Opinion ID: 1288471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Scope of Requirement

Text: Cipollone directs us to the plain language of the express preemption provision to determine whether FIFRA's scope encompasses common-law claims. Many courts have measured this scope by merely comparing the language of the FIFRA preemption provision to that held preempted in Cipollone: a decision that Congress did not intend to preempt any common-law claims here would require a finding that the language in section 136v(b) is narrower. See Shaw, 994 F.2d at 371; Sowers v. Johnson & Johnson Med., Inc., 867 F. Supp. 306, 310 (E.D. Pa. 1994); DerGazarian v. Dow Chem. Co., 836 F. Supp. 1429, 1446 (W.D. Ark. 1993). Cipollone considered express preemption provisions in two versions of the cigarette act: While the 1965 cigarette act precluded state imposed statements in cigarette labeling and advertising, the 1969 act declares, No requirement or prohibition ... shall be imposed under State law .... 15 U.S.C. § 1334(b). The Cipollone Court concluded that although the narrow preemption of statements in the 1965 act did not extend to state common-law claims, the broader language of the 1969 act evinced an intent to expand the scope of preemption. Cipollone, 112 S.Ct. at 2619. By reading the plain language of the 1969 act, the Court discerned a congressional intent to preempt any state regulation, then explained that state regulation necessarily included both positive and common law. Cipollone, 112 S.Ct. at 2620. Likewise, the plain meaning of `imposed under State law' was not limited to positive law. Cipollone, 112 S.Ct. at 2620. The language in FIFRA's preemption clause, of course, differs somewhat from that of the 1969 cigarette act, yet courts have dismissed these differences as irrelevant. See Sowers, 867 F. Supp. at 311; Kenepp v. American Edwards Laboratories, 859 F. Supp. 809, 814 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (rejecting argument that the 1969 cigarette act's imposed under State law is broader than FIFRA's simpler no state language); Bingham v. Terminix Int'l Co., 850 F. Supp. 516, 521 & n. 7 (S.D. Miss. 1994) (deciding omission of prohibitions from section 136v(b) does not narrow scope). Most courts have declared the language of FIFRA indistinguishable from that of the 1969 act, thereby mandating a conclusion that FIFRA's preemptive scope encompasses common-law claims. King, 996 F.2d at 1349; Shaw, 994 F.2d at 371; Arkansas-Platte II, 981 F.2d at 1179; Sowers, 867 F. Supp. at 309-11; Trinity Mountain Seed Co. v. MSD Agvet, 844 F. Supp. 597, 600 (D. Idaho 1994); Levesque v. Miles Inc., 816 F. Supp. 61, 69 (D.N.H. 1993); see also MacDonald, 27 F.3d at 1024; Worm II, 5 F.3d at 749; Papas II, 985 F.2d at 518; DerGazarian, 836 F. Supp. at 1447. Other courts, while describing the scope of the FIFRA provision as somewhere in between the 1965 and 1969 cigarette acts, have still held requirements sufficiently expansive to preempt common-law claims. DerGazarian, 836 F. Supp. at 1446-47; Burke, 797 F. Supp. at 1140. Only one district court has held FIFRA more closely mirrors the 1965 cigarette act and therefore does not preempt any common-law tort claims. Couture, 804 F. Supp. at 1302. [7] More important than comparing the language of the two statutes, however, is divining the scope of section 136v(b) itself through Cipollone's methods: what is the plain meaning of the language of FIFRA? The relevance of Cipollone is its definition of state regulation: The phrase [n]o requirement or prohibition sweeps broadly and suggests no distinction between positive enactments and common law; to the contrary, those words easily encompass obligations that take the form of common law rules. As we noted in another context, [state] regulation can be as effectively exerted through an award of damages as through some form of preventive relief. The obligation to pay compensation can be, indeed is designed to be, a potent method of governing conduct and controlling policy. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 247, 79 S.Ct. 773, 780, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959). Cipollone, 112 S.Ct. at 2620. We are in accord with those courts that have avoided semantic wrangling altogether and simply stated that any distinction between positive law and common law is `illusory'. Worm II, 5 F.3d at 748 (quoting Worm I, 970 F.2d at 1307); see MacDonald, 27 F.3d at 1024; Arkansas-Platte II, 981 F.2d at 1179; Papas II, 985 F.2d at 518; DerGazarian, 836 F. Supp. at 1447. This interpretation of section 136v(b) is consistent with prior Washington case law defining the plain meaning of requirements to include both positive and common-law claims. Berger, 115 Wn.2d at 271. In Berger, the court considered an express preemption clause in the medical device amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (MDA), similarly worded to that in FIFRA: [N]o state ... may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement ... ... which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and ... which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device.... Berger, 115 Wn.2d at 271 (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a)). Berger thus held the MDA expressly preempted a claim for inadequate labeling against a manufacturer whose tampon packaging complied with labeling requirements promulgated pursuant to the MDA. Berger, 115 Wn.2d at 271, 275. We reject Plaintiff's contention that Congress' failure to invoke the words common law claims indicates an intent to limit FIFRA's preemptive scope to positive law. Cipollone carefully refused to adopt an identical argument that the inclusion of more exacting preemption language in other statutes held any meaning and went on to discern an intent to preempt common-law failure to warn claims despite the omission of the specific words from the preemption provision. Cipollone, 112 S.Ct. at 2621 n. 22. Other courts have arrived at the same conclusion that the omission from FIFRA is equally unpersuasive. Kenepp, 849 F. Supp. at 815; see also Jenkins v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 1994 WL 701251, at . We also reject Plaintiff's theory that [s]uch state in section 136v(b) limits the scope of the preemption clause by referring only to states regulating the sale or use of pesticides under section 136v(a). Rather, we agree with the reasoning of other courts regarding the relation between subsections (a) and (b): Subsection (a) ... is a grant of authority to the states to regulate the sale or use of pesticides, not a limitation upon the preemptive effect of subsection (b). The word Such in subsection (b) does not limit to state regulation the state requirements for labeling or packaging which that section preempts. King, 996 F.2d at 1349; see also Jenkins, 1994 WL 701251, at . As in Cipollone, legislative history assures the reliability of section 136v(b)'s explicit language as an expression of congressional intent, as well as the appropriateness of our determination of that intent. See Cipollone, 112 S.Ct. at 2620. Although neither House nor Senate Reports on FIFRA evince any specific intent to preempt common-law preemption, legislative history is equally bare of intent to distinguish positive law from common-law claims. At the same time, we glean justification for our interpretation, as other courts have, from the emphasis in both the House and Senate to completely preempt state authority over federal labeling and packaging standards. MacDonald, 27 F.3d at 1025 n. 3; King, 996 F.2d at 1350; Jenkins, 1994 WL 701251, at  (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 511, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 1-2, 16 (1972); S. Rep. No. 92- 970, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972); S. Rep. No. 92-838, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 30 (1972)); see also Papas II, 985 F.2d at 517 & n. 1. With the support of Berger, Cipollone, and the majority of courts considering FIFRA, we have reached a simple conclusion: section 136v(b) may preempt common-law claims because the plain meaning of requirements is regulation, and regulation encompasses both positive and common law. Nonetheless, as Cipollone emphasized, a determination that Congress did not intend to limit the scope of a preemption clause to positive law does not mandate preclusion of all common-law claims. Cipollone, 112 S.Ct. at 2621. The court must consider each specific claim to determine whether the predicate legal duty constitutes, in this case, a requirement in addition to or different from that imposed by FIFRA or the EPA. Cipollone, 112 S.Ct. at 2621. Moreover, this analysis must proceed within the narrow constraints of the presumption against preemption. Cipollone, 112 S.Ct. at 2621.