Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 980

529US3

Unit: $U62

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

Cite as: 529 U. S. 861 (2000)

905

Stevens, J., dissenting

passive restraint in a certain model of car because of other
design features particular to that car . . . would not necessar-
ily frustrate Standard 208’s purposes.” Brief for United
States as Amicus Curiae 26, n. 23.21 Petitioners’ claims
here are quite similar to the claim described by the Govern-
ment: their complaint discusses other design features partic-
ular to the 1987 Accord (such as the driver’s seat) that alleg-
edly rendered it unreasonably dangerous to operate without
an airbag. App. 4–5. The only distinction is that in this
case, the particular 1987 Accord driven by Ms. Geier included
no passive restraint of any kind because Honda chose to com-
ply with Standard 208’s 10% minimum requirement by in-
I fail to see
stalling passive restraints in other 1987 models.
how this distinction makes a difference to the purposes of
Standard 208, however.
If anything, the type of claim fa-
vored by the Government—e. g., that a particular model of
car should have contained an airbag instead of an automatic
seatbelt—would seem to trench even more severely upon the
purposes that the Government and Honda contend were be-
hind the promulgation of Standard 208: that having a variety
of passive restraints, rather than only airbags, was necessary
to promote safety. Thus, I conclude that the Government,
on the Secretary’s behalf, has failed to articulate a coherent
view of the policies behind Standard 208 that would be frus-
trated by petitioners’ claims.

V

For these reasons, it is evident that Honda has not crossed
the high threshold established by our decisions regarding

21 Compare ante, at 881 (disagreeing with Government’s view by con-
cluding that tort-law duty “requir[ing] manufacturers of all similar cars to
install airbags rather than other passive restraint systems . . . would [pre-
sent] an obstacle to the variety and mix of devices that the federal regula-
tion sought”), with ante, at 883, 885 (noting that “the agency’s own views
should make a difference,” but contending that the above-quoted Govern-
ment view is “not at issue here”).