Public Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta, Docket No. 02-4237.

Citation340 F.3d 39
Decision Date06 August 2003
Docket NumberDocket No. 02-4237.
PartiesPUBLIC CITIZEN, INC., New York Public Interest Research Group, the Center for Auto Safety, Petitioners, v. Norman MINETA, Secretary of Transportation, Respondent, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Intervenor.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

ALLISON M. ZIEVE, Public Citizen Litigation Group (Scott L. Nelson and David C. Vladeck, of counsel), Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

H. THOMAS BYRON III, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Staff (Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Douglas N. Letter, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, of counsel), Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ERICA Z. JONES, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw (Adam Sloane and David M. Gossett, of counsel), Washington, DC, for Intervenor.

Roger C. Fairchild (Charles H. Lockwood, II, of counsel), Purcellville, VA, submitted a brief for Amicus Curiae Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.

Before: CARDAMONE and SACK, Circuit Judges, and PAULEY, District Judge.*

SACK, Circuit Judge.

The petitioners, three not-for-profit advocacy organizations, Public Citizen, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group, and the Center for Auto Safety, petition for review of the Final Rule on Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems, 67 Fed. Reg. 38704 (2002), adopting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 138, 49 C.F.R. § 571.138 (2002), which was issued by the Secretary of Transportation to regulate the installation of tire pressure monitoring systems in new motor vehicles. The petitioners argue that the rule is contrary to the congressional intent behind section 13 of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act, Pub. L. No. 106-414, § 13, 114 Stat. 1800, 1806 (2000), reprinted in 49 U.S.C. § 30123 note (2003), and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 393 (1966) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1996)) ("APA"). The rule gives automakers the discretion to comply with either a four-tire, 25 percent or a one-tire, 30 percent under-inflation standard. According to the rulemaking record, (1) the one-tire standard allows automakers to install tire pressure monitoring systems that fail to warn drivers in approximately half of the instances in which tires are significantly under-inflated, and (2) the four-tire, 25 percent standard would prevent more injuries, save more lives, and be more cost-effective. We conclude that the rule is both contrary to the intent of the TREAD Act and arbitrary and capricious under the APA. We therefore grant the petition for review, vacate the rule, and remand for further rulemaking proceedings.

BACKGROUND

This petition involves a complex web of statutes, regulatory actions, public comments, and factual findings whose history spans several decades.

The Safety Act

In 1966, Congress enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. See National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (1966), repealed and reenacted, without relevant changes, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Authorization Act of 1991, and recodified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq. (1994)) ("Safety Act"). The purpose of the Safety Act is "to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents ... [by] prescrib[ing] motor vehicle safety standards ... [and] carry[ing] out needed safety research and development." 49 U.S.C. § 30101. To achieve these objectives, the Safety Act provides that "[t]he Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe motor vehicle safety standards," and that "[e]ach standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms." Id. § 30111(a). When issuing standards under the Safety Act, the Secretary must consider the "relevant available motor vehicle safety information," "whether [the] proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate" for the relevant motor vehicle types, and "the extent to which the standard will carry out" the purposes of the Safety Act. Id. § 30111(b). Since 1980, the Secretary's general authority to promulgate standards under the Safety Act has been delegated to the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). 49 C.F.R. § 1.50(a) (2003); 45 Fed. Reg. 83407 (1980).1

The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On January 26, 1981, NHTSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting public comment on whether the agency should propose a new safety standard requiring automakers to install "low tire pressure warning devices" in new motor vehicles in order to improve fuel economy, extend tire life, and prevent motor-vehicle crashes. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Low Tire Pressure Warning Devices, 46 Fed. Reg. 8062 (1981). The agency explained that two different types of low pressure warning devices were then available: "in-vehicle" devices, which had a monitor in each tire that relayed information to a dashboard display, and "on-tire" devices, which consisted of a red warning-signal that was attached to the valve stem of each tire and was designed to protrude when a tire became significantly under-inflated. Id. The agency sought public comment on the costs, benefits, and reliability of the two types of devices.

In August 1981, the agency concluded that in-vehicle warning devices were too expensive and on-tire warning devices were too inaccurate to justify proposing or adopting requirements. The agency therefore terminated the rulemaking proceedings. Notice of Termination of Rulemaking on Low Tire Pressure Warning Devices, 46 Fed. Reg. 43721 (1981) ("Notice of Termination").2

The TREAD Act

During the 1990s, NHTSA received a series of complaints regarding tread separation in two models of Bridgestone/Firestone tires installed on Ford Explorers. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Standards Enforcement, Defect Investigation, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, and Record Retention, 66 Fed. Reg. 6532, 6533 (2001) ("Standards Enforcement"); Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems, 66 Fed. Reg. 38982, 38989 n.13 (2001) ("Notice"). In May 2000, NHTSA opened a defect investigation into the matter; a few months later, Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford recalled over 14 million tires. Standards Enforcement, 66 Fed. Reg. at 6533; Notice, 66 Fed. Reg. at 38989 n.13. In September 2000, Congress held hearings to investigate the events leading to the tire recall and to consider formulating a legislative response. See S.Rep. No. 106-423, at 2-3 (2000).

On November 1, 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act was enacted. See Pub. L. No. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq. (2003)) ("TREAD Act"). The TREAD Act addresses several issues raised by the Ford/Firestone tire recall, such as defect reporting requirements, see 49 U.S.C. § 30166, enforcement measures, see 49 U.S.C. §§ 30165, 30170, and "significantly under inflated" tires, see TREAD Act § 13. For present purposes, only section 13 of the TREAD Act, which addresses the issue of significantly under-inflated tires, is relevant. It provides:

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [i.e., not later than November 1, 2001], the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a rulemaking for a regulation to require a warning system in new motor vehicles to indicate to the operator when a tire is significantly under inflated. Such requirement shall become effective not later than 2 years after the date of the completion of such rulemaking.

TREAD Act § 13.

NHTSA's Research Findings

Shortly before the TREAD Act became law, NHTSA resumed research studies and rulemaking proceedings on tire pressure warning devices. In September 2000, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics ("BTS") completed a survey of drivers in order to assess the extent to which tire pressure levels are monitored. Final Rule on Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems, 67 Fed.Reg. 38704, 38713 (2002)("Final Rule"). The BTS survey asked drivers: "How often do you, or the person who checks your tires, check the air pressure in your tires?" Id. Seventy-one percent of the respondents claimed that they checked the vehicle's tire pressure levels less than once per month. Id.3

In February 2001, NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis ("NCSA") conducted a random survey of motor vehicles in order to assess the extent to which tires are "significantly under-inflated" — i.e., the extent to which actual tire pressures fall significantly below recommended levels. Id. at 38713, 38718. To make these assessments, the NCSA measured the air pressure on the tires of approximately 10,0004 passenger cars and light trucks, and compared those actual tire pressures to the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure for the vehicle's tires, i.e., the "placard pressure." Id. at 38705 (defining "placard pressure"); id. at 38713, 38718 (explaining the NCSA survey methods).

The NCSA survey produced the following findings:

(1) about 36 percent of the passenger cars and 40 percent of the light trucks surveyed had at least one tire that was 20 percent under-inflated, id. at 38713;

(2) about 26 percent of the passenger cars and 29 percent of the light trucks surveyed had at least one tire that was 25 percent under-inflated, id.; and

(3) about 20 percent of the passenger cars and 20 percent of the light trucks surveyed had at least one tire that was 30 percent under-inflated, id. at 38718.

In May 2001, NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center ("VRTC") completed a series of performance and cost studies on available tire pressure warning devices. Id. at 38708, 38715 & n. 27. These...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 6 Marzo 2019
    ...Where a decision-maker adopts a "plainly inferior" course of action, that decision is arbitrary and capricious. Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta , 340 F.3d 39, 56 (2d Cir. 2003). Defendants' decision to add the citizenship question to the 2020 Census is contrary to the evidence. This decision i......
  • New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Docket Nos. 19-3591
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 4 Agosto 2020
    ...seems plain to us that the difference is due to the high cost of providing healthcare in the United States. Cf. Public Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta , 340 F.3d 39, 58 (2d Cir. 2003) ("The notion that ‘cheapest is best’ is contrary to State Farm ."). The size of the government expenditure on Medic......
  • Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 28 Febrero 2005
    ...Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). See also Public Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta, 340 F.3d 39, 53 (2d Cir.2003). If Congress has "directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and "the intent of Congress is clear, that is the e......
  • Zsa Zsa Jewels, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 10 Octubre 2019
    ...Reg. 38,704, but that rule was vacated by the Second Circuit in 2003 on grounds that are not relevant here, see Public Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta , 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003). On September 16, 2004, the NHTSA published a new notice of proposed rulemaking, see 69 Fed. Reg. 55,896, and published......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in federal rulemaking.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 33 No. 4, May - May 2006
    • 1 Mayo 2006
    ...Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act upon which it was based. See Public Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta, 340 F. 3d 39, 42 (2d Cir. 2003). NHTSA issued a new final rule on April 8, 2005. See Rules and Regulations, 67 Fed. Reg. 18,129, 18,136 (Apr. 8, 2005). According to......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT