SB-708 votes

[Ron61]

Well they had 9 yes and 3 no votes for SB-708 and it is now set for a hearing on May 13, 2003. Seemingly this is just a formality from what I have managed to find out through various sources. Flores is really putting pressure on others to pass it. Sort of a or else thing.

Ron

[Tinker51]

Hey Ron, do you know the "they" are? If we knew exactly who to write (the 12 people voting on this) as opposed to just writing our local reps maybe that would be better.

[Mohuska]

I just went to the state site for the bill....here is the link

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ss=CUR&house=S

I may be reading this wrong, but what I read through the entire history and status and the bill passes 9:3 AS AMENDED.......the latest amendment changes the entire smog testing program and affects "VEHICLES WITH EXCESSIVE EXHAUST DISCHARGE".....The bill has been changed to a repair assistance bill to help low income people with smoky cars.

I doesn't appear to affect us (unless your car smokes alot).......ALL OF THE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE REVISED SMOG SCHEDULE HAS BEEN STRICKEN FROM THE BILL.....

Does anyone else see it this way..???????

[Mohuska]

Here is the voting roster

VOTES - ROLL CALL
MEASURE: SB 708
AUTHOR: Florez
TOPIC: Air pollution: motor vehicles.
DATE: 04/29/2003
LOCATION: SEN. TRANS.
MOTION: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 9. NOES 3.) (PASS)


AYES
****

Murray Figueroa Florez Karnette
Perata Scott Soto Speier
Torlakson


NOES
****

McClintock Ashburn Brulte


ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************

[Mohuska]

Here is the text of the analysis for the latest amended version 4/22/03



BILL ANALYSIS






SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 708
SENATOR KEVIN MURRAY, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Florez
VERSION: 4/22/03
Analysis by: Steve Schnaidt FISCAL:yes




SUBJECT:

Excessively smoking vehicles: repairs and fines.

DESCRIPTION:

This bill would allow a low-income owner of an excessively
smoking vehicle who was issued a "notice to correct", to
participate in the state's vehicle repair assistance
program. The bill would authorize counties to establish
smoking vehicle checkpoints and fund the checkpoints with
increased fine revenue from smoking vehicle citations. The
bill would increase the base fine for second and subsequent
smoking vehicle citations by $150.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law establishes numerous requirements and
standards for the registration and operation of vehicles on
the state's streets and highways. These conditions include
safety, mechanical and operational equipment requirements
for vehicles as well as qualifications for the drivers of
such vehicles. Vehicle standards also include those
related to emissions control equipment and certification of
compliance with state and federal emissions standards, as
well as participation in the state's vehicle inspection and
maintenance (smog check) program.

Existing law makes it an infraction to operate a vehicle in
a manner that results in the escape of excessive smoke,
flames, fluids, or fuel residue from the vehicle. An
officer observing a heavily smoking vehicle or other
vehicle equipment or mechanical violation, however, is
authorized to issue a notice to correct ("fix-it ticket")
under which the violator agrees to correct the violation
within 30 days. The notice to correct may not be issued,
however, in cases of persistent neglect or fraud, when an
immediate safety hazard exists, or the violator does not




SB 708 (FLOREZ)
Page 2



agree to correct the problem.

First-offense fines for vehicle equipment and mechanical
violations, including excessive smoke violations, are
punishable by a $25 fine plus $51 in penalty assessments,
or $76 total. If a notice to correct is issued instead for
the violation, only a $10 administrative transaction fee is
charged when proof of correction is submitted and the
violation is dismissed. A person who violates a notice to
correct or fails to deliver proof of correction is guilty
of a misdemeanor which is punishable by a fine of $100 plus
$190 in penalty assessments, for a total of $290.

Existing law establishes substantial fines for heavy-duty
vehicles (6,001 pounds +) that violate opacity (smoke)
standards for emissions. The fines range from $250 to
$2,500 for a first offense and from $500 to $5,000 for a
second or subsequent offense within one year. The fine for
a second violation of the excessive smoke emissions or
opacity standards by a light-duty vehicle (under 6,001
pounds) is $100 to $250.

Existing law provides for the operation of a vehicle repair
or removal program for high-polluting vehicles (that is,
high-emissions or gross-polluting vehicles) and establishes
a program for the accelerated retirement (dismantling) of
light-duty vehicles which contribute disproportionately to
on-road vehicle emissions. These programs were conceived
as complements to the state's smog check program as a means
to encourage and enable low-income vehicle owners and
others to properly maintain and repair their vehicles to
reduce emissions and air pollution.

Under the state's repair assistance program, low-income
vehicle owners or persons directed to a test-only facility
may receive up to $500 in state repair cost assistance for
vehicles failing their smog check if certain income,
co-payment, and other eligibility requirements are met.
(See attached Smog Check Consumer Assistance Program
information.)

This bill would increase the fines for heavily smoking
vehicles but make the smog check repair assistance program
available to certain owners of such vehicles.
Specifically, the bill would:

[Mohuska]

Here is the continued analysis....first part too long

SB 708 (FLOREZ)
Page 3



1.Allow a low-income owner of a vehicle who received a
notice to correct heavy smoke emissions to participate in
the state's repair assistance program operated in
conjunction with the smog check program.

2.Authorize a county board of supervisors to establish a
combined vehicle inspection and sobriety checkpoint to
screen for violations of smoking vehicle prohibitions and
opacity standards and authorize a board to establish a
sobriety checkpoint program to identify drivers who drive
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

3.In counties where a combined vehicle inspection and
sobriety checkpoint program is established, require that
$150 of the fine revenue for second and subsequent
violations of vehicle smoke or opacity standards must be
placed in a special account and be used only for the
combined checkpoint program.

4.Raise the fines by $150 for second or subsequent
violations for an excessively smoking vehicle, or a
second or subsequent violation for a vehicle violating
opacity/smoke standards, and the vehicles weigh less than
6,001 pounds, from the current minimum fine of $100 to
$250, and raise the maximum fine from $250 to $400.

COMMENTS:

1.According to the author, the bill is intended to increase
enforcement efforts directed at heavily smoking and
gross-polluting vehicles in order to reduce the excessive
emissions produced by such vehicles. The large increases
in fines for second offenses is meant to deter vehicle
owners from continuing to operate "smokers," while the
use of combined sobriety and smoking vehicle checkpoints
is intended to be an efficient and cost-effective way to
identify intoxicated drivers and/or smoking vehicles.
The availability of the smog check repair assistance
program to low-income owners of smoking vehicles is
intended to provide a means to repair such vehicles to
avoid subsequently stiff fines and also clean the air.

2.Questions for the Committee .

a)Are the proposed fine increases, in combination with
existing penalty assessments (an additional 190% of the




SB 708 (FLOREZ)
Page 4



base fine) too large? The bill would increase fines by
$150, but currently-required penalty assessments would
add another $285, for a combined increase of $435 for
second and subsequent violations.

b)Would the combined smoking vehicle and sobriety
checkpoints be effective, given that a smoking vehicle
can be cited by any officer at any time?

c)The bill would authorize counties to establish sobriety
checkpoint programs, other than the combined vehicle
inspection and sobriety checkpoint programs, to identify
drivers in violation of the prohibition on driving under
the influence of drugs or alcohol. What is the
relationship of these single-purpose sobriety checkpoints
to air quality improvements?

3.The Senate Judiciary Committee has requested that the
bill be re-referred to that committee to consider the
bill's fine increases and distribution of fine revenue
between the state and counties, subjects that are covered
by the Trial Court Funding Act. The Senate Rules
Committee has advised this committee that the bill should
be referred to the Rules Committee for consideration of
additional referral if approved by Transportation.

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 23, 2003)

SUPPORT:

OPPOSED:
Note : the Committee has received many
letters and calls
from individuals opposing the bill's
previous provisions on smog checks for older
vehicles. That opposition does not appear
related to the current version of the bill.

[Mark Husar]

Mohuska,
Thanks for the xlnt heads-up on this. Good job!!!

[Ron61]

Mohuska,

I think you have a pretty good handle on the amended version of the bill as it does pretain a lot to excessive smokers which I don't think anyone objects to. But from what I have been able to find out, ( and this is not a statement of fact ), there will be a lot of area about SB-100 and older cars left open to interpetation of the Calif. Govt. I have read and reread this amended version until I have it almost memorized and I can see all kinds of ways for it to be interpeted and so far no one that I have managed to contact can, or will give me a statement of just how it is going to be implimented. It does increase a lot of fines, and is supposed to give more assistance to gross polluters. Now, and once again this is not a statement of fact, they could interpet a gross polluter as any car withut emission equipment. Please be advised I am not trying to start a fight or contrdict what you have said as I am really concerned about this bill and it's final interpetations. I just think the only really way for us to be safe is to have this bill rejected. Example is the counties now being able to determine at DUI checkpoints if they think your car is a polluter. I can't get any statement of just how they are to determine this. I doubt if they will have smog testers at every check point as the enhanced emission requirements require that dyno.

Any light you could shed on this would be greatly appreciated.

Ron

[Mohuska]

Ron...I appreciate your comments....I know that the original law certainly did potentially restrict all of our freedom to drive a classic, restored, kit or vintage "age" car. I personally led a charge against the bill. There were many others who had much more influence than I, who pressed very hard, including Jay Leno and Neil Young......

That said, I review, intrepret and press laws for a living and I looked at this one very hard. My belief at this moment is that the Bill by Flores was changed to be something entirely different. This is exactly the comments I have received from state legislators. At this moment, SB-708 is about curbing cars which emit gross exhaust emissions, meaning smoking cars. This has been in the works for quite awhile and it is not surprising that it came to be, only how it came to be.

The current status is that there are questions about the amount of some of the fines being imposed. There is a hearing scheduled to look at these issues. The bill should then head over to the Gov's office for signature. I don't yet know what the Gov's position is on this.

Unless someone pulls a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute, we should not see this impacting us. No offense intended Ron, but I don't think we need to worry about a sucker punch at this time....BUT...I encourage you to follow the link often to see if there are other changes....I am trying to do the same, but extremely busy with my business now......

Anyways,......bills such as this one need people like you to bring them to the attention of everyone....Only as a group voice can we express the will of proponents of our cars.....

Cheers,

Mike

[Ron61]

Mike,

Thanks so much for the last information. The guys that I know and have been talking to just weren't sure even though some of them have been in Sacramanto for a few weeks fighting this bill. Your interpetations and information are a relief to me and I am sure to hundreds of others who were just unsure of what this is going to do. I really appreciate your information and any time that I am wrong about something, don't hesitate to jump in a d correct me as I am not trying to mislead people. I have to go on what I am told and what I interpet the bill as after hearing several versions of how it will work. You seem to have amuch better grasp of this than I do and I would appreciate any updates that you get. If they are something that you would rather not post e-mail me any time. If our rainy and cold weather keeps up any bill is going to become irrelevant as I haven't been able to get the car out of the garage for over three months.

Thanks and keep up the good work,

Ron

[sexzsn8k]

Mike, I to, have researched this bill and even sent my representative a ammended bill to use SB100 against the SB708. He is one of the "NO" votes by the way. In reading the new bill, and researching all the additional bills referenced in the new SB708, I cannot find any areas that will or could affect the " Specialty Constructed Vehicle" being registered in Calif under the current SB100. However, if caught in a smog check, under the infulence and your carbs are set wrong and your smoking, you will have a major problem. I hope we will all keep current on the new laws that are being introduced and keep a positive force to make sure our hobby continues to flourish. Jim