Smog Exemption Status for US ALL!! (In California)

[Efren]

That’s a Major win so far.

Hope it keeps going

[Tom]

There seems to be some confusion about whether they added back the collector car insurance and plate requirement, but some are reporting they did.

[Efren]

There seems to be some confusion about whether they added back the collector car insurance and plate requirement, but some are reporting they did.

I met a PCA member from So Cal area. His name I think is Alfred. He has a California Collector car license plate. He said DMV is clueless on the procedure. There is a form he filled out and sent the form with the car title to get the plates.

[Tom]

Sounds like they did add back those requirements. Not the end of the world, but a boon to the collector car insurance industry for sure....

[cda951]

Sounds like they did add back those requirements. Not the end of the world, but a boon to the collector car insurance industry for sure....

Yup, the Hagertys of the world put in their work. Kind of a shame, but there are far more egregious versions of lobbying going on elsewhere . . . . still not optimistic this will pass the full Senate.

Three of our current fleet would be affected by SB712, the '86 951 would be the greatest beneficiary (hello 07K swap), the '81 Alfa GTV6 maybe so (but SB712 does not address its rust issues), but I would keep the '90 944S2 cabriolet stock, it runs and performs great as-is, being a cruiser convertible.

[Tom]

Sounds like they did add back those requirements. Not the end of the world, but a boon to the collector car insurance industry for sure....

Yup, the Hagertys of the world put in their work. Kind of a shame, but there are far more egregious versions of lobbying going on elsewhere . . . . still not optimistic this will pass the full Senate.

Three of our current fleet would be affected by SB712, the '86 951 would be the greatest beneficiary (hello 07K swap), the '81 Alfa GTV6 maybe so (but SB712 does not address its rust issues), but I would keep the '90 944S2 cabriolet stock, it runs and performs great as-is, being a cruiser convertible.

When the bill was passed in the Appropriations Committee last week, they added back the requirements for collector car insurance, and historic vehicle license plates. In order to qualify for those plates, the car needs to be a 'special interest vehicle.' Take note of the definition of a special interest vehicle:

(b) “Special interest vehicle” is a vehicle of an age that is unaltered from the manufacturer's original specifications and, because of its significance, including, but not limited to, an out-of-production vehicle or a model of less than 2,000 sold in California in a model-year, is collected, preserved, restored, or maintained by a hobbyist as a leisure pursuit.

Reading that line 5150(b) of the Vehicle Code closely, it awkwardly says "a vehicle of an age that is unaltered from...." so it seems like the literal interpretation of that clause is that the age (model year?) must be unaltered -- i.e., that you can't try to pass off a new car as an old car. And not that the car itself must be unaltered. The CA Bureau of Automotive Repair, however, says "A special interest vehicle is one that is collected, preserved, restored, or maintained by a hobbyist. The vehicle must not be altered from the manufacturer’s original specifications. (Vehicle Code section 5051(b))." So the BAR seems to jump over the 'age' language and proclaim the car itself must be unaltered. Maybe there is some legislative history to support that, but it seems at odds with the actual statute. Intentional, or just a mis-read of an oddly worded sentence? I'd note the the current DMV form for getting a historic license plate makes no mention of originality.

My worry is that CARB will use the 'unaltered from the mfg's original specification' as an opening to (in effect) continue essentially all smog rules and regulation other than the actual tailpipe test itself. CARB is a vocal opponent to the bill, so one could imagine them trying to bootstrap that language to achieve their goals up to but just short of actual smog testing. If they do, I could see it ending up in court to decide what 5150(b) really means.

[dr bob]

I wonder who will get to certify that the car is "unaltered"? Do I need to use only Porsche-branded maintenance pieces? How will they determine altered engine tunes or stiffer waste-gate springs? When does it need to "pass" the "unaltered" test? The whole idea is to get away from biannual nanny-state regular inspections, so it seems like one good initial inspection report and 'certification' by [someone, owner, other] not-defined 'inspector' should be enough.

Will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

----

When we lived in Cali, just the smog inspection was an exercise in teaching the 'inspector' where things were. The vacuum lines label on the inside of the hood was a particular challenge for most, because it was drawn as a lookdown bit rotated 180º. So everything is on the opposite side of the engine bay from where it appears to be in the diagram. Until you figure out the the pointy part is the front. Patience and education seemed to work a lot better than anything else. Will that strategy work with inspectors or 'referees'? Hmmm... I suspect there will need to be an extended bureaucracy established just for these otherwise-scofflaw 'collector' car owners like Jay Leno.

Meanwhile, central Oregon seems to be a regular paradise for otherwise cast-off non-compliant Cali vehicles. For as much as the locals like to tout their green and environmentally-sensitive beliefs, it's pretty easy to find some eye-watering tailpipes at almost any intersection. Just don't inhale, Mister President.

[Tom]

Poking around the internet, it doesn't sound like there is any current process to confirm that the 'vehicle is of an age that is unaltered from its manufacturer's original specifications' whatever that means.... Of course, regulators could always come up with one to better serve and protect us.

[dr bob]

For those interested in the details, here's a link to the amendments so far (5/27/25 0800 Pacific time):
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB712/id/3186800

I don't see anything on the actual mechanics, but do see some hints that there may still be biannual inspections. I don't know if the SB712 designator stays with the legislation as it passes to the state house of representatives, and/or if this link will be updated during that process.

Folks in California should read this very carefully, and don't be afraid to inform your state representatives about language you'd like to see adjusted or clarified. Maybe share comments here to present a common message from the many voices. And tell your friends! Voices = votes on stuff like this, and the bureaucrats know it.

[Tom]

For those interested in the details, here's a link to the amendments so far (5/27/25 0800 Pacific time):
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB712/id/3186800

I don't see anything on the actual mechanics, but do see some hints that there may still be biannual inspections. I don't know if the SB712 designator stays with the legislation as it passes to the state house of representatives, and/or if this link will be updated during that process.

Folks in California should read this very carefully, and don't be afraid to inform your state representatives about language you'd like to see adjusted or clarified. Maybe share comments here to present a common message from the many voices. And tell your friends! Voices = votes on stuff like this, and the bureaucrats know it.

I'm not sure that link picks up the changes made at the appropriations committee last week. I can't find the latest amendments yet. Based on the structure of the changes in the link you posted though, at least until amended further, it seems to create a categorical exception for older cars that meet the requirements, just like cars that are pre '76 now. It also relies on existing legislative definitions that have no compliance scheme (yet) and expressly eliminates the quirky state-run testing on current collector cars. That last point makes it very clear that the intent of this legislation is to eliminate smog tests for cars meeting the requirements -- so if CARB tried to develop a smog compliance program based on the 'unaltered' language in 5051(b) or otherwise, I think they'd face an uphill battle in the courts over the plain language of 5051(b) AND the clear/express legislative intent. In summation your Honor....