Next Step In Arizona Emissions Changes

Not much to report, other than that I just received this update from
Hagerty, so I thought I would pass it along. I have e-mailed Sydney McManus
twice to see if there is anything the Mustang lobbyists can do at this
point, but haven't heard back yet. What I do know is that the Department of
Environmental Quality has to get approval from the EPA for the changes.
Since the DEQ did the two-year-long emissioins study that allowed this bill
to get through the Arizona legislature with absolutely no opposition and
signed into law, I am hoping that they will proceed with out any great
delays in getting EPA approval.

But, then, it is the government we're talking about.

Anyway, here's the latest update:

--------------------------------
URGENT LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Arizona Emissions Test Exemption for Collectible Vehicles Signed Into Law by
Governor

Congratulations!!! A bill (H.B. 2357) to exempt qualified collectible
vehicles 15 years old and older from the state's mandatory emissions
inspection and maintenance program has been signed into law by Arizona
Governor Janet Napolitano. Under the new law, qualifying vehicles would have
to maintain appropriate collectible or classic automobile insurance to
retain these benefits.

The new law:

Defines collectible vehicles as 15 years old or older, OR of unique or rare
design, of limited production and an object of curiosity and maintained
primarily for car club activities, exhibitions, parades, etc. and is used
infrequently for other purposes.

Provides for a rolling 15-year emissions inspection exemption that would
exempt qualifying vehicles upon enactment and would pick up an additional
model year for each year the law is in effect.

Provides for an emissions inspection exemption for collectible vehicles for
which the owner holds appropriate insurance coverage.

Acknowledges the relatively minimal environmental impact of older vehicles,
such as the older vehicles targeted for this exemption.

Recognizes that such vehicles constitute a small portion of the vehicle
fleet and are well-maintained and infrequently operated.

Congratulations again to all of the Arizona hobbyists whose hard work and
perseverance made this new law a reality. This law now needs U.S. EPA
approval. Please call or e-mail Sydney McManus, Hagerty Protection Network
Legislative Director, if you have any questions at 1-800-922-4050, x8787 /
.


-----------
Laurie S.
Thunder Snake #7

Laurie S. wrote:

> What I do know is that the Department of
> Environmental Quality has to get approval
> from the EPA for the changes.

Not to pre-judge the issue, but that could be a problem. I recall from
an earlier post a mention that the EPA must sign off on the rolling
exemption with respect to an "Area A." California has similar
geographical crackdown zones, one in the LA basin and one in the
Central Valley from Fresno to Bakersfield. These zones exceed EPA air
quality standards, and are therefore subject to more extensive
regulations than the rest of the state. The result is major stuff like
dynamometer-based emissions testing ("Smog Check II") and stupid stuff
like regulations on lawnmowers and backyard BBQ's.

This regulatory effort looks at the zone as a big melting pot of
emission sources; it's zone-wide air quality that is the goal. This
leads to all kinds of political horsetrading, where big industry and
agri-biz are favored over -- guess who? -- the little guy. For
example, if a refinery is squeezed to cut emissions, it can do so by
cleaning up its own operation or by buying "X" number of old cars at
$500 a pop and crushing them. It's cheaper to buy the old cars, so
that's what happens. No inquiry into whether the old heap is actually
in regular use and actually contributing to the emissions mix.

Anyway, with the zone crackdown system being a political process, not a
scientific/engineering one, money and connections are what drives it.
So the question for HB 2357 may come down to who has the best
lobbyists. Anyway, here's to the best of luck for "our" side.

180 Out

P.S. Did anyone else get a laugh out of the recent Consumer Reports
test of these Sharper Image "Ionic Breeze" and similar "air
purifiers," finding that they are primarily ozone machines with no
beneficial effects? Ozone is THE nasty component of smog. It's THE
chemical that causes all the distress to children, the elderly, and
asthmatics that the entire clean air regulatory scheme is supposed to
be all about. I can just see all these Prius-owning tree-huggers
sitting in their Ikea loungers with the Ionic Breeze a-blowin',
breathing in all that smog and cursing the rest of us for that
persistent sore throat.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Laurie S. wrote:
>
>> What I do know is that the Department of
>> Environmental Quality has to get approval
>> from the EPA for the changes.
>
> Not to pre-judge the issue, but that could be a problem. I recall from
> an earlier post a mention that the EPA must sign off on the rolling
> exemption with respect to an "Area A." California has similar
> geographical crackdown zones, one in the LA basin and one in the
> Central Valley from Fresno to Bakersfield. These zones exceed EPA air
> quality standards, and are therefore subject to more extensive
> regulations than the rest of the state. The result is major stuff like
> dynamometer-based emissions testing ("Smog Check II") and stupid stuff
> like regulations on lawnmowers and backyard BBQ's.
>
> This regulatory effort looks at the zone as a big melting pot of
> emission sources; it's zone-wide air quality that is the goal. This
> leads to all kinds of political horsetrading, where big industry and
> agri-biz are favored over -- guess who? -- the little guy. For
> example, if a refinery is squeezed to cut emissions, it can do so by
> cleaning up its own operation or by buying "X" number of old cars at
> $500 a pop and crushing them. It's cheaper to buy the old cars, so
> that's what happens. No inquiry into whether the old heap is actually
> in regular use and actually contributing to the emissions mix.
>
> Anyway, with the zone crackdown system being a political process, not a
> scientific/engineering one, money and connections are what drives it.
> So the question for HB 2357 may come down to who has the best
> lobbyists. Anyway, here's to the best of luck for "our" side.
>
> 180 Out
>
> P.S. Did anyone else get a laugh out of the recent Consumer Reports
> test of these Sharper Image "Ionic Breeze" and similar "air
> purifiers," finding that they are primarily ozone machines with no
> beneficial effects? Ozone is THE nasty component of smog. It's THE
> chemical that causes all the distress to children, the elderly, and
> asthmatics that the entire clean air regulatory scheme is supposed to
> be all about. I can just see all these Prius-owning tree-huggers
> sitting in their Ikea loungers with the Ionic Breeze a-blowin',
> breathing in all that smog and cursing the rest of us for that
> persistent sore throat.
>

Actually, the zones aren't really too much of an issue. Zones A and B are
Phoenix and Tucson--the only places in the state where emissions testing
currently is required. The two-year study found that for Tucson removing
motorcycle and collectible vehicle testing would have no effect on current
pollution levels, but that removing motorcycle testing in Phoenix would.
That's the reason the motorcycles were dropped out of H.B. 2357--that and
the fact that the motorcycle lobbyists weren't interested in working with
the collectible vehicle lobbyists. So, they lost out and are on their own
now. As a point of interest, Arizona is the only state that tests
motorcycles for emissions.

When I learn more about what's happening, I'll be sure to post.

----------
Laurie S.
Thunder Snake #7

Laurie S wrote:

> As a point of interest, Arizona is the only
> state that tests motorcycles for emissions.

I wonder what it would take to fail. The EPA set motorcycle emissions
at 8 grams per mile HC way back in 1980. No limits at all on NOx or
CO. By comparison automotive standards are .65 g/mile for HC + NOx,
3.0 for CO.

(Stricter bike standards do go into effect in 2006, bringing them
closer to the auto numbers, but not lower than.)

180 Out

On 15 Apr 2005 13:43:18 -0700, wrote:

>Laurie S wrote:
>
>> As a point of interest, Arizona is the only
>> state that tests motorcycles for emissions.
>
>I wonder what it would take to fail. The EPA set motorcycle emissions
>at 8 grams per mile HC way back in 1980. No limits at all on NOx or
>CO. By comparison automotive standards are .65 g/mile for HC + NOx,
>3.0 for CO.

I just had my motorcycle retested (in AZ) and it almost failed.
It's an idle test and on the first run I got : (tested/limit)
HC in ppm 2009/1800
CO in % 0.24/5.50

They then told me to rev it to 2000 rpm and they did another test:
HC in ppm 1703/1800
CO in % 0.22/5.50

so it passed.
Now, I need to find out why the hc was so high. Worried about the next
test (they test once a year, instead of once every 2 years with cars)


>
>(Stricter bike standards do go into effect in 2006, bringing them
>closer to the auto numbers, but not lower than.)

Would older bikes also have to meet this same standard ? Mine is a 98

RT wrote:

> >(Stricter bike standards do go into effect in 2006, bringing them
> >closer to the auto numbers, but not lower than.)
>
> Would older bikes also have to meet this same standard ? Mine is a 98

That has never been the case with any other motor vehicle. They're
generally held to the standards that were in effect during their model
year.

That's probably why the bikers didn't work up much of a sweat about the
AZ rolling exemption. Since '79 and older bikes are completely
unregulated, and '80's to '06's are nearly unregulated, they figured
what the hey? It's 16 yrs. until the '06's are 15 yrs old anyway. And
by then, who knows what'll be in effect? My guess is that by then
there will be such a clampdown that the hot swap will be electric
motors into Hemi Cudas.

180 Out

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> RT wrote:
>
> > >(Stricter bike standards do go into effect in 2006, bringing them
> > >closer to the auto numbers, but not lower than.)
> >
> > Would older bikes also have to meet this same standard ? Mine is a 98
>
> That has never been the case with any other motor vehicle. They're
> generally held to the standards that were in effect during their model
> year.
>
> That's probably why the bikers didn't work up much of a sweat about the
> AZ rolling exemption. Since '79 and older bikes are completely
> unregulated, and '80's to '06's are nearly unregulated, they figured
> what the hey? It's 16 yrs. until the '06's are 15 yrs old anyway. And
> by then, who knows what'll be in effect? My guess is that by then
> there will be such a clampdown that the hot swap will be electric
> motors into Hemi Cudas.
>
> 180 Out
>

Not true in Arizona. Vehicles must pass current emissions standards, not
those of the year of manufacture.

--------------
Laurie S.
Thunder Snake #7

Laurie S. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > RT wrote:
> >
> > > >(Stricter bike standards do go into effect in 2006, bringing
them
> > > >closer to the auto numbers, but not lower than.)
> > >
> > > Would older bikes also have to meet this same standard ? Mine is
a 98
> >
> > That has never been the case with any other motor vehicle. They're
> > generally held to the standards that were in effect during their
model
> > year.

> Not true in Arizona. Vehicles must pass current emissions standards,
not
> those of the year of manufacture.

You're the Arizonian, not me, but that sounds highly doubtful. Cars of
the 70's could barely pass their own model years' standards. To bring
them up to current standards would be impossible. To bring ANY
carbureted car up to current standards would be impossible. Even EFI
cars of the 80's and 90's could not pass '05 standards without
extensive retrofitting, costing more than the cars are worth. I can't
believe Arizona is legislating three-quarters of the fleet out of
existence.

180 Out

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Laurie S. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > RT wrote:
> > >
> > > > >(Stricter bike standards do go into effect in 2006, bringing
> them
> > > > >closer to the auto numbers, but not lower than.)
> > > >
> > > > Would older bikes also have to meet this same standard ? Mine is
> a 98
> > >
> > > That has never been the case with any other motor vehicle. They're
> > > generally held to the standards that were in effect during their
> model
> > > year.
>
> > Not true in Arizona. Vehicles must pass current emissions standards,
> not
> > those of the year of manufacture.
>
> You're the Arizonian, not me, but that sounds highly doubtful. Cars of
> the 70's could barely pass their own model years' standards. To bring
> them up to current standards would be impossible. To bring ANY
> carbureted car up to current standards would be impossible. Even EFI
> cars of the 80's and 90's could not pass '05 standards without
> extensive retrofitting, costing more than the cars are worth. I can't
> believe Arizona is legislating three-quarters of the fleet out of
> existence.
>
> 180 Out
>

Never underestimate the stupidity of Arizona's government. The only way to
get an older car through emissions is to tune it so lean that it is almost
dying out when turning or slowing. If you take my 68 through emissions set
at 68 standards it will not pass. And, that's with a brand new rebuilt
carb. The cars must meet stricter emissions than what they were designed to
meet. BTW, my 1985 Bronco also has to be adjusted to meet the emissions
test, and that carb is rebuilt, too.

----------
Laurie S.
Thunder Snake #7

That sounds like my experience every time, trying to get carbureted
cars through Smog Check when it started in Cali in the mid-80's.
Always a problem, and the cars barely ran when tuned to pass. I would
never have bought my '70 Cougar or '65 Mustang if they still had to go
through Smog Check. But the standards were (and are) the ones
applicable to the car's model year, not the ones applicable to new
cars.

180 Out