Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 987.0

529US3

Unit: $U62

[09-26-01 12:54:02] PAGES PGT: OPIN

912

GEIER v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.

Stevens, J., dissenting

Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S., at 721; cf. Medtronic, Inc. v.
Lohr, 518 U. S., at 512 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part) (“It is not certain that an agency reg-
ulation determining the pre-emptive effect of any federal
statute is entitled to deference”); Smiley v. Citibank (South
Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 743–744 (1996). Requiring
the Secretary to put his pre-emptive position through for-
mal notice-and-comment rulemaking—whether contempora-
neously with the promulgation of the allegedly pre-emptive
regulation or at any later time that the need for pre-emption
becomes apparent 26—respects both the federalism and non-
delegation principles that underlie the presumption against
pre-emption in the regulatory context and the APA’s
requirement of new rulemaking when an agency substan-
tially modiﬁes its interpretation of a regulation. 5 U. S. C.
§ 551(5); Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D. C. Arena
L. P., 117 F. 3d 579, 586 (CADC 1997); National Family
Planning & Reproductive Health Assn. v. Sullivan, 979
F. 2d 227, 240 (CADC 1992).

*

*

*

Because neither the text of the statute nor the text of the
regulation contains any indication of an intent to pre-empt

emptive regulations.
Id., at 64; see also Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v.
Crisp, 467 U. S. 691, 700–705 (1984) (regulation); Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan
Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S., at 158–159 (regulation); Blum v. Bacon,
457 U. S. 132, 141–142 (1982) (Action Transmittal by Social Security Ad-
ministration); Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile
Co., 450 U. S., at 327 (order of Interstate Commerce Commission); United
States v. Shimer, 367 U. S. 374, 377 (1961) (regulation).
I express no opin-
ion on whether any deference would be appropriate in any of these situa-
tions, but merely observe that such situations are not presented here.

26 Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471
U. S., at 721 (noting that agency “can be expected to monitor, on a continu-
ing basis, the effects on the federal program of local requirements” and to
promulgate regulations pre-empting local law that imperils the goals of
that program).