MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992015139

State Oil Spill Prevention Laws And Intertanko: When Is State Law Preempted?

2001· article· en· W2992015139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Avery

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean and coastal law journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)LawOil spillState lawPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental protection
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO), a trade association of tanker operators, brought suit in 1996 against Washington State and local enforcement officials who enforced Washington's Best Achievable Protection (BAP) Regulations. INTERTANKO challenged the constitutionality of the BAP Regulations by asserting that federal regulations and maritime law preempted its provisions: "Article VI of the Constitution provides that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land;... State laws notwithstanding." RITERTANKO founded its preemption theory upon: (1) conflict preemption, whereby a State law is invalid if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full objectives of Congress; (2) field preemption, whereby federal regulation of oil tankers dominates the entire subject; (3) express preemption, whereby the BAP Regulations are expressly forbidden by federal statutes some of which authorize the Coast Guard rather than States to act in this field; and (4) that the BAP Regulations violate the Commerce Clause. In the spring of 2000, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in United States v. Locke. Regarding a state's ability to regulate oil tanker traffic by utilizing provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), the Court pronounced a number of holdings. Specifically, the Court examined Washington's BAP tanker regulations and found that some of the regulations are preempted; as to the balance of the regulations, the Court remanded the case so that the validity of the BAP Regulations may be assessed in light of the considerable federal interest at stake. Each of the BAP Regulations will be discussed in this Comment. Washington provides a prime example for other coastal states of the need for aggressive tanker regulation. It encompasses some of the country's most significant waterways and its rocky Pacific coast presents treacherous grounding points for any wayward tanker. Of premier importance to Washington's coastal environment is Puget Sound, a body of water spanning some 2,500 square miles which connects with the Pacific by way of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a twelve-mile wide channel reaching sixty-five miles into the state's interior. The sound and strait are busily and continuously plied by water traffic that includes small fishing vessels, cargo ships, naval vessels, oil tankers, and barges destined for Washington or Canada. The size and quantity of oil transport vessels have increased dramatically in the last fifty years; oil tankers averaged 16,000 tons of carriage in the 1940s, while numerous tankers exceeded 175,000 tons of carriage in the 1970s. Of all the world's merchant vessels in 1998, tankers numbered 6,739. The profound increase in size and quantity of oil transport vessels has led Washington's environmentalists to seek comprehensive tanker regulation. In addition to examining the Supreme Court's decision regarding Washington's BAP Regulations, this Comment will also review the earlier treatment of the BAP regulations and two other state plans to regulate oil tankers plying their waters, discuss admiralty law, and examine state utilization of OPA to regulate tanker vessels.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcean and coastal law journalSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207