840 F. Supp. 2d 357
D.D.C.2012Background
- Navistar filed suit against EPA challenging SCR-equipped Model Year 2010 diesel engines as nonconforming under the Clean Air Act and seeking a recall.
- EPA moved for summary judgment arguing Navistar failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- Putative intervenors Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Mack Trucks, and Volvo sought to intervene; Navistar sought discovery under Rule 56(d).
- The court granted intervention to the movants, denied Navistar’s discovery motion, and granted EPA’s summary judgment motion.
- The central issue is whether EPA has made an explicit, written determination that 2010 SCR engines do not conform to emissions standards; EPA has not.
- The court defers to the EPA’s interpretation of “determination” under Chevron and holds Navistar cannot force a recall absent an explicit determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention as of right granted | Navistar argues movants have a protectable interest and will be impaired by the case. | Court should assess intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2). | Movants granted intervention as of right. |
| Chevron deference to EPA’s interpretation of 'determination' | Navistar contends no deference or that discovery will reveal a determination. | EPA’s explicit-written determination is reasonable and entitled to deference. | EPA interpretation is reasonable; deference applied. |
| Whether EPA has made the required determination | Public workshop/public comment and revisions imply a determination. | No explicit, written determination has been made. | No explicit written determination; Navistar cannot compel recall. |
| Discovery motion | Navistar needs discovery to prove nonconformity. | Discovery would be futile; record shows no determination. | Discovery denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (court defers to agency's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes)
- Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (U.S. 2009) (agency interpretation must be reasonable and consistent with statute)
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (government immunity to adequately represent private interests)
- Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar, 272 F.R.D. 4 (D.D.C. 2010) (government cannot always adequately represent private intervenors)
- Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (four-part test for intervention as of right)