dissenting.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

We must decide whether Congress intended to limit recovery under the LHWCA *1554 to employees injured on piers customarily used by an employer for loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel. The majority appears to have concluded that the word “piers,” as used in section 903(a), not only includes a pier used solely for oil production, but also covers piers that support “offices, homes, restaurants, retail outlets, and parking lots.” Majority Opinion at 1553.

I respectfully dissent because the majority’s interpretation of the word “pier” is inconsistent with the intent of Congress as clearly expressed in section 903(a). The majority’s expansive reading of the word “pier” leads to the absurd result that injuries in constructing or repairing a pier that supports an oil production facility or a restaurant are covered pursuant to the LHWCA. We are required by traditional canons of statutory construction to avoid a literal interpretation of a statute that leads to an absurd result or that is contrary to Congress’ constitutional power. See Haggar Co. v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 389, 394 , 60 S.Ct. 337, 339 , 84 L.Ed. 340 (1940) (“A literal reading of [statutes] which would lead to absurd results is to be avoided when they can be given a reasonable application consistent with their words and with the legislative purpose.”).

If we conclude, as we must, that the word “pier,” as used in maritime law, has a different meaning than its more expansive dictionary denotation, the legislative history of the statute unmistakably demonstrates that both houses of Congress intended to limit the word “pier” to a situs used in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel.

Instead of reversing the decision of the Benefits Review Board, I would adopt the Fifth Circuit's well reasoned analysis of this issue in Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. v. Perdue, 539 F.2d 533 (5th Cir.1976), overruled on other grounds, Texports Stevedore Co. v. Winchester, 632 F.2d 504, 516 (5th Cir.1980), and avoid a needless intercircuit conflict in this nation’s maritime law. Jacksonville Shipyards was decided 16 years ago. Congress has had ample opportunity to amend the statute to nullify the Fifth Circuit’s construction of section 903(a) if it believed that its intent had been misunderstood.

I.

PERTINENT FACTS

The facts are not in dispute. The majority’s terse description of the accident site needs amplification in order to demonstrate that Elwood Pier No. 1 is not used for loading oil on a tanker. The majority describes the injury site as follows:

Majority Opinion at 1548. (emphasis added).

In fact, the record shows that the crude oil is not stored on Elwood Pier No. 1 “until it is pumped into a pipeline to be picked up by a tanker.” The Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) uncontested findings reflect the following:

*1555 (citations to the record in the administrative proceedings omitted) (emphasis added).

The record supports the AU’s finding concerning the oil production activities performed on Elwood Pier No. 1. Its sole function is to separate the water and gas contained in petroleum drilled from the earth’s upper strata. The crude oil produced by Elwood Pier No. l’s automated equipment is not loaded onto tankers at that site. The photographs of Elwood Pier No. 1 show that it does not have any ramps or other means of loading crude oil on a tanker. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the loading of the crude oil on tankers occurred three miles away at a totally separate marine terminal. The injuries suffered by Mr. Hurston in this matter did not occur at the marine terminal used to load tankers with crude oil. Mr. Hur-ston was injured while Elwood Pier No. 1 was being repaired.

II.

DEFERENCE TO THE DIRECTOR’S INTERPRETATION IS NOT COMPELLED IN THIS MATTER

The Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs contends that the words “adjoining pier,” as used in section 903(a), refer to any structure built on pilings extending from land to navigable water, regardless of the structure’s use. The majority begins its discussion of the issue presented in this appeal by reminding us that we must accord considerable weight to the Director’s construction of section 903(a) because he is charged with administering the statute. Quoting Force v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 938 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir.1991), the majority states that “since ‘the statute is easily susceptible to the Director’s interpretation, we need go no further.’ ” Majority Opinion at 1549. Nevertheless, the majority found it necessary to “go further” for an additional twelve pages in the original typescript version of the opinion to justify its construction of the statute.

We are not required to defer to an agency interpretation of a statute where Congress’ intent is clear, or the administrator’s construction is unreasonable. “If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 , 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (emphasis added). The Court explained a reviewing court’s duty as follows:

Id. at 843 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. at 2781 n. 9 (citations omitted). This has been the law since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 , 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). In Marbury , the Court proclaimed: “It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is.” Id. at 177 .

More recently, in Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 820 , 117 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992), the Court emphasized that “[djeference does not mean acquiescence.” Id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 831 . In Presley , the Court refused to defer to the Attorney General’s construction of a statute because Congress had clearly expressed its intent. Id. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 832 . As I will now demonstrate, applying the traditional tools of statutory construction, the Director’s interpretation of section 903(a) is contrary to the intent of Congress. Therefore, I cannot defer to his reading of the statute.

III.

CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY OVER EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION IS LIMITED TO MARITIME INJURIES

Before focusing on section 903(a), a brief history of LHWCA will serve to demon *1556 strate the intent of Congress in extending coverage to maritime workers for injuries that occur on piers. See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Engle, 464 U.S. 206, 217 , 104 S.Ct. 597, 604 , 78 L.Ed.2d 420 (1984) (the circumstances surrounding the enactment of a statute are relevant to the interpretation of a statute).

Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution provides: The Judicial Power shall extend ... to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has construed Article III, section 2 as authorizing Congress to enact legislation regarding matters within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In re Garnett, 141 U.S. 1, 12-14 , 11 S.Ct. 840, 842-43 , 35 L.Ed. 631 (1891). Congress passed the LHWCA pursuant to its admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 40 , 52 S.Ct. 285, 288 , 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932).

The Court has made clear that the states do not have the authority to apply workers’ compensation laws to maritime workers. Southern Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 217 , 37 S.Ct. 524, 529 , 61 L.Ed. 1086 (1917). In Jensen , the Court held New York’s workers’ compensation law was inapplicable to an injury to a longshoreman that occurred on a gangway between a ship and a pier. Id. The Court ruled that the worker’s employment was within Congress’s admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Id.

After the Jensen decision, Congress attempted to provide compensation for workers injured in the course of maritime employment by explicitly authorizing states to apply their workers’ compensation laws to maritime workers. Congress passed legislation purporting to preserve “to claimants the rights and remedies under the workmen's compensation laws of any state.” Grant Gilmore & Charles L. Black, The Law of Admiralty 407 (2d ed. 1975). In Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149 , 40 S.Ct. 438 , 64 L.Ed. 834 (1920), the Supreme Court held that this legislation was an invalid attempt to delegate federal power to the states. Id. at 164 , 40 S.Ct. at 441 . The Court reasoned:

Id. at 160 , 40 S.Ct. at 440 (emphasis added).

Congress again attempted to make state workers’ compensation laws apply to maritime workers in 1922. The Supreme Court struck down this congressional attempt to delegate its maritime power in Washington v. W.C. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219 , 44 S.Ct. 302 , 68 L.Ed. 646 (1924). In that matter, the Court reiterated the principle that Congress cannot delegate to the states the power to apply state workers’ compensation laws to maritime workers. Id. at 228 , 44 S.Ct. at 305 . The Court concluded that

Id.

In response to the Supreme Court’s repeated holdings that Congress was responsible for workers within its admiralty jurisdiction, Congress enacted a maritime workers’ compensation system. The Longshore *1557 and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) was designed to fill the void created by the inability of the states to provide workers’ compensation for maritime workers. Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 258 , 97 S.Ct. 2348, 2354 , 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977). The 1927 Act provided coverage only for injuries occurring “upon the navigable waters of the United States” and allowed compensation awards only “if recovery ... through workmen’s compensation proceedings [could] not validly be provided by state, law.” Id.

In Nacirema Operating Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 396 U.S. 212 , 90 S.Ct. 347 , 24 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969), the Supreme Court held that injuries to longshoremen that occurred on a pier were not compensable because Congress intended to provide compensation only for workers injured in the areas in which state workers’ compensation schemes could not reach. Id. at 223-24 , 90 S.Ct. at 354 . The Court concluded that Congress did not intend to cover workers whose injuries occurred on the landward side of the Jensen line. Id. at 219 , 90 S.Ct. at 352 . The Court reasoned that although stopping coverage at the Jensen line may be arbitrary and unfair, it was up to Congress to expand coverage, not the courts. Id. at 223-24 , 90 S.Ct. at 354 .

In 1972, Congress responded to the Supreme Court’s invitation to amend the LHWCA. The legislative history of the 1972 amendment shows that Congress intended to limit the extension of its coverage to employees who are injured in the course of their maritime employment while on structures that are on land. The House Report provides in pertinent part: '

H.R.Rep. No. 1441, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1972' U.S.C.C.A.N. 4698, 4707-08 (emphasis added).

To further its intent to protect longshoremen, ship repairmen, and shipbuilders, whether they are injured on a vessel or working on an adjoining pier as in Nacire-ma, Congress enacted Section 3(a). Section 3(a) reads as follows:

33 U.S.C. § 903 (a).

A. Plain Meaning of the Word “Pier" As Used in Maritime Commerce

As used in maritime commerce, the word “pier” refers to “a platform extending from a shore over water supported by piles or pillars, used to secure, shelter, and provide access to vessels.” Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (1984). The majority correctly notes that “pier” can also be used to refer to “a place to promenade.” Majority Opinion at 1551. 1 *1558 To ascribe to Congress an intent to compensate employees injured on a promenade pier with no connection to maritime commerce totally ignores the fact that Congress enacted the LHWCA under its admiralty jurisdiction to protect employers injured while engaged in maritime activities. The majority’s conclusion that Congress intended to include injuries occurring on promenade piers within the coverage of the LHWCA ignores the .long established principle that the states have exclusive jurisdiction to enact legislation to compensate employees injured on a non-maritime structure constructed on land. The, Supreme Court has instructed that courts should avoid a literal interpretation of language used by Congress if such construction would require an absurd result and would be an impermissible exercise of legislature power. Haggar Co., 308 U.S. at 394 , 60 S.Ct. at 339 . I would interpret the word “pier” as used in section 903(a) to comport with its maritime usage, and thereby avoid a construction that would ascribe to Congress an intent to cover areas over which it has no jurisdiction.

B. Each of the Specified Structures are Connected to Maritime Commerce

In enacting section 903(a), Congress extended coverage beyond the sea to certain specified structures, each of which has a connection to maritime commerce. The structures listed in section 3(a) are pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, and marine railway. With the exception of the word “pier,” each of the other structures is connected to maritime commerce or navigation.

A wharf is a “structure on the margin or shore of navigable waters, alongside of which vessels can be brought for the sake of being conveniently loaded or unloaded, or a space of ground, artificially prepared, for the reception of merchandise from a ship or vessel, so as to promote the discharge of such vessel.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1595 (6th ed. 1990). A dry dock is a structure whose purpose is to pull or raise a vessel from the water to examine or repair it. O’Leary v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dry Dock Co., 349 F.2d 571 , 573 (9th Cir.1965). A terminal is used to dock ships and to store cargo awaiting loading aboard a ship, or to store off-loaded cargo awaiting inland shipment. Cuzzolino v. Maher Terminals, Inc., 6 BRBS 658, 659 (1977). A building way is a structure used solely for the construction and launching of a new vessel. O’Leary, 349 F.2d at 573. A marine railway is a permanently fixed system of tracks or rails which extends from a point on the shore above the water line to a point offshore well below the waterline. A cradle capable of carrying a ship sits upon the railway and moves along the tracks. Id. Chains or cables attached to the cradle enable it to carry a docked ship into or out of the water. Id.

“The maxim noscitur a sociis, that a word is known by the company it keeps, while not an inescapable rule, is often wisely applied where a word is capable of many meanings in order to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.” Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 , 81 S.Ct. 1579, 1582 , 6 L.Ed.2d 859 (1961). This traditional rule of statutory construction should require this court to limit the word “pier” to its maritime connotation. See Schreiber v. Burlington N., Inc., 472 U.S. 1, 8 , 105 S.Ct. 2458, 2462 , 86 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (“it is a ‘familiar principle of statutory construction that words grouped in a list should be given related meaning.’ ” (quoting Securities Indus. Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors, FRS, 468 U.S. 207, 218 , 104 S.Ct. 3003, 3009 , 82 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984)).

C. Section 903(a) Expressly Limits the Extension of the LHWCA to Adjoining Areas Connected to Maritime Commerce

As explained above, each of the specified structures is connected with the loading or unloading of vessels, or ship repair and *1559 construction. Section 903(a) also extended coverage to injuries occurring on other unspecified structures adjoining navigable waters used by an employer in “loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel.” Under the majority’s construction of section 903(a), injuries on non-maritime structures resembling a pier are covered by the LHWCA. A fair reading of the express limitation in section 903(a) to “other adjoining areas customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel” should lead to the conclusion that Congress, mindful of the: limits of its maritime jurisdiction, explicitly limited the structures covered by the LHWCA to those used in maritime commerce, (emphasis added).

D. The Legislative History Limits Section 903(a) to Structures Connected with Maritime Commerce

Even if we assume that it is unclear whether Congress intended to limit the scope of section 903(a) to structures having a direct nexus to maritime commerce, the legislative history indicates that Congress intended the word “pier” to limit the reach of section 903(a) to areas connected with maritime activity. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 , 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1547 , 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (“[w]here ... resolution of a question of federal law turns on a statute and the intention of Congress, we look first to the statutory language and then to the legislative history if the statutory language is unclear.”).

The legislative history of section 903(a) demonstrates that Congress was concerned with protecting maritime workers. Congress made plain its intention to extend coverage to maritime employees injured while engaged in maritime activities either on navigable waters or on adjoining structures customarily used in connection with loading, unloading, constructing, or repairing vessels. Congress was not concerned with protecting workers covered by state workers’ compensation statutes. The House Report stated

H.R.Rep. No. 1441, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4698, 4708 (emphasis added).

The House Report states with estimable clarity that it is not the intent of Congress “to cover employees who are not engaged in- loading, unloading, repairing, or building *1560 a vessel, just because they are injured in an area adjoining navigable waters.” Id. Mr. Hurston was injured while working on an oil production facility adjoining navigable waters. Elwood Pier No. 1 is not covered by section 903(a) because it is not a structure used in connection with servicing a vessel.

The Senate legislative history contains a similar restriction on the situs or area covered by section 903(a). Senator Williams commented as follows in introducing the Senate version of the amendment to the LHWCA:

118 Cong.Rec. 36271 (1972) (statement of Sen. Williams) (emphasis added).

It is clear from the legislative history that in amending the LHWCA to cover structures constructed on land, Congress intended to limit the adjoining areas to places where maritime employees work on vessels.

IV.

RELIANCE ON SUPREME COURT DICTUM

The majority states that “[i]n Caputo [ 432 U.S. 249 , 97 S.Ct. 2348 , 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977) ], the Supreme Court held that workers who were on a pier used only for storing containers were covered under the LHWCA.” Majority Opinion at 1552. In fact, the Court held that the area where the injury occurred was a situs covered by the LHWCA because “[t]he entire terminal facility adjoined the water and one of its two finger-piers clearly was used for loading and unloading vessels. ” Id. at 281, 97 S.Ct. at 2366 . The majority’s reliance on dictum in Caputo is misplaced.

United States v. Ordonez, 737 F.2d 793 , 803 n. 1 (9th Cir.1984) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 , 399, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)) (emphasis added); see also United States v. U.S. Currency $83,-310.78, 851 F.2d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir.1988) (stating that because the Supreme Court did not decide whether a motion under Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure survives the filing of a civil forfeiture proceeding, a suggestion in a previous case by the Supreme Court that a Rule 41(e) motion could be used in a civil forfeiture proceeding was dicta and did not need to be followed).

V.

REMEDIAL LEGISLATION MUST BE CONSTRUED CONSISTENT WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT

The majority states that the LHWCA should be construed liberally because it is *1561 remedial legislation. Majority Opinion at 1552. This principle has its limits. The Supreme Court has instructed that “ ‘[a] canon of construction is not a license to disregard clear expressions of ... congressional intent.’ ” Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 619 , 100 S.Ct. 1905, 1911 , 64 L.Ed.2d 548 (1980) (quoting DeCoteau v. Dist. County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 447 , 95 S.Ct. 1082, 1094 , 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975)) (alteration in original); see also Ulane v. E. Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081, 1086 (7th Cir.1984) (“Although the maxim that remedial statutes should be liberally construed is well recognized, that concept has reasonable bounds beyond which a court cannot go without transgressing the prerogatives of Congress.”). Although this court should “take an expansive view of the extended coverage” under the LHWCA, Caputo, 432 U.S. at 268 , 97 S.Ct. at 2359 , it is equally clear that “Congress did not seek to cover all those who breathe salt air.” Herb’s Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414, 423 , 105 S.Ct. 1421, 1427 , 84 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985). Courts must interpret statutes to comport with congressional intent even if a statute is remedial in nature. Interpreted in light of Congress’ admiralty powers, this remedial legislation was clearly not intended by Congress to reach outside the scope of structures with maritime uses.

VI.

THE MAJORITY HAS CREATED A NEEDLESS INTERCIRCUIT CONFLICT

The fallacy in the Director’s interpretation of the congressional purpose in amending the LHWCA to cover injuries to maritime workers that occur on structures constructed on land is readily apparent from an examination of the facts of this case. Mr. Hurston was dispatched from his union to work on Elwood Pier No. 1 as a pile driver. His employer was engaged in replacing rusted sheet piling on the seaward wall of an oil production facility. The old sheet piles were dug out with a baekhoe at low tide. Mr. Hurston was injured when a 1,000 pound sheet pile fell from a crane that was stationed on top of the oil production facility platform.

An inspection of the photograph (Exhibit B in the administrative record) of Elwood Pier No. 1, attached as an appendix to this dissent, discloses that it has no ramps, runways, gangways, passageways, pumps, or pipes for loading crude oil in a tanker. The loading of tankers occurs three miles away on a terminal equipped for that purpose. Thus, at the time of the injury, Hurston was miles from a structure covered by section 903(a). Nevertheless; solely because the oil production platform stands on pilings in an area adjoining navigable waters, the Director argues that Hurston should be compensated under a statute enacted under Congress’ maritime jurisdiction to cover injuries sustained by a longshoreman, ship repairman, or ship builder while working on a vessel.

Ironically, had Hurston been injured while working on a crude oil production facility on an offshore rig, the majority would have been compelled to hold that he was not covered by the LHWCA because “[h]is work [as a pile driver] had nothing to do with the loading or unloading process.” Herb’s Welding, 470 U.S. at 425 , 105 S.Ct. at 1428. The majority’s conclusion that an injury by an employee not engaged in loading or unloading a vessel on an on-shore oil production structure is covered by the LHWCA appears to be inconsistent with the holding in Herb’s Welding.

Instead of attempting to extend the reach of the LHWCA beyond Congress’ maritime jurisdiction to a land structure that has no connection with the loading, construction, or maintenance of a vessel, I would avoid an intercircuit conflict and adopt the splendid analysis of this issue in Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. v. Perdue, 539 F.2d 533 (5th Cir.1976). In Jacksonville Shipyards, the Fifth Circuit construed the situs requirement of section 903(a) as follows:

Id. at 541 (emphasis added).

The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning applies with equal vigor to the facts of this case. The fact that the oil production facility is called “Elwood Pier No. 1” is not controlling. Congress provided that only those structures adjoining navigable waters that involve one of the functions expressly set forth in section 903(a) come within the situs requirement of the LHWCA. Jacksonville Shipyards was decided almost 17 years ago. Congress has not amended section 903(a) to reject the Fifth Circuit’s functional approach to the situs requirement. By rejecting the functional test set forth in section 903(a), the majority has disregarded congressional intent and created a new operational hazard for maritime employers whose activities span the Fifth and Ninth Circuits.

CONCLUSION

To paraphrase attorney Brendon Sullivan, federal appellate judges are not mere potted plants in reviewing an agency administrator’s construction of a statute. We should reject the Director’s construction of section 903(a) because it conflicts with the maritime definition of a pier and attributes to Congress an intent to violate the limits of its maritime jurisdiction by extending coverage to a situs that is not used for loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel.

I would affirm the Benefits Review Board’s order denying benefits under the LHWCA.

*1563 [[Image here]]

. The dictionary cited by the majority defines a pier as “a structure extending into navigable *1558 water for use as a landing place or promenade or to protect or form a harbor." Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1971).