[iachella]

Bill re-issued under AB 220 - please jump to message #11


A new bill is running its course though the CA legislature. CA Assembly Bill 210. It will extend the smog cutoff year from 1975 to 1983.

Please support any way you can. Sign anything you can find. Do an internet search. Lots of Hot Rod and Classic Car websites have updates and give instructions on how to support - emails, letters to the representatives, etc. I found a petition on Change.org on it. I signed that.

My 74 is already exempt. I've been waiting for the day my 79 can be exempt. I'm sure many of you have Alfas in that era and if you don't, please help us anyway.

Thanks,

 

[alfaromeoblack]

A new bill is running its course though the CA legislature. CA Assembly Bill 210. It will extend the smog cutoff year from 1975 to 1983.



Please support any way you can. Sign anything you can find. Do an internet search. Lots of Hot Rod and Classic Car websites have updates and give instructions on how to support - emails, letters to the representatives, etc. I found a petition on Change.org on it. I signed that.



My 74 is already exempt. I've been waiting for the day my 79 can be exempt. I'm sure many of you have Alfas in that era and if you don't, please help us anyway.



Thanks,

Will do my car is 1984:-(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gmjohns]

I know that there are very few machines that can actually test a pre 1996 car here in California. I have heard from more than one source (test facilities) that the state (DMV) is considering not testing because of the challenges in supporting the machines and software that is necessary to complete the test. I hope it's true but moving the exemption to pre 83 is a start!

 

[iachella]

I hope the assemblymen and women get this info when they are making their votes. Hopefully the DMV weighs in somehow. Maybe it would come down to a practicality type decision in their minds this time. I know that the previous two times this type of bill has come before the reps it has failed to get the votes, so it still does seem like a long shot. I never give up hope though and will not throw up my hands an not try letters and emails again and again. I hope everyone does the same no matter how slim it seems.

 

[iachella]

Update: The bill looks dead for at least this assembly session.

No action is listed for this bill since the Transportation Committee hearing in late March. The deadline for bills to advance to the Assembly has passed.

Maybe next year....

 

[iachella]

If you are dead then don't worry about it. Some of us are following the progress.

 

[Rlajb]

I read recently that classic cars up through '81 can be exempt from smog if they are insured as a classic car and driven sparingly or to and from shows.

 

[iachella]

Collector cars, model years 1976 and newer, are subject to the program, but eligible for an abbreviated inspection. [Health and Safety Code §44011(c) and §44012(f)]

I don't know what that abbreviated inspection is, but insuring as a classic car has the same requirements as the DMV: you can only drive it less than a certain number of miles.

I put lots of miles on my car so I don't qualify. I think most Alfa owners want to drive more than a couple thousand miles a year. If you qualify, that is certainly an option for you. Keep in mind that what ever that inspection is, it would certainly uncover modifications done to your car, so a Weber conversion will certainly not get through the system.

 

[iachella]

The author of the bill withdrew it to gather more support. It will be re-submitted in 2020.

 

[Rlajb]

I've heard from several sources including the local highway patrol that CA would love to get rid of all the older cars and are trying to make it impossible to keep them on the road. The program to buy back old cars that no longer pass smog is a good indication that this is true. The original idea was that the cutoff was supposed to change every year but the law was modified to be fixed at '75. I think the writer of the bill will have an uphill battle.

 

[iachella]

The bill was resubmitted this year. Name changed to AB 220.

Bill Text - AB-220 Smog check: exemption.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

As before - if you are in California, please look up your Assemblyman and send them an email in support. It's also suggested to send it to the Transportation Committee, since they will hear the bill. If you are not in California, there is a petition for it on Change.org. Help us out. It may be a longshot, but the effort is minimal.

Sign the Petition

Support AB210, bill to amend smog exemption from 1976 to 1983

chng.it

 

[iachella]

Err, the Change.org petition was the old one. Didn't notice that. Will post the new one when it comes up.

 

[sidewaysalfa]

Sent an email to my State Rep.
Also to my Alfa Club chapters, AROSC and AROCCC.

 

[iachella]

I was able to update the tittle of this thread. I didn't think I could do that.

 

[iachella]

The bill was heard in the Transportation Committee yesterday. I found the video recording and watched it last night.

The author, Voepel introduced the bill and spoke with wording directed towards classic cars. No doubt many of the
messages he got was from classic car owners and classic car shops, etc. The speaker lady interrupted him to
clarify that his bill did not address classic cars but all cars prior to 1983. She did not want anyone to be under the
impression that this bill was for classic car owners only. A bad start in my opinion. I've attended some hearings
and can tell when someone on the board is ready to attack something.

I jumped through the recording just to get some snippets of what people were saying and of course the health
organizations were against the bill. There were a lot of speakers against it, and not as may for it. Although the
list of backers was longer than the list of opposers as indicated on the bill summary. The backers just didn't seem
to call in and speak their mind. Missed opportunity.

In the end the speaker lady was open to helping the classic car owners, but not to all cars that the bill covers.
She said they could vote on the bill right then, with little support, or Voelpel could take it back to re-word it to
not include all cars prior to 1983, but craft it to the classic car owners.

So he withdrew the bill and the hearing was over. He said he would work on it and thanked her for her support of
classic car owners.

So there are positives and negatives here. What concerns me is that in Voelpel's opening comments he referred
to classic cars as mostly "expensive and little driven" classic cars. So who knows how classic cars are going to
be defined. He referred to cars being driven anywhere between 1000 - 3000 miles a year. If that gets in there, there
will need to be some kind of proof that mileage is that low. Also - how will someone register their car as a classic
with the DMV. If the car needs to first pass smog for that year and then get the classic car designation, there could
be a problem for some (me).

A positive is that the transportation committee does want to work with classic car owners. I do not know how to find
out how Voelpel will be re-working it. If anyone knows how he will share what he does, please post. I would like to
get some opinions into him about value and mileage.

Thanks.

 

[Rlajb]

The bill was heard in the Transportation Committee yesterday. I found the video recording and watched it last night.

The author, Voepel introduced the bill and spoke with wording directed towards classic cars. No doubt many of the
messages he got was from classic car owners and classic car shops, etc. The speaker lady interrupted him to
clarify that his bill did not address classic cars but all cars prior to 1983. She did not want anyone to be under the
impression that this bill was for classic car owners only. A bad start in my opinion. I've attended some hearings
and can tell when someone on the board is ready to attack something.

I jumped through the recording just to get some snippets of what people were saying and of course the health
organizations were against the bill. There were a lot of speakers against it, and not as may for it. Although the
list of backers was longer than the list of opposers as indicated on the bill summary. The backers just didn't seem
to call in and speak their mind. Missed opportunity.

In the end the speaker lady was open to helping the classic car owners, but not to all cars that the bill covers.
She said they could vote on the bill right then, with little support, or Voelpel could take it back to re-word it to
not include all cars prior to 1983, but craft it to the classic car owners.

So he withdrew the bill and the hearing was over. He said he would work on it and thanked her for her support of
classic car owners.

So there are positives and negatives here. What concerns me is that in Voelpel's opening comments he referred
to classic cars as mostly "expensive and little driven" classic cars. So who knows how classic cars are going to
be defined. He referred to cars being driven anywhere between 1000 - 3000 miles a year. If that gets in there, there
will need to be some kind of proof that mileage is that low. Also - how will someone register their car as a classic
with the DMV. If the car needs to first pass smog for that year and then get the classic car designation, there could
be a problem for some (me).

A positive is that the transportation committee does want to work with classic car owners. I do not know how to find
out how Voelpel will be re-working it. If anyone knows how he will share what he does, please post. I would like to
get some opinions into him about value and mileage.

Thanks.

The problem is the definition of classic car. I understand that there is already an exception to the smog rule for cars insured as classic and driven less than a certain number of miles. Not sure what all the parameters are already. Since the legislature has already voted to ban new combustion engine cars by the year 2035, then I could see how they would be reluctant to let in "gross polluters" on the roads. Today, I finally got my '80 to the next phase. I paid the registration fees and can drive it to get it smogged. Not sure how it will go. I live in Lake Co. so the rules are a little more relaxed here. Hope it passes.

 

[iachella]

Btw - Lake County is only change of ownwership smog required. So after you get it registered the first time, you won't need it again.

 

[Rlajb]

Btw - Lake County is only change of ownwership smog required. So after you get it registered the first time, you won't need it again.

Yes, I know. Thanks.

 

[sidewaysalfa]

We will have to just wait and pray.
I did send an email to my Calif Assy person. Did all of you Californios???
If they could rewrite the bill so that we could make improvements like replacing the SPICA with EFI, I'd be happy to spend the $$$. The car should run better and cleaner with EFI I assume.

 

[sidewaysalfa]

It looks like it was amended April 13.
Bill Text - AB-220 Smog check: exemption. (ca.gov)
At the top I read this:
"if the owner submits proof that the motor vehicle is insured as a collector motor vehicle". So I wonder if I just get something like Hagerty insurance I would be OK. Looking at the DMV definition of collector car it looks a little vague as long as I don't use the car as a daily driver??
But at the bottom of the bill I get real confused.
Sorry I started another thread earlier, but I have directed over to this thread.