What's the difference between these two cars? The one on the left will
continue to have a lifetime exemption from Smog Check, while the one on the
right will lose its exemption. Other than that, there is nothing that
substantially differentiates a 1975 from a 1976 Corvette requiring one be
accorded a lifetime exemption while the other is not.



California Governor Schwarzenegger must decide whether to veto or sign into
law a bill (AB 2683) passed by the California Legislature that will require
the lifetime emissions testing of all 1976 and newer model year vehicles.



Contact the Governor Immediately and Urge Him to Veto A.B. 2683


AB 2683 would:

§ Repeal the existing pro-hobbyist 30-year rolling emissions
exemption. From now on, all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles would be
emissions tested, including those vehicles that are insured as collector
cars (driven only to parades, exhibitions, etc.).

§ Allow regulators to set emissions standards at any level that
suits their purposes in order to ensure inspection failures of these 1976
and later model cars.

Nothing in this bill prevents California's legislators from bringing 1975
and older vehicles back into the Smog Check program at a later date or from
requiring that vehicles be tested on a yearly basis.



California's current 30-year rolling exemption recognizes the minimal impact
vintage cars have on air quality, since they constitute a minuscule portion
of the overall vehicle population. These older cars are overwhelmingly well
maintained and infrequently driven, and are poor candidates for reducing
pollution. However, they are convenient scapegoats for legislators,
regulators and stationary source polluters who are using false data and
inflated annual mileage assumptions to make it sound like they are cleaning
the air. The old car hobby must unite against this legislative tax that
will accomplish nothing except require unnecessary testing, waste money and
burden car hobbyists.

Urge Governor Schwarzenegger to Veto A.B. 2683

 

TO NO AVAIL!

From: "McClintock, Tom" <Tom.McClintock@SEN.CA.GOV> 7/2/04 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: Please vote against A.B. 2683.
To: "'----------@***.net'" <----------@***.net>

Thank you for your e-mail and I am in strong agreement that Assembly
Bill 2683 is a bad bill. As Vice Chairman of the
Senate Transportation Committee, I have always opposed all such bills.
I voted NO on Assembly Bill 2683 on June 29th in
the Senate Transportation Committee. Unfortunately, however, the bill
passed out of the committee. Be assured that I will
continue to fight against this bill on the Senate Floor.

Take care,
Tom McClintock

 

TO NO AVAIL!

From: "McClintock, Tom" <Tom.McClintock@SEN.CA.GOV> 7/2/04 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: Please vote against A.B. 2683.
To: "'----------@***.net'" <----------@***.net>

Thank you for your e-mail and I am in strong agreement that Assembly
Bill 2683 is a bad bill. As Vice Chairman of the
Senate Transportation Committee, I have always opposed all such bills.
I voted NO on Assembly Bill 2683 on June 29th in
the Senate Transportation Committee. Unfortunately, however, the bill
passed out of the committee. Be assured that I will
continue to fight against this bill on the Senate Floor.

Take care,
Tom McClintock

 

TO NO AVAIL!

From: "McClintock, Tom" <Tom.McClintock@SEN.CA.GOV> 7/2/04 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: Please vote against A.B. 2683.
To: "'----------@***.net'" <----------@***.net>

Thank you for your e-mail and I am in strong agreement that Assembly
Bill 2683 is a bad bill. As Vice Chairman of the
Senate Transportation Committee, I have always opposed all such bills.
I voted NO on Assembly Bill 2683 on June 29th in
the Senate Transportation Committee. Unfortunately, however, the bill
passed out of the committee. Be assured that I will
continue to fight against this bill on the Senate Floor.

Take care,
Tom McClintock