## Facts

- Congress enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to issue motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet safety needs, and are stated in objective terms.
- The Department of Transportation promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, requiring factory-installed front seat head restraints meeting federal performance requirements on all new passenger cars beginning January 1, 1969.
- Petitioners were two trade associations representing aftermarket accessory businesses and a manufacturer of aftermarket head restraints; they did not dispute that head restraints could improve safety but objected to a factory-installation mandate that would reduce aftermarket sales.
- Petitioners filed consolidated petitions for review seeking to set aside or remand Standard No. 202, asserting procedural defects in the rulemaking process and arguing the standard was substantively unlawful.

## Issues

1. Whether the Safety Act required formal APA rulemaking (APA §§ 554, 556, 557) rather than informal notice-and-comment rulemaking under APA § 553.
2. Whether the notice, opportunity to comment, and the agency’s concise general statement of basis and purpose satisfied APA § 553.
3. Whether alleged deficiencies in consultation with, or composition of, the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council invalidated the standard.
4. Whether the factory-installed head-restraint mandate was arbitrary or capricious under APA § 706(2)(A) or exceeded the Safety Act’s requirements of practicability and safety need.

## Decision

- The court denied the petitions for review and upheld Standard No. 202.
- The court held the Safety Act did not require formal “on the record” rulemaking and permitted promulgation through APA § 553 notice-and-comment procedures.
- The court found the agency provided adequate notice and opportunity for comment and a sufficient statement of basis and purpose for judicial review.
- The court rejected challenges based on advisory-council consultation and composition, reading the statutory consultation provisions as not imposing rigid membership or procedural prerequisites for validity.
- On the merits, the court concluded the standard was supported by the record, reflected reasonable safety judgments, and was not arbitrary or capricious, including the choice of factory installation over aftermarket alternatives.

## Legal Principles

- Formal APA rulemaking is required only when the governing statute requires rules to be made “on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing” or uses equivalent language; absent such a trigger, APA § 553 applies.
- Under APA § 553, an agency must provide notice, an opportunity to comment, and a concise general statement of basis and purpose; exhaustive findings or trial-type procedures are not required.
- Under APA § 706(2)(A), courts review safety standards for arbitrariness or caprice by asking whether the agency considered relevant factors and provided a rational explanation tied to the record, while affording deference to technical and predictive judgments.
- A safety regulator may select a compliance approach (including factory installation) that it reasonably finds necessary for effectiveness and uniform performance, even if the choice adversely affects aftermarket competitors, so long as it is within statutory authority and supported by the record.
- Advisory or consultative provisions will not invalidate a rule absent a clear statutory command imposing specific composition or consultation steps as conditions of rule validity.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld a federal head-restraint standard as a valid product of APA § 553 rulemaking and a reasonable exercise of delegated safety authority, rejecting demands for formal hearings and finding the factory-installation requirement supported by the administrative record and consistent with arbitrary-and-capricious review.


Auto. Parts & Accessories Ass’n, Inc. v. Boyd, 407 F.2d 330 (D.C. Cir. 1968)