WPCǁ qaT.}a,z}Ɇ S);2tn }ؙ9AWD.ά~ɥ]Cj=s}21b>n(}ԍyɂo 1GN.$&z؜K;qj 90f[ }m^^qu 0KvԜ.y),O0+C~:8&bRQ TzLd( t}5a7,QQ| kNM(YlT,>p. \ ʇ`PfQ"L2Z]zxwAIqHO90֔h1Zjan2pu^U`#Pi(Qc9G}Yr5x64Rۣ";BFBCkX-8Q(1C_aP0/a*BUg!$-V.i-9ޗ@x <Sn43(~*sI[mR 0 #U,N} %UP^ ! - 5 m7(NNv 1ux 72R U@q E 0 z! 1! 72 " 0c;" 0w"" 0# 1g$ 0A$ 0$ 0% 0& 72m'' 72,) 1^) 0) 72* 0* 0[+ 1+ 72, 1, 72;- 1m- 72- 1&. 72. 1. 72f/ 1/ 720 1Q0 720 1 1 721 11 72J2 1|2 723 153 723 13 72u4 14 72.5N`5$b5 15 0 66 07b8 8'9 0D< 02= 0> 0> 0? 0@ 0AeB 0UC 11DwD 72D 0D 0E&F4FF 0F 0G 0DH 1I 0UjJ 72J 0hJbYK 0aK 1K 0|L 0M 0M 72WNfN BN D5N 0CN B O 0=OfO B*O 0)O AP 0P D5xQ D-Q 0KQ%R{R fS AS{SS D5T BT T %U D5&U B[U D5xU BU D1U D5U D50V B*eV D5V B*V D5V B*#W D5MW B7W B7W 0W 0DXbXbXaXb YbY 1Y 72Y 0YaZ 0Z 0i[<\] 0aU>[b b 0bbbbbbb 0wcAd 0Vd 0e 0e 0f 0g 0ih 0;i 0 j 0j 0k 0el 0<(m(mdm-n2n!o}&o 04ppppppppppp DOq BBq~+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r+r 0ttttttttttttcucucucucucu|zUNUN 011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0(vu$  A A ~ ``     0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX!Z 8CloisterBlack BT RegularԸP-L C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\LITIGA~1\SUPREM~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\template\Custom WP Templates\Litigation\Supreme Court Brief template.wptFC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\LITIGA~1\SUPREM~1.WPTU3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)R-1;1;0;1;1;0;0;0;0;1;0;0;1;0;0;1;0;0;(mK Z(Times New Roman (F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(# 0}CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(;l$2uh  0  .3   (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#`2SupIntro1st page after caption A A ,Xcc87XXdXXd8y;s$35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)1(*$8 A ($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#h0+  S2SupHead1Supreme court main heading    # ` `V   I.  o$A A &o%XX    2    _X#X%&oԀ#&o%XX##TheWashingtonSupremeCourtalsoheldthatrespondentshad  standingtochallengetheconstitutionalityofSection409.Pet.App.  7578.i)(CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(36$ u!  A A ~ ``      #A.(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#0UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(1.(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.*1.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.,1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1..1.0hCEKQW]cioAutoList71.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.01.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList81.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.21.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList91.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.41.(գEGMSY_ekqAutoList101.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.61.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.81.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList121.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.:1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList131.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList141.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.>1.(%EGMSY_ekqAutoList151.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.@1. ~ `` 0?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\template\Custom WP Templates\Litigation\Supreme Court Brief template.wpt(36$ u!  A A ~ ``      A- RC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\LITIGA~1\SUPREM~1.WPT  o$A A &o%XX    4    _TheWashingtonlegislatureexpressly assent[ed]bystatutetothe   termsandconditionsofthefederalhighwaysafetyprogram,RCW  47.04.060,anddirectedthattheState shallactinthemanner   providedbystatelaw***sofarasthesamemaybeconsistentwith q y theprovisionsof***actsofCongress.RCW47.04.050.Thus,as D L amatterofstatelaw,Washingtonhasadoptedthetermsand   conditionsofthefederalhighwaysafetyprogram,includingthe   privilegesetforthinSection409.2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (36$ u!  A A ~ ``      2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Litigation\Supreme Court Brief template.wpt25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (EGMSY_ekqAutoList17A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.TA.22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2    z, |63|x2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# &'pɫGaekosw{Bullet ListBullets List1.(,$8 8 < < _^(@$0 8  8L<<  ( )RK"0SupBody1st page of body   Ym(UEGMSY_ekqAutoList18I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(T$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# (hJ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#  (3n$ u!  A A ~ ``       d eI.  dnnnn)!dxdx( $    P Pd(J$A A A A &dn %    1  ث&0 d d( $xtwv I&mage!<=8C HKKKK(36$ u!  A A ~ ``      ~~~~)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 q 8/#XXdXXd8rCases|tuE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5kkkk)!dxdx drStatutesrMiscellaneous)!dxdx d)!dxdx dnn)! dxdxqqqq)!dxdx)!dxdx&P d d)!dxdx&p d Pd)!dxdx&p Pd d)!dxdx3+0 d d d3+0 d d d(36$ u!  A A ~ ``      ($$   1  TABLE A (5EGMSY_ekqAutoList161.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#TABLE B2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2    o$A A &o%XX    5    _SeealsoProductLiabilityReformActof1998,S.2236,105th  Cong.(1998)(billproposedtoregulatestatutesoflimitationsand  reposeincertainproductliabilityactionsarisingunderstatelaw).  o$A A &o%XX    3    _Thetestfor relatednessisnotrigorous.InDole,theCourtupheld  theconstitutionalityofaconditiononfederalhighwaysafetyfunds  (23U.S.C.158)thatrequiredparticipatingStatestoadopta   uniformminimumdrinkingageof21.483U.S.at211212.The q y Courtfoundthattheconditionwas relatedtooneofthepurposesfor D L whichhighwayfundsareexpended"safeinterstatetravel,id.at   208,eventhoughtheprovisionwasvastly overinclusivebecauseit   stopsteenagersfromdrinkingevenwhentheyarenotabouttodrive   oninterstatehighways.Id.at214215(OConnor,J.,dissenting).2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  \  `&Times New Roman`b28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2     22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default Para $6(  A A   _@  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES"Continued   ((8Page(s)  M6&   _IfyouneedtoaddToAentriesthatarenotgeneratedbyWP,  youcanpressAlt+F7twiceforrightflushpagenumberswith  dotleaders. s M6&   _Thebodyofthebriefshouldbeginwiththestyle SupIntro  "thisstylecontainsthemarginandpagenumbersettingsfor  thefirstandsubsequentpagesofthebrief.See Technical z NotesBattheendofthisdocumentformoreinformation.&c$""0  96'  A A   _@` `  TABLEOFCONTENTS"Continued t  ;Page ~~G"Thin Top/Bottom! dxdx>Thick/Thin 2[ d -d t o$A A &o%XX    1    _Lettersfromthepartiesconsentingtothefilingofthisbriefhave   beenlodgedwiththeClerkofthisCourtpursuanttoRule37.3.In {  compliancewithRule37.6,PLACstatesthatthisbriefwasnot N  writteninwholeorinpartbycounselforaparty,andnopersonor ! y entity,otherthanPLACoritsmembers,madeamonetary  L contributiontothepreparationorsubmissionofthisbrief.(36$ u!  A A ~ ``        o $D D d&y.%XXD D D D *X(XX*  ~ ``     10    _3D X" XX(X3 " E.g., E 4LegislativeHistoryoftheCleanWaterActof1977  (CommitteePrintcompiledfortheCommitteeonEnvironmentand  PublicWorksbytheLibraryofCongress),Ser.9514,at12481249   (1978)( Leg.Hist.1977)(Reps.EdgarandMyers)(pressrelease q y  madeverydubiousanalysesofthesection404program);id.at D L А1350(Rep.Cleveland)(complainingof alltheidiociesthatcameout   theearlyCorpsofEngineersannouncements);id.at948(Sen.   Muskie)( TheCorpsproceededtotake[Section404]and,byits   interpretation,expanditfarbeyondanyintentoftheCongresssothat  itfounditselfthreateningregulationinareasofthecountrywhichthe ck  corpshadneverimaginedithadanyjurisdictionover).  o $D D L&y.%XXD D D D *X(XX*  ~ ``     10    _3D X" XX(X3 " E.g., K 4LegislativeHistoryoftheCleanWaterActof1977  (CommitteePrintcompiledfortheCommitteeonEnvironmentand  PublicWorksbytheLibraryofCongress),Ser.9514,at12481249   (1978)( Leg.Hist.1977)(Reps.EdgarandMyers)(pressrelease q y  madeverydubiousanalysesofthesection404program);id.at D L А1350(Rep.Cleveland)(complainingof alltheidiociesthatcameout   theearlyCorpsofEngineersannouncements);id.at948(Sen.   Muskie)( TheCorpsproceededtotake[Section404]and,byits   interpretation,expanditfarbeyondanyintentoftheCongresssothat  itfounditselfthreateningregulationinareasofthecountrywhichthe ck  corpshadneverimaginedithadanyjurisdictionover).(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(36$ u!  A A ~ ``      <PPD:QuickFormat1XXX  cb  XXX  cb  u!  A A ~ ``      _  ~ ``` ` X*pddd Xdd Xdd XA A , , +  -#   - No.011229 6) d"   6XXXX0XXIntheSupremeCourtoftheUnited  ' АStates#XX0J##X#XXX*# B8$u" !BCA~) 8ddEB8A ;1C" !  ;АPierceCounty, <2l"  <ЀPetitioner, A7R"  Av. A7 8 "   AIgnacio_Guillen_,etal., <25 "  <Respondents. 9/s 3  9Q e A~) 8ddE8A 3)Q "   3=QOnWritofCertioraritothe =  SupremeCourtofWashington 3)#" 31EA~) 8ddE8A_  ԍ 1 Ў  _ 4*1"   4 BRIEFFORPRODUCTLIABILITYADVISORY G АCOUNCIL,INC.,ASAMICUSCURIAE - INSUPPORTOFPETITIONER 3)k" 3A~) 8ddE8A &"   &'D  c@hX'HughF.Young,Jr. s  ProductLiabilityAdvisory Y   Council,Inc. ?!  1850CentennialParkDrive %"}  Suite510  #c  Reston,Virginia20191 #I  (703)2645300  $/ KennethS._Geller_ s  L CounselofRecord Y  JohnJ.Sullivan ?!  L Mayer,Brown,Rowe&Maw %"}  L 1909KStreet,_N.W._  #c  L Washington,DC20006 #I   L (202)2633000  $/!  %=Q&  0 @ CounselforAmicusCuriae &## ProductLiabilityAdvisoryCouncil,Inc. ' $ 8.,})&    8 ' A A ,D  c@h'c8#XXdd8y;s    @" TABLEOFCONTENTS   ;Page       *  *p8 m A   TABLEOFAUTHORITIES#<.OO)m km k#iii*p݌ Z  Ќ  *  *68 m A   INTERESTOFTHEAMICUSCURIAE#33>.2m km k#1*6R݌ &~ Ќ  *  * 8 m A   INTRODUCTIONAND J SUMMARYOFARGUMENT#33>.CC+m km k#2* %݌ 0 Ќ  *  *8 m A   ARGUMENT#33>.m km k#8*݌   Ќ  `  `8 m 8 m km k m   I.0 ? ?CONGRESSHASCONSTITUTIONAL p  AUTHORITYTOENACT23U.S.C.409 V  WITHOUTINFRINGINGTHETENTH <  AMENDMENT#33>.# ? ?#8 "z  `݌̌  b  b*0 m 8 m m 8 k k   A.0 ? ?CommerceClause#33>., ? ?#8b*E݌ F Ќ  b  b'0 m 8 m m 8 k k   B.0 ? ?SpendingClause#=.  , ? ?#11b'B݌  Ќ  b  b%0 m 8 m m 8 k k   C.0 ? ?TheTenthAmendmentIsNoBarTo  Section409#=.||( ? ?#13b%@݌ l Ќ  `  `S8 m 8 m km k m   II.0 ? ?CONGRESSAUTHORITYTOENACT23 8 U.S.C.409ISAPPLIEDINMANYOTHER  v FEDERALSTATUTORYSCHEMES#=.3 ? ?#15 !\ `So݌̌  b  b0 m 8 m m 8 k k     A.0 ? ?ThisCourtHasLongEndorsedFederal "( StatutesSettingNationwideTortStandards # InClassesOfCasesInStateCourtsOver $ WhichCongressHasJurisdiction#=.99< ? ?#15b݌ % Ќ  b  b0 m 8 m m 8 k k   B.0 ? ?CongressHasEnactedNumerousStatutes N'! ShieldingInformationFromDisclosureIn 4("  StateCourts#=.) ? ?#17b݌ )r# y;s y c8#XXdXXd8 y  ь  b  b0 m 8 m m 8 k k   C.0 ? ?CongressHasRecentlyEnacted,AndIs X   ConsideringFurther,Legislation >  PreemptingStateProceduralRules#=.> ? ?#18b݌ $ Ќ  *  *<8 m A   CONCLUSION#=.GGm km k#20*<X݌  Ќ  d  ~ S        S  s TABLEOFAUTHORITIES  OS ` \ Ԍ  \       ((8 Page(s)   B  Cases:  (  X#XXX#0 m A AlabamaHighway_Dept_v.Boone,No.901412,   cert.denied,502U.S.937(1991)#33>.9m m #3  #X#XXX##X#XXX#Aldenv.Maine,527U.S.706(1999)=.814 P  0 m A CentralVermontRy.Co.v.White, r  238U.S.507(1915)#=.+m m #15 X  _Crowell_v.Benson,285U.S.22(1932)=.tt:15 $ 0 m A Dicev.Akron,Canton&YoungstownR.R.Co.,  342U.S.359(1952)#7.+m m #7,1516  0 m A DukePowerCo.v.CarolinaEnvironmental L StudyGroup,Inc.,438U.S.59(1978)#:.cc=m m #7,15 2 _FERC_v.Mississippi,456U.S.742(1982)33>.=8 T _Hines_v._Davidowitz_,312U.S.53(1941)=.<15   _Hodel_v.Indiana,452U.S.314(1981)5.^^:7,89,10  0 m A Louisville&_N.R._ԀCo.v.Grant,27S.W.2d980 b! (Ky.1930)#=."m m #18 H" 0 m A Louisville&_N.R._ԀCo.v.Stephens, $j  182S.W.2d447(Ky.1944)#=.!!1m m #18 $P! _McCulloch_v.Maryland,17U.S.(4Wheat.) &!#  m 316(1819)=."10 '"$ Nevadav.Hicks,533U.S.353(2001)=.11915 x)#&  ЇNewYorkv.UnitedStates,505U.S.144 X   m (1992)6. 7,13,14 >  _Printz_v.UnitedStates,521U.S.898(1997):.""A7,13   Renov._Condon_,528U.S.141(2000)7.87,1314 ~ 0 m A Robertsonv.UnionPacificR.R.Co., J 954F.2d1433(8thCir.1992)#=.5m m #10 0 Silkwoodv.KerrMcGeeCorp.,464U.S. T   m 238(1984)=."16 :  SouthDakotav.Dole,483U.S.203(1987)7.>7,1112   _Testa_v._Katt_,330U.S.386(1947)=.713 z  UnitedStatesv.Lopez,514U.S.549(1995)kk;.@6,8 F UnitedStatesv.Smith,499U.S.160(1991)=.@15 j 0 m A _Yanick_v.PennsylvaniaR.Co.,192F.Supp.6m m   m 373(_E.D.N.Y._Ԁ1961)=.+18     #X#XXX#!# ConstitutionalProvisionsandStatutes: X#XXX#Ԁ ! #X#XXX#.#U.S.Const.,art.I,8,cl.1kk9.4passim #\  m   U.S.Const.,art.I,8,cl.3kk9.4passim %( U.S.Const.,art.I,8,cl.18:.9955,10 L' U.S.Const.,art.VI,cl.29.014,15X#XXX#Ԉ )   )! #X#XXX#0#U.S.Const.,amend.X6.II*7,13,14X#XXX#Ԉ X  #X#XXX#s1#X#XXX#15U.S.C.2055:.%1,17 $ #X#XXX#1#X#XXX#15U.S.C.66016617=.+18#X#XXX#W2#X#XXX#Ԉ  20U.S.C.9007(b)(1)=.+17 d 21U.S.C.360i=.%17 0 21U.S.C.#X#XXX#2#X#XXX##X#XXX#3#X#XXX#Ԁ16011606=.+19#X#XXX#4#X#XXX#Ԉ T  23U.S.C.101(b)33>.33'8    23U.S.C.12133>.II$2   #X#XXX#}4#X#XXX#23U.S.C.13033>.{{%3 ` #X#XXX#c5#X#XXX#23U.S.C.14433>.{{%3 , #X#XXX#5#X#XXX#23U.S.C.1528.{{%3,4,5 P #X#XXX#r6#23U.S.C.1589.II$11,12   23U.S.C.40233>.II$2 ! 23U.S.C.402(k)(4)kk;.*3,9 #\ 23U.S.C.409kk9.II$passim %( X#XXX#33U.S.C.930=.II$17#X#XXX#.8#Ԉ L' 45U.S.C.5160:.TT'1516X#XXX#Ԉ )   )! 49U.S.C.504=.II$17 X  #X#XXX#8#X#XXX#49U.S.C.1154=.%18 $ 49U.S.C.20101=.&17  49U.S.C.20703(c)=.)17 d #X#XXX#9#X#XXX#49U.S.C.20901=.&17 0 #X#XXX#:#X#XXX#49U.S.C.20902=.&17 T  #X#XXX#F;#49U.S.C.20903=.&17    49U.S.C.47507=.&17   HighwaySafetyActof1966, `  m Pub.L.No.89564,80Stat.731(1966)33>.?2 F X#XXX##X#XXX#<#SecuritiesLitigationUniformStandardsAct j  m of1998,X#XXX#Pub.L.No.105353,112Stat. P  m 3227(1998)#X#XXX#=#X#XXX#:.EE#1819#X#XXX#>#Ԉ 6 _RCW_Ԁ47.04.050=.$12 ! _RCW_Ԁ47.04.060X#XXX#:.$4,12#X#XXX#,?#Ԉ "v    OtherMaterials: X#XXX#Ԁ $B ClassActionFairnessActof2002, f&  m H.R.2341,107thCong.(2002)=.11519 L' #X#XXX#?#H.R.4600,107thCong.(2002)=.219 )   )! H.R.Rep.No.104246(1995),reprintedin X   m 1995_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ52233>.-4 >  X#XXX#0 m A ProductLiabilityReformActof1998,   S.2236,105thCong.(1998)#=.YY3m m #19  #X#XXX#A#0 m A S.Rep.No.891302(1966),reprintedindm m   m 1966_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ274133>.xx/2 J X#XXX#0 m A SecondAnnualReportonHighwaySafetyImprovement n  Programs,H.R.Doc.No.#X#XXX#C#X#XXX#Ԁ94366(1976)#33>.$$=m m #3#X#XXX#]D#Ԉ  T  PC  s  d"   Ym   @s s BRIEFFORPRODUCTLIABILITY@@  ADVISORY   @2 2 COUNCIL,INC.,ASAMICUSCURIAE   @bbINSUPPORTOFPETITIONER  t   E@00 򀀀  Z  @4 4   INTERESTOFTHEAMICUSCURIAE  4G       m TheProductLiabilityAdvisoryCouncil,Inc.( _PLAC_)is  F  anonprofitassociationwith126corporatemembers ,  representingabroadcrosssectionofAmericanand   internationalproductmanufacturers.Thesecompaniesseekto   contributetotheimprovementandreformoflawintheUnited   Statesandelsewhere,withemphasisonthelawgoverningthe  liabilityofmanufacturersofproducts._PLAC_sperspectiveis p derivedfromtheexperiencesofacorporatemembershipthat V spansadiversegroupofindustriesinvariousfacetsofthe <v manufacturingsector.Since1983_PLAC_Ԁhasfiledover600 "\ briefsasamicuscuriaeinbothstateandfederalcourts, B includingthisCourt,presentingthebroadperspectiveof ( productmanufacturersseekingfairnessandbalanceinthe  applicationanddevelopmentofthelawasitaffectsproduct  liability.Alistof_PLAC_scorporatemembersisattachedasan  appendixtothisbrief.   m _PLAC_Ԁhasastronginterestinthiscase,whichimplicates  theauthorityofCongressunderArticleIoftheConstitutionto  enactnationwidestandardsandrulesapplicableintortactions  instatecourts. m   1      ׀Inparticular,_PLAC_Ԁmembersrelyonprivileges   againstdisclosuresimilartotheprivilegeatissueinthiscase, w! 23U.S.C.409,inreportingsafetyandotherinformationto ]"  governmentagencies.See,e.g.,15U.S.C.2055(consumer C#}! productsafetyreports).InrefusingtorecognizetheSection409 )$c" Ym  Y  Y  privilege,theSupremeCourtofWashingtonrepudiatedthis   Courtsprecedents,developedoverthelast100years,affirming   congressionalauthoritytoenactstandardsandrulesinstate r  courtcasesfallingwithinCongressArticleIjurisdiction.In X  addition,theWashingtoncourtssweepingassertionof state >  sovereigntywouldundulyrestrictcongressionaljurisdiction $~ overissuesofsurpassingnationalimportance,including  d pendingciviljusticeandhealthcarereformmeasuresinwhich J _PLAC_smembershaveasubstantialinterest.Accordingly, 0 _PLAC_ԀsubmitsthisbrieftoassisttheCourtindefiningthe   constitutionalscopeofcongressionalauthoritytoincludethe   enactmentof23U.S.C.409.    @"  INTRODUCTIONAND ;  @!SUMMARYOFARGUMENT anT Tӈ !   m 1. Thiscaseinvolvescongressionaljurisdictionovera  z  significantissueofnationaltransportationpolicy:highway ` safety.SinceCongressenactedtheHighwaySafetyActof F 1966,Pub.L.No.89564,80Stat.731(1966),thefederal , governmentandparticipatingStateshaveestablisheda  comprehensivehighwaysafetyprogrampursuanttostandards  issuedbytheU.S.DepartmentofTransportation.Akeyfeature  ofthisprogramisthedevelopmentandapplicationofstandards j fordatacollectionandreportingonhighwaysafety.See23 P U.S.C.402,409;seealsoS.Rep.No.891302,at1(1966), 6 reprintedin1966_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ2741,2741(HighwaySafety  v Actrequiresthefederalgovernment toencourageandassist !\ eachoftheStatesintheestablishmentofahighwaysafety !B program***[with]provisionsforaneffectiveaccidentrecord "( system). #  m Statesparticipatefullyinthisnationalhighwaysafety  %g  programandreceivefundingfromthefederalgovernmentto %M! improvethesafetyofstateroadsandhighways.See23U.S.C. &3" 121.Toreceivefederalfunds,however,aStatemustcertify '# totheDepartmentofTransportationeither thatithasin ($ operationacomputerizedtrafficsafety_recordkeeping_Ԁsystem )% C  C~ ``  C  orthatishasaplan forestablishingandmaintaininga   computerizedtrafficsafety_recordkeeping_Ԁsystem.23U.S.C.   402(k)(4). r   m TherequirementthataStategatherdataidentifyingand  % evaluatingaccidentsitesandhazardoushighwaylocationsasa   conditionofreceivingfederalfundsmetinitialresistancefrom  Statesconcernedaboutpotentialliability.Stategovernments } feared legalactionsresultingfromaccidentsattheselocations c beforeanimprovement_c[ould_]bemade.SecondAnnual I  ReportonHighwaySafetyImprovementPrograms,H.R.Doc. /  No.94366,at36(1976).Asaresult,stateandlocal o  governmentswerehesitanttocompiletherequireddatabecause U   acknowledgingtheexistenceofhazardousconditionswould ;  exposethemtoliability.Pet.Br.34(citationsomitted).As !  theUnitedStatesexplained,stateandlocalgovernmentswere    reluctanttocompiledetailedandaccurateinformationabout   highwaysafetyproblemsifthere[_wa]s_Ԁasignificantriskthat y theinformation_w[ould_]beusedagainsttheminactionsfor _ damages.U.S.AmicusBr.at12,AlabamaHighway_Dept_v. E Boone,No.901412,cert.denied,502U.S.937(1991);id.at + 6(States willlikelybedeterredfromcompilingcompleteand k accurateinformation). Q  m ToaddressthisconcernandtherebyincreaseState P participationinthenationalhighwaysafetyprogramand 6 improvethecompletenessandaccuracyofhighwaysafetydata,  v Congressin1987enacted23U.S.C.409,whichshieldsfrom !\ disclosurethedataandreportsgeneratedasaconditionof !B receivingfederalhighwaysafetyfunds.Thestatutehasbeen "( amendedtoexpanditsscope,andinitscurrentformprovides: # 0 m Notwithstandinganyotherprovisionoflaw,reports,  %g  surveys,schedules,lists,ordatacompliedorcollectedfor %M! thepurposeofidentifying,evaluatingorplanningthesafety &3" enhancementofpotentialaccidentsites,hazardousroadway '# conditions,orrailway/highwaycrossings,pursuantto ($ Sections130,144,and152ofthistitle,orforthepurpose )% ofdevelopinganyhighwaysafetyconstruction   improvementproject,whichmaybeimplementedutilizing   Federalaidhighwayfundsshallnotbesubjecttodiscovery r  oradmittedintoevidenceinfederalorstatecourtor X  consideredforotherpurposesinanyactionfordamages >  arisingfromanyoccurrenceatalocationmentionedor $~ addressedinsuchreports,surveys,schedules,lists,ordata. dm m  CongressamendedSection409in1995to clarifythatdata c collectedforsafetyreportsorsurveysshallnotbesubjectto I  discoveryoradmittedintoevidenceinFederalorStatecourt /  proceedings.H.R.Rep.No.104246,at59(1995),reprinted o  in1995_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ522,551.Theprovisionthusincludes U  withinitsscope rawdatacollectedpriortobeingmadepartof ;  anyformalorboundreport.Ibid. !   m 2. TheStateofWashingtonparticipatesinthefederal  z  highwaysafetyprogram.TheWashingtonlegislaturehas ` expresslyauthorizedtheStateDepartmentofTransportationto F enterintoagreementswiththeU.S.Departmentof , Transportationtoreceivefederalfundsforhighway  improvementsintheState.Pet.Br.3;_RCW_Ԁ47.04.060.And,  likeotherStatesnationwide,Washingtonhasincorporatedthe  federalstandardsforcollecting,recording,andreporting j accidentdataandhighwaysafetyinformation intoits P AdministrativeCodeandtherebydictatedproceduresforall 6 subsequentaccidentreportsinthestate.Pet.Br.2.  v  m Respondentsinthiscaseseekaccidentreportsandother u! datacompiledbytheStateofWashingtonaboutanintersection [" inPierceCounty.Respondentsaretheguardiansoffourminor A# childrenwhowereinjuredinanautomobileaccidentatthe '$ PierceCountyintersectionin1996.Atthetimeoftheaccident,  %g  theintersectionwasthesubjectofanapplication forfederal %M! hazardeliminationfundsunder23U.S.C.Section152.Pet.Br. &3" 7.Theapplication wassupportedbytherequireddatafrom '# accidentreports,collisiondiagramsandothersimilarmaterial ($ thatwerecollectedandcompiledinconformancewithfederal )% standards.Ibid.Theapplicationwas submittedtoand   administeredbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentof   Transportationandwasgrantedthreeweeksaftertheaccident. r  Id.at8. X   m RespondentssuedPierceCountyinstatecourtandsought   anordercompellingproductionoftheaccidentreportsand  otherdataabouttheintersectionusedinconnectionwiththe } applicationforfederalfunds.TheCountyinvoked23U.S.C. c 409,whichasdescribedaboveprotectsfromdiscoveryor I  admissionintoevidenceinstatecourtproceedingsany /  documentsordata compiledorcollectedbyanystateorlocal o  governmentagencyundervariousfederalhighwaysafetyand U  improvementprograms.The Hazardeliminationprogram,23 ;  U.S.C.152,underwhichtheCountyappliedforfundsto !  improvetheintersectionwheretheaccidentoccurred,obliges   participatingStatesto conductandsystematicallymaintainan   engineeringsurveyofallpublicroadstoidentifyhazardous y locations. _  m TheSupremeCourtofWashingtonaffirmedanorder  requiringthatthedataandinformationcompiledbytheCounty  beproduceddespitethefederalprivilegeagainstproduction.  ThecourtconcludedthatSection409 violatestheUnited j StatesConstitutionsfederalistdesign***insofarasitmakes P stateandlocaltrafficandaccidentmaterialsanddata 6 _nondiscoverable_Ԁandinadmissibleinstateandlocalcourts,  v simplybecausetheyarealsocollectedandusedforfederal !\ purposes.Pet.App.45.Thecourtheldthatneitherthe !B SpendingClause,theCommerceClause,northeNecessaryand "( ProperClauseempoweredCongresstocreateaprivilegethat # coverspreexistingmaterialsthatarecompiledinconnection $ withafederalhighwaysafetyprogram.Accordingtothe %  WashingtonSupremeCourt, onlymaterialsanddataoriginally f&!  createdforthestatutorilyidentifiedfederalpurposesare L'" _lawfullycoveredbythefederalprivilegeand,thus,exempt   frompublicdisclosure***.Ibid.! m   2           m 3. TheWashingtonSupremeCourtplainlyerredinholding  ? thatCongressmaynotbarthediscoveryoradmissioninto  % evidenceinstatecourtproceedingsofinformationcompiledby   alocalgovernmentinconnectionwithanationalhighway  safetyprograminwhichtheStatesexecutiveandlegislature } havefreelyagreedtoparticipateandhavereceivedsubstantial c fundsfromthefederalgovernmenttoimprovehighwaysafety I  intheState. /   m Congresshasavalidinterestinprotectingfromdisclosure   accidentreportdatacreatedandcompiledbystateandlocal n  governmentsinconnectionwithaprogramthatseeksto T  improvethesafetyofakey channelofinterstatecommerce :  "ourNationsroadsandhighways.UnitedStatesv.Lopez,  z  514U.S.549,559(1995).WithouttheshieldinSection409, ` stateandlocalgovernmentsreasonablyfearedthatsuchdata F wouldbeusedagainsttheminlitigation.Hence,eitherthe , informationwouldnotbecollectedoritsreliabilitywouldbe  suspect.   m Congresshadatleasttwosourcesofauthoritytoenacta Q provisionthataddressedthisproblem.First,underthe 7 CommerceClause,Congressmayregulatethedisclosureof  datageneratedinconnectionwithafederalhighwaysafety  programthat,astheWashingtonSupremeCourtacknowledged,   hasasubstantialrelationshiptointerstatecommerce.Pet.App. u! 103104( Certainly,asufficientnexusexistsbetweeninterstate [" commerceandtheFederalaidhighwaysystemtojustifythe A# regulatoryschemewhenconsideredasawhole)(citation '$ omitted).Indeed,thisfederalprogramregulatesabasic  %g   channelofinterstatecommerce,andSection409isan %M!  integralpartoftheprogramaimedatdevelopingreliable   informationonhighwaysafety.Hodelv.Indiana,452U.S.314,   328(1981). r   m Second,undertheSpendingClause,Congressofferedthe  % Statesfinancialincentivesandbenefitstoparticipateinthe   federalhighwaysafetyprogram.Oneoftheconditionsof  participationintheprogramwasthecollectionofaccident } reportingdatatoidentifydangerousroadsandintersections. c Thebarondisclosureofthisinformationis reasonably I  relatedtothefederalprogram,becauseitisnecessaryto /  encouragestateandlocalgovernmentstoparticipateandcollect o  accurateandcomprehensiveinformation.SeeSouthDakotav. U  Dole,483U.S.203,207208(1987). ;   m ThisCourtsrecentcasesonfederalismandtheTenth :  Amendment,seePrintzv.UnitedStates,521U.S.898(1997);  z  NewYorkv.UnitedStates,505U.S.144(1992),castnodoubt ` ontheconstitutionalityofSection409.Thisstatutoryprovision F imposesnoobligationontheStateofWashingtontoregulate , itscitizensorontheStatelegislaturetoenactlegislation.  Section409,whichwasadoptedtoaccommodatetheinterests  oftheStatesparticipatinginthefederalhighwaysafety  program,actsonlytobarinformationfrombeingdisclosedin j court.It doesnotrequiretheStatesintheirsovereigncapacity P toregulatetheirowncitizens.Renov.Condon,528U.S.141, 6 151(2000).  v  m Indeed,CongressenactmentofSection409isentirely u! consistentwiththemanyfederalstatutessettingnationwide [" standardsforcertainclassesofstatetortcases"the A# constitutionalityofwhichthisCourthaslongaffirmed.See, '$ e.g.,DukePowerCo.v.CarolinaEnvironmentalStudyGroup,  %g  Inc.,438U.S.59(1978)(PriceAndersonAct);Dicev.Akron, %M! Canton&YoungstownR.R.Co.,342U.S.359(1952)(Federal &3"  EmployersLiabilityAct). '# @&&    ARGUMENT Ԉ     I.0 m CONGRESSHASCONSTITUTIONALAUTHORITY  Y TOENACT23U.S.C.409WITHOUTINFRINGING  ? THETENTHAMENDMENT  %m m   m  A.0 CommerceClause ̓. $~    m Asoneoftheprincipal channelsofinterstatecommerce, } Lopez,514U.S.at558559,theNationshighwaysareclearly'  c  subjecttoregulationbyCongressundertheCommerceClause. I  See23U.S.C.101(b)(itis inthenationalinterestto /  acceleratetheconstructionoftheFederalaidhighwaysystems, o  includingtheDwightD.EisenhowerSystemofInterstateand U  DefenseHighways). ;   m AlthoughtheWashingtonSupremeCourtacknowledged :  Congressjurisdictionoverthe Federalaidhighwaysystem,  z  thecourtconcludedthatSection409 cannotreasonablybe ` characterizedasanintegralpartofCongressregulationof F thissystem.Pet.App.104106.Thecourt fail[ed]toseehow , thosevitalfederalpurposesarereasonablyservedby***  barringthediscoveryandadmissibilityinstatecourtof  routinelypreparedstateandlocaltrafficandaccidentmaterials  anddatathatwouldexistevenhadafederalsafety j enhancementprogramneverbeencreated.Ibid. P  m ThestandardforevaluatingwhetherSection409is  constitutionalundertheCommerceClauseiswhetherthereis   a reasonableconnectionbetweentheregulatorymeans u! selectedandtheassertedends.FERCv.Mississippi,456U.S. [" 742,754(1982).Congressionallegislationenactedunder A# authorityoftheCommerceClause carrieswithita '$  presumptionofrationalitythatcanonlybeovercomebyaclear  %g! showingofarbitrarinessandirrationality.Hodel,452U.S.at %M" 331332.Moreover,itisnotnecessaryto show[]thatevery &3# singlefacetoftheprogramisindependentlyanddirectlyrelated '$ toavalidcongressionalgoal.Itisenoughthatthechallenged (% provisionsareanintegralpartoftheregulatoryprogramand )& thattheregulatoryschemewhenconsideredasawholesatisfies   thistest.Id.at329n.17.    m OnthequestionwhetherSection409isan integralpartof  ? theFederalaidhighwayprogram,therecordleavesnoroomfor  % doubt.ManyStateswouldnothaveparticipatedintheprogram,   oratleastthedatatheyproducedwouldnothavebeenas  reliable,ifCongresshadnotprovidedashieldfromdisclosure } forthedatacompiledinconnectionwiththeprogram.See c pages34,supra.Section409isthereforean integralpartof I  thefederalhighwaysafetyprogram.Undereventhenarrowest /  standardthatcouldbeapplied,Section409servesthefederal o  purposeofenhancinghighwaysafetybypromotingthe U  collectionandcompilationofaccuratesafetydataonwhichto ;  basetransportationpolicyjudgments.Seepages23,supra. !   m Thereisnobasisinthetextofthestatuteoritslegislative  z  historyforthedistinctiondrawnbytheWashingtonSupreme ` Courtbetweendatathat wouldexistevenhadafederalsafety F enhancementprogramneverbeencreatedanddatacreated , specificallyforthefederalprogram.Pet.App.105.Indeed,the  distinctionisillusorybecause inWashington,datasuchas  policeaccidentreportscontaintheinformationrequiredbystate  regulations,andthoseregulationswereenactedinexpress j compliancewiththefederalhighwaysafetyact.Pet.Br.34; P see,e.g.,WAC13628010. 6  m TheentirepremiseofthefederalstatuteisthattheStates   werenotcollectingcompleteandaccuratedataonhighway u! safetyandthatacongressionalremedywasnecessaryto [" encourageeachStatetoestablisha computerizedtrafficsafety A# recordkeepingsystem.23U.S.C.402(k)(4).Thus,thedata '$ andotherinformationthatrespondents,andsimilarlysituated  %g  plaintiffs,seekwouldnotexistbutforthefederalhighway %M! safetyprogram.Anditcertainlywouldnotexistinthe &3" computerizedandeasilyretrievableformitdoestoday" '# makingforreadyaccesstoplaintiffsseekingtoimposestateor ($ localgovernmentliability,whichispreciselytheproblem )% Congresssoughttoaddress.SeeRobertsonv.UnionPacific   R.R.Co.,954F.2d1433,1435(8thCir.1992)(Section409was   designedto facilitatecandorinadministrativeevaluationsof r  highwaysafetyhazardsand prohibitfederallyrequired X  recordkeepingfrombeingusedasatoolinprivatelitigation) >  (citationsomitted). $~  m CongressinSection409didnotdrawthedistinctionrelied } uponbytheWashingtonSupremeCourt.Thefederalhighway c safetyprogramispremisedonthenotionthatallaccidentdata I  compiledfortheprogrammustbeshieldedfromdisclosure. /  Thepurporteddistinctiondrawnbythecourtbelowthus o  providesnobasistoovercomethepresumptionofrationality U  thatattachestoSection409undertheCommerceClause.See ;  Hodel,452U.S.at331332. !   m Finally,whetherornotSection409directlyadvancesthe  z  federalpurposesanimatingthehighwaysafetyprogramunder ` theCommerceClause,thestatutecanbesustainedunderthe F discretiongrantedtoCongressbytheNecessaryandProper , ClausetocarryoutitsArticleIpowers.McCullochv.  Maryland,17U.S.(4Wheat.)316,421(1819)( the  constitutionmustallowtothenationallegislaturethat  discretion,withrespecttothemeansbywhichthepowersit j confersaretobecarriedintoexecution,whichwillenablethat P bodytoperformthehighdutiesassignedtoit,inthemanner 6 mostbeneficialtothepeople).Thestatutorygoalofcollecting  v andorganizinghighwaysafetydataforpolicymakersisplainly !\ withinCongressCommerceClausepowers,andthus all !B means,includingashieldtoprotectthosedatafromdisclosure "( instatecourts,that areplainlyadaptedtothatend,whichare # notprohibited,butconsistentwiththeletterandspiritofthe $ constitution,areconstitutional.Ibid.TheWashingtonSupreme %  Courthadnobasistosecondguessthatcongressional f&!  judgment. L'" & %   m  B.0 SpendingClause V.      m ThespendingpowerofArticleIoftheConstitution  Y providesanindependentbasisforsustainingSection409.'% 1  ? Congressmay, throughtheuseofthespendingpowerandthe  % conditionalgrantoffederalfunds,achieve objectivesnot   thoughttobewithinArticleIsenumeratedlegislativefields.  Dole,483U.S.at207(citationsomitted). }  m AstheWashingtonSupremeCourtnoted,thisCourtinDole 0  heldthatanotherprovisionofthefederalhighwaysafety   program,23U.S.C.158,wasconstitutional, findingthat   conditioningreceiptoffederalhighwayfundsonstate   enactmentofminimumdrinkingagelawswasaproperexercise n  ofCongressspendingpower.Pet.App.8586.TheDole T  Courtsuggested,however,that conditionsonfederalgrants :  mightbeillegitimateiftheyareunrelatedtothefederal  z  interestinparticularnationalprojectsorprograms.483U.S. ` at207(citationomitted). F  m Focusingonthislanguage,theWashingtonSupremeCourt E heldthatSection409isunrelatedtothefederalinterestinthe + nationalhighwaysafetyprogram(Pet.App.9293): k 0 m Wefindthatnovalidfederalinterestintheoperationofthe j federalsafetyenhancementprogramisreasonablyserved P bybarringtheadmissibilityanddiscoveryinstatecourtof 6 accidentreportsandothertrafficandaccidentmaterialsand  v  rawdatathatwereoriginallypreparedforroutinestate !\ andlocalpurposes,simplybecausetheyare collected, !B for,amongotherreasons,pursuanttoafederalstatutefor "( federalpurposes.#m m   m Insoholding,thecourtbelowappliedthewrongstandard  %g! indecidingwhetherSection409isaconstitutionalexerciseof %M" Congressspendingpower"focusingonwhethera valid &3# federalinterestis reasonablyservedbySection409.The '$ onlyproperinquiryiswhethertheprivilegeagainstdisclosing (% thedatacompiledorcollectedforthefederalhighwaysafety )& programis unrelatedtothatprogram. m   3      ׀Asdiscussedabove(at   pages24,9,supra),onthatissuetherecanbenodoubt.The   privilegeagainstdisclosureinSection409isessentialtoensure r  thattheStatesparticipateinthefederalprogramandthatthe X  datacompiledandcollectedareaccurateandcomplete. >   m Inthiscase,theconditionattachedtothereceiptofthe  federalfundsbenefittedtherecipientStatesbyrelievingthem } ofthethreatofliabilityposedbyproductionofaccidentdata. c Byprovidingthatprotection,CongressencouragedStatesto I  takepartinthefederalprogramandtoproducereliablesafety /  data.The conditioninSection409isthereforedirectly o   relatedtothefederalhighwaysafetyprogramanda U  constitutionalexerciseofCongressspendingpower.Attheend ;  oftheday,itisforeachStatetodecidewhethertoacceptthe !  conditionsattachedtofederalhighwaysafetyfunds.J_ m   4      ׀Thereis   nounconstitutionalimpositionontheStatesbyCongress.     m  C.0 TheTenthAmendmentIsNoBarToSection409. P      m CitingthisCourtsrecentTenthAmendmentcases,Printz  Y v.UnitedStates,521U.S.898(1997),andNewYorkv.United  ? States,505U.S.144(1992),theWashingtonSupremeCourt  % nonethelessassertedthatSection409isanunconstitutional   violationof statesovereignty.Pet.App.108112.Butthe  TenthAmendmentposesnobarriertoSection409,which } createsafederalprivilegetoshieldinformationinstatecourts c andisappliedbystatecourtsasamatteroffederallawunder I  theSupremacyClause.Testav.Katt,330U.S.386(1947). /   m ThisCourtinNewYorkreviewedafederalstatuteunder   which Congresscommandeeredthestatelegislativeprocessby n  requiringastatelegislaturetoenactaparticularkindoflaw. T  Condon,528U.S.at149. TheConstitutionhasneverbeen :  understoodtoconferuponCongresstheabilitytorequirethe  z  StatestogovernaccordingtoCongressinstructions.New ` York,505U.S.at162(citationomitted). F  m InPrintz,theCourtinvalidatedaprovisionoftheBradyAct E thatrequired Stateandlocallawenforcementofficersto + conductbackgroundchecksonprospectivehandgun k purchasers.521U.S.at902. TheFederalgovernmentmay Q neitherissuedirectivesrequiringtheStatestoaddressparticular 7 problems,norcommandtheStatesofficers,orthoseoftheir  politicalsubdivisions,toadministerorenforceafederal  regulatoryprogram.Id.at935.    m Section409isfundamentallydifferentfromthesestatutes !B thatencroachonstatesovereignty.First,asnotedabove,the "( privilegeinSection409isnotmandatory.TheStatesarefree # toacceptorrejectit,dependingonwhethertheywantfederal $  highwayfunds.ThestatutesinPrintzandNewYorkwere %! mandatorydirectivestotheStates. f&"  m Second,liketheDriversPrivacyProtectionAct( DPPA) '$ atissueinRenov.Condon,which regulate[d]thedisclosure (% andresaleofpersonalinformationcontainedintherecordsof )& stateDMVs,528U.S.at143,Section409 doesnotrequire   theStatesintheirsovereigncapacitytoregulatetheirown   citizens.Id.at151.InCondon,theCourtupheldthe r  constitutionalityoftheDPPAagainstaTenthAmendment X  challenge,findingthatthestatuteonly regulate[d]theStates >  astheownersofdatabases.Ibid.Section409isevenless $~ intrusive,givingtheStatesachoicetoadoptfederalstandards  d governingthecollectionanddisclosureofaccidentdataand J information.Moreover,neithertheDPPAnorSection409 0 requiresastatelegislature toenactanylawsorregulations,   andneitherstatuterequires stateofficialstoassistinthe   enforcementoffederalstatutesregulatingprivateindividuals.   Ibid. n   m Third,Section409isnotdirectedattheactionsofstate !  executiveofficialsorlegislators;itissimplyafederal   evidentiaryprivilegetobeappliedinstatecourtsbystate   judges,iftheStatedecidestoparticipateinthefederalhighway y safetyprogram.AsthisCourtheldinAldenv.Maine,527U.S. _ 706,752(1999)(citationsomitted), [a]lthoughCongressmay E notrequirethelegislativeorexecutivebranchesoftheStatesto + enactoradministerfederalregulatoryprograms,Congress k may requirestatecourts***toenforcefederalprescriptions, Q insofarasthoseprescriptionsrelatetomattersappropriatetothe 7 judicialpower.   m TheSupremacyClauserequiresthisresult,mandatingthat  v the LawsoftheUnitedStates***ShallbethesupremeLaw !\ oftheLand;andtheJudgesineveryStateshallbebound !B thereby,anyThingintheConstitutionorLawsofanyStateto "( theContrarynotwithstanding.U.S.Const.,art.VI,cl.2.As # thisCourtobservedinNewYork, [f]ederalstatutesenforceable $ instatecourtsdo,inasense,directstatejudgestoenforce %  them,butthissortoffederaldirectionofstatejudgesis f&! mandatedbythetextoftheSupremacyClause.505U.S.at L'"  178179. 2(#  m JustastheSupremacyClausepreemptsstatelawsthat    conflictwithfederallawby standingasanobstacletothe   accomplishmentandexecutionofthefullpurposesand r  objectivesofCongress,Hinesv.Davidowitz,312U.S.53,67 X  (1941),sotoostateevidentiaryrulesmustgivewaytothe >  privilegecreatedbySection409,whichisanessentialelement $~ ofthecarefullycraftedfederalhighwaysafetyprogram.  d   II.0 m CONGRESSAUTHORITYTOENACT23U.S.C. c 409ISAPPLIEDINMANYOTHERFEDERAL I  STATUTORYSCHEMES co/ m m    m  A.0 ThisCourtHasLongEndorsedFederalStatutes   SettingNationwideTortStandardsInClassesOf n  CasesInStateCourtsOverWhichCongressHas T  Jurisdiction co. :      m Section409preemptsonlyatinysliverofstatelawinan   exceedinglynarrowclassofstatecourtcases,yetCongresshas y cutamuchwiderswathinotherareasofstatetortlaw.For _ nearlyacentury,thisCourthasreviewedandconsistently E foundconstitutionalthemanyfederalstatutessetting + nationwidetortstandardsforcertainbroadclassesofcases k broughtinstatecourt.See,e.g.,DukePower,438U.S.at84 Q (PriceAndersonAct);Dice,342U.S.at361(Federal 7 EmployersLiabilityAct);Crowellv.Benson,285U.S.22,47  (1932)(LongshoremensandHarborWorkersCompensation  Act);seealsoNevadav.Hicks,533U.S.353,368(2001)   (comparingtheFederalEmployeesLiabilityReformandTort u! CompensationActof1988withthePriceAndersonAct); [" UnitedStatesv.Smith,499U.S.160,172173(1991) A# (explainingtheFederalEmployeesLiabilityReformandTort '$ CompensationActof1988).  %g   m ThisCourthasrepeatedlyupheldtheconstitutionalityof f&" federalpreemptionofstateproceduralrulesbytheFederal L'# EmployersLiabilityAct,45U.S.C.5160( FELA).See 2($ CentralVermontRy.Co.v.White,238U.S.507,512(1915). )r% InDice,342U.S.at361,forexample,theCourtconsidered )X & whetherajudgeorajurywoulddecideanissuerelatedtoa   fraudclaim.Ohioproceduralrulesrequiredthetrialjudgeto   decidetheissue,butunderFELAtheplaintiffhadarighttoa r  jurytrial.Id.at363.ThisCourtheldthatFELAratherthanthe X  stateruleapplied,because afederallydeclaredstandardcould >  bedefeatedifstateswerepermittedtohavethefinalsayasto $~ whatdefensescouldandcouldnotbeproperlyinterposedto  d suitsundertheAct.Id.at361.Thus,thestatecourtcouldnot J applystateprocedurallawbecauseFELAgavetheplaintiffa 0 righttoajurytrial,which play[s]animportantpartinthe   federalActsadministration.Id.at362.    m UnderthisCourtsdecisions,therefore,Congresshasthe U  authoritytoenactlegislationpreemptingstateproceduralrules ;  instatetortactions,insupportofafederalinterest.Evenif !   Congresshasnotentirelydisplacedstateregulationoverthe   matterinquestion,statelawisstillpreemptedtotheextentit   actuallyconflictswithfederallaw,thatis***wherethestate y lawstandsasanobstacletotheaccomplishmentofthefull _ purposesandobjectivesofCongress.Silkwoodv.KerrMcGee E Corp.,464U.S.238,248(1984)(availabilityofpunitive + damagesunderstatelawisnotinconflictwiththefederal k remedialschemeinthePriceAndersonAct). Q  m Inthiscase,Section409preemptsgenerallyapplicablestate P rulesondiscoveryandevidencethatconflictwiththegoalof 6 thecongressionalprogramofdevelopingreliablestatisticaldata  v onhighwaysafetynationwide.Asdescribedabove,disclosure !\ ofthesedatainstatecourtswoulddiscouragestateandlocal !B governmentsfromproducingtheinformationorwouldmake "( theinformationlessreliable.Therefore,preemptionofstate # disclosurerulesdirectlypromotesthefederalhighwaysafety $ program"overwhichthereisunquestionedcongressional %  jurisdictionundertheCommerceandSpendingClauses.This f&! CourtsmanydecisionsaffirmingtheauthorityofCongressto L'" legislatebroadtortrulesapplicableinstatecourtnecessarily 2(# endorsethefarnarrowerprovisioninthiscase.  )r$  m  B.0 CongressHasEnactedNumerousStatutesShielding   InformationFromDisclosureInStateCourts n1.      m FollowingthisCourtsprecedents,Congresshasexercised  ? itsauthoritytoenactnumerousdiscoveryrulessimilarto  % Section409thatlimitorregulatedisclosureinstatecourts.See,   e.g.,20U.S.C.9007(b)(1)(prohibitingdisclosurein any  action,suitorotherjudicialoradministrativeproceedingof } any individuallyidentifiableinformationcollectedaspartof c aprogramonnationaleducationstatistics);49U.S.C.504 I  (excludingfromdiscoveryanyreportsonaccidentsinvolving /  motorcarriers);49U.S.C.47507(limitingadmissioninto o  evidenceofnoiseexposuredatasubmittedtotheSecretaryof U  Transportation);LongshoremensandHarborWorkers ;  CompensationAct,33U.S.C.930( Anyreport*** !  [regardinginjuryordeath]shallnotbeevidenceofanyfact   statedinsuchreportinanyproceedinginrespectofsuchinjury   ordeathonaccountofwhichthereportismade);Consumer y ProductSafetyAct.15U.S.C.2055(limitingdiscoveryof _ consumerproductsafetyreports);21U.S.C.360i(limiting E discoveryofmedicaldeviceuserfacilityreports). +  m Therehasbeenaparticularlystrongtraditionlimiting  disclosureofinformationinpursuitoffederalsafetypoliciesin j therailroadindustry.Forexample,Congresshasrestricted P discoveryofaccidentreportsfiledbyrailroadsto promote 6 safetyineveryareaofrailroadoperationsandreducerailroad  v relatedaccidentsandincidents.49U.S.C.20101.Aspartof !\ thisprogram, [n]opartofanaccidentorincidentreportfiled !B byarailroadcarrierundersection20901ofthistitleormadeby "( theSecretaryofTransportationundersection20902ofthistitle # maybeusedinacivilactionfordamagesresultingfroma $ mattermentionedinthereport.49U.S.C.20903.Seealso49 %  U.S.C.20703(c)(excludingfromdiscoveryinstatecourts f&! investigatoryreportsrelatedtorailroadaccidents). The L'" purposeoftheactinrequiringamonthlyreportofaccidentsto 2(# besubmittedtotheInterstateCommerceCommission[nowthe )r$ SecretaryofTransportation]wastoaffordthe[Secretary]an )X % opportunitytoinvestigatesuchaccidents,andnodoubtthe   admissionsofthereportsasevidencewasprohibitedinorder   toencouragepromptandfullreportsofallaccidentsresulting r  ininjurytopersons.Louisville&N.R.Co.v.Grant,27 X  S.W.2d980,984(Ky.1930)(construinganearlierstatutewith >  substantiallysimilarlanguage,45U.S.C.41(1910));See $~ Yanickv.PennsylvaniaR.Co.,192F.Supp.373,377  d (E.D.N.Y.1961)(thestatuteencouragesrailroadstoinvestigate J accidentsbyeliminatingthethreatthatthedatacollectedwill 0 beusedagainstthemattrial);Louisville&N.R.Co.v.   Stephens,182S.W.2d447,457(Ky.1944)( Itisexpressly   providedbythestatutethatreportsofaccidentstothe   [SecretaryofTransportation]shallnotbeadmittedinevidence n  foranypurposeinanyactionfordamagesgrowingoutofany T  mattermentionedtherein.). :   m YetanotherfederalstatutelimitsdiscoveryofNational   TransportationSafetyBoardinvestigationsofcommercial y aircraftaccidents,includingcockpitandsurfacevehicle _ recordingsandtranscripts,aswellasreportsrelatedtothe E accident.See49U.S.C.1154( Nopartofareportofthe + Board,relatedtoanaccidentoraninvestigationofanaccident, k maybeadmittedintoevidenceorusedinacivilactionfor Q damagesresultingfromamattermentionedinthereport.). 7  m  C.0 CongressHasRecentlyEnacted,AndIsConsidering 6 Further,LegislationPreemptingStateProcedural  v Rules n. !\    m Inlightoftheforegoingprecedents,Congresshasrecently [" enactedseveralstatutes"andiscurrentlyconsideringa A# numberofotherinitiatives"thatdependonitsabilityto '$ preemptstatecourtproceduralruleswhennecessarytoachieve  %g  animportantfederalobjective.Forexample,theY2KActof %M! 1999,15U.S.C.66016617,appliesfederalpleading &3" requirements,noticeofclaimsprovisions,andburdensofproof '# incivilactionsinstatecourtbasedonY2Kfailures.Seealso ($ SecuritiesLitigationUniformStandardsActof1998,Pub.L. )% No.105353,112Stat.3227(codifiedinscatteredsectionsof   15U.S.C.)(prohibitingcertainactionsfromproceedingasclass   actionsandauthorizingfederalcourtstostaydiscoveryinstate r  courtsincertaincases);BiomaterialsAccessAssuranceActof X  1998,21U.S.C.16011606(regulatingmotionstodismiss >  andforsummaryjudgmentincertainclassesofstatecourt $~ litigation).  d  m ThecurrentCongressisnowconsideringtheClassAction c FairnessActof2002,H.R.2341,107thCong.(2002),which I  would amendtheproceduresthatapplytoconsiderationof /  interstateclassactions.Thebillprovides,amongotherthings, o  forproceduralrequirementsforanysettlementin [a]nycourt U  withjurisdictionoveraplaintiffclassaction,includingstate ;  courts.Ibid.Inaddition,severalhealthcarereformproposals, !  see,e.g.,H.R.4600,107thCong.(2002),addresstheevidence   thatmaybeintroducedinanyhealthcarerelatedlawsuit,   includingsuitsarisinginstatecourts. m   5      ׀Manyaspectsofthese y importantfederallegislativeproposalswouldbecastintodoubt _ bytheexpansiveviewof statesovereigntyadoptedbythe E courtbelow. + @&*****   m TheminimalintrusionofSection409intotherealmofstate 7 procedureandevidencetosupportanimportantfederalsafety  program"overwhichCongresshas,asallconcede,ArticleI  jurisdiction"isnotunconstitutional.Alloftheforegoing   legislativeprograms,includingthelongstandingtortstatutes u! whoseconstitutionalityhasbeensustainedbythisCourtandthe [" numerouslimitationsondisclosuresrelatedtosafety,support A# theassertionofcongressionalauthorityinthiscase. '$  m Untetheredassertionsof statesovereigntycannot %! undermineSection409.TheStateofWashingtonagreedto f&" participateinthefederalhighwaysafetyprogram,andCongress   adoptedSection409toaccommodatetheinterestoftheStates   inavoidingpublicdisclosureoftheinformationsoughtbythe r  federalgovernment.Nostatesovereigntyhasbeenimpugned. X  IfCongresscannotmakethismodestalterationofstate >  procedure"tobenefittheStatesattheirrequest"thenmany $~ otherfederalstatutes,includingsomewhoseconstitutionality  d hasbeenupheldbythisCourt,wouldbesubjecttothesame J challenge.TheConstitutionneithercompelsnortoleratesthat 0 result.   @GG%  CONCLUSION n  o   m ThejudgmentoftheSupremeCourtofWashingtonshould n  bereversed. T   m Respectfullysubmitted.   *jdd pA A , d , +  ``  'D  c@hA A ,'HughF.Young,Jr. `  ProductLiabilityAdvisory F  Council,Inc. ,  1850CentennialParkDrive   Suite510   Reston,Virginia20191   (703)2645300  j KennethS.Geller ` CounselofRecord F JohnJ.Sullivan ,  L Mayer,Brown,Rowe&Maw   L 1909KStreet,N.W.   L Washington,DC20006   L (202)2633000 j   .$P! 0  .  f" .$"f# 0   . j| @CounselforAmicusCuriae  j# @ ProductLiabilityAdvisoryCouncil,Inc.  P$ July2002  "&   @& APPENDIX  $, H8#XXdXXd8@  PRODUCTLIABILITYADVISORYCOUNCIL,INC.  @ LISTOFCORPORATEMEMBERS   3M   AllegianceHealthcareCorporation   AltecIndustries v ~ AmericanSuzukiMotorCorporation \ d AndersenCorporation BJ AnheuserBuschCompanies (0 AnsellHealthcare,Inc.   AppletonPapers,Inc.   AventisPharmaceuticalsInc.   BASFCorporation   BaxterInternational,Inc.   BayerCorporation   BerettaU.S.A.Corp. rz  BICCorporation X` BiroManufacturingCompanyInc. >F Black&Decker(U.S.)Inc. $, BMWofNorthAmerica,LLC   BombardierRecreationalProducts  BPAmocoCorporation  Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc.  Briggs&StrattonCorporation  BristolMeyersSquibbCompany  BrownandWilliamsonTobacco nv BrownFormanCorporation T\ BrunswickCorporation : B CaterpillarInc.  !( CenterpulseUSAInc. " ChevronCorporation " Compaq # ContinentalTireNorthAmerica,Inc. $  CooperTireandRubberCompany %! CoorsBrewingCompany &" CrownEquipmentCorporation j'r# DaimlerChryslerCorporation P(X $ DanaCorporation  Deere&Company  E&JGalloWinery   E.I.DuPontdeNemoursandCompany   EatonCorporation   EliLillyandCompany v ~ EmersonElectricCo. \ d EngineeredControlsInternational,Inc. BJ EsteeLauderCompanies (0 ExxonMobilCorporation   FMCCorporation   FordMotorCompany   GeneralElectricCompany   GeneralMotorsCorporation   GeorgiaPacificCorporation   GlaxoSmithKline rz  GLOCK,Inc. X` GreatDaneLimitedPartnership >F GuidantCorporation $, HarleyDavidsonMotorCompany   HarscoCorporation,Gas&FluidControlGroup  HondaNorthAmerica,Inc.  HyundaiMotorAmerica  InternationalTruckandEngineCorporation  IsuzuMotorsAmerica,Inc.  Johnson&Johnson nv JohnsonControlsInc. T\ JoyGlobalInc. : B KawasakiMotorsCorp.,U.S.A.  !( KiaMotorsAmerica,Inc. " KolcraftEnterprises,Inc. " KraftFoodsNorthAmerica,Inc. # LincolnElectricHoldings,Inc. $  Mazda(NorthAmerica),Inc. %! McNeilusTruckandManufacturing,Inc. &" Medtronic,Inc. j'r# MercedesBenzofNorthAmerica,Inc. P(X $ MichelinNorthAmerica,Inc.  MillerBrewingCompany  MitsubishiMotorsR&DofAmerica,Inc.   NiroInc.   NissanNorthAmerica,Inc.   NovartisPharmaceuticalsCorporation v ~ OtisElevatorCompany \ d PACCARInc. BJ Panasonic (0 Pentair,Inc.   PfizerInc.   PharmaciaCorporation   PhilipMorrisCompaniesInc.   PolarisIndustries,Inc.   PorscheCarsNorthAmerica,Inc.   RaytheonAircraftCompany rz  RemingtonArmsCompany,Inc. X` RheemManufacturing >F RJReynoldsTobaccoCompany $, SchindlerElevatorCorporation   SCMGroupUSAInc.  Sears,RoebuckandCo.  ShellOilCompany  SiemansCorporation  Smith&Nephew,Inc.  SnaponIncorporated nv SofamorDanek,MedtronicInc. T\ SolutiaInc. : B Sturm,Ruger&Company,Inc.  !( SubaruofAmerica,Inc. " SunbeamCorporation " Synthes(U.S.A.) # TextronInc. $  TheBoeingCompany %! TheDowChemicalCompany &" TheGoodyearTire&RubberCompany j'r# TheHeilCompany P(X $ TheProctor&GambleCompany  TheRaymondCorporation  TheSherwinWilliamsCompany   TheToroCompany   ThomasBuiltBuses,Inc.   ToshibaAmericaIncorporated v ~ ToyotaMotorSales,USA,Inc. \ d TRWInc. BJ UST(U.S.Tobacco) (0 VolkswagenofAmerica,Inc.   VolvoCarsofNorthAmerica,Inc.   VulcanMaterialsCompany   WaterBonnetManufacturing,Inc.   WhirlpoolCorporation   WilburEllisCompany   Wyeth rz  YamahaMotorCorporation,U.S.A. X` Zimmer,Inc.