California Introduces Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests OT Long

[Dennis Hemingway]

I copied this from the HAMB Site for us in California.

Dennis:mad:

California Introduces Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests

The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) sent Hagerty Plus the following Legislative Alert to share with our customers and agents immediately. If you have any questions regarding this alert, please call or email Rory Carroll, Hagerty Plus Legislative Resource Director at 800-922-4050, x8407 / Advocacy@hagerty.com or Steve McDonald, SEMA Vice President of Government Affairs at stevem@sema.org.

URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT

Here we go again! Legislation (A.B. 616) has been introduced in the California Assembly by Assemblyman Dave Jones to require annual Smog check inspections for vehicles 15-years old and older. The bill would also require that funds generated through the additional inspection fees be deposited into an account which can be used to scrap older cars. You may recall that in 2004 a new law was enacted in California to require the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. Pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under A.B. 616. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee.

We Urge You to Contact Assemblyman Jones and members of the Assembly Transportation Committee (List Below) Immediately to Oppose A.B. 616

A.B. 616 ignores the minimal impact vintage cars have on air quality.

A.B. 616 could entice vintage car owners into allowing these vehicles to be scrapped.

A.B. 616 ignores the fact that vehicles 15-years old and older still constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.

A.B. 616 ignores the fact that classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven.

A.B. 616 would increase costs by creating an annual inspection fee for owners of these vehicles.

A.B. 616 represents another attempt by California legislators and regulators to scapegoat older cars.

Please contact members of the California Assembly Transportation Committee immediately by phone, fax or e-mail to request their opposition to A.B. 616.

Please e-mail a copy of your letter to stevem@sema.org. Thank you for your assistance.

Assembly Transportation Committee

Pedro Nava, Chair

Telephone: (916) 319-2035

Fax: (916) 319-2135

Email: Assemblymember.nava@assembly.ca.gov

Michael D. Duvall, Vice-Chair

Telephone: (916) 319-2072

Fax: (916) 319-2172

Email: Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov

Wilma Amina Carter

Telephone: (916) 319-2062

Fax: (916) 319-2162

Email: Assemblymember.Carter@assembly.ca.gov

Mike DeSaulnier

Telephone: (916) 319-2011

Fax: (916) 319-2111

Email: Assemblymember.DeSaulnier@assembly.ca.gov

Cathleen Galgiani

Tel: (916) 319-2017

Fax: (916) 319-2117

Email: Assemblymember.Galgiani@assembly.ca.gov

Martin Garrick

Telephone: (916) 319-2074

Fax: (916) 319-2174

Email: Assemblymember.Garrick@assembly.ca.gov

Shirley Horton

Telephone: (916) 319-2078

Email: Assemblymember.Shirley.Horton@assembly.ca.gov

Guy S. Houston

Telephone: (916) 319-2015

Fax: (916) 319-2115

Email: Assemblymember.Houston@assembly.ca.gov

Bob Huff

Telephone: (916) 319-2060

Fax: (916) 319-2160

Email: assemblymember.huff@assembly.ca.gov

Betty Karnette

Telephone: (916) 319-2054

Email: Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov

Anthony J. Portantino

Telephone: (916) 319-2044

Fax: (916) 319-2144

Email: assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

Ira Ruskin

Telephone: (916) 319 - 2021

Fax: (916) 319 – 2121

Email: Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov

Jose Solorio

Telephone: (916) 319-2069

Fax: (916) 319-2169

Nell Soto

Telephone: (916) 319-2061

Fax: (916) 319-2161

Email: Assemblymember.Soto@assembly.ca.gov

If you are experiencing any difficulty in contacting your legislators, please contact Rory Carroll, Hagerty Plus Legislative Resource Director, at Advocacy@hagerty.com or 888-310-8020.

Please e-mail a copy of your letters to us at Advocacy@hagerty.com or fax: 231-932-6887.

Thank you for your commitment to the future of the collector vehicle hobby.

Sincerely,

McKeel Hagerty

[Norm's Coupe]

Dennis,

That's the pits. We don't have to pay for emission testing here on any vehicle, unless your vehicle fails to pass at least 3 times. After that there is a fee, don't know how much though.

Also, if a vehicle is less than 20 years old it must be tested. Even so, the emission rate allowed is higher than for newer cars. Once a car is over 20 years old it only needs testing once. After that testing is not required.

I really think the non collectors are the one's messing it up for the collectors. I've overheard people talking in public that they were looking for a car over 20 years old. Not because they are collectors but because they can drive the cars without getting them inspected each year. THAT CREATES A PROBLEM FOR US!! More and more people are doing that to get around inspections so eventually it will spoil it for all of us.

At least they aren't banning the old cars. Guess if push comes to shove, paying for the test is just another added cost to owning an old car.

[Plymouthy Adams]

IF..legistation and insurace companies are together in this two things can be done, first all get screwed..or based up on the speciality insurance companies like Hagety's..those vehicles so identified by them are reported back as a collector car with limited use and therefore continue in exempt status..those vehicles in daily driver status with normal insurance carriers will be therefore lumped in with the daily polluters and subject to testing. Much like some states that tax the value on the car based on age..after X yers the value is down to a minimum fee...some states refer to the collector car index listing the current fair market on the collector resulting in a higher tax..even though as we all know said cars are most likely sitting 80 percent of the time. Tax on vehicles is used to upkeep the roads and such and the dialy driver is the one burning down the road daily. Further this cause to the guy who had 10 cars..sure he can drive but one at a time but a policy needs written tothe extent that all is assumed on the road at one time...you got a license..you pay insurance on the license...you have two licensed drivers..you pay for two policies..state sells tags per vehicle..no problem there...this is about the only fair part of ownership.

[Merle Coggins]

Norm,

I saw on the news last night that Wisconsin was looking into the possibility of doing away with emission testing and would be using that money to fund a train system that would run between Milwaukee and Chicago. They say that they aren't really removing any vehicles from the roadways anyway, so some are thinking the testing is a waste of money. Some legislators are really pushing for this train deal and if they can use the emission testing money then they won't be putting the financial burden for the train system onto the tax payers.

I don't know why we need a train system to run to Chicago, but if they are going to do it, I'm all for using the emission testing money for it. No more emission tests sounds good to me. The factories are probably polluting the air more that our automobiles anyway. Go test their emissions and leave us alone.

Merle

[Young Ed]

MN got rid of its emission testing long ago. I guess we managed to do 1 thing right.....

[Guest mikeys toy]

one of the big reasons why I left Ca.....

[Normspeed]

One sad reality in the Golden State (CA) is that it's truly all about the money. It permeates everything here, public and private. This legislation is obviously just another case of our lawmakers greedily eyeing yet another source of revenue that they can squander on pet projects. The term "pigs at the trough" is a vast understatement. Sorry, too many years working within sight of and downwind from the California politicians.

On the bright side, if I read this correctly, it only affects cars 15 years and older and it exempts pre-1976 vehicles. So our beloved P15's, D24's and my wayward P24 would not be affected.

PS here's alink to the actual proposed law: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_616_bill_20070221_introduced.html

[norrism1]

Hi everyone, Just thought I'd add my 2 cents. In NY- any vehicle made from 1996 and newer must pass a special test once a year. This is connected by Internet from the shop you are getting your vehicle inspected at and it connects with a database in Albany. If it passes all OBDII tests it is allowed to run on the road another year. The new Inspection stickers on the window have a barcode the police can scan when they pull you over and it will let them know instantly if inspection is legal or not. It just keeps getting better and better in the Empire State boys and girls!! Expensive too!! BTY-- Any vehicle made 1995 or prior is exempt from emissions. ( No OBDII)

[RobertKB]

Try living in England. My son is living and working in London and owns an older VW Polo. All cars, including antiques, have to be inspected yearly and have to pass before the car is registered again. Antique cars have to meet only the standards of their day but must be mechanically sound. The MOT (Ministry of Transport) test is moderately expensive and if your car does not pass you have to get the necessary repairs done or scrap the car. That's probably why there are so many newer cars in the UK and the rest of Europe. Not such as bad idea as where I live there are beaters on the road that are a menace to everyone. However, you still see some pretty nice antique cars over there as shown by the pictures I took when visiting my son in October 2005.

[Guest Gerhard Tieseler]

I think this line makes us exempt

© (1) All motor vehicles not subject to biannual inspection

shall also be exempt from annual inspection.

'76 and older cars do not require biannual inspection right now. Maybe this jerk is trying to say cars 15yrs old and older until 1976 will now require annual testing.

Maybe the Governator will strike it down!

I should move..

[James_Douglas]

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

RE: A.B. 616

Dear Legislator,

At one point in my life I worked as a Researcher - Planner for the 3rd largest Transit District in the state doing sophisticated transportation data analysis projects. I have also worked as a contractor designing and building computer models for BART.

You should also know that I drive classic cars. Classic cars being defined as those made prior to 1975. I understand that in the current cut of AB 616 the older cars are exempt. I also know that legislation tends to change as it movers forward.

My wife and I live in San Francisco and we use the SF MUNI or walk most of the time. Between the two of us we don’t drive more than 3000 miles a year. That is only 1500 miles each! The few miles we drive in our classic car per year has little impact on the environment no matter how much emissions it produces.

Some years back I started to wonder what amount of auto air pollution is attributable to classic cars in California. I did a check of the literature and found out that in California no definitive research had ever been done. Let me repeat that for effect. No definitive research has been done on the amount of environmental pollution classic cars do in California in a typical year!

In the last 15 years or so, folks in the Executive Branch, the Legislature, and some lobbing organizations have come out asking for tighter restrictions on classic cars. Spokespersons for these folks have made repeated claims as to how much pollution a restriction, monitoring, etc that their proposed policy would save. The problem is that it is all hogwash. I called each and every one of them and asked for the imperial data they based their claims on. They tend to quote someone else or another government agency. But if you run down those folks inevitably no one has ant research or data to support their conclusions.

This kind of policy - data two step is just not acceptable. You may as well make policy decisions with a set of dice!

Some time back I then proceeded to call the research units of the Bureau of Automotive Repair, the California Air Resources Board (Mobile Unit), and The Department of Motor Vehicles. They all informed me that the correlations, between classic cars and various pollutants, had not been done to their knowledge. We then discussed the most basic and direct way to do the research. They agreed with me that a correct research model (project) would take the DMV records of vehicle by Make, Model, Year, and Zip Code and then correlate them against the BAR-CARB emission standards by area (via aggregate zip codes) and emission type. Subtract that from the total emissions for a given area and you have it.

At the end of our conversations I was told by their Senior Researchers that they had never seen any study like what we discussed and that if I ever did that kind of study would I please pass it along to them.

I then decided to do the research at my own time and expense. That is, until I called the DMV section which would have to give me the raw data to do such work. Some years back the legislature passed a law making DMV data which includes address information confidential. Although I just needed the vehicle Make, Model, Year, and Zip Code without the license plate or VIN, I could not get the data because of the zip code. This is a classic lesson on the lack of legislative foresight and the law of unintended consequences.

I thought about appealing to my state legislators to help get a waiver, which apparent can be granted for legitimate research. That is until I was told that if I was given a waver, it would still cost me $10,000 to $20,000 for the data which the state has on a $1 CD. Now this is information that I pay as a taxpayer to collect and process. All this was too much for me, and I had dropped my efforts.

I urge you to keep older automobiles from having to participate in any pollution related programs until and unless real research is available to support any legislative position on the subject.

My mother said that the right to complain comes with it the responsibility to offer a creative alternative. Therefore, if you would like me to do the research, which is sorely lacking, assign a staff person to contact me and provide assistance in securing the raw data necessary to do the work. Upon completion, the hard data will make the case, one way or the other, as to whether it is good or bad policy to include older automobiles in new government ordained pollution control efforts.

Politician or Statesman the choice is yours.

Sincerely, James Douglas

San Francisco, CA