105 F. Supp. 3d 60
D.D.C.2015Background
- MTU America allegedly falsified emissions testing for its Series 4000 non‑road and marine compression‑ignition engines during a June 2007 test (e.g., unauthorized maintenance, fuel‑system changes, insertion of a catalytic‑converter‑like device, manipulation of atmospheric factors) and failed to record those actions as required.
- EPA voided the Certificates of Conformity issued on the basis of the falsified test after discovering the irregularities; MTU had already sold 895 engines relying on those certificates (the “Subject Engines”).
- The United States sued under the Clean Air Act seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief; simultaneously it lodged a proposed consent decree and completed the CAA notice‑and‑comment process (no public comments were received).
- The proposed consent decree imposes a $1.2 million civil penalty and injunctive relief requiring MTU to conduct annual compliance audits for three years and to remedy any identified noncompliance.
- The government moved unopposed for entry of the consent decree; the court reviewed the decree for fairness, adequacy, reasonableness, and whether it serves the public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the consent decree is procedurally and substantively fair | The decree fairly resolves the dispute, was negotiated in good faith, and remedies the violations | MTU consented to the decree and supports entry | Court: Decree is procedurally and substantively fair; entry granted |
| Whether notice‑and‑comment requirements under the CAA were satisfied | EPA provided notice in the Federal Register and afforded opportunity to comment | MTU does not contest adequacy of notice | Court: CAA notice requirement satisfied; no public comments received |
| Whether the penalties and injunctive relief are adequate and reasonable | $1.2M penalty plus three years of audits and remedial obligations appropriately deter and remediate violations | MTU agreed to monetary and injunctive terms | Court: Penalty and injunctive relief are adequate, reasonable, and appropriate |
| Whether the decree serves the public interest | Decree protects integrity of emissions testing and promotes CAA goals of cleaner air | MTU’s compliance obligations further public protection | Court: Entry of decree serves the public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. District of Columbia, 933 F. Supp. 42 (D.D.C. 1996) (courts give broad deference to EPA settlements and the agency’s expertise)
- Citizens for a Better Env’t v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 1117 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (court must ensure consent decrees are fair, adequate, reasonable, and in public interest)
- Envtl. Def. v. Leavitt, 329 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2004) (framework for reviewing substantive fairness and reasonableness of consent decrees)
- Massachusetts v. Microsoft, 373 F.3d 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (consent decree must fairly and reasonably resolve controversy consistent with public interest)