Please disable your Ad Blocker in your browser's extentions.

Navistar rivals return to court alleging unfair competitive advantage

Navistar’s proprietary MaxxForce 15 was discontinued in September, when the company announced it would be using the Cummins ISX15 as its 15-liter option for International trucks.

Navistar’s proprietary MaxxForce 15 was discontinued in September, when the company announced it would be using the Cummins ISX15 as its 15-liter option for International trucks.

Navistar may have been victorious in a court ruling that declined to revoke its engine emissions certificates, but the battle is far from over.

Rival truck manufacturers returned to court Tuesday to argue that the EPA violated its own regulations in issuing the certificates in the first place.

The complainants, which include Daimler Trucks North America, Mack Trucks and Volvo Group North America, are challenging the EPA, claiming they wrongly granted Navistar permission to manufacture and sell non-complaint engines while paying a fine.

Daimler, Mack and Volvo say Navistar benefited from the “certificates of conformity” at the expense its competitors, who each pumped millions of dollars into the research, development and engineering of SCR engines that met tightening emissions standards while Navistar was allowed to sell non-compliant engines and assessed a penalty of $1,919 per truck.

According to Energy & Environment, attorney Chris Handman argued Tuesday on behalf of the group that the EPA could not consider the company’s previous work in making its decision, and that when the agency rewrote its regulations, it should have allowed for public comment.
D.C. Circuit previously agreed that the process should have been open to public comment, but the court dismissed Friday the case asking that the certificates be voided, based largely on the fact that Navistar is no longer using the credits.

E&E reports the EPA determined that “substantial work” was required for Navistar to meet the emissions limits by looking back to when the agency issued its 2001 standard. Based on that standard, and with Navistar floundering to catch emissions standards, the agency granted the certificates.

At issue is the definition of “substantial work.”

Daimler and its peers claim the term refers only to the future efforts to meet regulatory standards. And, since Navistar has implemented Cummins SCR technology in its trucks, meeting the standard didn’t require “substantial work” on the company’s part, Handman argued.

The three judges did not reach a conclusion Tuesday.

There are 6 comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Jason Cannon is the Equipment Editor for Commercial Carrier Journal and Overdrive, and is a Class A CDL holder. Reach him at jasoncannon@randallreilly.com.