Navistar International Corp. said it has resolved its lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over the types of technology to be used in new diesel engines.
Navistar early last year had asked a federal appeals court to void EPA’s polices because it said they had been adopted without the public process required by law, following input only from the engine makers who use selective catalytic reduction technology.
The company said EPA’s guidance on SCR certification was a “dramatic change” that ignored the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act by failing to issue a rule properly documenting EPA’s shift from 2001, when it had questioned the feasibility of SCR. (Click here for previous story.)
Navistar said that under the suit’s settlement terms, EPA has agreed hold a public workshop or hearing to address issues the truck and engine maker raised in its appeal.
The agreement provides that EPA will “engage in a public process to reexamine its policies, for future 2011 and later model year engines” during which it will “provide a thorough review of EPA’s policies regarding operation of SCR-equipped engines.”
EPA also has promised to “ensure, among other things, that SCR equipped heavy duty diesel engines are designed to properly control emissions as required under applicable regulations,” Navistar said in a statement.
Last month, Navistar settled a similar suit with the California Air Resources Board, in which CARB agreed to hold a public workshop this summer on engine technology issues. (Click here for previous story.)
Navistar is using advanced version of exhaust gas recirculation, or EGR, the technology of choice for all the major players to meet emissions rules from 2002 through 2009, to meet the new, stricter standard.
That is in contrast with competitors Daimler AG, Volvo AB, Paccar Inc. and Cummins Inc., which are using SCR. (See related Opinion piece from April 8 issue.)
An affidavit by a top Navistar engineer — part of a 154-page Navistar court filing late last year — blamed EPA for helping to create confusion over the company ability to meet 2010 emissions standards. (Click here for previous coverage.)
