Not to make this political, I feel I have to explain my position better.
The real problem is the feds are supposed to make sure the markets are open to all other states with no exceptions at all.
They have a duty under the interstate commerce clause (ICC) to stop states like California from telling foreign (other states) individuals they can not drive in California. This means that CARB is unconstitutional when it comes to the fee and mileage limitations placed on foreign (other states) trucks.
See we already had an agreement with all 50 states and the territories about uniform equipment standards, and that is because the feds under the ICC told the states either you do it or we do it, and you won’t like what we do, so the states agreed to use SAE standards and it was codified in federal code after the agreement was reached with all the states – this happened in 1948.
Since we have enjoyed that latitude to go where we want without worry about being ill-equipped o our cars and trucks.
So when Carb and California restrict access to their markets, it first violates that 1948 agreement but it also prevents someone from entering the state to access the state’s markets.
What I mean by markets is the access to work within the state or bringing in or exiting with a load.
I also can mean that if I want to go and buy a truckload of avocados, (I know someone who does this regularly) and sell them in Michigan for 50¢ a piece, I should have no restrictions in accessing the market for avocados. But I am restricted if I don’t abide by their standards.
So the EPA and Congress have a duty to follow the ICC, because if they don’t, the use of the clause for the gazillion other things is no longer valid due to the fact that its only purpose was to ensure access to another state’s market and not to regulate anything else.
Leave a Reply