THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION, GUYS AND GALS!!!

SB 1239 had been introduced in the California Senate that proposes extending the emission test exemption from pre-1976 to pre-1981. See the following link for more information

http://semasan.com/page.asp?content=...n=DrivingForce

Note that all you have to do to send an email to all members of the Transportation Committee is click the "Contact Lawmakers" button and add your comments and send. It will take you only a couple of minutes to do this. Below is the message that I sent.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I request you add all vehicles with California Historical Vehicle license plates to SB 1239, which proposes to move the emission test model year exemption from pre-1976 to pre-1981.

Historical Vehicle license plates have severe driving restrictions, and it makes no sense to require biennial emission tests. I drive my HV-plate vehicles about 200-300 miles per year, which means I have to get an emission test every 400-600 miles.

None has ever failed emission cut points and are all well within the maximum allowable emission limits.

The trip to the emission test station is a waste of time, money, energy, and creates unnecessary emissions and green house gas generation.

Thank-you for your consideration.



Please send an email from the SEMA link expressing your support of SB 1239 and request adding vehicles with California Historical Vehicle license plates to the emission test exemption.

We need this to go viral!

California Historical Vehicle license plates can be installed on 25-year and older vehicles, but they have severe use restrictions and cannot be used as daily drivers for commuting.

Request the moderators place this thread in the Sticky section and keep it there until the final resolution of this bill.

Thanks,

Duke

 

I sent the following email to State Senator Gaines (R) (senator.gaines@senate.ca.gov) who introduced SB 1239 to the legislature. He represents a district in the gold rush country and lives in El Dorado, home of noted Corvette historian Noland Adams.

I think it might actually be easier to sell a HV-plate emission test exemption to the car and car collector hating California legislature due to the driving restrictions than move the current cut off point five years up with no driving restrictions. Given the 25-year age requirement, 1991 models are eligible for HV plates this year.

Note that the HV plate application (link below) states that HV-plate "vehicle is primarily driven in..."

Last year a friend applied for a HV plate on his '90 Civic, and was told by a supervisor at the Torrance DMV office something on the order that it could ONLY be used in parades, and if he had to take it to a service facility it would have to be "flatbedded", so he tore up the application. That's ridiculous!

As stated below on HV plate requirements "primarily" does not mean "exclusively", so an occasional pleasure drive that is not related specifically to a club or cars and coffee event, travel to a service facility, or moving between storage locations is NOT excluded.

To you lawyers (including courthouse step wannabe lawyers) and law enforcement guys, I would like to hear your informal, off-the-record legal opinion on my legal interpretation of the HV-plate driving restrictions and what's okay in terms of driving a HV-plate vehicle.

Feel free to write Senator Gaines a personal email using any of the points I brought up, and also feel free to forward this note to anyone you think is willing to support my request. The first hurdle will be the Senate Transportation and Health committee, but as of today a hearing has not been scheduled. Nevertheless, don't wait to act!

Here's the link to the SEMA Web page that allows you to easily send an email to all members of the T & H committee at the click of a button. You probably received this link in an email I sent earlier this week, so this is just a reminder.

http://semasan.com/page.asp?content=...paign=LegAlert






Dear Senator Gaines,

Thank-you for introducing SB 1239. Passage of this bill will definitely help car collectors, however, merely extending the emission test exemption five years has limited value.

I request you amend the legislation to include all vehicles with California Historical Vehicle license plates. The current statutory authority for HV plates is CVC Section 5004:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...r=1.&article=8.

Further, the special plates application under the "requirements" section states as follows for HV plates:

"Issued to a motor vehicle manufactured after 1922, which is at least 25 years old and of historic interest. Vehicle is primarily driven in historical exhibitions, parades, or historical vehicle club activities..."

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/co...df?MOD=AJPERES

My post-1975 model year HV-plate vehicles accumulate between 200 and 300 miles per year, so they have to be emission tested after accumulating only a few hundred miles and two tanks of fuel. The emission tests actually cost more than the two tanks of fuel. None have ever failed emission cut points. The trip to the emission test station is a waste of time, money, and energy.

Since HV-plate vehicles have significant driving restrictions, why do they have to be emission tested every two years if they are post-1975 model years? Their contribution to vehicle emissions is miniscule considering the typical low rate of mileage accumulation due to the driving restrictions.

Please add HV-plate vehicles to the emission test exemption eligibility in SB 1239.

Thank-you for your consideration.

 

If you look at the application

It states primarily driven in exhibitions, parades or club events.

I know when I attend some cars and coffee events I see some of those plates but they tend to be on really old cars. So the LEO's probably ignore them because no one is going to commute in a Model A.

 

As I stated previously the basic requirement to qualify for HV plates is 25-model years old or older, which are certainly no antiques!

That means the 1991 model year is eligible this year, and if we can add a HV-plate exemption to SB 1239, that means anyone with a '76 to '91 model year could be exempt and with every passing year another model year will be eligible.

I see you live in San Mateo where I once live as a young kid - 811 Nevada St as I recall. Please help out the cause and send an email at least from the SEMA web page that I referenced. It will only take a couple of minutes to express your support and ask that HV-plates be added to the proposed emission test exemption.

Duke

 

The following is a comment from a California attorney regarding the DMV supervisor's comment in post #2 (his observations, not a legal opinion or legal advice).

I am a lawyer but you don’t have to be a lawyer to realize the DMV’s clerk’s use of the word “exclusive” is not consistent with the “primarily” standard used in the HV code. I have not researched the legislative record as relates to the “primary” standard, but similar language (i.e., “primary use”) is used in collector car policies which further define this explicitly to prohibit use for employment, shopping, routine transportation such as going to the airport to pick up passengers, etc. As applied to collector cars, use under the primary standard should include incidental use for trips to automotive repair facilities for repair, pleasure trips to maintain vehicle function, non-club sanctioned trips to shows and other events, as well as non-racing informal car rallies by groups of enthusiasts. Collector car insurer’s definitions vary. I am with AIG which has a reasonable definition of primary use similar to what I described above.

If you haven't gone to the SEMA link in post #1, which allows you to easily send an email to all members or the Senate Transportation and Health Committee, please do so. Express your support for SB 1239 and request that HV-plate vehicles be added to the emission test exemption. It will only take a minute to do so.

Duke

 

Duke,

As I read it, the proposed legislation is to move the current exemption to the 81 model year for all cars, not just those with historic plates correct? If so, why would we introduce the idea of historic plates? I see the point that the restriction is pretty minimal but it does create another discretionary excuse for LEOs to pull us over.

I would think that in a heavily Democrat dominated senate, a Republican proposal that might be perceived as anti green would have little chance of approval.

 

I definitely do not want to automatically add historical vehicles off the bat. If the definition of a historic vehicle did not include primary driving but rather was an infrequently driven vehicle it would go a long way for me. I almost never take my car to shows these days. No time. I drive it when I get time to enjoy it.

If we saw traction on the issue and the lawmakers decided it included too many "normal cars", I'd consider it as a way of getting the bill across. That said, it would really screw up the language of the current law and it's not really a huge win for anyone except car show types.

Historic vehicles are also exempt from the visual portion of the smog check as it stands today.

 

Extending the model year emission test exemption only five years has limited value and may be a tough sell to the decidedly anti-car California legislature, especially old cars.

Since HV plates have driving restrictions it might be an easier sell, and if included provides an opportunity for '76 to '91 model year owners to gain emission test exemption with a new model year added every year. This will help a lot more vintage car owners.

Most guys I know who have cars of this vintage, whether they have HV-plates or not basically meet the driving restrictions, which are somewhat open ended. None use them as daily drivers, but "pleasure driving" is not excluded.

Neither I nor anyone I know with HV plates has ever been stopped by a police officer to query why he is driving the car. If I ever do and I'm not on my way to/from a car event I'll say that I just completed some brake work and am test driving the car.

I know several LAPD retired and active duty police officers who all own C2s and are fellow members of the SoCal NCRS Chapter. They just laugh when I express concern about getting stopped if I use an HV-plate vehicle to make the six-mile round trip to Home Depot to pick up something in the middle of the week and say that an old guy in a nice vintage car is not going to be stopped unless you commit an obvious violation like speeding or running a red light.

I know of no statutory/regulatory authority that exempts HV-plate vehicles from the visual portion of the emission test procedure. They are subject to the full emission test suite, both visual and tail pipe, unless they are pre-'76.

I raced for over 30 years, but retired from that activity about 15 years ago and am enjoying life in the slow lane, but getting my '76 to '91 vintage cars emission tested every two years after only a few hundred miles of driving since the last one is a real pain.

Duke

 

As a classic car enthusiast, I support reducing emission testing requirements on older cars. I’m also a California native who retired to Nevada to get away from things like the crazy liberal culture.

However, I have to tell you that California is less restrictive on emission testing of older cars than Nevada. Nevada only exempts testing on model year 1967 and older. They also exempt cars registered with Classic Vehicle/Classic Rod/Old Timer plates (basically 25 years and older) which carry less than 5K mile per year driving restrictions.

So, good luck in your efforts but it could be worse.

 

Thanks for the info. So all you Nevadans have to do to exempt your 25-year or older vintage cars from emission testing is get a cool special plate.

That's exactly what I'm proposing to add to SB 1239. The cool special plate already exists in California. It just needs the emission test exemption.

Duke

 

Good thread

I was going to get the historic plate a few yrs ago read the restrictions and gave the paper back to them. This, after paying good $ for some legit black plates, buying the sticker only to be told I had to wait 3 more years to use them.

Most probably wont hassle you on the H. plates but its that "one" that decides to if he doesnt believe ya a flatbed is going to show up.

See no reason to be testing pre even 85 vehicles there are so few on the road they either dont run or are being restored. Noone keeps up on how well they are tuned like a car guy

Having the testing requirements changed to when they are tighter than when they were new is just a noose to force everyone to buy a new car which I will refuse.

 

Pretty much – of course, you pay an additional fee up front and a fee that goes to the “pollution control account” each year. You also have to certify (signature only) each year that the vehicle has not been driven more than 5K miles. The mileage requirement is not a problem for me but I doubt they have the resources or desire to ever check.

 

I can not in good conscience put a Historic Vehicle plate on my California car. A Historic Vehicle is an originally configured car that is driven primarily to shows. My car goes to 1-2 shows a year tops and gets driven way more than that.

If a historical vehicle was defined in CA the same way as it is in NV, I'd be on board. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I don't think the lawmakers are going to be convinced to make an exception for one group of vehicles over the other. Here's the text on historic vehicles.



So, the H&S code states that a car owned by a collector (defined in VC 259) is exempted from the visual portion so long as it meets the criteria of 5004...

...it's a sticky mess, but it's already there. Yes, getting COMPLETELY exempted is certainly better than being partially exempted, but I think it would be better for collectors and for the state to start bumping up the smog years wholesale, not just for HVs. I'd be happy to certify that my car was insured as a collector car (it is) and minimally used (it is).

 

My '79 has the Nevada Classic Rod plate. No emissions checking whatsoever. I love it. Side pipes, carb, simple, awesome.

 

im good with 1981 and down being exempt. I don't see why historic vehicle below 81 would have to do smogs. anything made after 1980 is crap anyways lol jk.

 

Thanks for posting those sections of the various California codes. As you say, it's a sticky mess. Definitely!

The initial one-time fee for HV plates is $25, and I recall when researching this that all other normal fees including the "license fee", which is the portion based on the cars depreciated value applies, however, what I've gathered from HV-plate owners is that the license fee dropped to $2 for all subsequent annual registrations.

Also, those who got HV-plates on post '76 vehicles five or more years ago never had to get another emission test - only those who have installed them in the last couple of years on post-'76 vehicles!

My hunch is that the DMV computers, which are probably legacy IBM MVS operating system applications aren't programmed properly for the current law. Legacy systems such as the IBM MVS OS have become a patchwork kluge over the years. (IBM was my last employer before I bailed out of corporate America back in the early nineties.) Documentation is often poor and there are fewer and fewer programmers who can deal with these old, difficult-to-use systems.

In any event, SB 1239 is a foot in the door to come up with a more reasonable system for collector cars. Maybe we can turn it into something similar to most other states like Nevada.

I'm in contact with my state assemblyman David Hadley's (R) office on an unrelated problem I'm having with DMV, and the field rep I'm working with is totally on board with SB 1239 and my request to add HV plates, but unless the bill gets through the Senate and goes to the Assembly, there's not much they can do.

Assemblyman Hadley is also leading a charge to stop the California High Speed Rail boondoggle. He's the first reasonable and rational elected representative I've had to either the state legislature or Congress in well over a decade! There are still some reasonable people in Sacramento - just not enough.

Duke

 

The Transportation and Housing Committee did not complete the process of taking testimony and voting on SB 1239 last Tuesday, April 12. The committee will complete the process this coming Tuesday, April 19. If you are a resident of California and have not contacted committee members asking them to support SB 1239, please do so now! SEMA has made the process very easy. It will take about one minute of your time!

1. Go to the following link:
http://semasan.com/page.asp?content=...paign=LegAlert

2. When the above page loads you will see a "Contact Lawmaker(s)" button.

3. Left click the button and an email form with all the committee members email addresses already in the "To" box will come up.

4. Type "SB 1239" in the Subject box.

4. Type your message and hit Send. That's it!!!

Here's what I wrote:

Please support SB 1239 and amend it to exempt all vehicles with Historical Vehicle license plates from emission testing. Due to driving restrictions HV plate vehicles have, on average, very low annual mileage accumulation and make no significant contribution to vehicle emissions.

Feel free to copy and paste the above to your email, paraphrase it, or compose you own.

Also, please send this note to your circle of friends and ask them to support SB 1239. We need this thing to go viral. If the committee members inboxes are flooded by Monday with support for this bill, it has a decent chance of making it through the committee, amended as we requested.

Thanks,

 

Thanks! Here's mine:

As time has marched on, the number of these vehicles on the road has continued to dwindle. The impact of these cars on road emissions is low.

* There are very few of these cars on the
** Of those on the road, most are driven minimally and not used as daily drivers. Mine is a vehicle of historic interest and gets maybe 500 miles a year of usage (on a good year!)
* The cost to keep technicians trained, equipment up to date and re-certify these cars gets higher as most of the equipment to do so is specific to these cars. Newer cars (96 and above) are much simpler to certify and the process is nearly the same for all of them.
* The cost to the state can be much higher, as enforcing smog regulations on these cars requires training and parts availability to be ensured by the state. If parts are not readily available, there are programs in place for the BAR to order parts. If the BAR can not source parts, a 2 year exemption is given for the vehicle. The likelihood that a part is available in 2 years is very low. Once this has happened, the cars where parts are no longer available will become a continual drain on state budget with no improvement in emissions compliance.

I would like to see this vehicle passed in its current form and thank you for taking the time to listen to and support your constituents.

 

It passed the first vote yesterday. I don't think that means much though.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01520160SB1239

 

So whats next