To: US Congress Representatives and Senators
Subject: Support Hearings and Public Consultation on Proposed WIPO Broadcast Treaty

Even if you don't like a classic American hamburger and fries, the nostalgic excitement present at Bob's Big Boy in Burbank on a Friday night is palpable. As a patron, this is a great thing.

For the owner of Bob's, this is business. Bob's has one of the longest standing automotive traditions in So. California. With the Drive-Up, roller skates, and belt change dispensers a thing of the past, Bob's keeps the spirit alive for hundreds of vintage vehicle owners every week. Bob's also keeps sales tax, parking meter, and surrounding business revenue flowing as well which all greatly benefits the City of Burbank and California. Not to mention the historical draw that Bob's and others who rely on the vintage vehicle industry create for the often challenging living environment that is Los Angeles.

I appreciate your time and as an owner of a 40 year old vintage vehicle as well as an advocate for our automotive clients I would like to give you my perspective on A.B. 616.

1. A.B. 616 Discourages Production of Enduring Vehicles And Halts Historical Preservation
   
   In economics, we call a vehicle an "enduring good." This law penalizes owners of vehicles greater than 15 years old by mandating annual visits to the local "Smog Test Only Station." These tests cost between $30-40 and more significantly disrupt business and other pursuits with the scheduling, transportation, oversight, and completion of the testing process. These are not everyday automobiles but rather protected milestones of American achievement. Taking a vintage car to a shop is a task as the vehicle cannot be left to the care of the auto shop, must be supervised, and completed the same day or the process begins all over the next day.
   
   Consumers will certainly decry this mandate and get rid of their cars prior to the 15 year milestone or buy an existing pre-1976 or pre-mandate vehicle. The reason we have so many icons of history on the roads today is due to the great incentives given to preserving them. This bill removes that incentive which will result in preservation ceasing after the 1976 model year. Manufactures will certainly take advantage of this by cutting costs on quality measures that cause a vehicle to endure past 15 years as their innovations will likely end up in Mexico or on the scrap heap.
   
   This is an easily avoidable tragedy.
   
   
2. A.B. 616 Curtails Vintage Vehicle Aftermarket Industry
   
   Across from my office is the famous Mosher's Mopar restoration shop. Down the street is Finish Line, a well known restoration and performance shop. The block of my building is surrounded by manufacturers, distributors, purveyors, and innovators that rely on the vintage vehicle sector within the larger automotive economy. Granted, the majority of the vehicles they service could be pre-mandate and would be unaffected by this bill. However, this is the case due to the lack of disincentives over the last 30 years to vintage car ownership. This bill would greatly reduce the number of vehicles entering the vintage sector, thereby limiting the vintage aftermarket to serve pre-mandate products. Additionally, it is inevitable that a certain level of attrition will occur on this pre-mandate population, further starving a thriving and historical business sector.
   
   It is obvious what happens to even a large family when their birthrate diminishes but a little. This cascading consequences of this bill are no different in respect to the vintage car family. A punitive and unnecessary tax on time, money, and the pursuit of happiness speaks the end of an era, and most certainly the aftermarket that serves it.
   
   
3. A.B. 616 Places Historical Icons At Risk
   
   In addition to the risk of damage, theft, and accidental destruction annual transportation and testing procedures pose, there are even greater threats to historical preservation. On a Federal level, we have National Historical Landmarks. We also have historical landmarks on a State, County, and City level. However, these are "Landmarks." To my knowledge, vehicles cannot be attributed with such legislated protection and importance. However, it is clear that models such as a '28 Essex, '57 Chevy, '69 Charger (General Lee), and '77 Trans Am (Smoky & The Bandit) have had profound effects on culture, society, and the American tradition.
   
   This bill greatly increases the risk and cost of ownership which will inevitably make ownership less attractive, resales difficult, and ultimately retiring of the automobile more attractive. I am not even considering the heightened probability of damage incurred at a testing facility under this bill.
   
   I hope we never relegate these time capsules of American innovation and tradition to the scrap heap.
   
   
4. A.B. 616 Mandated Annual Testing Unsustainable By Near Term Infrastructure
   
   It is challenging enough to get a vehicle into a testing station every number of years today. How much more so when thousands of vehicles are mandated to return every year, doubling or tripling the vehicle population at any given station. This problem is then greatly exacerbated in Los Angeles, the car capital of the world, which further discourages vehicle ownership within the mandate period.
   
   Currently there are a large but shrinking number of quality vehicles on the road today built between 1977 - 1982 that would need to double or triple their frequency to a testing station. Significant backlogs would develop, heightened failures and other breakdowns with machinery, DMV communications, and many other consequences that would, in coordination with the great advertising campaigns of car dealerships, relegate many cars to the junk yard long before they stopped working or became Gross Polluters.
   
   This places an undue burden on businesses, cities, and the demographic that owns these older vehicles such as the elderly, immigrants, fixed and low income drivers.
   
   
5. A.B. 616 Is A Bad Response To Green Priorities
   
   With "green" carpets proposed at the Emmy's, personal "green" carbon offset programs available for the guilt ridden, and greenhouse gasses the most misunderstood yet actionable item on the government's agenda, it is no surprise that this bill shows itself now. I think there are great intentions here.
   
   However, as we have seen in the history of our Nation, premature legislation can be quite detrimental to the economy and society. In this case, the damage caused by this bill would be irreparable as these vehicles are originals and originals are what must be kept alive.
   
   Regardless of your views on "the greenhouse effect", "global warming", or "global cooling" for that matter, it is widely accepted that consumer automobiles impact said phenomenons in a limited capacity, certainly not the first cause in line for remediation. Additionally, the vintage car market is a very small subset of this consumer automobile population that by its nature differs in significant ways.
   
   1. The vehicles are very well maintained.
   2. The vehicles drive very few miles compared to the national average.
   3. The vehicles are driven less aggressively.

   This bill seems quite unnecessary and a scapegoat for the real issue -- given that you know the real problem. Your values are good but the application is mislead.
   
   Isn't it true that existing law already provides for a "Gross Polluter" status for vehicles, vintage or not, to get taxed more heavily due to their greater emissions? Isn't it true that in 2004 state law already mandated lifetime testing of all vehicles after 1976?
   
   These aspects already provide incentive to keep a clean and efficient vehicle at any age. Why penalize the vintage vehicle owner and by implication the thousands of Southern California businesses who will gradually lose customers due to the impact of this bill?