Proposed California CARB rules impact....voice your concerns

[Jayt]

I came from a meeting last week that detailed how the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is going after politically easy targets (car care and car service products) to show they are making progress in reducing air pollutants.

CARB has proposed rules for implementation next year that will either eliminate or significantly reduce the content of the performance based ingredients in all car service related products including brake cleaners, fuel additives such as injection cleaners and virtually all commercially available car-care products.

If these rules go into effect, you will loose your favorate car wax, injection cleaner, etc., to watered down formulations that will cost more money and not work nearly as well. These proposed regulations will hurt the pros as well as do-it-yourselfers......and have virtually zero impact on air quality.

Residents of California will be hit first, but the impact will spread everywhere because formulators will be hard pressed to insure altrenative products don't get sold in California. So because California is such a big market, these rules will impact everyone.

A group representing the industry and users has made it easy to offer your comments to these pending rules........go to this link to voice your concerns to CARB:

http://www.cspa.org/keepcarsrolling/

[Hugh R]

Message sent. My experience with CARB is that they often make changes in product formulations because they get little or no public comment from consumers.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Sorry if this comes off the wrong way, but:

1. Exactly what "performance ingredients" are we talking about? Just the 10% reduction in VOCs? Are there specifics or is it like the claims of overpriced "health food" manufacturers claiming they "remove toxins from the body" (the word "toxin" is never defined and is ultimately meaningless. . .)

2. Who exactly is the CSPA, who funds them and whom do they represent?

3. (Apologies if this sounds personal, it isn't intended to be, but) what interest does a person living in Connecticut have in what goes on in California? Other than perhaps the establishment of a precedent that might affect you in some way, why do you care? Just curious.



That said, I'm not a particularly big fan of the CARB. Their mentality of "the ends justify the means" is borderline draconian and has historically opened the door to all manner of questionable crackdowns and "over the line" policy. When people aren't allowed to put modifications on their own vehicles that would HELP emissions, because such parts don't have the official CARB sticker and exemption number on them (available by manufacturers paying an oft-exorbitant "research fee" to CARB), it's ridiculous.

Emissions standards should be strict but exclusively performance-based. If you can meet the numbers, regardless of how you do it, that should be a passing result as far as CARB is concerned and their authority and reach should end there. Currently the emissions laws in CA are a joke. Yes, they're a PITA and make life difficult for everyone (especially those of us that happen to like performance cars), but ultimately they're still "manipulate-able" if a person is motivated or wealthy enough.

[Jayt]

I was told that if CARB gets little or no public comment on this, they will simply make the new regulations happen.

It is important to understand that car care and car service products that are currently sold have all been reformulated to meet existing rules, and are at their performance limits.

If guys like us (as opposed to an industry source) tell them it will hurt, they are more likely to listen.

No matter where you live...... if you work on your car, if you clean and wax your car, you should take a moment to respond.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I probably will. . . It'd be nice if someone had done an environmental impact study to see what the real benefit of this would be and/or the cost of doing nothing.

My gut instinct is that you're right though - current products and use methods (especially in CA) are pretty regulated pretty tightly and this would just be the CARB flexing its own muscles to show off their own importance.

Thanks for posting that.

[RallyJon]

Jayt works for a company in the industry that would be affected:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/271392-c-flush-fluid.html#post2466702

It is important to understand that car care and car service products that are currently sold have all been reformulated to meet existing rules, and are at their performance limits.

Seriously, put down the talking points memo for a second and make a case for "at their performance limits" vs "would cost my company more to comply".

[teenerted1]

looks to me like this only effects aerosol applied products?

how would effect products in a pump/squirt bottle or non spray type products?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Hehe. Kind of figured when he didn't address my "so what's your stake in this" question above. . . motives are rarely unselfish.

It doesn't change the fact that this might be more trouble than it's worth though. Although his motives aren't exactly for the "greater good", he might be right that the populace-at-large might get hurt more by this than helped - at least short-term.

[Jayt]

Wow, I guess I should have seen this coming.

For the record. Neither I, or the company I work for, have any financial interest in these pending regulations. None.

The company I work for sells high-end products for use with electronic, HVAC and medical products. They are never offered for retail sale. They are expensive and sold intended for use only by trained professionals. To the best of my knowledge, the company I work for does not sell any products that are regulated by these pending changes.

I am not an industry shill. I am a fellow car-guy who has a background in chemistry (and a limited knowledge of Pcars) who finds this site a valuble source of information.

As with all information in this forum, you decide what you will do with the info I have passed along............

[G60SuperCharger]

Thanks Jayt for posting this.

>Seriously, put down the talking points memo for a second and make a case for "at their performance limits" vs "would cost my company more to comply".

both are valid points IMHO. Remember, the costs of environmental regulation compliance ALWAYS gets passed on to you, the consumer. The big bad companies don't just take it in the a$$.

[Hugh R]

Its like the water-based degreasing solutions that they make commercial shops put in their parts cleaners. I can still use deodorized kerosene in my home one. Has anyone here tried the water-based stuff? It doesn't degrease very well. OTOH, I think the water-based clear lacquers for wood are quite good.