Hot Rod Forum banner

Barry K and MartinSR your comments please

6K views 56 replies 24 participants last post by  MARTINSR 
#1 ·
Just read this and wondered what you guys think about it. Sure doesn't sound good for the do-it-yourself'ers.

EPA Proposed Rule
 
#2 ·
I agree it does not look good for the do it your selfer.

Perhaps by the time this rule "if it gets made law" comes around
there will be a good supply choice of water based paint, similar
to what europe has been using for many years in its body shops.

Speaking of water based automotive paint has anyone used BASF.

Thanks.... X.
 
#3 ·
Those kind of rules!!!

Basically that will put a lot of the independent shops out of business..I have been seeing that sort of thing going on for a long time until the point is being reached where there are very few places left where the consumer can get their car fixed..Most of the small shops are closing and not being replaced around here..Those that are still operating are run by old-timers who when they retire will not be keeping the shop open..

Another blow to the economy..!!!! :spank:

OMT
 
#5 ·
2011 is plenty of time for some less hazardous paint system to come to market. Since the primary goal seems to be levelling the playing field for commercial collision repair shops, the restrictions that do-it-yourselfers might face could just be how much paint we could buy. Lower quantities *would* deal with the number of poodles and stray cats that get mutated when we spray. Naturally, folks with close neighbors are more likely to get complaints. Just seems 'way too early to get worked up over.
 
#9 ·
BarryK said:
Grouch,

You missed the point. This is a law to restrict all paint products to non certified shops.

Will not matter if a no VOC is available or not.

I remember when this was first proposed in the 80"s, talk about a panic!

Remember, pot is illegal also.
I don't see where I missed the point. The article talks about shops, I talked about shops, you talked about shops.

As for the VOC, that's where the EPA comes in. Those shops that are having to comply with regulations have complained to the EPA about the ones that do not have to comply. If we were talking about non-hazardous materials, that is, things which do not threaten the environment, then the EPA would not be involved.

I don't know what pot has to do with it at all.

From the article:
Teal and her colleagues have been busy visiting shops and gathering data as they prepare to write a proposed rule by 2007. Full implementation of the rule is targeted for August 2011.

Feedback, thus far, has helped the EPA identify a frustrated base of shop owners who are eager to put an end to unsafe and environmentally damaging painting practices performed by some shops and do-it-yourself mechanics.
Note the date and the phrase, "environmentally damaging painting practices". Remove the damaging practices and you remove the influence of the rule. That means either certification or a paint system that is less hazardous.

You might want to re-read the last paragraph of the article, too:
Although the final language is far from settled, the national rule will supercede any state rules shops face related to refinish process compliance. However, in states such as California, where automotive refinish regulations match or exceed the EPA’s final language, Teal does not foresee a need for shops to jump through additional hoops to become certified to be compliant with the national rule.
Again, we see "shops". Can a do-it-yourselfer buy paint in California now? If they can and California's "automotive refinish regulations match or exceed the EPA's final language", then why should we expect the creation of this national rule to suddenly be the death knell of do-it-yourself painting?

I still don't see any reason to get worked up over it yet.

(But I will be watching the evil, oily willys36 verrrry closely between now and 2011. He's bound to figure out some way to slip a ringer into the rule that requires everyone to buy his Wily Willys Super Garden Hose Bottled Water [pat. pend., tm, sm, C] in order to be certified to paint.)
 
#11 ·
willys36@aol.com said:
It's all Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the dirty oil companies faults.
NO, NO, NO !!! It's FEMA's fault!
 
#13 ·
The way that I see it, it is the big guys trying to snuff out the little guys as much as anything. If they can get the government to put these restrictions on the little guy, he will have to close up, as he can't afford it anymore.

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too much tax money lost. The bigger guys will not be paying as much in taxes as the little guys that they are trying to snuff out. There is also the tax money that they would loose from the DIY.
 
#15 ·
BarryK said:
Your confused and really have no clue why this is coming about or from who and why.
Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?

It's pretty well spelled out in the linked article. The EPA wants to cut emissions. That's one of their reasons for existence. The complaints, from big shops that are having to comply with "state and local regulations", about little shops and people "spraying paint at home in their garages at night" give them the excuse to pursue it. Shops paying to be in compliance don't like the fact that others don't pay. I don't see any hard data on emissions that show whether the complaint is legitimate, just belly-aching, or a ploy to limit competition. The "level playing field" comment is the only hint, but it could be read either way. The dates given leave room for things to change completely. I won't worry about it until much closer to the deadline, but then, I'm not in the paint or painting business. None of the interests involved give a s**t what I say, as you just proved.

Sorry if my "clips" offend you, but you seemed to find my first comments lacking. I tried to cite the parts of the article that supported those comments.
 
#18 ·
Some more info

From ASA Go here Did a google search on the topic and there is quite a bit if info out there..Seems that most of the work will fall on the manufacturers of paint products and OEM car manufacturees..there are also moves to encourage body shops to use HVLP spray equipment and to use solvent recycling equipment as well as gun cleaning devices..

There are a lot of techinical issues to be resolved before the hobby guy or the small body shop has to concern himself too much about all of this as far as I can see..

OMT
 
#19 ·
I don't know much about paint so I can't comment about if home painting is in trouble or not. I do know about the federal government and activist groups. They take your rights away slowly. They don't jump in and take rights away all at once because people would never stand for it. Taking away rights in small incriments lead to people complaining but usually not doing anything about it. If you lose something small you think, oh well that's not so bad and it could be a lot worse. Then they wait awhile and take just a little more of your freedoms. Then you say, oh well that's not so bad and it could be a lot worse. By the time you do realize what is going on it is too late to do anything about it. It may take many years but they will meet the final goal of stripping you of any rights that do not meet their agenda.

I will use one topic as an example. SMOKING. I'm citing this only as an example how our freedoms are taken away slowly. This is not to start a seperate discussion. I don't smoke and don't like to smell it either. Everybody knows what is going on with tobacco. It's taking a long time but they're winning the tug of war. A whole lot more people smoke than paint cars in their garages.

Most of us guys with any age on us can look back and see what we have lost through the years.

Danny
 
#20 ·
not to worry...the DIY'r will order supplies from Canada on the internet (like perscription drugs) and save 30% and not pay sales tax....and he will DIY cause a licensed paint shop price will be out of site

then dump whats left in a sewer or regular garbage to get rid of the evidence cause he can't drop it off at a hazardous waste site

and that's why they been "talkin' bout it" for 20 years......

ain't gov't great! wast 20+ years of tax dollars "researching"....
 
#21 · (Edited by Moderator)
(But I will be watching the evil, oily willys36 verrrry closely between now and 2011. He's bound to figure out some way to slip a ringer into the rule that requires everyone to buy his Wily Willys Super Garden Hose Bottled Water [pat. pend., tm, sm, C] in order to be certified to paint.)
How about,

White Trash Agua

Buck's Favorite -
Bottled on The Streets of Bakersfield -
Guaranteed to contain at least 0.001% Kern River Crude in Every Bottle
 
#23 ·
Barry,

If all the small and medium shops go away then the paint mfgr's are forced into a bidding war (like your $1m example) for the smaller number of big volume/lower profit accounts...they absolutely don't want that

gee...doesn't that smell like 20+ years of campaign contributions to be sure the law doesn't get written or even defined by now

Yes you make deals with the big boys depending on how much unsold production capacity you have...but the bean counters monitor/adjust that constantly to achieve the annual profit growth goal for the stock holders
 
#26 ·
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/7924/7924notw2.html
Greed. I am glad smaller companies are cutting into thier bottom line. Its unbelievable how much material costs have raised. And I used PPG for many years, Dupont at work, but now use some cheaper products to keep costs down a little.
Hopefully the same thing will eventually happen to the oil companies slowly over time when people get fed up. They have been talking about the hobbiest not being able to paint at home for many years, and they haven't stopped it yet. I didn't get a chance to read the article yet, but have heard this before.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top