In case you're not aware, all '76-up California cars with a few minor exeptions (some diesel and AWD models) to models more than eight-years old require biennial emission testing to maintain legal registration for public road use, and all pre-2000 models must have an ASM (acceleration simulation mode) test that involves running the car on a chassis dynamometer under load while tailpipe HC, CO, and NOx are sampled along with other tests and visual inspections.
Going back a little over 20 years California had a rolling 25-year old exemption (once 25 or more years old the car was exempt), but this was frozen at the 1975 model year in 2004. Since that time there have been a few attempts to extend the exemption, but none ever made it out of committee.
Earlier this year state senator Shannon Grove introduced SB 712 to the California state Senate, and after passing the Senate Transportation and Appropriations committees, it passed the Senate, June 2, on a floor vote of 32-3 with 5 senators not registering a vote. This bill is formally named Leno's Law due to Jay Leno's active support and promotion, and it has now been forwarded to the 80-member California Assembly and is scheduled for a hearing with the Transportation Committee on Monday July 14, 15 days from today.
As with any piece of legislation, in order to get through the myriad of committees and both the state Senate and Assembly, changes have to be made to satisfy non-supporters in order to gain their support. As currently amended SB 712 if signed into law will establish a 35-year old rolling emission test exemption if the vehicle has California Historical Vehicle license plates and "collector car" insurance policy.
There's a lot of misinformation on the Web about HV plates (and Leno's Law in general), so here's the only source you need to understand the current HV plate restrictions. The following pdf is the latest revison (11/2017) of REG 17A. Spend the 30 seconds needed to download the form and read section E. I've also attached the pdf to this thread.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/upload...3/reg17a-1.pdf
Note that the operative word is "primarily", not "only" as stated in many press reports. This dates to a 20 year old version of the form. So if you attend a NCRS chapter meet or a "cars and coffee" event on Saturday morning, you are NOT precluded from taking a Sunday afternoon pleasure drive. HV plates can also save you considerably on the VLF (vehicle license fee), which is one of the itemized charges on your renewal document. If you buy a new or USED car, the VLF for the first two years is 0.65% (It's been as high as 2 percent in the past) of what you paid, then the car's "value" declines 10% of the purchase price each year until it bottoms out at 10 percent of the initial purchase price after ten years and remains there.
There is a one time up front $25 fee to obtain HV plates and then the VLF regardless of what you are paying now is TWO DOLLARS per year, even if you just bought a 100 point frame up restored Duntov award fuel injected SWC for over $300,000. Press reports don't mention this! So HV plates can save you a bundle if you buy a high dollar vintage car, even if it's old enough to already be exempt from emission testing.
As SB 712 moves through the legislative process most press reports rapidly become obsolete, so for the latest current and ACCURATE information go to the following California legislature Web page:
Click on the buttons for the history, current status, actual text of the bill, and other useful information.
The only other Web site I recommend to get current and accurate information is SEMA, and the latest information from them is here:
https://www.sema.org/news-media/enew...t-still-needed
My SEMA contact has indicated to me that getting SB 712 through the Assembly is likely to be tougher than the Senate. The Assembly Transportation Committee is scheduled to discuss and vote on SB 712 on Monday July 14, just over two weeks from today. Any California resident is free to comment on the bill, and I request that all California NCRS members do so, even if you don't own an affected car because many do own affected cars, both Corvette and other marques. Start by going to the Assembly Web page:
On the green band near the top of the page click or open in a new tab "committees" then click "regular session committees"
From there scroll down to "transportation" committee and open in a new tab. Open the "members and staff" page. Is your Assembly member on the Transportation Committee?
Now move slightly down and to the left side and click on "submit position letter". This will open up a new tab or window. You will need to register with an email address and password... no big deal! You don't even have to remember the password. If you ever want to make a comment on another bill you can just type in your email, click "I forgot my password" and you'll get an email with a one time code to reset your password.
Once registered click "support" and then you can optionally submit comments. You don't have to, but how about a sentence or two like: I have family, friends, and neighbors who own affected vintage cars that they drive very infrequently. Please support and vote yes on SB 712.
Comments must be submitted by noon June 7 a week before the meeting, so you have a week to do so.
Given my background in engine emission related research and decades of ownership of '76 to '91 vintage cars which have had to be emission tested every two years since new I submitted a few paragraphs of remarks as follows:
I am a retired automotive/aerospace engineer and early in my career did automotive emission related research at the University of Wisconsin Engine Research Center on a General Motors sponsored Fellowship, earning a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering. I currently own three relatively rare cars in the 1976 to 1991 model year range all purchased new by me in California (1976 Chevrolet Cosworth Vega, 1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.6 special order five-speed manual transmission, 1991 Toyota MR2). They were originally used as "daily drivers" for the first few years of ownership, but were retired to "toy status" after a few years with low mileage. All are completely original as built by the manufacturers, and I perform all normal maintenance and necessary repairs. Over the years annual mileage on all has declined and is currently well under 500 miles per year. All currently have California Historical Vehicle license plates and "collector car" insurance.
Every two years all require an ASM (Acceleration Simulation Mode) emission test that requires the car to be run under load on a chassis dynamometer while tailpipe HC, CO, and NOx concentrations are sampled. None has ever failed a tailpipe test, and all measure substantially below the "cutpoints" of maximum allowable concentration for each emission type. This test is hard on the cars and usually results in very high engine coolant temperatures, near the boilover point that I never see when driving despite endeavoring to have them tested in the coolest ambient temperatures available at the time of year they require testing.
The ASM test is only required for vehicles up to 1999; 2000-up only require an OBD II fault code check along with visual inspections. Since there are ever fewer pre-2000 model year cars, many test shops are removing their ASM test equipment, especially if a repair is required, the cost of which is not justified by the amount of pre-2000 vehicle business they have. So the number of shops with this equipment is rapidly decreasing making it ever more difficult and time and mileage consuming to find. I'm now spending more annually on emission testing than gasoline for these cars, and the round trip to a shop with ASM test equipment is approaching ten percent of annual mileage.
It's my understanding that 35-year old and older vehicles make up about one percent of motor vehicle registrations, and those that are registered on average are driven far less annually than vehicles that are no more than 15 years old. Since the BAR records VINs and odometer readings of every vehicle tested, they know the number of vehicles, average emission data, and average annual mileage for each year group, which should enable them to prepare a reasonably accurate analysis on the percent of automotive emissions contributed by 35-year or older cars, and that analysis will undoubtedly yield a result that 35-years old and older cars contribution to automotive emissions is "noise level".
It's interesting to note that 1975 was the first model year that saw virtually universal use of catalytic converters that began the era of substantially reduced vehicle emissions, which is a major reason why Southern California has not had a Stag 3 "smog alert" since 1974, a Stage 2 smog alert since 1988, and the last Stage 1 smog alert was sometime in the 1990s.
To all Committee members, I request that you support SB 712 and vote yes to move it to the next legislative process.
Even if you don't own an affected car, those California NCRS members that do whether a Corvette or other marque need the help of all California NCRS members and all California vintage cars organizations, family, friends, and neighbors. Please lend a hand and voice your support of SB 512 to the California Assembly Transportation Committee.
As a final note, since this legislation only affects California members, please only respond if you are a California resident. If you have a question I will endeavor to answer it as accurately as possible. I've spent a lot of time on this subject. And if you will actively support SB 712 by contacting the Assembly Transporation Committee, please let us know.
Different states have difference rules, but they aren't relevant. If you want to discuss different state emission test rules please start another thread, and please don't start bashing California. I don't want to see this thread go off the rails.
Thank-you for your patience and consideration!
Duke
P. S. I don't know what's going on at DMV, but earlier this month a new revision (02/2025) of REG 17a was on the DMV website. I printed it out! Today, it's back to the 11/2017 revision that has slightly, but not materially different wording. Primarily is still the operative word. Other earlier obsolete versions are on the Web, which is a source of misinformation. ONLY download this form from www.dmv.ca.gov and type REG 17a into the search box.
Going back a little over 20 years California had a rolling 25-year old exemption (once 25 or more years old the car was exempt), but this was frozen at the 1975 model year in 2004. Since that time there have been a few attempts to extend the exemption, but none ever made it out of committee.
Earlier this year state senator Shannon Grove introduced SB 712 to the California state Senate, and after passing the Senate Transportation and Appropriations committees, it passed the Senate, June 2, on a floor vote of 32-3 with 5 senators not registering a vote. This bill is formally named Leno's Law due to Jay Leno's active support and promotion, and it has now been forwarded to the 80-member California Assembly and is scheduled for a hearing with the Transportation Committee on Monday July 14, 15 days from today.
As with any piece of legislation, in order to get through the myriad of committees and both the state Senate and Assembly, changes have to be made to satisfy non-supporters in order to gain their support. As currently amended SB 712 if signed into law will establish a 35-year old rolling emission test exemption if the vehicle has California Historical Vehicle license plates and "collector car" insurance policy.
There's a lot of misinformation on the Web about HV plates (and Leno's Law in general), so here's the only source you need to understand the current HV plate restrictions. The following pdf is the latest revison (11/2017) of REG 17A. Spend the 30 seconds needed to download the form and read section E. I've also attached the pdf to this thread.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/upload...3/reg17a-1.pdf
Note that the operative word is "primarily", not "only" as stated in many press reports. This dates to a 20 year old version of the form. So if you attend a NCRS chapter meet or a "cars and coffee" event on Saturday morning, you are NOT precluded from taking a Sunday afternoon pleasure drive. HV plates can also save you considerably on the VLF (vehicle license fee), which is one of the itemized charges on your renewal document. If you buy a new or USED car, the VLF for the first two years is 0.65% (It's been as high as 2 percent in the past) of what you paid, then the car's "value" declines 10% of the purchase price each year until it bottoms out at 10 percent of the initial purchase price after ten years and remains there.
There is a one time up front $25 fee to obtain HV plates and then the VLF regardless of what you are paying now is TWO DOLLARS per year, even if you just bought a 100 point frame up restored Duntov award fuel injected SWC for over $300,000. Press reports don't mention this! So HV plates can save you a bundle if you buy a high dollar vintage car, even if it's old enough to already be exempt from emission testing.
As SB 712 moves through the legislative process most press reports rapidly become obsolete, so for the latest current and ACCURATE information go to the following California legislature Web page:
Click on the buttons for the history, current status, actual text of the bill, and other useful information.
The only other Web site I recommend to get current and accurate information is SEMA, and the latest information from them is here:
https://www.sema.org/news-media/enew...t-still-needed
My SEMA contact has indicated to me that getting SB 712 through the Assembly is likely to be tougher than the Senate. The Assembly Transportation Committee is scheduled to discuss and vote on SB 712 on Monday July 14, just over two weeks from today. Any California resident is free to comment on the bill, and I request that all California NCRS members do so, even if you don't own an affected car because many do own affected cars, both Corvette and other marques. Start by going to the Assembly Web page:
On the green band near the top of the page click or open in a new tab "committees" then click "regular session committees"
From there scroll down to "transportation" committee and open in a new tab. Open the "members and staff" page. Is your Assembly member on the Transportation Committee?
Now move slightly down and to the left side and click on "submit position letter". This will open up a new tab or window. You will need to register with an email address and password... no big deal! You don't even have to remember the password. If you ever want to make a comment on another bill you can just type in your email, click "I forgot my password" and you'll get an email with a one time code to reset your password.
Once registered click "support" and then you can optionally submit comments. You don't have to, but how about a sentence or two like: I have family, friends, and neighbors who own affected vintage cars that they drive very infrequently. Please support and vote yes on SB 712.
Comments must be submitted by noon June 7 a week before the meeting, so you have a week to do so.
Given my background in engine emission related research and decades of ownership of '76 to '91 vintage cars which have had to be emission tested every two years since new I submitted a few paragraphs of remarks as follows:
I am a retired automotive/aerospace engineer and early in my career did automotive emission related research at the University of Wisconsin Engine Research Center on a General Motors sponsored Fellowship, earning a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering. I currently own three relatively rare cars in the 1976 to 1991 model year range all purchased new by me in California (1976 Chevrolet Cosworth Vega, 1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.6 special order five-speed manual transmission, 1991 Toyota MR2). They were originally used as "daily drivers" for the first few years of ownership, but were retired to "toy status" after a few years with low mileage. All are completely original as built by the manufacturers, and I perform all normal maintenance and necessary repairs. Over the years annual mileage on all has declined and is currently well under 500 miles per year. All currently have California Historical Vehicle license plates and "collector car" insurance.
Every two years all require an ASM (Acceleration Simulation Mode) emission test that requires the car to be run under load on a chassis dynamometer while tailpipe HC, CO, and NOx concentrations are sampled. None has ever failed a tailpipe test, and all measure substantially below the "cutpoints" of maximum allowable concentration for each emission type. This test is hard on the cars and usually results in very high engine coolant temperatures, near the boilover point that I never see when driving despite endeavoring to have them tested in the coolest ambient temperatures available at the time of year they require testing.
The ASM test is only required for vehicles up to 1999; 2000-up only require an OBD II fault code check along with visual inspections. Since there are ever fewer pre-2000 model year cars, many test shops are removing their ASM test equipment, especially if a repair is required, the cost of which is not justified by the amount of pre-2000 vehicle business they have. So the number of shops with this equipment is rapidly decreasing making it ever more difficult and time and mileage consuming to find. I'm now spending more annually on emission testing than gasoline for these cars, and the round trip to a shop with ASM test equipment is approaching ten percent of annual mileage.
It's my understanding that 35-year old and older vehicles make up about one percent of motor vehicle registrations, and those that are registered on average are driven far less annually than vehicles that are no more than 15 years old. Since the BAR records VINs and odometer readings of every vehicle tested, they know the number of vehicles, average emission data, and average annual mileage for each year group, which should enable them to prepare a reasonably accurate analysis on the percent of automotive emissions contributed by 35-year or older cars, and that analysis will undoubtedly yield a result that 35-years old and older cars contribution to automotive emissions is "noise level".
It's interesting to note that 1975 was the first model year that saw virtually universal use of catalytic converters that began the era of substantially reduced vehicle emissions, which is a major reason why Southern California has not had a Stag 3 "smog alert" since 1974, a Stage 2 smog alert since 1988, and the last Stage 1 smog alert was sometime in the 1990s.
To all Committee members, I request that you support SB 712 and vote yes to move it to the next legislative process.
Even if you don't own an affected car, those California NCRS members that do whether a Corvette or other marque need the help of all California NCRS members and all California vintage cars organizations, family, friends, and neighbors. Please lend a hand and voice your support of SB 512 to the California Assembly Transportation Committee.
As a final note, since this legislation only affects California members, please only respond if you are a California resident. If you have a question I will endeavor to answer it as accurately as possible. I've spent a lot of time on this subject. And if you will actively support SB 712 by contacting the Assembly Transporation Committee, please let us know.
Different states have difference rules, but they aren't relevant. If you want to discuss different state emission test rules please start another thread, and please don't start bashing California. I don't want to see this thread go off the rails.
Thank-you for your patience and consideration!
Duke
P. S. I don't know what's going on at DMV, but earlier this month a new revision (02/2025) of REG 17a was on the DMV website. I printed it out! Today, it's back to the 11/2017 revision that has slightly, but not materially different wording. Primarily is still the operative word. Other earlier obsolete versions are on the Web, which is a source of misinformation. ONLY download this form from www.dmv.ca.gov and type REG 17a into the search box.
Comment