A federal appeals court recently rejected a weak standard, issued by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), to guard against under-inflated tires, calling it “contrary to the law and arbitrary and capricious.” The rule, issued in June of 2002, allowed manufacturers to choose between installing a “direct” system or a less reliable, yet cheaper, “indirect” system. A direct system relies on a pressure sensor in each tire that can alert the driver of an under-inflated tire through a dashboard monitor. An indirect system works with anti-lock brakes to measure the rotational difference between the tires, determining whether the speed is slower for one tire compared to the others. Public Citizen, New York Public Interest Research Group, and the Center for Auto Safety challenged the measure in court -- arguing that NHTSA, under pressure from the auto industry, failed to comply with the spirit of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act in adopting the less safe standard. The court agreed, noting that the indirect system would fail “to warn drivers in approximately half of the instances in which tires are significantly under-inflated,” while the direct system “would prevent more injuries, save more lives, and be more cost-effective.” The three-judge panel instructed NHTSA to develop new standards. “This decision will block the pro-industry, anti-consumer, deregulatory campaign of the Bush Administration,” said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. The ruling comes as a rebuke to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which insisted that NHTSA include the less stringent monitoring systems as an option under the rule. As OMB Watch pointed out at the time, OIRA forced NHTSA to make these changes based on what appeared to be a willful misinterpretation of the evidence.