CARB- reffer / truck timeline reminder.

moose · Oct 31, 2011

just a reminder .
starting 2012, and from that point on,
if your reeffer unit is more then 7 Y/O you are prohibited of entering C.A. unless it is retrofitted.

if your truck model year is 1999 or older, you will not be lawful to travel C.A staring Jan. 1st of the year.
if you are an O/O with less then 3 trucks,
you need to act now, and register your truck with the CARB by Jan. 31. doing so will allow you to enter the state until the end of 2013, in which point a retrofits will be require.

(anyone else note the Go. stupidity timeline)

greg334 · Oct 31, 2011

Here is a good example of what the OOIDA should be going after, a state is restricting commerce by imposing rules and regulations that prohibit an out of state truck to enter it for reasons other than safety.

layoutshooter · Oct 31, 2011

greg334 said:
Here is a good example of what the OOIDA should be going after, a state is restricting commerce by imposing rules and regulations that prohibit an out of state truck to enter it for reasons other than safety.

So SHOULD the Federal government. This is a State imposing limits on inter-state commerce. The Obama administration is going along and encouraging this, it fits their agenda.

greg334 · Oct 31, 2011

So was the Bush administration because of the inability to keep in check these states who are in posing unreasonable regulations and stifling commerce - the reason why the commerce clause was created, to prevent this form of control.

To me, organizations like OOIDA who don't fight for these important issues are just bad enough as the feds who don't enforce the commerce clause equally.

Dresow · Oct 31, 2011

If the best you can do is complain about OOIDA you dont have any problems. For OOIDA to get done what it has shows dedication to an industry who wont try to help itself.... They have less than 1/2 of a percent of the industry supporting them...

greg334 · Oct 31, 2011

Well no matter how one wants to view it, they do some good things while ignoring others. EOBR issues is not a serious issue - it does not prevent one from making money legally, but CARB is preventing owners from driving into a state because the age of the equipment they have. Mexican truckers are not as important as the use of the industry to line the pockets of doctors and "experts" who create ailments for us to deal with.

So picking the hard issues is important, neither EOBRs or Mexican truckers are.

moose · Oct 31, 2011

greg334 said:
To me, organizations like OOIDA who don't fight for these important issues are just bad enough as the feds who don't enforce the commerce clause equally.

Are you even a member ???
if so, do you communicate with OOIDA on a regular basic ?
(i do).
don't you get LandLineMag in the mail ?
just in this past month OOIDA WON with a New Jersey Call to action, simply eliminating from the state book a new port emission regulations .
they also WON a case over the port of LA emission regs., favoring it's plainfields so O/O can now enter the port.
it dosn't get any bloody then that .
they are actually the ONLY ones to fight for truckers rights.
name even one other option...one.

OntarioVanMan · Oct 31, 2011

I don;t see how that is a win....?? Now we still have stinky old diesels polluting the air, belching their black air....I think forcing the truck makers to move along their R&D on emissions is a good thing....
Actually I'd like to see Cali take on the oil boys...and mandate 50 cetane for the state? Or have they all ready???

greg334 · Nov 1, 2011

I was a member, got tired of being asked to do things and write about issues that I thought were not important but when I had an issue, it was given lip service with no offer of helping find answers. I found out I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

I'm not beating up on OOIDA, but came to the conclusion that when it comes to certain subjects, they are great to have on our side but other things they fall into the same trap as other organizations. LA ports don't do a thing for me, the ports are not most interstate truckers but intrastate truckers running into and out of them and that is one little part of the entire state. BUT being told you can't get into the state to make a delivery because you have an old ancillary piece of equipment that they feel pollutes is rather a d*mn important thing that goes directly to the foundation of what we do and should be treated far above EOBRs and Mexican trucks. IT is a rights issue.

OntarioVanMan · Nov 1, 2011

greg334 said:
I was a member, got tired of being asked to do things and write about issues that I thought were not important but when I had an issue, it was given lip service with no offer of helping find answers. I found out I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

I'm not beating up on OOIDA, but came to the conclusion that when it comes to certain subjects, they are great to have on our side but other things they fall into the same trap as other organizations. LA ports don't do a thing for me, the ports are not most interstate truckers but intrastate truckers running into and out of them and that is one little part of the entire state. BUT being told you can't get into the state to make a delivery because you have an old ancillary piece of equipment that they feel pollutes is rather a d*mn important thing that goes directly to the foundation of what we do and should be treated far above EOBRs and Mexican trucks. IT is a rights issue.

But Greg...States have rights as well...if they don't want your old puffer there....so be it... rights go both ways...
A few states have nagging rules that interfere with commerce....

layoutshooter · Nov 1, 2011

PART of the problem, OVM, is that the scientist that did much of the research that these regulation are based on, LIED about his credentials. WORSE than that, CARB KNEW he lied and put the regs in place anyway.

KGO Newstalk 810 San Francisco

greg334 · Nov 3, 2011

OntarioVanMan said:
But Greg...States have rights as well...if they don't want your old puffer there....so be it... rights go both ways...
A few states have nagging rules that interfere with commerce....

No they actually don't.

The key is interstate.

The commerce clause was created to prevent the stifling of commerce between the states, a legitimate issue that came out of the wars between the states on items like Whiskey and indigo. The congress was hard pressed to prevent the problems that one person or interest had in selling their products over state lines and hence came up with a reasonable solution - the states do not have the right to regulate commerce across state lines, only the feds. This was applied to the canal system in the early 1800's and since then rail and truck transport. The other part of this is use for crime prevention and law enforcement, states can't cross into other states without an agreement (like that of NJ with other states on concealed weapons) but the feds can.

So CARB can impose that restriction on California based vehicles but under the constitution and the previous rulings from the court, they can't impose that on a truck from Michigan or Ohio or where ever because it is part of a commerce activity. This would also mean that California can now deviate from the agreement that they follow the DOT regulations for any reason they want to - one example is chicken lights making them illegal to possess, not just use.

OntarioVanMan · Nov 3, 2011

greg334 said:
No they actually don't.

The key is interstate.

The commerce clause was created to prevent the stifling of commerce between the states, a legitimate issue that came out of the wars between the states on items like Whiskey and indigo. The congress was hard pressed to prevent the problems that one person or interest had in selling their products over state lines and hence came up with a reasonable solution - the states do not have the right to regulate commerce across state lines, only the feds. This was applied to the canal system in the early 1800's and since then rail and truck transport. The other part of this is use for crime prevention and law enforcement, states can't cross into other states without an agreement (like that of NJ with other states on concealed weapons) but the feds can.

So CARB can impose that restriction on California based vehicles but under the constitution and the previous rulings from the court, they can't impose that on a truck from Michigan or Ohio or where ever because it is part of a commerce activity. This would also mean that California can now deviate from the agreement that they follow the DOT regulations for any reason they want to - one example is chicken lights making them illegal to possess, not just use.

if it is so obvious Cali is breaking interstate laws...why is CARB is being applied to out of state trucks? Does it apply to railways as well?

layoutshooter · Nov 3, 2011

OntarioVanMan said:
if it is so obvious Cali is breaking interstate laws...why is CARB is being applied to out of state trucks? Does it apply to railways as well?

If it fits Obama''s agenda it will happen. It IS that simple. Obama said they could, so they are. They have wanted to do this for YEARS.

greg334 · Nov 3, 2011

You know ... layout ... Obama hasn't brought this on, it started with Reagan and his administration and continued through Obama's administration. BUT this issue has popped up not because of the liberals in congress and throughout our government but because the so-called conservatives were in power and allowed it to happen just like they allows the housing bubble to be created and so on.

Until people get a grip on one fact, that conservatism seems to be exactly what it means - to conserve the status quo that has been established - many will be fooled by the idea that there is some truth to the idea they want smaller less intrusive government, there will be no change to what's in power. So I have to ask when have you known any administration reduce the size of government willingly and with a non-political ideology involved?

layoutshooter · Nov 3, 2011

Yes Greg, I know these things have been building for a long time.

The fact is Obama is the Chief executive NOW. He COULD instruct ALL agencies to enforce commerce laws. He is not. HE is the one in charge of the executive branch AT THIS TIME. It is therefore his fault. NOTHING is stopping him from following the Constitution, other than the fact he does not believe in it.

greg334 · Nov 3, 2011

It doesn't matter, Bush didn't do a thing so why expect Obama to?

This needs to be settled either with congress or with the courts, not with the president.

layoutshooter · Nov 3, 2011

greg334 said:
It doesn't matter, Bush didn't do a thing so why expect Obama to?

This needs to be settled either with congress or with the courts, not with the president.

Bush is gone. His action or lack of action is not in play. I DON'T expect Obama to do ANYTHING that would follow the Constitution. The COURTS? What a joke. CONGRESS? A total waste. The carriers cower and line up like sheep, no suits will be filed by them. Drivers are NOT united. I just will avoid CA runs. IF I am REQUIRED to run them, well, we will see what happens then.

greg334 · Nov 3, 2011

What?

You sitting on this thread and hitting refresh every minute?

Or are you bored?

If it's the latter, come on over and I got a shovel for you, I have lots of waste dirt from Zug Island I bought to be used to fill in that stupid wet lands in, want to get rid of them frogs and stupid ducks that keep coming in and pooping on my van. I warm you up some Loon soup I made the other day.

Seriously, Bush matters because when he sets policy, and the next guy/gal in the WH doesn't change it, then it is still the national policy.

layoutshooter · Nov 3, 2011

greg334 said:
What?

You sitting on this thread and hitting refresh every minute?

Or are you bored?

If it's the latter, come on over and I got a shovel for you, I have lots of waste dirt from Zug Island I bought to be used to fill in that stupid wet lands in, want to get rid of them frogs and stupid ducks that keep coming in and pooping on my van. I warm you up some Loon soup I made the other day.

Seriously, Bush matters because when he sets policy, and the next guy/gal in the WH doesn't change it, then it is still the national policy.

YES, I AM bored. I have been without a load now for almost 6 hours. That is WAY too long!

I used to work out on Zug. I would have LOVED to have been able to stay in that job. I LOVED it. The ONLY job I have EVER liked other than forest fire fighting.

Carry on with the silly, easy to ignore.