# Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 18, 2008 · 538 F.3d 1172

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631090

## Case

- **Full name:** CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent; People of the State of California Ex Rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General; State of Connecticut; State of Maine; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; State of New Jersey; State of New Mexico; State of New York; State of Oregon; State of Rhode Island; State of Vermont; District of Columbia; City of New York, Petitioners, v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an Agency Within the United States Department of Transportation, Respondents; State of Minnesota, Petitioner, v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an Agency Within the United States Department of Transportation, Respondent; Sierra Club; Public Citizen, Inc., Petitioners, v. Department of Transportation, Respondent; Environmental Defense, Petitioner, v. Department of Transportation, Respondent; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Petitioner, v. Department of Transportation, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 18, 2008
- **Citations:** 538 F.3d 1172; 67 ERC (BNA) 1393; 38 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20214; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17629
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Siler
- **Judges:** Eugene, Fletcher, Hawkins, Siler
- **Cited by:** 134 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631090

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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”
- 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
- finding it arbitrary and capricious to assign a cost of $0/ton to emissions when none of the identified estimates was that low

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631090. Public record. Not legal advice.