Interpretation ID: GRACIA.LTR
Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
Executive Director
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
Suite 800
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Gracia v. Volvo Europa Truck, N.V.,
N.D. Ill., Civ. No. 87-C-10005
Dear Mr. Bryant:
This is in response to your letter requesting that the United States file an amicus curiae brief with the Seventh Circuit in the above-referenced case, in which the District Court ruled that the plaintiff's claims are preempted by Federal law.
Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagrees with both the result and the rationale adopted by the District Court, we have decided not to request the Department of Justice to file an amicus brief. A brief discussion of our views on this legal issue and the basis for our decision not to participate is set forth below.
As you are aware, NHTSA has consistently taken the view that, as a general matter, Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 preempt state common law actions only in very limited situations, which do not appear to apply here. Our views on this issue were most recently stated in the amicus curiae brief filed by the United States in Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 115 S. Ct. 1483 (1995).
To summarize, judgments under the common law can effectively create "standards" that would be expressly preempted by the "preemption clause" of Chapter 301, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1),(1) if that clause stood alone. However, the "savings clause," 49 U.S.C. 30103(e),(2) precludes a finding that suits seeking to recover damages on the basis of a manufacturer's failure to go beyond the requirements of a standard are expressly preempted. Moreover, such suits are impliedly preempted only in those relatively rare cases where the common law duty sought to be imposed on an auto manufacturer would create an actual conflict with a NHTSA safety standard, either because it would be impossible to comply with both state and Federal requirements or because the judgment would "stand as an obstacle to" or "frustrate the purpose of" federal law.
As we understand the facts in the Gracia case, the plaintiff was injured when she was "thrown through the windshield" of a model year 1986 Volvo truck that had a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds and which was a "forward control vehicle." One of NHTSA's safety standards, FMVSS No. 212, "Windshield mounting," 49 CFR 571.212, imposes performance requirements for windshields of certain vehicles. The standard applies to passenger cars and to trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. It does not apply to certain types of trucks, including "forward control vehicles," even if they have a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds.
The District Court concluded that NHTSA's decision to exclude forward control vehicles from the reach of the standard preempted plaintiff's product liability action. In our view, this conclusion is both factually and legally incorrect.
First, the focus by the parties and the court on the agency's rationale for excluding "forward control" trucks with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds from the reach of FMVSS No. 212 is misguided, since the GVWR of the vehicle involved in this crash was greater than 10,000 pounds. As with almost all of its safety standards, NHTSA did not explicitly consider applying FMVSS No. 212 to heavy trucks, regardless of whether they were forward control vehicles.
More generally, although we agree that a NHTSA decision not to regulate can preempt state common law actions, see Arkansas Elec. Co-op Corp. v. Arkansas Public Serv. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 375, 384 (1983), it will do so only where the intent to preempt is "clear and manifest." See Toy Mfrs. Of America, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 986 F.2d 615, 622-623 (2d Cir. 1992), citing Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Lab., Inc.,
471 U.S. 707, 718 (1985). Here, there was no such intent, and none was indicated in any of the documents issued by the agency during its consideration of this standard.(3)
The regulatory materials quoted in the District Court's opinion indicate that the primary basis for NHTSA's exclusion of forward control vehicles (with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds) was a concern that it would not be "practicable" for such vehicles to comply with the existing standard.(4) In no way did this reflect a NHTSA conclusion that efforts by maufacturers of forward control vehicles to reduce the possibility of ejections through the windshield (either by satisfying the performance requirements of the standard or through other means) would have an adverse impact on safety. Rather, it reflected a NHTSA determination that applying FMVSS No. 212 to such vehicles would not be appropriate in light of the statutory criteria for FMVSSs set out in Chapter 301.
A decision not to regulate on this basis does not in itself "preempt the field." In other words, while the exclusion of certain vehicles from the reach of FMVSS No. 212 relieves the manufacturers of those vehicles from any duties with respect to windshield retention under Chapter 301, it does not immunize those manufacturers from a duty of care that might be imposed under state law.(5)
Thus, as noted above, we believe that the District Court's opinion is incorrect. However, to our knowledge, this is the first case in which a court has improperly concluded that a NHTSA decision not to regulate an aspect of performance of certain vehicles preempts a state common law action seeking damages based on an alleged failure with respect to that aspect of performance. Therefore, in keeping with NHTSA's long-standing policy of minimizing its involvement in private tort litigation, we believe that it would not be appropriate to participate formally in this case. In the unlikely event that this erroneous view of the scope of "negative" Federal preemption proliferates in the future, the agency may decide to participate in a subsequent case.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Wayne F. Plaza, Esq.
Bruce R. Pfaff, Esq.
ref: 103(d)#108(k)
NCC-10:KWeinstein:August 9, 1996; revised:August 16, 1996
Printed: August 26, 1996 (cyb)
1. "When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle . . . only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. . . ."
2. "Compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law."
3. Although we cannot anticipate all possibilities, it is likely that NHTSA would "negatively" preempt state law only if it concluded that a specific item or design feature would have an adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. For example, if NHTSA had decided that headrests above a certain size should not be required because they would interfere with driver visibility, a claim by a plaintiff that a manufacurer's failure to equip a vehicle with a larger headrest led to neck injuries would be preempted, even in the absence of an explicit ban on such headrests.
4. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111(a), each FMVSS "shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms."
5. NHTSA takes no position on whether the windshield retention system in this particular vehicle was "unreasonably dangerous" or what duty of care a state might reasonably impose through its common law. (Presumably, NHTSA's views on the technological options avilable to manufacturers of forward control vehicles would be considered by courts and juries considering those issues.) Similarly, NHTSA takes no position on whether this crash led to a "foreseeable impact," as alleged by plaintiff, or on the relevance, if any, of the facts that the plaintiff apparently was not seated in a designated seating position and apparently was not wearing a safety belt.