MacK Trucks, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
401 U.S. App. D.C. 194
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- EPA promulgated an Interim Final Rule (IFR) to allow nonconformance penalties (NCPs) for Navistar’s noncompliant engines without notice-and-comment procedures.
- The IFR set specific penalty rates and an emission upper limit, tying them to a regulatory formula established previously but not publicly finalized for these particular model years.
- Navistar faced imminent credit depletion and argued that delaying the rule would harm public interests, while Petitioners argued the IFR was procedurally defective and unlawfully constructed.
- The 2010 NOx standard required significant technology; Navistar relied on noncompliant engines while Petitioners complied using selective catalytic reduction.
- Petitioners sought emergency relief and administrative stays; EPA denied relief, and the petitions proceeded to merits adjudication in the D.C. Circuit.
- The court ultimately vacated the IFR for lack of good cause to dispense with notice and comment and remanded to EPA for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IFR was permissible without notice and comment under the APA. | Petitioners argue APA requires notice and comment; good cause unavailable. | EPA claimed good cause justified bypass. | No; IFR vacated for lack of good cause. |
| Whether Section 206(g) of the Clean Air Act requires notice and comment for each NCP. | Section 206(g)(1) mandates notice and hearing for NCPs. | Provision applies to initial rule, not every NCP; not a bar to good cause. | Not read to require notice for each NCP; nonetheless, good cause failed. |
| Whether Petitioners have standing to challenge the IFR. | Petitioners are direct competitors harmed by IFR’s competitive effects. | Navistar’s intervention is sufficient to defend the rule. | Petitioners have standing; injury traceable to IFR. |
| Whether the good-cause exception should be narrowly construed in this context. | EPA abused or broadened the exception to cover economic harm to Navistar. | The exception was properly invoked. | Good cause narrowly construed; EPA failed to demonstrate it here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (good cause review for arbitrary or capricious use of exception)
- Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (good cause narrowly construed; impracticability/unnecessary separate from routine)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F.3d 69 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (standing and injury in fact to challenge regulatory action)
- Am. Fed. of Gov’t Emps. v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (limits on use of good cause exceptions; emergency scenarios)
- National Petrochemical & Refiners Ass’n v. EPA, 287 F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (discussion of credits/ NCP framework in EPA rulemaking)
- Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (Supreme Court 1989) (interpretation of statutory notice requirements)