Join Us on
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
As of June 18, 2012 the following is an update on AB 1658. This the latest status on amended AB 1658 (Gatto) as of June 14, 2012 Latest information on AB2289. Activity on AB2289 (Jeffries) as of 5-10-2012. Note that on Thursday May 24, 2012, the bill was referred to Committee on Transportation and Housing. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish, maintain, and make available to the public the number of current applicants each year for registration of a specially constructed vehicle in the order in which the applications are received. The bill would also require the department to indicate the number of specially constructed vehicles that have been registered for that year. The bill would require the department to consider an application that is received after it has registered 500 specially constructed vehicles in a calendar year in the subsequent calendar year based on the order in which the application is received.05/24/12 Referred to Com. on T. & H. As of May 25th, the following action has taken place on AB1658 (Gatto) Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to establish a California Legacy License Plate Program and create and issue a series of specialized license plates known as California Legacy License Plates that replicate the look of California license plates from the state's past. AB2683 A reminder that as a result of AB2683 (Lieber) to end of the 30 year rolling exemption, the ACCC was able to get an amendment to the bill for motor vehicles at least 35 model years old. See sections from AB2683. I met with BAR last week and there should be a blast sent out to smog stations reminding them about this exemption. If anyone has a problem with any 35 model year old vehicles, please let me know. One thing to remember is that the vehicle has to be insured as a collector vehicle. Thank you Update on AB1613 Donnelly (April 14, 2012) Voted down by Committee Democrats on a party line vote, with one Member not voting, this bill would have simplified smog check requirements. Current law requires that a vehicle receive a new smog check both every 2 years and upon transfer of vehicle ownership even if the vehicle being transferred is already in compliance. This duplicative requirement is unnecessary and creates another financial burden for Californians. "Selling a vehicle has no bearing on its emission levels. If Californians are already in compliance with smog regulations, having to pay for smog check yet again puts an unnecessary burden on our already cash-strapped citizens. California registration, licensing fees and smog requirements already cost more than other states; this is just another example of an out-of-touch legislature ignoring the real burden excessive regulations place on the people, particularly the poorest among us," Assemblyman Donnelly stated. Existing law penalizes people who sell their vehicles, which is often a family's means of staying afloat in these tough economic times. For example, if a person purchases a vehicle and has a smog check conducted, they can drive the vehicle for 2 years without another check. If that same person sells their vehicle 1 year in, however, they will have to pay for another smog check, even though a passed smog test certificate claims that they are incompliance for the next 2 years. No other checks are required upon transfer of a vehicle including brake or engine checks. Donnelly continued, "This would not only save Californians money but would also simplify the already complicated task of selling or buying a car. The bill would have only applied to vehicles that are in compliance with the smog check program guidelines. It is disappointing to see Assembly Democrats hang onto money grabs such as this duplicative requirement." AB 1613 is supported by the Congress of Racial Equality of California, The Association of California Car Clubs, Cruisin' for a Cure (non-profit), Inland Empire Car Club Council, Capitol Auto Club (Thunderbolts), and individuals and it is coauthored by Assembly members Jim Silva and Kevin Jeffries, and Senator Ted Gaines. The bill will be re-considered in the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 23, 2012. I encourage you all to contact not only the Assembly Transportation Committee but also your local representatives and urge their support of this common sense bill…Please see below a listing of committee members. As usual, please contact me with questions, concerns, comments, or suggestions and thanks again for your support of the ACCC. Legislation as of March 9, 2012 The following is legislation that may be of interest to the classic/collector car and/or motorcycle hobby in California: Current as the date of this submission March 9, 2012 SB1224 (LaMalfa & Vargas) - Smog Check- Biennial Inspection Exemption - Hearing date March 27, 2012 AB2289 (Jeffries) Specially Constructed Vehicle: Inspection - May be heard in committee March 27, 2012 AB2488 (Williams) Vehicular Pollution - May be heard in committee March 27, 2012. AB474 (Jones) Smog check inspection - Transfer of ownership - Died February 1, 2012 -Filed with Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. SB519 (LaMalfa) Smog Check - Visual Inspection - January 31,2012 - Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56. AB1613 (Donnelly) Motor Vehicle inspection and maintenance program - Hearing date April 9, 2012. SB1076 (Emmerson) Global Warning Solutions Act of 2006 - Hearing date March 19, 2012. AB1332 (Donnelly) State Air Resources Board abolishment - Died February 1, 2012 - Filed with Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. AB695 (Norby) Vehicles: motorcycles: safety helmets: exceptions - January 10, 2012 - Failed passage with no further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a). AB1001 (Jeffries) Vehicles: Special Interest License plates - February 1, 2012 - Died at desk Definitions: Here is Joint Rule 62(a) Any questions, please feel free to contact me at 916-276-4081 or bstearns@ncbb.net Thank You, Bob Stearns, ACCC Past President More legislative information is available on our club website under Legislation or on the ACCC website at acccdefender.org Legislation as of February 20, 2012 SB519 (LaMalfa) Smog Check - Visual Inspection - January 31, 2012 - Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56. AB1613 (Donnelly) Motor Vehicle inspection and maintenance program - February 9, 2012 - May be heard in committee March 10. SB1076 (Emmerson) Global Warning Solutions Act of 2006 - February 15, 2012 - May be acted upon on or after March 16. AB1332 (Donnelly) State Air Resources Board abolishment - Died February 1, 2012 - Filed with Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. AB695 (Norby) Vehicles: motorcycles: safety helmets: exceptions - January 10, 2012 - Failed passage with no further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a) AB1001 (Jeffries) Vehicles: Special Interest License plates - February 1, 2012 - Died at desk Definitions: Pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a), any bill to be heard in Committee must be noticed in the Daily File for four days, including weekend days. Any questions, please feel free to contact me at 916-276-4081 or bstearns@ncbb.net Part XVIII... Congratulations are in order for Washington state. They got it right. I spoke with Steve McDonald @ SEMA Wednesday. You see, SEMA was asked to assist with the Washington state bill and here is what came of that partnership. Senate Bill SB 5585 - 2011-2012 Concerning street rod and custom vehicles. History of Bill: 06 April SB 5585 was signed by the Senate President, '09 April the assembly speaker signed it and POW!, 12 April it was law and signed by the Washington state governor. SB 5585 will take effect 01 October 2011. 71 Days start to finish. Impressive. In a nutshell: SMOG: Vehicles exempt from smog tests – less than five years old or more than twenty-five years old; 2009 and newer, alternative power such as electric, propane, compressed natural gas or LPG, street rods, and motorcycles. Here's a kicker though. Washington has a section about NOT being able to be registered unless certain qualifications are met. One such qualification "(b) (ii) Has a California certification label for all emission standards, and carbon dioxide equivalent emission standards necessary to meet fleet average requirements." Another kicker: STREET RODS and CUSTOMS may use 'blue dot' tail lamps and unless otherwise required by other sections, " Notwithstanding the requirements of this chapter, hoods and bumpers are optional equipment on street rod ((s)) vehicles, custom vehicles, and kit vehicles. Street rod ((s)) vehicles, custom vehicles, and kit vehicles must comply with fender requirements under RCW 46.37.500 (2) and the windshield requirement of RCW 46.37.410 (1)." NOTE: the ((s)) is a strike out on the bill, right now I don't know how to replicate the strike out. Now all we have to do is get California to realize the importance of cars and trucks and the hobby and get CARB well away from the hobby. Umm, any ideas? We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. Yeah, it is time. Until then, keep her tuned and running. Part XVII... I thought I'd take a lighter look at some of the more important laws passed that affect our hobby or have an effect as to how we go about our business. So here it is. AB 1848 adds Section 466.65 to the Penal Code, relating to crimes, concerning Motorcycle theft. Existing law provides that every person who possesses specified tools or other items, with the intent to feloniously break or enter into any motor vehicle, is guilty of a misdemeanor. SO FAR SO GOOD – Easy to understand that a person cannot have tools intended to commit a crime… THIS IS THE EXACT REASON THAT I DO NOT LEND OUT TOOLS TO ANYONE. SO DON'T EVEN ASK. An act to amend Section 26708 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. NO COMMENT. An act to amend Section 40207 of, and to add and repeal Article 3.6 (commencing with Section 40245) of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. AB 2567, Vehicles: parking violations: digital photograph recordings. The bill would require a designated employee, who is qualified by the local public agency, to review the digital photograph recordings for determining whether these parking violations had occurred and to issue a notice of a parking violation to the registered owner within 15 days of the violation We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. Yeah, it is time. Part XVI... AB 32 Update – I will bet that no one heard about this one. Though not all is roses, that some people have seen the light and error of their ways, but because CARB approved a larger plan to implement AB 32 prior to completing the required environmental review, and that CARB failed to adequately consider alternatives to cap and trade this suit was filed. Filed in San Francisco Superior Court. Yep, good old San Francisco. In January 2011, Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith heard arguments. The suit outlined how CARB sought to create a fait accompli by premature establishment of a cap-and-trade program before any alternative solution could be brought before the public for comment and have CARB properly evaluate all plans. Judge Goldsmith stated that CARB's actions "…undermine the goal of informed decision-making." Here's the kicker. One group calling themselves the Association of Irritated Residents backed AB 32, opposed AB 23, but is part of the plaintiff side to stop CARB, for now. ACCC activity: A group of individuals initially approached Assembly Kevin Jeffries with an idea to put on the books a statute that would allow collector car owners to pay a fee to DMV so that they would be exempt from smog tests. Some in the group argued that this statutory protection was already on the books and for the group to forego waving a red-flag in front of CARB by saying requesting to pay a fee for an exempt sticker or some other way to ID the vehicle in question. A Suggestion: Ask your legislator to cut funding for CARB and those who wish ill of our hobby, our vehicles, our pride and joy. One day you will wake up and wonder what happened when you can no longer drive. Funny thing is that they are going after those vehicles that are 1976 and up; they can't touch 1965 and below because there is a law on the books; and they want you on public buses, trains, a bike, or walking. Oh, they will want you located near transportation hubs (public transportation) or driving that really cool electric car that can go all of 90 miles on a charge in warm weather. Hear the latest? The Chevy VOLT has a cold weather range of less than 60% of advertised range because the cold reacts with the battery, lessening the range. Now where can we go in Nevada County that is less than 54 miles round trip before the 24-hour charge on 110 volt or 8 hours on 220 volt runs out? We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. Yeah, it is time. Part XV of . . . Newly submitted legislation: Outlines are briefs taken from Legislative Counsel's rendering of the proposed bills. Assembly Bill 1500 introduced by Assembly Member Lieu. This bill would extend the date, to January 1, 2015 (currently to January 1, 2011), by certain low-emission and hybrid vehicles not carrying the requisite number of passengers otherwise required for the use of an HOV lane if the vehicle displays a valid identifier issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Existing law, until January 1, 2011, makes it a misdemeanor to illegally use a decal, label, or other identifiers issued by the department. Existing law authorizes automated enforcement systems. Municipalities are authorized to contract out the operation of the system, that include, among other things, establishing guidelines for selection of location. Now, no later than January 1, 2013, those requirements include identifying the system by signs posted within 200 feet of an intersection where a system is operating, and the governmental agency that operates an automated traffic enforcement system to develop uniform guidelines for specified purposes and to establish procedures to ensure compliance with those guidelines. The bill would require the governmental agency to adopt a finding of fact establishing the need for the system at a specific location for reasons related to safety for those systems installed after January 1, 2012; prohibits a governmental agency that proposes to install or operate an automated traffic enforcement system from considering revenue generation, beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the system, as a factor when considering whether or not to install or operate a system. The bill would require the manufacturer or supplier in cooperation with the governmental agency, to submit an annual report to the Judicial Council that includes specified information. Assembly Bill 81: Introduced by Assembly Member Beall "Privilege" of using or selling fuel? ! ? Does this signal that using or purchasing pump gas in the future will also be a "privilege"? We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. Yeah, it is time. [TOP] Part XIV of . . . California Health and Safety Code and California Vehicle Code, or Test It Yourself. SMOG CHECKS - from the Health and Safety Code: Exempt Vehicles: 1955 thru 1965 Vehicles ACCC DMV "needs" a fee-route coupled with sufficient numbers of applicants to support the personnel and computer outlay necessary support a program. It is thought that this new legislation can fall into Vanity Plates System with a Tag to identify exempt vehicles. HOWEVER: As Traffic Officers, CHP is responsible for the safety of the motoring public and as such, Vehicle Code §2804. "A member of the California Highway Patrol upon reasonable belief that any vehicle is being operated in violation of any provisions of this code or is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person, may require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit to an inspection of the vehicle, and its equipment, license plates, and registration card." TEST IT YOURSELF: We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. Yeah, it is time. Part XIII of . . . There is even more brilliance coming from Sacramento and this time it is coming from C.A.R.B. (California Air Resources Board): On Wednesday, 01 September 2010, CARB rolled out mandatory tire pressure checks. Yep, MANDATORY. This is a REGULATION that they have issued. No Review. No Chance to Appeal. This check shall be performed and DOCUMENTED by anyone in the auto service/repair business performing services on vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds. This will affect quick lubes, dealerships, general mechanic shops and anyone providing a repair to automotive maintenance systems. These shops are REQUIRED to document this process on the invoice and keep it on record for 3 years. C.A.R.B. stated that this process will hold shops accountable for your correct tire pressure. This REGULATION creates the requirement for specific notation on your repair invoice that either the shop checked your tire pressure; that you didn’t need the shop to check your tire pressure BUT the date that you had checked your tire pressure and that it was within the previous two weeks. Remember this comes from CARB; the bureaucracy that: I am awaiting the REGULATION that the check out clerk at my grocery will be required to review my checking account to ensure that I have enough money to pay for the groceries that I am purchasing and have sufficient money remaining in my account so that I can pay my taxes; and then some squint from some health agency to ensure that the food that I am purchasing is safe for me. Silly? Not so any more my friends. But mandatory tire inflation with an office in state government wasn’t on my mind just a few years ago. Yeah, it is time. Part XII of... More brilliance coming from Sacramento and this time it is in the form of Senate Bill 346, the authors are Senator Kehoe and Senator Simitian. It concerns “Hazardous Materials: Motor Vehicle Brake Friction Materials”. The subject of this well thought out bill concerns brakes. If passed, beginning January 01, 2014, sale of brakes with more than 5% copper by weight will be outlawed and after January 01, 2025, no brakes can be sold with more than 0.5% copper by weight. Brake manufacturers will also be required to have an independent laboratory check the copper content of brakes sold in California and issue a certificate of compliance. Not only that, but a mark of proof of certification is required to be printed on the “friction material”, you know, the brake pad. Then the manufacturer is required to file with the “department” the certificate of compliance as well as pay a “reasonable” filing fee. A violation of the hazardous control law is a crime and the penalty for violating this new law is a civil fine of up to $10,000 per violation. This bill reminded us that the Department of Toxic Substances Control, under the CAL EPA, manages hazardous waste including vehicle light switches containing mercury being removed from your car. A violation of the hazardous control law is a crime. The Advisory Committee will be made up of: 1/3 representatives of the manufacturers of brake friction materials and motor vehicles; 1/3 representatives of municipal storm water quality agencies and nongovernmental environmental organizations; 1/3 shall be individuals with experience in safety and other relevant technical areas. And CARB will be involved in the entire process. Oh joy! But not all is lost by these two geniuses: look what they wrote in the preamble to this stupid law: “SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) Friction materials are an essential component of motor vehicle brake systems and of critical importance to transportation safety and the public safety in general.” Brakes are important to our safety. I didn’t know that. We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. No words are truer today than they were 234 years ago. Yeah, it is time. Part XI of . . . EFMP: Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program is now an emergency CARB regulation to remove 15 year old and older vehicles from California roadways. [NOTE: presently, this program is “voluntary”. But like with any other regulation that voluntary part all of a sudden becomes mandatory. It just takes a little time for that mutation to occur. The emergency is that “mobile sources” account for 40% of greenhouse gases; “Each year as many as 32,000 Californians die from breathing toxic particulate matter” from these “mobile sources”. “Evidence shows that 15 year old or older vehicles account for less than 15% of miles traveled, while emitting 60% of the smog forming emissions.” “Emergency implementation of EFMP is necessary to not only save lives, but to preserve public health, safety, and general welfare of all Californians, and to help California meet state and federal clean air standards. Adoption of these regulations [emphasis added] would immediately begin the removal of high polluting vehicles from California roads. Each month of inaction costs Californians their lives.” And you say, (fill in the blanks) “Yeah, but I keep my 19_ _ (GM, MoPar, FoMoCo) ____ in top shape. Tune it and find the best parts, they can’t be targeting me.” Look at the next paragraph as to the attitude toward our treasures; their mind is made up. Smog Check as a “Treatment” for Older Vehicles: [SOURCE: Conclusion quotes from Smog Check as a “Treatment for Older Vehicles, published 19 May 2009] …and there’s more ‘good news’ from CARB and their regulations: The 70-count indictment of Ma and Ji – president and vice president, respectively, of Ontario-based Goldenvale, Inc. – is the culmination of a five-year felony criminal investigation by CARB and the San Bernardino District Attorney’s office. March 10, 2010 San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies arrested the couple six days later. Given the bail amounts and the size of the indictment, you’d think Ma and Ji – both of which are U.S. citizens who emigrated from China 10-years ago – were being charged with international terrorism. No, they’re charged with violating CARB regulations – importing motorcycles and ATVs equipped with engines that fail to meet state emissions control laws and then selling them. The indictment: …more ‘good work’ from CARB: Others, like Assemblyman Hagman, don’t think “normal” is quite the right word. “Businesses are scared to death,” Hagman said. “It’s one thing to get fined [for air quality regulation violations], but getting thrown in jail? We’re not going to be encouraging a lot of businesses if they do this. There are other things they can do.” COMMENT: it isn’t the law that will kill our hobby but the regulations imposed upon us by unnamed bureaucrats bent on having us walk, ride bikes, or take public transportation. Put the popcorn down, get off the couch and have your voice heard. We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. Yeah, it is time.
Part X of . . . SLOW DOWN and/or MOVE OVER: BRIEF: While approaching an authorized emergency vehicle [law enforcement /fire/ ambulance] displaying emergency lights [amber lights / blue / red lights on the freeway or a stationary tow truck displaying amber flashers; “shall approach with due caution”. Two ways to approach: 1. Safely change lanes or, 2. if it isn’t safe to change lanes, “slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe” for existing conditions. If law enforcement or fire personnel are directing traffic, follow their directions. 2010 – the never-ending saga. VMT and You. SB 1299 - AUTHOR: Senator Lowenthal. But Wait, There’s More: Here is the brief: The additional registration fees collected be deposited into the Street Racing Abatement Account within the General Fund, which would be created by the bill, and the fine collected be deposited into the Penalty Subaccount within the account, which would be created by the bill. The money would then be allocated by appropriations to the Office of Traffic Safety to fund street racing abatement programs. AB 19 AMENDED - INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Ruskin This bill relates to Product Labeling. Innocuous enough, but this thing allows the measurement of “greenhouse gases” to be measured over the lifetime of a product, and CARB is in charge of this beauty! This one is hidden in the Health and Safety Code: We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. Yeah, it is time. Part IX of . . . 2010 – the never-ending saga. The Petition to place an Initiative on the November 2010 Ballot to suspend provisions of AB 32 received more than twice the number of signatures needed. Thank you; to everyone who carried around a handful of the Petitions and had folks sign them and to everyone who signed the Petition. Here is why it is so important to suspend provisions of AB 32: “Passenger vehicles (cars and light trucks) are responsible for 74% of the emissions from the transportation sector and are the primary focus of reductions strategies for the transportation sector.” “Although the Pavley regulation results in significant GHG reductions, more is needed.” Remember last installment SB 1299 and the VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) was discussed. That is a separate bill proposed by Senator Lowenthal, BUT, CARB has it covered also. Translation: CARB wants our cars and you can walk or take the bus. FYI: ACCC and California Association of 4WD Clubs, Inc. are on board to suspend provisions of AB 32. We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. No words are truer today than they were 230 + years ago. Yeah, it is time. Part VIII of . . . 2010 – the never-ending saga. VMT and You. SB 1299 (Senator Lowenthal), is set to be heard on April 13, 2010 before the Transportation Committee. What is VMT? More FEES coming your way. Read on McDuff. Date Reminder: Provisions of AB 32 are to be implemented on January 01, 2012. FACT: There is a difference between a TAX and a FEE. TAXES require 2/3rds votes to alter them (raise them because I haven’t seen a tax lowered in all my lifetime). FEES don’t require 2/3rds vote. Right now, the DMV & CHP file a monthly report of all the FEES they receive with the State Controller and hand over that money collected from you to the State Treasurer. ANOTHER state office, the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency submits a study of the FEES imposed under the authority of the Vehicle Code (DMV and CHP FEES) to the Legislature along with recommendations on “…changes in the fees necessary to generate sufficient revenues for the Motor Vehicle Account in the State Transportation Fund to finance those operations of state government to be financed from those revenues.” [SOURCE: Text of SB 1299] SB 1299 (Senator Lowenthal) wrote this bill (February 2010) that sets the Department of Motor Vehicles loose to develop and implement, by January 1, 2012, a pilot program designed to assess issues related to implementing a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee in California. SEE THE SAME DATES! January 01, 2012 is the trigger date for both the implementation of AB 32 provisions of Cap and Trade and other goodies, and is the date that DMV starts FEES against the miles your drive your car. The current power base in the California Legislature has removed some of the Gas Tax at the pump and replaced it with an Excise Tax. Same money we pay, it is just called something different and can be used any way they want to now. With the advent of more fuel-efficient cars, less gas is purchased and less gas tax collected. Senator Lowenthal’s bill takes THAT into consideration and they are searching for short- and long-term alternatives to the fuel tax. (b)" The search for an alternative means of revenue is driven by a combination of factors, including the diminishing value of the fuel tax, declining supplies of conventional petroleum-based fuels, and increasingly fuel-efficient vehicles. These factors contribute to a growing disparity in the revenue needed to fund the transportation system with the revenue available." (c) "After months of study, the commission issued its report in December 2007. Among its recommendations was consideration of a mileage-based user fee, also referred to as a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee.” [SOURCE: Text of SB 1299] And, "(d) Implementing a VMT fee, however, involves a number of technological and institutional challenges, including establishing the method for calculating the mileage driven, the process by which mileage data is transmitted to a tax collection agency, contingencies to address potential equipment failures, adequate privacy protections, and a strategy for transitioning from the fuel tax to this new method of fee payment.” [SOURCE: Text of SB 1299] Here is how the mileage will be “calculated”. The “department” will look at “(1) Different methods for calculating mileage.” Oh, that makes me feel better, DMV is working on it. How will this information be transmitted and how will my VMT FEE be calculated? The “department” will take care of that. More good feelings. Also, “(3) Types of equipment that may be required of the state and of drivers in order to implement a VMT fee, including a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the equipment and contingencies in the event of equipment failure.” Okay, that makes me feel even more better, the “department” will figure it all out and tell us what equipment we need to comply with limiting our miles driven or PAY. We need to hang together or surely we will hang separately. Yeah, it is time. Part VII of . . . 2010 – the never ending saga. It is the important part of all these articles on AB 32 and what it will mean to our hobby. In a nutshell, here is what AB 32 does. AB 32 (2006) gives unfettered authority to CARB, CEC, California Climate Action Registry to MAKE and ENFORCE all of the following: RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS, EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS, EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES, OR MARKET-BASED COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS to reduce GHG emissions from all sources. It affects everything you do, from sugar in your coffee, how you heat and cool your home, to your private car. Any Violation of these rules constitutes a CRIME. CARB is going to realize these goals with, “…and reduction of vehicle use or vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The GHG emission reductions in this sector will be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, incentives, and land use policy.” [ THEIR QUOTE – Volume 1 pg. C-55. ] CARB makes the rules; they enforce the rules they make. Think this cannot happen? Has anyone read the over 1,000 pages of stuff from these people? How do you stop it? Sign the Initiative Petition in the newsletter. - Send it in. Four Easy Steps: Thank You
We Urge You to Contact Members of the Assembly Transportation Committee (List Attached) Immediately to Request Their Support for the Amended A.B. 1740 Under current California policy, specially constructed vehicles that do not receive one of the 500 sequence numbers are subject to a “muddied” titling, registration and smog check process. A.B. 1740 will help mitigate the “black market” value of these 500 sequence numbers which are often sold on e-bay and other on-line auction sites. A.B. 1740 recognizes the fact that specially constructed vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven. A.B. 1740 will help allow vehicle owners to confidently take advantage of a newly-enacted vehicle registration amnesty program for specially constructed vehicles that were previously registered or classified incorrectly. Under the new law, the DMV will grant amnesty from prosecution to vehicle owners if certain conditions are met, including the owner filing a completed application with the department. DON’T DELAY! Please contact members of the Assembly Transportation Committee today to urge support for the amended A.B. 1740. California Assembly Transportation Committee Bonnie Lowenthal - Chair Kevin Jeffries - Vice Chair Bill Berryhill Bob Blumenfield Joan Buchanan Mike Eng Warren T. Furutani Cathleen Galgiani Mary Hayashi Jeff Miller Assemblymember Connie Conway Roger Niello Chris Norby Anthony J. Portantino Jose Solorio Thank you for your support! Part VI of . . . 2010 – the never ending saga. The INITIATIVE: from last month, stated that AB 32 implementation will be suspended until the unemployment rate in California is 5.5% or less for four consecutive calendar quarters. During this suspension period, no state agency shall propose, promulgate, or adopt any regulation implementing AB 32 regulations. The title submitted to Attorney General Jerry Brown was California Jobs Initiative. On 03 February 2010, the INITIATIVE was renamed by Attorney General Jerry Brown to: And if that doesn’t get you to wonder just what is going on with AB 32, or who is running agencies like California Energy Commission, look at this little “I’m not responsible” tagged on page 2 of a report titled Fuel Efficient Tire Program, California Code of Regulations Title 20. Public Utilities and Energy Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 9, Sections 1680 Et Seq:” This is an official document! It is making rules about our tires! “DISCLAIMER The report doesn’t divulge the author for the rule they just jammed down our throats. Yeah, it is time. Part V of . . . Vic Repstad appeared in support of AB 118. There were high priced major organizations attending. From the Lung Association to the Bay Area Air Quality group, they were all for stopping AB 118 which would have resulted in a common sense approach to air quality. All is not lost as there is an Initiative that will roll out January 26, 2010. It states that AB 32 implementation will be suspended until the unemployment rate in California is 5.5% or less for four consecutive calendar quarters. During this suspension period, no state agency shall propose, promulgate, or adopt any regulation implementing AB 32 regulations. The proponents of this Initiative are: Peoples Advocate Initiative Committee represented by Bob Costa; Assemblyman and Dan Logue; Congressman Tom McClintock. The Initiative is endorsed by Congressman Devin Nunes, 5- California state Senators; 13-California assembly members; Aubrey Stone of the California Black Chamber of Commerce and Betty Jo Toccoli, chair of the California Small Business Association, former assemblyman Rick Keene and small business and farm owners around the area. People’s Advocate Initiative Committee – 3407 Arden Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. OUR CAR LEGISLATIVE STUFF: from Fred Taugher, P.P.A. lobby firm. These vehicles can be properly registered (following an inspection by stations certified to do the required inspection) to determine the engine model year used in the vehicle, or the vehicle model year, and the emission control system required. The previous 500 vehicle limit is deleted, this applies to ALL special construction vehicles that meet the bill’s criteria, that is currently registered or incorrectly registered. ACCC supports this bill. SB 385 (Wright) Historic Vehicles – This bill would exempt vehicles with Historic Vehicle license plates IF the owner signs a statement under penalty of perjury that the vehicle will be used for specified purposes and if the owner owns 2 or more currently registered vehicles that are not historic vehicle licensed vehicles. ACCC supports this measure. SB 811 (DeSaulinier) Special Construction – special construction vehicles entering California, model year designation. AB 1033 (Nielsen) Green House Gas Emissions (global warming) – Reports are required that monitor green house gas emissions and allows CARB to set limits of these emissions. This bill requires any local or state agency to measure the economic cost of such regulation and have an independent 3rd party develop that economic report and analysis if the cost were more than $1,000,000.00. (at least it is a start). ACCC wants to watch how this bill pans out. AB 986 (Mendoza) Speed Contests (drag racing) – current law allows the driver to be arrested and the vehicle impounded. This bill would require the vehicle be inspected by CHP to determine if there have been modifications made beyond the manufacturer’s specifications and add a $30.00 registration fee and a designation on the ownership papers that the vehicle is “speed enhanced”. Yeah, it is time. Part IV of . . . SOME DETAILS OF THE SOLUTION. On 11 January 2010 - Assembly Natural Resources Committee will hold hearings on AB 118 (Logue - 2009). There will also be an Initiative to REPEAL AB 32 (2006) requiring only 440,000 signatures to place it on the 2010 ballot. HERE IS WHY THE SOLUTIONS NEED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. AB 32 'trigger' documents (BOOKS), published by CARB (California Air Resources Board) comprise approximately 1,000 pages, contained in the following books: The last one (California's 1990-2004 etc) is the most scary. It has 119 pages of math equations to determine carbon output. For our hobby, some of the equations are found on page 24. 'D. Transport (IPCC 1A3)', [even though each and every page is the map to shut down California business and industry]. Reading this entire book there are references to 'IPCC' this or that. Curiosity found us looking at just what the heck is IPCC? IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC 'Bureau' is comprised of such countries as Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Maldives, Malaysia, Russian Federation, Morocco, Madagascar, Sudan and Sierra Leone. There is only one American (whom we have not verified his credentials) on the IPCC Bureau. IPCC is tied at the hip with the United Nations. IPCC is 'THE AUTHORITY' on global warming and the cause. CARB is using 'models' from the IPCC. Get it? It appears that all the tons of carbon and waste and soot that our cars spew into the air is based upon IPCC MODELS that CARB then plugs numbers into the equation and presto! EMISSIONS! CARB Quote from 'D', California's 1990-2004 Green House Gas Emissions Inventory and 1990 Emissions Level – May 2009: page 24 demonstrates why we should be concerned as to what CARB, SWRCB, B.A.R., in fact - all 7 of the agencies found in EPA, do. 2. Methodology Our hobby is at risk. CARB uses 'MODELS' from an organization comprised of nation representatives who hate America. CARB plugs in numbers to these 'MODELS' and states, as fact, their findings. CARB uses the words 'tier' to make it very important. It isn't. And where does IPCC get their 'MODELS' that CARB uses? We'll have that answer next time. There are 5 Volumes of IPCC books that CARB used for their published 'BS'. Haven't got a count on the pages yet, but an estimate is that there are 250 to 300 pages per volume. (NOTE: Volume 4 has over 600 pages, with worksheets, oh boy!). Using American Math, 5 (volumes) x 300 (pages) = 1,500 (pages). Yeah, it is time. Part III-The Big Problem Continues A newly discovered letter detailing 'ratepayers' dated September 3, 2008, written "WE THE UNDERSIGNED", including Robert Oglesby, Manager Legislative Affairs, California Air Resources Board, to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. From experience and observations, it appears that all these well entrenched bureaucrats do is to go after money to keep them in their well entrenched strongholds and castles, and this letter is a shinning example of that mindset. The letter bemoans Senate Bill 1762, which established the California Climate Change Institute (CCCI). The bill would allow the CCCI to be 'the exclusive entity in California to fund climate change related RD&D."The money used to finance this endeavor comes from Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) and '...2) a $37 million ratepayer increase." The letter outlines authorization of '$370 million in NEW rates for ratepayers and seizes $120 million from existing PIER program'. Why the concern over electric and natural gas issues? These guys are grabbing money from our electric and natural gas bills to fund CARB, and AB 32, and o ther anti-car hobby endeavors. AB 32 sets an emission reduction goal for the state of 30% reduction by 2020. Where is this reduction coming from? Our hobby (reference last month's reference to the May 19, 2009 Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee (Bureau of Automotive Repair) publication titled, Smog Check as a 'Treatment for Older Vehicles'. The letter further outlines that AB 32 gave CARB the sole authority to reduce green house gas, that AB 1762 takes that authority away from CARB. To get this straight, we not only have to watch CARB, but with the new legislation, we now have another entrenched bureaucracy, the California Climate Change Institute (CCCI) and they chip away at our hobby. Their battle plan is to take on a bit at a time. We are a small group, scattered throughout California, without a single voice. They are organizations, supported by our tax money that they grab more of each day that passes, with the sole intent to take away our hobby. So our fellow 'ratepayers', it is time to say STOP the Madness. One way to stop this is to write letters to the editor. Explain in simple terms our love of the hobby that we are responsible with our vehicles, that we keep them tuned better than the average car owner because it is our passion. You don't need to be English major to write the editor. So what is keeping you from writing The Union? This section if found in ENFORCEMENT in AB 32. Next installment will address solutions. Should be interesting. Until then, keep her tuned and running. Part II of AB32 & AB118 Remember - AB 118 and the one page document that reads in total: 'THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: THE PROBLEM, continued: AB 32 mandated that by January 01, 2008, CARB shall have adopted regulations to report and verify greenhouse gas sources, AND to 'monitor and enforce compliance with this program.' (IE: it is a done deal). Just what are the 'greenhouse gas' sources? One guess is as good as any other, however, the folks over at IMRC (Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee) is one 'office' that makes policy that the Bureau of Automotive Repair (B.A.R.) receives their marching orders. Here is the problem with this publication. THAT IS A BIG PROBLEM. Next Time - More on the role and authority of CARB and a newly discovered letter detailing 'ratepayers'– Health & Safety Code Section 28590 covering Environmental Justice Advisory Committee formation. Should be interesting. Until then, keep her tuned and running. AB 32 (2006 – Nunez) THE PROBLEM) We will be discussing the problems to our hobby with respect to AB 32 that was signed by the governor on September 27, 2006 and the less than factual information contained in the bill as well as the vast array of unknown offices/bureaus/committees and just plain bureaucrats who will ram-rod this down our collective throats. We will also continue to remind you of the SOLUTION to this problem in the form of AB 118 (Assemblyman Logue – Chico) and the one page document that reads in total: 'THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code is repealed.' Back to the problem. AB 32 (2006 - Nunez) title reads as follows: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) is added to the Health and Safety Code to read: DIVISION 25.5. CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006. This bill, when typed in 12-font type size is about 14 pages long. You see the problem yet? Global Warming solution? Their current thought is that man-made global warming spiked in 1850 at the dawn of the industrial revolution. When machinery made our lives easier, made America more productive, and made America the great industrial power she once was. How is it then that when the industrial revolution started, that warming spiked? The problem becomes more clear, doesn't it? Here is another problem. There are three agencies that have been given responsibilities with respect to the control of emissions of green house gases. They are, State Air Resources Board (AKA 'CARB' or 'ARB'); State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission; California Climate Action Registry. CARB: This 'Board' (one of over 500 within CA state government) has its AB 32 offices already established under division titles such as 'Climate Change/Global Warming/Greenhouse Gases Master Directory'; Climate Change – Behavioral Change Research'. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission: The Warren-Alquist Act (publication number CEC-140-209-001-REV1) is the legislation that created and gave statutory authority to the California Energy Commission (formally called the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission) as found in Division 15 of the Public Resources Code. We see a problem here. Why did the commission change its name so soon after it was formed? There was a revision to this act in July 2009. Who revised it. What revisions were made? This 'Act' is 319 pages in length. California Climate Action Registry: This is an organization with its parent organization known as 'Climate Action Reserve' – 'which tracks and registers voluntary projects that reduce emissions of GHGs.' (GHG = green house gases). This registry is a new GHG registry that serves all of North America. And the problems keep on growing. Next installment we will be looking at Section 38510 and the role and authority of CARB and a newly discovered letter detailing 'ratepayers' and $370,000,000 New Rates for those 'ratepayers' as well as a seizure of $120,000,000 funded by those 'ratepayers' all going on within CARB. Don't miss it. If space permits, Section 28590 covering Environmental Justice Advisory Committee formation. Should be interesting. Until then, keep her tuned and running. Questions, concerns? Contact Vic or Greg. They are both actively involved in monitoring the legislation regarding our hobby. Hobby Scores First Cash for Clunkers Program Blocked. Fight Against Scrappage Continues The true power of a well-informed and mobilized hobby was on display as thousands of SEMA Action Network (SAN) members responded in force against a national “Cash for Clunkers” program. Efforts were made by some in Congress to include the proposal in the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” also known as the “economic stimulus bill.” These attempts were defeated. On February 17, President Obama signed a clunker-free stimulus bill into law. Cash for Clunkers programs accelerate the normal retirement of vehicles through the purchase of older cars, which are then typically crushed into blocks of scrap metal. For 20 years, Congress has rejected this “sounds good” idea because it fails to spur car sales, reduce vehicle emissions or raise fleet fuel economy. “Lawmakers in Washington, D.C., heard overwhelming opposition from the enthusiast community against these short-sighted proposals,” said SEMA Director of Congressional Affairs Brian Duggan. “While the fight against Cash for Clunkers and other related scrappage bills are far from over, members of Congress now recognize that they will face steadfast opposition from SAN members.” Two proposals were considered during the Senate debate on the economic stimulus bill. The first was an $8 billion program targeting SUVs and pickups of any model year that make less than 18 mpg, such as Chevy Silverados, Dodge Rams, Ford F-Series and Jeep Wranglers. The second would have provided $16 billion worth of cash vouchers toward the purchase of a new vehicle for qualified individuals who allowed their turned-in cars to be destroyed. The $787 billion stimulus bill included a SAN-supported provision allowing consumers to take a federal deduction for state and local sales/excise taxes paid on the purchase of a new car, light truck, recreational vehicle or motorcycle through 2009. The deduction is phased-out for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income in excess of $125,000 ($250,000 for couples) and applies to car loans up to $49,500. For 2009 and 2010, the stimulus bill also provides a refundable annual tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and $800 for working families, phased-out for taxpayers with adjusted gross income beyond $75,000 ($150,000 couples). Workers will receive this benefit through a reduction in the amount of income tax that is withheld from their paychecks or by claiming the credit on their tax returns. The Treasury Department will be adjusting the payroll withholding tables to reflect the change. “I am truly impressed by the passion SAN members have for this hobby and their dedication in protecting it from legislative threats,” said Duggan. “While we celebrate this victory by keeping Cash for Clunkers out of the stimulus bill, SAN members are urged to remain vigilant as we collectively work to protect this great American tradition.” [TOP]Legislative Alert: Oppose Federal Vehicle Scrappage Program Our efforts to prevent Congress from including a nationwide 'Cash for Clunkers' program in the economic stimulus package has been successful so far. Thousands of SEMA Action Network (SAN) enthusiasts and SEMA members contacted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in opposition to the plan. The Speaker's Office informed us that your emails, calls and faxes were received and, thanks to your work, Cash for Clunkers was not included in the economic stimulus package introduced in mid-January in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, new legislation (S. 247 and H.R. 520) has been introduced in Congress to create a national vehicle scrappage program which will give U.S. tax dollars to consumers who turn-in their 'gas guzzlers' to have them crushed. Lawmakers need to scrap this idea! The so-called 'Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act' is Cash for Clunkers with a twist. Instead of focusing exclusively on older cars, this program would target vehicles with low fuel economy ratings of any model year. Participants would receive cash vouchers ranging from $2,500 to $4,500 based on the model year and whether the replacement vehicle was a more fuel-efficient new car or used car (MY 2004 or later). Fuel-efficient is defined as getting at least 25 percent better mileage for the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) target for its class. The bill sponsors want to scrap up to one million cars a year for at least four years. There is no evidence that the program would achieve the goal of boosting new car sales or increasing fuel mileage. Many states have considered scrappage programs in the past as a way to help clean the air or increase mpg, but abandoned the effort because they simply don't work. The programs are not cost-effective and do not achieve verifiable air quality or fuel economy benefits, but they do have a devastating impact on the many small businesses that market products and services for the scrapped cars. Don't Delay! Please contact Senator Diane Feinstein and Rep. Henry Waxman today to urge their opposition to S. 247 and H.R. 520. For those who responded to our first call for action, we need you again, along with everyone else. Contact Sen. Diane Feinstein to oppose S. 247 Contact Henry Waxman to oppose HR 520 • I am writing to urge lawmakers not to approve an 'accelerated vehicle retirement' program. This is a misguided attempt to spur car sales and claim that the country's fleet fuel mileage is being improved. • An accelerated vehicle retirement program is flawed since it does not target the 'gross polluter,' an improperly maintained vehicle of any make or model year that has poor fuel mileage and dramatically more emissions due to poor maintenance. • An accelerated vehicle retirement program is flawed because it does not factor-in how many miles-a-year the collected vehicles are currently being driven. U.S. taxpayers will be buying rarely-driven second and third vehicles that have minimal impact on overall fuel economy and air pollution. • Accelerated vehicle retirement is just one of several 'Cash for Clunkers' programs that has been proposed in Congress. The government should just focus on providing a tax incentive to help sell more fuel-efficient, cleaner cars new or used. The government should not become a player in the vehicle scrappage / recycling industry. We have professionals that have been doing that job very well for the past 100 years. We hope we can count on you to reject 'Accelerated Vehicle Retirement.' Thank you for your consideration on this very important matter. Please send a copy of your message to Sen. Feinstein and Rep. Waxman to briand@sema.org Final Legislative matrix for 2007-2008 August 2008:All get involved in these bills that pertain to our hobby. Bob Stearns and the A.C.C.C. need everyones voice to be heard at the capital. |
June 2012 - AB-1658 Part XVIII...Congrats Washington state Part X...Slow Down and/or Move Over Part VIII..VMT & You Part VI...the never ending saga Part IV - Details of the Solution Part III - Big Problem Continues. AB32 vs. AB118 (9/09) Clunkers Program Blocked (2/09) |
|---|
Congratulations to Vic Repstad on his appointment as the Vice President to the ACCC
Legislation (A.B. 1740) in the California Assembly to eliminate the requirement that specially constructed vehicle registrations be limited to only the first 500 vehicles per year was not approved by the Transportation Committee on March 22. However, a modified version of the bill will be reconsidered by the committee on April 5, 2010. Under the amendment, the registration limit would be increased from 500 to 750 per year. 
Contents of this site are property of Roamin Angels, Inc. ©2012