channel 19

Todd Dills

Checking in with ‘Truckers against CARB’ — rally, public meeting Thursday

| April 22, 2014
Loren Hutnick and his 1988 Peterbilt 379. The rig, after undergoing a rebuild, has been off the road for some time as Hutnick has taken work hauling for another company. Read more about the operator's options under the Truck and Bus Rule come yearend. Photo by Kevin Jones.

Loren Hutnick and his 1988 Peterbilt. The rig, after undergoing a rebuild, has been off the road for some time as Hutnick has taken work hauling for another company. Read more about the operator’s options under the Truck and Bus Rule come yearend via this link. Photo by Kevin Jones.

Overdrive/CCJ‘s Kevin Jones happened to be out in Petaluma, Calif., shortly after I wrote about owner-operator Loren Hutnick, based there, who’s also the proprietor of the California Trucks Against the California Air Resources Board Facebook page and Truckers Against CARB website. Jones paid a visit to talk with Hutnick about this coming Thursday’s rally and his and other Californians’ efforts to speak out against the board’s Truck and Bus Rule and other equipment / emissions requirements broadly.

Find more information about Hutnick's effort via the California Truckers Against CARB's Facebook page and website.

Find more information about Hutnick’s effort via the California Truckers Against CARB’s Facebook page.

The rally is on schedule, he says, and he’s expecting a good turnout from sympathetic truckers from not only in California but around the country. “We’ve got people coming from the East Coast, Canada, from all over the U.S.,” he says. “This is not just going to be a California thing.” A brief excerpt from Jones’ talk with Hutnick follows at the bottom of this post.

Joe Rajkovacz of the California Construction Trucking Asssociation and its Western Trucking Alliance interstate conference will be there, Rajkovacz says. Rajkovacz wrote in last night as public comments closed on CARB’s website in advance of Thursday’s meeting. The CCTA provided commentary on the public docket associated with CARB’s request for comment on flexibility provisions developed since the last full board meeting in December 2013.

You can peruse the full docket here.

CCTA is behind one of a few still-in-process lawsuits challenging CARB’s Truck and Bus Rule. You can read the CCTA comments in full via this link, but here’s an excerpt that reflects the spirit of the organization’s continuing fight against the regs:

Related

CARB proposes delaying, changing some emissions requirements for owner-operators

California's Air Resources Board this week officially unveiled some proposed changes to its Truck & Bus Rule emissions regulations, potentially allowing owner-operators and small fleets ...

Contrary to many commenters who have taken the position that the Statewide Truck and Bus rule represents “settled law” in the State of California, the CCTA would remind everyone that three current legal challenges exist … aimed directly at this regulation and only because of legal delays in the court system there has not been any justice – justice delayed is justice denied. Only the uniformed or naive would conclude that the Statewide Truck and Bus rule can be considered “settled law.” For those upset at any extended flexibility in implementation of the rule, we strongly believe legal challenges ought to be settled before any further damage is done to California’s trucking industry – for both large and small fleets. You must ask yourself if one or all of these suits are successful, and stops these regulations in their tracks – how would one feel then about these regulations?

Good question, wouldn’t you say? What are your thoughts at the CARB rules at this stage in the game, with the Truck and Bus Rule in place for several years now — and with small fleets coming under its compliance deadlines for the first time just this year?



  • tgtrotter

    I agree. My truck was certified EPA and California compliant the day it was manufactured and it still meets those certifications today. CARB is an environmental and Political fraud. With trucking they took the bull by the horns and sometimes the Matador doesn’t always win.

    May I remind you diesel is not a toxic as CARB says. The EPA substantiated that. CARB has blundered with lies about their Scientific staff. CARB supported a now defunct DPF company whose filters are worthless. CARB is getting sued five times over. The whole mess about DPF technology is shoved down Americas throat by greed and nothing to do about cleaning the air. Honestly now. Shame on you CARB. AND KUDOS TO LOREN HUTNICK AND THOSE LIKE HIM !

  • S.E.

    Even if you are CARB compliant by taking advantage of the grant program to buy your old truck and purchase a new compliant truck, you CANNOT go into the ports for 3 years in CA! So what is the point of being CARB compliant?

  • PJ

    God Bless Loren Hutnick for his efforts, passion and sacrifice. He has dedicated every waking hour that he is not driving to earn a living championing this cause on behalf of the rest of us. He is a patriot, hard working proud American and a dear friend. I only wish I could be there personally to help him. However I will be there in spirit. Best of luck Loren! Let’s stop this insanity before it’s too late.

  • MercenaryMan

    Im from the Midwest and Im with you folks, its time to take a stand, a real stand, Im tired of being kicked, maybe when they cant get milk for the babys on Monday theyll see our point…something has to be done, As a small truck operation I cannot buy new trucks whenever some stiff shirt think its prudent. IM AGAINST CARB and at least allow some flexibility or options for those of use who cannot buy new vehicles and spend Thousands of dollars to satisy a rule thats Over the top anyway,

  • PJ

    We all agree that this must be stopped. The government has no right under the constitution to require an individual to purchase a product (unless it’s health insurance according to Justice John Roberts). Especially such an expensive one. The idea of retrofitting a vehicle with anything is absolutely absurd. My ’69 Ford has only lap belts and an 8 track player. Does that mean I should retrofit my pickup with a new radio, shoulder belts, air conditioning, power steering and a new engine that gets better gas mileage? No it doesn’t. We bought our trucks legally and they were compliant at the time they were purchased. That’s it and that’s all. If California wants to implement some ridiculous law it should only apply to brand new trucks. Owners that have older equipment need to be grandfathered or exempted from these rules if they go forward. And the idea that trucks older than ’94(?) will be outlawed is disgusting. I happen to be very comfortable in a 1986 359 and should not be forced out of it by a committee of bureaucrats feeding the public junk science. As a small trucking business owner of 25 years I am SICK of being picked on. I am sick of being seen as a government cash cow. Why does this happen? Because we allow it…and the ATA allows it. If this passes in California every other liberal state in the union will follow. NJ, NY, VT, MA…you name them…they will be next!

  • Spence

    Well said. I just happen to have a 1986 359 too and a 1965 Ford pickup so I know exactly how you feel and what your saying. I live in Eastern Colorado and as you probably well know Colorado gets mentioned in the news about every day for all the wrong reasons. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Obama and the EPA started forcing this BS on the rest of the country if they aren’t working on it already. This shit is getting way out of hand.

  • wifesaysfish

    leave the produce on the docks for a while and the growers will take care of carb

  • Pingback: California truckin’: Obstacles, opportunities in the Golden State | Commercial Carrier Journal

  • Ed Benton

    Under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution ONLY the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE. So if your an Interstate Trucker that is Based in CA you can tell CARB to LEGALLY KISS YOUR BEHIND as they are Interfering with Interstate Commerce.

    Forcing you to buy a Product to run in the state of CA when you do not need it to run in any other state is Interference with Interstate Commerce. Even the 9th Circuit in San Fran should be able to get that one RIGHT.

  • Winus Cleyne

    Truckdrivers. Have no CAHONIES….the world does not exist without TRUCKS…. Just park them for A couple of days and the people in this country will take care of the greedy SOB,that cal themselves CARB. And don’t give me this BS ,I can’t pay my bills or whatever,when you bin doing this for a couple of years and you can not survive a couple of days,you should find a different job because you must B hauling CHEAP Freight ………the guys that doing this the right way can more than likely stay home for a couple of months so don’t haul cheap freight …………

OverdriveOnline.com strives to maintain an open forum for reader opinions. Click here to read our comment policy.