Lukens Steel Co. v. Kreps, Civ. A. No. 79-1053.
Decision Date | 22 August 1979 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 79-1053. |
Citation | 477 F. Supp. 444 |
Parties | LUKENS STEEL COMPANY v. Juanita M. KREPS, Secretary of Commerce, Robert T. Hall, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and Phoenix Steel Corporation. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Robert M. Landis, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Stanley D. Wright, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Robert S. Fastov, Economic Development Adm'n, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C., for Federal defendants.
Robert S. Ryan, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., for Phoenix Steel.
Plaintiff, Lukens Steel Company (Lukens), a producer of specialty steel products with its principal facility in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, has brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the United States Department of Commerce and its officers and agents from providing direct loan guarantees to or for the benefit of Phoenix Steel Corporation (Phoenix), another producer of specialty steel with plants in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania and Claymont, Delaware. The EDA assistance to Phoenix which Lukens challenges is an offer, issued by EDA on March 19, 1979, to guarantee ninety percent (or $29,039,400) of the rental obligation to be incurred by Phoenix under a proposed "leveraged lease" of capital equipment. The specific projects for which Phoenix sought assistance are:
Lukens challenges three of these projects— the vacuum degasser, the heavy plate program, and the specialty finishing program, all of which are planned for the Claymont plant.1
Jurisdiction for this action has been predicated upon § 701 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 3211, § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-6, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 2201 and 2202. Lukens contends that EDA's approval of the lease guarantee was beyond the scope of EDA's authority and that it was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law" in that EDA:
Lukens instituted this action against the federal defendants only, and the Court granted leave to Phoenix to intervene as a party defendant. The federal defendants, Phoenix, and Lukens have each filed motions for summary judgment. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, these motions will be denied and the Court will enter an Order, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, holding unlawful and setting aside the EDA's action, findings and conclusions and remanding the matter for further consideration in accordance with this Memorandum.3
The assistance sought by Phoenix is part of an administrative program to assist the United States domestic steel industry. The program began with the convening by President Carter of a task force, chaired by Undersecretary of the Treasury Anthony M. Solomon, to investigate the problem of increasing unemployment in the steel industry. The task force, in its report of December 6, 1977,4 identified the following problems faced by the steel industry.
The task force concluded that federal assistance was needed to aid steel firms in financing the necessary capital expenditures for modernization and pollution control which would help to restore their profitability. The task force recommended that The task force further suggested that steel firms meeting all of the following criteria be considered eligible for loan guarantees and be given priority:
The EDA responded to the task force report by developing a program of loan guarantees for the steel industry, with funds to be provided under sections 202,5 2036 and 2047 of the Act, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto at 13 CFR, Chapter III. Specific guidelines for the administration of the steel industry lending program were published at 43 Fed. Reg. 16360 (April 18, 1978). The guidelines set forth the purpose of the program as follows:
The purpose of this program is to assist in providing the necessary financing to make facilities competitive, restore employment or sustain existing employment, or to make possible the establishment of new jobs.
Assistance is available to steel companies for the following projects:
In April, 1978, Phoenix applied for lease guarantee assistance under the steel program. On March 19, 1979, EDA issued its offer8 to guarantee ninety percent (or $29,039,400) of the rental obligations to be incurred by Phoenix under a proposed "leveraged lease" of capital equipment. Lukens challenges that part of the EDA guarantee which would assist Phoenix in acquiring the following equipment:
1. Vacuum Degassing—Vacuum degassing is a relatively economical method of manufacturing "degassed" steel—that is, carbon or alloy steel with low hydrogen or oxygen content, which is regarded as being of high quality.9 Phoenix proposes to acquire the basic equipment to perform a process known as "ladle degassing". In this process, a full ladle of steel is placed in a vacuum vessel, and the pressure is lowered.10
2. Heavy Plate—At the present time, Phoenix can manufacture steel plates in sizes up to six inches in thickness or "gage", 152 inches in width, and 720 inches in length.11 However, when customers request the larger sizes (normally three to six inches in gage, weighing 25,000 to 30,000 pounds), Phoenix is required to supply two single plates to be welded together.12 The heavy plate equipment Phoenix proposes to acquire, consisting largely of new pits to heat ingots and new cranes to handle the heavier plates, will permit it to manufacture the large plates in a single form.13 This is a less costly process than welding two smaller plates.14
3. Specialty Finishing—Currently, Phoenix processes three products in its 2100° Driver furnace—carbon and alloy plate, clad plate and stainless plate.15 Because the heat treatment of these products is accomplished at different temperatures, it is necessary to operate the furnace at alternately high and low temperatures—an inefficient and costly method. Phoenix proposes to acquire a new furnace for the heat treatment of carbon and alloy plate, continuing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re PT Bakrie Telecom TBK
...be supported by ‘substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole’ ") (internal citations omitted); Lukens Steel Co. v. Kreps , 477 F. Supp. 444, 451 (E.D. Pa. 1979) ("In applying the arbitrary and capricious standard, the court's review is confined to the administrative record, whe......
-
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle
...U.S. at 331, 96 S.Ct. 579, 582, 46 L.Ed.2d 533; Abbott Laboratories v. Harris, 481 F.Supp. 74, 78 (N.D.Ill.1979); Lukens Steel Co. v. Kreps, 477 F.Supp. 444, 451 (E.D.Pa.1979); Philadelphia Council of Neighborhood Organizations v. Coleman, 437 F.Supp. 1341, 1347-50 (E.D.Pa.1977), aff'd mem.......
-
Buckingham Tp. v. Wykle
...ripe for summary judgment), rev'd on other grounds, 401 U.S. 402, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). See also Lukens Steel Co. v. Kreps, 477 F.Supp. 444, 446 n. 3 (E.D.Pa.1979) (denial of summary judgment in administrative action generally means opposing party is entitled to judgment base......
-
Buckingham Township v. Wykle, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-621 (E.D. Pa. 6/21/2001), CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-621.
...administrative action ripe for summary judgment), rev'd on other grounds, 401 U.S. 402 (1971). See also Lukens Steel Co. v. Kreps, 477 F. Supp. 444, 446 n. 3 (E.D.Pa. 1979) (denial of summary judgment in administrative action generally means opposing party is entitled to judgment based on t......