Jump to content

SEMA newsletter - Aug 01


Guest

Recommended Posts

Below is the August 2001 email edition of the Specialty Equipment Market<BR>Association's (SEMA) "Driving Force" newsletter. As always, feel free to<BR>reprint any or all of the information contained within it. All we ask is<BR>for attribution if you choose to do so. If you need any additional<BR>background please do not hesitate to contact us.<BR> If you do not wish to receive any future editions of the email Driving<BR>Force, please respond to this email with "remove" and we will delete your<BR>email address from our list.<P>Brian Caudill, Editor <A HREF="http://www.sema.org" TARGET=_blank>www.sema.org</A> <BR>____________________________<P>California Abandons Plan to Destroy Pre-1970 Cars<P> Under pressure from California SEMA Action Network members, environmental<BR>groups and SEMA, legislation that threatened to allow carmakers to crush<BR>pre-1970 vehicles in exchange for credits toward their obligations under the<BR>state’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program was discarded by California<BR>legislators.<BR> Under the abandoned bill, owners who surrendered their vehicles for<BR>destruction would have received a voucher of at least $2,500 for purchasing<BR>a newer vehicle. The program was intended for implementation in low-income<BR>communities located in areas designated as having severe air pollution.<BR> “SEMA feels strongly that the scrappage provision represented an<BR>ill-conceived and failed approach to cleaning the air and would have<BR>actually hurt more low-income drivers than it would have helped,” said SEMA<BR>Director of Government Affairs Steve McDonald. “Essentially, the bill<BR>ignored the fact that lower income car owners often cannot afford to<BR>purchase new or even newer used vehicles with the money provided by the<BR>program.”<BR> SEMA has long maintained that scrappage programs rely on the flawed premise<BR>that crushing older cars will result in increased emissions reductions. The<BR>fact is, this is rarely the case. In particular, the bill provided no means<BR>to verify emissions reductions from vehicles destroyed and failed to<BR>recognize that pre-1970 cars are scarce or are rarely driven in the first<BR>place. The legislation also made no provision for rescuing valuable parts<BR>and parts-cars for repair and restoration projects.<BR> SEMA Action Network Director Brian Caudill noted, “We would like to thank<BR>the many California enthusiasts who made the effort to contact their<BR>legislators.” Letters to legislators from SEMA Network Clubs, such as the IV<BR>Ever Low Club, Riviera Owners Club, Buick GS Owners Club, Austin-Healey Club<BR>of Northern California, Pomona Valley Corvette Association, Salinas Valley<BR>Classic Chevy Club, and the Antique Automobile Club of America, Foothills<BR>Region, may have made the difference between saving and crushing pre-1970<BR>vehicles.<P><BR>Fighting for Your Rights: Mississippi State Representative Rotenberry<P> SEMA Action Network members may recall that Mississippi legislation (S.B.<BR>2737) seeking to ban aftermarket auxiliary lights mounted on or visible from<BR>the rear of a vehicle came dangerously close to becoming law this year.<BR>However, Representative Clinton “Clint” Rotenberry ®, a member of the<BR>Mississippi House Transportation Committee, came to our aid, amending the<BR>bill to permit aftermarket, as well as factory-installed, lights.<BR> Driving Force spoke with Rep. Rotenberry to learn more about his<BR>legislative career and his efforts to limit unnecessary legislation.<BR>Rotenberry has served as a State Representative for almost 10 years with no<BR>plans to retire. When asked to sum up his role as a legislator his response<BR>was instantaneous: “To fight for the rights of individuals, including the<BR>right to modify your vehicle.”<BR> Rotenberry continued, “To many folks, a car is an individual statement.<BR>As a member of the Transportation Committee, my number one concern is to<BR>protect both individuals and small businesses from exclusionary legislation.<BR>The legislation we worked on with SEMA is a great example. We process about<BR>3,500 bills per session in Mississippi. S.B. 2737 was dropped in my lap<BR>along with 30 to 40 other bills that the Transportation Committee had a week<BR>to hear. None of us recognized that it would prohibit individuals from<BR>installing certain aftermarket lamps and unfairly cause economic damage to<BR>the many small businesses that sell those products. Were it not for SEMA and<BR>the SEMA Action Network acting quickly to make me and the other Committee<BR>members aware of the effects of the bill, it probably would have passed<BR>right through.”<BR> SEMA Director of Government and Technical Affairs Steve McDonald commented,<BR>“Representative Rotenberry deserves much of the credit for the success we<BR>had amending S.B. 2737. His willingness to listen to our concerns and to<BR>take action to amend the bill is appreciated by Mississippi hobbyists and<BR>SEMA members. Representative Rotenberry’s common sense approach to<BR>law-making makes him a valuable and respected ally. We look forward to a<BR>continued partnership with him.”<BR> When asked how auto hobbyists could guarantee legislators hear their<BR>voices, Rotenberry noted, “I think the most important thing you can do is<BR>contact us and express your feelings. I don’t decide how I’m going to vote<BR>on most issues until it’s time to do so. When someone comes to me and says,<BR>‘Representative Rotenberry, I think you should vote this way on a certain<BR>issue and here’s why…,’ that one conversation could very well determine<BR>which way I’ll vote. As a legislator, my job is to be a professional<BR>listener. Anything you can do to make me more aware about an issue is as<BR>valuable to me as it is to you.”<BR> On behalf of the hobby, Driving Force thanks Representative Rotenberry for<BR>his efforts and for taking the time to speak with us. If you’d like to<BR>contact the Representative, he can be reached by phone at 601/359-2432, or<BR>e-mail Rotenberry@mail.house.state.ms.us.<P><BR>Massachusetts Bill Banning the Sale/Installation of Custom Exhaust Systems<BR>Set Aside for Study<P> Massachusetts legislation (H.B. 3593) that would prohibit the sale or<BR>installation of “an exhaust system which has been modified in a manner which<BR>will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the exhaust” has been set<BR>aside for study. SEMA is hopeful that after further review this bill will be<BR>withdrawn.<BR> H.B. 3593 was misguidedly introduced in an effort to stem car-related gang<BR>activity. However, SEMA is concerned that in an understandable effort to<BR>combat crime, the rights of law-abiding hobbyists are unfairly restricted.<BR>H.B. 3593 would prevent hobbyists from installing custom exhaust systems<BR>designed to increase performance and efficiency without increasing<BR>emissions. The bill would also make it difficult for hobbyists to replace<BR>factory exhaust systems with more durable and stylish models. Finally, H.B.<BR>3593 provides law enforcement no clear standard to enforce, allowing them to<BR>make purely subjective judgments about whether a custom exhaust system is<BR>legal or not.<BR> Massachusetts SEMA Action Network members have been very active in opposing<BR>this bill. In particular, SEMA is proud to recognize the efforts of the<BR>Massachusetts Association of Automobile Clubs, Bearing Burners, Spindles<BR>Auto Club of Weymouth, Dominators Car Club, Massachusetts Cruisers Club, and<BR>the Bay State Classic Chevy Club. Without their efforts, aftermarket and<BR>custom exhausts might have been completely banned from Massachusetts’ roads<BR>by now.<P><BR>California Exhaust Noise Bill Passes<P> In hopeful news for California hobbyists, the California Legislature passed<BR>SEMA-sponsored legislation (S.B. 1081) that should compel law enforcement to<BR>tie exhaust system noise citations to a 95-decibel limit. The bill was<BR>initiated to address the problem of motorists —particularly those in the<BR>import-performance scene — who drive vehicles legally equipped with modified<BR>exhaust systems from being unfairly cited for exceeding noise limits.<BR> SEMA initially desired a process requiring law enforcement authorities to<BR>“objectively demonstrate” (i.e. perform a test) that a custom or modified<BR>exhaust system did not comply with the noise level test standard before<BR>issuing a citation. However, politics and the budget crunch brought on by<BR>the California energy crisis precluded the original bill from being<BR>considered.<BR> Currently, the law and this bill may still allow officers to cite based on<BR>a subjective determination that the exhaust system exceeds the 95-decibel<BR>limit. This provision remains a bone of contention and SEMA continues to<BR>work with the California Highway Patrol and others to investigate possible<BR>solutions. Under the bill, a court may dismiss a citation if it is shown<BR>that the exhaust system complies with the 95-decibel limit and the owner had<BR>reasonable grounds to believe that the system was in good working order. The<BR>bill also provides that clear aftermarket modified exhaust systems are legal<BR>if they comply with the standard.<BR> SEMA Director of Government Affairs Steve McDonald commented, “This bill is<BR>an essential first step to helping protect motorists from receiving<BR>erroneous exhaust noise citations simply because their car sports a custom<BR>exhaust. Often, these citations are written with the absence of an actual<BR>code violation and without regard to the practical intent of the law. Right<BR>now, the enforcement policy used by California authorities considers nearly<BR>all exhaust system modifications illegal, even when noise levels are not<BR>excessive or unusual. This policy leaves hobbyists, manufacturers, dealers<BR>and their customers without recourse.”<P><BR>Federal Corner<P>Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) May Rise<P> The average fuel economy that automakers must maintain for their respective<BR>vehicle fleets has, for the past several years, been frozen at 20.7 mpg for<BR>light trucks and SUVs and 27.5 for passenger cars. Now, responding to the<BR>nation’s energy crisis, lawmakers are taking a second look at raising CAFE<BR>standards in an effort to save energy. SEMA has long argued that any CAFE<BR>hike will force automakers to limit consumer vehicle choice, particularly in<BR>the light truck/SUV and performance/luxury car markets, by either<BR>eliminating or curtailing production of popular models in order to meet fuel<BR>economy targets.<BR> Think CAFE doesn’t affect the general public? Think again. Automotive News<BR>recently reported a conversation between GM and Vice President Cheney in<BR>which GM noted that a mere 3 mpg increase in the CAFE truck standard would<BR>force them to stop building most of their full-size trucks — more than 1<BR>million vehicles a year. Driving Force urges you to contact your U.S.<BR>Representative and Senators to oppose raising CAFE standards.<P>NHTSA Takes Another Look at Rollover Ratings<P> The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is developing a<BR>new, “dynamic” vehicle rollover rating system that will theoretically be<BR>based upon actual driving and maneuverability testing. Preparation of this<BR>rating system was mandated by the TREAD Act, vehicle safety legislation that<BR>passed Congress in the wake of the Ford-Firestone controversy last year.<BR> NHTSA’s rollover testing results will be made public through a consumer<BR>information program and will likely replace the “static” mathematical<BR>calculation (dividing a vehicle’s track by the height of the center of<BR>gravity) that is used in the current five-star rollover rating system. SEMA<BR>has consistently questioned the validity of NHTSA’s current ratings because<BR>they exclude real-world factors, such as vehicle handling characteristics,<BR>driver behavior, plus road and weather conditions.<BR> NHTSA’s current listing of rollover ratings are available at <A HREF="http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/hot/rollover/index.html." TARGET=_blank>www.nhtsa.dot.gov/hot/rollover/index.html.</A> <P><BR>Texas Says Yes to Voluntary Emission System Repair and Upgrade<P> In a small victory for Texas hobbyists and SEMA, Texas Governor Rick Perry<BR>signed into law a bill that allows counties to incorporate VOLUNTARY<BR>emissions-system repair and upgrades into their inspection and maintenance<BR>programs as one of several options available to qualified motorists.<BR> “SEMA remains adamantly opposed to scrappage, as it is unfair to hobbyists<BR>and unhelpful to the environment. However, we are optimistic that the<BR>VOLUNTARY repair or upgrade option we finally convinced legislators to adopt<BR>will steer motorists away from the state’s vehicle scrappage program,” said<BR>SEMA Director of Government Affairs Steve McDonald.<BR> Under the new law, Texas will help certain car owners who wish to<BR>VOLUNTARILY repair and upgrade their vehicles to comply with state emission<BR>requirements. Vehicles qualifying for the program must have failed an<BR>emissions test, be functionally operational and registered in a county<BR>implementing the program for at least 2 years.<BR> Of particular interest to enthusiasts, vehicles registered as classic and<BR>those not regularly used for transportation are not eligible for the new<BR>program. In addition, the law also creates an advisory committee composed of<BR>parties affected by the program, including hobbyists and industry, to aid in<BR>the development and implementation of the program. The group will help<BR>identify and protect vehicles with intrinsic value as an existing or future<BR>collectible.<BR> SEMA would like to recognize the efforts of the Texas Vehicle Club<BR>Council, North Texas Corvair Association, Texas Cadillac-LaSalle Club and<BR>the Center for Concerned Citizens for Automotive Safety for their efforts in<BR>fighting the senseless destruction of older cars.<P><BR>Can You Believe?<P>You Want to Destroy What?!<P> Donna and Butch Chaffer received a letter from the California Bay Area Air<BR>Quality Management District that they found difficult to believe.<BR> It read: “Since the registration on your model-year 1966 vehicle is<BR>expiring soon, this might be a good time to consider an alternative to<BR>driving this vehicle. You can receive $500 for your 1981 or older car, van<BR>or pick-up truck . . .”<BR> The letter went on to note that the “program buys and then scraps 1981 and<BR>older vehicles. These older vehicles have less efficient emission control<BR>equipment and therefore produce much more air pollution than newer<BR> vehicles.” Well, that may be true in some cases, but the vehicle in<BR>question is Mrs. Chaffer’s completely restored El Camino, valued at about<BR>$20,000. This is a great example of how scrappage programs that arbitrarily<BR>seek to crush vehicles built before a given year do not take into account<BR>factors such as the mechanical condition of the vehicle.<BR> The Chaffers note that many of the parts they used to restore their Chevy<BR>came from salvage yards. The supreme irony is that if programs like this are<BR>allowed to continue, finding reasonably priced used parts will become a<BR>thing of the past.<P>(If you have a horror story regarding unfair restrictions on our rights as<BR>hobbyists or about an unfortunate run-in with the authorities, send it to us<BR>at: andrewr@sema.org or SEMA, Attn: “Can You Believe,” 1317 F Street, NW,<BR>Suite 550,Washington, D.C. 20004.)<P><BR>Newly Introduced Legislation<P>Note: The following bills are not laws. They have been recently introduced<BR>and are currently being considered for adoption by the respective state<BR>legislatures.<P>Emissions<P>California: S.B. 433 would provide grants toward the purchase of<BR>low-emission heavy-duty engines for vehicles.<P>California: S.B. 1170 would require that vehicles purchased for State-use<BR>meet or exceed Ultra Low-Emission Vehicle standards.<P>Delaware: S.B. 216 would provide a tax credit toward the purchase of hybrid<BR>and electric vehicles.<P>New Jersey: A.B. 3591 would implement Phase II of the California<BR>Low-Emission Vehicle program.<P>Equipment<P>Michigan: H.B. 4988 would provide more stringent limits on new motorcycle<BR>and moped exhaust noise.<P>Racing<P>Pennsylvania: S.B. 980 would limit the tax collected on racetrack admissions<BR>to 40%.<p>[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: peterg ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...