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

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · November 14, 2007 · 508 F.3d 508

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9864152

## 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:** November 14, 2007
- **Citations:** 508 F.3d 508; 2007 WL 3378240
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Siler
- **Judges:** Fletcher, Siler, Hawkins
- **Nature of suit:** Agency
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9864152

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting in the context of EPCA that NHTSA has “discretion to balance the factors — as long as NHTSA’s balancing does not undermine the fundamental purpose of the EPCA: energy conservation”

## 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/9864152. Public record. Not legal advice.