Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 958.0

529US3

Unit: $U62

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

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

883

Opinion of the Court

which we reject, see, e. g., post, at 901–904 (suggesting that
pre-existing risk of “no airbag” liability would have made
FMVSS 208 unnecessary); and others, if we understand them
correctly, seem less than persuasive, see, e. g., post, at 902
(suggesting that manufacturers could have complied with a
mandatory state airbag duty by installing a different kind of
passive restraint device). And in so concluding, we do not
“put the burden” of proving pre-emption on petitioners.
Post, at 907. We simply ﬁnd unpersuasive their arguments
attempting to undermine the Government’s demonstration of
actual conﬂict.

One ﬁnal point: We place some weight upon DOT’s inter-
pretation of FMVSS 208’s objectives and its conclusion, as
set forth in the Government’s brief, that a tort suit such as
this one would “ ‘stan[d] as an obstacle to the accomplishment
and execution’ ” of those objectives. Brief for United States
as Amicus Curiae 25–26 (quoting Hines, supra, at 67).
Congress has delegated to DOT authority to implement the
statute; the subject matter is technical; and the relevant
history and background are complex and extensive. The
agency is likely to have a thorough understanding of its own
regulation and its objectives and is “uniquely qualiﬁed” to
comprehend the likely impact of state requirements. Med-
tronic, 518 U. S., at 496; see id., at 506 (Breyer, J., concur-
ring in part and concurring in judgment). And DOT has
explained FMVSS 208’s objectives, and the interference that
“no airbag” suits pose thereto, consistently over time. Brief
for United States as Amicus Curiae in Freightliner Corp. v.
Myrick, O. T. 1994, No. 94–286, pp. 28–29; Brief for United
States as Amicus Curiae in Wood v. General Motors Corp.,
O. T. 1989, No. 89–46, pp. 7, 11–16.
In these circumstances,
the agency’s own views should make a difference. See City
of New York v. FCC, 486 U. S. 57, 64 (1988); Hillsborough
County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S.
707, 714, 721 (1985); De la Cuesta, supra, at 158; Blum v.
Bacon, 457 U. S. 132, 141 (1982); Kalo Brick, supra, at 321.