Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

CA EMISSIONS ALERT!!!

Discussion in 'The Garage' started by ntsqd, Feb 23, 2004.

  1. ntsqd

    ntsqd 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2002
    Posts:
    3,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    So. CA
    From an email list:

    > -------- Original Message --------
    > Subject: SEMA California Legislative Alert: Legislation to Repeal
    > Old
    > Car Emissions Exemption Reintroduced
    > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:50:15 -0800
    > From: Suzie Carroll <SuzieC@sema.org>
    > To: Suzie Carroll <SuzieC@sema.org>
    >
    >
    >
    > URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT
    >
    > Legislation to Repeal Old Car Emissions Exemption Reintroduced
    >
    > in California State Assembly
    >
    > Here we go again! As predicted, legislation has been
    > reintroduced in the California Assembly to repeal the state's current
    >
    > rolling emissions test exemption for vehicles 30 years old and older.
    >
    > A.B. 2683 repeals the current pro-hobbyist exemption and replaces it
    > with a provision requiring the permanent testing of all pre-1976
    > vehicles. This year, the bill was introduced by California State
    > Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D-District 22).
    >
    > We Urge You to Contact Assemblywoman Lieber and Your Own State
    > Assembly
    > Member Immediately to Oppose A.B. 2683
    >
    > * Existing law in California exempts all vehicles 30-years old
    > and
    > older from emissions testing.
    >
    > * California's current emissions testing exemption recognizes the
    > minimal impact of vehicles 30-years old and older on vehicle
    > emissions and air quality.
    >
    > * Vehicles 30-years old and older constitute a small portion of
    > the
    > overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to
    > look for emissions reduction.
    >
    > * Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained
    > and infrequently driven (about one-third the miles each year as
    > a
    > new vehicle).
    >
    > * Legislators and regulators are 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!
    >
    > Contact your State Assembly Member to oppose A.B. 2683.
    > Assemblywoman
    > Lieber can be reached by e-mail at
    > Assemblywoman.Lieber@assembly.ca.gov
    > To find out who your own State Assembly Member is, contact the
    > California Assembly's general information line at 916/445-4311. This
    >
    > information can also be accessed via the Internet at
    > http://www.enjoythedrive.com/legislative/contact_legislator.asp or by
    >
    > calling the SEMA Washington, DC office at 202-783-6007, ext. 38.
    > Please
    > e-mail a copy of your letters to us at stevem@sema.org or fax to
    > 202/783-6024 or mail to:
    >
    > SEMA Washington Office
    >
    > 1317 F St., NW, Ste. 500
    >
    > Washington, D.C. 20004
    >
    > Attn: Steve McDonald
    >
    >
     
  2. Bubba Ray Boudreaux

    Bubba Ray Boudreaux 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Posts:
    20,716
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Undisclosed Location
    I'm glad I no longer have to deal with CA Smog testing /forums/images/graemlins/peace.gif

    I'm dreaming of a four, fifty fourrrrr /forums/images/graemlins/woot.gif
     
  3. Shaggy

    Shaggy 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Posts:
    6,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Banos, CA
    Here's my letter, please feel free to modify as you see fit and send it in for yourself. I'm not much or a writer but I did what I can.


    Dear Assemblywoman Lieber,

    I urge you to reconsider your pending legislation regarding smog laws pertaining to vehicles older than 30 years. In general, vehicles of this age group are used by enthusiasts in a very limited fashion and are a statistically insignificant contributor to the smog problem in this state. I don't have any actual statistics to back this up, just common sense. Look around as you drive down California's highways, how many cars older than 30 years do you actually see? Of the very few that you do see, how many are restored or customized and running nice and clean? From what I see on my 200 mile per day commute, most of the cars that are on our highways belching smoke and causing smog are poorly maintained cars from the 80s and early 90s. By the time a car is 30 years old it is either being lovingly cared for by an enthusiast or it has long since gone to the junkyard.

    I'll give you an example of how backwards smog lows are in this state when it comes to older cars. I currently own a customized 1978 Chevrolet that I have spent a great deal of time and money on; although I drive it less than 1000 miles per year. It passes all smog laws that apply to it, but because of those very same smog laws I am not allowed to perform modifications that would actually make it run more efficiently and produce substantially fewer emissions. In this case California's smog laws are actually forcing me to have a vehicle that creates more pollution than if I were allowed to modify it; I am being forced to use 30 year old technology on this vehicle.

    Most enthusiasts that enjoy vehicles from this era have similar problems. Technology has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 30 years; given the choice the enthusiasts would prefer to use this modern technology, something that is very difficult to do when smog laws are enforced on these older vehicles.

    AB 2683 is not only unnecessary, it wastes time that the legislature could be spending on more important things, like figuring out how to get our state out of it's current financial situation. By imposing new smog laws on enthusiasts that enjoy older vehicles you will alienate a huge group of automotive enthusiasts and hit businesses that provide those enthusiasts with goods and services square in the wallet. This law does nothing to help anything, it merely makes scapegoats of classic cars, blaming them for a problem that they have very little to do with.

    Regards,
    Evan Sanders
     
  4. NoSmog73

    NoSmog73 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2001
    Posts:
    2,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    lodi,ca
    Sent.. /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
     
  5. SUBFAN

    SUBFAN 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,334
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Davenport, Ia
    The Nazi's are restless....
     
  6. tRustyK5

    tRustyK5 Big meanie Staff Member Super Moderator GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Posts:
    36,170
    Likes Received:
    1,377
    Location:
    E-town baby!
    Hey Subfan,

    Might want to change the 'hack' url in your sig... /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif Looks like you've been owned by PavementSucks.com

    Rene
     
  7. unick

    unick 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Posts:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego Comufornia
    /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif
     
  8. 88Silverado

    88Silverado 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Posts:
    2,664
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Quartz Hill, So. Cal
    There is some different info posted on the SEMA site.
    SEMA Info

    The original proposal by Flores last year was defeted. He agreed to change the requirement to vehicles who emit excessive smoke can be called in for test. I dont think this is going to affect the current 73 and prior exemption.
     
  9. daleearnhardt01

    daleearnhardt01 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Man the stuff you people from Cali have to put up with just makes me sick. I just dont understand it, makes me glad to live in Virginia..
     
  10. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,979
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    [ QUOTE ]
    I just dont understand it, makes me glad to live in Virginia..

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah, state of the 50 windshield stickers. I don't see a :flipoff: so that will have to serve. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

    Nothing against you or your state, but all those damn stickers, and a "safety" inspection. I think I'll stick to MAYBE a non-visual emissions sniffer test and call it good.

    I'd say it would be better with no emissions testing, but since our vehicles out west last longer than 10 years, we'd probably be driving around in a constant fog (worse than we already do) in the major metro areas.
     
  11. Shaggy

    Shaggy 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Posts:
    6,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Banos, CA
    [ QUOTE ]
    There is some different info posted on the SEMA site.
    SEMA Info

    The original proposal by Flores last year was defeted. He agreed to change the requirement to vehicles who emit excessive smoke can be called in for test. I dont think this is going to affect the current 73 and prior exemption.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    That's a different bill, SB708. The one that's being talked about here is active in the Assembly right now.
     
  12. daleearnhardt01

    daleearnhardt01 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    I just dont understand it, makes me glad to live in Virginia..

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah, state of the 50 windshield stickers. I don't see a :flipoff: so that will have to serve. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

    Nothing against you or your state, but all those damn stickers, and a "safety" inspection. I think I'll stick to MAYBE a non-visual emissions sniffer test and call it good.

    I'd say it would be better with no emissions testing, but since our vehicles out west last longer than 10 years, we'd probably be driving around in a constant fog (worse than we already do) in the major metro areas.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah the inspections are kind of a pain and so are the county stickers... I dont have to worry about the inspection though, drive it down the street and wait 2 minutes while he gives me a sticker. Ah the perks of working at a shop /forums/images/graemlins/peace.gif /forums/images/graemlins/peace.gif
     
  13. 88Silverado

    88Silverado 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Posts:
    2,664
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Quartz Hill, So. Cal
    44011. (a) All motor vehicles powered by internal combustion engines that are registered within an area designated for program coverage shall be required biennially to obtain a certificate of compliance or noncompliance, except for all of the following:
    Any vehicle manufactured prior to 1976.

    That pushs the check out 2 more years from where it currently stands


    AB2683
     
  14. ntsqd

    ntsqd 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2002
    Posts:
    3,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    So. CA
    I wonder if the "no ex post facto laws" clause of the Constitution can be invoked?


    I've said it b4, I'll say it again: those of us in states that don't have this BS (yet), enjoy what you've got because sooner or later it's coming your direction.
     
  15. Shaggy

    Shaggy 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Posts:
    6,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Banos, CA
    [ QUOTE ]
    44011. (a) All motor vehicles powered by internal combustion engines that are registered within an area designated for program coverage shall be required biennially to obtain a certificate of compliance or noncompliance, except for all of the following:
    Any vehicle manufactured prior to 1976.

    That pushs the check out 2 more years from where it currently stands


    AB2683

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Actually it only rolls it out one more year. Right now it's a 30 year rolling exemption, so this year being 2004, 1975 and earlier vehicles are exempt.

    From the DMV website -

    How old does a vehicle have to be to qualify for a smog exemption?

    Vehicles with a year model 30 years old or older are exempt from the smog certification requirements.

    Example: The calendar year is 2004- 29 = 1975 exempt year model

    The current calendar year minus 29 equals the year model exempt from smog certification.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  16. 88Silverado

    88Silverado 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Posts:
    2,664
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Quartz Hill, So. Cal
    Aahhhh..thats right, they went to the 30 year rule.
    In 14 years...im exempt /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
     

Share This Page