Motor Veh. Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Ins. - 463 U.S. 29 (1983)

U.S. Supreme Court

Motor Veh. Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Ins., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc.

v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

No. 82-354

Argued April 26, 1983

Decided June 24, 1983*

463 U.S. 29


The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Act) directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue motor vehicle safety standards that "shall be practicable, shall meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms." In issuing these standards, the Secretary is directed to consider "relevant available motor vehicle safety data," whether the proposed standard is "reasonable, practicable and appropriate" for the particular type of motor vehicle for which it is prescribed, and "the extent to which such standards will contribute to carrying out the purposes" of the Act. The Act authorizes judicial review, under the Administrative Procedure Act, of "all orders establishing, amending, or revoking" a motor vehicle safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to which the Secretary has delegated his authority to promulgate safety standards, rescinded the requirement of Modified Standard 208 that new motor vehicles produced after September 1982 be equipped with passive restraints (automatic seatbelts or airbags) to protect the safety of the occupants of the vehicle in the event of a collision. In explaining the rescission, NHTSA maintained that it was no longer able to find, as it had in 1977 when Modified Standard 208 was issued, that the automatic restraint requirement would produce significant safety benefits. In 1987, NHTSA had assumed that airbags would be installed in 60% of all new cars and automatic seatbelts in 40%. But by 1981 it became apparent that automobile manufacturers planned to install automatic seatbelts in approximately 99% of the new cars, and that the overwhelming majority of such seatbelts could be easily detached and left that way permanently, thus precluding the realization of the lifesaving potential of airbags and requiring the same type of affirmative action that was the stumbling block

Page 463 U. S. 30

to achieving high usage of manual belts. For this reason, NHTSA concluded that there was no longer a basis for reliably predicting that Modified Standard 208 would lead to any significant increased usage of restraints. Hence, in NHTSA's view, the automatic restraint requirement was no longer reasonable or practicable. Moreover, given the high expense of implementing such a requirement and the limited benefits arising therefrom, NHTSA feared that many consumers would regard Modified Standard 208 as an instance of ineffective regulation. On petitions for review of NHTSA's rescission of the passive restraint requirement, the Court of Appeals held that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious on the grounds that NHTSA's conclusion that it could not reliably predict an increase in belt usage under the Standard was an insufficient basis for the rescission, that NHTSA inadequately considered the possibility of requiring manufacturers to install nondetachable, rather than detachable, passive belts, and that the agency failed to give any consideration to requiring compliance with the Standard by the installation of airbags. The court found that congressional reaction to various versions of the Standard "raised doubts" that NHTSA's rescission "necessarily demonstrates an effort to fulfill its statutory mandate," and that therefore the agency was obligated to provide "increasingly clear and convincing reasons" for its action.

Held: NHTSA's rescission of the passive restraint requirement in Modified Standard 208 was arbitrary and capricious; the agency failed to present an adequate basis and explanation for rescinding the requirement, and must either consider the matter further or adhere to or amend the Standard along lines which its analysis supports. Pp. 463 U. S. 40-57.

(a) The rescission of an occupant crash protection standard is subject to the same standard of judicial review -- the "arbitrary and capricious" standard -- as is the promulgation of such a standard, and should not be judged by, as petitioner Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association contends, the standard used to judge an agency's refusal to promulgate a rule in the first place. The Act expressly equates orders "revoking" and "establishing" safety standards. The Association's view would render meaningless Congress' authorization for judicial review of orders revoking safety standards. An agency changing its course by rescinding a rule is obligated to supply a reasoned analysis for the change beyond that which may be required when an agency does not act in the first instance. While the scope of review under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is narrow, and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency, the agency nevertheless must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action. In reviewing that explanation, a court must consider whether the decision was based on a

Page 463 U. S. 31

consideration of the relevant factors and whether there was a clear error of judgment. Pp. 463 U. S. 40-44.

(b) The Court of Appeals correctly found that the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of judicial review applied to rescission of agency regulations, but erred in intensifying the scope of its review based upon its reading of legislative events. While an agency's interpretation of a statute may be confirmed or ratified by subsequent congressional failure to change that interpretation, here, even an unequivocal ratification of the passive restraint requirement would not connote approval or disapproval of NHTSA's later decision to rescind the requirement. That decision remains subject to the "arbitrary and capricious" standard. Pp. 463 U. S. 44-46.

(c) The first reason for finding NHTSA's rescission of Modified Standard 208 was arbitrary and capricious is that it apparently gave no consideration to modifying the Standard to require that airbag technology be utilized. Even if NHTSA's conclusion that detachable automatic seatbelts will not attain anticipated safety benefits because so many individuals will detach the mechanism were acceptable in its entirety, standing alone, it would not justify any more than an amendment of the Standard to disallow compliance by means of one technology which will not provide effective passenger protection. It does not cast doubt on the need for a passive restraint requirement or upon the efficacy of airbag technology. The airbag is more than a policy alternative to the passive restraint requirement; it is a technology alternative within the ambit of the existing standard. Pp. 463 U. S. 46-51.

(d) NHTSA was too quick to dismiss the safety benefits of automatic seatbelts. Its explanation for rescission of the passive restraint requirement is not sufficient to enable this Court to conclude that the rescission was the product of reasoned decisionmaking. The agency took no account of the critical difference between detachable automatic seatbelts and current manual seatbelts, failed to articulate a basis for not requiring nondetachable belts, and thus failed to offer the rational connection between facts and judgment required to pass muster under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard. Pp. 463 U. S. 51-57.

220 U.S.App.D.C. 170, 680 F.2d 206, vacated and remanded.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, and in all but Parts V-B and VI of which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 463 U. S. 57.

Page 463 U. S. 32

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.