David Diersen filed a complaint against the Chicago Car Exchange (CCE), an automobile dealership, alleging that the CCE fraudulently furnished him an inaccurate odometer reading when it sold him a 1968 Dodge Charger, in violation of the Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Odometer Act or the Act). The Odometer Act requires all persons transferring a motor vehicle to give an accurate, written odometer reading to the purchaser or recipient of the transferred vehicle. Under the Act, those who disclose an inaccurate odometer reading with the intent to defraud are subject to a private cause of action by the purchaser and may be held liable for treble damages or $1,500, whichever is greater. The CCE had purchased the vehicle from Joseph Slaski, who certified to the CCE that the mileage was approximately 22,600. The CCE did not suspect that the odometer reading was inaccurate. After purchasing the vehicle, Diersen conducted an extensive investigation and discovered that the vehicle’s title documents previously listed its mileage as 75,000. Before Diersen filed this lawsuit, the CCE offered to have Diersen return the car for a complete refund. Diersen refused this offer and decided instead to sue the CCE under the Act. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, relying upon a regulation promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which purports to exempt vehicles that are at least ten years old (such as the one Diersen purchased from the CCE) from the Act’s odometer disclosure requirements. Diersen then filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment order, arguing that the older-car exemption created by the NHTSA lacked any basis in the Act and was therefore invalid. Should Dierson’s motion for reconsideration be granted? Explain.