Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
675 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
For those of you following the CA smog law bill, it passed the senate yesterday and only needs the Governors signature now to pass and become law. They've added some amendments to it regarding collectors cars that I don't quite understand but it appears that pre-76 models will still be exempt, at least I hope so....

Below is a link to the bill text

68Restoman

Smog Bill Text
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,701 Posts
This bill would instead, commencing April 1, 2005, exempt from the
smog check requirements, and the smog check compliance requirements,
any motor vehicle manufactured prior to the 1976 model-year.
The bill would also provide that defined collector motor vehicles for
which proof of insurance is submitted on that basis in accordance
with regulations of the Bureau of Automotive Repair, and that are at
least 35 model years old, shall be subject to otherwise applicable
exhaust emissions standards, but shall not be required to pass a
visual and functional inspection of emission equipment, other than a
functional inspection of the fuel cap and a visual inspection for
liquid fuel leaks.


As I read it, this means that cars pre-76 are still exempt and cars that are insured as collector cars (driven to/from shows, club activities, etc.) that are 35 years old or older are exempt from the actual testing. I may be wrong, since I don't speak lawyer, but that's my interpretation.

If you drive a post-76 car as a daily driver you will have to pass all the tests.

The new bill does make bringing a car in from out-of-state easier though. If it's pre-76 it will not need any smog equipment at all, since it does not have to pass the tests (visual or physical).

It bothers me that they are passing this bill, only because it is a "foot in the door" for the next one. The content of this bill is not all that bad though, that is, unless you have a daily-driver from post-76 that you were waiting for the rolling exemption to cover.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,546 Posts
Here is the email I just received from Hagerty that gives a better explanation.

URGENT CALIFORNIA ALERT--IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED

The Specialty Equipment and Manufacturers Association (SEMA) recently sent the Hagerty Protection Network the following Legislative Alert to share with our customers, agents, and supporters in California. If you have any questions regarding this alert, please call or email Sydney McManus, Hagerty Protection Network Legislative Director, at 800-922-4050, x8787 / [email protected] or Steve McDonald, SEMA Senior Director of Government and Technical Affairs at [email protected]

California Emissions Exemption Repeal Bill Passes in Senate--Moves to Assembly

On August 24, 2004, the California Senate approved A.B. 2683 with damaging amendments. A.B. 2683 is the legislation that would repeal the state's current rolling emissions-test exemption for vehicles 30 years old and older. The bill repeals the current pro-hobbyist exemption and replaces it with a law requiring the permanent testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. Under pressure from the Governor's office, bill sponsors amended the bill "allegedly" to protect the interests of car collectors. The amendments do no such thing and are being opposed by SEMA and the major car clubs and organizations in California. The bill now moves to the California Assembly, which must agree to the amendments before the bill goes to the Governor for his signature or veto. We have identified key legislators in the Assembly (see below) whose votes could make the difference between winning or losing this battle.

We Urge You to Call These Legislators IMMEDIATELY to Request That They Vote Against A.B. 2683 as Amended!

The amendments do the following:

1. Require vehicles of the post 1975 model year insured as collector cars (driven only to parades, exhibitions, etc.) and at least 35-years old to continue in the Smog Check program for the duration of the vehicle's life.

2. Revise the Smog Check testing regimen for these qualifying vehicles to include a tailpipe test, functional inspection of the fuel cap and a visual inspection for liquid fuel leaks. The vehicle would be forced to comply with the exhaust emissions standards for the vehicle's class and model year as prescribed by California regulators.

Despite assurances from the bill's sponsors that a good faith effort would be made to address hobbyist concerns, these amendments betray the trust of the collector car community. There is nothing that differentiates a 1975 from a 1976 vehicle requiring one be accorded a lifetime exemption while the other is not. Further, with regulators having proposed yearly testing of these older vehicles, these amendments could be far costlier and even more burdensome to vehicle collectors in the future. In addition, regulators could set emissions standards to any level that suits their purposes in order to ensure inspection failures of these 1976 and later model cars. Finally, nothing in these amendments would stop regulators from bringing 1975 and older vehicles back into the Smog Check program at a later date.

KEY CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY MEMBERS

Calderon, Ronald S. (916) 319-2058
Canciamilla, Joe (916) 319-2011
Chan, Wilma (916) 319-2016
Chavez, Ed (916) 319-2057
Correa, Lou (916) 319-2069
Dutra, John (916) 319-2020
Firebaugh, Marco A. (916) 319-2050
Horton, Jerome (916) 319-2051
Levine, Lloyd (916) 319-2040
Maldonado, Abel (916) 319-2033
Matthews, Barbara (916) 319-2017
Montanez, Cindy (916) 319-2039
Nation, Joe (916) 319-2006
Oropeza, Jenny (916) 319-2055
Parra, Nicole (916) 319-2030
Ridley-Thomas, Mark (916) 319-2048
Salinas, Simon (916) 319-2028
Simitian, Joe (916) 319-2021
Steinberg, Darrell (916) 319-2009
Vargas, Juan (916) 319-2079
Wesson, Herb J. Jr. (916) 319-2047

The truth remains the same:

California's current law recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles 30-years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality.
Vehicles 30-years old and older still constitute a minuscule 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 (a fraction of the miles each year as a new vehicle).
Legislators, regulators and stationary source polluters are feeling the heat from a failed effort to meet air quality goals and are looking for a convenient scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to further their case. The old car hobby should not carry the burden of their mistakes!
To find who your own California Assembly Member is, visit the Hagerty Protection Network website "Advocacy Avenue" section at http://www.hagerty.com/advocacy/adv_sections.asp?z=contact, or by emailing or calling Sydney McManus, Hagerty Protection Network Legislative Director, at [email protected] or 800-922-4050, x8787. Please contact Steve McDonald at [email protected] or Sydney McManus at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and your continued commitment to the hobby.

Sincerely,

McKeel Hagerty
Hagerty Protection Network
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
I've sent my letter to Arnie asking him to veto the bill. Get as many people as you can to do the same!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
I have a little experience in reading these. It appears that:

The 1975 and older cars are still exempt from the smog requirements.

Currently, if you bring a car from out of state and try to register it, you must pass a smog test if your car is 1966 or newer. Now the 1975 and earlier exemption applies to these cars as well.

Collectors cars exemption applies to 1976 cars and later. You have to meet some of the smog requirements, but not all of them. I didn't look any further at the codes to determine what requirements apply to collectors cars and which don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
IMHO, the fanatical slobbering against this bill belongs on a bad day of Rush Limbaugh's show. It's the kneejerk, brainless reaction of an 80 year old who heard somebody say something about touching Social Security.

It actually makes the deal for pre-76 cars BETTER by eliminating what few requirements, inspections and testing there was.

There ARE no frickin' collectors cars from 1975 on, at least through about 1990! So the whole frantic, gobbling, ranting opposition is from Mustang II owners who thought they were going to be able to rip the cats off their baby next year.

Jeez, people, focus on something WORTH fighting...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
675 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Exactly what is it that I said that you consider fanatical slobbering and ranting opposition? I thought that keeping the pre-76 cars exempt was good news...

For those of you following the CA smog law bill, it passed the senate yesterday and only needs the Governors signature now to pass and become law. They've added some amendments to it regarding collectors cars that I don't quite understand but it appears that pre-76 models will still be exempt, at least I hope so....

Below is a link to the bill text

68Restoman
68Restoman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,080 Posts
Jim, while your points are correct, the big concern that most people have -- and Kent mentioned it earlier in this post -- is that once the legislators get their foot in the door by stopping the rolling 30-year exemption, they can then start going for a rollback to include earlier model cars.

Point of fact: the report from the Air Resources Board that was used as the basis for this legislation also included a statement along the lines that while it would be worthwhile to include '66 - '75 cars in the smog testing program (from a polluter standpoint), it could not be done at this time due to the amounts of addiitional processing by DMV, etc to monitor these automobiles.

At this point, the best thing to do is to send a letter directly to the Gov, asking him to veto the bill. His address:

www.govmail.ca.gov

OR

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
I'm not opposed to the bill. It seems like a fair bill to me. Of course, I may be biased since I'm in the environmental engineering field and I own a pre-76 vehicle.

I would have to disagree with Sacbill regarding the reason that they didn't include 1966-1975 cars in the smog check program. The reason they didn't go after pre 1976 vehicles is that it wasn't politically feasible. In their own words from the "Evaluation of the California Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) Program"-April 2004:

"Because the pre-1976 vehicles have already been exempted, reintroduction of these vehicles into the biennial inspection cycle might result in relatively high failure rates and associated high repair costs. In addition, consumers owning pre-1976 vehicles might feel like a new burden is being imposed on them and strongly oppose the change. On the other hand, repeal of the rolling exemption should not generate the same level of opposition because the vehicles that would be affected are currently included in the biennial inspection cycle. Because the vehicles have not been exempted yet, repealing the exemption would not impose a new requirement on these vehicle owners"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,503 Posts
This is just a bad bill. Bills like this are also a waste of time when they could be using their time on other issues.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,701 Posts
I am not opposed to the bill, per-se. I am opposed to the reason for the bill.

The politicians are looking for a way to control pollution, which is a good thing, but they are looking in the wrong place again.

The number of cars that will be impacted by this bill are very few, on the scale of things. How do they expect to fix our air and water if they keep trying to do it by hitting a tiny percentage of the cars, rather than going after the big businesses that are actually gross polluters?

This is a band-aid and it does give them a foot up to come after the rest of the hobby, which has long been a favorite target of the Californian politicos. We are an easy target, so we take a lot of shots. So far, most have been deflected, but once they figure out how to hit the mark you can bet they will start shooting at us more often.

Go after the gross polluters and leave the hobbyists and vintage car lovers alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
Jim, while your points are correct, the big concern that most people have -- and Kent mentioned it earlier in this post -- is that once the legislators get their foot in the door by stopping the rolling 30-year exemption, they can then start going for a rollback to include earlier model cars.
The usual argument mustered against fixing anything, ever. I thought Vietnam pretty well spiked the domino effect theory, but there ya go... :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
Exactly what is it that I said that you consider fanatical slobbering and ranting opposition?
Not necessarily herein. The hysterical ravings throughout the car community are pretty extreme, though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,701 Posts
What? Are you just trying to pick fights tonight, or what?

Do you think that the politicos that are going after the vintage cars instead of the corporate gross polluters would not roll things back to completely eliminate older cars if they could? They try it every year in one fashion or another.

Give em an inch and they'll eat your lunch :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
Look: they long ago wrote the law to permanently exclude pre-cat cars from smog inspections. A wise move: the difference beween a car of that era in reasonably good tune with none of its smog gear and one in perfect smog condition is a ridiculously small amount of emissions.

Then they decided that all cars 30 years old and older didn't need to be inspected any more. This meant nothing for a good five years.

Then they decided that cat cars, when de-smogged or not in good smog tune, take a huge jump in emissions, and it probably wasn't a good idea to let them fall off the smog check. I have trouble disagreeing with this, and trouble seeing it as some sort of "foot in the door" to change anything further about smog laws. It's not an arbitrary point, it's the point at which emission controls became serious and effective... and should be maintained as such, regardless of the age of the vehicle.

I have very little patience with generalized, sweeping "hate and fear and object to absolutely everything the gummint does" attitudes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I would hope the reason for this legislation is to get the real poorly maintained cars off our roadways. You see it everyday, a four wheel pile of scrap driving down the road with a temporary operating permit or the 30 plus year old car spewing smoke like a locomotive. These are the cars that give us a bad rap.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,701 Posts
I have very little patience with generalized, sweeping "hate and fear and object to absolutely everything the gummint does" attitudes.
You really do like to pick fights, don't you?

You also seem to ignore the fact (note I said "fact") that your gummint is patently ignoring the big businesses that are gross polluters in favor of trying to get a very small percentage of cars off the road.

I don't really have any objection to legislation that causes smogged vehicles to be maintained. I think that is a good thing.

I do object to legislation that requires older cars pass tests that their smog equipment was never designed to pass in the first place, which they are about to do with this new bill.

I also object quite strenuously to the gross polluters being allowed to skate because they have the money to play politics, rather than spending that same money to correct their status as gross polluters.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,701 Posts
I agree whole-heartedly on this one. If you see a car spewing smoke call 1-800-EXHAUST and report it.

We are not suffering from a "bad rap" though. We are just an easier target than big business. Shell, Exxon, Chevron, etc. all qualify as gross polluters, yet manage to keep doing business as usual, while our gummint trys to get the old cars off the roads.

Too bad we don't have the equivalent of 1-800-EXHAUST for the real problems in our environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
You really do like to pick fights, don't you?
You mean, rather than being an AM radio-fed sheep? ("Baaaad gummint. Gummint baaaaaaad.") Sure, I guess I like to pick fights, then.

You also seem to ignore the fact (note I said "fact") that your gummint is patently ignoring the big businesses that are gross polluters in favor of trying to get a very small percentage of cars off the road.
Completely worthless logic, the sort used to oppose everything the writer doesn't like - "They should be out fighting REAL crime instead of hassling me!" That they are doing one thing doesn't mean that they would be doing the other instead - the lax rules on industrial pollution come straight down from the policies of Dubya and his puppetmasters. Saying that the Californicos should ignore everything else in trying to buck current federal policy is nonsense.

I do object to legislation that requires older cars pass tests that their smog equipment was never designed to pass in the first place, which they are about to do with this new bill.
PPOR - that's "Provide Proof or Retract." I have never seen any smog legislation that increases emission standards for a car past those of its original year of manufacture - ever.

I also object quite strenuously to the gross polluters being allowed to skate because they have the money to play politics, rather than spending that same money to correct their status as gross polluters.
Then fight THAT battle, not some substitute that has nothing much to do with it. Forcing the feds to lock down industrial pollutant standards and enforce them is a battle worth fighting. Pissing and moaning over AB2683 for trivial reasons is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
We are just an easier target than big business.
Who, exactly, is an easier target? You are following the SEMA argument that this is somehow an anti-hot rod law. What you (all) are really objecting to is that "collectors" don't get preferential treatment. Pardon me for not sobbing.

And not one word of this applies to any classic Mustang, nor ever will - the last one's bucks went in the dumpster before cats were mandated.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top