"Leno's Law" CA SB 712... proposed extending emission test exemption to 35 years with conditions.

[Duke W.]

If you live in California you've probably heard about "Leno's Law" as it has been getting lots of media attention, and SEMA is firmly it.

Back in 2004 California AB 2683 that was passed by the legislature and signed by the turncoat governor froze the then current 25 year rolling emission test exemption at the 1975 model year. So if you own a '75 Corvette (or other 1975 marque) or older it became exempt from the biennial emission test, but '76 and up had to be tested every two years, forever!

There was a time that HV (historical vehicle) plates didn't have to be emission tested. There was actually no statutory authority for this. It was just the way the DMV computers were programmed, but this anomaly was not generally known by the vintage/enthusiast community. Then some morons from a certain "marque chat room" began making inquiries with DMV that led to a letter published on the Web by a deputy DMV director stating that HV plate vehicles were NOT exempt from emission testing, but it took a few more years for DMV to reprogram the computers to include HV plate vehicles in the emission test data base.

I've been after SEMA for years to get something going in the legislature to exempt HV plates, the rational being that they have driving restrictions, like an HV plate vehicle can't be used as a "daily driver". There was an attempt a couple of years ago by a legislator from Riverside to extend the emission test exemption to 1981, but it didn't go anywhere.

As most of you probably know there has been a sea change in the country since the last national election. Some of the "regressives" including California's insufferable governor have realized that their anchor issues really don't resonate with the majority of Americans. The "silent majority" is rising up to be heard, and with Leno's support I think SB 712 has a shot, but the automotive enthusiast community has to get behind it, and there's time to get organized.

Here are a couple of links with specific information on the bill.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB712

https://legiscan.com/CA/comments/SB712/2025

For sure if you live in California you need to contact your state Assembly Member and Senator. They don't have public email addresses, so you have to communicate with them through their web sites. Go to the following site.

https://www.senate.ca.gov/

Click "senators" in the upper left corner and "find my Senator". Input your address and this should provide you a link to both your Senator and Assembly Members' Web site. From there you can write a note of support and get phone numbers for their Sacramento and district offices.

SB 712 has been referred to the Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date has been scheduled, but I'll be back here to let you know when it is, and I also have information about HV plates that could save you a lot of money on licensing fees.

I also notified our (NCRS) President and the California Chapter Chairs so they can get the word out to those California NCRS members that don't regularly look at the TDB.

Stay tuned!

Duke

[Mark F.]

Duke,

I haven't read the existing CA/CARB regulations - nor do I care to (had enough of that as part of my job - 'nuff said there, eh?)

Questions:
Are the same CA emission testing limits (tailpipe concentrations of the regulated compounds CO; NOx; HCs; etc.) for "regularly-licensed cars" applied w/o modification to these vintage vehicles ?

Or is there a relaxed (adjusted-lower) set of criteria for these vintage cars which if not relaxed or qualified in some fashion would obviously flunk the tests ?

Here in the Pittsburgh PA area where I live, emissions testing is exempt if any currently-licensed vehicle is driven less than 5,000 miles per year. I have had this exemption on my Club Wagon Van for years. However, Annual inspection is required and that inspection determines the elapsed mileage since the last inspection and whether or not you can get the emissions exemption sticker.

Antique Vehicle Plates in PA, which I have on my '67 Corvette are not subject to any PA inspection laws, but as you say PA also places restrictions on use of the car w/ an antique plate.

As an aside - and sadly so - the horrible fires you guys out there have had to endure probably created more air pollution and health hazards than I imagine all the car emissions in CA combined could have produced in a year...certainly hundreds or maybe even thousands of times more emissions from "vintage-car-driven-miles". Of course, speculation on my part, but I'll bet the math is probably close IMHO.

[Duke W.]

California has a unique emission test called ASM (acceleration simulation mode) for all pre-OBD II cars. The test is run on a chassis dyno at 15 MPH and 25 MPH under higher load than required to maintain steady speed on a level road. Thus, it "simulates" acceleration, sort of...

Proportional emissions are measured (ppm for HC, CO, percent for CO, 0.1 percent = 1000 ppm) and the dyno load is based on a specific "test weight" of the vehicle, which is curb weight plus 200-300 pounds for driver and passenger or cargo.

Cars are divided into various "year groups" and there are formulas available on the CA BAR (Bureau of Automotive Repair) Web site that one can use to compute the cutpoints for any car if the test weight and year group are known. The test weight is listed on the test report along with the cutpoints, average measured emissions for the year group, and the test car's actual measured emissions.

As you are probably aware the original certification test and field tests that use the IM 240 method measure absolute emissions in grams per mile, but there is no absolute way to convert the original gr/mi certification test limits to proportional limits for the ASM test for all weight classes. I've had several conversations with the BAR over the years on how the limits are established, and I get a vague answer about statistical analysis of all the test results over the years and "wear allowances" for the various year groups... bottom line is that it's subjective!

There are some waivers of certain visual inspection requirements, but I'd have to do some research to recall what they are and what year groups they apply to. As far as the tailpipe cut points are concerned they apply to all year group/weight class vehicles regardless of how they are licensed (regular or various available "special plates" including HV), used 100 miles per year or 100,000... same, same.

A good example of what a huge hassle this can be to me and other owners is the Cosworth Vega. To control NOx emissions Chevrolet choose to index the cams with excessive overlap. This created a "full time" EGR system even though EGR is only needed for part load conditions. Full time EGR means that idle quality is poor at what would be considered "normal" idle speeds, and all that EGR kills low end torque. In order to achieve a steady vacuum with all the valve overlap, Chevrolet set the idle speed at 1600, and it's written right there on the tuneup-emission control label.

The first time I had to have it tested back in the eighties (two-speed no load test idle and 2500 only HC and CO) it failed because the software failed any idle speed over 1200. (Increasing idle speed usually lowers HC, especially with a big cam.) So we reduced the idle speed to a bit less than 1200, and the idle got all lopey with less manifold vacuum that wandered around with the lope, and the speed-density EFI system added more fuel to the point where it busted the HC cutpoint. (The idle actually sounded pretty cool - just like a small block with a Duntov cam, but I digress.) With considerable effort I got the BAR to add an "override" to the idle speed limit, but the owner had to tell the test tech, and then the tech had to figure out how to implement it... you can imagine what a mess that turned out to be.

When the ASM test was implemented I contacted the BAR. The guy I talked to claimed he "wrote the software" and there was no idle speed limitation. I accompanied a friend who had to get his CV tested before I did, and the system froze and couldn't be completed. Follow-up with the BAR eventually revealed that there was an "idle stabilization test" prior to the start of the loaded test, and there was still a 1200 RPM limit. The system never told the tech what the issue was. It just froze! So much for the guy who "wrote the software".

The workaround for this was to go to the "referee" who had the old "BAR 97" two speed/no load system that could override the idle speed limit. They refused to modify the ASM software to accommodate the CV's 1600 PRM idle speed, and lowering it to just under 1200 decreased idle stability to the point where it failed the idle stability test and would not proceed to the loaded test.

After I started working with engine simulation programs I got to the bottom of the valve timing issue. The CV cams' .050" duration net of the clearance ramps is 220 degrees, same lobe on both sides, and the POMLs/LSA are 102/110/106, which are pretty weird compared to other high performance OE cams. Working with the simulation programs to maximize torque bandwidth I retarded the inlet cam 8 degrees and advancing the exhaust cam 8 degrees. This changed the POMSs/LSA to 110/118/114. Sound familiar? It's the L-79 cam (222 degrees .050" lifter rise duration, same POMLs/LSA). Just goes to show you that Chevrolet knew how to design a broad torque bandwidth cam for a high performance short stroke road engine back in the day.

With the idle set at 900 (smooth, 18" steady manifold vacuum) it easily passed an ASM test. NOx doubled, but it was still only half the cut points. With the OE cam indexing fifth gear was not useable below 45 MPH. With the "L-79 cam" the little two-liter twin cam could easily pull from 30 MPH in fifth (1500 revs) and make useable power beyond 7000. I could idle it down to about 700, but at that speed the alternator will not even carry a light daytime load so I idle it at 900. Now it sounds like a four-cylinder tractor at idle rather than (at 1200) a small block with a Duntov cam, but the vastly improved low end torque and significantly improved around town fuel economy is a good tradeoff.

The other problem is that with fewer and fewer cars on the road that require the ASM test, the number of emission test stations that have the dyno equipment is decreasing, If the dyno breaks and need expensive repairs there is little incentive to repair (or replace it) due to a declining customer base. OBD II cars (1996-up) just need to have a code check and some visual inspections, and that's the vast majority of emission test business, nowadays.

The proposed "workaround' to this eventuality is for all pre-OBD cars to go to referees who will supposedly maintain functional ASM systems. There used to be a referee at a local community college about five miles away from me, but it's my understanding that it's been moved to a part of town at least 10 miles away that I won't drive to in any car, late model or vintage.

Duke

[Mark F.]

Although I have been to California MANY times and your state is so very beautiful top to bottom, I could not stand putting up w/ these ridiculous and non-scientific assaults on emissions from an extremely small sub-class of automotive exhaust emissions (vintage cars).

My guess is these are well less than 0.1% of the air emission problems in CA (this is MHO, but I am definitely biased against some of the EPA-risk-based numbers that I have had to deal with for more than 35 years - most particularly how CA takes the EPA numbers and then ramps them up to higher standards than the Fed minimums)

Your quote: As far as the tailpipe cut points are concerned they apply to all year group/weight class vehicles regardless of how they are licensed (regular or various available "special plates" including HV), used 100 miles per year or 100,000... same, same.

Absolutely insane ! I feel sorry for all of 'yinz in CA having to deal with this...

I live now (and grew up) in the Steel Capital of the U.S. (Pittsburgh PA) in the '50s and '60s...all gone now...
Talk about air pollution...vintage car emissions back then (re-expressed as a liquid comparison) would be like one drop in Lake Erie...no kidding...

Sorry for my rant, but the risk-based "science" regarding allowable contaminant concentrations in air pollution for public health is WAY over the top IMHO...'nuff said there...

Please tell Jay he has my support...and he's welcome to buy my '67 for his collection if he wants it - no emission controls present at all

[Duke W.]

I think most Americans, particularly those who didn't study "science" other than what was required to take through high school recently learned that not all science is simply solving an equation like Newton's Laws and Einstein's field equations. Most science is, in fact, squishy" because it's based on data and data often conflicts. LIke face masks didn't work and then they did so everyone had to mask up. Given that the COVID-19 virus major dimension is less than one micron I knew that was a crock. No single stage mechanical filter will catch something that small, and they have plenty of air gaps no matter how well you thought it fit. (Point of reference: quality automotive air and oil filters will remove 50 percent of 10 micron particles in a single pass.)

How many times have you heard a news report that a little bit of alcohol per day or coffee or whatever is good for you. Then a year or two later another study comes out that it's not. One thing scientists and politicians are good at is issuing press releases, and the journalism and polysci majors who make up most of the press eat them up hook, line, and sinker.

The Junkyard of Science is full of theories that proved wrong. Remember the "luminiferous aether"? Until the early 20th Century "science" thought there had to be some unseen medium in outer space that propagated electromagnetic waves, like light. Einstein proved in his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity that no such medium was required and the luminiferous aether was consigned to the Junkyard of Science.

We all know what did in the dinosaurs, right? When the Alvarez team presented the meteorite theory in the seventies they were laughed at and ridiculed by their fellow scientists. (And back then "science" thought we were headed for another ice age, not a thermal Armageddon.) It took over 20 years, but when the remnants of a 65 million year old, 120 mile diameter meteorite crater off the tip of the Yucatan Peninsula was found from oil exploration data the naysayers began to come around.

Sometimes theories relegated to the Junkyard of Science have to be resurrected, like the dinosour's demise and plate tectonics (originally proposed by a German meteorologist named Wegener in the early twentieth century, but not generally accepted until the sixties) because new data, often taking decades to amass, prove them correct. Data, data, data... it's all about data... AND correct analysis of that data.

What we have now is a cabal of scientists and politicians in a symbiotic relationship. The politicians want to control us, and they fund the "scientists" to come up with the studies to "prove" their points and fear sells. This produces a lot of junk science. Southern California has not had a "smog alert" since sometime in the nineties, but the politicians and their bureaucrat henchmen tell us it's for our "safety and health" so they keep promulgating ever more onerous standards for air and water quality and won't control vegetation growth on pubic land because it might affect the habitat of some desert rat, insect, or weed regardless of the economic damage such regulatory overreach may create. They have to justify their existence.

But I think the average American is beginning to understand that we're getting scammed, and they're right!

Duke

[Michael J.]

Thanks for your spot on thoughts and views here Duke. I know the moderators hate threads like this, but things like this have to be said. Luckily in New Mexico, there is only one very heavily populated county where smog tests are required (in all 1991 and newer vehicles under 10,000 lbs.), and we have never had the scams known as "safety inspections" required for registration. I do feel for those who live in places that require all this frivolous and unnecessary government intrusions into our freedoms. But, even here, left wing politicians are always busy dreaming up new attacks on our freedoms. Our Gov., trying to emulate California, has issued an executive order mandating 43% of all new cars sold here must be EVs starting with the 2026 model year, 6 months from now, and increasing every year. And of course the fact that less than 5% of new cars sold here last year were EVs doesn't phase her resolve at all........

[Duke W.]

There's a pretty large area where cars and politics overlap, and it has been increasing in size over the years. When it comes to legislation like "Leno's Law" it's all about politics and junk science. I'm trying to keep this thread as factual as possible, but the reality of politics can't be denied.

California has 40 state Senators and 80 members of the Assembly. Fifteen senators are on the Senate Transportation Committee. Eleven, including the chairman are "D", and the other four are "R". Overall the Ds own about three-quarters of the legislative seats, more that the two-thirds majority needed to even override a gubernatorial veto.

Doing it won't be easy, but nationally the Ds are worried because their key issues are not resonating with the public, and the CA Ds are getting the message. California legislators, elected and appointed officials are about as far left as any other leftist state, and the incompetence is rampant - dams that nearly collapse, wildfires that wipe out whole communities, $30 billion in fraudulent unemployment claims during COVID, mostly from foreign criminals who will never be brought to justice, billions on a "train to nowhere" that the poles just won't kill. Their utopia is a 1970s style Soviet Union with them in charge. I could go on.

The left is good at pressuring the government for action, but often go too far and resort to violence. I'm not advocating demonstrating in the street, but let your voice be heard. Thoughtful communication to legislators can be effective. It's important for all car enthusiasts to get behind this... for sure if you live in California and own a '76 or newer Corvette you are affected. Even if you own a pre-'76 model help out your brethren who do. The California Senate Website is here:

https://www.senate.ca.gov

Links near the top of the page include "senators" where you can find who yours is if you don't know, and "committees..." next to it. The various committees are listed in alphabetical order with the Transportation Committee hot link at the end of the list.

Spend a few minutes perusing these pages to learn how you can communicate with your senator and the Transportation Committee.

Also spread the word to other Web sites. I no longer post to the Corvette Forum, but for those who do start a thread on the C1/2, C3, C4, C5 and even up to C8 forums and also the Northern and Southern California Regional Forums and other marque forums you participate in either vintage or modern. Copy and paste my text or at least post the link to this thread. Non-members can read the TDB - they just can't post.

I'll post as soon as I find out when the Transportation Committee schedules a hearing on this bill. You can also sign up to make a statement to the committee in person. If you live near Sacramento, think about it.

Duke

[John S.]

Duke,
Thank you for bringing attention to this. I have already emailed both my state senator and assembly person concerning this. Fingers crossed here
John

[Duke W.]

Thanks, John. You may need to contact them again if the bill makes it through the Transportation Committee and gets to the Senate Floor for a vote.

The next stop for SB 712 is the Senate Transportation Committee. According to their web page.

https://stran.senate.ca.gov/

They meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. So they meet tomorrow, March 25, but SB 712 is not on tomorrow's agenda. The next meeting is April 8, and I'll check regularly for that day's agenda.

Duke

[Duke W.]

SB 712 goes before the CA Senate Transportation Committee a week from Tuesday, which is April 8!

If you live in California please write a note to the committee expressing your support. Even if you don't have a '76-up vintage vehicle, please help out those of us who do, and if you do have a '76-up vintage vehicle, you certainly have a dog in the fight. I'll explain how to do this, but first here's what I submitted to the committee, today. I tried to be as concise, objective, and factual as possible, but put in an emotional plea for veterans and senior citizens.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a retired automotive/aerospace engineer, holding a MSME degree from the University of Wisconsin Engine Research Center where I did automotive emissions related research. I currently own three vintage vehicles that require biennial emission testing, model years 1976, 1988, and 1991. Over the years I have driven them less each year and am now down to no more than about 250 miles per year on each, so the current biennial test requirement means they have to be tested about every 500 miles.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to find test stations with the required ASM test equipment, and I am also finding that technicians are becoming increasingly disrespectful to both me and my vehicles. I have actually been accused, without evidence, of "cheating", apparently because my very well maintained, low mileage vintage vehicles have substantially lower emissions than average for their year groups.

A provision of SB 712 requires the vehicle to have a "collector car insurance policy". I'm not sure if there is a legal definition of such, but most, if not all, require the car to be garaged when not in use, and this is not always possible.

I request that SB 712 be amended to include vehicles with California Historical Vehicle license plates, which have significant driving restrictions, as an alternative to an insurance policy that requires the vehicle to be garaged.

The Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) has decades of emission test data and miles traveled between tests, and they can analyze this database to determine the absolute mass of emissions from cars over 35 years old along with their proportion of total vehicle emissions, and I'm sure such an analysis will justify passing SB 712.

Also consider that many military veterans and senior citizens own vintage vehicles 35 or more years old. Please allow us the opportunity to enjoy our vintage vehicles for the time we have left without the onerous requirement to have them emission tested every few hundred miles.

Thank-you for your consideration.

Duke Williams

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now lets go on to how you can submit comments to the committee. You will have to register with a user ID, password, and security question, and include your name, address, and phone number. I doubt if a comment from someone without a CA address will be accepted, but I didn't try, so if you don't have a CA address, give it a try.

As is the case with most Web sites that require you to use THEIR form rather than email, I suggest you write an email to yourself with your comments (or use Notepad or equivalent) then copy and paste your comments to the committee's comment box. Email (or Notepad or equivalent) will allow easier editing and you can retain a copy of your comments.

Start with the following link: www.senate.ca.gov

1. From the menu near the top of the page click on (or open in a new window) "committees..."

2. Click (or open in a new window) "transportation" which is at the bottom of the list

3. At the bottom of the Transportation Committees home page click the "Submit position letter", register and go from there.

If SB 712 gets through the Transportation Committee, the next stop will be a vote on the Senate floor. At this point everyone needs to contact THEIR state senator to support the bill. If it passes the Senate, then it goes to the Assembly Transportation Committee and you can submit your saved comments to that committee. If it passes the Assembly Trans. Comm. then to the Assembly floor it goes for a vote, and if it passes it goes to the governor for signature or veto. It's a fairly long process that will take months to play out if it gets to home base.

One day when Ben Franklin was walking out of the Constitutional Convention meeting a reporter shouted: "What kind of government do you want?"

Ben replied: "A republic if we can keep it"... meaning that to be successful a republic must have an INFORMED and INVOLVED citizenry to survive. Also remember that over a million Americans have died in wars and millions more wounded, leaving many with lifelong disabilities to protect us from an overzealous government that they knew would probably eventually happen.

So don't just BMW (bitch, whine, and moan) when government overreach gets in the way of your "pursuit of happiness". Get involved!!!

Duke

[Duke W.]

The California Senate Transportation Committee will meet on Tuesday April 8 at 1:30 PM Pacific Time and Leno's Law (SB 712) is listed as a "Special order of Business", so I expect it will be the first bill considered.

The committee meeting will be live-streamed on the Web, and it will also be archived for later viewing. Go to the following link:

https://www.senate.ca.gov/streaming-...20State%20Sena te%20streams,up%20to%206%20different%20events.

There will be a cruise-in in front of the Sacramento State Capitol at 10:30 AM followed by a press conference in support of SB 712 at 11:30. Everyone and their classic car is invited. See the attached event flyer.

Duke

P. S. The bill has been amended to eliminate the "classic car insurance" requirement.

image.png

[Duke W.]

The next stop for "Leno's Law" is the Senate Appropriations Committee. Here's a "mission statement" for that committee.

"JURISDICTION: Pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5 all bills with a fiscal impact, as determined by Legislative Counsel, are referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee after they have been heard in their respective policy committees. This can include bills that appropriate money, result in substantial expenditure of state money, or result in a substantial loss of revenue to the state."

Being as how SB 712 will have little if any "fiscal impact" (will just require a patch to the DMV emissions test data base) I don't understand why this bill needs to go before the Appropriations Committee, but it is what it is.

The bill is on the Appropriations Committee agenda meeting scheduled for Friday, April 21, 2025, which starts at 10:30 AM. As with the Transportation Committee meeting the Appropriations Committee meeting will be live streamed on the Web and placed in the archive for future viewing after the meeting. See the instructions link in post #11 to view the meeting live.

I don't know what, if any risk there is that the bill could be derailed in this committee, but I've asked my SEMA contact if they might know.

Duke

[Duke W.]

Here's what I got back from SEMA:

"You’re correct. Since SB 712 impacts a state program, the Smog Check program, this is likely why it was tagged as fiscal. SEMA and the Senator's office are drafting arguments to show that the fiscal impact is minimal and will work with the committee to showcase the economic impact on California's aftermarket industry.

We expect this bill to go to the “suspense file,” where the committee will hold the bill and decide on it by May 23^rd. Please help support the bill by calling, emailing, and/or sending a letter to these lawmakers and respectfully voicing your support of Leno's Law, SB 712."

You can send them a position statement by following these instructions:

Start with the following link: www.senate.ca.gov

1. From the menu near the top of the page click on (or open in a new window) "committees..."

2. Click (or open in a new window) "appropriations" which is second on the list.

3. At the bottom of the Appropriations Committees home page click "Submit position letter", register (if you haven't already done so) and go from there.

My fiscal position is why do I need to spend a hundred bucks and drive 15-20 miles to get a "smog check" every few hundred miles?

Duke