concluding that the agency "must provide the necessary contextual information about the cumulative and incremental environmental impacts of the Final Rule" in light of other actions because, even though the rule's impact might be "individually minor," its impact together with the impacts of other actions would be "collectively significant"
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the agency "must provide the necessary contextual information about the cumulative and incremental environmental impacts of the Final Rule" in light of other actions because, even though the rule's impact might be "individually minor," its impact together with the impacts of other actions would be "collectively significant"
- holding that the plaintiffs “raise[d] a substantial question” as to whether emission standards would have a significant impact by presenting “compelling scientific evidence concerning ‘positive feedback mechanisms’ in the atmosphere”
- distinguishing the statute at issue in Donovan—where “no other language . . . modified the phrase at issue: ‘to the extent feasible’”—from the stat- ute before it, which stated that “‘maximum feasible’ standards are to be determined in light of” certain specified criteria
- holding NHTSA’s EA analysis inadequate when it quantified the expected amount of CO2 emitted by the action but failed to discuss the actual environmental effects the emissions would have on the environment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SILER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the conclusions by the majority on all points, with the exception of its conclusion in Section III.A.4. I would not find that the NHTSA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to adopt a backstop for a minimum level of average fuel economy. The majority admits that the EPCA does not require NHTSA to adopt a backstop. We must realize that the arbitrary or capricious standard is one that grants an agency a significant amount of deference. Its failure to adopt this backstop was not an act which ignored factors that Congress required to be taken into account. Under those circumstances, when the EPCA did not require the adoption of a backstop, I would not find that NHTSA acted arbitrarily or capriciously by failing to do so.