California SB 712 smog exemption

[Karl Grau]

It has been tried multiple times and will never happen but having Jan Leno backing it can't hurt. 


"SB 712, as introduced, Grove. Smog check: exemption. Existing law establishes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (smog check) program that is administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs. The smog check program requires inspection of motor vehicles upon initial registration, biennially upon renewal of registration, upon transfer of ownership, and in certain other circumstances. Existing law exempts specified vehicles from being inspected biennially upon renewal of registration, including, among others, all motor vehicles manufactured prior to the 1976 model year. Existing law also exempts from specified portions of the smog test a collector motor vehicle that is insured as a collector motor vehicle, is at least 35 model years old, complies with the exhaust emissions standards for that motor vehicle’s class and model year as prescribed by the department, and that passes a functional inspection of the fuel cap and a visual inspection for liquid fuel leaks. This bill would delete the above partial smog check exemption for collector motor vehicles from existing law. Instead, the bill would fully exempt a collector motor vehicle from the smog check requirement if the vehicle is at least 35 model years old and proof is submitted that the motor vehicle is insured as a collector motor vehicle, as specified."

 

[Mike W.]

Exempt after only 35 years? My gawd, are you mad? That would mean pre 1990!!! I'd be doing cartwheels if it was reduced to 40 years and I'd expect more like a requirement of all post 1950 vehicles to have an annual or biannual smog test. (except a few of us in certain areas) With standards tightened every few years.

Love to see it, but the number of people who own, or enjoy seeing, older cars on the road, compared to those who don't want to breath dirty air, are few. Stats don't number, if there's only 12 people who would be given a break in this state of 40M, vs, supporting "clean air" is a bigger vote getter than acknowledging that only 12 people benefit from relaxed standard and seeing those cars on the road, and and the new relaxed standards would have unquantifiable benefits or lack thereof, it's not going to pass.

Phew, ok,I feel better now. Sorry. Better now. I remember when I was in Jr High school my Dad would throw the term "cynic" at me after one of my endless pronouncements about life. Some thing never change.

[stuartinmn]

We had smog checks for a period of time in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area back in the 1990s, but they ultimately dropped the requirement.  The vast majority of cars on the road were new enough and their emissions were low enough that they determined it was a waste of money.  Cars were taken off the road for other reasons (crashed, rusted out, etc.) before they were worn out enough to have poor emissions.  I suppose cars in California typically last longer due to the mild climate, but even so the number of cars that are 35 years old and still in regular use has to be very small.  It would save the state money with probably minimal effects on air pollution, so the legislation makes sense to me.

[MLastovo]

…so the legislation makes sense to me.



 

 

Never forget which State we are talking about. Most things it does makes little (commen) sense to me.
Check out this local to me nugget.
Who Thought This Was A Great Idea?
D

[vinceg101]

Phew, ok,I feel better now. Sorry. Better now. I remember when I was in Jr High school my Dad would throw the term "cynic" at me after one of my endless pronouncements about life. Some thing never change.

Cynics of the world unite!
I too would love this to happen but hold out little hope. This would be completely against the state's mandate to rid CA of any vehicle older than 10-15years in the blinded quest for cleaner air. Because let's face it, the biennial SMOG requirements have nothing to do with actual vehicle safety and instead everything to do with revenue generation (with cleaner air as a benefit). Their real goal (IMHO) is about making folks buy new/newer cars so the state can generate more money off the sales taxes and registration fees year over year. Yes, there are benefits reaped by all for newer, cleaner and better fuel economics with newer vehicles, but the SMOG program generates too much money for the state for them to start dismantling it piece by piece even if it's for a relatively small portion of the population.

So: Will it happen this time? I don't hold my breath, but would be overjoyed to see it come to fruition. I may even do my civic duty and send the form email to my State Assembly people this time.

PS: There are over 8 counties in the state of CA where one is exempt from biennial SMOG testing requirements already. Registration and management of it is relatively simple between both the online services from DMV and AAA.

[Karl Grau]

The bill has been officially renamed Leno's Law and no longer requires collector car insurance. It effectively replaces the fixed 1976 cutoff with a rolling 35-year exemption for biennial smog checks. It also eliminates any smog requirement upon the sale of a vehicle 35 years or older.

With Jay Leno’s backing, the bill is gaining lots of attention. SEMA is also strongly supporting it and its currently backed by 20 Senators. Looks like it has some momentum this time around.
Tomorrow (4/8/25) The California Senate Transportation Committee is considering this bill with a hearing open to the public at 1:30. If you're in Sacramento,  please attend! 

The M5 passed last month with good results but it's always a crap shoot. 





 

[gadget73]

Amusingly the original requirement was a rolling 30 years.  The Governator changed it to be stuck at 1976. 
 

[MyE21]

Karl, your M5 is looking good!

also the bill moved through committee today and looks like it will have the votes to pass.

It’s not quite as great as just moving the 1976 requirement to a rolling 35 years (car also has to be registered as a legally limited-use “collector car”), but it sure helps a lot and is a massive step forward.

[MLastovo]

The local rep SUCKS!

"At the hearing, Sen. Catherine Blakespear raised concerns that the bill could be abused by people who just wanted to hold on to their "older, junkier cars," which could negatively impact the state's air quality."

https://www.kcra.com/article/jay-leno-c ... s/64419309

I wonder what color her white Tesla is?
D.

[Ibmotoren]

Karl, your M5 is looking good!

also the bill moved through committee today and looks like it will have the votes to pass.

It’s not quite as great as just moving the 1976 requirement to a rolling 35 years (car also has to be registered as a legally limited-use “collector car”), but it sure helps a lot and is a massive step forward.

 

 

 

 

If you’re referring to the collector car insurance requirement, it looks like they struck that verbiage out of the bill thankfully. 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20260SB712 

[gadget73]

Will CA even issue historic / collector plates if you don't have something tagged with regular plates?  I'd be surprised if they do, and it would largely eliminate the whole idea of people just keeping old junkers to avoid smog laws since it would mean people are keeping a smog compliant vehicle as well. 

Yeah someone will probably drive their older thing more, heck, I put more miles on my old stuff than my daily driver, but I'd still suggest its a drop in the ocean.  If they are really concerned about air quality there are more effective means of reducing it than making life difficult for the small number of people interested in driving mid 70s - early 90s vehicles. 

heck they should be able to use DMV stats to figure out what percent of vehicles in CA are made between 1976 and 1990 and see exactly what potential effect this has.  Yes that number will probably increase somewhat if people don't have to worry about the emissions compliance but they can probably get an idea what possible shift that would be by looking at the same data for other states outside of the land of rust. 

[vinceg101]

Will CA even issue historic / collector plates if you don't have something tagged with regular plates?  I'd be surprised if they do, and it would largely eliminate the whole idea of people just keeping old junkers to avoid smog laws since it would mean people are keeping a smog compliant vehicle as well. 

Yeah someone will probably drive their older thing more, heck, I put more miles on my old stuff than my daily driver, but I'd still suggest its a drop in the ocean.  If they are really concerned about air quality there are more effective means of reducing it than making life difficult for the small number of people interested in driving mid 70s - early 90s vehicles. 

heck they should be able to use DMV stats to figure out what percent of vehicles in CA are made between 1976 and 1990 and see exactly what potential effect this has.  Yes that number will probably increase somewhat if people don't have to worry about the emissions compliance but they can probably get an idea what possible shift that would be by looking at the same data for other states outside of the land of rust. 

As to the Historic Plate issuance, what you suggest would constitute an overhaul of the current program (the only real requirement is the car needs to be 25 years old, no one ever enforces the "historical significance" requirement). I'm not saying DMW wouldn't do it, but the bureaucratic wheels of that agency move agonizingly slow; so I would bet there might be some folks who would take advantage of that loophole but I reckon it would be the folks that can't afford to step up out of their 1992 Toyota Corolla's.

As to you second part, I only refer you to my first post on this: it's not just about clean air but it's moreover revenue generation. I'm sure you are likely correct in that the environmental impact from a rather small sub-set of the cars on the road that fall into this category is negligible compared to rest of the industrial and construction sectors. What I'm saying is that the CA DMV doesn't care about that, giving even a small section of the car population a pass goes against their core goals.

Of course if they wanted to really balance their books (so to speak) they could go after shutting down the out of state registration tax-dodge (i.e. Montana registrations) that proliferate the classic vehicle and luxury/super car sectors; but that's a whole other discussion. (I understand that passing this bill will all but eliminate the need for most of the classic car owners to do this, but it won't affect the motorhome and Lambo owners).

[vinceg101]

Well, well, well...
The "Leno Law" passed the floor with a bi-partisan vote earlier today.
Now it's off to Senate Appropriations (so who knows what will happen to it).

One step closer.

[vinceg101]

Will CA even issue historic / collector plates if you don't have something tagged with regular plates?  I'd be surprised if they do, and it would largely eliminate the whole idea of people just keeping old junkers to avoid smog laws since it would mean people are keeping a smog compliant vehicle as well. 

To clarify: CA Historic Plates do not exempt one from biennial SMOG testing requirements unless the car is MY1975 or older (or now MY1990).

[Mike W.]

Amusingly the original requirement was a rolling 30 years.  The Governator changed it to be stuck at 1976. 
 

In the late 80's, early 90's it was a rolling 20. Of course if you want to go back to the begining of the the biannual smog test there was a $50 max repair cost on an untampered vehicle. Hmmm, that and $2K cats...

Well, well, well...
The "Leno Law" passed the floor with a bi-partisan vote earlier today.
Now it's off to Senate Appropriations (so who knows what will happen to it).

One step closer.

But still, I'll believe it when I see it.

[MyE21]

Karl, your M5 is looking good!

also the bill moved through committee today and looks like it will have the votes to pass.

It’s not quite as great as just moving the 1976 requirement to a rolling 35 years (car also has to be registered as a legally limited-use “collector car”), but it sure helps a lot and is a massive step forward.

 

 

If you’re referring to the collector car insurance requirement, it looks like they struck that verbiage out of the bill thankfully. 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20260SB712 

Yes, but it still needs to be registered as a “collector car” (as that term is defined under California law).

Technically and legally it can’t be a daily driver, needs to be only used for exhibitions, shows etc. 

Also, clearly it will pass the Senate as it only needs 21 votes there, and it has 20 co-authors and sponsors. But will it pass the Assembly (either in current form or as modified?) I can’t find any info or predictions on that.

so although having Leno and the high profile surrounding this, for now I’m not holding my breath.

[gadget73]

Will CA even issue historic / collector plates if you don't have something tagged with regular plates?  I'd be surprised if they do, and it would largely eliminate the whole idea of people just keeping old junkers to avoid smog laws since it would mean people are keeping a smog compliant vehicle as well. 

To clarify: CA Historic Plates do not exempt one from biennial SMOG testing requirements unless the car is MY1975 or older (or now MY1990).

I get thats the current law, but assuming this passes and it allows historic plates to be issued on 1990 and older vehicles with a smog exemption, can you have just a historic tagged vehicle without also having one on regular plates that requires the smog test? That was my question.

[MyE21]

To clarify: CA Historic Plates do not exempt one from biennial SMOG testing requirements unless the car is MY1975 or older (or now MY1990).

I get thats the current law, but assuming this passes and it allows historic plates to be issued on 1990 and older vehicles with a smog exemption, can you have just a historic tagged vehicle without also having one on regular plates that requires the smog test? That was my question.

That’s a good question. Perhaps the state won’t require it. But I get concerned about insurance. When you register the car as a historical vehicle, you sign under penalty of perjury a pretty serious statement saying you only use the car for car shows, etc. (see Box E on the form). Very limited allowed use.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2 ... g17a-1.pdf

so a couple things. First, even if the state doesn’t require a second daily driver car, your insurance company might. Second, if you can get away without having a second car, what if you get into an accident? Your insurance company will see that you were not legally permitted to drive the car for regular use. If you get into an accident on your way to work at 9 am on a Tuesday, where are you going to say you were going? 

this proposed law is nice for true limited use collector cars, but isn’t great like a straight rolling 35 year exemption would be.

[gadget73]

NJ historic plates do require a regular tagged vehicle. My collector insurance policy requires a regular one as well, but historic plates do not require collector insurance. It just costs a lot more to put regular insurance on a vehicle so I suspect most people don't do it. 

We have similar restricted use cases on paper, but realistically its not actively enforced. About the only time there is a chance of a problem is if you get into an accident and can't explain why you were out and about. 

[vinceg101]

To clarify: CA Historic Plates do not exempt one from biennial SMOG testing requirements unless the car is MY1975 or older (or now MY1990).

I get thats the current law, but assuming this passes and it allows historic plates to be issued on 1990 and older vehicles with a smog exemption, can you have just a historic tagged vehicle without also having one on regular plates that requires the smog test? That was my question.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the CA Historic Vehicle plate program: it applies to any vehicle 25 years or older (with the stated minimum requirements and uses listed, which a shockingly small list). It doesn't require the car to be under a collectors insurance policy nor states any mileage cap nor require a newer vehicle per owner/household. So right now the HV registration allows any car MY2000 or older. The CADMV will be (hopefully) modifying their biennial SMOG requirements so any car MY1990 or newer still needs to comply; any car older is exempt. In essence, this new bill just moves the cutoff date from MY1976 to MY1990. The HV registration program as no impact or correlation with this new SMOG modification.

In looking at the new amendments to SB712 (Leno's Law) which cite the standing Collector Vehicle definitions (CA Vehicle Code Section 259), the cars need only be defined as Collector Vehicles under these standing qualifications, not actually be registered under the HV program. At least that is how I'm reading it here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... ends=false
Also, a car need not be under a Collectors insurance policy to meet this qualification either under Section 259:
https://law.justia.com/codes/california ... ction-259/
(This was the last amendment to the bill removing this requirement)

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you can still register a car older than 1990 with regular plates (and/or any Special Interest or Personalized plates) and standard insurance but now is exempt from biennial SMOG testing.

While it's true that under the HV program, which is using the Collector's Vehicle definitions established in Section 259, in that the is car used only:
“...primarily in shows, parades, charitable functions, and historical exhibitions for display, maintenance, and preservation, and is not used primarily for transportation."
Interpretation of these qualifications is broad and very flexible; of course, if you're using a car for daily commuting with HV plates, you are exposing yourself to potential violations under this code, but as long as you're not passing the same cop day after day, you can usually claim your use under one of those qualifications easily (re: maintenance or relocation). So you asked if they would change the requirements of the HV program with the adaptation of SB712? Anything is possible, but since they don't require it now and since the HV program has no impact on the biennial SMOG rules anyway (only the age of the vehicle does not the registration class), I don't see them changing this.

I have my M535i under the HV registration and under a Collector's insurance policy and can tell you the insurance policy is way more restrictive than the CA HV program. I'm happily adhering to all the restrictions both mandate now so if and (hopefully) when SB712 becomes law, the only impact it will have on my situation is that I can once again register the car back in Los Angeles County.

[MyE21]

It gets confusing and there’s some uncertainty in the language, but the answer is in SB712, and current Vehicle Code sections 259, 5051 and 5004.

But, I don’t think it’s going to be a simple as all cars 1990 and older will be exempt. IMO, it’s not that broad, it’s clearly intended to be limited to some category of collector/limited use cars.

I do agree that it appears you can perhaps register a pre 1990 car on regular plates and be smog exempt (which would be great!). But then the question is, how would the DMV know whether your 1988 car is a SB712 smog exempt “collector motor vehicle” or a regular daily driver that still needs smog?

SB712 doesn’t provide a process for that or address it.

(Anyway, the state Assembly is different than the Senate, and I’m not confident this bill will make it through the Assembly. Hopeful, but I’ll believe it when I see it!)
 

[stuartinmn]

I hate it when people respond with how it's done in their state because it isn't necessarily relevant, but...in Minnesota you have to have a car with regular registration in order to have another car with collector plates.  If you only have the car with collector plates, they're going to assume you're also driving it for general use.  I would assume it's the same for other states including California.

Years ago I had a neighbor who tried to game the system - she drove an old piece of crap Oldsmobile and got collector plates for it to try to save a little money.  She was driving it around in January and got ticketed, it was pretty obvious it wasn't a collector car.

[vinceg101]

It gets confusing and there’s some uncertainty in the language, but the answer is in SB712, and current Vehicle Code sections 259, 5051 and 5004.

But, I don’t think it’s going to be a simple as all cars 1990 and older will be exempt. IMO, it’s not that broad, it’s clearly intended to be limited to some category of collector/limited use cars.

I do agree that it appears you can perhaps register a pre 1990 car on regular plates and be smog exempt (which would be great!). But then the question is, how would the DMV know whether your 1988 car is a SB712 smog exempt “collector motor vehicle” or a regular daily driver that still needs smog?

SB712 doesn’t provide a process for that or address it.

(Anyway, the state Assembly is different than the Senate, and I’m not confident this bill will make it through the Assembly. Hopeful, but I’ll believe it when I see it!)
 

It's definitely an open-ended loophole of sorts for sure. SB712 provides no method for distinction other than to defer to Section 259 for the definitions. It certainly implies that ALL vehicles older than MY1990 are now automatically re-classed as Classic Cars and therefore will be restricted from normal usage. This will potentially take tens of thousands of vehicles off the road. This would be a huge legal move by CA DMV and the State which I have a feeling is not there initial intention (although it very well might be as it was the backroom deal they made in order to get support for the bill?). If all that is true then SB712 will actually fulfill the State's goals of ridding older cars from the vehicle stock or at least off the roads on a daily basis.

However in practical application (between the DMV and LEO) the other qualifications for a classifying a car as "Classic" or Historic are rarely if ever enforced; they only consider the age of the vehicle.

Who knows how the actual law will be written once it gets out of Appropriations, perhaps they will address this with some clarifications.

[vinceg101]

I hate it when people respond with how it's done in their state because it isn't necessarily relevant, but...in Minnesota you have to have a car with regular registration in order to have another car with collector plates.  If you only have the car with collector plates, they're going to assume you're also driving it for general use.  I would assume it's the same for other states including California.

You would think that, but California has no restriction or requirement. The DMV apparently leaves it up the police to enforce it, which they rarely if ever do. Perhaps that will change with SB712.

[stuartinmn]

This is only speculation, but while they may want to get older vehicles off the road because of safety or emissions reasons, it may also be they don't fully understand there are people who drive older cars as their primary (or only) vehicle either by choice, or by necessity because they can't afford anything newer.

[gadget73]

^^ Without the collector plates, I would expect that doesn't get the smog exemption though, so whatever politician's hand wringing about all those old dirty cars is fairly moot. If thats not the case then maybe they have a point but it seems easy enough to fix.  Smog exemption applies only to vehicles with collector plates, and collector plates will only be issued to someone with at least one other vehicle that is issued with standard plates that do not allow an exemption. 

I mean I guess you could put regular plates on a 1962 whatever that doesn't need smog checks anyway and put your smog check exempt plates on your E28. 


 

[MyE21]

It gets confusing and there’s some uncertainty in the language, but the answer is in SB712, and current Vehicle Code sections 259, 5051 and 5004.

But, I don’t think it’s going to be a simple as all cars 1990 and older will be exempt. IMO, it’s not that broad, it’s clearly intended to be limited to some category of collector/limited use cars.

I do agree that it appears you can perhaps register a pre 1990 car on regular plates and be smog exempt (which would be great!). But then the question is, how would the DMV know whether your 1988 car is a SB712 smog exempt “collector motor vehicle” or a regular daily driver that still needs smog?

SB712 doesn’t provide a process for that or address it.

(Anyway, the state Assembly is different than the Senate, and I’m not confident this bill will make it through the Assembly. Hopeful, but I’ll believe it when I see it!)

 

It's definitely an open-ended loophole of sorts for sure. SB712 provides no method for distinction other than to defer to Section 259 for the definitions. It certainly implies that ALL vehicles older than MY1990 are now automatically re-classed as Classic Cars and therefore will be restricted from normal usage. This will potentially take tens of thousands of vehicles off the road. This would be a huge legal move by CA DMV and the State which I have a feeling is not there initial intention (although it very well might be as it was the backroom deal they made in order to get support for the bill?). If all that is true then SB712 will actually fulfill the State's goals of ridding older cars from the vehicle stock or at least off the roads on a daily basis.

However in practical application (between the DMV and LEO) the other qualifications for a classifying a car as "Classic" or Historic are rarely if ever enforced; they only consider the age of the vehicle.

Who knows how the actual law will be written once it gets out of Appropriations, perhaps they will address this with some clarifications.

It’s confusing, but I don’t really see how it implies that all vehicles older than MY1990 are automatically classified as Collector Cars.

SB712 exempts “collector motor vehicles” as defined by VC259.  VC259 has 2 requirements for a car to be a “collector motor vehicle.” First, it has to be owned by a “collector.” Second, it has to used primarily for shows, etc. If both of those are not true, it’s not a “collector motor vehicles.”

The default is a car is a regular car, unless both of the VC259 requirements are met.

(VC259: “Collector motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle owned by a collector, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5051, and the motor vehicle is used primarily in shows, parades, charitable functions, and historical exhibitions for display, maintenance, and preservation, and is not used primarily for transportation.“)

[vinceg101]

...Smog exemption applies only to vehicles with collector plates, and collector plates will only be issued to someone with at least one other vehicle that is issued with standard plates that do not allow an exemption. 

That was my point: it doesn't actually state that at all in SB712. The bill only refers back to the qualifications as defined in Section 259 (which also happens to be the guidelines for issuing either CA Historic Vehicle and Horseless Carriage registrations & plates).

What SB712 says is that in order to qualify for the new SMOG exemption, the car & use need only meet those requirements and definitions. HV registration (Collector's plates, etc.) has nothing to do with SB712 and vice versa.

At least at the moment; who knows what the final wording will be once it leaves Appropriations. They very well could clarify this and/or make other restrictions, but since their deal is about money, I don't expect them get into the tall grass too much but since the HV & HC registrations could potentially cost more than a standard registration on an old car (these are a flat rate per year whereas regular registration is initially based on purchase price eventually graduated down to a bottom tier fixed price), they could change it all and likely raise the price of everything at the same time.

[vinceg101]

This is only speculation, but while they may want to get older vehicles off the road because of safety or emissions reasons, it may also be they don't fully understand there are people who drive older cars as their primary (or only) vehicle either by choice, or by necessity because they can't afford anything newer.

Oh, I'm sure they're aware of that but they likely don't care. After all, while clean air is public relations reason for SMOG, money generation is the bottom line.

[Mike W.]

Oh, I'm sure they're aware of that but they likely don't care.

That I agree with, 100%.

After all, while clean air is public relations reason for SMOG, money generation is the bottom line.

This part not so much. At least not the second part. Now I don't know who can argue against clean air, well, I guess I do know of one person with an artificial orange completion, but at least here in Calif everyone supports clean air. Not a bad thing, I remember LA in the 60's with brown sky and air. I'm not sure the state sees much if any money from the smog test program, it all, or mostly, goes to the test stations. But it's politics and philosophy, a mix of a "Let them eat cake" attitude along with a lack of understanding about why everyone doesn't drive new electric or hybrid at least cars, combined with a lack of interest about anything that happened before say, 2010.

And to complicate it, I'll throw this out there. I live in a "relaxed" enforcement part of the state, meaning smog is on transfer only. Cool!!! I love it! But... there's some guys up the street with some pickups, modified, which is not a bad thing, but running so rich my eyes water when they start them up and run them for a while. This is like 6 or 8 houses away. Can't there be a balance between so dirty it would probably break the test machine and wanting test results cleaner than they were 30 years ago?