DMV Info needed, 1974 914 does it need to be smoged Options

[sjhowitson]

Help,

I hope I don't open a big can of worms but, what is the smog rule in California reguarding 30 years old or not. I have a non op on my 74. It is a giant pain in the behind to trailer it all over when I need work. I would like to get it registered for the road. It will not pass smog now. It was a 4 now it's a six. Anybody have any ideas? (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/huh.gif)

[Joe Bob]

76 need smog inspection....75 and under don't....technically you need to keep your smog stuff....but...... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/dry.gif)

If you read the new law...there are some loopholes that need to be fixed or can be used if someone steps up and bitches loud enough....like build date versus model year...

[Steve]

I was told that its been recently capped off at 75 by the Governator.
You should not have a problem.
Your car should be smog exempt.

[Jeffs9146]

I had a non-op on my 74 untill last year then I sent in the payment and received my tags.......no smog needed!

Jeff

[xitspd]

I did not have to smog my 1975 Carrera to renew.

[lapuwali]

QUOTE (mikez @ Feb 23 2005, 07:30 AM)

76 need smog inspection....75 and under don't....technically you need to keep your smog stuff....but...... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/dry.gif) If you read the new law...there are some loopholes that need to be fixed or can be used if someone steps up and bitches loud enough....like build date versus model year...

The year that REALLY matters is the one on the title. That's the one the DMV uses to determine what smog regulations your car has to meet when they send you license renewals. I've heard of cases where people have successfully negotiated a title change with the DMV, convincing them a car was year X when the title said year Y, and gotten a new title with year X. An owner of a '76 914 may very well try this and get it retitled as a '75 (with some legitimacy, too, considering all '76s were just left over '75s being dumped to clear inventory).

Those ambiguities have been there for decades. The 30 year rolling exemption was in place since 1998, and the law prior to that had a 1965 cutoff. The issue is how the DMV decides to interpret it, and historically, the DMV has taken a very liberal view. They don't do this out of some sense of civic justice, but rather out of the fact that fewer people bitching means less work for them, and they have to deal with the general public day to day, not the uppity tree-huggers, so they have pretty much always ruled in favor of the little guy.

The ambiguity introduced into the new law that's really an issue is a clause that states that 1975 and older cars are forever exempted from the smog regulations. The old law stated that they were merely exempted from the then-existing tests. The language used could be reasonably interpreted to mean that they can never institute a new test (like remote monitoring) at nail pre-76 cars, whereas the 30 year law could not be reasonably interpreted that way. The old law implied that while you didn't need to be tested, you still had to follow the regulations, so if they caught you in some way other than the regular test, it was your ass. The new law implies this is no longer true, and it's a complete get-out-of-jail-free card.

[Joe Bob]

James....have you read AB 2683?

In the preamble it states...."This bill would instead, commencing April 1, 2005, exempt from the smog check requirements, and the smog check compliance requirements, any motor vehicle manufactured prior to the 1976 model-year.".....

To me ....that statement is ambiguous at best....76 model years were introduced in 75...they were made in 75.....

Further in the bill...it exempts NEW cars from inspection for six years instead of four...."I" think that's how they got it to pass...

As to model year versus build date...it's get a "little" clearer...but that preamble language is a hangup....

[nine14cats]

You really gotta love the state of CA.

From AB 2683 in section (2) it reiterates:

"This bill, commencing April 1, 2005, would instead apply the model-year exemption that is applicable to vehicles registered in this state. This bill will also make clarifying changes."

And from the CA DMV website:

"Smog Check Changes: Ends the rolling exemption for vehicles 30 years old or older and permanently exempts vehicles manufactured prior to 1976. The bill also adjusts Smog Check requirments applicable to collector motor vehicles and increases the $6 smog check fee to $12."

The wishy washy is a pre-1976 model year or a pre-1976 date of manufacture. I'm going to try DMV in person later this week. I'm sure I'll get several different answers.

Bill P.

[lapuwali]

QUOTE (mikez @ Feb 23 2005, 08:33 AM)

James....have you read AB 2683? In the preamble it states...."This bill would instead, commencing April 1, 2005, exempt from the smog check requirements, and the smog check compliance requirements, any motor vehicle manufactured prior to the 1976 model-year."..... To me ....that statement is ambiguous at best....76 model years were introduced in 75...they were made in 75..... Further in the bill...it exempts NEW cars from inspection for six years instead of four...."I" think that's how they got it to pass... As to model year versus build date...it's get a "little" clearer...but that preamble language is a hangup....

Yes, Mike. I read every version from introduction to passing. I've read a LOT of bills, and this one is no more ambiguous than most. Again, what the bill says is completely beside the point. How the DMV interprets it is what matters to US, as they are the enforcing agency. Historically, they've always only paid attention to the year on the title, as this is the information they have at hand. They don't have a big database to convert serial numbers to model years (for years before the VIN came into being, which encodes the model year), so they take the year on the title at face value. Again, if you want to dispute the year on the title, there's a procedure for doing this, and apparently some people have been successful in the past.

If you want to hire and lawyer and dispute it, I'm sure you could poke all kinds of holes in this and many other bills. My angle has always been that a people in general and a bureaucractic agency in particular are going to do what serves their best interests as long as they can get away with it. Historically, the DMV has shown their best interest is to license cars and easily and as lazily as they can to prevent every one bitching. If they fuck up, they ignore it unless someone complains, and do as little as possible to fix any fuck ups. If you fuck up, they ignore it unless someone complains, and do as little as possible to resolve the situation.

The term "model year" is used often enough this legislation to have some legal weight. The term "calendar year" is NEVER used in this law as it relates to vehicle manufacture. The term model year is defined elsewhere in the statutes, so I'd expect that any judge forced to resolve this matter would say that the year of the car is the model year, not the build year. Do a check in the CVC and I believe you'll find a definition of "model year" as the state sees it. On that basis, I don't find the preamble to be at all ambiguous.

[Joe Bob]

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd1.htm

The definition for model year versus date of manufacture or any other combintaion is not on the website under definitions....as one who does interpretation of rules for a living...I find the DMV's reasoning flawed.

Since I don't own a 76 model year vehicle....I don't care how they interpret it personally. I just think it's a badly written law and interpreted incorrectly as written.

[lapuwali]

QUOTE (mikez @ Feb 23 2005, 01:09 PM)

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd1.htm The definition for model year versus date of manufacture or any other combintaion is not on the website under definitions....as one who does interpretation of rules for a living...I find the DMV's reasoning flawed. Since I don't own a 76 model year vehicle....I don't care how they interpret it personally. I just think it's a badly written law and interpreted incorrectly as written.

You're right, it's not in the CVC. It's in Health and Safety:

39038. "Model year" means the manufacturer's annual production
period which includes January 1 of a calendar year or, if the
manufacturer has no annual production period, the calendar year.
In the case of any vehicle manufactured in two or more stages, the
time of manufacture shall be the date of completion of the chassis.

btw, there's LOTS of really interesting stuff in the H&S regs about cars. Most of the emissions related law is there, not in the CVC. It's a $5K fine if you're nailed "tampering" with any emissions device (Sec. 43008), for example. "Ignition timing" is listed specifically as a violation if you "tamper" with it.

[bd1308]

well I'm glad I live in KY....here, we don't have to deal with "Smog" (or Emissions, as we say it in KY) Testing....most people in KY still have horse-drawn carriages and gas lamps lighting the road in front of them

[Joe Bob]

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Feb 23 2005, 01:57 PM)

QUOTE (mikez @ Feb 23 2005, 01:09 PM) http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd1.htm The definition for model year versus date of manufacture or any other combintaion is not on the website under definitions....as one who does interpretation of rules for a living...I find the DMV's reasoning flawed.   Since I don't own a 76 model year vehicle....I don't care how they interpret it personally.  I just think it's a badly written law and interpreted incorrectly as written. You're right, it's not in the CVC. It's in Health and Safety: 39038. "Model year" means the manufacturer's annual production period which includes January 1 of a calendar year or, if the manufacturer has no annual production period, the calendar year. In the case of any vehicle manufactured in two or more stages, the time of manufacture shall be the date of completion of the chassis. btw, there's LOTS of really interesting stuff in the H&S regs about cars. Most of the emissions related law is there, not in the CVC. It's a $5K fine if you're nailed "tampering" with any emissions device (Sec. 43008), for example. "Ignition timing" is listed specifically as a violation if you "tamper" with it.

OK...based on that definition...the 76 IS a 75....

[Joe Bob]

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Feb 23 2005, 01:57 PM)

btw, there's LOTS of really interesting stuff in the H&S regs about cars. Most of the emissions related law is there, not in the CVC. It's a $5K fine if you're nailed "tampering" with any emissions device (Sec. 43008), for example. "Ignition timing" is listed specifically as a violation if you "tamper" with it.

That part for the CHP to roadside inspections....anything not stock and not having a CARB approval number on it...illegal...you take the car home and can only go the ARB Referee when it is fixed.....

[nine14cats]

So Guys,

If I bring hard copies of these sections highlighted to DMV, do I have a leg to stand on trying to get my "76" (75 manufacture date) classified as a 75?

That would be cool.....

Bill P.

[Joe Bob]

Yup...you can start there....be patient...

[415PB]

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Feb 23 2005, 01:57 PM)

QUOTE (mikez @ Feb 23 2005, 01:09 PM) http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd1.htm The definition for model year versus date of manufacture or any other combintaion is not on the website under definitions....as one who does interpretation of rules for a living...I find the DMV's reasoning flawed.   Since I don't own a 76 model year vehicle....I don't care how they interpret it personally.  I just think it's a badly written law and interpreted incorrectly as written. You're right, it's not in the CVC. It's in Health and Safety: 39038. "Model year" means the manufacturer's annual production period which includes January 1 of a calendar year or, if the manufacturer has no annual production period, the calendar year. In the case of any vehicle manufactured in two or more stages, the time of manufacture shall be the date of completion of the chassis. btw, there's LOTS of really interesting stuff in the H&S regs about cars. Most of the emissions related law is there, not in the CVC. It's a $5K fine if you're nailed "tampering" with any emissions device (Sec. 43008), for example. "Ignition timing" is listed specifically as a violation if you "tamper" with it.

Holy Shit, the CVC is my bible at work. I didn't even know that vehicle S*@! was in the H&S code (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/laugh.gif)

[Cap'n Krusty]

Bad news for you rule interpreters! The MY is whatever the manufacturer said it was when the car was certified for sale in the USA. My 1990 Audi 90 was built in March of 1989, and I've seen Coupe Quattros built as early as January. The 20v NA engine used in these cars was only sold in North America as a MY 1990 and 1991 vehicle, despite the early build date. 1990s had airbags, mine doesn't. The sedans didn't have alarms, mine does. You have to look deeper into the way it's done................ The Cap'n