Perspective on Regulatory and Legal Decisions

Given NHTSA s emphasis on the case of little net benefit in its analysis it is not surprising that the mandatory passive restraints rule was rescinded in October 1981. The reasons given were  

In 1982, when asked to review the NHTSA decision to withdraw the requirement for installation of passive restraints, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave the rescission a hostile reception. The court of appeals found the rescission to be arbitrary and capricious for three reasons  

In addition to finding this procedural inadequacy the court of appeals interpreted le slative activity over the previous nine years to constitute a congressional commitment to passive restramts and eoncluded that the rescission by NHTSA raised doubts about the agency s effort to fulfill its mandate.  

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on the case of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and on June 24, 1983 rendered its decision. The Supreme Court identified the ultimate question as whether NHTSA s rescission of the passive restraint requirement was arbitrary and capricious. It concluded, as did the court of appeals, that in terms of procedural adequacy the rescission was arbitrary and capricious because NHTSA failed to supply the requisite, reasoned analysis, but it did not accept all of the reasoning of the court of appeals. 

---