Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. - 294 U.S. App. D.C. 35, 956 F.2d 321 (1992)

Rule:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Act), codified at 15 U.S.C.S. § 2001 et seq., requires every major carmaker to keep the average fuel economy of its fleet, in each model year, at or above a prescribed level. The Act holds manufacturers to a standard of 27.5 miles per gallon for model year 1985 and each model year thereafter, but authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify the standard, up or down. Where the agency chooses to modify, it must set the replacement standard at the maximum feasible average fuel economy level. 15 U.S.C.S. § 2002(a)(4). In determining "feasibility," NHTSA always takes passenger safety into account and maintains that safety concerns are relevant to whether the agency should adopt one corporate average fuel economy standard over another.

Facts:

At the behest of various parties, including one of the citizens' groups, respondent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) initiated a rulemaking proceeding on whether to reduce the corporate average fuel economy standard (CAFE) standards for model years 1989 and 1990. NHTSA quickly lowered the standard for model year 1989, but ultimately terminated its proceedings as to model year 1990 and left the statutory standard in place. On appeal to the court, the citizens' groups argued that the 1990 statutory standard would force carmakers to produce smaller, less safe cars and make it more difficult and expensive for consumers to buy larger, safer cars.

Issue:

Did the NHTSA offer a reasoned explanation for terminating its inquiry into whether to relax the statutory standard for model year 1990? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

After a review of the record, the court concluded that NHTSA failed to coherently address the citizens' groups' concerns, and that NHTSA failed to offer a reasoned explanation for terminating its inquiry into whether to relax the statutory standard for model year 1990. Refusing to defer to NHTSA's conclusory assertions for which no justification could be found in the record, the court remanded the matter to NHTSA for reconsideration and for a genuine explanation of whatever decision it ultimately rendered.