There seems to be no bounds to Cali's legislatures' stupidity. Trying to pass the lift of the pre '76 exempt, only in central cali so far, but if it's not stopped it's only a matter of time before it spreads to all of Cali. Once again more restrictions that will not solve the problem. If you'd like to write in opposition I have included all of the info provided by SEMA at the bottom of the blog.

http://www.auto-focus.us/autoblog/20...ed-for-april-1

 

Seems a silly gesture for the small amount of vehicles on the road that actually fall under this action. There are so many people with environmentally ruinous battery driven hybrids that California is gushing over, it just seems like some folly of a popularity contest than an actual green piece of legislation.

 

Seriously......what percent of all californian drivers have 76' and prior years cars? Less than 5 is my guess. Thats efforts that are ultimately pointless and resources that could go somewhere that actually will help the problem. I think the Governator needs to step in here.

 

**** me.

what the hell is wrong with this state?!

 

Your blog said the committmee met on April 1, what was the outcome? Every time I try to go to the senate webpage to get bill status, the server times out.

 

All this considering Arnold flies a plane to work EVERYDAY!

 

I went and looked up status on the bill (SB 1549) and it has been amended as of 4/9/08. The new language is as follows:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil...d_sen_v98.html

It has apparantly changed from "Smog check program: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District" to "Historic vehicles: special license plates." Looks like they are setting up language about putting out special license plates to older cars (multiple years listed based on certain criteria). Then a report comes back from the DMV on the success of the program and a bill to be introduced later. I am not sure then if this change was made to get SB 1549 passed so that this later bill to be written will be written to mandate smog for all classic cars or what. **** politicians scare the hell out of me!!

 

Here is the Senate Committee Bill Analysis from 4/10/08

BILL ANALYSIS 






SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 1549
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: florez
VERSION: 4/9/08
Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: April 15, 2008







SUBJECT:

License plates on historical vehicles

DESCRIPTION:

This bill requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to evaluate
its programs that provide special license plates for historical
vehicles and to report its findings to the Governor and
Legislature.

ANALYSIS:

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), upon initially
registering a vehicle, issues the owner license plates, which
the owner must affix to the vehicle to identify it. Since the
1920s, California has had many plate background and character
color combinations.

In 1963, California replaced all existing license plates with
the yellow-on-black plates.

From 1963 through 1969, DMV issued both passenger and commercial
vehicles the yellow-on-black plates. DMV continued to issue the
yellow-on-black plates to commercial vehicles and pick-up trucks
until 1972.

Beginning in 1970, DMV issued yellow-on-blue plates, and then in
the 1980s, began issuing blue-on-white plates. Many vehicles on
the road today that date from the 1960s and 1970s display the
yellow-on-black or yellow-on-blue plates. Only those vehicles on
the road from that time that lost their plates or had their
plates damaged, display newer plates.





SB 1549 (FLOREZ) Page 2




Under the DMV's year-of-manufacture (YOM) program, an owner of a
1962 or older vehicle, with the DMV's approval and upon paying
specified fees, may use California license plates from the model
year of the vehicle, if DMV determines that the plate is legible
and serviceable.

Beginning in July of 2009, the YOM program will be expanded to
allow an owner of a 1969 or older model year passenger vehicle
or a 1972 or older model year commercial vehicle, which includes
pick up trucks, to use a California license plate from the model
year of the vehicle.

In addition, existing law permits DMV to issue special
identification plates to vehicles of historical interest that
travel on public roads primarily for the purpose of exhibition.
Existing law deems vehicles manufactured before 1922, vehicles
with 16 or more cylinders manufactured before 1965, and vehicles
at least 25 years old that are collected, restored, maintained
and operated for purposes of exhibition to be "historical
vehicles." As an example, these historical plates include plates
running in a numerical series beginning with "Horseless Carriage
No. 1" for vehicles manufactured prior to 1922. These plates are
issued upon application and payment of a fee to DMV.

This bill requires DMV, by January 1, 2010, to submit to the
Governor, this committee, and the Assembly Transportation
Committee a report evaluating and recommending changes to the
YOM plate program and the historical vehicle plate program. This
report shall include:

An evaluation of the success of the these two programs;
An estimate of the number of vehicles eligible for these two
types of plates;
The number of vehicles already issued these two types of
plates;
An examination of the benefits and challenges of extending
these two programs to vehicles manufactured as recently as
1976 and a recommendation on how to determine which newer
vehicles should be eligible for these plates; and
Recommendations for characterizing cars commonly known as
muscle cars, that are owned by car collectors, and including
these vehicles in a special plate program.

COMMENTS:

1.Purpose . The author reports that classic car hobbyists




SB 1549 (FLOREZ) Page 3




throughout the state complain that the YOM plate program does
not cover the collector motor vehicles and classic cars that
were manufactured between 1972 through 1976. Also, the author
indicates that the special license plate programs cover some
cars and trucks, but he understands that the guidelines for
the program are vague as to which cars qualify for special
plates. Given this problem and rumors he has heard that these
programs are being placed on the DMV "backburner, " the author
believes there is new interest in looking at these programs,
but with a more-targeted look at collector motor vehicles and
their various sub-groups.

The author anticipates that the report this bill mandates will
help distinguish the difference between classic cars and
trucks and non-classic cars and trucks in California and that
it will determine whether these special license plates should
be extended to include special plates for vehicles up to the
1976 model year.

The author notes that these cars represent a great part of
nostalgia and a great link to California's heritage and that
this bill will provide California car collectors with the
information needed to have their vehicles recognized as a
classic.

2.Previous legislation . Last year, AB 462 (Villines), Chapter
497, expanded DMV's YOM program beginning in July 2009 to
allow owners of 1969 or older model year passenger vehicles or
of 1972 or older model year commercial vehicles to use license
plates from the year when the vehicle was manufactured.
Previous to the enactment of AB 462, only owners of pre-1963
vehicles could apply to DMV under the YOM program to use
historic plates on their historic automobiles. This program
was, therefore, restricted to plates issued before California
replaced all of its plates with the yellow-on-black plates in
1963. AB 462 was in response to requests of automobile
collectors, who indicated that year-of-manufacture plates
directly relate to the value of collectable vehicles, as well
as the authenticity of the restoration process, for vehicles
manufactured after 1963.

3.Muscle car ? Existing law provides no definition of the term
"muscle car." The author may wish to clarify in this bill what
types of vehicles he is asking DMV to consider including in
its special plate programs under the designation of muscle
cars.




SB 1549 (FLOREZ) Page 4





POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 9, 2008)

SUPPORT: None received.

OPPOSED: None received.