Chrysler Corp. v. Department of Transportation
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
472 F.2d 659 (1972)
The National Highway Traffic Administration of the Department of Transportation (the agency) (defendant) published Standard 208, an order regarding motor-vehicle safety and passive-restraint devices. Several auto manufacturers and airbag developers had been making progress in developing adequate airbag technology, a type of passive restraint contemplated by Standard 208, and were confident airbag technology would soon advance enough to be implemented in motor vehicles. The final rule was published as Notice 9 after a number of formal and informal meetings dealing with comments from interested persons. The final rule published in Notice 9 and subsequent notices required vehicle manufacturers to provide complete passive protection for occupants according to certain standards. The agency published Notice 12 as a response to petitions for reconsideration of Notice 9, stating that if a vehicle complies with the safety standards in a test conducted by the manufacturer, then the agency will not find the vehicle in noncompliance simply due to variations from different test dummies. The safety standards also set out criteria for crash-test dummies, which the agency recognized as inadequate for consistent results. Chrysler Corporation, Jeep, American Motors, Ford, and the Automobile Importers of America (the companies) (plaintiffs) challenged the validity of Notice 9. Three parties also challenged the validity of Notice 12. The companies argued that the final rule requiring passive restraints was essentially an airbag mandate and that the Automobile Safety Act of 1966 authorized the agency to establish performance requirements only for equipment that may be readily installed rather than requiring the auto manufacturers to develop and apply new technology. The companies also argued that the specifications for test dummies established by SAE Recommended Practice J963 allowed so much variability in test-dummy design that results of safety tests could not be reliably reproduced to allow for the evaluation of objective criteria. The district court found for the agency. The auto companies appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Peck, J.)
Dissent (Miller, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.