EGR as the company's strategy. The company statement included Ustian mentioning "I have publicly been an advocate of customer friendly emissions control solutions which do not add additional costs to our truck and bus customers. While SCR is a means to achieve the NOx reduction requirement for 2010, it comes with a steep cost to our customers. Our ability to achieve our goals without adding customer cost and inconvenience is a competitive advantage for International." On November 24, 2008, Navistar revealed it would use EPA Credits in order to comply with the 2010 legislation. In February 2009, Ustian touted the benefits of EGR technology as a key differentiator for the company's engines. However, by now, the rest of the industry had chosen to use compliant SCR technology. Ustian disagreed with SCR, saying "the other thing that EGR avoids is the risks of an SCR strategy. Read the label on this and it will show you that there are challenges with keeping control of using this technology: 'Store between 23 degrees and 68 degrees.' So essentially it says you can't throw it outside. You can't operate it in conditions above 85 [degrees] or below 12 [degrees]. You can, but, it will put the burden onto the customers." Non-conformance penalties The EPA recognized Navistar's imminent non-compliance and created a system of Non-Conformance Penalties (NCPs) that included a $1,919 fine for every non-compliant engine that Navistar sold. To bridge the gap, Navistar began using EPA credits it had previously earned for being compliant in lieu of paying fines. In August 2012, Navistar stated they would run out of EPA credits soon. Only days earlier the EPA announced increased new penalties of $3,744 per engine. In March 2009, Navistar sued the EPA, claiming that the agency's guidance documents for SCR implementation were invalid because they were adopted without a public process and with input only from the SCR engine makers. Navistar and the EPA settled the lawsuit a year later. Further masking the EGR problem were high military sales. In the company's 2010 10K report, Navistar cited orders for MRAPs as offsetting flat commercial sales due to the recession. In January 2012, the EPA adopted an interim final rule that allowed Navistar to continue selling the engines subject to NCPs. Several Navistar competitors sued, and in June 2012 the same appeals court ruled that EPA's interim rule was invalid because it did not give