California CARB survey

[Warren]

A friend got this letter from our friends at CARB.

Out of curiosity I looked at the survey, but first off.

* Pardon the crude cut and paste.
Would you respond to the survey?
What would you say?
Would you call that number listed and question them?
Do you think they are trying to make it so we can get better alcohol free fuel in California? BTW there an app for that.... But it says the closest gas station that sells alcohol free fuel is in Arizona
Could this be the predecessor of killing the pre smog exemption?
"Models that inform air quality programs."

WTF are they up to?
Walking the line about political speech here but waiting for them to come for my incandescent light bulbs which are nice when it's cold out and did a little dehumidifying on the boat... Oh but that's another thread
__________________________ Here's the Survey.



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.
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:

Select your answer
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:

Enter your answer
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
Next
Never give out your password.Report abuse
This content is created by the owner of the form. The data you submit will be sent to the form owner. Microsoft is not responsible for the privacy or security practices of its customers, including those of this form owner. Never give out your password.
Powered by Microsoft Forms | The owner of this form has not provided a privacy statement as to how they will use your response data. Do not provide personal or sensitive information. | Terms of use

Page 2




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

Thank you for completing this survey! We value your input and would like to offer you an opportunity to participate in a focus group to further discuss the topics related to questions asked in this survey.

8.If you’re interested in joining a focus group session, please leave your email/phone number below so we can contact you directly:

9.Please share any additional comments you have regarding your vehicle, vehicle activity, or the survey itself:

BackSubmit

Never give out your password.Report abuse

This content is created by the owner of the form. The data you submit will be sent to the form owner. Microsoft is not responsible for the privacy or security practices of its customers, including those of this form owner. Never give out your password.

Powered by Microsoft Forms |

The owner of this form has not provided a privacy statement as to how they will use your response data. Do not provide personal or sensitive informati
on.

| Terms of use

 

[Mike O'D]

I guarantee that whatever it is, it is not in the best interest of the older vehicle owners.

 

[Bill Blue]

I guarantee that whatever it is, it is not in the best interest of the older vehicle owners.

Don't know about CARB, but the EPA is very sensitive about developing and enforcing regs, especially on old stuff. Typically, there are so few examples (car, etc,) and used so infrequently it is not worth the effort. EPA calculations for the nation probably do not fit California. For most of the country, Mother Nature and salt remove cars from the fleet at an alarming rate. Not so Sunny California. Perhaps CARB is taking a page out of the EPA "How to do it" book.

It is obvious they are trying to get a handle on the air impact of "older" cars. What they will do with it is anybodies guess. One thing is obvious, without data they will be forced to go whole hog.

 

[spmdr]

YEARS ago, I read Pre-smog (1975 and older) cars ON the road

in CA. were 0.6% of the total.

DW

 

[Toyanvil]

"I don't asker questions" is all I would say. They are up to something, and it's not to help us.

 

[Warren]

Maybe another question. Since a few of the questions revolve around Stabil or some other fuel stabilizer maybe they want us to use it ? Maybe they don't like it? Who knows maybe they don't like Sea Foam additive either? Although I never believed adding an oil to gasoline in 4 stroke motors except when restarting a long dormant motor most often an old motorcycle one.

But it seems that other forums are in on the discussion as a quick search shows.

I had a car that ran on propane or gasoline but it seems like nothing but the equivalent of 1.21 jigawatts to power vehicles is good enough. Lol every time I see a CNG powered trash truck or transit bus.

As for spmdr comment and those of you out of Cali..
We have the most aggravating CARB fuel tanks with these stupid spots that don't work well and are made to not be vented. Like the old dual screw cap ones weren't enough to contain the evaporating gas and swell if left in a hot car. Anyone ever parked their Sunbeam in a really sunny spot with a full tank of gas and streaked their paint...

I run the carb dry if I'm not going to use the car during the week and place a stopper in the fuel neck.

 

[husky drvr]

Since a few of the questions revolve around Stabil or some other fuel stabilizer

Since Cali has legislated the end of small IC engines for most seasonal duty applications, wouldn't be surprised if the thought is to ban stabilizers to help push all IC's closer to the "end of the line" due to increased hassle for the infrequent usage. I doubt CARB or EPA would certify any stabilizer as EMISSIONS safe.

Just a thought,

 

[spmdr]

Yup, CARB has to be,...dare I say it,....Burning the Midnight oil...

in an effort to remove IC/EC EVERYTHING from CA.

...he says as FIREs Burn in the State...

DW

 

[Bill Blue]

Don't know about CARB, but the EPA is very sensitive about developing and enforcing regs, especially on old stuff. Typically, there are so few examples (car, etc,) and used so infrequently it is not worth the effort. EPA calculations for the nation probably do not fit California. For most of the country, Mother Nature and salt remove cars from the fleet at an alarming rate. Not so Sunny California. Perhaps CARB is taking a page out of the EPA "How to do it" book.

I dunno, but wonder if stabilizers alter the tank emissions. Maybe even by adding compounds not used in gasoline.
Bill

 

[Series6]

The minute they say:

“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.”

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

you have to believe they can, and will, ID you. They don’t invest the money and time to prepare a survey then further invest the funds unless there’s a purpose.

 

[Warren]

I dunno, but wonder if stabilizers alter the tank emissions. Maybe even by adding compounds not used in gasoline.
Bill

Hmmm I'll have to look over the Stabil for a CARB blessing or other EPA DOT BS.

 

[Series6]

We had an employee satisfaction, questionnaire sent out about a year or so ago. Had the same footnote. “Totally anonymous.”

One of our people actually believed that, and answered honestly. Amazingly enough, she was terminated by the end of the month. Nobody could ever figure out why.

 

[Alpine 1789]

I wasn’t going to weigh in on this one, but as someone who spent more than 30 years in the marketing research industry and once served on the Board of Directors for the primary industry association, I do think I have something to contribute here. To start with, the CARB survey looks legitimate to me. This is pure speculation, but I imagine they are simply trying to get a handle on how much old cars are driven in order to understand their impact on the environment. The inclusion of the question on fuel stabilizer is interesting. It is possible that, as suggested earlier, the stabilizer adds to the emissions generated by old engines. It is also possible that they retard the evaporation of the fuel and are environmentally beneficial. I suspect at least one of our members has the knowledge necessary to figure that out.

But, the key question here – at least for this old, retired market researcher – seems to be whether or not individual respondent’s data are secure. I will guarantee that this is the case if the Air Resources Board has farmed this survey out to a reputable research company. (More on that in a second.) Congress has typically exempted the market research industry from many regulations (e.g., Do No Call Registry) because the industry is considered self-regulating and has an exemplary track record in this regard. You can trust them if a reputable company tells you that your data is secure and will not be shared.

Note that keeping your individual data confidential and what the end-user client does with the aggregate information are two entirely different things. Yes, the CARB could use the results of this study to propose or enact new requirements that would be detrimental to our hobby. Anyone who receives the survey will need to decide whether they want their experiences included in the results, but, as Bill noted, they will be reported and used with or without you and I would argue that a larger representative sample is better for us all than one biased by limited cooperation.

Now, all that said, I don’t see anything in what Warren has posted to suggest that they have hired an outside company to conduct the survey. The sentence “Only CARB staff will have access to the data collected during this survey” suggests that they are conducting it themselves. I take them at their word that “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.” This would be a pretty risky statement to make in today’s litigious society, but yes, CARB staff will apparently see your individual survey. Still, I highly doubt that anyone is going to the trouble to try and match the 5-digit code to an individual’s identifying information. It just wouldn’t be worth the trouble.

FWIW, everything I said above also applies to employee surveys. I would have no qualms answering an employee survey honestly, if it was being conducted by a good outside supplier. There is no question that some disreputable companies have misused employee research and I would not feel the same about a survey that my employer self-conducted. (While not survey research, here is an example of how one disreputable company went about gathering employee data: https://www.latimes.com/california/...aldi-worker-confessions-wage-theft-settlement.)

Finally, I have referenced “reputable” research companies several times. How do you know if a survey is being conducted by a reputable company? This can be pretty hard to ascertain on your own, but one good way is to see if a research company or corporate research department is a member of the Insights Association. This is the industry association I mentioned above and respondent confidentiality is sacred to the members of this association. The next time your get a survey, you might want to check to see if the company is a member. Not being a member doesn't mean that you data will be misused, but you should feel safe trusting your data to a member. https://www.insightsassociation.org/Membership/Our-Members

 

[Bill Blue]

I wasn’t going to weigh in on this one, but as someone who spent more than 30 years in the marketing research industry and once served on the Board of Directors for the primary industry association, I do think I have something to contribute here. To start with, the CARB survey looks legitimate to me. This is pure speculation, but I imagine they are simply trying to get a handle on how much old cars are driven in order to understand their impact on the environment. The inclusion of the question on fuel stabilizer is interesting. It is possible that, as suggested earlier, the stabilizer adds to the emissions generated by old engines. It is also possible that they retard the evaporation of the fuel and are environmentally beneficial. I suspect at least one of our members has the knowledge necessary to figure that out.

But, the key question here – at least for this old, retired market researcher – seems to be whether or not individual respondent’s data are secure. I will guarantee that this is the case if the Air Resources Board has farmed this survey out to a reputable research company. (More on that in a second.) Congress has typically exempted the market research industry from many regulations (e.g., Do No Call Registry) because the industry is considered self-regulating and has an exemplary track record in this regard. You can trust them if a reputable company tells you that your data is secure and will not be shared.

Note that keeping your individual data confidential and what the end-user client does with the aggregate information are two entirely different things. Yes, the CARB could use the results of this study to propose or enact new requirements that would be detrimental to our hobby. Anyone who receives the survey will need to decide whether they want their experiences included in the results, but, as Bill noted, they will be reported and used with or without you and I would argue that a larger representative sample is better for us all than one biased by limited cooperation.

Now, all that said, I don’t see anything in what Warren has posted to suggest that they have hired an outside company to conduct the survey. The sentence “Only CARB staff will have access to the data collected during this survey” suggests that they are conducting it themselves. I take them at their word that “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.” This would be a pretty risky statement to make in today’s litigious society, but yes, CARB staff will apparently see your individual survey. Still, I highly doubt that anyone is going to the trouble to try and match the 5-digit code to an individual’s identifying information. It just wouldn’t be worth the trouble.

FWIW, everything I said above also applies to employee surveys. I would have no qualms answering an employee survey honestly, if it was being conducted by a good outside supplier. There is no question that some disreputable companies have misused employee research and I would not feel the same about a survey that my employer self-conducted. (While not survey research, here is an example of how one disreputable company went about gathering employee data: https://www.latimes.com/california/...aldi-worker-confessions-wage-theft-settlement.)

Finally, I have referenced “reputable” research companies several times. How do you know if a survey is being conducted by a reputable company? This can be pretty hard to ascertain on your own, but one good way is to see if a research company or corporate research department is a member of the Insights Association. This is the industry association I mentioned above and respondent confidentiality is sacred to the members of this association. The next time your get a survey, you might want to check to see if the company is a member. Not being a member doesn't mean that you data will be misused, but you should feel safe trusting your data to a member. https://www.insightsassociation.org/Membership/Our-Members

Nice to see a sane, facts based on industry knowledge, comment.
Bill

 

[Alpine 1789]

Thanks, Bill.

 

[Warren]

Pretty obvious that the LA Times is a opinion oriented rag. But holy cow that is a good one a priest ratting out a confidential conversation. I'm surprised that California doesn't require a license for clergy to protect their citizens

In reality California does cater to the IC engine and leaf I mean dust blower gardener crowd only. So it's questionable if they will impact that labor force too much. They have already stopped towing away cars for drivers without insurance and lowered the fine to about the same price as minimum PL/PD for 6 months, but I digress to my former insurance agent hat.

I also wonder how/when they will go after all the new pellet pizza ovens and BBQs gas stoves CNG trash trucks and so on.

Whoa, I'll get off that slippery slope...

 

[Alpine 1789]

I was curious enough after posting this that I decided to write to the study's author and ask about the research. I also Googled her, just out of curiosity. (Once a researcher...) She is not a survey researcher, but an environmental scientist, with a PhD in Environmental Engineering from North Carolina State University. (To the original issue as to the confidentiality of the responses, I doubt she shares my industry's passion for protecting confidentiality, but as a data geek, I also doubt she has any interest in individual responses.)

Surprisingly, she responded to my email right away. Here is what she told me:

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your email!

We're from the CARB's on-road emission inventory modeling group. The purpose of the survey is to help us update information about vehicles older than 45 years old (MY 1978 and older as of today) in our on-road emissions inventory model, EMFAC. Because miles driven per year decreases as vehicles age, the current model assumption is that vehicles leave the fleet after they become 45 years old. However, through DMV we see over a half a million vehicles over 45 years old in the fleet, which is about two percent of the light-duty vehicle population.

We are exploring reincorporating vehicles older than 45 years old in a future release of EMFAC, but just want to make sure the number of miles driven per year is dialed in the best we can. In addition, we are trying to assess whether evaporative emissions should be discounted in any way if fuel tanks are drained, or additives are used in the tanks when vehicles are not in use. That’s why we have questions regarding vehicle storage and fuel tank.

The results of the survey will be used in research purpose only and will not affect their vehicle registration/smog status at all.

Let me know if you have any other questions!

Regards,

Wan

Wan Jiao, PhD Staff Air Pollution Specialist On-Road Light Duty Analysis Section Air Quality Planning and Science Division 951.542.3220

I followed up to get permission to share here letter, which was promptly received. I also asked whether the results would be made public. They will, but not until the overall model update is finished in 2025. I'll try to remember to check back in a couple of years.

 

[Warren]

Federal Register :: Request Access

Federal Register :: Request Access

WTH is EMFAC and where is my glasses

 

[Alpine 1789]

She said the results will be posted on their website (https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/). "This website is named after EMission FACtor (EMFAC), a model that estimates the official emissions inventories of onroad mobile sources in California."

I flagged the email from her for follow-up in March 2025. I only hope I can still remember what this was by then.

 

[spmdr]

Back in the '90s to early 2000s, I was getting CA BAR publications.

They reported on things like the age of vehicles on the road.

As you can imagine, the older cars were going down every year.

Based on the above numbers, I wonder IF the old car numbers

( ON the road ) are going UP?? !!!! Hmmmmmm

...or is it just a case of every year a bigger population of cars gets

added to the "over 45" group??.....or some other numbers thing...

Hmmmmm

DW