The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with NHTSA that economic benefit-cost analysis (maximizing net economic benefits to the Nation) is, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), an appropriate method to select the maximum feasible stringency of CAFE standards, but nonetheless found that NHTSA incorrectly set a value of zero dollars to the global warming damage caused by CO 2 emissions; failed to set a "backstop" to prevent trucks from emitting more CO 2 than in previous years; failed to set standards for vehicles in the 8,500 to 10000 pounds range; and failed to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than a more abbreviated environmental impact assessment.