EPA Suing Navistar Over 2010 Engines
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on July 14 filed a lawsuit against truck maker Navistar International Corp. alleging that the company in 2009 began the manufacture of 7,750 heavy-duty diesel engines it offered for sale in calendar year 2010 that did not meet emissions standards applicable to 2010 engines.
“None of the subject engines were covered by a certificate of conformity [nor exempt from the prohibition against selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction into commerce engines not covered by a COC] when they were sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into commerce by defendants,” EPA said. “Additionally, each and every delegated assembly engine was ‘fully assembled, except for aftertreatment devices’ in 2010 and is therefore not a model-year 2009 engine.”
A certificate of conformity verifies that a heavy-duty diesel engine meets EPA’s standards limiting the emission of oxides of nitrogen and non-methane hydrocarbons.
The company could face penalties of up to $37,500 per day for each violation of the Clean Air Act.
“We dispute these allegations,” Navistar spokesman Steve Schrier told Transport Topics. “We believe our 2010 engine transition was appropriate, and we intend to aggressively defend our position going forward.”
In its complaint, EPA said that on Nov. 3, 2010, the agency sent Navistar a request “seeking certain information as part of an EPA investigation into Navistar’s compliance with the emissions standards.”
“EPA generally sought information from Navistar relating to the names, build dates, model years, vehicle information numbers, serial numbers, engine classes, dates of installation and assembly, and other information related to engine and vehicle manufacturing operations of Navistar,” the lawsuit said.
On Feb. 4, 2011, Navistar provided an initial response to EPA claiming the information being sought was confidential. EPA said it has determined that some, but not all, of the information submitted to the agency in a spreadsheet deserves “confidential treatment.”
