California Noise Reductions (AB1555)
05-21-2003, 12:13 PM
#24
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bell Canyon, CA
Posts: 12,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DANG!!!!!!!!!
VOTES - ROLL CALL
MEASURE: AB 694
AUTHOR: Levine
TOPIC: Use tax: vehicles, vessels, and aircraft.
DATE: 05/19/2003
LOCATION: ASM. REV. & TAX.
MOTION: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 5. NOES 2.) (PASS)
AYES
****
Chavez Laird Leno Simitian
Corbett
NOES
****
Wyland Harman
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************
VOTES - ROLL CALL
MEASURE: AB 694
AUTHOR: Levine
TOPIC: Use tax: vehicles, vessels, and aircraft.
DATE: 05/19/2003
LOCATION: ASM. REV. & TAX.
MOTION: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 5. NOES 2.) (PASS)
AYES
****
Chavez Laird Leno Simitian
Corbett
NOES
****
Wyland Harman
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************
How does a bill get passed that only 7 people vote one?
05-23-2003, 01:46 AM
#26
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lake Travis, TX
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked into this a bit myself recently. It is definitely a threat to performance boats, and yet another sad testimony to the continued erosion of individual freedom in the name of not offending anyone.
Interesting to note, under the bill it appears that the inland measurement procedure is altered from a higher-dB limit WOT at something like 50' to a lower dB limit idling close-by, probably to make testing more feasible. The easiest solution to this seems to be that a silent choice type of exhaust can probably meet the standard at idle while retaining full performance under load.
What I see as a bigger obstacle in the bill is the introduction of a coastal noise limit. This would be virtually impossible to comply with in any performance boat actually being used. The only promise I can see here is that it would be equally difficult to enforce.
Interesting to note, under the bill it appears that the inland measurement procedure is altered from a higher-dB limit WOT at something like 50' to a lower dB limit idling close-by, probably to make testing more feasible. The easiest solution to this seems to be that a silent choice type of exhaust can probably meet the standard at idle while retaining full performance under load.
What I see as a bigger obstacle in the bill is the introduction of a coastal noise limit. This would be virtually impossible to comply with in any performance boat actually being used. The only promise I can see here is that it would be equally difficult to enforce.
