Fleet Management News & Business Info | Commercial Carrier Journal
Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/555101
LEADING NEWS, TRUCKING MARKET CONDITIONS AND INDUSTRY ANALYSIS T he federal judge overseeing the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association's lawsuit challenging California emissions standards dismissed most of the owner-driver advocacy group's litigation for a second time last month. U.S. District Judge Morrison England also transferred the case's remaining elements to a larger federal appellate court. OOIDA's 2013 lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board and some of its members, challenging the constitutional- ity of the state's tough emissions regulations, was dismissed in full last November. But a citation issued to one of the owner-operator plaintiffs in the case allowed OOIDA to revive it and bring its claims back to court. Chief Judge Morrison England, however, again dismissed OOIDA's prior claims but allowed the more recent claim made by owner-operator Jack Cody – relating to his citation for noncompliance – to remain. England transferred Cody's claim to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. OOIDA's prior claims were not dismissed on their merit but instead because, England ruled in October, the case should have originated in appellate court and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should have been named in the suit. EPA, he said, was a "necessary and indispensable party" in the lawsuit. OOIDA originally brought the suit in December 2013, contending that the requirement that truck owners retrofit 2006 and older model engines with diesel particu- late filters is unfairly costly to out-of-state owner-operators and, thus, violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. OOIDA also challenged CARB's emissions standards' impact on climate change. – James Jaillet T he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last month filed suit against Navistar International Corp., claiming the truck maker violated the Clean Air Act. In the lawsuit, EPA claims Navistar in 2009 installed more than 7,700 engines – in 2010 model-year units – that violated the agency's emis- sions standards that took effect Jan. 1, 2010. Civil penalties could total in excess of $300 million if Navistar is found liable – a fine of upwards of $37,500 a day per each violation. Navistar says that the manufacturing of the engines in question began in 2009 but was completed in 2010, making the engines legal for instal- lation in 2010 model-year units. However, EPA claims Navistar did not fol- low proper procedure in seeking "transitory" exemp- tions to use the engines. "Each and every engine was 'produced' in 2010 and is therefore not a model-year 2009 engine," EPA says in its complaint. "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." The suit further claims the engines were not covered by "certificates of conformity," a terminology that already has been before federal judges. In 2013, federal judges threw out an EPA rule related to its approval of heavy-duty truck engines that did not meet its emissions standards. The ruling came as Daimler, Volvo and others repeatedly challenged EPA over its decision to grant "certificates of conformity" to Navistar, which allowed the company to market engines that failed to meet emissions requirements and pay a nearly $4,000 fine on each noncompliant engine sold. – Jason Cannon Scan the QR code with your smartphone or visit ccjdigital.com/news/subscribe-to-newsletters to sign up for the CCJ Daily Report, a daily e-mail newsletter lled with news, analysis, blogs and market condition articles. Judge again dismisses most of OOIDA suit against CARB EPA sues Navistar Alleges company failed to comply with federal emissions standards Civil penalties could total in excess of $300 million if Navistar is found liable. 12 COMMERCIAL CARRIER JOURNAL | AUGUST 2015