California AB 2683 update - URGENT!!!

[Duke W.]

California vintage car enthusiasts may only have a few days to fight for defeat of this legislation in the California Senate. Please visit the following link for the latest information and action plan:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/sho...ost15479997 29

I will be composing another note to my state senator and sending it off this evening. An hour ago I sent a note to the governor at:

www.govmail.ca.gov

Here is the text:

"Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

AB 2683 appears to be on the verge of passage by the Senate and go to you for consideration. I urge you to veto AB 2683!

This bill was ramrodded through the legislature based on a "draft report" (April 2004 draft report to the IMRC) by your BAR and ARB that is highly biased. It uses selective data and analyses to claim that repealing the current 30-year emission test exemption will yield "significant" reductions in emissions. No time for public questions, comments, and discussion has been allocated while anti-vintage-car political forces shove this bill through the legislative process on false pretenses.

Vintage car enthusiasts worked long and hard to gain this exemption that was passed into law (SB 42) in 1997. Now the legislature, aided and abetted by your own staff organizations, are reneging on their promise and using biased data and analyses to continue beating up on vintage car owners.

We sent you to Sacramento as the "people's governor" to reign in a legislature and state bureaucracy that is out of control! AB 2683 proves that much work needs to be done.

Please veto AB 2683 and order your staff agencies to present all data and analyses of older car emissions in a fair and unbiased context, not selected data in a biased context. Have them finalize the "draft report" in an equitable manner, then allow time for public questions (which the authors must answer), comments, and discussion.

Such underhanded methods that are being used to support AB 2683 are symptomatic of what is wrong with California's government. Please veto AB 2683 and send a message to the legislature and your own staff agencies that they must represent the best interests of all Californians, not just the special interests including the anti-vintage-car gang."

Duke

[Duke W.]

Re: California AB 2683 update - URGENT!!!

Here is the text of the e-mail I just posted to Debra Bowen, my 28th distict state senator:

Dear Senator Bowen,

I urge you to vote against AB 2683 when it reaches the Senate floor.

AB 2683 was hastily prepared using unsubstantiated claims and data,
analyses, and comparisons from a "draft report" (April 2004 draft report
to the IMRC) that is highly biased in its presentation, and the bill was
prepared two months before the report was made public. If the "savings"
of six tons per day ozone precursors in the year 2010, which may well be
overstated, are compared to total vehicle emissions, it is less than
one-half of one percent, and if compared to emissions from all sources
it is a very small fraction of one percent.

Meanwhile, hundreds of tons per day of ozone precursors are emitted by
other sources, many of which have no emission controls and are not
subject of any form of emission testing.

Legislative analyses claim that 1976 model year cars emit 2.5 times the
aggregate emissions of 2004 model year cars, but this claim was made
early in the model year when few 2004 models were on the road. The data
and calculations used to reach this "conclusion" are not specified, but
is this even a fair and reasonable comparison given the small population
of 2004 models when the claim was made? Model year 1976 to 1982 cars
were certified to standards that reduced emissions 90 percent from
uncontrolled cars, and 2004 model year cars achieve on the order of 99+
percent reduction and have no degradation from mileage accumulation and
aging. New cars have virtually zero emissions at operating temperature,
which are so low that current testing technology is being pushed to the
limit of its sensitivity. Dividing any number by a very small number
yields a high number. Dividing by zero yields infinity!

Vintage car enthusiasts worked long and hard to win the rolling 30-year
emission test exemption that was passed into law (SB 42) in 1997. Ever
since, anti-car forces in both the legislature and state staff agencies
continue to beat-up vintage car owners by publishing and promoting
intentionally rigged data, analyses, and comparisons that overstate the
case against vintage cars.

The April, 2004 draft report to the IMRC prepared by the BAR and ARB
must be rewritten using all available data and unbiased, objective
analyses and comparisons that place older car emissions in a fair and
reasonable context. Then a period of time must be granted for the
public to submit questions and comments, which the authors must address
in the spirit of open and democratic public policy discussion.

Last year I contacted you requesting that you help defeat SB 708. This
was effectively the final outcome as all the emission test change
provisions were removed prior to its passing. Your letter to me, dated
May 23, 2003, includes the following paragraph:

"During my 10+ years in the Legislature, I've consistently opposed
efforts to extend the state's smog check laws to classic cars because I
don't think requiring cars that are driven a few hundred to a few
thousand miles a year to meet smog check standards will significantly
improve California's air quality. Furthermore, whatever improvements
are made are likely to be very expensive for classic car owners and I
have little doubt there are other places where California can get much
bigger air pollution reductions for a lot less money."

I hope you will use this argument with other senators to assist in
defeating AB 2683.

Sincerely,...

[Duke]

[Dick W.]

Re: California AB 2683 update - URGENT!!!

What most people do not realize is that the Federal Air Quality rules usually start in California. The rules we see mandated from Washington mostly have been based on what the CA CARB decides that needs to be done. Thanks for taking time to write the letters. I am sure that SEMA has also been very busy lobbying for defeat of this bill.

[Gerard F.]

Re: California AB 2683 update - URGENT!!!

Duke,

The attachment here is my thoughts on AB2683. California is running wild with over-regulation and I applaud your efforts. Ever deal with Water Quality or Caltrans---forget about it.

I just checked on AB2683, and it's up for the third reading in the Senate.
If you want to use the attachment, you are welcome to it. If you want the unreduced file, just email me (gjfeng@mlode.com).

Best wishes,

Gerard J.(Jerry) Fuccillo
GJF Engineering
Sonora, California

[Gerard F.]

Re: Let's this image again