Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 966

529US3

Unit: $U62

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

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

891

Stevens, J., dissenting

bags in all cars and to phase in the new requirements. The
initial 3-year delay was designed to give vehicle manufactur-
ers adequate time for compliance. The decision to give man-
ufacturers a choice between airbags and a different form of
passive restraint, such as an automatic seatbelt, was moti-
vated in part by safety concerns and in part by a desire not
to retard the development of more effective systems. 49
Fed. Reg. 29000–29001 (1984). An important safety concern
was the fear of a “public backlash” to an airbag mandate
that consumers might not fully understand. The Secretary
believed, however, that the use of airbags would avoid possi-
ble public objections to automatic seatbelts and that many of
Id.,
the public concerns regarding airbags were unfounded.
at 28991.

Although the standard did not require airbags in all cars,
it is clear that the Secretary did intend to encourage wider
use of airbags. One of her basic conclusions was that “[a]u-
tomatic occupant protection systems that do not totally rely
upon belts, such as airbags . . . , offer signiﬁcant additional
potential for preventing fatalities and injuries, at least in
part because the American public is likely to ﬁnd them less
intrusive; their development and availability should be en-
couraged through appropriate incentives.”
Id., at 28963; see
also id., at 28966, 28986 (noting conclusion of both Secretary
and manufacturers that airbags used in conjunction with
manual lap and shoulder belts would be “the most effective
system of all” for preventing fatalities and injuries). The
Secretary therefore included a phase-in period in order to
encourage manufacturers to comply with the standard by in-
stalling airbags and other (perhaps more effective) nonbelt
technologies that they might develop, rather than by install-
ing less expensive automatic seatbelts.4 As a further incen-

4 “If the Department had required full compliance by September 1, 1987,
it is very likely all of the manufacturers would have had to comply through
the use of automatic belts. Thus, by phasing-in the requirement, the De-
partment makes it easier for manufacturers to use other, perhaps better,