A Possible Unintended Consequence Of CARB '14 Regs....

I have said that California can not tell what other state registered trucks can or can't do to enter the state as long they enter the state under the purpose of interstate commerce. It does not matter what the EPA has said is alright because the EPA can't allow one state or a few states to do this, it is regulating interstate commerce at this point.

It isn't their right to do so under their agreement with the US to enter the country as a state, they have to abide by the federal government's right to regulate interstate commerce, not make up rules and regulations that force another state's truck to get special equipment to drive on the roads that are federally funded, which is almost all of them in California.

So until the state of California starts actually fining people and taking their trucks, their laws are meaningless. But once that starts to happen, there is a serious legal issue that needs to be resolved and a bunch of lawsuits have to be filed against the state by individuals and by the OOIDA (among others) to force at least one court case that reaffirms the feds right to regulate interstate commerce and define what a state can or can't do. Because there is a bigger issue that has to do with this, the feds right to regulate a lot of things that were and still are state's rights issues, like health care insurance. If the feds refuse to stop CARB, then that means that all the other regulations built on the foundation of interstate commerce clause no longer are enforceable.

 

Because the OD stuff is less restrictive than the STAA minimums. If the states were to try and make rules to limit trucks to sizes smaller than the federal standard, there'd be issues. CARB's rules are more restrictive than the EPA rules, and should not be allowed to be enforced on out of state interstate carriers. But don't hold your breath waiting for the current administration to anything about it, as they just as soon see it nationwide. And they've shown a propensity to ignore the law when convenient to the desired outcome.

 

It is true that the EPA tends to follow what Cali initiates, but that still doesn't allow Cali to enforce stiffer standards on interstate commerce. Imagine the outcry if no cars or motorcycles that meet 49 state emissions were allowed to cross into Cali.

 

But this isn't a 10th amendment right, it is a federal issue and here's why;

The interstate commerce clause was put into the constitution for one purpose, to allow access to markets of one state by another.

Restrictions to the markets based on equipment happened a bunch of times in the 30's and because of the war, it gave the feds a new problem to solve fo it was decided in the 40's that harmonizing the regulations was needed so the states got together to create an agreement that harmonizes their laws and regulations so the feds didn't have to step in and do it for them. Most of them eventually deferred to the fed's regulations but that seemed to happen in 1955 or 56. Overall this is a federal issue because the problem with CARB is that it steps on the interstate commerce clause due to the fact they are saying in order for you to access our markets, you need a special piece of equipment that your state doesn't require you to have in your state to operate. in other words a truck from Michigan can't be told it has to have a specific piece of equipment to enter the state without Michigan having to require that piece of equipment on the truck that is registered in Michigan,.

Yes I understand but that's a different situation altogether, no one is saying to you hauling a OD load that you can't come into the state because you don't have a unique piece of equipment, they are saying you need to tell us what you are doing and we have to make sure you are abiding by our safety rules by purchasing a permit to haul that OD load. Remember that road designs are governed by the state but paid for by the feds and this is where the feds could say "oh well here is the new design for all the roads in the country, you got to make them like this from now on" and the states can't do much about it except complain but they gave the right to spec and build those roads for their needs.

Again this is a different issue, the state of California is telling us because we need special equipment we can't enter the state and hence have no access to the markets in that state to transport our goods.

 

The issue of CARB over EPA was adjudicated in the courts years ago.
California won.
The main point being California had it's rules for exhaust and air requirements before the Feds did, so it was grandfathered.
California DOES have the right to enforce it's rules within it's borders and it is such a major market, it dictates what will happen elsewhere.
The auto companies quit building a separate engine for cars in 1969.
Trucks don't build 'California' versions.
Everything follows California's rules. As someone else said, 'As California goes, will go the rest of the country'.
The Feds have already proposed emission requirements stiffer than the current CARB requirements.
It will come to be.

 

Which one are you talking about, only one that I know of was about CARB regulations being stricter than the EPA and that was it.

While they have had the rules in place before the feds, it isn't grandfathered in. The EPA actually sets the minimal standard and they can have stricter rules.

Yes California has the right to enforce their regulations within their border ONLY for vehicle regisetered in California, they can't do it for vehicles registered outside the state.

As for the market dictating what happens elsewhere, not really dictating but rather just simplifying what companies are doing to cut costs.

Nope, that ended in the late 80s or 90's if I remember right with the advent of electronic fuel injection.

I don't know about trucks but cars were.

Yes this is true, they did but the problem is that:

1- we don't have a national program that forces retrofitting of emission controls like they do in Germany or other countries,

2 - that the states have to be involved with enforcing retrofitting if there is no national program,

3 - this has to all do with the fact that one state can't tell another one what to do.