## Facts

- The Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, issued amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requiring specified levels of “passive protection” in vehicles by designated model years.
- The standard contemplated “passive restraint devices” that function without occupant action (e.g., airbags or automatic belts) and was framed largely in performance criteria.
- Manufacturers argued the performance requirements effectively compelled airbags and thus forced development of new technology on an aggressive schedule.
- The rule’s compliance testing relied on anthropomorphic test devices using specifications associated with SAE Recommended Practice J963.
- Manufacturers contended the permitted tolerances for the test dummies were so broad that different dummies could yield materially different results, making compliance determinations unpredictable.
- After reconsideration petitions, NHTSA issued a later notice stating it would not find noncompliance solely because of variations among test dummies when a manufacturer’s testing showed compliance.
- Multiple manufacturers and an importer association filed consolidated petitions for judicial review in the Sixth Circuit, challenging the validity of the passive-restraint rule and the later notice on the administrative record.

## Issues

1. Whether NHTSA had statutory authority to issue safety standards that may require development or improvement of technology, rather than limiting regulation to equipment that already exists and can be readily installed.
2. Whether the portions of Standard No. 208 that measure compliance using the specified anthropomorphic test device satisfied the statutory requirement that standards be “stated in objective terms.”
3. Whether the passive-restraint requirements were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and were practicable and consistent with motor vehicle safety needs.

## Decision

- The court held that NHTSA may adopt performance standards that can require manufacturers to develop new equipment or improve existing technology; the statute was not limited to then-current, readily installable devices.
- The court rejected the broad challenge that the passive-restraint approach was unsupported by substantial evidence or inherently impracticable, largely sustaining the standard on those grounds.
- The court held that the test-dummy-dependent portions failed the statutory “objective terms” requirement because the dummy specifications permitted variability sufficient to produce inconsistent pass/fail outcomes.
- The court concluded that an agency assurance of enforcement restraint regarding dummy variation did not cure the lack of objective regulatory specifications.
- The court invalidated and remanded the defective test-dummy-dependent provisions for further agency action, while otherwise leaving the remainder of the standard generally intact.

## Legal Principles

- Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA may issue forward-looking, performance-based standards that can pressure or require technological development, so long as statutory criteria are met.
- The statutory requirement that safety standards be “stated in objective terms” demands reproducible, sufficiently specified test methods and compliance measures that allow regulated parties to determine compliance with reasonable certainty.
- A regulation is vulnerable where compliance turns on testing variables so loosely specified that identical products may pass or fail depending on the test device used.
- Agency policy statements about how noncompliance will be assessed cannot substitute for objective, enforceable regulatory specifications required by statute.
- In reviewing safety standards, the court applies the statute’s substantial-evidence and practicability constraints to the administrative record as a whole.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld NHTSA’s authority to impose technology-forcing passive-restraint performance requirements under the Safety Act, but set aside and remanded the portions of the rule tied to inadequately specified crash-test dummy measures because they were not stated in objectively verifiable terms.


Chrysler Corp. v. Dep’t of Transp., 472 F.2d 659 (6th Cir. 1972)