Skip to main content

Closed8 replies

New Smog Legislation for California

T tomsealbeachMember
Guys,

I thought I would send this around...we ALL need to call everyone of the legislators on the attached email and let them know that you oppose the legislation that will force smog requirements on any car older that 15 years old.

Please pass this on to anyone one who owns a vintage car or is a vintage fan and urge them to call. Ask employees, friends, co workers etc. to call. The more people calling, the more likely we can stop this.

Its simple, call the legislators office and simply say, that "A.B. 616 is bad legislation and you urge the a no vote". That's it...if you want to say why, go ahead.

Please don't ignore this...I have been involved with many legislative issues and helped stop bad legislation! We must call and make our voices heard...we can stop this! Think of all the Pantera that will have to change their motors back to stock configurations!!!!!!! Even if you aren't in California...help out your California brethren or you may see a much slower and quieter car next time.

Best regards,

Tom Borcich

Here is what I pulled off the other forum:


URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT

California Introduces Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests
for Vehicles 15-Years Old and Older

Here we go again! Legislation (A.B. 616) has been introduced in the
California Assembly by Assemblyman Dave Jones Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov> 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
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

George PGeorge PAdmin.
If you're finding this confusing, here's the changes in a nutshell:

The bill affects only those vehicles in California currently required to be smogged biannually, that are 15 years old or older. For these vehicles the frequency of smog inspections would be increased to annual inspections.

Vehicles exempt from biannual inspection shall remain exempt from annual inspections too. No changes for cars less than 15 years old.

The bill is set to become law in 2008, therefore vehicles built during model years 1976 through 1993 would require annual inspection that year.

Folks driving hot-rodded cars now, free from inspection shall remain free from inspection.

They seem to be targeting vehicles that are suspected to have a higher likelyhood to be gross polluters. It seems they already made compromises for the classic car/hot rodder hobbies. I would guess they knew the bill would be destined for defeat if they targeted vehicles currently exempt. They are operating on the assumption that if the exempt cars remain exempt the bill will have less opposition.

Not commenting pro or con, I would like to observe that this is one of the more benign pieces of smog lesgilation I've seen the green state try to enact. What's up, is the air pollution lobby mellowing out?

Thanks for posting the info Tom.

George
garth66garth66"When speed is the only thing that counts"
FWIW Tom, what you posted is correct.

This bill is bad legislation. This significantly impacts the next generation of hot rodders, and a good number of the current generation. The proponents of this bill are merely adopting a strategy of waiting a few years for their desired result in hopes that there will be less direct opposition to the bill at the present time. Do not be complacent. Call now!

Think about if a bill like this was enacted 15 years ago. You would not be able to modify and enjoy your Pantera today like we all do!

Call now!
fahrenheit351fahrenheit351Member
quote:
Originally posted by garth66:
FWIW Tom, what you posted is correct.

This bill is bad legislation. This significantly impacts the next generation of hot rodders, and a good number of the current generation. The proponents of this bill are merely adopting a strategy of waiting a few years for their desired result in hopes that there will be less direct opposition to the bill at the present time. Do not be complacent. Call now!

Think about if a bill like this was enacted 15 years ago. You would not be able to modify and enjoy your Pantera today like we all do!

Call now!


It's exactly that: a matter of degrees!! Give a little now, then a little more down the road and before you know it WHAM!! we're all driving Prius'.

It has never been about reduction of smog but instead about generating revenue. While else would California have a "visual" requirement on the smog test? If you are truly concerned about air polution who cares if your car has the original smog equipment in place? The ONLY thing that should be of concern is whether your car passes a "sniffer" test. Most hot rods and the like are in a higher state of tune and run much cleaner without that dated technology junk anyway. Most pass the "sniffer" no problem but fail because the EGR valve isn't working or some other dumb$$$ useless fix. Now you have to fix and retest. More $$$.

The whole mess is just political grand standing so a few knuckleheads can say "Look I'm fighting to clean up our air quality" without doing anything that really makes a difference (except to us gearheads).

Well I think that was a $1.02!! Off my soap box now.

Miles
George PGeorge PAdmin.
quote:
Originally posted by Fahrenheit351:
...While else would California have a "visual" requirement on the smog test...


Although smog inspections are performed by states, the states are bullied into doing the smog inspections by the Federal Government. The Federal air quality people target certain geographical areas that have the highest level of pollutants in the country, like southern california, and threaten to hold back certain types of funds unless the state develops an inspection program. The features of the program are mandated by the federal government as well, and those features include a visual inspection. Its the federal government that mandated these anti-smog systems to begin with, and it is a federal crime to tamper with them, PERIOD! Even your cars that aren't inspected annually or biannually are supposed to have all of the oem anti-smog equipment installed and functioning. The cars are exempt from "inspection", not exempt from the federal requirement to have the anti-smog equipment installed. Let that one sink in. Every vehicle in the US built since 1966 has had some level of anti-smog equipment installed in order to satisfy federal guidelines for the year it was assembled, and as far as the federal government is concerned the anti-smog equipment must remain installed and functional until the day the vehicle is scrapped.

cowboy from hell
fahrenheit351fahrenheit351Member
Visual inspections serve no other purpose than to fail a car for failure to have a piece of equipment. Failing a car generates dollars. Whether its through retesting, fixing, or replacing the car.

If the goal is emmisions reduction and/or maintaining stock emmisions levels why should any gov't agency care how I obtain those levels as long as it passes?

A number of years back Hot Rod did a comparison of a stock Nova and one that was modified with a larger than stock engine (454 I beleive)and blown. The blown motor ran much more efficiently than the stocker but because it had none of the original smog devices even in the engine compartment much less working, it failed. So the owner of the blown Nova has two choices: fix it to get it to comply visually (big $$$$) or scrap it and buy something else (like the Nova that failed/more $$$). Did the gov't accomplish its goal? Nope.

I don't have an issue with annual inspections but I do have a issue with the visual requirement whether it is federally mandated or state mandated. Drop the visuals and I will vote for it but as long as my car can fail because I have the wrong gas cap on it (that's not made up either it happened) you will have a hard time convincing me.

I work for a SoCal paint manufacturer and we deal with the SCAQMD (Southern Cal Air Quality Management District) on a regular basis. The illogical descisions that are made daily in the name of improving our air quality astound me.

This is just another one.

Miles
shotgungroomsshotgungroomsMember
Every vehicle in the US built since 1966 has had some level of anti-smog equipment installed in order to satisfy federal guidelines for the year it was assembled, and as far as the federal government is concerned the anti-smog equipment must remain installed and functional until the day the vehicle is scrapped.

cowboy from hell[/QUOTE]



Just for the record, my car has all the federal anti-smog equipment in place and operational, I would never even dream of violating such a law Cool
does200does200Member
I am with you Miles. It's funny this subject is posted today when I got home, because I just returned from the smog police, "test only" station for my 85 Maserati Biturbo. I shake in my boots every two years doing smog on that car.

About 10 years ago with my Biturbo, I had to almost take a week off of work going from the test only station, to the referee, to my mechanic, and back and forth on and on. The car ran clean at the pipe no problem, but they didn't like that it was set up different than the metal smog plate on the car hood. My mechanic told me it will not run the way it says on the smog plate, as it was incorrect (set up was noted for Sweden with some other mods or something). Finally after a week they called my Italian mechanic, and he was pissed with his arms flying as they do. The state referee asked him for the number to a Maserati dealer near by, and since dealers were only in Italy, my mechanic shouted "sure, I can give you the number of the dealer, can you speak Italian!!!!!!? After a week of this kind of crap, the referee finally just passed it.

Again, clean air at the tail pipe, but not the visual. I was so pissed the next car I bought my wife was an MBZ diesel (F****** SMOG TEST EXEMPT!!!!!). Yes soot galore in the air when she hits the gas, but no damn smog test required, at least for now.
Views: 209
Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×