Imported From Japan: The CA DMV Thinks We're Special

"Bird" (Bird)
06/29/2014 at 21:47 • Filed to: Imported From Japan

Maybe it's just my ego, but I believe !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! issued by the CA DMV was in response to our attempt to register a 1970 Toyota Crown. They sent that memo out 2 days after we received a letter denying our registration. They say any direct import since 1966 that does not meet EPA requirements must contact CARB for certification.

We're currently compiling our case, and will be posting all about it tomorrow. Short version...Bureaucracy in California is even worse than I thought. They're attempting to stretch the definition of 'used direct import vehicle' to mean vehicles manufactured after 1966. Funny, since they !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! as a vehicle manufactured after 1975...basically it's a fucking mess. This memo also directs DMV employees to not uphold the exemption that vehicles over 25 years old do not need to meet FMVSS as it's written in the California Health and Safety Code, and is currently in their manual!

I wonder if RM Auctions, and Gooding and Co. are aware they can't sell their !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! to a California resident? Actually according to this memo, it seems a lot of the cars up for auction every year in Monterey shouldn't be able to be sold there at all . After all it is illegal for a California dealer or auctioneer to represent a car for sale that does not meet certification requirements...according to Vehicle Code !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (26)

quarterlifecrisis > Bird
06/29/2014 at 21:52

Best of luck. This looks like it could be a long process.

dogisbadob > Bird
06/29/2014 at 21:52

Wow, especially since pre-75 cars are exempt from smug check, right? Isn't that the cutoff? Glad I'm not in Cali!

Bird > quarterlifecrisis
06/29/2014 at 21:53

Thanks...I know will be.

Bird > dogisbadob
06/29/2014 at 21:57

1975 is the cuttoff for the testing requirement. You still have to meet all applicable smog laws for that year vehicle...for the most part, their is lax enforcement for vehicles before 1975, but it's still illegal to modify the emissions system.

So, if we followed their procedure, after we spend the thousands of dollars CARB wants us to spend to certify our vehicle as if it were a new vehicle in 1972, and a certified lab issues a certificate of conformance attesting to that, we would then be exempt from the CA biennial smog inspection program...makes total sense right?

NotUnlessRoundIsFunny > Bird
06/29/2014 at 22:03

I profoundly wish the DMV and CARB would find something better to do. Sigh.

f86sabre > Bird
06/29/2014 at 22:08

Give them hell. Sounds like you have a good understanding of the regs. Fight them with their own tools.

SteyrTMP > Bird
06/29/2014 at 22:32

And people don't understand why I don't have any desire to live in CA. You think that's bad... I have 30k+ worth of firearms that wouldn't be able to go with me... I don't think any of them would be ok'ed by CA standards.

Bird > SteyrTMP
06/29/2014 at 22:54

Yeah, I know there are plenty of reasons...but this comes down to a government agency making their own rules...

Bird > f86sabre
06/29/2014 at 22:54

That's the plan.

SteyrTMP > Bird
06/29/2014 at 22:59

Add another 200+ agencies adding their own rules, and you have... well, California.

dogisbadob > Bird
06/29/2014 at 23:01

That is pretty silly! Do pre-75 cars even have emissions systems? That's the year that automakers started to fit cats on their cars. What's worse is that supposedly their laws are so backwards and so poorly-written that you can't even clean up the car if you wanted to! So if you wanted to install a cat on your 72, that's illegal. WTF?

The only thing you could possibly need is a PCV valve, which has been required since the early 60s.

Bird > dogisbadob
06/30/2014 at 01:40

California was the only state to have emissions laws on the books prior to the federal laws. That's why California is given an exemption by the EPA to make stricter standards...

California has a specific statute on the books that says all 1966-1970 vehicles must be fitted with an exhaust emissions control device, to control the vehicles NOx output. That statute actually applies to all 1966-1970 vehicles in California. It seems that it is no longer enforced for any domestic vehicles, since they are exempted from biennial smog certification. The letter I got from the DMV cited Section 43600:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Division 26 repealed and added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Part 5 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

( Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Article 1 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

(Added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957.)

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The state board shall adopt and implement emission standards for used motor vehicles for the control of emissions therefrom, which standards the state board has found to be necessary and technologically feasible to carry out the purposes of this division; however, the installation of certified devices on used motor vehicles shall not be mandated except by statute. Such standards may be applicable to motor vehicle engines, rather than to motor vehicles.

Then, when I called them and left a message, they returned my call and left a message stating the specific applicable statute was 43654:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Division 26 repealed and added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Part 5 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Article 2 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), every 1966 through 1970 light-duty motor vehicle, subject to registration in this state, shall be equipped with a certified device to control its exhaust emission of oxides of nitrogen upon initial registration, upon transfer of ownership and registration, and upon registration of a motor vehicle previously registered outside this state.

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to a 1966 through 1970 light-duty motor vehicle (1) which is registered to, or subject to registration by, an elderly low-income person, (2) which was purchased from a person other than a dealer or a person holding a retail seller's permit, and (3) which is used principally by or for the benefit of the elderly low-income person. However, only one vehicle described above shall be registered to, or subject to registration by, the elderly low-income person at any one time.

(c) For purposes of subdivision (b), the Department of Motor Vehicles may require satisfactory proof (1) of the age of the transferee of the motor vehicle, (2) of the combined adjusted gross income of the household in which the transferee resides, and (3) that the transferor of the motor vehicle is a person other than a dealer or a person holding a retail seller's permit.

(Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 664, Sec. 2.)

When you go into it, that law, originally written in 1975, says that we need to have that certified device installed, and that it should cost no more than $35 installed:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Article 1 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

An exhaust device certified pursuant to Section 43610:

(a) Shall not cost, including the cost of installation, more than thirty-five dollars ($35).

(b) Shall not require maintenance more than once each 12,000 miles of operation, and such maintenance shall not cost, including the cost of parts and labor, more than fifteen dollars ($15).

(c) Shall equal or exceed the performance criteria established by the state board for devices for new motor vehicles or, in the alternative, have an expected useful life of at least 50,000 miles of operation.

(Added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957.)

I would be totally ok with that..except they are saying direct import vehicles are different...that you need to contact the ARB, and they will tell you their process for obtaining a certificate of compliance...The ARB, told us that our vehicle must be certified according to the "Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines", Subpart P, Part 85, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations as they existed on November 15, 1972.

They get that from a scanned document originally written in 1988, entitled "California Certification Procedures For 1975 and Later Model Year Used Modifier-Certified Motor Vehicles" . That document is cited in the California Health and Safety Code, but it's cited in a section that defines a "Used Direct Import Vehicle", as being 1975 or newer...

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Division 26 repealed and added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

( Part 5 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957. )

( Heading of Chapter 6 amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 859, Sec. 5. )

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

(Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 859, Sec. 6.)

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For purposes of this chapter, "used direct import vehicle" means any 1975 or later model-year direct import vehicle not required to be certified as a new direct import vehicle pursuant to this part.

For purposes of this section, the age of a motor vehicle shall be determined by the following, in descending order of preference:

(a) From the first calendar day of the model year as indicated in the vehicle identification number.

(b) From the last calendar day of the month the vehicle was delivered by the manufacturer as shown on the foreign title document.

(d) From the last calendar day of the month the foreign title document was issued.

The rest of the statutes in that chapter give the ARB the authority to regulate "Used Direct Import Vehicles". (But the way I read it, only vehicles made after 1975 fit their definition.)

All of the ARB regulations can be found in the 'California Code of Regulations"...So that takes you to:

"California Code of Regulations, Title 13. Motor Vehicles, Division 3. Air Resources Board, Chapter 1. Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices, Article 7. Procedures for Certifying Used Modifier-Certified Motor Vehicles and Licensing Requirements for Vehicle Emission Test Laboratories"

13 CCR § 2047

§ 2047. Certification Procedures for Used Modifier-Certified Motor Vehicles.

The emission standards and procedures for the certification of used modifier-certified motor vehicles in California are set forth in the "California Certification Procedures for 1975 and Later Model-Year Used Modifier-Certified Motor Vehicles," adopted by the state board January 8, 1988.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 44203, 44205, and 44207-44209, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 44200, 44201, 44203-44205, and 44207-44209, Health and Safety Code.

It's funny, when they cite their authority to implement that regulation, they conveniently start at the section after the definition. Then they buried the part about vehicles older than 1974 in that document. Even though, the document itself says it only covers 1975 and later vehicles. I can find no where in any California Health and Safety Code or Vehicle Code that we are required to meet that Federal standard as it was written in 1972.

So I'm actually dealing with two government entities that aren't quite following our regulations...

Sorry for the novel, but I needed to put all that in one place as reference for the article I'm going to write about it, so this seemed as good a place as any...

NotUnlessRoundIsFunny > SteyrTMP
06/30/2014 at 02:27

Friends from other states often think I'm joking when I tell them about California firearm laws...

thebigbossyboss > Bird
06/30/2014 at 10:10

I though Merica was land of the free?

Bird > thebigbossyboss
06/30/2014 at 12:28

Of course it is...but you forgot the silent (If you're rich.) that needs to be added to that phrase.

SteyrTMP > NotUnlessRoundIsFunny
07/01/2014 at 00:24

Being in the Class III crowd, you have to know about that kind of crap. You couldn't pay me enough to live there. That goes for Illinois, New York, and the majority of the New England area as well.

PinkLemon > Bird
07/12/2014 at 10:37

Any updated Bird? I recently imported a 1981 BJ42 from Australia, thought I did my homework and I was waiting for my California title/plates from Sacramento when yesterday I received a letter from the California DMV technical compliance division asking for the infamous Toyota letter. After my discussions with the local DMV here in Santa Rosa I understood that I could use the 25-year DOT and 21-year EPA exemptions, but it seems not. It is a diesel vehicle, and there were no emissions standards for that year of diesel vehicle in California. I have a feeling dealing with the California ARB is going to be a very expensive process, so any ideas/tips on this front would be appreciated. Maybe I'll just call the number provided on the letter and plead my case when the DMV opens on Monday...

Bird > PinkLemon
07/12/2014 at 11:44

They won't even call me back, so good luck. I've left 3 unanswered messages with 2 different people. Makes it tough when they won't speak to you.

Other than that, we haven't had a chance to get back to dealing with ours. We're taking a road trip in the Aerocabin right now. It's registered (and will ultimately be stored) in Arizona.

This is absolutely a case of an 'underground regulation'. We're going to attempt to get ours registered in CA, but most likely we'll end up registering it out of state. California has decided they don't want my registration money, tax money, or my business. We're moving as soon as possible.

Someone up there in Sacramento obviously hates cars. They're trying to catch every import they can. I would try writing to your state assemblyman as well. They are the only ones with the power to fix this. CARB is going to tell you to go to a lab and get certified. Unfortunately there are no certified labs that do diesels...

Boost135 > Bird
08/01/2014 at 02:39

take them to small claims court in the district where you tried to register it. There are procedures for bringing suit toward government agencies. Hell, name dmv and arb if you can. I'd make up an amount based on value of time/transportation lost that's reasonable and then invite some media to the date. Use the phrase "abuse of the public".

Chris Nuggets > Bird
06/05/2015 at 14:45

In your research, do these restrictions apply for Grey Import JDM cars that are ALREADY registered and reside in California as well? I am looking to get a 1970 Hakosuka from an owner in CA but am unsure if I am able to register it beyond his most recent registration due to this “new rule”

Thanks for your article, it’s helped a lot

Bird > Chris Nuggets
06/05/2015 at 16:52

I have not heard of anyone having an issue transferring ownership of a vehicle already in California. I can’t say for sure you will have no problems, but I doubt you would have any issues. Since it already has a California title, it would seem like any other transaction to the DMV.

Chris Nuggets > Bird
06/05/2015 at 16:59

Cool, thanks for the input. I will keep this thread posted if all works well with the owner and DMV

Bird > Chris Nuggets
06/05/2015 at 17:05

Good luck with the purchase!

If you do have any issues with the registration, let me know. I was given contact info for someone who specializes in difficult California registrations. I can find it and pass it your way if needed. I didn’t end up using them, but I know they were able help someone having a similar problem with an Italian import.

Arod5 > Bird
02/12/2016 at 19:13

Any leads on what happens with registering Toyota crown in ca ? I'm in a similar position with a Datsun 510 import ?

Arod5 > Bird
02/12/2016 at 19:16

Can you contact me need help with an import and DMV problems with a 510

Bird > Arod5
02/13/2016 at 01:31

Send me an email at bird@roadtripmotorcars.com

I didn’t fight to get the Crown registered...I might be able to help though.