geier et al american honda motor et argued december decided may pursuant authority national traffic motor vehicle safety act department transportation promulgated federal motor vehicle safety standard fmvss required auto manufacturers equip vehicles passive restraints petitioner alexis geier injured accident driving honda accord restraints parents also petitioners sought damages district columbia tort law claiming inter alia respondents hereinafter american honda negligent equipping accord driver side airbag ruling claims expressly act district granted american honda summary judgment affirming appeals concluded petitioners state tort claims posed obstacle accomplishment objectives fmvss claims conflicted standard ordinary principles act consequently lawsuit held petitioners airbag lawsuit conflicts objectives fmvss therefore act pp act provision expressly lawsuit presence saving clause says ompliance federal safety standard exempt person liability common law requires provision read narrowly state statutes regulations saving clause assumes significant number liability cases save reading express provision exclude tort actions gives actual meaning saving clause literal language leaving adequate room state tort law operate example federal law creates minimum safety standard pp however saving clause bar ordinary working conflict principles nothing clause suggests intent save state tort actions conflict federal regulations words ompliance exempt sound simply bar defense compliance federal standard automatically exempts defendant state law whether federal government meant standard absolute minimum requirement interpretation conflict purpose saving provision preserves actions seek establish greater safety minimum safety achieved federal regulation intended provide floor moreover repeatedly declined give broad effect saving clauses upset careful regulatory scheme established federal law concern applicable provision saving provision read together reflect neutral policy specially favorable unfavorable one towards application ordinary conflict provision favors state tort suits saving clause disfavors least time however nothing natural reading two provisions favor one policy safety standard actually conflicts federal safety standard pp lawsuit actually conflicts fmvss act dot saw fmvss minimum standard way provide manufacturer range choices among different passive restraint systems gradually introduced thereby lowering costs overcoming technical safety problems encouraging technological development winning widespread consumer acceptance promote fmvss safety objectives standard history helps explain dot sought objectives dot began instituting passive restraint requirements always permitted passive restraint options public resistance ignition interlock device effect forced occupants buckle manual belts influenced dot subsequent initiatives version fmvss reflected several significant considerations regarding effectiveness manual seatbelts likelihood passengers leave manual seatbelts unbuckled advantages disadvantages passive restraints public resistance installation use passive restraint devices importantly deliberately sought variety rejecting airbag standard perceived real safety concerns threatened backlash easily overcome mix several different devices mix also help develop data comparative effectiveness allow industry time overcome safety problems high production costs associated airbags facilitate development alternative cheaper safer passive restraint systems thereby building public confidence necessary avoid fiasco standard also deliberately sought gradually passive restraints starting requirement vehicles requirement also conditional stay effect adopt mandatory laws rule state tort law imposing duty install airbags cars petitioners presented obstacle variety mix devices federal regulation sought federal regulation deliberately imposed also made adoption state mandatory seatbelt laws less likely cases assume compliance state law duty question turn considerations whether private party ignore state legal obligations likely state law actually enforced finally weight placed upon dot interpretation fmvss objectives conclusion tort suit one stand obstacle accomplishment execution objectives dot likely thorough understanding regulation objectives uniquely qualified comprehend likely impact state requirements reason suspect solicitor general representation views reflects anything agency fair considered judgment matter dot failure promulgating fmvss address explicitly determinative agency views presented lack coherence pp affirmed breyer delivered opinion rehnquist scalia kennedy joined stevens filed dissenting opinion souter thomas ginsburg joined alexis geier et petitioners american honda motor company et al writ certiorari appeals district columbia circuit may justice breyer delivered opinion case focuses version federal motor vehicle safety standard promulgated department transportation authority national traffic motor vehicle safety act stat et seq standard fmvss required auto manufacturers equip vehicles passive restraints ask whether act state tort action plaintiff claims defendant auto manufacturer compliance standard nonetheless equipped automobile airbags conclude act taken together fmvss lawsuit petitioner alexis geier driving honda accord collided tree seriously injured car equipped manual shoulder lap belts geier buckled time car equipped airbags passive restraint devices geier parents also petitioners sued car manufacturer american honda motor company affiliates hereinafter american honda district columbia tort law claimed among things american honda designed car negligently defectively lacked driver side airbag app district dismissed lawsuit noted fmvss gave car manufacturers choice whether install airbags concluded petitioners lawsuit sought establish different safety standard airbag requirement expressly provision act safety standard identical federal safety standard applicable aspect performance ed civ app like courts parties refer version statute throughout opinion recodified et appeals agreed district conclusion somewhat different reasoning doubts given existence act saving clause ed petitioners lawsuit involved potential creation kind safety standard safety act express provision refers declined resolve question found petitioners tort claims posed obstacle accomplishment fmvss objectives reason found claims conflicted fmvss ordinary principles act consequently lawsuit appeals thus affirmed district dismissal cadc several state courts held contrary namely neither act express fmvss airbag tort suit see drattel toyota motor minton honda america ohio munroe galati wilson pleasant ind tebbetts ford motor federal circuit courts considered question however found one rested conclusion act express provision see harris ford motor others appeals instead found ordinary principles virtue conflict suits pose fmvss objectives thus act see montag honda motor pokorny ford motor taylor general motors wood general motors granted certiorari resolve differences hold kind airbag lawsuit conflicts objectives fmvss standard authorized act therefore act reaching conclusion consider three subsidiary questions first act express provision lawsuit think second ordinary principles nonetheless apply hold third lawsuit actually conflict fmvss hence act hold ii first ask whether safety act express provision tort action provision reads follows whenever federal motor vehicle safety standard established subchapter effect state political subdivision state shall authority either establish continue effect respect motor vehicle item motor vehicle equipment safety standard applicable aspect performance vehicle item equipment identical federal standard american honda points majority said somewhat similar statutory provision different federal statute provision uses word requirements may well expressly similar tort actions see medtronic lohr plurality opinion breyer concurring part concurring judgment concurring part dissenting part petitioners reply statute speaks safety standard requirement tort action involve safety standard hence conclude express provision apply need determine precise significance use word standard rather requirement however act contains another provision resolves disagreement provision saving clause says ompliance federal safety standard exempt person liability common law saving clause assumes significant number liability cases save reading express provision excludes tort actions gives actual meaning saving clause literal language leaving adequate room state tort law operate example federal law creates floor minimum safety standard see brief amicus curiae explaining claim vehicle defectively designed lacks antilock brakes cfr safety standard establishing minimum requirements brake performance without saving clause broad reading express provision arguably might actions mentioned possible read provision standing alone applying standards imposed tort actions well standards contained state legislation regulations nonidentical state standards established tort actions covering aspect performance applicable federal standard even federal standard merely established minimum standard broad reading clause little potential liability common law remain state tort actions remain saving clause save found convincing indication congress wanted state statutes regulations also tort actions circumstances hence broad reading correct language provision permits narrow reading excludes actions given presence saving clause conclude clause must read iii said saving clause least removes tort actions scope express clause particular foreclose limit operation ordinary principles insofar principles instruct us read statutes state laws including rules actually conflict statute federal standards promulgated thereunder fidelity fed sav loan assn de la cuesta petitioners concede must light freightliner myrick provision foreclose negative implication possibility implied conflict discussing cipollone liggett group argue saving clause effect recognize previously considered effect statute language appeared leave open question extent saving clause saves tort actions conflict federal regulations promulgated act see freightliner supra declining address whether saving clause prevents manufacturer us ing federal safety standard immunize state liability conclude saving clause like express provision bar ordinary working conflict principles nothing language saving clause suggests intent save tort actions conflict federal regulations words ompliance exempt ed sound simply bar special kind defense namely defense compliance federal standard automatically exempts defendant state law whether federal government meant standard absolute requirement minimum one see restatement third torts products liability comment distinguishing compliance defense federal claim difficult understand congress insisted precondition provision applicability wished act save tort actions regardless potential threat objectives federal safety standards promulgated act interpretation conflict purpose saving provision say rendering ineffectual previously explained saving provision still makes clear express provision force tort actions thereby preserves actions seek establish greater safety minimum safety achieved federal regulation intended provide floor see supra moreover repeatedly decline give broad effect saving clauses upset careful regulatory scheme established federal law locke slip see american telephone telegraph central office telephone texas pacific abilene cotton oil find concern applicable present case conclude saving clause foresees foreclose possibility federal safety standard state tort action conflicts understand dissent disagree acknowledges ordinary principles apply least sometimes post opinion stevens neither believe provision saving provision together create kind special burden beyond inherent ordinary principles special burden specially disfavor cf post two provisions read together reflect neutral policy specially favorable unfavorable policy towards application ordinary conflict principles one hand provision reflects desire subject industry single uniform set federal safety standards state standards even might stand harmony federal law suggests intent avoid conflict uncertainty cost occasional risk safety many different cooks might otherwise create see basically preemption subsection intended result uniformity standards public well industry guided one set criteria rather multiplicity diverse standards policy favors state tort suits rules law judges juries create apply suits may similarly create uncertainty even conflict say different juries different reach different decisions similar facts hand saving clause reflects congressional determination occasional nonuniformity small price pay system juries create also enforce safety standards simultaneously providing necessary compensation victims policy disfavors least time find nothing natural reading two provisions favor one set policies safety standard actually conflicts federal safety standard event congress wanted ordinary principles apply actual conflict federal objective stake principle needed absence state law impose legal duties conflict directly federal regulatory mandates say premising liability upon presence windshield retention requirements federal law requires see cfr insofar petitioners argument permit actions actually conflict federal regulations take enforce federal law ability achieve law congressionally mandated objectives constitution operation ordinary principles seeks protect extent interpretation saving provision reads particular federal law toleration conflict principles otherwise forbid permits law defeat objectives potentially put destroy supra quoting abilene cotton supra claim congress lacks constitutional power write statute mandates complex type relationship cf post reason believe congress done dissent said contends nonetheless express saving provisions taken together create special burden must impose party claims conflict principles post nothing safety act language refers special burden one find basis special burden precedents true freightliner myrick said context interpreting safety act best inference express clause forecloses implied emphasis added made statement course rejecting absolute argument presence express provision entirely foreclosed possibility conflict statement headed qualifier best made case without need inferences special burdens state law obviously survive see simply preserves legal possibility hold safety act create special burden still less burden necessarily arises limits express provision considerations language purpose administrative workability together principles underlying doctrine discussed make clear express provision imposes unusual special burden similar reasons see basis interpreting saving clause impose burden special burden also promise practical difficulty complicating principles already difficult apply dissent contend special burden apply case state law penalizes federal law requires case impossibility see post apply case apply describing conflict spoken state law circumstances th particular case stands obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives congress whether obstacle goes name conflicting contrary repugnance difference irreconcilability inconsistency violation curtailment interference like hines davidowitz see jones rath packing previously driven legal wedge terminological one conflicts prevent frustrate accomplishment federal objective conflicts make impossible private parties comply state federal law rather said forms conflicting state law nullified supremacy clause de la cuesta assumed congress want either kind conflict thus refused read general saving provisions tolerate actual conflict cases involving impossibility see see also chicago north western transp kalo brick tile see grounds attempting distinguish among types conflict purposes analyzing whether conflict warrants particular case kind analysis moreover engender legal uncertainty inevitable systemwide costs conflicts delay expense courts tried sensibly distinguish among varieties conflict often shade one applying complicated rule many federal statutes contain form express provision saving provision nothing statute suggests congress wanted complicate ordinary principles conflict added special burden indeed dissent willingness impose special burden stems ultimately view conflict freewheeling inadequately considered doctrine might well eliminate post word ordinary principles grounded longstanding precedent hines supra apply complicate law complex new doctrine iv basic question whether airbag action like one us actually conflicts fmvss hold petitioners dissent view fmvss sets minimum airbag standard far fmvss concerned airbags sooner better secretary view dot comments accompanied promulgation fmvss make clear standard deliberately provided manufacturer range choices among different passive restraint devices choices bring mix different devices introduced gradually time fmvss thereby lower costs overcome technical safety problems encourage technological development win widespread consumer acceptance promote fmvss safety objectives see generally fed reg history fmvss helps explain dot sought objectives see generally motor vehicle mfrs assn state farm mut automobile ins dot understanding seatbelts save many lives required manufacturers install manual seat belts automobiles fed reg became apparent however occupants simply buckle belts see fed reg dot began investigate feasibility requiring passive restraints airbags automatic seatbelts ibid amended fmvss include passive protection requirements fed reg making clear airbags one several equally acceptable devices neither favored expected introduction airbag systems ibid added express provision permitting compliance use nondetachable passive belts fed reg mandated full passive protection front seat occupants vehicles manufactured august fed reg although agency focus originally airbags fed reg notice proposed rulemaking state farm see also noting view commentators fmvss de facto airbag state passive restraint technology point fmvss formally require use airbags start permitted passive restraint options dot gave manufacturers choice new vehicles manufactured august manufacturers either install passive restraint device automatic seatbelts airbags retain manual belts add ignition interlock device effect forced occupants buckle preventing ignition otherwise turning fed reg interlock soon became popular manufacturers agency approved use detachable automatic seatbelts conditioned approval providing systems must include interlock system continuous warning buzzer encourage reattachment belt fed reg interlock buzzer devices unpopular public congress responding public pressure passed law forbade dot requiring permitting compliance means devices motor vehicle schoolbus safety amendments stat previously codified experience influenced dot subsequent passive restraint initiatives dot secretary william coleman fearing continued public resistance suspended passive restraint requirements sought win public acceptance variety passive restraint devices demonstration project involve half million new automobiles state farm supra successor brock adams canceled project instead amending fmvss require passive restraints principally either airbags passive seat belts fed reg andrew lewis new dot secretary new administration rescinded adams requirements primarily dot learned industry planned satisfy requirements almost exclusively installation detachable automatic seatbelts fed reg held rescission unlawful state farm supra stage set secretary elizabeth dole amend fmvss promulgating version us fed reg read light history dot contemporaneous explanation fmvss makes clear version fmvss reflected following significant considerations first buckled seatbelts vital ingredient automobile safety state farm supra start accepted ground used seatbelts unquestionably save many thousands lives prevent tens thousands crippling injuries second despite enormous unnecessary risks passenger runs buckling manual lap shoulder belts front seat passengers leave manual seatbelts unbuckled fed reg estimating front seat passengers buckled manual belts third airbags make dangers caused unbuckled manual belts make entirely concluding although airbag plus lap shoulder belt effective system airbags alone less effective buckled manual lap shoulder belts fourth passive restraint systems disadvantages example dangers associated intrusiveness corresponding public dislike nondetachable automatic belts fifth airbags brought special risks safety risk danger occupants usually children small cars see also fed reg finding confirmed fatalities april amending rule add new requirements test procedures injury criteria ensure future air bags designed create less risk serious injuries current air bags particularly small women young children dept transportation national highway traffic safety administration national accident sampling system crashworthiness data system viii finding airbags caused approximately injuries sixth airbags expected significantly expensive passive restraint devices raising average cost vehicle price full frontal airbags cost car manual lap shoulder seatbelts potentially much production volumes low fed reg agency worried high replacement cost estimated lead car owners refuse replace deployment see also estimating total investment costs mandatory airbag requirement billion compared million automatic seatbelts seventh public reasons cost fear physical intrusiveness might resist installation use passive restraint devices particular concern respect airbags noting irbags engendered largest quantity vociferously worded comments fmvss reflected considerations several ways importantly standard deliberately sought variety mix several different passive restraint systems setting performance requirement passive restraint devices allowing manufacturers choose among different passive restraint mechanisms airbags automatic belts passive restraint technologies satisfy requirement dot explained fmvss sought mix devices expected performance standard produce dot wrote rejected proposed fmvss airbag standard safety concerns perceived real associated airbags concerns threatened backlash easily overcome airbags way complying added mix devices help develop data comparative effectiveness allow industry time overcome safety problems high production costs associated airbags facilitate development alternative cheaper safer passive restraint systems thereby build public confidence necessary avoid another fiasco fmvss standard also deliberately sought gradual passive restraints required manufacturers equip car fleet manufactured september passive restraints increased percentage three annual stages new car fleet cars manufactured september ibid explained requirement allow time manufacturers develop airbags better safer passive restraint systems help develop information comparative effectiveness different systems lead mix airbags nonseatbelt passive restraint systems played prominent role otherwise result promote public acceptance course dissent points post fmvss guarantee mix setting ceiling different passive restraint device fact provided form extra credit airbag installation nonbelt passive restraint devices vehicle counted vehicles purposes meeting fmvss passive restraint requirement cfr fed reg dot bothered impose airbag ceiling practical threat mix desired arose likelihood manufacturers install many airbags quickly none years earlier secretary dole predecessor discovered manufacturers intended meet passive restraint requirement almost entirely installation affordable automatic belt systems fed reg state farm extra credit dot explained designed encourage manufacturers equip least cars airbags fed reg emphasis added responding comment failure mandate airbags might mean end airbag technology see also explaining extra credit airbags promote development may better alternatives automatic belts otherwise developed emphasis added credit provision reinforces point fmvss sought gradually developing mix passive restraint devices show contrary finally fmvss passive restraint requirement conditional dot believed ordinary manual lap shoulder belts produce amount safety passive restraints significantly lower costs auto occupants buckle see thus fmvss provided rescission passive restraint requirement september laws place like many nations required auto occupants buckle met requirements specified standard secretary wrote coverage large percentage american people seatbelt laws enforced largely negate incremental increase safety expected automatic protection requirement event enact mandatory laws passive restraint requirement remained effect sum dot tells us solicitor general version fmvss embodies secretary policy judgment safety best promoted manufacturers installed alternative protection systems fleets rather one particular system every car brief amicus curiae see fed reg petitioners tort suit claims manufacturers honda accord duty design manufacture distribute sell motor vehicle effective safe passive restraint system including limited airbags app complaint effect petitioners tort action depends upon claim manufacturers duty install airbag manufactured honda accord state law rule state tort law imposing duty terms required manufacturers similar cars install airbags rather passive restraint systems automatic belts passive interiors thereby presented obstacle variety mix devices federal regulation sought required manufacturers installed airbags respect entire portion new car fleet even though fmvss time required manufacturer nationwide fleet equipped passive restraint device thereby also stood obstacle gradual passive restraint federal regulation deliberately imposed addition made less likely adoption state mandatory law rule law petitioners contend stood obstacle accomplishment execution important federal objectives discussed hines see also ouellette de la cuesta finding conflict state law limited availability option federal agency considered essential ensure ultimate objectives petitioners ask calculate precise size obstacle aim minimizing considering risk tort liability successful tort action compliance effects see brief petitioners dissent agrees post cases ordinarily turn considerations whether private party practice ignore state legal obligations paying say fine instead likely state law actually enforced rather cases ordinarily assume compliance state law duty question occasion suggested tort law may somewhat different related considerations example ability pay damages instead modifying one behavior may relevant purposes see goodyear atomic miller cipollone cases found tort law conflict federal law without engaging kind analysis see ouellette supra kalo brick need try resolve differences however incentive compliance considerations upon dissent relies change legal result considerations rest speculation see post predicting risk airbag liability manufacturers likely response liability rest critical part upon dissenters view fmvss basic purposes view reject see post suggesting risk airbag liability made fmvss unnecessary others understand correctly seem less persuasive see post suggesting manufacturers complied mandatory state airbag duty installing different kind passive restraint device concluding put burden proving petitioners post simply find unpersuasive arguments attempting undermine government demonstration actual conflict one final point place weight upon dot interpretation fmvss objectives conclusion set forth government brief tort suit one stan obstacle accomplishment objectives brief amicus curiae quoting hines supra congress delegated dot authority implement statute subject matter technical relevant history background complex extensive agency likely thorough understanding regulation objectives uniquely qualified comprehend likely impact state requirements medtronic hillsborough county automated medical laboratories de la cuesta supra blum bacon kalo brick supra reason suspect solicitor general representation dot views reflects anything agency fair considered judgment matter auer robbins cf hillsborough county supra expressing reluctance absence strong evidence find actual conflict state law federal regulation agency promulgated regulation time regulation promulgated subsequently concluded conflict existed failure federal register address explicitly thus determinative dissent require formal agency statement intent prerequisite concluding conflict exists relies cases portions thereof involve conflict see post california coastal granite rock hillsborough supra conflict different turns identification actual conflict express statement intent english see hillsborough supra jones fundamentally question congressional intent english supra traditionally distinguishes express implied intent treats conflict instance latter see freightliner english supra see also cipollone scalia concurring judgment part dissenting part though looked specific statement intent claimed mere volume complexity agency regulations demonstrate implicit intent displace state law particular area hillsborough supra see post field never required specific formal agency statement identifying conflict order conclude conflict fact exists indeed one assume congress agency ordinarily intend permit significant conflict certainly accept dissent basic position find readily absence clear evidence conflict english supra reasons set find evidence insist specific expression agency intent made rulemaking certain cases tolerate conflicts agency therefore congress unlikely intended dissent said apparently welcomes result least agency regulation issue post agree dissent agency views presented lack coherence post dissent points language government brief stating claim manufacturer chosen install airbags rather another type passive restraint certain model car design features particular car necessarily frustrate standard purposes brief amicus curiae emphasis added dissent says words amount concession conflict case post words say rather italicized phrase emphasizes simply leave open question whether fmvss different kind tort case one issue possible special circumstance concerning particular kind car might require airbags rather automatic belts suit seeking impose requirement escape say affect cars rule law create legal obstacle gradual objective petitioners claimed argued generally safe car must airbag see app regardless language fmvss contemporaneous dot explanation clear enough even without giving dot view special weight fmvss sought gradually developing mix alternative passive restraint devices reasons rule state tort law petitioners argue stand obstacle accomplishment objective statute foresees application ordinary principles cases actual conflict hence tort action judgment appeals affirmed ordered alexis geier et petitioners american honda motor company et al writ certiorari appeals district columbia circuit may justice stevens justice souter justice thomas justice ginsburg join dissenting airbag technology available automobile manufacturers years general agreement proposition safe car must airbag ante indeed current federal law imposes requirement automobile manufacturers see cfr question raised petitioner tort action whether proposition sufficiently obvious honda accord manufactured make failure install safety feature actionable theories negligence defective design holds interim regulation motivated secretary transportation desire foster gradual development variety passive restraint devices deprives state courts jurisdiction answer question respectfully dissent holding especially unprecedented extension doctrine preface explanation understanding statute regulation preliminary observations seem appropriate case federalism coleman thompson respect constitutional role sovereign entities alden maine raises important questions concerning way federal government may exercise undoubted power oust state courts traditional jurisdiction tort actions rule enforces today enacted congress found text executive order regulation unique origin product interpretation final commentary accompanying interim administrative regulation history airbag regulation generally like many rules contours precisely defined believe however fair state expressly adopted secretary transportation read follows state shall entertain tort action based claim automobile negligently defectively designed equipped airbag provided however rule shall apply cars manufactured september time secretary may require installation airbags new cars provided rule shall preclude claim driver wearing seatbelt automobile negligently defectively designed equipped passive restraint whatsoever claim automobile particular design features negligently defectively designed equipped one type passive restraint instead another perhaps rule wise component legislative reform tort system express opinion possibility however quite clear congress neither enacted rule authorized secretary transportation equally clear objectives secretary intended achieve adoption federal motor vehicle safety standard frustrated one whit allowing state courts determine whether advantages airbags become sufficiently obvious omission might constitute design defect new cars finally submit quite wrong characterize rejection presumption reliance history regulatory commentary rather either statutory regulatory text ordinary principles conflict ante question presented whether either national traffic motor vehicle safety act safety act act stat et seq ed version standard promulgated secretary transportation cfr tort claims automobile manufactured negligently defectively designed lacked effective safe passive restraint system including limited airbags app motor vehicle mfrs assn state farm mut automobile ins reviewed first chapters complex convoluted history standard unacceptably high rate deaths injuries caused automobile accidents led enactment safety act purpose act stated congress reduce traffic accidents deaths injuries persons resulting traffic accidents act directed secretary transportation delegate issue motor vehicle safety standards shall practicable shall meet need motor vehicle safety shall stated objective terms act defines term safety standard minimum standard motor vehicle performance motor vehicle equipment performance standard covers ccupant crash protection purpose reduce number deaths vehicle occupants severity injuries specifying vehicle crashworthiness requirements equipment requirements active passive restraint systems cfr first version standard issued simply required installation manual seatbelts automobiles two years later secretary formally proposed revision require installation passive occupant restraint systems say devices depend effectiveness action vehicle occupant airbag one secretary proposal led series amendments standard imposed various passive restraint requirements culminating regulation mandated restraints cars model year two commercially available restraints satisfy mandate airbags automatic seatbelts regulation allowed vehicle manufacturer choose restraint install however following change administration new secretary first extended deadline compliance rescinded passive restraint requirement altogether motor vehicle mfrs affirmed decision appeals holding rescission arbitrary remand secretary elizabeth dole promulgated version standard issue case standard provided passive restraint requirements beginning model year year vehicle manufacturers required equip minimum new passenger cars restraints honda accord driven geier equipped undisputed honda complied minimum installing passive restraints certain models minimum passive restraint requirement increased models models standard also mandated september new cars must automatic occupant crash protection fed reg see cfr response amendment safety act secretary amended standard require beginning model year new cars airbag driver right front passenger given secretary dole promulgated standard response opinion invalidating predecessor rescission passive restraint requirement provided full explanation decision require airbags cars phase new requirements initial delay designed give vehicle manufacturers adequate time compliance decision give manufacturers choice airbags different form passive restraint automatic seatbelt motivated part safety concerns part desire retard development effective systems fed reg important safety concern fear public backlash airbag mandate consumers might fully understand secretary believed however use airbags avoid possible public objections automatic seatbelts many public concerns regarding airbags unfounded although standard require airbags cars clear secretary intend encourage wider use airbags one basic conclusions utomatic occupant protection systems totally rely upon belts airbags offer significant additional potential preventing fatalities injuries least part american public likely find less intrusive development availability encouraged appropriate incentives see also noting conclusion secretary manufacturers airbags used conjunction manual lap shoulder belts effective system preventing fatalities injuries secretary therefore included period order encourage manufacturers comply standard installing airbags perhaps effective nonbelt technologies might develop rather installing less expensive automatic incentive use technologies standard provided vehicle equipped airbag nonbelt system count vehicles purpose determining compliance required minimum passive restraint requirement period cfr one oblique mention either text final standard accompanying comments possibility risk potential tort liability provide incentive manufacturers install airbags specific evidence intent preclude tort actions ii discussing issue appropriate note vast difference rejection honda threshold arguments favor federal conclusion petitioners ultimately prevail tort claims express opinion possible merit lack merit claims observe however even though compliance minimum requirements standard provide honda complete defense assume compliance admissible evidence tending negate charges negligent defective addition honda ultimately found liable compliance presumably weigh award punitive damages silkwood supp wd concluding substantial compliance regulatory scheme bar award punitive damages noting ood faith belief efforts comply government regulations evidence conduct inconsistent mental state requisite punitive damages state law parties called attention appellate opinions discussing merits similar claims despite fact airbag technology available many years promulgation standard standard applicable automobiles manufactured september given arguable basis defense exist standard promulgated reasonable infer manufacturers assessment potential liability compensatory punitive damages claims even without defense provide sufficient incentive engage widespread installation airbags turning subject honda contends safety act provision expressly petitioners claims also argues claims event impliedly imposition liability cases frustrate purposes standard discuss alternative arguments turn iii state statute administrative rule cause action conflicts federal statute axiomatic state law without effect art vi cl cipollone liggett group hand equally clear supremacy clause give unelected federal judges carte blanche use federal law means imposing ideas tort reform role separate sovereigns federal system long presumed state laws particularly provision tort remedies compensate personal injuries within scope historic police powers federal statute unless clear manifest purpose congress medtronic lohr gade national solid wastes management souter dissenting federal statute terms read sensibly effect presumption controls may inferred federal statute contains express provision task statutory construction must first instance focus plain wording provision necessarily contains best evidence congress intent csx easterwood safety act contains express provision saving clause expressly preserves claims relevant part former provides whenever federal motor vehicle safety standard established subchapter effect state political subdivision state shall authority either establish continue effect respect motor vehicle item motor vehicle equipment safety standard applicable aspect performance vehicle item equipment identical federal standard latter compliance federal motor vehicle safety standard issued subchapter exempt person liability common law relying legislative history discussing congress desire uniform national safety honda argues petitioners claims expressly success claims necessarily establish state safety standard identical standard perfectly clear however term safety standard used two sections refers objective rule prescribed legislature administrative agency encompass decisions judges juries resolve claims term used three times sections presumably used consistently gustafson alloyd two references federal safety standard necessarily describing objective administrative rule provision refers safety standard established state political subdivision state therefore naturally read convey similar meaning addition two sections read together provide compelling evidence intent distinguish legislative administrative rulemaking one hand liability distinction certainly rational one congress draw safety act given liability unlike legislative administrative rulemaking necessarily performs important remedial role compensating accident victims cf silkwood true three recent cases concluded broadly phrased commands encompassed claims cipollone liggett group thought clear provision federal cigarette labeling advertising act applied rulemaking bodies concluded broad command subsequent amendment requirement prohibition shall imposed state law include certain claims scalia concurring judgment part dissenting part csx easterwood clause federal railroad safety act expressly provided federal railroad safety regulations incompatible state law rule regulation order standard relating railroad safety held federal regulation governing maximum train speed negligence claim speed federal maximum excessive medtronic lohr recognized statutory reference requirement imposed state political subdivisions may include duties plurality opinion breyer concurring part concurring judgment concurring part dissenting part statutes construed cases differed safety act two significant respects first language provisions significantly broader text unlike broader language provisions ordinary meaning term safety standard includes positive enactments include judicial decisions tort cases second statutes issue cipollone csx medtronic contain saving clause expressly preserving remedies saving clause safety act unambiguously expresses decision congress compliance federal safety standard exempt manufacturer liability light reference liability saving clause congress surely included similar reference intended liability chicago environmental defense fund noting presumption congress acts intentionally includes particular language one section statute omits another disagree interpretation term safety standard meaning term used congress statute clear text sufficient establish safety act expressly claims order avoid conclusion saving clause superfluous therefore must follow different purpose limit possibly foreclose entirely possible effect safety standards promulgated secretary approach case practical effect reading saving clause statute given cumulative force fact expressly claims fact obviously intended limit effect secretary safety standards quite wrong assume possible implicit conflict purposes achieved standard effect obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives congress ante properly construed safety act imposes special burden party relying arguable implicit conflict temporary regulatory policy rather conflict congressional policy text regulation demonstrate claim iv even though safety act expressly claims honda contends standard force implicitly claims case recognized federal statute implicitly overrides state law either scope statute indicates congress intended federal law occupy field exclusively english general elec state law actual conflict federal law found implied conflict impossible private party comply state federal requirements state law stands obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives congress hines davidowitz freightliner myrick addition concluded regulations intended state law promulgated agency acting within congressionally delegated authority may also force fidelity fed sav loan assn de la cuesta case honda relies last implied principles stated freightliner arguing imposition liability failure install airbag frustrate purposes objectives standard text statute text standard provide persuasive reasons rejecting argument saving clause safety act arguably denies secretary authority promulgate standards moreover text standard says nothing persuaded honda overcome traditional presumption lacks implicit effect honda argues agrees risk liability presented claims vehicles without airbags negligently defectively designed frustrate policy decision secretary made promulgating standard decision view safety including desire encourage public acceptance airbag technology experimentation better passive restraint systems best promoted gradual implementation passive restraint requirement making airbags one variety systems manufacturer install order comply rather ment mandating use one particular system every vehicle brief supporting honda agreed submission argued manufacturers known might later held liable failure install airbags risk likely led install airbags cars thereby frustrating secretary safety goals interfering methods designed achieve brief amicus curiae least three flaws argument provide sufficient grounds rejecting first entire argument based unrealistic factual predicate whatever risk liability claim may prior promulgation version standard risk lead manufacturer install airbags even substantial portion cars realistic likelihood risk tort liability consequence need standard promulgation standard certainly increase risk liability even standard create previously unavailable defense likely reduced manufacturers risk liability enabling point regulation compliance therewith evidence tending negate charges negligent defective design see part ii supra given risk liability lead widespread airbag installation reduced risk liability hardly likely compel manufacturers install airbags cars even compel comply standard period installing airbags exclusively second even manufacturers assessment risk liability ultimately proved wrong purposes standard frustrated light inevitable time interval eventual filing tort action alleging failure install airbag design defect possible resolution claim manufacturer well additional interval resolution manufacturers compliance state law duty question ante modifying designs avoid liability future obvious period ended long purposes frustrated specter tort liability thus even without public given time secretary deemed necessary gradually adjust increasing use airbag technology allay unfounded concerns moreover even suits ultimately resolved manufacturers resulting incentive modify designs quite different decision secretary mandate use airbags every vehicle example extra credit provided use nonbelt passive restraint technologies period secretary hoped ultimately encouraged manufacturers develop nonbelt system effective airbag manufacturers held liable failing install passive restraints free respond modifying designs include system instead seems clear therefore potential tort liability frustrate secretary desire encourage experimentation better passive restraint systems public acceptance airbags third despite acknowledgement saving clause preserves actions seek establish greater safety minimum safety achieved federal regulation intended provide floor ante completely ignores important fact definition standards established safety act like british regulations governed number capacity lifeboats aboard impose minimum rather fixed maximum requirements see norfolk southern shanklin breyer concurring slip federal minimum safety standards state tort action hillsborough county automated medical laboratories program authorized standard thus set minimum percentage requirements installation passive restraints increasing annual stages requirements ceilings obvious secretary favored rapid increase possibility exposure potential tort liability might accelerate rate increase actually goal explicitly mentioned standard reducing number deaths severity injuries vehicle occupants gradualism independently important method achieving secretary safety goals presumably secretary put ceiling well floor annual increase required percentage new passive restraint installations similar reasons evident variety matter independent importance secretary although standard allowed manufacturers comply minimum percentage requirements installing passive restraint systems airbags automatic seatbelts encouraged install airbags nonbelt systems might developed future secretary act ensure use variety passive restraints placing ceilings number airbags used complying minimum moreover even variety gradualism independently important secretary nothing standard accompanying commentary history airbag regulation support notion secretary intended advance purposes costs without regard detrimental consequences tort liability achievement avowed purpose reducing vehicular injuries see silkwood disagreement honda government runs deeper flaws however brief government concedes claim manufacturer chosen install airbags rather another type passive restraint certain model car design features particular car necessarily frustrate standard purposes brief amicus curiae petitioners claims quite similar claim described government complaint discusses design features particular accord driver seat allegedly rendered unreasonably dangerous operate without airbag app distinction case particular accord driven geier included passive restraint kind honda chose comply standard minimum requirement installing passive restraints models fail see distinction makes difference purposes standard however anything type claim favored government particular model car contained airbag instead automatic seatbelt seem trench even severely upon purposes government honda contend behind promulgation standard variety passive restraints rather airbags necessary promote safety thus conclude government secretary behalf failed articulate coherent view policies behind standard frustrated petitioners claims reasons evident honda crossed high threshold established decisions regarding state laws allegedly frustrate federal purposes demonstrated allowing claim go forward impose obligation manufacturers directly irreconcilably contradicts primary objective secretary set forth clarity standard gade national solid wastes management silence lends additional support conclusion continuation whatever liability may exist case like poses danger frustrating secretary primary purposes promulgating standard see hillsborough county automated medical laboratories silkwood difficult believe secretary without comment remove means judicial recourse injured illegal apparently views question case close one ante relying secretary interpretation standard objectives bolster finding ordinary principles conflict ante therefore presumption control instead simply ignores presumption preferring instead put burden petitioners show tort claim frustrate secretary purposes ante noting petitioners arguments change legal result view important principles upon presumption founded however rejecting manner profoundly unwise presumption rooted concept federalism recognizes congress legislates field traditionally occupied start assumption historic police powers superseded federal act unless clear manifest purpose congress rice santa fe elevator signal virtues presumption placement power squarely hands congress far suited judiciary strike appropriate balance particularly areas traditional state regulation requirement congress speak clearly exercising power way structural safeguards inherent normal operation legislative process operate defend state interests undue infringement garcia san antonio metropolitan transit authority see morrison breyer dissenting slip kimel florida bd regents stevens dissenting slip terminix dobson thomas dissenting gregory ashcroft addition presumption serves limiting principle prevents federal judges running amok potentially boundless perhaps inadequately considered doctrine implied conflict based frustration purposes state law stands obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives congress hines davidowitz presumption important assessing reach federal statutes becomes crucial effect administrative regulation issue unlike congress administrative agencies clearly designed represent interests yet relative ease promulgate comprehensive detailed regulations broad ramifications state law addressed heightened federalism nondelegation concerns agency raises using presumption build procedural bridge across political accountability gap administrative agencies thus even cases implied regulatory issue generally expect administrative regulation declare intention state law specificity california coastal granite rock see hillsborough county automated medical laboratories noting easily implying inconsistent balance embodied supremacy clause jurisprudence stating agencies normally address problems detailed manner speak variety means including regulations preambles interpretive statements responses comments expect make intentions clear intend regulations exclusive fidelity fed sav loan assn de la cuesta noting inquiry initiated hen administrator promulgates regulations intended state law expectation shared executive serves ensure able dialog agencies regarding decisions ex ante normal procedures administrative procedure act apa presumption underpinnings properly understood plain honda overcome presumption case neither standard accompanying commentary includes slightest specific indication intent suits indeed mention suits commentary tends suggest see supra view however failure federal register address explicitly determinative ante secretary consistent litigating position since history airbag regulation commentary accompanying final version standard reveal purposes objectives secretary frustrated suits three bases blatantly contradicts presumption version standard consideration obviously afforded notice purposes might someday discerned history airbag regulation support claim notice proposed rulemaking led standard provided notice either final version standard might contain express provision commentary accompanying might contain statement purposes arguable effect finally plainly opportunity comment upon either commentary accompanying final version standard secretary ex post litigating position standard implicit effect furthermore identifies case upheld regulatory claim implied conflict based nothing ex post administrative litigating position inferences regulatory history final commentary latter two sources even malleable legislative history thus snippets combined broad conception doctrine untempered presumption vast undefined area state law becomes vulnerable related federal law regulation view however preemption analysis least matter precise statutory regulatory construction rather exercise judicial policymaking tribe american constitutional law ed secretary litigating position clear interpretation contained legal brief one arrived example formal adjudication rulemaking es warrant deference christensen harris county slip moreover precedents apa establish even secretary litigating position coherent lesser deference paid today inappropriate given secretary contention authority promulgate safety standards state law fact promulgate standard one quoted supra relative ease quite reluctant find based secretary informal effort recast version standard see hillsborough county automated medical laboratories requiring secretary put position formal rulemaking whether contemporaneously promulgation allegedly regulation later time need becomes apparent respects federalism nondelegation principles underlie presumption regulatory context apa requirement new rulemaking agency substantially modifies interpretation regulation paralyzed veterans america arena cadc national family planning reproductive health assn sullivan cadc neither text statute text regulation contains indication intent petitioners cause action agree unprecedented use inferences regulatory history commentary basis implied convinced honda overcome presumption case therefore respectfully dissent footnotes safety act recodified et seq changes made act part recodification process intended substantive throughout opinion shall refer version statute appeals airbag inflatable device concealed dashboard steering column automatically inflates sensor indicates deceleration forces accident exceeded preset minimum rapidly deflates dissipate forces lifesaving potential devices immediately recognized substantial experience devices estimated national highway traffic safety administration nhtsa passive restraints prevent approximately deaths serious injuries annually fed reg motor vehicle mfrs assn state farm mut automobile ins see cfr congress stated intend amendment secretary consequent alteration standard affect potential liability vehicle manufacturers applicable law related vehicles without airbags department required full compliance september likely manufacturers comply use automatic belts thus requirement department makes easier manufacturers use perhaps better systems airbags passive interiors fed reg response comment manufacturers likely use cheapest system comply new standard secretary stated believed competition potential liability deficient systems pride one product prevent ibid wood general motors collecting cases result different course petitioners brought tort claims challenging honda compliance mandatory minimum federal standard claims honda negligently defectively designed equipped airbags required current version standard restatement third torts general principles comment discussion draft apr actor adoption rejection precaution require actor violate statute actor found negligent failing adopt reject precaution cf ante discussing problem basing state tort liability upon compliance mandatory federal regulatory requirement question rather liability merits florida lime avocado growers paul holding federal exclusion state law inescapable requires inquiry congressional design compliance federal regulations state tort law physical impossibility restatement third torts products liability comment contini hyundai motor supp sdny see also restatement second torts comment negligence mcneil pharmaceutical hawkins strict liability subsequent history silkwood cast doubt premise see silkwood reversing ground federal law award punitive damages rev remanded remand regrettably always honored latter proposition scrupulously former see boyle technologies provision codified federal state opinions construing provision consistently referred shall follow practice section contains additional sentences nothing section shall construed preventing state enforcing safety standard identical federal safety standard nothing section shall construed prevent federal government government state political subdivision thereof establishing safety requirement applicable motor vehicles motor vehicle equipment procured use requirement imposes higher standard performance required comply otherwise applicable federal standard provision codified see nn supra full text provision read requirement prohibition based smoking health shall imposed state law respect advertising promotion cigarettes packages labeled conformity provisions act quoting public health cigarette smoking act stat quoting stat amended ed supp ii surely believe congress included clause statute avoid danger otherwise fail give term safety standard ordinary meaning contends essence saving clause foreclose implied conflict ante cases cites support point however merely interpreted language particular saving clauses issue concluded clauses close implied establish saving clause given statute foreclose implied based frustration statute purposes even importantly present purposes saving clause given statute deprive regulation issued pursuant statute implicit effect see locke slip international paper ouellette given act speak directly issue must guided goals policies act determining whether fact action chicago north western transp kalo brick tile stated text believe language particular saving clause unquestionably limits possibly forecloses entirely effect safety standards promulgated secretary remedies see louisiana pub serv fcc interpretation definition frustration federal purposes tolerat ion actual conflict ante tort suits allowed go forward thus textual basis concluding congress intended preserve state law issue think entirely appropriate party favoring bear special burden attempting show valid federal purposes frustrated state law cadc failure understand point correctly ante directly attributable fundamental misconception nature duties imposed tort law general verdict liability case seeking damages negligent defective design vehicle like geier lacked passive restraints amount immutable mandatory rule state tort law imposing duty install airbag ante see also ante referring verdict tort suit safety standard rather verdict merely reflects jury judgment manufacturer vehicle without passive restraint system breached duty due care designing product reasonably safe reasonable alternative design including limited airbags app reduced foreseeable risks harm posed product see restatement third torts products liability comment comment noting rooted concepts negligence strict liability verdict obviously foreclose possibility one alternative design exists use render vehicle reasonably safe satisfy manufacturer duty due care thus quite wrong suggest consequence verdict installation airbags enable manufacturers avoid liability future statutory rules orders see nader page liability compliance federal standards geo rev noting titanic complied british governmental regulations setting minimum requirements lifeboats left port final fateful voyage boats capable carrying half people board wade titanic end dream course allowing suit like petitioners proceed manufacturer installed passive restraint system particular vehicle even arguably pose obstacle auto manufacturers freedom choose among several different passive restraint device options cf ante compare ante disagreeing government view concluding duty requir ing manufacturers similar cars install airbags rather passive restraint systems present obstacle variety mix devices federal regulation sought ante noting agency views make difference contending government view issue recently one commentator argued doctrine obstacle supported text history supremacy clause suggested attempt bring measure rationality jurisprudence eliminating nelson preemption rev supremacy clause preemption occurs state law contradicts valid rule established federal law mere fact federal law serves certain purposes automatically mean contradicts everything might get way purposes obviously much less need presumption commentator also criticizes matters stand however presumption reduces risk federal judges draw deeply malleable politically unaccountable sources regulatory history finding based frustration purposes brushes aside specificity requirement ground cases relied upon cases implied conflict ante quite correct hillsborough california coastal cases field rather conflict issue distinction however take far like cases firmly establish conflict field alike instances implied definition turn express statement intent ibid see freightliner myrick noting field rests inference congressional intent exclude state regulation may understood species conflict fidelity fed sav loan assn de la cuesta given specificity requirement adopted cases involving implied persuasively claim requirement incompatible implied jurisprudence federal regulatory context see exec order cfr executive department agency proposes act adjudication preempt state law department agency shall provide affected notice opportunity appropriate participation proceedings exec order fed reg cf medtronic lohr discussing cfr fda regulation allowing state request advisory opinion regarding whether particular requirement exempt medical device amendments cases cited ante contrary city new york fcc example faced fcc regulations explicitly reaffirmed commission established policy local regulation technical signal quality standards cable television determining whether issuance regulations proper exercise authority delegated agency congress afforded measure deference agency interpretation authority formally expressed explicitly regulations see also capital cities cable crisp regulation fidelity fed sav loan assn de la cuesta action transmittal social security administration chicago north western transp kalo brick tile regulation express opinion whether deference appropriate situations merely observe situations presented hillsborough county automated medical laboratories noting agency expected monitor continuing basis effects federal program local requirements promulgate regulations local law imperils goals program