California emissions

[thorconstr]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but check this out. It should be of interest to those in CA.
From: SEMA Action Network
Date sent 03/17/2008 03:03:01 pm
Subject: SEMA Legislative Alert: Old Car Emissions Exemption Threatened in 8 California Counties...









Old Car Emissions Exemption Threatened in 8 California Counties; Hearing Scheduled for April 1

Legislation (S.B. 1549) has been introduced in the California State Senate by Senator Dean Florez (senator.florez@sen.ca.gov) to repeal the state’s current emissions test exemption for pre-1976 vehicles registered by new owners in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. The District includes eight counties in California’s Central Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and the valley portion of Kern. Under the bill, after Jan. 1, 2009, new owners seeking to register a pre-1976 vehicle in these eight counties would be subject to emissions tests for the life of the vehicle. S.B. 1549 is scheduled to be considered by the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 1, 2008.

We Urge You to Call, E-Mail or Fax Senator Florez and Members of the Senate Transportation Committee (List Attached) Immediately to Oppose S.B. 1549

Existing law in California exempts all pre-1976 vehicles from emissions testing.


California’s current emissions testing exemption recognizes the minimal impact of pre-1976 motor vehicles on emissions and air quality.


Pre-1976 vehicles constitute a small and shrinking portion of the overall vehicle population in California and are a poor source from which to look for further emissions reductions.


Pre-1976 antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained.


Repeal of the exemption in the San Joaquin Valley could lead the Legislature to target other areas in the state in the future.


Legislators and regulators are again feeling the heat from a failed effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient scapegoat. The old car hobby should not carry the burden of their mistakes, as it has in previous amendments to the old car exemption!
Please phone, fax or e-mail Senator Florez to express your opposition to S.B. 1549. Senator Florez can be reached at:

E-Mail: Senator.Florez@sen.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 651-4016
Fax: (916) 327-5989

Please phone, fax or e-mail members of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee to express your opposition to S.B. 1549

California Senate Transportation & Housing Committee

(Click here to email all Committee members)

Senator Alan Lowenthal – Chair
Phone: 916/651-4027
Fax: 916/327-9113
Email: Senator.Lowenthal@sen.ca.gov

Senator Tom McClintock
Phone: 916/651-4019
Fax: 916/324-7544
Email: senator.mcclintock@sen.ca.gov

Senator Roy Ashburn
Phone: 916/651-4018
Fax: 916/322-3304
Email: senator.ashburn@sen.ca.gov

Senator Gilbert Cedillo
Phone: 916/651-4022
Fax: 916/327-8817
Email: senator.cedillo@sen.ca.gov

Senator Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916/651-4010
Fax: 916/327-2433
Email: senator.corbett@sen.ca.gov

Senator Bob Dutton
Phone: 916/651-4031
Fax: 916/327-2272
Email: senator.dutton@sen.ca.gov

Senator Tom Harman
Phone: 916/651-4035
Fax: 916/445-9263
Email: senator.harman@sen.ca.gov

Senator Christine Kehoe
Phone: 916/651-4039
Fax: 916/327-2188
Email: senator.kehoe@sen.ca.gov

Senator Jenny Oropeza
Phone: 916/651-4028
Fax: 916/323-6056
Email: senator.oropeza@sen.ca.gov

Senator Joe Simitian
Phone: 916/651-4011
Fax: 916/323-4529
Email: senator.simitian@sen.ca.gov

Senator Tom Torlakson
Phone: 916/651-4007
Fax: 916/445-2527
Email: senator.torlakson@sen.ca.gov

Senator Leland Yee
Phone: 916/651-4008
Fax: 916/327-2186
Email: senator.yee@sen.ca.gov

Please e-mail a copy of your letters to Steve McDonald at stevem@sema.org

[thudmaster]

I think you need to repost it..........says broken link

[Calbullet]

Al, link not good. says its incomplete.

Mel

[thorconstr]

I copied the article

[thudmaster]

thank you........

[1Cobrat]

Certainly SEMA or one of the other automotive aftermarket groups must have the facts on the impact of pre-76 cars on emissions (DMV should). These cars typically get driven around 3k miles per year??? The BAR must have stats on the average emissions on these cars. Some quick math would tell the real story of how much carbon would be saved. I doubt it would be a very significant number in the grand scheme of things. I'd like the facts. Hard to argue with facts. . . . even for a politician. However, we all should still voice our collective opposition to this proposed legislation.

[KM480]

This is just infuriating! To target such a small and insignificant sector of the automotive world is so very petty.

This is just polititians looking for some kind of brownie point with little benefit to the community and no regard to how it affects their constituants. And to the uniformed it will look like a valiant effort to clean up the air. "Think of the children" we'll hear from the political pulpit.

Well as a member of a powerful labor organization in the Central Valley I will be getting on this issue tomorrow in full force. I certainly hope that manufactuers and distributers of performace auto parts are getting on this immediately.

What I wonder is how this would relate to a SB-100 titled car?

[jhv48]

I e-mailed him and suggested he go after the landscapers who use uncontrolled two-stroke power tools which I'm sure must pollute more than the autos in question.

Oops, with a name like Flores, that wouldn't be very "politically correct" now would it?

And away we go!

[Ron61]

Why don't the voters that keep putting that ass in office get rid of him. This is not his first attempt to get rid of all older cars. I have e-mailed him on the other bills and have yet to receive even a computer generated answer. The best way to stop this is get rid of him.

Ron

[Don]

In 2007, the CT General Assembly included in a DMV Bill an emissions exemption for Composites, CT term for kit cars and replicas. The emission exemption already existed for vehicles 25 years and older and was not in question. CT does not have any restrictions on the number of Composites that can be registered.

In CT, the year first registered in the state as a Composite becomes the Model year and had been subject to a specific set of emissions standards. There was consideration for further reduction on the Composite emission standard, which effectively would have severely limited engine choice if not eliminated kit cars/replicas with period correct engines.

Some of the approaches and items mentioned in the successful effort to obtain the emissions exemption:

* Efforts by hobbyists and businesses with both written and public testimony at the Transportation Committee Public Hearing . Both types of testimony were personally authored rather than using petitions or pre-formatted form letters. The approach was viewed as favorable by the co-chairs of the Transportation Committee, they supported the endeavor, and the committee members. As an example, Peter from ERA, based in CT, testified at the Public Hearing. Individual hobbyists and the CT Council of Car Clubs also testified at the Public Hearings. Lobbyists did not testify at the Public Hearing, but submitted written testimony. Feedback from the Transportation Committee staff was positive due to the personal citizen approach, which was viewed as unique.

* The recreational driving season in CT is limited, April to October.

* Due to the nature of Kit cars and replicas ( as well as antique cars ) , very limited annual mileage as compared to other methods of transportation, i.e. recreational rather than daily commuter and shopping purposes.

* Registration by year was researched for the model Composite and expressed as a percent of all passenger car registrations. Approx 325 Composites compared to over 3,000,000 registrations, minimal impact.

* Overall, the high standard of condition both mechanically and in appearance.

* The Charity events sponsored and supported by Car Club organizations and civic organizations

* Economic impact of the car hobby

Thought I would mention should any of these items be helpful. The personal support of the co-chairs ( combined of Senate & House ) of the
Transportation Committee appeared to have heavily influenced the outcome.

[thorconstr]

I just sent this to Florez, I suggest you guys in CA and all your friends do the same.

Senator Florez,

You are talking about cars that on the average are used less than 1000 miles a year! Don't you have more urgent things to deal with, such as the imigration problem, skyrocketing school budgets and hospital costs, etc. (imigration caused)? Wake up and smell the coffee!
Thorsten A Wohlstrom
Tucson, AZ

[Ron61]

Thor,

I have already sent an e-mail to Flores and intend to send one to each of the listed Senators. Basically I asked him why he had such a dislike of older cars which DO NOT contribute enough to the bad air to make any difference. I also reminded him of his earlier bill that he never got through and asked him why he didn't use his power to try and help the state which is so deep in debt that it may sink and he would have no job. This guy is as anti car as they come.
I also intend to e-mail every Senator listed on the page urging them to worry about things that are important and not the few older cars that are driven only a little.
Also I am going to call Flores office and ask for some clarification on just what he is trying to accomplish as I have the printed out bill in front of me and it is the typical 6 pages to say what could have been said on one short page. But before I call, I am going to study the bill carefully and have all of my questions and complaints ready and in order.

Ron

[jhv48]

Here is a copy of the email I sent to all of them on the list.

Instead of wasting your time trying to get pre 1976 autos to the smog station every other year, how about addressing the illegal immigration problem.

My guess is that it contributes way more to the demise of the California infrastructure than the few classic cars you seek to govern.

Come on, someone up there grow some cojones and address the real problems of California.


If you don't hear from me in the near future, check Guantanamo!

[SP01715]

This is why I own a home in Arizona and hope to leave this crazy state for good some day. The socialist politicians in office in California are slowly taking all of our rights away.

I own a 1983 Dodge truck that is driven less than 200 miles a year (just used for dump runs) and a 1949 Caddy that gets driven less than 100 miles a year. Every two years I have to go and get my dodge smoged and it passes with flying colors because it only has 58k miles on it. Like has been said above, they should worry about more important things.

[RodKnock]

I have co-worker, who has never had an allergy in his life, move from to San Joaquin County. Now he has the worst allergies. I don't live there, but San Joaquin County has bad air pollution. In general, I think cleaning up the air everywhere is wonderful idea, but for some reason, the legislators in Sacramento think that these old cars are a significant reason for the poor air quality. Go get those yellow school buses.

[Dinobyte]

We need a national or strong regional radio host(s) to pick this up...Michael Savage, John and Ken, Armstrong and Getty, etc...and talk the hell out of it. That would generate some interest on why these guys are futzing around on such a small community...of course on the flip side, what they should go after are cars that blow white/blue smoke, have a peace sign or Greenpeace sitcker, and are driven by a tenured college professor at UC Berkley.

[KM480]

I pulled up the SB 1549 and read the 6 pages... it might not be a damaging as originally thought. It is still an unnecessary step in my opinion.

section 10 (iii) states an exemption if "the vehicle is being registered as a specially constructed vehicle" which I would think would make all SB100 cars safe.

Also section 30 (c) "For the purposes of subdivision (a), and collector motor vehicle, as defined in Section 259 of the Vehicle Code, is expempt from those portions of the test required by subdivision (f) of Section 44012 (Health and Safety Code) if the collector motor vehicle meets all of the following criteria:

(1) Submission of proof that the motor vehicle is insured as a collector motor vehicle, as shall be required by regulation of the bureau.
(2) The motor vehicle is at least 35 model-years old. (a 1974 or older for 1/2009 purposes)
(3)The motor vehicle complies with the exhaust emissions standards for that motor vehicle's class and model-year as prescribed by the department, and the motor vehicle passes functional inspection of the fuel cap and a visual inspection for liquid fuel leaks."

Now I would really LOVE for someone on the forum who is a lawyer to read SB 1549 and help us understand what it is really saying because I have no doubt I am not getting all of it.

Oh... section 259 of the Vehicle Code defines collector car as this:

259. "Collector motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle owned by a collector, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5051, and the motor vehicle is used primarily in shows, parades, charitable functions, and historical exhibitions for display, maintenance, and preservation, and is not used primarily for transportation

So from what I can the bill would effect cars that are not insured as a collector car and are not 35 years old... Lawyers, is that about right??

[Rick Parker]

This is all about money. The air quality in the San Joaquin Valley has been on a steady decline causing the Feds to withhold mass amounts of Federal Funding money unless certain standards are met. Hundreds of thousands of people migrated (were pushed) from the SF bay in an effort to find affordable housing and then many enter the daily commute traffic heading back to their jobs on a daily basis. Many driving 125 miles one way (or more). With the amount of commuting that is done within the Valley on an everyday occasion it becomes increasing difficult to point fingers. When entering the Valley you can see the layer hanging in the air.
I read recently that instead of having official complete Smog checks done every 2 years in conjunction with our registration renewal, (as we do now) there are plans to require it to be done yearly. Effectively doing away with the "Test Only Shops" that we had to go to in alternate years as well. This will effectively raise the revenue recieved by the state for each registration by (currently $8.25) which is the amount the smog shops pay the state for each Smog Certificate, not to mention the $$$ they actually charge for actually performing the Smog Check.
Occasionally (Rarely) I see one of the smelly vehicles in traffic and they are obviously quite "Dirty" and generally not well kept. This what we perceive this to be aimed at but in reality it is the $$ that will be created by requiring the pool of vehicles to be required to be checked annually. It would perhaps force the vehicles off the road if the owners could not effectively repair them.

[Ron61]

What about the part on Page 1 where it says, "Motor Vehicles manufactured prior to the 1976 model year are exempt from smog check requirements, as provided."
It follows this with. "This bill would Exclude from this exemption those motor vehicles registered by a new owner at an address within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on or after January 1, 2009."
That sounds as if the prior to 1976 vehicles would still be exempt unless you bought one and went in to register it. It also states basically word for word the same thing on page 2 and page 3.

Ron

[KM480]

Ron,

I think you are right, it looks like the only time it would revoke the expemption is when the title was transferred. But Rick is also right... all about the money shrouded behind the curtain of the environment.