DiMare, Van Vleck & Brown, LLC

Governmental Relations & Communications

925 “L” Street, Suite 850

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone (916) 341-0808

Facsimile (916) 341-0849

Association of California Car Clubs

Legislative Matrix

AB 190(Bass) Vehicles: veterans: parking.
Status:  02/07/2008-Referred to Com. on T. & H.
Location:  02/07/2008-S T. & H.

Summary:  Would authorize veterans displaying those special license plates on their vehicles to park, without charge, in a metered parking space, as specified. The bill would impose a new duty on a local agency by requiring the local agency to provide a program for implementation of this requirement, thereby creating a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

FOR-Addressed before

AB 444(Hancock) Congestion management: motor vehicle registration fees.
Status:  07/11/2007-In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. Further hearing to be set.
Location:  07/11/2007-S REV. & TAX SUSPENSE

Summary:  Would authorize the county congestion management agency in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, and Solano , by a majority vote of the agency's board, to impose an annual fee of up to $10 on motor vehicles registered within the county for programs and projects for certain purposes. The bill would require voter approval of the measure. The bill would require the department, if requested, to collect the additional fee and distribute the net revenues to the agency, after deduction of specified costs, and would limit the agency's administrative costs to not more than 5% of the distributed fees. The bill would require that the fees collected may only be used to pay for programs and projects bearing a relationship or benefit to the owners of motor vehicles paying the fee, and would require the agency's board to make a specified finding of fact in that regard. The bill would require the governing board of the congestion management agency to adopt a specified expenditure plan.

Neutral: it will be voted on in affected areas and sounds like it is trying to help congestion issues

AB 616(Jones) Smog check: annual inspection: repair assistance program.
Status:  08/30/2007-In committee: Set, first hearing. Held under submission.
Location:  08/30/2007-S APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Summary:  Would require the department to incorporate annual inspection of motor vehicles 15 or greater model years old into the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program by July 1, 2008, and would require funds generated through additional inspection fees to be deposited into the High Polluter Repair or Removal Account. Because violations of the smog check program are a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

OPPOSED- leave us out of it. Would allow for cars 15 years and older (to 1976) to be included in the Repair/removal program as newer cars are. However I am strongly opposed to annual SMOG inspections. It is already a racket we endure every other year. I don’t think we need it for ANY vehicle annually.

AB 619(Emmerson) Vehicle registration amnesty program.
Status:  08/20/2007-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Location:  07/17/2007-S APPR.

Summary:  Would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to develop and administer a vehicle registration amnesty program for vehicles that have been previously registered or classified incorrectly and that are correctly registered , as defined . The department would be required to grant amnesty to a vehicle owner if all of the specified conditions were met by December 31, 2008, including, but not limited to, the owner filing a completed application, signed under the penalty of perjury, with the department, and the Department of the California Highway Patrol inspecting the vehicle to determine whether it is specially constructed, as defined, and transmitting the results of the inspection to the department and vehicle owner. Because a violation of this provision would expand the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

I am going to oppose this bill .As this has metamorphosed I am now concerned that what is on the surface may not be the intent. It may be intended to declare some legally registered cars as illegal in order to get more money or to get rid of the cars. Unless an amendment is written in to protect hobbyists,.

AB 2042(Fuentes) Vehicles: removal.
Status:  05/01/2008-Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and PUB. S.
Location:  05/01/2008-S T. & H.

Summary:  Would additionally authorize a peace officer to remove and impound a vehicle when he or she issues a citation to a person acting as a dealer, remanufacturer, manufacturer, or transporter, or as a manufacturer branch, remanufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch without a valid license or temporary permit from the Department of Motor Vehicles. This bill contains other related provisions.

Opposed- It appears that this is aimed at stopping interstate, intrastate auto theft?? It seems like there are already laws where an officer suspecting a person has a stolen vehicle and cannot furnish proof of ownership, that they already have authority to hold that vehicle? I would think they would use those other related provisions. I am opposed to impound without Due Process. Additionally, they could broaden this to extend over swap meets and car show or club exchanges and sales.


AB 2063(Parra) Smog check program: biennial inspection.
Status:  04/14/2008-In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Location:  04/07/2008-A TRANS.

Summary:  Would subject all vehicles registered within the state to biennial inspection, except as specifically exempted, regardless of where in the state the vehicle is registered. By requiring additional owners of vehicles to be subject to smog tests, this bill would expand the scope of a crime and therefore create a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

Opposed-still- SMOG was supposed to only be in affected areas to decreased pollution. But as we all know it is a scam to get more money , to get cars crushed and to get us to continually buy new cars, the ones the government wants us to drive. I say that because “certain” makes and models are specifically targeted. If a person lives in a remote or unaffected area, why would there be a need to SMOG? I am opposed to expansion of authority by way of SMOG.


AB 2273(Fuentes) Vehicles: nonrepairable vehicle certificates.
Status:  05/01/2008-Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and PUB. S.
Location:  05/01/2008-S T. & H.

Summary:  Would authorize these entities if they are unable to obtain the properly endorsed certificate of ownership or other evidence of ownership acceptable to the department within 30 days following oral or written acceptance by the owner of an offer of an amount in settlement of a total loss, to request, on a form provided by the department and signed under penalty of perjury, the department to issue a nonrepairable vehicle certificate for the vehicle. The bill would require that the request include and document that the requester has made at least 2 written attempts to obtain the certificate of ownership or other acceptable evidence of title. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

I am not sure where I stand on this one. I have read it several times and cannot figure if it will hurt or help.


AB 2316(Ruskin) Motor vehicles: greenhouse gas emission reductions: replacement program study.
Status:  04/23/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Location:  04/23/2008-A APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Summary:  Would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2010, to conduct a study and make recommendations to the Legislature the consolidation, improvement, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction contributions of existing vehicle retirement programs.

Opposed- fake data doesn’t help anyone and the statistics people come up with about cars and global warming is crazy. There are enough laws regarding pollution/green house gases/ global warming whatever the posh term is now and there are too few of our cars being driven too few miles to matter

AB 2388(Feuer) Vehicles: registration fees.
Status:  04/14/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Location:  04/14/2008-A TRANS.

Summary:  Would additionally impose for the registration of a passenger vehicle (1) a weight fee for a vehicle operated with an unladen vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less according to a specified schedule and (2) a carbon dioxide (CO2) fee based on the pounds of CO2 emitted by the vehicle. The bill would apply these provisions to all original registrations on or after July 1, 2010, and to renewal of registrations to vehicles with expiration dates on or after October 1, 2010. The bill would exempt specified persons who are eligible for public assistance from its provisions.

Very much opposed another crazy nutty bill

AB 2528(Berryhill) Vehicles: equipment.
Status:  04/14/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Location:  04/07/2008-A TRANS.

Summary:  Would set the fine at $250 for any violation of those provisions .

Good it was pulled, it was a waste of paper. This is one of the worst. A law saying there is already a law that your car or off highway vehicle should have a muffler.

AB 2560(Lieu) Medium- and heavy-duty motor vehicles: air pollution.
Status:  04/30/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Location:  04/30/2008-A APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Summary:  Would also require, on or before December 31, 2009, that the above-described state agencies apply the same criteria established under this provision for passenger cars and light-duty vehicles to medium-duty and heavy-duty motor vehicles.

AB 2645(Nunez) Air pollution: alternative fuels and vehicle technologies: funding programs.
Status:  04/30/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Location:  04/15/2008-A APPR.

Summary:  Would provide that the fuel blend criteria does not apply only to renewable diesel infrastructure, fueling stations, and equipment. The bill would, in addition, provide specified life cycle and multimedia analyses as eligible projects under the program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

Opposed- Is this to authorize funding for programs like paying people not to grow corn and to make ethanol? Sounds like spending again to study something that may already be in the works on the federal level? Duplication to spend our tax money? Get rid of it


AB 2650(Carter) Department of Transportation: environmental review process: reports.
Status:  05/08/2008-In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
Location:  05/08/2008-S RLS.

Summary:  Would require the department to submit that report to the Legislature by January 1, 2009, and again by January 1, 2010. The bill would also extend the operation of the above-described pilot program provisions until January 1, 2012 . This bill contains other existing laws.

Opposed.A bill to require and environmental study be done , it doesn’t really say what it is for or the goals but it sounds like it will cost the tax payer to do

AB 2672(Walters) Employment: overtime exemptions.
Status:  04/17/2008-In committee: Set first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
Location:  04/17/2008-A L. & E.

Summary:  Would define "outside salesperson" for purposes of Wage Order Number 11 of the Industrial Welfare Commission, which exempts outside salespersons employed in the broadcasting industry from the overtime requirements of existing law.

As I pointed out before- this does not appear to be car related- is there something hidden in it?

AB 2744(Huffman) Metropolitan Transportation Commission: fee: motor vehicle fuel.
Status:  04/14/2008-In committee: Set first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
Location:  04/15/2008-A TRANS.

Summary:  Would repeal this authorization. It would instead authorize the commission to impose a fee on each gallon of motor vehicle fuel, as defined, delivered into the fuel supply tank or tanks of a motor vehicle operated on the streets or highways in the region for a 25-year period. The bill would require the commission to adopt a regional transportation and climate protection expenditure plan for the revenues derived from the fee, if it is imposed. The fee would be levied at a rate established by the commission, but not exceeding $0.10 per gallon. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

Opposed- Another gas tax- I think not. Californians pay more at the pump than anywhere else in the nation- Stop spending money you don’t have instead of looking to the working person as a cash cow!!



AB 2825(Carter) Automotive repair: crash parts.
Status:  04/28/2008-Read second time. To third reading.
Location:  04/28/2008-A THIRD READING

Summary:  Would require the invoice to specify if any used, rebuilt, remanufactured, or reconditioned parts are supplied. The bill would require the first page of the it emized written estimate to include a notice, as specified, stating that providing parts other than those described on the estimate without prior approval from the customer is unlawful. The bill would additionally require an automotive repair dealer, when doing auto body or collision repairs, to provide a specified certification to the customer upon completion of the repairs indicating that the crash parts identified on the written estimate provided to the customer, or pursuant to an approved change to the estimate, were installed on the customer's motor vehicle. The bill would require the certification to be signed by the automotive repair dealer or his or her designee and would require it to appear on the first page of the final invoice. The bill would authorize the bureau to adopt regulations specifying the form and content of the notice and the certification. The bill would make findings and declarations in this regard. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

If this means that a repair shop must clearly inform what kinds of parts, new or used are being used to replace parts that would be nice.


AB 2833(Maze) Vehicles.
Status:  05/06/2008-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(b)(6). Last location was PRINT
Location:  05/06/2008-A DEAD

Summary:  Would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation related to vehicles.

Okay so the legislation is going to create a law that they enact laws relating to cars- these people really need to find something better to do. They are so interested in stopping our hobby they are creating ridiculous proposals such as this?? The system is definitely flawed. There are enough laws. Fix things do good but stop making up laws to make yourself look good- it has backfired.
AB 2896(Lieber) Vehicles: special license plates.
Status:  05/07/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Location:  05/07/2008-A APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Summary:  Would authorize a person who is a family member, as the bill would define that term, of a member of the Armed Forces who was killed while serving on active duty in the military to apply for special license plates, subject to additional fees and certain conditions. The special license plates would contain a gold star and the words "Gold Star Family."

Neutral- so if I understand this we will honor them and then charge them for the privilege of being honored?
AB 2951(Eng) Vehicles: speed contests: forfeiture of vehicle.
Status:  05/07/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Location:  05/07/2008-A APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Summary:  Would additionally authorize a local authority to adopt an ordinance providing for declaring a vehicle used in an illegal speed contest or an illegal exhibition of speed on a highway a nuisance subject to forfeiture when a person is convicted of engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest or an exhibition of speed on a highway, and the person is the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment and has a previous felony conviction for engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest that causes one or more specified injuries . The bill would also specify provisions that the ordinance must contain. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

I think I am opposed to this one. I would like to know their definitions first. Is a chop shop a private person(s) who use a warehouse to customize vehicles or are we taking the places where stolen cars are taken and taken apart to ship or sell elsewhere? This would have to be very clearly written. The second part is not cohesive to the first because the second part is going after street racers. So if a shop rebuilds an engine on a custom rod and that person illegally (or legally) races and someone dies the shop is now liable

AB 2962(Furutani) Vehicular air pollution control: civil penalties.
Status:  05/06/2008-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(b)(6). Last location was PRINT
Location:  05/06/2008-A DEAD

Summary:  Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources. Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution. Under existing law, a person who violates specified vehicular air pollution statutes, or specified orders, rules, or regulations of the state board, is subject to a civil penalty up to $500 per vehicle. This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that penalty provision.

Doesn’t SMOG take care of this, this law is to now make it clear that they can fine a person $500? I am opposed



AB 2976(Keene) Vehicles: manufacturers and distributors.
Status:  04/15/2008-From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 8. Noes 1.) (April 14).
Location:  04/15/2008-A APPR.

Summary:  Would additionally prohibit a manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch from offering or attempting to offer a customer or dealer rebate, discount, promotional financing, or other incentive to promote the retail sale or lease of a motorsports vehicle, as defined, that is subject to specified conditions, from unfairly discriminating in favor of a dealer when acting as a manufacturer, manufacturer branch, or distributor of motorsports vehicles, and from requiring or attempting to require a dealer to maintain a motorsports inventory in a specified manner. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

I am not sure what this law is supposed to do. If someone understands let me know because it seems like offering incentives to move inventory when current times show retail is suffering seems like what dealers are supposed to do.

AB 2984(Soto) Vehicles: orders and inspections.
Status:  05/06/2008-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(b)(6). Last location was PRINT
Location:  05/06/2008-A DEAD

Summary:  Existing law provides that it is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to the Vehicle Code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to the Vehicle Code. Existing law also provides that it is unlawful to fail or refuse to comply with a lawful out-of-service order issued by an authorized employee of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, a uniformed peace officer, the United States Secretary of the Department of Transportation, or a peace officer or commercial vehicle inspector of a state, a province of Canada, or the government of the United States, Canada, or Mexico, as specified. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes.

- I am opposed. This is a bill acknowledging that the law requires people to pull over when Law Enforcement officers tell them to ? I fail to understand what exactly is being proposed. Are they no saying out of service vehicles can pull people over and require inspection? What are the nonsubstantive changes? Why another bill acknowledging laws on the books.



AB 3039(Benoit) High-occupancy vehicle lanes.
Status:  04/14/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Location:  03/13/2008-A TRANS.

Summary:  Would require the department, at the request of a county transportation commission or a regional transportation planning agency, to modify existing exclusive or preferential lanes that are for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles within the respective jurisdiction of the requesting entity to provide continuous access to buses and other high-occupancy vehicles. The bill would encourage the department to move these modifications in conjunction with planned restriping projects.

This is neutral unless it will cost a lot. It appears to be a law that if counties want an HOV lane it will be made when they restripe the road.

SB 1229(Maldonado) Vehicles: special license plates: disabled veterans.
Status:  02/28/2008-To Com. on T. & H.
Location:  02/28/2008-S T. & H.

Summary:  Would provide for the issuance of special license plates approved by the department for a disabled veteran, as defined. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

SB 1507(Oropeza) Highway construction: school boundaries.
Status:  05/05/2008-Placed on APPR. suspense file.
Location:  05/05/2008-S APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Summary:  Would prohibit the commission from authorizing the construction or expansion of, and the department from constructing or expanding, a state highway within 1/4 mile of a school boundary, with exceptions for certain operational or safety improvements and for high-occupancy vehicle lanes. The bill would also prohibit a project subject to this restriction from being included in a regional transportation improvement program adopted by a transportation planning agency .

Another law to tell them to set laws, do our legislators know what their responsibilities are or are they enacting laws to remind themselves? I simply do not understand the proposed bills where legislators instruct themselves to legislate.



SB 1549(Florez) Historic vehicles: special license plates.
Status:  04/28/2008-Placed on APPR. suspense file.
Location:  04/28/2008-S APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Summary:  Would require the Department of Motor Vehicles, by January 1, 2010, to submit to the Governor, the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing, and the Assembly Committee on Transportation a report evaluating those special license plate programs and recommending improvements and changes to those programs, as specified. This bill contains other existing laws.

For nice change of words!!!

SB 1573(Florez) Smog check program: emission standards.
Status:  04/22/2008-Read second time. To third reading.
Location:  04/22/2008-S THIRD READING

Summary:  Would instead require the state board, in consultation with the department, to prescribe these emission standards. The department would be responsible for implementing and enforcing these standards. The bill would repeal other obsolete and duplicative provisions of law.

I am seeing a trend here. This is a law to prescribe already set standards and remove laws that are already about this?



SB 1705(Margett) Vehicles: motor vehicle speed contests.
Status:  05/06/2008-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(b)(6). Last location was RLS.
Location:  05/06/2008-S DEAD

Summary:  Existing law prohibits a person from engaging in, or aiding or abetting, a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. Existing law prohibits a person from engaging in, or aiding or abetting, a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on a highway. Existing law also prohibits a person, for purposes of facilitating or aiding, or as an incident to, a motor vehicle speed contest or exhibition on a highway, from obstructing or placing a barricade or obstruction, or assisting or participating in placing a barricade or obstruction, on a highway. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

OPPOSED!!! Again…WHY!!!? Another bill that essential says we already have these laws so let’s have a law saying we already have these laws. I am opposed too much redundancy (Maybe Dunce is the root verb in this case?)


SB 1737(Kehoe) Electric and gas low-emission vehicles.
Status:  05/01/2008-To Com. on U. & C.
Location:  05/01/2008-A U. & C.

Summary:  Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations, as defined. Existing law requires the commission, in cooperation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, the State Air Resources Board, air quality management districts and air pollution control districts, electrical and gas corporations, and the motor vehicle industry, to evaluate and implement policies to promote the development of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate the use of electric power and natural gas to fuel low-emission vehicles. The commission is required to ensure that the costs and expenses of any authorized programs are not passed through to electric or gas ratepayers unless the commission finds and determines that those programs are in the ratepayers' interest. Existing law requires the commission to provide a progress report to the Legislature on its efforts to evaluate and implement the policies for the above-described purposes by January 30, 1993, and every 2 years thereafter. This bill would make technical and nonsubstantive revisions to the requirements placed upon the commission to evaluate and implement policies to promote the development of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate the use of electricity and natural gas to power low-emission vehicles. The bill would require the commission to provide a progress report to the Legislature on its efforts to evaluate and implement the policies by January 1, 2010, and by January 1 of each even year thereafter.