Opinion ID: 446520
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: 24 Our review of NHTSA's action is governed by the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1982). Thus, the agency's decision must be upheld unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Id. at § 706(2)(A). As we have recently been reminded, [t]he scope of review under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2866, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (State Farm ). This is especially true when the agency is called upon to weigh the costs and benefits of alternative policies, since [s]uch cost-benefit analyses epitomize the types of decisions that are most appropriately entrusted to the expertise of an agency.... Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 707 F.2d 1413, 1440 (D.C.Cir.1983). Our role is to determine  'whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.'  State Farm, 103 S.Ct. at 2867 ( quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971)). 25 Petitioners assert that because the agency has reversed a longstanding policy, this court must exercise a more [243 U.S.App.D.C. 124] heightened and exacting scrutiny, Brief for Petitioner CFAS at 14, and apply particularly careful judicial review, Memorandum for Petitioner State Farm on the Impact of the Supreme Court's Passive Restraint Decision on This Case at 7. Even accepting the premise that this 13-year-old rule, frequently targeted for revision on the basis of vacillating estimates of efficacy, qualifies as a longstanding policy, the conclusion is in error. 26 The Supreme Court has made clear that the same test applies to the rescission or modification of a rule as to its initial promulgation--the arbitrary or capricious standard of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (1982)--and that there is no difference in the scope of judicial review depending upon the nature of the agency's action. State Farm, 103 S.Ct. at 2866. The same presumption ... against changes in current policy that are not justified by the rulemaking record, id., exists whether those changes consist of enacting a new rule or of revoking or modifying an old one. To overcome the presumption the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action. Id. We proceed to analyze NHTSA's substitution of standardized-height 2.5 mph bumpers for standardized-height 5.0 mph bumpers under this standard.