tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Message on bill sb_42 : billroot:[current.sb.from00

To: tigers@Autox.Team.Net
Subject: Message on bill sb_42 : billroot:[current.sb.from00
From: LeBrun@hii.hitachi.com
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 97 12:04:22 PST
        I apologize to the non-CA TIGER owners. This is an interesting read.


                              Phil


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Message on bill sb_42 :   billroot:[current.sb.from0000.sb00
Author:  Senate-News-Reply@SEN.CA.GOV at ~INTERNET 
Date:    7/16/97 9:31 AM
           BILL ANALYSIS
     
                                                         SB 42   
Date of Hearing:  July 16, 1997  
     
               ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS  
                     Carole Migden, Chairwoman  
     
               SB 42 (Kopp) - As Amended:  2/13/97   
     
Policy Committee:  Transportation               Vote:  17 - 0  
     
Urgency:  No      State Mandated Local Program:  NoReimbursable:
     
     
SUMMARY  
     
This bill broadens a Smog Check II exemption by replacing the 
exemption for 1965 or older cars with one that exempts cars that 
are 25 or more model-years old at the time of annual registration 
renewal.     
     
FISCAL EFFECT  
     
1) "Smog Certificate" revenue loss to the Vehicle Inspection and
   Repair Fund of $1.8 million in FY 1997-98 (six months), $3.8 
   million in FY 1998-99, and increasing annually thereafter. 
   (This fund supports both Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) in 
   the Department of Consumer Affairs (90%) and the Air Resources 
   Board (ARB) (10%).  
     
2) Minor, if any, cost savings to the BAR resulting from fewer
   motor vehicles subject to Smog Check II.  
     
BACKGROUND   
     
1) Rationale.  The author argues that cars 25 years and older have
   a difficult time passing smog tests because parts are hard to 
   find, new testing procedures are "arbitrary" and testing 
   "cutpoints" are set at levels more stringent that the 
   manufacturer's specifications for the model years in question. 
   In addition, the bill is supported by several "classic car" 
   clubs that wish to have their 1966-73 cars immediately exempted 
   from the more stringent Smog Check II requirements. (All motor 
   vehicle models 1965 and older are already exempt from Smog 
   Check II.)  
     
2) Rolling Exemption.  The Smog Check II exemption provided by
   this bill is broader and will grow as time passes.  Current law 
   exempts about 150,000 cars that are model year 1965 and older 
   and that number is declining.  This bill immediately exempts 
   about another 470,000 cars (model year 1966 through 1973) and
     
   that number is likely to increase most years after that.  
     
3) Classics vs Workhorses.  It is not possible to discern how many
   of these cars, model year 1966 and newer, are restored and 
   maintained as "classic" show-condition vehicles and how many 
   are simply older cars that are used as basic forms of 
   transportation in whatever condition they happen to be in. 
   While the broader exemption will benefit owners of mint 
   condition Maseratis and Jaguars, it will also benefit owners of 
   beat-up Pacers and Pintos.  Most cars in the 1966-73 model year 
   range that are currently registered are not maintained as 
   classic show cars and their annual mileage and total emissions 
   output is considerably higher than the "classics" in these 
   model years.  
     
4) Overall Emissions Impact.  According to the ARB, cars of the
   1966-73 model years are driven an average of 5,000 miles a 
   year.  (The average late model car is driven about 13,000 miles 
   a year.)  The BAR states that these model year cars are 
   responsible for 11% of the smog test failure rate, while making 
   up only about 4% of the total vehicle fleet required to take 
   biennial smog tests.  The South Coast Air Quality Management 
   District estimates an increase of three tons of emissions per 
   day in their jurisdiction alone as a result of this bill. 
   Statewide the total increase in emissions is likely to be 
   substantial and growing as time passes.  If California must 
   meet emissions reductions attributable to Smog Check II as 
   promised in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), then those 
   cars remaining subject to Smog Check II will be forced to meet 
   even higher standards to offset the emission increases 
   resulting from this bill.  In a larger sense, to the extent air 
   quality goals become more difficult to achieve via mobile 
   emissions reductions, the emphasis would naturally have to 
   shift to stationary sources.  
     
     


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Message on bill sb_42 : billroot:[current.sb.from00, LeBrun <=