California AB550. Smog exemption

[9catorce]

Check it out. Spread the word!

[Targa Me]

Maybe you can supply us with a link?

[mike27t]

[kcheves]

Link

Looks to be a one time $200 payment at the time of registration for vehicles that are 30+ years old and gave failed smog testing. Great news, if true, but I've lived here long enough to not hold my breath.

[yelcab1]

Not holding my breath with Jerry Brown in the gov seat.

[hcoles]

ok - I'm checking it out and here is part of what was at the link.

44011.7. (a) The owner of a motor vehicle that is required to
obtain a certificate of compliance pursuant to Section 44011 may
elect to pay a smog abatement fee of two hundred dollars ($200) if
the motor vehicle meets all of the following criteria:
(1) Is 30 or more model-years old.
(2) Was manufactured during or after the 1976 model-year.
(3) Fails a smog test required pursuant to this chapter.
(4) Fails a subsequent smog test after necessary repairs were
made.

IMO the key is item #4 - who determines what is/was "necessary". If it doesn't pass then all the "necessary" repairs were not made - by definition? I don't like the way this is worded, it is not a "clean" get out of smog check if you pay $200.

[Jim Richards]

Is this fee paid annually?

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by kcheves

Link

Looks to be a one time $200 payment at the time of registration for vehicles that are 30+ years old and gave failed smog testing. Great news, if true, but I've lived here long enough to not hold my breath.

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Is this fee paid annually?

There is nothing good in this bill. And nothing about "One time".

It says that when you take in the car to get your smog test and it fails, you then need to make repairs ($$$), and if it fails again you can pay $200 dollars and get it registered.

You get to pay for the smog test, the retest, enough repairs to satisfy their dollar requirement, and then you can give them $200. And a couple years later you get to do it again!.
With the way that they have fudged the allowed emissions numbers to below what is supposed to be required this just means they get to pocket an extra $200.

I'm not sure what would happen if you showed up with a non visually complaint car. I suspect that the prior legislation would make that a no go. (Probably part of the required repairs to have no cap on the "must past visual" part.)

[DRACO A5OG]

I concur.

Only if one can prove the state is violating the law on make up lower thresh hold standards.

Maybe a small class action suit against the State and Governor Brown or at least we can all file a $10K small claims. Can you image 100 = $1Mil or 1000 = 10Mil etc. Heck it won't be just limited to us Porsche guys, all 30+ year old well tuned/maintained cars. I know clogging up the legal system but what choice is Brown giving everyone? Get rid of our cars, "over my cold dead body"

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

There is nothing good in this bill. And nothing about "One time".

It says that when you take in the car to get your smog test and it fails, you then need to make repairs ($$$), and if it fails again you can pay $200 dollars and get it registered.

You get to pay for the smog test, the retest, enough repairs to satisfy their dollar requirement, and then you can give them $200. And a couple years later you get to do it again!.
With the way that they have fudged the allowed emissions numbers to below what is supposed to be required this just means they get to pocket an extra $200.

I'm not sure what would happen if you showed up with a non visually complaint car. I suspect that the prior legislation would make that a no go. (Probably part of the required repairs to have no cap on the "must past visual" part.)

[Ferrino]

What is the origin of these bills? Presumably there is a car club somewhere who is lobbying for more relaxed emissions laws for older vehicles and liaising with the assembly member?

Edit: I just Googled Waldron and her husband founded the Cruisin' Grand event in Escondido. Case closed.

[kcheves]

>And nothing about "One time".

If the intent of the bill is to accommodate old cars that are no longer able to pass smog even after reasonable attempts have been made to repair the emissions control system, it wouldn't make sense to force this fee every two years. But then again, this is California...

[DonNewton]

"Maybe a small class action suit against the State and Governor Brown. . ." Stop it! You're killing me here. You honestly think Sacramento cares what we think or that they care about a "class action suit"? Regardless of what you thought of Arnold, his rolling exemption just made too much sense. Obviously, that had to be stopped.

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by DRACO A5OG

. . .
Only if one can prove the state is violating the law on make up lower thresh hold standards.

Maybe a small class action suit against the State and Governor Brown or at least we can all file a $10K small claims. Can you image 100 = $1Mil or 1000 = 10Mil etc. Heck it won't be just limited to us Porsche guys, all 30+ year old well tuned/maintained cars. I know clogging up the legal system but what choice is Brown giving everyone? Get rid of our cars, "over my cold dead body"

No problem proving they changed the levels required to pass smog...

The problem is you have to fail the smog and then file suit. Everyone who has a car and wants to drive it is going to do the song and dance and get the car through smog so they can drive it.
What you need is a lawyer that has some time to burn and have them do the filing.

[Avanti]

I am a licensed smog check tech here in CA but haven't smogged a car in years. I just keep my license current. I am not familiar with this law or bill but am familiar with the BAR's (Bureau of Auto Repair) wording "make repairs". Repairs would mean performing a tune-up or adjust the timing and carbs if applicable. Repairs cannot exceed a set amount ( it was$600) But if the vehicle is missing any smog equipment i.e. air pumps, egr valves, thermal reactors, etc., then the vehicle is "tampered" and there is no cost limit.

This law seems to be for old post '75 vehicles with worn out engines, expensive computer controlled carbs or inefficient fuel injection systems that are not tampered and cannot pass smog with any adjustments. I guess it has a purpose so a poor person won't have to replace his car or walk just because it pollutes more than others. The hipocracy of the state of CA in this bill sends a message that it is OK to pollute if you pay $$.

[Joe Bob]

We can blame Ahnold for this mess when he signed the bill repealing the 30 year rolling exemption......wanker.

[Avanti]

That was called the "rolling smog" law or rule. Such a disappointment when it went away.

We can blame Ahnold for this mess when he signed the bill repealing the 30 year rolling exemption......wanker.

[86 911 Targa]

[techweenie]

Realistically, most of the repairs needed would fall into the areas of rings, crakcase ventilation, valve guides... Not inexpensive, but stuff you want working right anyway. On the other hand, transition years when air injection pumps were used would be problematic

[rockabillyjay]

This is just about squeezing more money out of people who can't afford it, and can't afford to fight it.

Here;s a story. When I worked at West Coast Choppers we were fined for manufacturing bikes without EPA emissions equipment (because 50 show bike Harleys were destroying the environment, right? ha)

We offered to recall all the bikes and fit them with EPA equipment. Carb said that wouldn't be necessary and fined us 270K. Wonder how much clean air that bought...

Jesse James & West Coast Choppers fined $271,250 for smog violations

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Realistically, most of the repairs needed would fall into the areas of rings, crakcase ventilation, valve guides... Not inexpensive, but stuff you want working right anyway. On the other hand, transition years when air injection pumps were used would be problematic

Surprisingly blowing oil isn't really an issue for the sniffer part of a smog test. That can cause a fail but it has to be worse then just visibly burning oil.

There is a "visible smoke" part of the visual inspection and that is an automatic fail before they hook up the sniffer.