIONER v. BRIAN NEWTON ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES The question presented in this case is whether Cali- fornia law prescribing minimum-wage and overtime- pay requirements for employees is incorporated as fed- eral law by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seg., to govern employment on a drilling platform attached to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the coast of California. OCSLA places the OCS within the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States. 43 U.S.C. 1332(1). The United States accordingly has a substantial interest in the res- olution of the question presented. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED Pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions are reproduced in the appendix to this brief. App., infra, la-10a. (1) 2 STATEMENT 1. The Continental Shelf extends “under the waters of the ocean to the point where the continental slope leading to the true ocean bottom begins.” S. Rep. No. 411, 83d Cong., Ist Sess. 4 (1953) (Senate Report). Off the coast of New England, the Shelf “extends seaward about 250 miles.” /bid. In the Gulf of Mexico, it “ranges in width from about 40 to about 100 miles.” /bid. Along the Pacific Coast, the Shelf “is relatively narrow, rang- ing in width from 5 miles or less to a maximum of about 40 miles.” [bid. The Continental Shelf “promises enormous riches.” Warren M. Christopher, The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: Key to a New Frontier, 6 Stan. L. Rev. 23, 25 (1953) (Christopher). Among other resources, the Shelf is “thought to contain every major mineral, some in large quantities.” /bid. Partly for that reason, coastal States and the federal government long dis- puted “the right to lease the submerged lands for oil and gas exploration.” Shell Oil Co. v. lowa Dep't of Reve- nue, 488 U.S. 19, 26 (1988). In a series of decisions be- ginning with United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947), this Court determined that the United States has exclusive jurisdiction over the Shelf and the mineral deposits therein. Jd. at 38-39; see United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 717-718 (1950); United States v. Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699, 705 (1950). In 1953, Congress responded to those decisions by striking a compromise. In the Submerged Lands Act (SLA), 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seg., Congress ceded to the States offshore lands within three nautical miles (or, for Texas and Florida on the Gulf of Mexico, three marine leagues) of their coast, while providing exclusive federal jurisdiction and control over the rest of the Continental 3 Shelf, 43 U.S.C. 1301-1302, 1311-1312. The exclusively federal portion, known as the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), “comprises about nine-tenths of the area of the entire Continental Shelf,” and spans “some 261,000 square miles *** , an area almost one-tenth that of the continental United States.” Christopher 23, 25. Later in 1953, Congress passed and President Eisen- hower signed the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seg. OCSLA defines the OCS to include “all submerged lands” between the lands reserved to the States by the SLA and the edge of the United States’ territorial jurisdiction. 43 U.S.C. 1331(a). OCSLA declares that “the subsoil and seabed of the [OCS] appertain to the United States and are sub- ject to its jurisdiction, control, and power of disposi- tion.” 43 U.S.C. 1332(1). OCSLA then sets forth a va- riety of provisions regulating leasing, exploration, and other mechanisms “for the orderly development of off- shore resources.” l/nited States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515, 527 (1975); see 43 U.S.C. 1334-1354. Of central importance here, OCSLA “define|s| a body of law applicable to the seabed, the subsoil, and the fixed structures such as [drilling platforms]” at- tached to the OCS. Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352, 355 (1969). First, in 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1), OCSLA extends “[t]he Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States” to the “subsoil and seabed” of the OCS, as well as to “all arti- ficial islands, and all installations and other devices per- manently or temporarily attached to the seabed.” Section 1333(a)(1) provides that such federal law shall apply “to the same extent as if the [OCS] were an area of exclu- sive Federal jurisdiction located within a State,” i.e., a federal enclave. /bid.; see Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 355. 4 Section 1333(a)(2)(A) then provides that “[tjo the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with” fed- eral law, “the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent State *** are declared to be the law of the United States for that portion of the” OCS “which would be within the area of the State if its boundaries were ex- tended seaward to the outer margin of the [OCS]}.” 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). Section 1333(a)(2)(A) provides that “[a]ll of such applicable laws shall be administered and enforced by the appropriate officers and courts of the United States,” and that “State taxation laws shall not apply to the outer Continental Shelf.” /bid. Section 1333(a)(3) adds that the “adoption of State law as the law of the United States shall never be interpreted as a basis for claiming any interest in or jurisdiction on be- half of any State for any purpose over the” OCS. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(3). 2. From January 2013 to January 2015, respondent worked for petitioner on drilling platforms attached to the OCS in the Santa Barbara Channel. Pet. App. 2-3. As is standard for employees on such platforms, re- spondent worked 14-day shifts, referred to as “hitches.” Id, at 3. During shifts, respondent spent 12 hours per day on duty, for which he was paid “well above” the state and federal minimum wage. /d. at 3,20. He spent the other 12 hours per day on “controlled standby,” dur- ing which “he was not able to leave the platform.” /d. at 3. He »vas not paid for that standby time. /d. at 47. In February 2015, respondent filed a putative class action in California state court alleging violations of several state wage-and-hour laws, as well as associated state-law violations. Pet. App. 3. Among other things, respondent claimed that California’s minimum-wage 5 and overtime statutes and accompanying administra- tive orders required petitioner to compensate him for the 12 hours he spent on controlled standby. /bid. 3. Petitioner removed the action to a federal district court, which granted judgment on the pleadings to pe- titioner. Pet. App. 3-4. The court explained that, under OCSLA, “the law to be applied * * * is exclusively fed- eral,” but “the law of an adjacent state may be adopted as the law of the United States to the extent that [it] is ‘applicable and not inconsistent’ with” existing federal law. Jd. at 51 (quoting 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A)). The court further explained that “state law is only ‘applica- ble’ to the extent that federal law, because of its limited function in a federal system and inadequacy to cope with the full range of potential legal problems, has a sig- nificant void or gap.” /bid. (citing Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 357). Thus, the court determined, “under OCSLA, fed- eral law governs and state law only applies to the extent it is necessary ‘to fill a significant void or gap’ in federal law.” Ibid. (quoting Continental Oil Co. v. London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mut. Ins. Ass'n, 417 F.2d 1030, 1036 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 911 (1970)). Turning to respondent’s claims, the district court concluded that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seg., constitutes a “compre- hensive | federal] scheme providing for minimum wages and overtime pay.” Pet. App. 55 (citation omitted). Be- cause the FLSA has no “‘significant voids or gaps’” that need to be filled by state law, the court explained that “it is not necessary to apply the law of the ‘adjacent state’” under OCSLA. J/bid.; see id. at 52-59. The court granted judgment to petitioner on respondent’s claims, all of which were based on California law. /d. at 60. 6 4. The court of appeals reversed. Pet. App. 1-41. The court rejected the district court’s conclusion that a “significant void or gap” in federal law is required be- fore state law can be applied as federal law under OCSLA. /d. at 2 (quoting Continental Oil, 417 F.2d at 1036). Instead, the Ninth Circuit determined that state law is “‘applicable’” under OCSLA whenever it “per- tain|s] to the subject matter at hand.” Jd. at 21. The court acknowledged that its reading of “applicable” con- flicted with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Continental Oil and the decision of every district court within the Ninth Cireuit that had addressed the issue. /d. at 2, 20 n.13 (citation omitted). Having concluded that California wage-and-hour law was “‘applicable’” under OCSLA, the court of appeals turned to whether California law was “‘inconsistent with’ existing federal law.” Pet. App. 27 (quoting 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A)). The court reasoned that state laws are “inconsistent” with federal law under OCSLA only “if they are mutually incompatible, incongruous, or inharmonious.” Jd. at 28 (citation and internal quota- tion marks omitted). Under that standard, the court de- termined that no inconsistency exists between the FLSA and California wage-and-hour law, because the FLSA savings clause “explicitly permits more protec- tive state wage and hour laws.” /d. at 36. The court accordingly held that California law applied and remanded for further proceedings on respondent’s minimum-wage and overtime claims. /d. at 39." ' The court of appeals directed the district court to consider in the first instance whether respondent’s other claims were inconsistent with federal law. Pet. App. 40. The court of appeals also reserved for the district court on remand “the question whether [its] holding should be applied retrospectively.” Jd. at 43. 7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In OCSLA, Congress extends federal law to the OCS “to the same extent as if the [OCS] were” a federal en- clave, 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1), and adopts state law as federal law to the extent it is “applicable and not in- consistent with” existing federal law, 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). The FLSA extends to the OCS and pre- scribes minimum-wage, overtime, and maximum-hour standards that directly address respondent’s claims. That resolves this case. Because the FLSA supplies the “applicable” federal law, California law cannot. And even if California law were “applicable” in some sense, it would not be adopted as federal law under OCSLA because it is “inconsistent” with the FLSA. A. Under OCSLA, only federal law applies on the OCS. That law comes, first and foremost, from the “Constitution and laws * * * of the United States,” in- cluding the FLSA. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1). Because fed- eral law does not address every possible issue that could arise on the OCS, however, OCSLA borrows “applica- ble” and “not inconsistent” state law. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). But just as in federal enclaves—the ju- risdictional model OCSLA expressly adopts—state law is “applicable” only if federal law leaves a gap to fill. Here, there is no gap. Because the FLSA prescribes standards that govern respondent’s claims, the FLSA provides the only “applicable” federal law. The text, structure, history, and purpose of OCSLA all reinforce that reading. The term “applicable,” while capable of various definitions in isolation, takes its meaning in OCSLA from the well-established law gov- erning federal enclaves, under which state law applies only when federal law leaves a gap. This Court’s deci- 8 sions construing OCSLA, along with the most signifi- cant aspects of its legislative history, similarly indicate that state law applies only when federal law does not. That important but secondary role also follows from OCSLA’s overriding purpose—to make federal law ““exclusive’ in its regulation of” the OCS, with state law “adopted only as surrogate federal law.” Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352, 357 (1969). B. Even if California wage-and-hour law were “ap- plicable” in some sense, OCSLA would not adopt it as federal law because it is “inconsistent with” the FLSA. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). Under established principles of federal-enclave law, state law that is inconsistent with federal law or policy is not assimilated. Such in- consistency is most apparent when adopting state law would effectively revise standards prescribed by fed- eral law. That is what respondent seeks to do here, by imposing wage-and-hour standards that differ from those prescribed by the FLSA. To be sure, the FLSA contains a savings clause that requires employers to comply with laws that provide greater protections for employees. The FLSA would accordingly not preempt California law if this case arose under state jurisdiction on the mainland. But preemp- tion principles are irrelevant under OCSLA, because state law never applies of its own force on the OCS. Un- der OCLSA, the only question is whether California law is “declared to be” federal law. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). Because California’s minimum-wage and maximum- hours standards are “inconsistent with” those pre- scribed by the FLSA, the answer is no. /bid. C. The decision below departs from the Fifth Cir- cuit’s position for half a century that OCSLA adopts state law on the OCS only to fill gaps in federal law. 9 Subjecting OCS employers to the wage-and-hour re- quirements of various adjacent States would disrupt settled expectations and require substantial changes to business arrangements. Assimilating new swaths of state law would also multiply the burdens on federal of- ficials charged with “administer[ing]” and “enfore[ing]” all law on the OCS. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). And the consequences could extend beyond the wage-and-hour laws at issue here. Many other federal statutes, admin- istered by various federal agencies, regulate activity on the OCS. Although many of those statutes indicate that federal law applies exclusively on the OCS, the decision below could provide a rationale to urge the adoption of state regulatory law in disruptive and unpredictable ways—all in conflict with OCSLA’s core directive that federal law is paramount on the OCS. ARGUMENT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AND NOT CALIFORNIA WAGE-AND-HOUR LAW, PROVIDES THE ENFORCEABLE FEDERAL LAW ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OCSLA provides that the “laws * * * of the United States are extended to” the OCS. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1). The FLSA is undisputedly among those laws. Califor- nia law can serve as federal law on the OCS only if it is “applicable” and “not inconsistent with” the FLSA. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). The California wage-and-hour law invoked by respondent does not satisfy either of those requirements. It is not “applicable” because the FLSA leaves no gap for state law to fill, and it is “incon- sistent with” the FLSA because it would impose differ- ent minimum-wage and overtime requirements than Congress directly prescribed. /bid. The decision below should be reversed on either or both of those grounds. 10 A. California Wage-And-Hour Law Is Not “Applicable” To The OCS Within The Meaning Of 43 U.S.C, 1383(a)(2)(A) The text and structure of OCSLA, its legislative his- tory and purpose, and this Court’s precedent all indi- cate that state law is “applicable” as federal law on the OCS only “to fill * * * substantial ‘gaps’ in the coverage of federal law.” Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oul Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 480 (1981); see Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 101 (1971); Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352, 357-359 (1969). Where laws of the United States apply of their own force, there is no gap to fill and thus no need to adopt “state law * * * as sur- rogate federal law.” Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 357. That is the case here. The FLSA comprehensively regulates wage-and-hour issues and leaves “no gaps” for state law to fill. Continental Oil Co. v. London Steam-Ship Own- ers’ Mut. Ins. Ass'n, 417 F.2d 1030, 1036 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 911 (1970). 1. Under OCSLA, state law is “applicable” only if needed to fill a gap in existing federal law OCSLA “emphatically” asserts the federal govern- ment’s “paramount” sovereignty over the OCS. United States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515, 526 (1975). OCSLA pro- vides that the United States has exclusive “jurisdiction, control, and power of disposition” over OCS lands, 43 U.S.C. 1332(1), and Section 1333(a)(1) extends the “Constitution and laws *** of the United States” to the OCS “to the same extent as if the [OCS] were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State,” 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1). Because those federal laws “might be inadequate to cope with the full range of legal problems” arising on the OCS, Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 357, Section 1333(a)(2) provides that “the civil and crim- inal laws of each adjacent State *** are declared to 1] be the law of the United States” on the OCS “[t]o the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with” federal law, 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). Thus, “[a]ll law applicable to the [OCS] is federal law,” Gulf Off- shore, 453 U.S. at 480, with “state law *** adopted only as surrogate federal law,” Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 357, and only as specified in Section 1333(a)(2). a. The text and context of OCSLA establish that state law is “applicable” as federal law on the OCS un- der Section 1333(a)(2) only when there is a gap in the laws of the United States that are “extended” to the OCS by Section 1333(a)(1). As a matter of ordinary meaning, both at the time of OCSLA’s adoption and now, a law is “applicable” if it is “[c)apable of being ap- plied” or “fit, suitable, or right to be applied.” Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Lan- guage 131 (2d ed. 1958) (Webster’s Second); see Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N A., 562 U.S. 61, 69 (2011) (quoting multiple dictionaries providing the same definition); Black’s Law Dictionary 120 (10th ed. 2014) (same). Determining whether a law is “applicable” under that definition requires analyzing the statutory context. See Shell Oil Co. v. lowa Dep't of Revenue, 488 U.S. 19, 25 (1988) (explaining, in interpreting Section 1333(a)(2), that “the meaning of words depends on their context”); see also Ransom, 562 U.S. at 70-71 (relying on “statu- tory context” to interpret “‘applicable’”); Department of the Treasury v. FLRA, 494 U.S, 922, 930 (1990) (sim- ilar). Here, the critical context for the meaning of “ap- plicable” in Section 1333(a)(2) comes from Section 1333(a)(1), which extends federal law to the OCS “to the same extent as if the [OCS] were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State”—ie., “an upland federal enclave.” Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 357. 12 When Congress enacted Section 1333(a)(1), choice- of-law principles governing federal enclaves were well- established. The Constitution empowers Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation” in federal enclaves, such as military reservations, post offices, and parks. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 17; see Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States: Report of the Interdepart- mental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States, Pt. 1, at 2 (1956) (Fed- eral Study). When a federal enclave is created within a State, any existing state “laws, ordinances, and regula- tions in conflict with the political character, institutions, and constitution of the [federal] government” are “at once displaced.” Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542, 546 (1885). The only state laws that apply as federal law in the new enclave are those “in no respect inconsistent with any law of the United States,” and that Congress “never ** * changed or abrogated.” Jd. at 547; see Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 269 (1963) (explaining that a preex- isting state law is “applicable” in a federal enclave when “there is no conflicting federal policy”). Any state law enacted “after the transfer of sovereignty” is “without application” unless adopted by the federal government. Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agric. of Cal., 318 U.S. 285, 294-295 (1943). In sum, state law applies to a federal enclave only to “fill[] a vacuum which would otherwise exist in the absence of” federal law. Federal Study, Pt. II, at 158 (1957). Against that background, OCSLA’s provision that state laws are adopted as federal law “[t]o the extent they are applicable and not inconsistent” with federal law, 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A), is best understood to fol- low the federal-enclave model that Congress expressly 13 specified in Section 1333(a)(1). See Shell Oil, 488 U.S. at 26 (“[rjeading the statutory provisions” in Section 1333(a)(2)(A) “in the context of the entire section in which they appear”) (emphasis omitted). Just as state law applies in federal enclaves only to fill gaps in federal law, see McGlinn, 114 U.S. at 547, so too state law is “applicable” on the OCS only to “supplement|] gaps in the federal law,” Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 357. Congress's adoption of state law to fill gaps in fed- eral law on the OCS—+.¢., when it is “fit, suitable, or right to be applied,” Webster’s Second 131, or “appro- priate,” Ransom, 562 U.S. at 69-70, for that purpose— also follows from its longstanding practice of assimilat- ing state criminal law to “fill in gaps” in federal law on federal enclaves. Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 719 (1946). Beginning in 1825, Congress enacted a series of Assimilative Crimes Acts that “made applica- ble to enclaves the criminal laws in force in the respec- tive States,” but did not incorporate crimes “punishable by any enactment of Congress.” United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286, 291, 293 (1958); see 18 U.S.C. 13(a). Those statutes thus “borrow|ed] state law to fil! gaps in the federal criminal law,” but not where “there [wa]s no gap to fill.” Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 160, 163 (1998). Given Congress’s adoption of the federal-enclave model in OCSLA, its longstanding prac- tice of making state criminal law “applicable on federal enclaves” only to “fill gaps” in federal law, strongly in- dicates that Section 1333(a)(2) similarly makes state law “applicable” on the OCS only to “fill in gaps” in federal law. Id. at 159. Congress’s subsequent treatment of Section 1333(a)(2) further reinforces the connection between OCSLA and the Assimilative Crimes Act. OCSLA initially provided 14 for incorporation of state law only as of the effective date of OCSLA’s enactment, because Congress believed prospective incorporation of state laws might be an un- constitutional delegation of legislative authority. See Senate Report 33. After this Court held that the Assim- ilative Crimes Act could fill gaps in federal law by pro- spectively incorporating state law, Sharpnack, 355 U.S. at 294, Congress amended Section 1333(a)(2) to adopt “applicable” state law then in effect or later enacted, Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-627 § 19(f), 88 Stat. 2146; see S. Rep. No. 1217, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 60, 76 (1974). That conscious decision to link state law made “applicable” on the OCS through OCSLA to state criminal law made applicable on federal enclaves through the Assimilative Crimes Act further under- scores that state law in both statutes is “applicable” only to “fill gaps in” federal law. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 160; Gulf Offshore, 453 U.S. at 479 n.7. b. The legislative history and purpose of OCSLA further indicate that state law is “applicable” under Section 1333(a)(2) only to fill gaps in federal law. “In introducing the bill to the Senate,” Acting Interior Committee Chairman Cordon explained that OCSLA created a “legal situation [that] is comparable to that in” federal enclaves. Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 361-362 (quot- ing 99 Cong. Rec. 6963 (1953)).’ Consistent with that understanding, the Senate Committee Report summa- rized the “body of law *** extended to the” OCS by Section 1333(a) as “consisting of: (a) The Constitution and the laws ** * of the Federal Government; (b) the * As one commentator has explained, “Senator Cordon’s superior knowledge of the structure and details of the bill ** * made him an important figure” in enacting OCSLA. Christopher 32. 15 regulations, rules, and operating orders of the Secre- tary of the Interior; and (c) “in the absence of such ap- plicable Federal law or adequate Secretarial regula- tion, the civil and criminal laws of the State adjacent to the” OCS. Senate Report 2 (emphasis added). Like- wise, Senator Anderson, a member of the Conference Committee, explained that Section 1333(a) “provides that Federal laws and regulations shall be applicable in the [OCS], but that where there is a void, the State law may be applicable.” Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 358 (quoting 99 Cong. Rec. 7164 (1953)) (emphases added). And Sen- ator Daniel explained that OCSLA “applied State laws in the fields which are not covered by Federal laws or by regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.” 99 Cong. Rec. 7264 (1953) (emphasis added).’ Opponents of OCSLA “realized full well that state law was being used only to supplement federal law,” and “introduced an amendment to the Act which would have made ‘the laws of such State applicable to the newly ac- quired area, and * * * the officials of such State [em- powered] to enforce the laws of the State in the newly acquired area.’” Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 358-359 (citing 99 Cong. Rec. 7232-7236). But Congress expressly “re- jected” that proposal. /d. at 359. Congress likewise re- jected the approach of the House bill, under which state laws would have been made “applicable” of their own force on the OCS “[e)xcept to the extent that they are inconsistent with applicable Federal laws.” H.R. Rep. * “Particular weight also attaches to the comments of Senator Clinton Anderson ** * , who was the informal leader of the Com- mittee Democratic minority, and of Senator Price Daniel [of Texas}, who represented a state having a great stake in the controversy.” Christopher 32. 16 No. 413, 83d Cong., Ist Sess. 9 (1953). Congress’s deci- sion to replace that approach with the federal-enclave model, see Christopher 41, underscores that federal law applies exclusively on the OCS (as on federal enclaves), with state laws incorporated as federal law only “to the extent” they are “applicable”—<.¢., suitable or appro- priate—to fill gaps, 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A).* ce. This Court’s precedents interpreting OCSLA fur- ther reinforce that conclusion. This Court first interpreted OCSLA’s choice-of-law provision in Rodrigue. The Court there considered whether wrongful-death suits brought by the families of men killed on OCS drilling rigs off the coast of Louisi- ana should proceed under federal admiralty law or a state wrongful-death statute. See 395 U.S. at 352-353. The Court explained that Congress enacted OCSLA to provide a single “body of law applicable to the” OCS, and that “this law was to be federal law of the United States, applying state law only as federal law and then only when not inconsistent with applicable federal law.” Id. at 355-356. Relying on “the language of the Act,” the Court further explained that “federal law, because of its limited function in a federal system, might be in- adequate to cope with the full range of potential legal problems,” so “the Act supplemented gaps in the fed- eral law with state law through the ‘adoption of State law as the law of the United States.’” /d. at 356-357 ‘ To be sure, some statements in the legislative history can be read to support the position adopted below. See, e.g., Pet. App. 25- 26; H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1031, 83d Cong., Ist Sess. 13 (1953). But the repeated congressional emphasis on state law as a means to fill gaps in federal law, along with the rejection of proposals to apply state law directly, indicate that OCSLA envisioned only a secondary role for state law. 17 (emphasis added). The Court concluded that it was “ev- ident from this that federal law is ‘exclusive’ in its reg- ulation of this area, and that state law is adopted only as surrogate federal law.” /d. at 357. Because the Court concluded that federal admiralty law did not apply to the OCS, it adopted the state wrongful-death statute to govern the claim. /d. at 366. Two years later, the Court again interpreted OCSLA’s choice-of-law provision in Huson. There, the question was whether the federal admiralty doctrine of laches or a state statute of limitations governed a tort action aris- ing from an injury on the OCS. 404 U.S. at 98-99. The Court observed that Rodrigue had “clarified the scope of application of federal law and state law under” OCSLA. /d. at 101. Specifically, the Court explained that Rodrigue concluded that “comprehensive admi- ralty law remedies” did not apply to the OCS, that “a substantial ‘gap’ in federal law” therefore exists, and that “the ‘gap’ must be filled with the applicable body of state law under” Section 1333(a)(2). Jbid. After de- scribing state limitations law, the Court explained that OCSLA incorporated state law only “for filling in the ‘gaps’ in federal law.” /d. at 103-104 (emphasis added). Because Congress’s decision not to apply federal admi- ralty law to the OCS left such a gap, the Court adopted state law as federal law under OCSLA. /d. at 105. The Court again discussed OCSLA’s choice-of-law provision in Gulf Offshore. There, the question was whether federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising under OCSLA. 453 U.S. at 475. In ana- lyzing OCSLA’s jurisdictional scheme, the Court ex- plained that “[a]ll law applicable to the [OCS] is federal law, but to fill the substantial ‘gaps’ in the coverage of 18 federal law, OCSLA borrows the ‘applicable and not in- consistent’ laws of the adjacent States as surrogate fed- eral law.” Jd. at 480 (emphasis added) (quoting 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)). The Court added that OCSLA in- corporated the “law of adjacent States to fill gaps in federal law” to “retain exclusive federal control of the administration of the” OCS, while also recognizing “the close, longstanding relationship between the Shelf and the adjacent States.” /d. at 480 n.7 (emphasis added).° d. Although this Court has not addressed a case in which existing federal law extended to the OCS left no gap, the logic of its decisions leads to the conclusion that state law would not apply under Section 1333(a)(2) in such a scenario. As explained in Rodrigue, OCSLA makes federal law “exclusive,” with “state law * * * adopted only as surrogate federal law.” 395 U.S. at 357 (emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit adopted that reading of OCSLA a half-century ago in Continental Oil. The court there applied OCSLA’s choice-of-law provision to an action by an OCS drilling platform operator against the owner of an ocean-going vessel that collided with the platform. 417 F.2d at 1032-1033. Unlike the wrongful-death ac- tion in Rodrigue, which fell outside federal admiralty jurisdiction, the involvement of the ocean-going vessel in the collision brought the claim in Continental Oil un- disputedly within federal admiralty law. See id. at 1035. ® As with the legislative history, some statements in this Court's decisions can be read to support a different interpretation. See, e.g., Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 359 (referring to the potential for “federal law to oust adopted state law”); id. at 356-358 (referring to adoption of state law “not inconsistent” with federal law). But the decisions as a whole strongly indicate that state law is applicable as federal! law on the OCS only to fill gaps in existing federal law. 19 The platform owner contended that state law was nev- ertheless “applicable” under Section 1333(a)(2) because it was relevant to “the subject matter in question.” /bid. The Fifth Circuit rejected that position as irreconcila- ble with the statute. The court explained that Con- gress’s “deliberate choice of federal law, federally ad- ministered, requires that ‘applicable’ be read in terms of necessity—necessity to fill a significant void or gap.” 1d. at 1036 (footnote omitted). The contrary view, under which “applicable” simply meant “applicable to the sub- ject matter in question,” would effectively read the word out of the statute by placing “almost 100% [e]mphasis on the ‘not inconsistent * * * with federal laws’ element of § 1333(a)(2).” Jd. at 1035. Because the court concluded that there were “no gaps” to fill under federal admiralty law, the court concluded that there was no “necessity” to adopt state law as federal law under OCSLA. /d. at 1036. Over the past 50 years, the Fifth Circuit—the site of the vast majority of OCS energy exploration—has re- peatedly reaffirmed the holding of Continental Oil. See, e.g., Tetra Techs., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 814 F.3d 733, 738 (2016) (per curiam); LeSassier v. Chevron USA, Inc., T76 F.2d 506, 509 (1985) (per curiam); Na- tions v. W. W. Morris, 483 F.2d 577, 585, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1071 (1973); see also Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, https://www. boem.gov/Gulf-of-Mexico-Region (noting that “about 97% of all OCS oil and gas production” occurs in the Gulf of Mexico). District courts within the Ninth Circuit have likewise uniformly followed the reasoning of Con- tinental Oil. See Pet. App. 20 n.13; see also id. at 51-52 (district court in this case applying Continental Oil). 20 The decision below appears to be the first to depart from that long-settled understanding of OCSLA. 2. The meaning of “applicable” adopted by respondent and the court below conflicts with OCSLA’s text, con- text, history, and purpose The court of appeals interpreted “applicable” to mean “pertain[ing] to the subject matter at hand,” a definition it said “does not lend itself to the notion that state laws have to fill a gap in federal law to qualify as surrogate federal law.” Pet. App. 21. Respondent de- fends that approach. Cert. Br. 17. Although the Ninth Circuit’s reading might be one possible meaning of the word “applicable” in isolation, this Court does not “con- strue statutory phrases in isolation” but rather “read[s] statutes as a whole.” Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 319 (2010) (citation omitted). In context, respondent’s reading of “applicable” to mean “pertain[ing] to the subject matter at hand” gives the word no meaning. Pet. App. 21. Even without the word “applicable,” no one would read OCSLA to require incorporation of irrelevant state law—.e., divorce law in a personal-injury action. The limitation proposed by respondent and the Ninth Circuit is thus no limitation, and fails to “give effect to every word of a statute wher- ever possible.” Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 12 (2004); see FLRA, 494 U.S. at 930 (refusing to read the term “applicable laws” as “a pointless tautology”). Reading “applicable” to mean “pertain{ing] to the subject matter at hand,” Pet. App. 21, also conflicts with this Court’s precedent. In both Rodrigue and Huson, there was no dispute that the Louisiana law invoked by the respective plaintiffs pertained to the subject matter at hand. The Court nevertheless analyzed at length whether federal admiralty law applied, see Huson, 21 404 U.S. at 100-105; Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 359-366—an inquiry that would have been unnecessary if any state law pertaining to the same subject matter were “appli- cable” under Section 1333(a)(2)(A). Finally, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning makes little sense on its own terms. The court of appeals recognized that state law adopted as federal law under OCSLA is “surrogate federal law.” Pet. App. 21. But the concept of state law as “surrogate federal law” recognizes that state law takes on the role of federal law only when ex- isting federal] law is unavailable to play that role itself. See, e.g., Webster’s Second 2540 (defining a “surrogate” as a “substitute”). The suggestion that state law could substitute for federal law even if federal law were “ap- plicable” cannot be squared with ordinary language or the principle of federal exclusivity that runs throughout OCSLA. See Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 357. The only mean- ing of “applicable” that makes sense of OCSLA’s text, structure, history, and purpose is the one adopted by the Fifth Circuit a half-century ago and followed with- out exception until the decision below: State law is “ap- plicable”—that is, suitable or appropriate—on the OCS only to fill a “void or gap” in existing federal law. Con- tinental Oil, 417 F.2d at 1036. 3. The FLSA leaves no gap to fill, so California wage- and-hour law is not applicable under OCSLA Applying that rule to this case, the FLSA is the only law applicable to respondent’s claims. There is no dis- pute that the FLSA is among the “laws *** of the United States” that are “extended to the” OCS by Sec- tion 1333(a)(1). See Pet. App. 27; see also Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 362 (indicating that Congress drafted OCSLA to ensure that “fair-labor standard laws” would extend to the OCS) (citation omitted). And the FLSA 22 does not leave any “gaps” that would need to be filled by state law acting as “surrogate federal law.” Ro- drigue, 395 U.S. at 357. As this Court has long explained, the FLSA is a “comprehensive legislative scheme,” United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 109 (1941), that establishes, inter alia, “federal minimum-wage, maximum-hour, and overtime guarantees,” Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symezyk, 569 U.S. 66, 69 (2013); see p. 26, infra. The FLSA thus addresses respondent’s minimum-wage and overtime claims. California wage-and-hour law is there- fore not “applicable” within the meaning of Section 1333(a)(2). And because Section 1333(a)(2) adopts state law as federal law only when state law is both “applica- ble and not inconsistent with” existing federal law, 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added), the inapplica- bility of state law alone means that the Ninth Circuit erred in adopting California wage-and-hour law to re- solve respondent’s minimum-wage and overtime claims. This Court can reverse on that basis alone. B. California Wage-and-Hour Law Is “Inconsistent With” Federal Law Under 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A) Even if California wage-and-hour law were “applica- ble” within the meaning of Section 1333(a)(2)(A), it would not be adopted as federal law under OCSLA be- cause it is “inconsistent with” the FLSA. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). Contrary to the decision below, the standard for “inconsisten[cy]” set by OCSLA does not mirror ordinary conflict-preemption principles, which govern in deciding whether federal law ousts state law that would otherwise apply of its own force to a matter within the State’s jurisdiction. The standard under OCSLA instead concerns whether state law is affirma- tively incorporated as federal law in an area of exclusive 23 federal jurisdiction. Under OCSLA, California wage- and-hour laws cannot be incorporated to impose mini- mum-wage and overtime requirements different from those Congress specified in the FLSA. Congress has already created one federal law on the issue; OCSLA provides no basis to adopt another. The decision below should be reversed on that basis as well. 1. The meaning of “not inconsistent with” in Section 1333(a)(2)(A) derives from federal-enclave law Like the term “applicable,” the term “not inconsis- tent” has a general definition—“incompatible; incon- gruous; inharmonious,” Webster’s Second 1259—that must be understood within the context of OCSLA. And as with the term “applicable,” the relevant context is the well-established law of federal enclaves that Congress expressly referenced in Section 1333(a)(1). As noted above, federal-enclave law allows incorpo- ration of state law only if it preexisted establishment of the enclave, and only if it is not “inconsistent with any law of the United States” or “in conflict with the politi- cal character, institutions, and constitution of the [fed- eral] government.” McGlinn, 114 U.S. at 546-547; see Federal Study, Pt. II, at 159-163. As McGlinn sug- gests, the standard for inconsistency is broader than pure legal conflict. A state law is inconsistent with fed- eral law if there exists “conflicting federal policy.” Paul, 371 U.S. at 269. The standard for inconsistency in federal-enclave law has developed primarily through interpretation of the Assimilative Crimes Act and its predecessors, which have long provided for state law to fill gaps in federal criminal law on federal enclaves. See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 160-161. Although those Acts have not expressly pro- vided that adopted state laws may not be incorporated 24 if “inconsistent with” federal law, this Court has long interpreted them to contain such a limitation. See id. at 164-165. In Lewis, for example, the Court explained that state criminal law may not be assimilated as federal law if it “would interfere with the achievement of a fed- eral policy,” if adoption of “state law would effectively rewrite” federally prescribed and “carefully consid- ered” standards, or if “federal statutes reveal an intent to occupy so much of a field as would exclude use of the particular state statute at issue.” /bid. Of particular relevance here, this Court has empha- sized that assimilation of state law is inappropriate when Congress has defined a crime with precision. More than 70 years ago in Williams, for example, the Court refused to assimilate an Arizona crime because Congress had defined “the precise acts” the defendant committed to constitute a different federal crime. 327 U.S. at 717. The Court reached that result even though federal law did not expressly foreclose Arizona's definition and would not have preempted a state prose- cution under the State’s ordinary jurisdiction. The Court explained that, in the context of a federal enclave governed exclusively by federal law, Congress's precise definition of a crime “is not to be redefined and enlarged by application” of state law, because such a redefinition would have the impermissible “effect of modifying or re- pealing existing provisions of the Federal Code.” /d. at 717-718. The Court reiterated that principle in Lewis, explaining that assimilation of state law “may not re- write distinctions among the forms of criminal behavior that Congress intended to create.” 523 U.S. at 165; ac- cord Federal Study, Pt. II, at 132. 25 Those considerations apply a fortiori to OCSLA. Unlike the Assimilative Crimes Act, OCSLA’s text ex- pressly includes a “not inconsistent with” standard. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). Unlike most newly established federal enclaves, moreover, the OCS was never part of a State, so no reliance interests on preexisting state law could have developed. Considerations of state sover- eignty likewise play no role on the OCS, because (unlike with many federal enclaves) States have never exer- cised sovereign control over the land at issue. To be sure, it may be relatively rare that a state law could be “applicable” in the sense that federal law leaves a gap to fill yet “inconsistent with” other federal law. See Continental Oil, 417 F.2d at 1040. But such a scenario is conceivable, so—unlike in respondent's reading—neither term is rendered superfluous. See id. at 1037. For example, state law may be “applicable” be- cause federal law does not address a particular issue, but “inconsistent” with federal law because it “inter- fere[s] with the achievement of a federal policy” on a broader level. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 164. Thus, a federal court declined to assimilate on a federal enclave a Vir- ginia criminal law that banned racial integration in “places of public assemblage”—a crime with no counter- part in the federal code—because the law conflicted with federal policy “prohibiting the maintenance of ra- cial segregation.” Air Terminal Servs., Inc. v. Rentzel, 81 F. Supp. 611, 611 (E.D. Va. 1949); see Federal Study, Pt. IL, at 135-136 (discussing this case). Federal courts of appeals have similarly declined to assimilate state criminal laws that could be seen as filling gaps in federal criminal law but that would undermine, inter alia, “Congress's policy and purpose in establishing” na- tional parks, Blackburn v. United States, 100 F.3d 1426, 26 1435 (9th Cir. 1996), or federal policy protecting “Indian hunting and fishing rights,” Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma, 618 F.2d 665, 668 (10th Cir. 1980). Moreover, just as state laws can be “applicable” but “inconsistent,” so too state laws can be inapplicable but substantively consistent—for example, a state law that parrots the wage-and-hour standards of the FLSA. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). By barring adoption of state laws that are either not “applicable” or “inconsistent with” federal law, OCSLA preserves the primacy of fed- eral law and protects the federal government’s para- mount interests on the OCS. /bid. 2. The California wage-and-hour law governing re- spondent’s claims is inconsistent with the FLSA The California wage-and-hour laws that respondent invokes are “inconsistent with” the FLSA under Section 1333(a)(2)(A). The FLSA generally requires employers to pay a minimum hourly wage of $7.25, 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1), and time-and-a-half at the employer’s regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours in a week, 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). In addition, Department of Labor regulations provide that “[aJn employee who resides on his em- ployer’s premises on a permanent basis or for extended periods of time is not considered as working all the time he is on the premises.” 29 C.F.R. 785.23. The California laws that respondent invokes depart from those federal! standards. California requires most employers to pay a minimum hourly wage of $12, see Cal. Lab. Code § 1182.12(b) (West Supp. 2019); mandates time-and-a- half pay for “[aJny work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the sev- enth day of work in any one workweek,” and double pay for “[a}ny work in excess of 12 hours in one day” or “any 27 work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek,” Cal. Lab. Code § 510(a) (West 2011); and has been interpreted to require employers in certain in- dustries (including those at issue here) to pay personne! residing on the employer’s premises for all hours on call, including those “engaged in personal activities, in- cluding sleeping, showering, eating, reading, watching television, and browsing the Internet,” Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 340 P.3d 355, 361 (Cal. 2015). To adopt the different wage-and-hour rules pre- scribed by California “would effectively rewrite” the “carefully considered” standards in the FLSA, Lewis, 523 U.S. at 164, thereby “modifying or repealing” the minimum-wage and maximum-hours requirements se- lected by Congress, Williams, 327 U.S. at 718. That is precisely the kind of inconsistency this Court has deter- mined precludes adopting state law under the Assimila- tive Crimes Act. See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 169 (refusing to assimilate state law given “the detailed manner in which the federal” statute “is drafted”); Williams, 327 U.S. at 717 (refusing to assimilate state law where Congress has defined “precise acts” constituting a crime). To be sure, complying with both the FLSA and state law would not be impossible. An employer could do so by following the more demanding requirements. And this Court has held that the FLSA does not bar adher- ence to a more demanding standard imposed by a dif- ferent federal statute. See Powell v. United States Car- tridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 518-519 (1950) (concluding that the FLSA could be enforced in tandem with the Walsh- Healey Act, 41 U.S.C. 6501 et seg.). But the “impossi- bility” standard this Court applied in reconciling two federal laws enacted by Congress, ibid., is not the stan- dard that governs here, because California law does not 28 become federal law unless a court first determines that it is “not inconsistent with” the FLSA. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). The appropriate analogy is thus not to this Court’s cases attempting to harmonize multiple laws enacted by Congress, but to its cases determining whether to adopt state law as federal law. See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 164-165. Closely related are cases in which this Court has deter- mined whether federal statutory law displaces federal common law (of which assimilated state law could be considered a variety). See, e.g., American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 423-424 (2011). In those cases, the Court has refused to apply federal com- mon law if a federal statute “speaks directly to the ques- tion at issue.” Jd. at 424 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the FLSA speaks di- rectly to the question at issue by prescribing particular minimum-wage, overtime, and maximum-hours re- quirements. No basis exists to nullify those carefully specified requirements by elevating different require- ments to the status of federal law and then displacing the choices made by Congress with choices made by California. 3. The court of appeals’ holding that California law is “not inconsistent with” the FLSA is mistaken In determining that California wage-and-hour law is “not inconsistent with” the FLSA, the Ninth Circuit re- lied heavily on the FLSA’s savings clause, which “ex- pressly provides that states are free to adopt more pro- tective standards for minimum wages or maximum hours in a work week.” Pet. App. 36. That reasoning is flawed. The FLSA savings clause provides only that the FLSA itself does not bar enforcement of more protec- tive wage-and-hour standards. See 29 U.S.C. 218(a) 29 (“No provision of this chapter *** shall excuse non- compliance” with “higher” minimum-wage or “lower” maximum-hours laws.) (emphasis added). The FLSA does not, however, assimilate state law prescribing more protective wage-and-hour standards than federal law or provide for enforcement of such standards by the Department of Labor or private plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ervin v. OS Rest. Servs., Inc., 682 F.3d 971, 977 (7th Cir. 2011). The presence of the FLSA savings clause thus does not affect the conclusion that California wage-and- hour law is inconsistent with the substantive wage-and- hour provisions of the FLSA. Indeed, the savings clause is, by definition, implicated only when there is some meas- ure of inconsistency between the FLSA and another law. See 29 U.S.C. 218(a) (referring to a “higher” minimum wage or a “lower” maximum workweek). The Ninth Circuit’s contrary position would effec- tively adopt principles from one species of conflict preemption—.e., that state law is “impliedly pre- empted where it is ‘impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements’”—as the governing rule on the OCS. Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472, 480 (2013) (citation omitted). But that is a fundamental principle that applies to all juridic- tions. The Ninth Circuit’s position thus disregards OCSLA’s extension of federal law to the OCS “to the same extent as if the [OCS] were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State” (i.¢., a fed- eral enclave). 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1). Indeed, the court’s position would largely adopt a legal regime that Con- gress expressly rejected when it declined to pass “an amendment to the Act which would have made ‘the laws of such State applicable to the newly acquired area’” as a general matter. Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 359 (citation 30 omitted). That is not a permissible reading of the stat- ute. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 442-443 (1987) (“Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded.”) (cita- tion omitted). More fundamentally, the Ninth Circuit’s position would extend impossibility-preemption principles “de- rived” from the Supremacy Clause, Bartlett, 570 U.S. at 480 (citation omitted), to a setting in which the Supremacy Claus’ has no role to play. Because OCSLA incorporates state law only as “the law of the United States,” 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A), there is no possible conflict between state law as such and federal law, and therefore no basis for the Supremacy Clause to supply the rule of decision. C. The Decision Below Would Disrupt Settled Expecta- tions And Orderly Administration On The OCS The decision below would disrupt long-settled expec- tations on the OCS. As the Ninth Circuit recognized, its reading of OCSLA departs from the Fifth Circuit’s in Continental Oil, which provided the governing stand- ard in OCS cases for a half-century. Pet. App. 20 n.13. Affirming the Ninth Circuit’s novel construction would dramatically alter business arrangements on the OCS. California’s rule that employers must pay employees for all hours spent on the drilling platform would appear to require employers to more than double their labor costs, cut their workers’ wages, or adjust their employ- ment structures, for example by requiring employees to return to the mainland every night. Additional applica- tions of California wage-and-hour law could have other unpredictable effects. And the Ninth Circuit left open the possibility of retroactive liability as well. See id. at 43. Adopting state wage-and-hour law as federal law on the OCS would also create new administrative burdens. 31 Because all OCS law must be “administered and en- forced by the appropriate officers and courts of the United States,” 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A), federal offi- cials, presumably in the Department of Labor, would have to learn and apply a multiplicity of unfamiliar state requirements over and above the provisions of the FLSA that those officials have long enforced. Many of those additional state requirements are complex and depend on judicial or administrative constructions of state law. See Mendiola, 340 P.3d at 361. Imposing such responsibilities on federal officials would be espe- cially anomalous given OCSLA’s overriding focus on the exclusivity of federal “jurisdiction, control, and power of disposition.” 43 U.S.C. 1332(1). The Ninth Circuit’s decision could have implications well beyond the wage-and-hour laws at issue here. Nu- merous federal statutes, administered by various fed- eral agencies, specify regulatory standards affecting the OCS. The Department of Labor, for example, ad- ministers multiple statutes that apply on the OCS, in- cluding the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compen- sation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901 et seg.; the Service Contract Act of 1965, 41 U.S.C. 6701 et seg.; and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seg. The Coast Guard administers comprehensive safety regulations for the OCS. See 43 U.S.C. 1347; 33 C.F.R. Ch. 1, Subch. N. The Environmental Protec- tion Agency administers the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seg., the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seg., and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., for portions of the OCS. And the Department of the Interior administers numerous 32 statutes and programs related to energy and mineral ex- ploration, development, and production on the OCS. See 30 C.F.R. Chs. II and V.° Many of those statutes expressly provide that they apply to, or limit state jurisdiction on, the OCS, which makes especially clear that Congress intended those federal regulatory regimes and not state law to govern. But some of those statutes also have general provisions that resemble the FLSA’s savings clause. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7416. If this Court were to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision, courts could be urged to conclude (er- roneously, in the government’s view) that such genera! savings clauses likewise require adoption of state regu- latory law as federal law on the OCS. That would result in more chaotic regulatory regimes, heavier federal ad- ministrative burdens, and more significant interference with statutorily mandated policy objectives. More fun- damentally, the widespread adoption of state law on the OCS would undermine the textually demonstrated and long-understood principle that OCSLA “emphatically” asserts the federal government’s “paramount” sover- eignty over the OCS. Maine, 420 U.S. at 526. Confining state law to its important but secondary role to “supple- ment{] gaps in the federal law” on the OCS, by contrast, is consistent with the text, history, and purpose of OCSLA, as well as this Court’s longstanding precedent interpreting it. Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 357. * The Department of the Interior, rather than EPA, regulates air pollutant emissions for portions of the OCS in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean. 42 U.S.C. 7627(a). 33 CONCLUSION The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed. Respectfully submitted. NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Solicitor General CHRISTOPHER G. MICHEL Assistant to the Solicitor General MARK B. STERN JENNIFER L. UTRECHT Attorneys FEBRUARY 2019 APPENDIX 1. 43 U.S.C. 1332 provides: Congressional declaration of policy It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that— (1) the subsoil and seabed of the outer Conti- nental Shelf appertain to the United States and are subject to its jurisdiction, control, and power of dis- position as provided in this subchapter; (2) this subchapter shall be construed in such a manner that the character of the waters above the outer Continental Shelf as high seas and the right to navigation and fishing therein shall not be affected; (3) the outer Continental Shelf is a vital nation- al resource reserve held by the Federal Government for the public, which should be made available for ex- peditious and orderly development, subject to envi- ronmental safeguards, in a manner which is consistent with the maintenance of competition and other na- tional needs; (4) since exploration, development, and produc- tion of the minerals of the outer Continental Shelf will have significant impacts on coastal and non- coastal areas of the coastal States, and on other af- fected States, and, in recognition of the national in- terest in the effective management of the marine, coastal, and human environments— (A) such States and their affected local gov- ernments may require assistance in protecting their coastal zones and other affected areas from (la) 2a any temporary or permanent adverse effects of such impacts; (B) the distribution of a portion of the re- ceipts from the leasing of mineral resources of the outer Continental Shelf adjacent to State lands, as provided under section 1337(g) of this title, will provide affected coastal States and lo- calities with funds which may be used for the mi- tigation of adverse economic and environmental! effects related to the development of such re- sources; and (C) such States, and through such States, af- fected local governments, are entitled to an op- portunity to participate, to the extent consistent with the national interest, in the policy and plan- ning decisions made by the Federal Government relating to exploration for, and development and production of, minerals of the outer Continental Shelf.’ (5) the rights and responsibilities of all States and, where appropriate, local governments, to pre- serve and protect their marine, human, and coastal environments through such means as regulation of land, air, and water uses, of safety, and of related development and activity should be considered and recognized; and (6) operations in the outer Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and tech- ' So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon. 3a niques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likeli- hood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillag- es, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to prop- erty, or endanger life or health. 2. 43 U.S.C. 1333 provides: Laws and regulations governing lands (a) Constitution and United States laws; laws of adjacent States; publication of projected State lines; interna- tional boundary disputes; restriction on State taxa- tion and jurisdiction (1) The Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States are extended to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and to all artificial islands, and all installations and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed, which may be erected thereon for the purpose of exploring for, developing, or producing resources therefrom, or any such installation or other device (other than a ship or vessel) for the purpose of trans- porting such resources, to the same extent as if the outer Continental Shelf were an area of exclusive Fed- eral jurisdiction located within a State: Provided, however, That mineral leases on the outer Continental Shelf shall be maintained or issued only under the pro- visions of this subchapter. (2A) To the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with this subchapter or with other 4a Federal laws and regulations of the Secretary now in effect or hereafter adopted, the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent State, now in effect or hereafter adop- ted, amended, or repealed are declared to be the law of the United States for that portion of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon, which would be within the area of the State if its boundaries were extended seaward to the outer margin of the outer Continental Shelf, and the President shall de- termine and publish in the Federal Register such pro- jected lines extending seaward and defining each such area. All of such applicable laws shall be adminis- tered and enforced by the appropriate officers and courts of the United States. State taxation laws shall not apply to the outer Continental Shelf. (B) Within one year after September 18, 1978, the President shall establish procedures for setting’ any outstanding international boundary dispute respecting the outer Continental Shelf. (3) The provisions of this section for adoption of State law as the law of the United States shall never be interpreted as a basis for claiming any interest in or jurisdiction on behalf of any State for any purpose over the seabed and subsoil of the outer Continental Shelf, or the property and natural resources thereof or the revenues therefrom. ' So in original. Probably should be “settling”. 5a (b) Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act applicable; definitions With respect to disability or death of an employee resulting from any injury occurring as the result of op- erations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing, or transporting by pipeline the natural resources, or in- volving rights to the natural resources, of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, compensa- tion shall be payable under the provisions of the Long- shore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act [33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.]. For the purposes of the extension of the provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Com- pensation Act under this section— (1) the term “employee” does not include a mas- ter or member of a crew of any vessel, or an officer or employee of the United States or any agency there- of or of any State or foreign government, or of any political subdivision thereof; (2) the term “employer” means an employer any of whose employees are employed in such oper- ations; and (3) the term “United States” when used in a ge- ographical sense includes the outer Continental Shelf and artificial islands and fixed structures thereon. (c) National Labor Relations Act applicable For the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended [29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.], any unfair labor practice, as defined in such Act, occurring upon 6a any artificial island, installation, or other device re- ferred to in subsection (a) of this section shall be deemed to have occurred within the judicial district of the State, the laws of which apply to such artificial island, installa- tion, or other device pursuant to such subsection, except that until the President determines the areas within which such State laws are applicable, the judicial dis- trict shall be that of the State nearest the place of location of such artificial island, installation, or other device. (d) Coast Guard regulations; marking of artificial islands, installations, and other devices; failure of owner suitably to mark according to regulations (1) The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall have authority to prom- ulgate and enforce such reasonable regulations with respect to lights and other warning devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to the promotion of safety of life and property on the artificial islands, installations, and other devices referred to in subsec- tion (a) of this section or on the waters adjacent there- to, as he may deem necessary. (2) The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating may mark for the protection of navigation any artificial island, installation, or other device referred to in subsection (a) of this section whenever the owner has failed suivably to mark such island, installation, or other device in accordance with regulations issued under this subchapter, and the own- er shall pay the cost of such marking. 7a (e) Authority of Secretary of the Army to prevent obstruction to navigation The authority of the Secretary of the Army to pre- vent obstruction to navigation in the navigable waters of the United States is extended to the artificial is- lands, installations, and other devices referred to in subsection (a) of this section. (f) Provisions as nonexclusive The specific application by this section of certain provisions of law to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and the artificial islands, installa- tions, and other devices referred to in subsection (a) of this section or to acts or offenses occurring or committed thereon shall not give rise to any inference that the ap- plication to such islands and structures, acts, or offens- es of any other provision of law is not intended. 3. 18 U.S.C. 13(a) provides: Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal juris- diction (a) Whoever within or upon any of the places now existing or hereafter reserved or acquired as provided in section 7 of this title, or on, above, or below any por- tion of the territorial sea of the United States not with- in the jurisdiction of any State, Commonwealth, terri- tory, possession, or district is guilty of any act or omis- sion which, although not made punishable by any en- actment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State, Territo- ry, Possession, or District in which such place is situ- Sa ated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment. 4. 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1) provides: Minimum wage (a) Employees engaged in commerce; home workers in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands; employees in Amer- ican Samoa; seamen on American vessels; agricul- tural employees Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages at the following rates: (1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than— (A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after May 25, 2007; (B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and (C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day; 9a 5. 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1) Maximum hours (a) Employees engaged in interstate commerce; addi- tional applicability to employees pursuant to sub- sequent amendatory provisions (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for a workweek longer than forty hours un- less such employee receives compensation for his em- ployment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed. 6. 29 U.S.C. 218(a) provides: Relation to other laws (a) No provision of this chapter or of any order thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Fed- eral or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage estab- lished under this chapter or a maximum work week lower than the maximum workweek established under this chapter, and no provision of this chapter relating to the employment of child labor shall justify noncom- pliance with any Federal or State law or municipal or- dinance establishing a higher standard than the stand- ard established under this chapter. No provision of this chapter shall justify any employer in reducing a wage 10a paid by him which is in excess of the applicable mini- mum wage under this chapter, or justify any employer in increasing hours of employment maintained by him which are shorter than the maximum hours applicable under this chapter. 7. 29 C.F.R. 785.23 provides: Employees residing on employer’s premises or working at home. An employee who resides on his employer’s premises on a permanent basis or for extended periods of time is not considered as working all the time he is on the pre- mises. Ordinarily, he may engage in normal private pursuits and thus have enough time for eating, sleeping, entertaining, and other periods of complete freedom from all duties when he may leave the premises for pur- poses of his own. It is, of course, difficult to determine the exact hours worked under these circumstances and any reasonable agreement of the parties which takes into consideration ali of the pertinent facts will be ac- cepted. This rule would apply, for example, to the pump- er of a stripper well who resides on the premises ot his employer and also to a telephone operator who has the switchboard in her own home. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0855%3A12. Public record. Not legal advice.