California is soliciting 1978 and older car owners to complete a survey - should we as a hobby be concerned?

[Peter Gariepy]

The California Air Resources Board sent out a short survey in Aug related to our hobby.  See the survey questions here. I'll also post them separately below.

 

SEMA, (Specialty Equipment Market Association), The car enthusiest lobbying organization supported by the AACA, has no actions related to this.  I assume because there are no survey results,  nor any legislation or regulations proposed as a result of the survey.

 

There is what I perceive as sensationalized news on DailyCaller.com (and others) related to the survey.  There has also been 2 heated discussions on the survey on this forum (now removed).

 

A civil debate is worth having, but I encourage everyone to NOT over sensationalize, panic, or scream the sky is falling.

 

 

[Peter Gariepy]

2023 California Model Year 1978 Or Older Light-Duty Vehicle Survey

Background
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is conducting a survey about activities of vehicles that are model year (MY) 1978 or older. Results of the survey will be used to update models that inform air quality programs. You have been identified as an owner of such a vehicle registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and have been randomly selected to take this survey.
 
Instructions
The survey should take 5 to 10 minutes to complete, including 7 short questions related to your vehicle usage and 2 optional open-ended questions. A 5-digit unique code has been assigned to you in the mail. Please enter the unique code at the beginning of the survey, use the “next” button to move forward through the survey, and click the "submit" button in the end when you finish. Please complete the online survey within 60 days of receiving this letter.
 
Rights as a Research Participant
The data collected in this survey will be kept strictly confidential to the extent permitted by law and in no case will be used to identify any one individual. You are free to decline to answer any survey question or to decline to participate entirely. Only CARB staff will have access to the data collected during this survey. CARB has no financial interest in the results of this study.
 
Contact Information
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or about the survey, you may contact Wan Jiao by e-mail at wan.jiao@arb.ca.gov or by phone at (951) 542-3220.
 
SURVEY

1.    Please enter your unique 5-digit code that has been assigned to you in the mail to start the survey:

The value must be a number
 
2.    In which county is your MY 1978 or older vehicle primarily operated? Please select: 
Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, , Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, , San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo, , Yuba

3.    What is the current odometer reading (total mileage since the car was new) on your MY 1978 or older vehicle? Please specify, and use your best estimate if you are not sure:
 
4.    Approximately how many miles does your MY 1978 or older vehicle get driven in a year? Please specify:
The value must be a number

 

5.    How often is your MY 1978 or older vehicle driven? Please select:
Daily
3-5 times per week
1-2 times per week
1 time per month
1 time every other month
3-4 times per year
1 time per year
Rarely or never

 

6.    How is your MY 1978 or older vehicle stored when not in use? Please select:
Parked in a garage
Parked in a carport or under a shaded overhang
Parked outside, but covered with a car cover
Parked outside, uncovered

 

7.    When you store your MY 1978 or older vehicle for an extended period of time when it is not being used, what do you typically do with the fuel tank? Please select:
Fill the tank completely, add fuel stabilizer
Fill the tank completely, leave the fuel as is
Fill the tank partially, add fuel stabilizer
Fill the tank partially, leave the fuel as is
Leave the tank at its current level, add fuel stabilizer
Leave the tank at its current level, leave the fuel as is
Drain the tank completely
Other

[edinmass]

Personally, and without putting politics in it, just from past legislation, I would not answer anything from that state.

[MotiveLensPhoto]

2 minutes ago, edinmass said:

Personally, and without putting politics in it, just from past legislation, I would not answer anything from that state.

Policy is made by those who show up.

[edinmass]

4 minutes ago, MotiveLensPhoto said:

Policy is made by those who show up.

Having held public office for twenty five years, that is an oversimplified response. It’s MONEY that makes ALL policy today in every state, blue or red. Sadly the money influencers get their way 95 percent of the time. Government entities routinely overstep their authority and areas of responsibility. I could wright volumes. 

[edinmass]

While the survey probably means well, in reality what will it actually accomplish? Pre 1978 cars hydrocarbons usage is probably 1/10 of a percent of all emissions. Hell, they have no grill days in parts of California where you can’t cook on open flame devices. As time goes on, the percentage of antique car emissions will continue to drop as a percentage of  output.  

[Peter Gariepy]

@edinmass

 

Stay on topic.  Your feelings about CA are not germane to the topic.

[NewOldWood]

It's not an opinion survey, but obviously the CARB has got antique cars on its mind. Seems logical, because that's what they do, that they are considering regulating them in some way. I can't see how participation in the survey would effect whatever they decide to do. If everyone reported very low usage numbers it would keep the total exhaust emissions down but I don't think you could get close enough to zero to keep them happy. They want current mileage and annual miles driven, are they going to start requiring mileage verification? The CARB thinks that a modern car exhaust is deadly poison, you might not even be able to imagine the level of disgust they feel towards your antique car exhaust.

[Peter Gariepy]

13 minutes ago, NewOldWood said:

you might not even be able to imagine the level of disgust they feel towards your antique car exhaust.

I have issues with the implications of the word "disgust".  From my perspective its not personal, but instead mission focused:

 

"CARB's mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through effective reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering effects on the economy."

 

CARB and its predecessors have been at this for ages, and from many measures, done a remarkably job of reducing air pollutants. I suspect if you ask any long-term CA resident about SMOG past/present you'll get positive feedback on CARBs mission and success. @MarkV @ply33

 

Recommended reading on the history of California SMOG:  War on Smog: Fifty Years of Progress Toward Clean Air

[Peter Gariepy]

27 minutes ago, Bills Auto Works said:

YES...By All Means wait until they legislate your classic car out of existence before you take notice! That is what they want you to do & those of you who are ignorant enough to wait till then ARE the problem!

 

Don't forget the ones who "POO-POO" early warnings either have their head in the sand or support their anti-collector car/Anti-American policies!

 

Who says I'm waiting.  This topic contradicts your assumption.

 

We are discussing a survey, not any standing legislation.  If there is any negative legislation that impacts our hobby, I trust SEMA and the AACA will jump into action. 

 

FYI: Clean air is not anti-collector or anti-American. I trust the typical hobbyist can balance their enjoyment of their antique cars, and the need for something as basis as clean air.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

What exactly are we debating?

 

Either you buy into the CARB narrative that this is some sort of SOP data gathering effort and it is benign or you don't. The organization's history is no more relevant than the many instances of govt. over reach and bungling many can recount.  What matters are the issues at hand and ramifications of possible new regs that could easily be adopted outside of CA.

 

If you buy in to the CARB narrative good for you, it is unlikely my concerns or anyone else's argument is going to sway that position. 

 

For those not so trusting though, it is not unreasonable to draw a conclusion that the time and effort being spent to look at pre 78 auto use by a regulatory organization may result in tighter regulations.

 

Interestingly, both sides seem to agree our environmental impact is minimal, so is it unreasonable to have a position the further restrictions are unnecessary and should generally be opposed? 

 

Not to mention many people are also generally opposed to very detailed questions about the use of their private property.  

 

So from this POV it is also reasonable this is an activity to monitor at the very least and get in front of if it looks like a problem.  

 

Even if you disagree that this is a possible issue, what is the problem with keeping this or other potentially harmful efforts to restrict antique autos further under a very watchful eye?

 

Stopping it, in my mind is ideal. 

 

Having a voice and influencing it is ok, even if we have to invite ourselves to the table.

 

But waking up to find Antique cars are allowed on the road on the 32nd day of odd numbered months beginning with the letter G is worst case.

 

We can work to avoid this which is all I am advocating.

 

If the debate is, is this survey call for alarm I say yes, not a five alarm fire but a precurser to potential uneccesary regulation.  The type of thing you watch closely.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[Peter Gariepy]

1 minute ago, Bills Auto Works said:

If collector car hobbyists wait until legislation is purposed it is too late!

So what do you propose?  Related to this topic and survey, what can the hobby do to preemptively look out for our interests?  

[Peter Gariepy]

30 minutes ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

....it is not unreasonable to draw a conclusion that the time and effort being spent to look at pre 78 auto use by a regulatory organization may result in tighter regulations.

I agree.

 

The issue at hand remains.  What can we do proactively to get in front of this?

 

Actions matter. What can the hobby put into action to stop/reduce the impact of this survey. (or any other legislation or pre-legislation initiatives). Keep in mind SEMA already monitors these types of issues. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

What NOT to do:

• Scream the sky is falling 
• Whine that all legislation and regulations are bad 
• Complain about politics in general
• Badmouth regulatory organizations or misrepresenting their motives
• Attack others in the hobby who don't agree with narrow minded cynical positions, and questioning their patriotism

All this may actually hinder the issue IMHO.  

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Peter agree but badmouthing is something both sides are guilty of.

 

What can we do:

 

AACA could put some focus on issues to watch.  More ink in the Antique Automobile is an opportunity to inform membership imho.

 

A possible SEMA, AACA, others approach :  "well CARB, we would like to know a little more about this survey so we can advise members as to whether or not they should respond"  Before flaming this folks, remembet it's but one idea, as well organized groups do better in political efforts.  Dialogue is good, and often more meaningful with well organized, informed blocks.

 

I mentioned other ideas before, endorsements, public education, lobbying, funding to fight bad actors in hi risk areas etc. are all possibilities.  

 

So we do have avenues, better ideas?  Let's hear them.  It is  better to be part of the discussion than not, I think.  

Edited September 29, 2023 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[Peter Gariepy]

Just now, Steve_Mack_CT said:

What can we do:

 

AACA could put some focus on issues to watch. 

 

A possible SEMA, AACA, others approach "well CARB, we would like to know a little more about this survey so we can advise members as to whether or not they should respond"  before flaming this folks, it's but one idea, well organized groups do betyer in political efforts.  Dialogue is good, and often more meaningful with well organized, informed blocks.

 

I mentioned other ideas before, endorsements, public education, lobying, funding to fight brd actors in risk areas etc. are all possibilities.  

You seem to have a pulse on this.  Why not reach out to the AACA VP - Legislation and SEMA and give them everything pertinent they need do as you suggest?

 

As to your other ideas... endorsements, education, lobbying, fight bad actors.  You'd have to flesh those ideas out, but I see where you're going.  

 

Are you sure SEMA isn't doing much of this? Their mission statement includes: "Legislative and regulatory advocacy."

 

[Peter Gariepy]

12 minutes ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

badmouthing is something both sides are guilty of.

If I've badmouthed anyone inappropriately I most certainly apologize. 

 

However, statements like the following have no place in this forum or hobby.

• ...people (unlike you) that LOVE the  internal combustion engine
• ...those of you who are ignorant enough to wait till then ARE the problem!
• ...Don't forget the ones who "POO-POO" early warnings either have their head in the sand or support their anti-collector car/Anti-American policies!

 

[Peter Gariepy]

https://www.sema.org/advocacy

 

SEMA advocacy activities are grounded in our commitment to safeguard the interests of the automotive specialty equipment market and performance racing industries.

Our experts in Washington have seen firsthand how the decisions made in Congress and the halls of state capitols can have a lasting impact on our members and the industry more broadly—from how automotive aftermarket products are made, distributed, and marketed. That's why our Public and Government Affairs team is advocating for policy issues that are core to SEMA's mission by ensuring policymakers hear a clear, strong, and unified voice representing not only SEMA members, but also the specialty equipment industry and auto enthusiasts.

 

https://www.sema.org/advocacy/carb

 

SEMA works closely with the California Air Resources Board in an ongoing effort to ensure emissions related aftermarket parts meet applicable clean-air standards after parts have been installed in a vehicle.

Specifically, SEMA works with CARB to issue Executive Orders (EO), written documentations certifying aftermarket parts are emission compliant with CARB regulations. EOs effectively allow the legal sale and use of the product in all 50 states. Located in Diamond Bar, California, the SEMA Garage's Emissions Compliance Center is recognized by CARB as a Certification Ready Automotive Emissions Testing Laboratory. Integral to SEMA's work with CARB, it is a complete product development resource for manufacturers, providing SEMA members with assistance in all aspects of securing CARB and EPA emissions compliance to demonstrate that vehicles are emissions-compliant after a product is installed. SEMA opened a second garage in Detroit, Michigan in 2022 to support emissions compliance and product development.  

Over the last five years, SEMA has assisted with approximately 50% of all aftermarket EOs issued by CARB, and its compliance team has completed over 600 CARB EO applications for members. SEMA has invested over $25 million to help member companies and other aftermarket businesses to test and sell emissions compliant products.

SEMA has worked with the California State Legislature to secure additional funding for CARB to hire the staff necessary to expedite the processing of EOs, allowing emissions compliant products to be brought to market faster.

[edinmass]

Why don’t you watch this video, and see what California is looking to do...

[Peter Gariepy]

14 minutes ago, edinmass said:

Why don’t you watch this video, and see what California is looking to do...

 

The video is simply regurgitating the "sky is falling" conclusions stated in the DailyCaller.com article.

[Peter Gariepy]

43 minutes ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

I mentioned other ideas before, endorsements, public education, lobbying, funding to fight bad actors in hi risk areas etc. are all possibilities.  

One thing hobbyists can do right now, FREE, to be better educated and to support lobbying efforts is to join SEMA action network. 

 

https://pages.sema.org/SAN-SignUp

 

 

[edinmass]

Sure seems like a rational report of what is going on, your comment of the sky is falling is out of context. The report is talking about zero emission areas………kind of hard to do that if you have an old car, or are poor and can’t afford an electric vehicle. Now that electric car  production is exceeding demand, they are dumping cars on the rental car agencies. I travel more than 95 percent of the general population………the rental lots are filled with electric cars that no one wants to use/rent. I got so tired of the BS from Hertz telling me my reserved car wasn’t available, so I can just take an electric……….I’m driving an Enterprise vehicle today.  I’m done with Hertz and any company trying to tell me what I should do or rent with my dollars. Best part…….Enterprise is cheaper………..yes, I know they are the same company with different holding devisions…….but I’m done with Hertz and their poor performance, lack of customer service, and not having the cars I reserve. 
 

Unless I am mistaken, virtually 99.99 percent of pre 1978 cars have tailpipe emissions. So trying to convince AACA members that the California survey or their future actions are a positive step for the hobby just won’t pass the smell test. 

[Leif in Calif]

As someone who grew up in California before smog laws, I can tell you they have made a huge difference.

Politically, California has voted twice to set goals for carbon output so that Genie isn't going back in the bottle.

The survey seems to be mostly about evaporative emissions. These were a significant part of smog before everything from gas tanks to filling stations were sealed up. It's why a car built before 1968 emits more with the engine off than a modern one does driving at 65mph. I have a hard time imagining how a car from that period could be sealed up to their satisfaction...I was working on a 2001 Miata recently and it had 3 different circuits from the computer dealing with emissions from the gas tank. 

Lobbying at the State level is really our only hope! As Ed says, it's all about the money...industries wouldn't be spending millions on it every year if they didn't think it was worth it. 

 

Also; I do think some sort of mandatory mileage reporting is coming.  The current method of funding highways is failing to keep up with costs and EVs will force a different solution. New cars know everything about you, and they can report it all to the government. 

[Peter Gariepy]

17 minutes ago, edinmass said:

Sure seems like a rational report of what is going on, your comment of the sky is falling is out of context. The report is talking about zero emission areas………kind of hard to do that if you have an old car, or are poor and can’t afford an electric vehicle. Now that electric car  production is exceeding demand, they are dumping cars on the rental car agencies. I travel more than 95 percent of the general population………the rental lots are filled with electric cars that no one wants to use/rent. I got so tired of the BS from Hertz telling me my reserved car wasn’t available, so I can just take an electric……….I’m driving an Enterprise vehicle today.  I’m done with Hertz and any company trying to tell me what I should do or rent with my dollars. Best part…….Enterprise is cheaper………..yes, I know they are the same company with different holding devisions…….but I’m done with Hertz and their poor performance, lack of customer service, and not having the cars I reserve. 
 

Unless I am mistaken, virtually 99.99 percent of pre 1978 cars have tailpipe emissions. So trying to convince AACA members that the California survey or their future actions are a positive step for the hobby just won’t pass the smell test. 

 

Again you're off topic.

 

This is very much "The sky is falling" journalism.  The article and video refer to the survey. The video title is clickbait too: "California Hassling Classic Car Owners". The article (and the video repeats it) is "ASSUMING" the survey results (which don't even exist, yet) are related to zero emissions areas and other unrelated conclusions.  Also: The article/video doesn't discuss electric cars or rental car agencies.

[MotiveLensPhoto]

9 hours ago, edinmass said:

Having held public office for twenty five years ...

Thanks for showing up.

[Pfeil]

8 hours ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

What exactly are we debating?

 

Either you buy into the CARB narrative that this is some sort of SOP data gathering effort and it is benign or you don't. The organization's history is no more relevant than the many instances of govt. over reach and bungling many can recount.  What matters are the issues at hand and ramifications of possible new regs that could easily be adopted outside of CA.

 

If you buy in to the CARB narrative good for you, it is unlikely my concerns or anyone else's argument is going to sway that position. 

 

For those not so trusting though, it is not unreasonable to draw a conclusion that the time and effort being spent to look at pre 78 auto use by a regulatory organization may result in tighter regulations.

 

Interestingly, both sides seem to agree our environmental impact is minimal, so is it unreasonable to have a position the further restrictions are unnecessary and should generally be opposed? 

 

Not to mention many people are also generally opposed to very detailed questions about the use of their private property.  

 

So from this POV it is also reasonable this is an activity to monitor at the very least and get in front of if it looks like a problem.  

 

Even if you disagree that this is a possible issue, what is the problem with keeping this or other potentially harmful efforts to restrict antique autos further under a very watchful eye?

 

Stopping it, in my mind is ideal. 

 

Having a voice and influencing it is ok, even if we have to invite ourselves to the table.

 

But waking up to find Antique cars are allowed on the road on the 32nd day of odd numbered months beginning with the letter G is worst case.

 

We can work to avoid this which is all I am advocating.

 

If the debate is, is this survey call for alarm I say yes, not a five alarm fire but a precurser to potential uneccesary regulation.  The type of thing you watch closely.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll just add that my 1976 Oldsmobile has an EGR valve for NOX control, however there was never a Federal or State NOX standard for vehicles of those years. My Olds was subject to Biannual Ca. emission checks from 1978-2013, in 2013 I moved to Arizona. Working in automotive engineering my company required everyone to have a Ca. smog, brake and lamp license. In the mid 90's a BAR's newsletter foretold of all cars in the testing program (1976-present) would be tested for NOX in the cruise mode of the emission test. Basically, they were trying to establish a standard for cars that were built with a devise but without an NOX emission standard. I noticed on my Oldsmobile's emission test copies until one day the test actually had a standard. I still have all the emission test records for my Olds. Not only did the state create a standard the vehicle was never certified for, but the CO and HC levels were also reduced from year to year from what the car was certified for when new. That my friends is trying to legislate failure or legislate cars off the road.

Sorry, BAR= California Bureau of Automotive Repair.

When SEMA and other pro automotive organizations fought for new rules in the early 1970's The state of Ca. came to an agreement by which today is still in place. Exempt from any emission testing of vehicles 1975 and older. There was a clause in this new law that stated vehicles with exhaust controls (1966-1975) must have and maintain all of their emission equipment at all times. Also, in this clause the state said that if for some reason the state air quality takes a turn for the worse or that the state cannot meet its carbon offset, that the state can bring those 1966-1975 back into smog check without a referendum. 

As the state draws the noose tighter to go to zero emissions (their goal) you are likely see those cars called back into smog check, and possibly worse for all IC cars and trucks.

Next is us because we are in a way an internal combustion engine. What are they going to do about our own Co2? Hell, what are the plants going to do???

🧨

Edited September 30, 2023 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[Peter Gariepy]

12 minutes ago, Pfeil said:

SEMA and other pro automotive organizations fought for new rules in the early 1970's The state of Ca. came to an agreement by which today is still in place.

Seems SEMA lobbying efforts 50 years ago worked in the hobby’s favor.

 

I agree, laws can change and clauses “could” be put into effect. To date they have not, nor is there any indication it’s being considered. The good news…  SEMA will be there to lobby for us again (50 years later) if changes take place that negatively impact our hobby.  
 

 

[Pfeil]

40 minutes ago, Peter Gariepy said:

Seems SEMA lobbying efforts 50 years ago worked in the hobby’s favor.

 

I agree, laws can change and clauses “could” be put into effect. To date they have not, nor is there any indication it’s being considered. The good news…  SEMA will be there to lobby for us again (50 years later) if changes take place that negatively impact our hobby.  
 

 

Peter, you are so naive. Millions of cars went to the crusher because the state moved the emission standards tighter from which the cars were certified when new.

Here's the goal everyone, ten years from now we'll move the goalpost😉. That actually happened,I have proof.   

Edited September 30, 2023 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[Peter Gariepy]

22 minutes ago, Pfeil said:

Peter, you are so naive.

Obviously. 

 

I simply read what you said and reinstated it above.   

 

“As the state draws the noose tighter to go to zero emissions (their goal) you are likely see those cars called back into smog check, and possibly worse for all IC cars and trucks.”

 

I don’t dispute that zero emissions is a goal for future new automobiles. We’re not talking about new cars here, we are talking about the future status of vintage cars. 

 

I don’t think the seven question survey will lead to the end of our hobby. It’s dramatically more complicated than that.

[Peter Gariepy]

26 minutes ago, Pfeil said:

Millions of cars went to the crusher because the state moved the emission standards tighter from which the cars were certified when new.

I’d love to see the facts that support that statement. 

[Peter Gariepy]

@Pfeil
 

This seems to contradict your statements. 
 

https://www.semasan.com/legislative-alerts/california/california-car-hobbyists-achieve-30-year-rolling-emissions-testing

 

CALIFORNIA CAR HOBBYISTS ACHIEVE 30-YEAR ROLLING EMISSIONS TESTING EXEMPTION - 1997

Car hobbyists and related businesses scored a major victory when California Governor Pete Wilson signed SEMA-supported legislation into law last week. The new law (S.B. 42) will exempt older vehicles, including most "muscle cars," from the state's mandatory emission inspection program, moving the current 1965 exemption cutoff forward to include all pre-1974 vehicles.

 

Sponsored by Senator Quentin Kopp, the bill exempts all pre-1974 vehicles from the obligations of the biennial emissions inspection until the year 2003. After 2003, vehicles 30 years old and older will not require an inspection. The exemption applies to inspections required upon transfer of ownership and upon registration of a vehicle previously registered outside the state.

 

The legislation reflects the finding of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that most vehicles over 25 years old are driven few miles each year and represent a small segment of California's total registered vehicle population. Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) President Chuck Blum commented, "We are pleased Governor Wilson has recognized the waste and inefficiency of inspecting older vehicles. S.B. 42 represents major relief for vehicle enthusiasts throughout California and should serve as a model for state legislatures around the country."

 

[Peter Gariepy]

2 minutes ago, Peter Gariepy said:

The legislation reflects the finding of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that most vehicles over 25 years old are driven few miles each year and represent a small segment of California's total registered vehicle population.

This is a BIG statement.  

[demco32]

13 hours ago, Peter Gariepy said:

2023 California Model Year 1978 Or Older Light-Duty Vehicle Survey

Background
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is conducting a survey about activities of vehicles that are model year (MY) 1978 or older. Results of the survey will be used to update models that inform air quality programs. You have been identified as an owner of such a vehicle registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and have been randomly selected to take this survey.
 
Instructions
The survey should take 5 to 10 minutes to complete, including 7 short questions related to your vehicle usage and 2 optional open-ended questions. A 5-digit unique code has been assigned to you in the mail. Please enter the unique code at the beginning of the survey, use the “next” button to move forward through the survey, and click the "submit" button in the end when you finish. Please complete the online survey within 60 days of receiving this letter.
 
Rights as a Research Participant
The data collected in this survey will be kept strictly confidential to the extent permitted by law and in no case will be used to identify any one individual. You are free to decline to answer any survey question or to decline to participate entirely. Only CARB staff will have access to the data collected during this survey. CARB has no financial interest in the results of this study.
 
Contact Information
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or about the survey, you may contact Wan Jiao by e-mail at wan.jiao@arb.ca.gov or by phone at (951) 542-3220.
 
SURVEY

1.    Please enter your unique 5-digit code that has been assigned to you in the mail to start the survey:

The value must be a number
 
2.    In which county is your MY 1978 or older vehicle primarily operated? Please select: 
Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, , Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, , San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo, , Yuba

3.    What is the current odometer reading (total mileage since the car was new) on your MY 1978 or older vehicle? Please specify, and use your best estimate if you are not sure:
 
4.    Approximately how many miles does your MY 1978 or older vehicle get driven in a year? Please specify:
The value must be a number

 

5.    How often is your MY 1978 or older vehicle driven? Please select:
Daily
3-5 times per week
1-2 times per week
1 time per month
1 time every other month
3-4 times per year
1 time per year
Rarely or never

 

6.    How is your MY 1978 or older vehicle stored when not in use? Please select:
Parked in a garage
Parked in a carport or under a shaded overhang
Parked outside, but covered with a car cover
Parked outside, uncovered

 

7.    When you store your MY 1978 or older vehicle for an extended period of time when it is not being used, what do you typically do with the fuel tank? Please select:
Fill the tank completely, add fuel stabilizer
Fill the tank completely, leave the fuel as is
Fill the tank partially, add fuel stabilizer
Fill the tank partially, leave the fuel as is
Leave the tank at its current level, add fuel stabilizer
Leave the tank at its current level, leave the fuel as is
Drain the tank completely
Other

seems to me more like the tax office is asking these questions.

Where the car is parked got nothing to do with air pollution.

 

[Steve_Mack_CT]

14 hours ago, edinmass said:

 

Unless I am mistaken, virtually 99.99 percent of pre 1978 cars have tailpipe emissions. So trying to convince AACA members that the California survey or their future actions are a positive step for the hobby just won’t pass the smell test. 

Exactly.  

 

Conversation should move to how to influence and manage these concerns (for those of us who share them) to be productive.  

 

SEMA is great but like addressing a challenging  mechanical issue we have great collective knowledge here that just might produce a beneficial strategy.

 

Otherwise this is the prior thread reincarnated.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[Peter Gariepy]

2 hours ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

SEMA is great but like addressing a challenging  mechanical issue we have great collective knowledge here that just might produce a beneficial strategy.

Your proposed few things that I agree with. But they require actions and in some case money.  

 

This forum is one… but it has limited visibility.  
 

SEMASAN emails should be more ubiquitous in the hobby but only a fraction of hobbyists receive it.   

 

The AACA VP legislation should be more visible and vocal.  Using “Antique automobile” and “Speedster” more effectively to communicate. 
 

But messaging is important too. The recent responses to clickbait and those buying into poor journalism ain’t helping. 

 

[Steve_Mack_CT]

1 hour ago, Peter Gariepy said:

Your proposed a few things that I agree with. But they require actions and in some case money.  

 

This forum is one… but it has limited visibility.  
 

SEMASAN emails should be more ubiquitous in the hobby but only a fraction of hobbyists receive it.   

 

The AACA VP legislation should be more visible and vocal.  Using “Antique automobile” and “Speedster” more effectively to communicate. 
 

 

 

Common Ground, Peter!  👍👍👍

[ply33]

7 hours ago, demco32 said:

seems to me more like the tax office is asking these questions.

Where the car is parked got nothing to do with air pollution.

 

I know that my cars get quite a bit hotter when parked in the sun rather than in the garage. With a vented gas cap it would not surprise me if there is more evaporation and release of the lighter hydrocarbon fractions in the fuel when the fuel tank is hot. And unburned hydrocarbons are a primary cause of air pollution.

[edinmass]

Off gassing of brand new cars is regulated, and we are not talking fuel. The plastics and synthetic materials off gas a bunch when new and it is already regulated. The evap system while the car is off is a closed loop system, and once the car is hot and the cat is fired off, then the evap system purges into the intake to be burned off. The history of automotive regulation from safety, emissions, fuel mileage, ect have been around well over half a century. While much of it is positive…….and I’ll say overall the percentage is over 85%, some is clearly not. Ultimately every regulation adds expense. The question of diminishing returns VS cost is where things become ridiculous. Regardless of any going green technologies being forcibly implemented in the “first world countries “ people living on .37 cents a day in India are going to burn what ever the cheapest fuel is they can get ahold of, regardless of the environmental impact. So going green at a sane and moderate pace is fine………unilateral adoption of forced regulations that are not mature is a waste of money. Like the fallacy of no gas cars in California in 2035, and the twenty other states that follow their ridiculous lead. Hydrocarbon fuels are not going away ever………and 20 million people trying to plug their electric car into the California grid isn’t going to work either……….they don’t have enough power for AC in their homes and businesses…..I have been in Napa County during the rolling black outs……. I clearly remember when LA’s sky was brown and dark during the day back in the 80’s…….and it’s probably fifty times better today. But at what cost does one try to attempt to get to zero emissions?  Time will tell…….And I expect I will be long gone before any state makes it to the 50 percent mark of electric vehicles. I do think that households with two or more vehicles will have at least one of them electric as for less than 50 miles a day driving they are reasonable and efficient. Eventually the small electric cars will be so much more economical per mile that economics will dictate that they be used for short journeys. The LEV’s…….Light electric vehicles are great for around town, and in my city we actually have FREE transportation within a two mile radius of town hall. Just use your smartphone and your oversized electric golf cart with AC picks you up and drops you off………it’s all paid for by the business district. We probably use this service twice a month to get around…….because parking costs in the city during major events makes the free ride the best option.

Edited September 30, 2023 by edinmass (see edit history)

[ply33]

22 minutes ago, edinmass said:

. . . The evap system while the car is off is a closed loop system, and once the car is hot and the cat is fired off, then the evap system purges into the intake to be burned off. . .

I can assure you that the fuel system on my old car never had an evaporation control system. There is a vent on the gas cap and a vent on the carburetor bowl and that is it.

 

In the old days the building codes, at least in California, allowed for that and required vents near the floor with the total area of the vents based on the number of cars that could be parked in the garage. Once evaporation control systems were on the majority of cars that part of the building code seems to have been removed. My current house has a garage with no floor vents and if you walk into the garage you can definitely tell from the smell of fuel evaporating out of the carburetor if it has been run in the last few hours.

 

I am not sure when evaporation controls became required, all I know is my 1963 did not have it (only positive crankcase ventilation) but my 1982 did and I have never owned a car built between those two model years. The survey apparently went to people with 1974 and earlier cars. It would not surprise me if 1974 is about when evaporation controls were introduced.

[Pfeil]

11 hours ago, Peter Gariepy said:

@Pfeil
 

This seems to contradict your statements. 
 

https://www.semasan.com/legislative-alerts/california/california-car-hobbyists-achieve-30-year-rolling-emissions-testing

 

CALIFORNIA CAR HOBBYISTS ACHIEVE 30-YEAR ROLLING EMISSIONS TESTING EXEMPTION - 1997

Car hobbyists and related businesses scored a major victory when California Governor Pete Wilson signed SEMA-supported legislation into law last week. The new law (S.B. 42) will exempt older vehicles, including most "muscle cars," from the state's mandatory emission inspection program, moving the current 1965 exemption cutoff forward to include all pre-1974 vehicles.

 

Sponsored by Senator Quentin Kopp, the bill exempts all pre-1974 vehicles from the obligations of the biennial emissions inspection until the year 2003. After 2003, vehicles 30 years old and older will not require an inspection. The exemption applies to inspections required upon transfer of ownership and upon registration of a vehicle previously registered outside the state.

 

The legislation reflects the finding of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that most vehicles over 25 years old are driven few miles each year and represent a small segment of California's total registered vehicle population. Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) President Chuck Blum commented, "We are pleased Governor Wilson has recognized the waste and inefficiency of inspecting older vehicles. S.B. 42 represents major relief for vehicle enthusiasts throughout California and should serve as a model for state legislatures around the country."

 

There was a clause in this new law that stated vehicles with exhaust controls (1966-1975) must have and maintain all of their emission equipment at all times. Also, in this clause the state said that if for some reason the state air quality takes a turn for the worse or that the state cannot meet its carbon offset, that the state can bring those 1966-1975 back into smog check without a referendum. 

As the state draws the noose tighter to go to zero emissions (their goal) you are likely see those cars called back into smog check, and possibly worse for all IC cars and trucks.

[Peter Gariepy]

4 hours ago, Pfeil said:

There was a clause in this new law that stated vehicles with exhaust controls (1966-1975) must have and maintain all of their emission equipment at all times. Also, in this clause the state said that if for some reason the state air quality takes a turn for the worse or that the state cannot meet its carbon offset, that the state can bring those 1966-1975 back into smog check without a referendum. 

As the state draws the noose tighter to go to zero emissions (their goal) you are likely see those cars called back into smog check, and possibly worse for all IC cars and trucks.

I see no such clause in SB 42, Senate Bill - that allowed 30 year old plus vehicles to be exempt:

 

BILL NUMBER: SB 42	CHAPTERED
	BILL TEXT

	CHAPTER   801
	FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE   OCTOBER 9, 1997
	APPROVED BY GOVERNOR   OCTOBER 8, 1997
	PASSED THE SENATE   SEPTEMBER 11, 1997
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY   SEPTEMBER 9, 1997
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY   SEPTEMBER 5, 1997
	AMENDED IN SENATE   FEBRUARY 13, 1997

INTRODUCED BY  Senator Kopp
   (Coauthors:  Senators Knight and Mountjoy)
   (Coauthor:  Assembly Member Cunneen)

                        DECEMBER 2, 1996

   An act to amend Section 44011 of the Health and Safety Code, and
to amend Section 4000.1 of the Vehicle Code, relating to air
pollution.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 42, Kopp.  Air pollution:  vehicles:  inspection and
maintenance.
   Existing law exempts any motor vehicle manufactured prior to the
1966 model-year from provisions requiring vehicles powered by
internal combustion engines in certain areas of the state to obtain a
smog check certificate of compliance or noncompliance biennially,
upon transfer of ownership, or upon registration of a vehicle
previously registered outside the state.
   This bill would, instead, exempt from those requirements any motor
vehicle manufactured prior to the 1974 model-year or, beginning
January 1, 2003, that is  30 or more model-years old.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


  SECTION 1.  Section 44011 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
   44011.  (a) All motor vehicles powered by internal combustion
engines which are registered within an area designated for program
coverage shall be required biennially to obtain a certificate of
compliance or noncompliance, except for all of the following:
   (1) Every motorcycle, and every diesel-powered vehicle, until the
department, pursuant to Section 44012, implements test procedures
applicable to motorcycles or to diesel-powered vehicles, or both.
   (2) Any motor vehicle which has been issued a certificate of
compliance or noncompliance or an emission cost waiver upon a change
of ownership or initial registration in this state during the
preceding six months, or which has been issued a certificate of
exemption pursuant to Section 4000.6 or 4000.7 of the Vehicle Code.
   (3) Prior to January 1, 2003, any motor vehicle manufactured prior
to the 1974 model-year.
   (4) Beginning January 1, 2003, any motor vehicle that is 30 or
more model-years old.
   (5) Any other motor vehicle that the department determines would
present prohibitive inspection or repair problems.
   (6) Any vehicle registered to the owner of a fleet licensed
pursuant to Section 44020 if the vehicle is garaged exclusively
outside the area included in program coverage, and is not primarily
operated inside the area included in program coverage.
   (b) Vehicles designated for program coverage in enhanced areas
shall be required to obtain inspections from appropriate smog check
stations operating in enhanced areas.
  SEC. 2.  Section 4000.1 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
   4000.1.  (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), (c),
or (d) of this section, or subdivision (b) of Section 43654 of the
Health and Safety Code, the department shall require upon initial
registration, and upon transfer of ownership and registration, of any
motor vehicle subject to Part 5 (commencing with Section 43000) of
Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, and upon registration of a
motor vehicle previously registered outside this state which is
subject to those provisions of the Health and Safety Code, a valid
certificate of compliance or a certificate of noncompliance, as
appropriate, issued in accordance with Section 44015 of the Health
and Safety Code.
   (b) With respect to new vehicles certified pursuant to Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 43100) of Part 5 of Division 26 of the
Health and Safety Code, the department shall accept a statement
completed pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 24007 in lieu of the
certificate of compliance.
   (c) For purposes of determining the validity of a certificate of
compliance or noncompliance submitted in compliance with the
requirements of this section, the definitions of new and used motor
vehicle contained in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 39010) of
Part 1 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code shall control.
   (d) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a transfer of ownership and
registration under any of the following circumstances:
   (1) In any district in which biennial certification is required
and a valid certificate was issued in connection with the most recent
renewal of registration of the vehicle, and the transfer occurred
not more than 60 days following the date by which that renewal of
registration was required.
   (2) The transferor is either the parent, grandparent, sibling,
child, grandchild, or spouse of the transferee.
   (3) A vehicle registered to a sole proprietorship is transferred
to the proprietor as owner.
   (4) The transfer is between companies whose principal business is
leasing vehicles, if there is no change in the lessee or operator of
the vehicle or between the lessor and the person who has been, for at
least one year, the lessee's operator of the vehicle.
   (5) The transfer is between the lessor and lessee of the vehicle,
if there is no change in the lessee or operator of the vehicle.
   (6) Prior to January 1, 2003, the motor vehicle was manufactured
prior to the 1974 model-year.
   (7) Beginning January 1, 2003, the motor vehicle is 30 or more
model-years old.
   (e) The State Air Resources Board, under Part 5 (commencing with
Section 43000) of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, may
exempt designated classifications of motor vehicles from subdivision
(a) as it deems necessary, and shall notify the department of that
action.
   (f) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a motor vehicle when an
additional individual is added as a registered owner of the vehicle.