Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 950.0

529US3

Unit: $U62

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

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

875

Opinion of the Court

Transportation’s (DOT’s) comments, which accompanied the
promulgation of FMVSS 208, make clear that the standard
deliberately provided the manufacturer with a range of
choices among different passive restraint devices. Those
choices would bring about a mix of different devices intro-
duced gradually over time; and FMVSS 208 would thereby
lower costs, overcome technical safety problems, encourage
technological development, and win widespread consumer
acceptance—all of which would promote FMVSS 208’s safety
objectives. See generally 49 Fed. Reg. 28962 (1984).

A

32 Fed. Reg. 2408, 2415.

The history of FMVSS 208 helps explain why and how
DOT sought these objectives. See generally Motor Vehicle
Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto-
mobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 34–38 (1983).
In 1967, DOT,
understanding that seatbelts would save many lives, re-
quired manufacturers to install manual seatbelts in all auto-
mobiles.
It became apparent,
however, that most occupants simply would not buckle up
their belts. See 34 Fed. Reg. 11148 (1969). DOT then
began to investigate the feasibility of requiring “passive re-
straints,” such as airbags and automatic seatbelts.
Ibid.
In 1970, it amended FMVSS 208 to include some passive pro-
tection requirements, 35 Fed. Reg. 16927, while making clear
that airbags were one of several “equally acceptable” devices
and that it neither “ ‘favored’ [n]or expected the introduction
In 1971, it added an express pro-
of airbag systems.”
vision permitting compliance through the use of nondetach-
able passive belts, 36 Fed. Reg. 12858, 12859, and in 1972, it
mandated full passive protection for all front seat occupants
for vehicles manufactured after August 15, 1975, 37 Fed.
Reg. 3911. Although the agency’s focus was originally on
airbags, 34 Fed. Reg. 11148 (1969) (notice of proposed rule-
making); State Farm, 463 U. S., at 35, n. 4; see also id., at 46,
n. 11 (noting view of commentators that, as of 1970, FMVSS

Ibid.