© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: A truck engine is tested for pollution exiting its exhaust pipe as California Air Resources field representatives (unseen) work a checkpoint set up to inspect heavy-duty trucks traveling near the Mexican-U.S. border in Otay Mesa, California Se
By David Shepardson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A group representing heavy-duty truck and engine companies withdrew a lawsuit over emissions standards rollouts that it filed against the California Air Resources Board (CARB), court records showed.
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association said on Thursday its lawsuit was intended to ensure California regulators provided manufacturers at least four years of lead time before implementing new heavy-duty engine emission standards.
The group said it wanted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which must grant a waiver for California to proceed, to confirm a federal lead-time requirement applies to CARB.
In December, CARB adopted a series of emissions standards that would apply to new 2024 on-road medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
CARB noted that heavy-duty vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds comprised only 3% of all vehicles on California roads, but were responsible for more than 50% of nitrogen oxides and fine particle diesel pollution.
The group, which includes Cummins (NYSE:), Daimler (OTC:) Truck, Caterpillar (NYSE:), Paccar (NASDAQ:) and others, said its members “support the nationwide implementation of more stringent tailpipe standards and are committed to transitioning the commercial vehicle market to zero-emission technologies.”
CARB chair Liane Randolph said on Twitter (NYSE:) the board was pleased the suit had been dropped and that it was confident that the EPA “will issue a waiver for these crucial rules and set strong nationwide truck emission standards that build on lessons learned in California.”
EPA did not immediately comment.
In March, EPA proposed new rules to cut smog-forming and greenhouse gas emissions from heavy duty vehicles. The new standards would begin in 2027.
The truck group had raised concerns about the proposal and said a successful rule “must be cost-effective, technologically feasible, and customer-acceptable …without hurting blue collar jobs.”
