BILL ANALYSIS 
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 2683
SENATOR KEVIN MURRAY, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: lieber
VERSION: 5/20/04
Analysis by: Steve Schnaidt FISCAL: yes


SUBJECT:

Smog check: rolling 30-year exemption.

DESCRIPTION:

This bill would repeal provisions that grant an exemption
from the smog check program for vehicles more than 30 model
years old.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law requires vehicles registered in areas which
are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as
serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment areas for ozone
or moderate or serious nonattainment areas for carbon
monoxide (i.e., the Sacramento metropolitan area; San
Diego; San Joaquin Valley; South Coast; Southeast Desert;
and Ventura) to undergo "enhanced" biennial inspections of
their emission control equipment and systems (smog check).
These inspections feature "loaded-mode" dynamometer
(treadmill) testing and more sophisticated emissions
analysis equipment that can measure emissions of oxides of
nitrogen (NOx). Additionally, the program requires certain
vehicles with a likelihood to be high-emitters to be
inspected at "test-only" inspection stations.

Existing law also requires the establishment of the
enhanced smog check program in the urbanized areas of the
San Francisco Bay Air Basin, including the test-only
station component of the inspection program for designated
vehicles.

The law requires vehicles registered in other nonattainment
basins to undergo "basic" biennial inspections of their
emission control equipment and systems that are performed




AB 2683 (LIEBER)
Page 2

with the engine operating in the idle mode only. There is
no provision within the basic program for test-only
inspections. In addition, the law requires vehicles
registered in all other areas of the state to undergo the
basic emissions test only upon change of ownership.

Existing law exempts from the smog check certain vehicles,
including large commercial vehicles, diesel-powered
vehicles, motorcycles, and vehicles four or less model
years old. Existing law up to January 1, 2003 exempted any
vehicle manufactured prior to the 1974 model year.
Beginning January 1, 2003, the law exempts from all smog
check programs those vehicles that are 30 or more model
years old (rolling 30-year exemption).

This bill would repeal the rolling 30-year exemption from
the smog check program. Specifically, the bill:

1.Declares the Legislature's intent that vehicles of the
1975 model year and older (1974, 1973, etc.) shall be
permanently exempted from smog check requirements and to
ensure that the Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and
Consumer Affairs be afforded adequate time to implement
the bill's requirements.

2.Repeals the exemption for vehicles 30 years old or older
from vehicle maintenance and inspection programs,
effective April 1, 2005.

3.Continues the exemption from smog check program
provisions for vehicles that were manufactured prior to
the 1976 model year (1975 model year and older),
effective April 1, 2005.

4.Makes corresponding changes to related provisions.

COMMENTS:

1.Before 1998, vehicles manufactured prior to the 1966
model year were exempt from all elements of Smog Check
and Smog Check II. SB 42 (Kopp, 1997) extended the
exemption to all vehicles manufactured prior to the 1974
model year and, beginning in 2003, established the
so-called 30-year rolling exemption, allowing vehicles to
leave the program upon reaching 30 years of age. The
rationale for the bill included arguments that it was




AB 2683 (LIEBER)
Page 3

difficult for aging cars to pass smog tests because
original parts were difficult to locate, new testing
procedures were arbitrary and made it difficult for older
vehicles to pass, and testing cut points had been set at
levels more stringent than original manufacturer's
specifications and therefore were difficult or sometimes
impossible for older vehicles to meet. It also was
argued that these older vehicle were driven far fewer
miles than average and that many vehicles were of special
significance and were maintained in superior condition by
their owners.

2.The author and sponsors of the current bill state that
more than 90% of California residents live in
nonattainment areas for state or federal air quality
standards and that air pollution threatens public health
and contributes to many ailments. Mobile source
emissions -from motor vehicles- are cited as the primary
source of our air quality problems, while the smog check
program is described as equitable and cost-effective in
addressing air quality problems and reducing emissions.

Proponents contend that while older vehicles comprise a
small percentage of the California vehicle fleet, they
produce a disproportionately large amount of total
vehicular emissions. For example, the average 2004
vehicle is said to be driven 58 times more miles than the
average 1976 vehicle, and there are 24 times more 2004
vehicles. Still, emissions from the 1976 vehicles are
2.5 times more than those from the 2004 vehicles. This
inverse relationship, among other things, is cited in
support of the proposed repeal of the 30-year exemption
for older vehicles.

Proponents argue that elimination of the rolling
exemption will eliminate 6 tons/day of ozone precursors
by 2010 and twice that amount by 2015. They note that no
currently exempted vehicles would be made subject to the
smog check program; rather, vehicles that otherwise would
become exempt each year upon reaching the 30-year mark
would permanently remain in the smog check program.

3.Opponents of the bill cite numerous arguments against it,
including that the computer models used to calculate
emissions reductions from the elimination of the rolling
exemption are flawed and rely on faulty assumptions.




AB 2683 (LIEBER)
Page 4
They contend that 30-year-old vehicles, which comprise
less than 4% of the fleet, do not average the 5,100
annual miles attributed to them, that the attrition rate
for the older vehicles is very high, reducing their
number and impact significantly each year, and that those
that remain on the road tend to be relatively clean and
well-maintained.

Opponents assert that numerous studies show that the
dirtiest 10-20% of vehicles, in any category, are
responsible for 90% of the emissions from that category.
The job, then, is to identify those vehicles, through
remote sensing or otherwise, and repair or remove them
from operation. They also contend that "cut points"
(emissions failure points) have discriminated against
older vehicles by being set at disproportionately
stringent levels, thus raising the failure rates for
older vehicles and providing a basis to repeal the
existing exemption.

Those opposing the bill argue that it would expand the
smog check program each year as the vehicle fleet grows,
could create a growing number of fugitive vehicles, and
could actually prove to be counterproductive by limiting
the ability of vehicle owners to install newer, cleaner
technologies because they would risk failing the visual
and functional smog check requirements.

4.The smog check program, despite past achievements,
evolutionary improvements, and continuing developments,
has not achieved the emissions reductions projected for
it. It falls considerably short of the daily tons of
emissions it was expected and promised to achieve.
Eliminating the rolling 30-year exemption, even if it
does result ultimately in 6 fewer tons/day* in emissions,
will not significantly make up the shortfall in the smog
check program's promised emissions reductions.
(*Sponsors estimate that the bill would reduce 0.6 tons
the first year, 1.7 tons the second year, etc., up to 6
tons in 2010.)

5.SB 42's exemption for 30-year-old and older vehicles
reflects an agreement reached in 1997 on the scope of the
smog check program. Originally, the legislation sought a
25-year rolling exemption, with the final compromise
being the current 30-year exemption. Proponents of the




AB 2683 (LIEBER)
Page 5

bill argue that persistent air quality problems in the
state and the diminishing number of other sources of
reduced emissions at a reasonable cost have changed the
emissions landscape and created a need to revisit and
repeal the current exemption agreement.

6.Issues, questions, and alternatives .

a) Would the 1975 and older exemption be permanent?
The bill declares the intent that 1975 model year and
older vehicles would be permanently exempt from smog
check. What assurance is there that this reduced and
reconfigured exemption will not be eliminated at some
future date in the manner that the current bill
proposes to repeal the agreement and assurances made
on the rolling 30-year exemption in 1997?

b) Are there alternatives to a repeal, partial or
otherwise?

(1) Some persons have suggested that the
exemption should remain in place for "collector" or
similar special interest vehicles, tied to
requirements including the registration of such
vehicles as collector vehicles, limiting their
operation (and related emissions) to 3,500
miles/year, and insuring them as collector
vehicles, thereby identifying and separating those
vehicles more likely to be maintained and operated
in a manner less intrusive to air quality.

(2) The Administration and others have
proposed, and the Legislature is considering,
substantially increasing funding for the Carl Moyer
air quality program (reducing emissions from heavy
duty vehicles) by extending the exemption for newer
vehicles from 4 years to 6 years, doubling (to $12)
the annual smog abatement fee for those exempted
vehicles and using the proceeds to replace or
retrofit heavy duty trucks, their engines, or fuel.

Could a similar alternative be developed for the
older passenger vehicles? Would the payment of an
annual smog check exemption fee for older vehicles,
with revenues to be used in the Carl Moyer program
to reduce heavy duty vehicle emissions, result in




AB 2683 (LIEBER)
Page 6

greater air quality benefits than ending the rolling 30-year exemption?

Assembly Votes:
Floor: 47-28
Appr: 14-6
Trans: 8-4

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 23, 2004)

SUPPORT: Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(co-sponsor)
California Council for Environmental and
Economic Balance (co- sponsor)
Planning and Conservation League
(co-sponsor)
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
American Lung Association
Bluewater Network
California Air Pollution Officers
Association
California League of Conservation Voters
(CLCV)
California Manufacturers & Technology
Association
Capitol Auto Club Inc. "Thunderbolts"
Cleaner Air Partnership
Clean Power Campaign
Kirsh Foundation
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Rose Colored Glass Company
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Sacramento County Supervisor Roger
Dickinson, District 1
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District
Sacramento Metro Chamber
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District
Sierra Club-California
Solano County Supervisor Duane Kromm,
District 3
South Coast Air Quality Management District




AB 2683 (LIEBER)
Page 7

Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation
Union of Concerned Scientists
Western State Petroleum Association
Wine Institute
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
Numerous individuals

OPPOSED: Advanced Marketing & Distribution, Inc.
Automedia 2000, Inc.
Automotive Parts Company
Burgiemen Capitol City Car Club
CRE Spray Booths & Metal Buildings
Currie Enterprises
DRIVE! Magazine
Edelbrock Corporation
Egge Machine Company
GEN III Performance
Goodguys Rod & Custom Association
Hagerty Insurance Agency, Inc.
Innovative Turbo Systems
Kinesis Motorsport
Mini Mania Inc.
Nanotech Fuel Corporation
Nology Engineering, Inc.
Precision Collision Repair
Southern California Roadsters Car Club
Specialty Equipment Market Association
(SEMA)
Sway-A-Way, Inc.
Western Industrial Exchange, Inc.
Wild Horses, Inc.
Numerous individuals