SB 1064 adds a new section to the Health and Safety Code that constrains how often heavy‑duty vehicle emissions tests may be required, and tasks the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with writing rules to put that ceiling into practice. The change aims to reduce inspection frequency for a defined class of onroad heavy vehicles and converts discretion about testing intervals into a statutory maximum.
The policy matters because it touches core tradeoffs between regulatory burden on fleets and inspection businesses, and the state's ongoing effort to control nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from diesel and other non‑gasoline heavy vehicles. How CARB fills in the details—who is exempt, how testing is scheduled, and how monitoring and enforcement are retained—will determine the law's practical impact on emissions tracking and fleet operations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds Health and Safety Code section 44153 to require that testing carried out under the state's Heavy‑Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance program not occur more frequently than once every two years for specified heavy‑duty onroad vehicles. It also directs CARB to adopt implementing regulations to operationalize that cap.
Who It Affects
The provision applies to nongasoline heavy‑duty onroad motor vehicles subject to the state's HD I/M program—vehicles routinely owned and operated by trucking companies, utilities, public agencies, and other fleets that use diesel or alternative non‑gasoline fuels and meet the gross vehicle weight threshold. CARB, local air districts, registered owners, and private inspection stations will see direct operational and compliance impacts.
Why It Matters
By converting potential annual or more frequent inspections into a statutory biennial ceiling, the bill shifts fleet compliance costs and testing schedules and could reduce revenue for inspection stations. It also forces CARB to design rules that reconcile less frequent physical testing with California's air‑quality goals and federal State Implementation Plan commitments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law CARB runs a Heavy‑Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (HD I/M) program that establishes test procedures, issues compliance certificates, and can set testing frequency for onroad heavy vehicles. SB 1064 inserts a new limitation: testing required under the HD I/M program cannot be scheduled more often than once every two years for the class of heavy‑duty vehicles covered.
The bill leaves the specifics—the test types, any staggered schedules, exemptions, and administrative details—to CARB’s forthcoming regulations.
Practically, CARB will have to reconcile this statutory limit with the HD I/M program's existing structure. That includes deciding whether biennial testing applies uniformly across model years and emissions control technologies, how to handle out‑of‑cycle testing triggers (for example, visible smoke events or repair certifications), and how compliance certificates will be issued and tracked when inspection cadence slows.
CARB’s rulemaking can create targeted exceptions or surge testing rules, but the law sets a ceiling: no more frequent mandatory tests.The bill also alters enforcement and monitoring dynamics. Less frequent mandated testing reduces the number of in‑shop or roadside inspections that generate emissions data, which may complicate trend analysis and enforcement targeting.
CARB and local air districts will need to design complementary surveillance—such as targeted spot checks, enhanced on‑road monitoring, or use of telematics data—to maintain oversight and detect high emitters between scheduled tests.For regulated parties, the operational effects are straightforward: fleets may reduce downtime, paperwork, and direct testing costs, while inspection providers will face lower baseline demand. For regulators, the task is to write rules that preserve public health protections without undercutting the statutory intent to limit inspection frequency; that balance will determine whether the bill primarily reduces burden, shifts where testing occurs, or creates gaps in emissions control.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 1064 adds section 44153 to the Health and Safety Code to set a maximum testing cadence for the HD I/M program.
The bill requires that testing conducted pursuant to Section 44152 be required no more frequently than biennially for nongasoline heavy‑duty onroad vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over 14,000 pounds.
CARB must adopt rules and regulations to implement the biennial testing ceiling, leaving scope‑of‑application details and enforcement mechanics to agency rulemaking.
The statutory language uses 'notwithstanding any other law,' which preempts any conflicting requirements that would force more frequent testing absent clarifying regulations.
SB 1064 contains no appropriation or new enforcement funding, so rulemaking and any added surveillance will need to be absorbed within existing CARB or local agency budgets unless separate funding is provided.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ceiling on testing frequency
This paragraph states the operative rule: tests required under the HD I/M statute may not be required more often than once every two years for the covered vehicle class. The practical effect is to convert whatever testing cadence local rules, program guidance, or prior CARB practice allowed—including annual or more frequent checks—into a maximum frequency. That change constrains enforcement options that rely on annual or seasonal testing cycles unless CARB builds exceptions into its regulations.
Directs CARB to adopt implementing regulations
This clause delegates to the Air Resources Board the job of writing the rules needed to implement the biennial ceiling. The regulation phase will determine how the statutory ceiling operates in practice: whether testing is staggered by VIN/model year, what triggers permit out‑of‑cycle testing, how compliance certificates are issued with longer intervals, and what data reporting CARB will require to maintain emissions oversight.
How the new section modifies the existing program
The bill explicitly ties the frequency ceiling to testing 'pursuant to Section 44152,' meaning it modifies the existing HD I/M statutory framework rather than creating a parallel program. That linkage preserves the HD I/M program’s testing procedures, emissions metrics (NOx and PM), and compliance certificate architecture, but places a statutory cap on how often those procedures can be mandated. Agencies and regulated parties will need to read the two sections together to understand obligations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Large trucking fleets and logistics companies — they gain predictable, lower‑frequency mandatory testing, reducing downtime, administrative burden, and recurring testing costs tied to registration and operations.
- Independent owner‑operators and small fleets — less frequent mandated inspections can reduce out‑of‑pocket testing expenses and scheduling burdens, particularly for long‑distance or seasonal operators.
- Fleet compliance officers and in‑house maintenance programs — a biennial ceiling simplifies compliance calendars and planning for repairs and documentation.
- Businesses with fleets using non‑gasoline fuels (diesel, CNG, electric hybrids where covered) — the rule creates a uniform upper bound on mandatory testing that aids budgeting and operational predictability.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private inspection and testing stations — baseline testing volume will likely fall, threatening revenue that depends on more frequent inspections or annual fleet contracts.
- Local air districts and CARB — the agencies must perform rulemaking and may need to design and maintain complementary surveillance or targeted testing programs without new funding, increasing administrative burden.
- Communities near freight corridors and environmental justice populations — reduced testing frequency could allow some high emitters to go longer between checks, raising localized exposure risk unless mitigations are put in place.
- Small fleets with older equipment that rely on frequent testing to identify and repair high emissions — less frequent mandatory checks may defer detection and repair, potentially increasing aggregate emissions absent targeted measures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing regulatory relief for vehicle owners and inspection burdens against the state's responsibility to monitor and control heavy‑duty vehicle emissions: a statutory cap on test frequency simplifies compliance and lowers costs for fleets but reduces routine data collection and enforcement touchpoints that help identify high emitters and protect air quality.
The bill creates a straightforward statutory ceiling but leaves the hard choices to CARB. Rulemakers must decide how to reconcile a lower mandated cadence with the state's obligation to limit NOx and PM emissions.
Practical policy levers include targeted exemptions, age‑or technology‑based schedules (for example, older diesel engines tested more often), out‑of‑cycle triggers for repairs or visible excess emissions, and enhanced on‑road monitoring. Each choice trades administrative simplicity for either increased regulatory complexity or potential gaps in emissions control.
Another implementation challenge is data and enforcement. Biennial testing reduces the flow of in‑shop emissions data that agencies use to track compliance and detect high emitters.
CARB will need to specify alternative data sources or sampling strategies—remote sensing, periodic targeted audits, telematics reporting, or coordination with local districts—to preserve enforcement fidelity. The bill also contains no dedicated funding for those added surveillance tasks, raising the prospect that intended pollution‑control outcomes depend heavily on how CARB prioritizes limited resources.
Finally, the statute’s 'notwithstanding any other law' phrasing has preemption implications: it could limit local or programmatic rules that require more frequent testing unless CARB’s regulations carve out exceptions. That creates legal and policy friction points between state standardization and local air district strategies tailored to high‑impact corridors, and may encourage litigation or additional legislative clarifications if affected parties contest the scope of preemption.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.