EPA set to revoke California's authority to set vehicle standards

CMNTMXR57

GM, Holden & Chrysler Mini-Van nut swinger
Sep 12, 2008
26,148
31,263
Elgin
And tester ineptitude. I remember nearly getting in to fisticuffs with one dumbfuck with my Bravada and him insisting that it be put on the rollers. I told him repeatedly it's AWD and won't do it and you'll damage the vehicle and potentially the building when it lurches off. Oh no, no, no...

As to testing, the testing is still the same for us. For you, being in Nebraska, are you even being tested? If not, you don't need to do anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Kazamakis

BeerOrGasoline

Me & Dead Owls Don't Give a Hoot.
Mar 15, 2009
3,985
1,082
New Lenox, IL
Gosh. I hate to be a stick in the mud here, especially siding WITH environmentalist whackos.

States rights trump federalist control in this respect as I see it.

One cannot cancel a federal level of law but one CAN make local laws under one's own jurisdiction which are MORE strict than the federal regulations.

As much as I hate myself for saying this - I side with California. If they want STRICTER laws, that is within their rights, IMO.


California has a Federal Waiver to enforce it's stricter regulations, so given the Obama-era Clean Air Act's structure, it is not a state's right issue by design.


The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to enact stricter air pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government’s. EPA must approve a waiver, however, before California’s rules may go into effect. Once California files a waiver request, EPA publishes a notice for public hearing and written comment in the Federal Register. The written comment period typically remains open for a period of time after the public hearing. Once the comment period expires, EPA reviews the comments and the administrator determines whether California has satisfied the law’s requirements for obtaining a waiver.
According to the Clean Air Act Section 209 – State Standards, EPA shall grant a waiver unless it finds that California:
  • was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are in the aggregate at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards;
  • does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or
  • has proposed standards not consistent with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
 

FESTER665

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Apr 13, 2008
39,951
66,070
Streamwood
Probably not for old cars that used the Roller tests.

Unless they decide to mandate visual's for all cars.

Right now my GTA doesn't have to pass emissions, its too old and IL removed the IL240 tests because the equipment was too expensive to maintain. I suppose they could bring back an Idle test, and visual. But I don't ever see them putting rollers back in.

The state just didnt want to pay the price per test anymore. The equipment was cheap (we got it from the Texas program) and we kept it well maintained, but the testers needed to be trained and we needed training vehicles at stations so people could train on non-customer vehicles, etc....

We would get the dyno motors rebuilt to keep costs down, and had the parts swapping down to a science because we would get fined by the state for each hour a lane was down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Kazamakis

Mr_Roboto

Doing the jobs nobody wants to
TCG Premium
Feb 4, 2012
25,644
30,506
Nashotah, Wisconsin (AKA not Illinois)
Uhhhhmmmmm Volkswagen maybe?

You mean where the execs are actually facing jail time and huge corporate losses/fines over the debacle when they got caught?

CARB was a profit making scheme for California. They went after a bunch of performance parts makers and some things around buying say a catalytic converter for your car in CA are just insane. He's smart to do this. For those who say it's a states right issue, cars come from out of state. That's interstate commerce. It gets used for all sorts of stupid things like gun control so I don't really feel bad about it cutting the other way in this case.

From a political standpoint it's an extremely smart move. It sends the message that Trump wants to keep California from injecting the government into peoples lives constantly. May not win him anything federally but it could have dividends at a state level.

Car companies can spend hundreds of millions into billions developing engine platforms. It's not going to be $5K/car off or anything but I wouldn't be surprised if it was $100-200 a car in development costs.

Even in the parts market this could have huge impacts. As an example, looking at a 98 Astro Van (just some rando vehicle that popped in my mind) the catalyst being CARB compliant marks it up over 33% buying it on Rock Auto. Ancedotally I've known people who have lived there that have had it cost way more (as in a few hundred dollars) to get a catalyst installed because it had an EO number on it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of auto shops who subsisted at gouging consumers via CARB get a rude awakening.
 
Last edited:

Bob Kazamakis

I’m the f-ing lizard king
TCG Premium
Oct 24, 2007
85,185
44,802
Denver
Real Name
JK
The state just didnt want to pay the price per test anymore. The equipment was cheap (we got it from the Texas program) and we kept it well maintained, but the testers needed to be trained and we needed training vehicles at stations so people could train on non-customer vehicles, etc....

We would get the dyno motors rebuilt to keep costs down, and had the parts swapping down to a science because we would get fined by the state for each hour a lane was down.
We pay $25 a test. Surely that would of paid for it.
 

FESTER665

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Apr 13, 2008
39,951
66,070
Streamwood
We pay $25 a test. Surely that would of paid for it.

I'm not positive on the number per test we had here, I was only the Senior technician, I just worked on the dynos and kept the buildings up and running. I started working there when we were implementing IM240, putting the dynos into the ground and everything.

Do they actually take the money from you in CO instead of it just being part of the registration fees?

When they sent me to Maryland to help them implement the new program there, they took cash for their tests and man did it add a whole different level of craziness to the program. People breaking into the buildings trying to steal the safes, managers scamming shit, mangers getting caught trying to take money out of the safes, etc.

The biggest issues we had was when we were closing down some of the stations because they werent needed after stopping IM240 was people breaking in and stripping the buildings full of all the copper they could. In the Metro East St. Louis stations someone literally stole the front door when we were building the station. :bowrofl:
 

Bob Kazamakis

I’m the f-ing lizard king
TCG Premium
Oct 24, 2007
85,185
44,802
Denver
Real Name
JK
I'm not positive on the number per test we had here, I was only the Senior technician, I just worked on the dynos and kept the buildings up and running. I started working there when we were implementing IM240, putting the dynos into the ground and everything.

Do they actually take the money from you in CO instead of it just being part of the registration fees?

When they sent me to Maryland to help them implement the new program there, they took cash for their tests and man did it add a whole different level of craziness to the program. People breaking into the buildings trying to steal the safes, managers scamming shit, mangers getting caught trying to take money out of the safes, etc.

The biggest issues we had was when we were closing down some of the stations because they werent needed after stopping IM240 was people breaking in and stripping the buildings full of all the copper they could. In the Metro East St. Louis stations someone literally stole the front door when we were building the station. :bowrofl:
Yea it’s a separate charge at the emissions testing place then you have to go elsewhere for registration/tags/etc. diesel is anywhere from $35-100 because privately owned shops do it not the govt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FESTER665

FESTER665

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Apr 13, 2008
39,951
66,070
Streamwood
Yea it’s a separate charge at the emissions testing place then you have to go elsewhere for registration/tags/etc. diesel is anywhere from $35-100 because privately owned shops do it not the govt.

It is nice that we can now get our plate stickers at the testing station. Those years when you have to get tested, its super easy to wander into the office and get a new sticker while you're there.

It took me longer because I knew the managers so had to hang around and BS for awhile, but still nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Kazamakis

Bob Kazamakis

I’m the f-ing lizard king
TCG Premium
Oct 24, 2007
85,185
44,802
Denver
Real Name
JK
Also I hate emissions just because it still seems like such a joke. They do rollers here (even for awd) and it’s sketchy as shit. I get the reason but until you’re policing diesel bros rolling coal on the road and semi trucks billowing black smoke then I don’t think the fairly efficient gas vehicles are adding as much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FESTER665

FESTER665

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Apr 13, 2008
39,951
66,070
Streamwood
Also I hate emissions just because it still seems like such a joke. They do rollers here (even for awd) and it’s sketchy as shit. I get the reason but until you’re policing diesel bros rolling coal on the road and semi trucks billowing black smoke then I don’t think the fairly efficient gas vehicles are adding as much.

I think part of the reason we got rid of the rollers was simply because there were less and less 1994 and older cars being tested, and everything had OBD-2. We actually had more problems with the dynos blowing airbags when we first stopped the program because we left the dynos in place and just kept the air pumped into the airbags to keep the brakes on the rollers. Changing out those airbags was such a pain in the ass. :bowrofl:
 

Kensington

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Aug 14, 2017
11,312
5,353
Gosh. I hate to be a stick in the mud here, especially siding WITH environmentalist whackos.

States rights trump federalist control in this respect as I see it.

One cannot cancel a federal level of law but one CAN make local laws under one's own jurisdiction which are MORE strict than the federal regulations.

As much as I hate myself for saying this - I side with California. If they want STRICTER laws, that is within their rights, IMO.

106.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zenriddles

Bob Kazamakis

I’m the f-ing lizard king
TCG Premium
Oct 24, 2007
85,185
44,802
Denver
Real Name
JK
I think part of the reason we got rid of the rollers was simply because there were less and less 1994 and older cars being tested, and everything had OBD-2. We actually had more problems with the dynos blowing airbags when we first stopped the program because we left the dynos in place and just kept the air pumped into the airbags to keep the brakes on the rollers. Changing out those airbags was such a pain in the ass. :bowrofl:
Obd2 gets rollers here.......
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Kensington
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 90 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant. Consider starting a new thread to get fresh replies.

Thread Info