Document: 475 U.S. 355 106 S.Ct. 1103 89 L.Ed.2d 364 EXXON CORPORATION, et al., Appellantsv.Robert HUNT, Administrator of New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, al. No. 84-978. Argued Dec. 9, 1985. Decided March 10, 1986. Syllabus The and Control Act (Spill Act), enacted in 1977 to respond the problem hazardous substance release, imposes an excise tax upon major petroleum chemical facilities within State finance prevention cleanup oil spills leaks chemicals from disposal sites. revenue goes into a permanent fund Fund), which may spend money not only clean up releases substances, but also compensate third parties for certain economic losses sustained as result such releases, pay administrative research costs. federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability 1980 (CERCLA), response similar concerns, on other specified establishes trust (Superfund) that be used purposes. CERCLA does cover spills; nor is Superfund available private harms releases. reimburse their activities are expressly authorized by Federal Government; or Government expenses short-term measures achieve remedy particular waste problem; those governments damages natural resources. Appellant corporations, having paid tax, brought suit Tax Court against appellees (the its officials), seeking refund declaratory judgment was invalid entirety being pre-empted under § 114(c) CERCLA, provides: "Except provided this chapter, no person required contribute any fund, purpose compensation claims costs compensated subchapter." Section contains saving provision stating nothing shall interpreted prevent using general revenues imposing special purchase locate equipment otherwise prepare court entered summary appellees, Appellate Division Superior affirmed. Supreme affirmed, holding Fund insofar "is hazardous-waste related either covered actually Superfund." Held: 1. words "costs claims" read unit, entire phrase modified "which subchapter," thus pre-empting state party expenses. An interpretation terms so include party's expenses, permit state-fund expenditures all state-government efforts supported CERCLA's history wording provisions particularly which, authorizing taxes State's preparations responding would redundant if pre-emption did direct governmental at all. Pp. 363-370. 2. 114(c)'s subchapter" intended, whole part, same types Superfund, covering Superfund. 370-371. 3. Neither structure legislative supports appellees' contention although restricted cases disburses money, it applies when pays claim have had already been fund. Remedying Nation's toxic problems effectively possible sole policy choice reflected CERCLA. Congress' decision enact resulted part concern about potentially adverse effects overtaxation competitiveness American petrochemical industry. That consideration cautions concluding Congress wanted hinder attempts substances way. Nor there sufficient support language accept view limited availability projects approved, almost can termed "eligible" financing, then extent approved funding. 371-374. 4. National Contingency Plan—which requires revised annually list sites most need provides appropriate measure whether given expenditure constitutes compensated" Since must agree least 10% cost remedial action site State, share eligible "may purposes 114(c). Under above-stated principles, use damage resulting discharges, personnel costs, administer conduct beyond scope therefore However, (except costs) pre-empted, long occur financing according Plan. 374-376. 97 N.J. 526, 481 A.2d 271, affirmed reversed remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, post, p. 377. POWELL, took case. Daniel M. Gribbon, Washington, D.C., appellants. Mary Carol Jacobson, Trenton, N.J., appellees. Justice MARSHALL Court. 1 question our determination 94 Stat. 2796, 42 U.S.C. 9614(c), pre-empts Act, N.J.Stat.Ann. §§ 58:10-23.11 58:10-23.11z (West 1982 Supp.1985) Act). We conclude part. 2 * A. 3 In Legislature release. Finding threatened health beauty resources, presented great risk public, legislature intended protect citizens environment through Those financed levied State. collected known "Spill Fund." 58:10-23.11o Supp.1985).1 4 concerns. chemicals. commonly "Superfund," 87.5% remainder revenues. purposes.2 Unlike definition discharges substances. Rather, seeks facilitate government future There two primary spent—to "governmental response," "claims." See 111(a) 9611(a). Governmental consists "removal," cleanup, 9601(23), "remedial action," "permanent remedy" problem, 9601(24).3 Claims demands reimbursement made come types. One type demand "any person" incurred pursuant plan "national contingency plan." 9611(a)(2).4 Thus, Government. second resources belonging government. 9611(a)(3). injury persons property caused wastes, except payment Governments resource losses. 5 This litigation concerns set forth 6 subchapter. Nothing section preclude fee order prepositioning release affects State." 7 Clearly, meant forbid States impose funds. issue case is, pre-empts. B 8 Appellants corporations since inception. After unsuccessful litigate courts, see Exxon Corp. v. Hunt, 683 F.2d 69 (CA3 1982), cert. denied, 459 1104, 103 727, 74 952 (1983); cf. United States, 16 ERC 1846 (DC 1981) (dismissing declared valid),5 appellants officials (collectively Jersey), Act. claimed Supremacy Clause. alternative grounds. First, concluded pre-empt funds Second, even accepting appellants' argument precludes taxation industry activities, found were nonpre-empted make valid entirety. N.J.Tax 294 (1982). 9 190 N.J.Super. 131, 462 193 (1983), 271 (1984). latter court, like "the . preempted Id., 544, A.2d, 281. noted probable jurisdiction, 472 1015, 105 3474, 87 610 (1985), we now affirm reverse part.6 II 10 express case; plain forbids imposes. When statute unambiguously legislation, go further than statutory determine pre-empted. Aloha Airlines, Inc. Director Taxation, 464 7, 12, 104 291, 294, 78 (1983). 11 114(c), unfortunately, model draftsmanship. critical language, "no best inartful worst redundant. As just one example, clear modifies word "claims" immediately precedes it, claims." Because "claims," "response," "damages" specific, technical definitions way sentence parsed significant effect meaning. Finally, itself provide method determining determination, therefore, necessitates reference III 12 Our task, then, proceed three parts. what class encompassed Then, because some they meaning well. find overlap between prohibitions Act's provisions, hold 13 Both first question. Each concludes Solicitor General, appearing behalf amicus curiae, adopts contrary position. He contends should prohibit whose "compensation [a] damages[,] [b] General's view, expense fits CERLCA's "claim" response" taxes, "may" Superfund.7 covers essentially spectrum 9604, reading pre-emptive might seem very broad reading. 14 wide sweep position, however, tempered considerably his term "claim." defines "a writing sum certain." 9601(4). own Any merely expenditure, each clauses created parsing begins with he argues, government's efforts. It prohibits parties. Were could freely not, third-party bear Similarly, "damages," defined mean loss though suffered governments. 15 party, course, before us disagree statute. has considerable logical force, assessing will prove helpful evaluating parties' positions issues disagree. Although ultimately reject analyze detail. distinction hand, other, consistent throughout General suggests. 96th fully considered bills—H.R. 85, H.R. 7020, S. 1480—in addition Carter administration bill, 1341, died Committee. Law Institute, Superfund: A Legislative History xiii (1983) (hereafter Leg.Hist.).8 earliest these, resembling 110 bill passed House provided: compensable damage" bill.9 17 argues finds 114(c).10 sort contemplated quoted contends, nongovernmental entities, expenditure. argument, misperceives overall 85. broadly, well property. "United claimant" assert these damages. Significantly, claimant residing agency thereof, political subdivision who asserts claim." 101(p). 85 clearly expenses.11 constitute "compensable damages," creation do predecessors interpretation. Bill 110.12 House, contained provision. 1480 far-reaching bills considered, contemplate magnitude reported out Committee, analogous 18 ran opposition, Senate compromise combination [H.R. 1480]." 126 Cong.Rec. 30935 (1980) (remarks Sen. Stafford). introduced Senators Stafford Randolph, eventually became Only Stafford-Randolph substitute exact being. Given remarkable similarity debate Bradley Randolph Congressmen Florio Biaggi 85's provision,13 unlikely differ substantially. prepared haste, reluctant adopt wholly new approach slight changes 19 reason rejecting proceeds 114(b). "Any receives removal chapter precluded recovering compensation" law. consider 114(b)'s "removal suggest unit.14 conjunction 111(a), spent damages, claims, seems likely shorthand uses strongly undercuts approach, suggests envisioned paying including 20 final derives preposition quick If all, On balance, represents instance drafting rather intentional drawing subtle distinction. 21 Having adopted claims," proper narrowly, Appellants, adopting broader compensated," contend 22 challenge court's several contend, highly choose double compensation, absence prohibition. 114(b) "shall law." Court's makes rely heavily, literal compensated." They courts violated mean, effect, 23 arguments persuasive. banned 114(b), accordingly renders surplusage. permitting meaningless narrow C 24 Nevertheless, below, minor modification, correct. concedes money. argument. examine turn. 25 emphasizes areas—for arising spills—that important aspects control, Jersey's Moreover, aware funding level insufficient more few dangerous These facts, recognized solve problems, continue follows intend unable undertake unavailability funds, 26 chosen comprehensive efficient attacking depart while useful referent trying decipher ambiguous remedying Previous defeated opposition affected industries. industry.15 consideration, wise 27 violence language. look amount deciding sufficiently low, practical matter, 28 cannot agree. To say twists both logic willing go. Had intent, surely said plainer 29 Comparisons prior reinforce previously discussed, derived "to bill. ambiguous; "compensable" loss, 1341 contain 11th-hour loss. 30 fail position sparse relies floor correct arguing statements imply Superfund.16 haste ambiguities inaccuracies included Randolph,17 decline attach significance statements. mentioned, fact "debate" reenactment Florio-Biaggi over implies involved differ. IV 31 decided ordinary meaning, define category Fortunately, furnishes test. 105(8)(B) 9605(8)(B), President revise Plan (NCP) reflect provisions. revision, create efforts, Priorities List.18 NCP currently specifies removal, immediate emergency situations, 40 CFR 300.65 (1985). Remedial List, 300.68(a). Protection Agency, NCP, proposed criteria claims. 50 Fed.Reg. 9593 sites, 32 9604(c)(3)(C). definition, 33 argue While acknowledged desire spare industries excessive taxation, assume plausible explanation superfund-eligible Once again, second-guess methods 34 remaining task "purpose" fall pre-emption. explained above, six purposes: (1) sites; (2) costs; (3) discharges; (4) (5) itself; (6) research. Of four parts 35 finally, after enactment publication above non-Superfund permits expenditures, stand. legislation conflicts law," Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Energy Resources Comm'n, 461 190, 204, 1713, 1722, 75 752 conflict demonstrated leave state-law whether, extent, severable Eagerton, 176, 196-197, 2296, 2308-2309, 76 497 dissent's invitation substantial portion permissible. Such open flout law statutes. V 36 held constitutionally identified nonpre-empted, reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 37 ordered. 38 POWELL 39 dissenting. Fund" 1977,1 "Superfund" 19802 partially entirely. area overlap, statutes defray environmental Even area, identical, purpose" under" fund.3 construed "one purposes." 41 serve multiple purposes, described 114(c).4 bulk moneys date expended furtherance served believe separate pretextual illegitimate, meet ecological threat, spill, Tr. Nos. SC 319A-81 303A-81, (N.J.Tax Court). concededly legitimate are, my validate supporting Fund. literally accordance contributions purpose—or perhaps nontrivial purpose—was Unless "sufficient" objectives (whatever threshold be), unquestionably escapes 43 purely manifest injustice, plainly war intent Congress, I it. But called attention.5 floor, Senator pointed applied transfers nonpetroleum substances." 30949 (1980), reprinted Committee Environment Public Works, (Superfund), 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 731 (Comm.Print 1983) (hereinafter Leg.Hist.). Acknowledging industry's fear forced "double tax," ibid., propounded series questions West Virginia, bill's sponsor Senate, clarify colloquy, generally keeping 44 Mr. BRADLEY. 45 46 "Am understanding [§ ] requiring reimbursing legislation? 47 "Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, intent. creating duplicate 48 preemption ability collect fees associated legislation. 49 51 "Nothing you inquired about. simply preempt enumerated damage. 52 reimbursed similarly subject chooses construct 53 54 ". What Thus receive [compensable] 55 "Putting simply, prohibition [does] 56 "In summary, President, preventing taxation." Cong.Rec., (emphasis added), Leg.Hist. 731-733.6 57 representatives Representative Jersey, brief remarks likewise construing imitations 58 "Regarding amendments, point successful spill 59 Putting 31965 780. 60 Fund—the existence acutely aware—it expressed less Indeed, purpose, expect revealed committee report unequivocal comment during debates history. presume unless identifies curtail lawmaking power sovereign careful draftsmanship command necessary implication based regulatory program.7 too opaque ask 61 For foregoing reasons, "contribut[ion]" exist expend (and used) Fund's counterpart entitle pro tanto theory "partially pre-empted." unqualified none; affords basis objecting earlier, n. 4, supra. 62 "preempted part," ante, 358; accord, 376, confront difficult relief. "partial pre-emption" analysis, advise how calculate partial presumably entitled remand. refunded percentage Superfund-compensable years question, reduce imputing average annual spills, contingencies accumulate reserves yet occurred? Rather facing essential choices analysis inescapably gives rise, takes entirely unresponsive course resolving lawsuit filed. apparently contemplates, contributor challenged situation, prevents spending Taxing obviously linked 114(c): indemnifying linkage, hypothetical plaintiff taxation" generally, separately identifiable functional equivalent distinct "fund" Superfund.8 63 whatever merits hypothesized controversy raise entirety; refund. App. Brief Behalf Plaintiffs-Appellants A-3913-81T1 (N.J.Super.Ct.), pp. 2a-7a Complaint &Par; 3-4); id., 16a-23a (N.J.Chancery 11-36); assets let alone 114(c).9 consequence, inappropriate stand instead restrict properly us. 64 successful, next rate despite circumscription expended, left courts.10 today, me, universal agreement poured sustain tax. 65 broad. strictly liable suffers indirect real personal property, income earning capacity, circumstances, local year following discharge, interest loans ameliorate discharge pending 58.10-23.11g 1982). Title 9611(a) "The "(1) 9604 title, Intervention High Seas Act; "(2) carrying national established 1321(c) title amended 9605 title: Provided, certified responsible official; "(3) subsection (b) [providing respective control] finally 9612 9612(c)(3) recovery interest, attorney's Fund]; "(4) (c) research, restoration replacement overhead, costs]. reasonably incidental implementation sets procedures governments, Government, delegated appears, costs" 9611(a)(1), 2, supra, refers Federal, paragraph entity, 3, denote entity. member valid. settled litigation, stipulating seven compensated. Lesniak 1456 (NJ settlement. temporary experiment; terms, Government's authority expired September 30, 9653, 9631(b)(2). considering extend another five years. 2005, 99th 1st Sess. 131 25090-25091 2817, inserted 35626 passed, eliminate 51, 135; 147. 1985, unaffected expiration date. example "cost authorization agent, 9611(a)(2). January 15, 1979, Biaggi. full H.R.Rep. 96-172 (1979), Breaux amendment House. 26391 (1980). feedstocks. navigable waters; land. individuals recover losses, imposed strict liability owners operators vessels facilities. April 1980. 96-1016 26799 U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 1980, 6119. oil, inactive waters, ambitious bills, 1480, Culver, Muskie, Stafford, Chafee, Moynihan July 11, 1979. favorably reported, S.Rep. 96-848 $4 billion chemicals, range (not oil). variety medical reached attacked 7020 weak. Eventually infra, 368, 7020. Houses, signed December Pub.L. 96-510, 2767. xiii-xxi; 1983); Grad, ("Superfund") Colum.J.Env.L. discussed 8, spills. only. 302 worded identically 110. hereafter "§ 110" refer Report collecting damages" Amicus Curiae 13-15. advance unlike enter contracts 9604(d). give 104. appears put closely claimant, far seek concerned. "claimants" 607(b)(1) asserted "(A) [and] (B) respect reimbursements allowed system Plan." exactly 601(mm). provision, 612(a), maintained title," loss." Compare Sens. Randolph), 26197-26198 Reps. Biaggi). split, "claims becomes situations first, second, "damages." 9611(a)(2), (3). phrase, rendering superfluous. See, e.g., 96-172, (1979) (accompanying 85) ("The increasing distress development multitude felt engaged international movement storage products, again articulated. argued that, continues, severely hampered operations manner economically sound reasonable consumer oil"); 9651(a)(1)(F) (requiring balance trade countries"). (1980): And am noting reimbursement? correct." Taken, debate, Bradley-Randolph number apply 110, nowhere referred Secretary" questioning. program control Secretary Transportation, 101(a) enacted, requirements addressed Agency President. stated take 180 days passage bill—a appear List pt. 300, B. Supp.1985). (Superfund CERCLA), 2767, 9601 seq. states full: title. 9614(c) added). concede, "has subsidiary CERCLA." 22, 24. crude 58:10-23.11b(k) Supp.1985), excludes pollutants "hazardous substances," 101(14), 2769, 9601(14). addition, authorizes payments value damaged destroyed discharge. 58:10-23.11g(a) contrast, coverage relation occurred claimants 107(a)(4)(A), 107(f), 111(c)(2), 111(d)(1), 2781, 2783, 2789-2790, 9607(a)(4)(A), 9607(f), 9611(c)(2), 9611(d)(1). Additional counterpart, compare 58:10-23.11o(4) 9614(c); 58:10-23.11o(4); concerning pollution techniques, ocean pollution, 58:10-23.11o(3), (5). "of action, maintenance" qualify 104(c)(3), 2775-2776, 9604(c)(3). 58:10-23.11o(1), contravene reports lies waning lame-duck session Congress. lineal ancestor November 18, 1980—after elections changed complexion assuring Republicans Presidency 1981. aftermath elections, along forged primarily Senate. original $4.1 dramatically reduced $1.6 and, importance inquiry, added. recognize colloquy 731-732. 536-544, 276-281 trivialize actual render superfluous proviso "general fund" Besides, odd suppose redressed deficiencies, inaccurately 180-day grace period 373-374, 17. light consequent regarding details high generality. Chicago N.W. Transp. Kalo Brick Tile Co., 450 311, 317, 101 1124, 1130, 67 258 (1981) ("Pre-emption regulation favored 'in persuasive reasons—either nature regulated matter conclusion, unmistakably ordained' " (quoting Florida Lime Avocado Growers, Paul, 373 132, 142, 83 1210, 1217, 248 (1963)). recognizes obligation benefited promulgated regulations promote conformity circumscribing permissible expenditures. Regulations Governing Expenditures Light Law, N.J.Admin.Code 17:26-2.1 (Supp.1985). limit eight "[t]he clean-up products discharge"; payments; fund"; purchasing pre-positioning response"; advancement commitment Superfund; (7) administrator promptly reimbursement; (8) effective N.J.Reg. 36(b) contested seven. 122a-126a. Appellants' validity fifth pressed Court; sixth seventh (in loans) anticipation award intermediate appellate failure satisfy notice period, 133-134, 193, 195 According Office Administrative regulation, invalid, still "on books." Further awaits record awarded lacking information saw supplement proscribed ones, inseparable severable. "legislative every accomplished" specifically act enforced applicable 320 Accordingly, "even super aforementioned nonpreempted areas continued validity." Ibid. holding, relied uphold 530, 273.

Category: 9