## Facts

- NHTSA revised Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 as part of an “advanced air bag” rule aimed at improving protection while reducing airbag-related injuries and deaths, particularly to children and small adults.
- The rule adopted an unbelted rigid-barrier crash test at 25 mph for front-seat occupants, with a scheduled increase to 30 mph in 2007.
- Petitioners Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for Auto Safety sought review of the final rule, arguing it violated TEA-21 and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- TEA-21 directed NHTSA to improve occupant protection for people of different sizes, belted and unbelted, and to minimize airbag risks, but did not specify a particular crash-test speed or protocol and permitted continued use of an existing sled-test approach unless changed by NHTSA.
- NHTSA justified the 25-mph test as more rigorous than the prior 22-mph-equivalent sled test and as a reasonable balance between improved crash protection and reduced risk from overly aggressive airbag deployment.

## Issues

1. Whether TEA-21 required NHTSA to adopt a higher unbelted rigid-barrier crash-test speed (such as 30 mph) and rendered the 25-mph standard unlawful.
2. Whether NHTSA’s selection of a 25-mph unbelted rigid-barrier test (with a phase-in to 30 mph) was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for review and upheld the final rule.
- TEA-21 did not mandate a specific test speed; it left NHTSA discretion to choose reasonable technical parameters to meet statutory objectives.
- NHTSA reasonably concluded that a 25-mph unbelted barrier test improved protection relative to the prior sled test while limiting incentives for airbag designs that could increase injury risks.
- The agency’s explanation reflected reasoned decisionmaking supported by analysis of safety data, modeling, and consideration of comments and trade-offs.
- The scheduled increase to 30 mph in 2007 supported the reasonableness of the approach by allowing development and deployment of improved technologies over time.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute sets general safety goals without prescribing specific technical requirements, an expert agency has discretion to select reasonable testing methods and performance levels consistent with those goals.
- Under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, a rule is upheld if the agency examined relevant data, considered significant trade-offs, and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
- Courts generally defer to an agency’s technical judgments in complex, safety-related rulemaking when the agency provides a coherent explanation and the statute does not foreclose the agency’s approach.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that NHTSA lawfully implemented TEA-21 by adopting a 25-mph unbelted rigid-barrier crash-test standard (with a later increase to 30 mph) and that the rule reflected reasoned decisionmaking rather than arbitrariness under the APA.


Public Citizen, Inc. v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 374 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004)