CARB and older trucks

We all do, it is called the constitution and no state can force another states citizens to do something to enter that state nor can one state enact laws to limit or prevent access to the markets in that state. This is something that only the Feds can do and if the EPA adopts the regulations, then they will not be retro active, that isn't allowed because of the rules the EPA works under.

So if California wants their products to be sold in the rest of the nation, they have to abide by the laws of the Feds because if other states see that they are getting away with this, then they will enact protectionist laws to prevent California products to be sold in their state.

California has no legal leg to stand on when it comes to what they dictate to other state citizens or drivers or registered trucks. They have agreed to a law that says they have no power to regulate commerce in their state by regulating other states people and the courts have upheld this a lot of times, so it is a matter of time when California can only cite you for a missing emission sticker again and nothing more.

 

California has every right to enact ####### emissions regulations. I'm for cleaner air, by the way, but CARB rules are just stupid.

The interstate commerce clause prevents states from barring imports from other states or imposing taxes on interstate goods. It does not prevent enacting and uniformly enforcing laws. Try to transport alcohol without the proper state permits. Try to drive a 57' trailer in New York.

Ocean liners fought (& lost) similar rules that applied to ships from different countries

 

I too am for cleaner air.

That said, yes california can enact any emissions laws that want but they can not apply it to another state. They are equal to Michigan or New York in regards of having their laws apply to the citizens of another state (and their property - in this case a vehicle registered in their home state). there are a lot of issues about that, one is sovergnty of the state and the other is how the interstate commerce clause came about.

Actually that's only partial true.

It is there to prevent one state restricting access to their markets by another state. This is where free trade is the key term and includes by extension the use of vehicle to transport those goods (and services) to the market in another state. Seeing that this also has to do with a very important issue of federally funded roads, the outcome of the emissions requirements is the closing off access to those markets and further hampered by the feds with their powers to regulate the flow of goods and services between the states. This doesn't mean that California can't require a limit to a trailer, which was agreed to previously as was the equipment requirements of the trucks. No matter how you want to cut it, IF claifornia is allowed to do this, then everything that has built on the interstate commerce clause will now be questionable and the feds won't let that happen.

True they did sue and they lost but that wasn't about access, no one said that they can't enter the port but have to have specific requirements to do so and this has become an issue for those ocean going vessels not because of the state's rights issue but because of international agreements which are applied to other foreign ports. The issue here for us is the idea that the ports are not defined as markets. Which they are one access point for exports and how they are transported are still a federal issues (airports are just that international ports which are controlled by the feds) so when the LA port or SF port says to a truck from Nevada that they are not allowed there, it is the same exact issue as CARB.

 

It doesnt really matter. California will enforce the rules they want until if and when somebody stops them. The US EPA is in love with them so I dont see it stoping anytime soon. Im really sad that these people will still be running around with their old junk claiming they cant afford a new truck or retro fit when the case is that they are usually the one cutting the rates and have junk equipment. All they want is a job and we all know exactly the type of owner operators Im talking about

 

I do not agree with the approach California CARB has taken with regards to emission regulations but they have been granted permission for decades to do what they do. I do not think the rules should apply retroactively, meaning trucks manufactured prior to 2007 should never have to comply by means of retrofitting. They could reduce the fleet of older trucks by restricting their sale or transfer of ownership within the state like they are doing with older cars. As for the argument they can't enforce their rules on residents of other states, that doesn't hold water either. We all comply with the IRP (apportioned plate) program, meaning our trucks are California registered even if they are domiciled out of state and therefore subject to the rules of California. Given your argument about interfering with interstate commerce we shouldn't have to participate in IRP, or UCR to do business in any states other than our home state.

 

Im all for this law except for the retrofit part. You should not have to retrofit your older engines

 

The fact that people believe the rates will go up when they do enforce these worthless air quality regs just cracks me up. Just like when trucks went from 73,000 to 80,000 lbs, rates will go up, nope, never happen. There have been so many regulations that were going to force the weak out, and only the strong will survive, but the rates have never made any type of giant jump. Think of the money a DPF cost, or how much a new truck cost, and all the extra break downs the new trucks have, does anyone in their right mind think that the rates will go up that high to ever recover your cost caused by CARB regulations? Please! Be ready to work for the next 30 years to make up that money, rates won't move that much.

The best part about CARB, they are winning! Look at all the post on this thread alone. Truckers throwing other truckers under the CARB Bus in the name of higher rates. Re-read some of the post on this thread, it's this attitude that is the downfall of this industry.

 

What is exactly "Junk Equipment", I've seen older trucks including my own that are taken better care of than a truck that is one or a few years old. If a Truck can pass a Annual Inspection or a BIT Inspection it is Legal and Safe enough to be on the road. I'd be more worried about whose behind the wheel driving these days than about "Junk Equipment."

 

True they will enforce what they want but most of us have rolled over and taken it as part of the idea that they are in control of the roads and do what they want.

It isn't a matter of IF but when because it is coming to a point where the other states will be forced to react when their products are impacted, as in the case of Iowa. For the feds, it is about the power of one state dictating to others and the breakdown of the fed's powers. The courts will stop them or risk impact to other things that the feds depend on for their power, this is purely political.

The EPA has zero to do with this issue, the EPA is an administration that is solely dependent on congress for its existence and can go away if they want it to go away. They are not a law making body, they don't have congressional level approval privileges and can only give a nay or yeah approval of states' regulations that are harmonized with their own.

I look around and see those mega companies running sub-standard drivers in sub-standard trucks but most of the owner operator equipment is in pretty good shape. The other junk I see on the roads are owned by the state or cities or schools, which are exempt.

No body granted them permission, they have done their own thing within the state boundaries since the 50's and not forced a thing on another state which means that it has been an internal thing until now.

I learned a lot from GM and how they had to comply to California's emission requirements in the 50's. It is interesting to see how it progressed to CARB dictating to people in other states what they can do or not do.

I agree no retro fitting should be forced onto anyone, but again there is also an issue of individual rights of property ownership with the citizens of the state. I look at it this way, when the population of a state doesn't defend their own amendment of their constitution that was democratically determined, they deserve no pity. That said, I don't live there and don't have to abide by the their laws that are to apply to only their citizens at the same time I have the right to enter the state, access their markets and do so in any means I want to.

Why?

Because other things have been done (like kingpin rules and IRP)?

Look it is a constitutional issue, for the most part this opens the door for other things like RVs and general tourism but at this point there are a few layers that we deal with as we do transport goods across state lines which means that the feds have the last word - not the state.

They can't send me a letter telling me that I can't use more than 50 gallons of water to wash my car, can they?

The problem is that many of us don't know about the agreements that are made among the states, like harmonizing of vehicle laws (the feds have zero to do with that) or how the IRP works (that is for collection of road taxes based on the state's individual needs). Nothing about these issues is a show stopper, you can use your truck in all 50 states because the equipment is the same for all 50 states and for road taxes you can get a permit for that which in effect doesn't prevent you from travelling into the state. When you are required to have an APU or special tires or specific brand of lights, that is a way to stop people from entering the state.

 

You know exactly what junk equipment im talking about. They people that are behind the wheel are what makes it junk. Never washed,leaking oil and other fluids, and just in bad,unkept general condition. I had a 2001 Pete working show truck that was in perfect condition. I had to sell it and give it up because CARB told me that I couldnt have it after 1/1/14. So I went out and bought a new one. Thank God I could afford it. But because I actually charge enough and run my business like a business.I just think it would be fair to make the guy who chose to ingnore this up coming rule do the same . Not give him an extra 2 1/1 years to get compliant. There is a huge underlying problem in the state of CA and elsewhere that CARB is only showing. Most of the people ######## about this in the state of California are people who are not charging enough. Call it what you want. Im only saying what other people are thinking. I didnt wanna buy a new truck but, it didnt put me out of business. It also wont put Swift,Werner, C.R. England out either.The Truck/Bus rule is unfair,I think we all agree with that. Charge enough and it wont hurt so much. Trust me if I lived out of state, I would be pissed!!! But I would make a choice. Dont come to CA or charge a premium to do so