Have YOU been cited for a CARB violation?

Ridgeline, the unfortunate part is that the TRU issue has made it to the 9th Circuit and ruled in CARB's favor with some comments about how they implement. The Supreme Court has said they will not hear the appeal.

So the only thing left is for the administration and the EPA to make it an issue. And we know they are supporting this.

So we are stuck with it and CARB is getting very smart in marketing this. All the trucker talk back and forth about who can and can't do what doesn't change the fact that the CHP has been working with CARB for years. Tickets are issued, fines are paid and big ones at that.

 

I got a $300 ticket for idling for 7 minutes in Victorville at the Pilot there.
Show me $100 and I will find the ticket.

Martin

 

Is there any kind of extreme weather provision. Usually So-Cal is a perfect 60's or 70's but during winter it can dip below freezing. Then what are you expected to freeze and catch a flu?

 

Illinois has a rule like that if it's below 32° or i think 37° out side, your can idle your engine For an certain amount of time which I don't remember, I never heard of anybody ever receiving one in Illinois. (Ticket).

 

No allowance in Ca AFAIK.
I was brewing a pot of coffee, thus the 7 minutes of idling the idiot got me for. Same ticket for guys that were idling all night, which is BS in my book.
Now have a generator on board, and cant go to Ca after this year anyways, so screw em.

Martin

 

To a point that's true, three cases have gone through the federal courts (really four but one has to do with locomotive idling) and landed at the feet of the 9th circuit court but not one of them is directly related to the issue at hand. The 9th ruled in favor of CARB on two issues, one was about California registered trucks own by companies and undue burdens place on the companies, the other was about the regulation of low carbon fuel. and a third that I know about is about the Fuel for ships who visit the ports.

There seems to be a clear reason why the SC didn't take the case, I understand it is because there is no real constitutional question that needs to be answered in any of the cases at this point, there is no clear cut violation. Even in the case about the low carbon fuel, which has to do with ethanol being shipped to California opposed to the fuel being produced close to markets, the court ruled in favor for CARB for the same reasons why they ruled on the ports issue.

I may be wrong about this but I understood that even if the 9th district court rules on an issue, it isn't binding outside that distinct and can't be applied to other districts, that is the purpose of the SC.

No there are a few things that can be done, states can file a suit over it, seeing that this actually steps on their toes a bit. The administration can't do much because the EPA is pretty much independent but congress can, they can force the change to the EPA (which we really do need - the charter and operating policies are so 1970's) and we can have cases brought by individuals who feel it is a violation of the ICC.

Well we are not, until the state that you register your truck in says so, it is still up in the air.

 

This has probably beeen brought up, buy what is CARBs rules on diesel motorhomes and medium duty trucks pulling campers.

Also, if CARB were to be taken to the Supreme Court in the next few years, especially if this administration gets to appoint a justice in the place of one of the more conservative justices, CARB rules just may be enforced nationwide.

 

Do you mean non-commercial - nothing because they are dependent on tourism.

Well not really. The administration may not have that chance unless Ginsberg dies and I hope she doesn't. The enforcement can't happen because it really has to be left up to the EPA and I think there is something about grandfathering in stuff that is already on the road. However if it is held up as legal, then the states can impose or adopt CARB rules. It only takes a couple states to really state complaining about their right to have trucks access the roads in California to get things rolling. It seems that the federal highway bills also can have some say into this through congress, pretty much telling California to stick it or get cut off.

Like I said on this site and others we need to have a good strong voice on this issue because this isn't about just California but how we are prevented to make a living by one state's action while we are regulated under the federal government. This can snowball into bigger issues later on with our administrative soviet style government entrenched at both the federal level and some of these states, like having NY demand every truck entering the state have an EOBR or having Ohio create a law that only allows drivers with no medical problems to haul through the state.

 

In 1994 I got one during a snap idle test.
98% opacity. $800 but only $300 if I fixed it within two weeks. I put $500 toward a new fuell pump and paid California $300.