CA: AB 2461 Changing and Extending Amnesity

[Morgester]

In case you missed it, Assembly Bill 2461 (Emmerson) was passed. It was designed to clean up last years bill. In short it does the following:

1. Delay this bill's operative dates so that the amnesty program would be in effect from July 1, 2011 until June 30, 2012.

So amnesty is extended until June 30, 2012

2. Require a vehicle in the amnesty program to be certified as having met smog requirements.

The statute specifically states:

For purposes of this section, a certificate of compliance
shall be issued to a specially constructed vehicle that has applied
for amnesty if the vehicle has met the inspection and maintenance
tailpipe emissions requirements, as determined by the Bureau of
Automotive Repair, for the model year assigned under paragraph (2) of
subdivision (c). A specially constructed vehicle that has applied
for amnesty shall not be subject to the requirements of a visual
inspection.

My limited review suggest that you still need a SB 100 exemption or pass emissions based on the year of the amnesty application. Same rules as it has been except for #3

3. Exempt these vehicles from the visual inspection element of smog test requirements.

No visual inspection required.

Further information can be found www.sen.ca.gov by searching for AB2461

For those California residents that have improperly registered kit cars I strongly encourage you to take advange of this program.

For those others that are looking to buy a kit car in California, a reminder that a kit car or replica car can never possess registration reflecting the date that the vehicle replicates (AKA 1965). The vehicle was not in existence in 1965. These cars are to be registered as specially constructed vehicles and the year of the vehicle should reflect the year of the build. In California any registration that states otherwise should be fraudulent.

[RodKnock]

Mr. Morgester,

Thank you for the update.

I guess the question that seems to always come up on this forum is when a buyer brings his legally titled replica, titled as a 1965, from another state to CA, With the legal 1965 registration from another state, can the buyer register it here (CA) as a 1965 and avoid and/or ignore the SB100 & SPCNS process? The old "full faith and credit" clause.

[Morgester]

For those new to the out-of-state issue, search my name and look for past post.

RodKnock: There seems to be an exception to every rule and the "full faith and credit" clause is still one that has not been nailed down. As some members of the forum are aware DMV still is going both ways on this issue (allowing reg as 65 / changing reg to year of build.)

Bottom line - be careful bringing out-of-state reg's into California. Make sure they were legally registered in the orgin state and disclose everything.

Number one problem that I have seen is that the vehicle being brought in was illegally titled in the orgin state. Needless to say that creates problems with the California process.

[xlr8or]

Thanks for the update Mr. Morgester. Having clarification on this type of issue is important and valuable to the hobby.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Morgester

RodKnock: There seems to be an exception to every rule and the "full faith and credit" clause is still one that has not been nailed down. As some members of the forum are aware DMV still is going both ways on this issue (allowing reg as 65 / changing reg to year of build.)

Bottom line - be careful bringing out-of-state reg's into California. Make sure they were legally registered in the orgin state and disclose everything.

Number one problem that I have seen is that the vehicle being brought in was illegally titled in the orgin state. Needless to say that creates problems with the California process.

A follow-up question if you please.

Is the State working on eliminating this exception?

[ACademic]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

A follow-up question if you please.

Is the State working on eliminating this exception?

Mr. Morgester, your posts here are always valued and appreciated.

I would love to see the State try to prove, in a court of law, that so long as another State accepted and processed a vehicle registration based on what was presented to them in the past (legally and in full truth, or otherwise), was invalid and therefore null and void. You would essentially be setting a national precedent whereby one State can question the legitimacy and integrity of another's DMV process, and overthrow that other State's determination "just because" they believe it was not processed properly.

Now I realize that opens up a whole different can of worms, namely interstate fraud and abuse of an otherwise just and fair (albeit complicated and frustrating at times) DMV process. And that's when God invented AAA.

[Randy Rosenberg]

Hi Mr. Morgester,

Just a quick note of thanks for being the only "public official" willing to post valuable and pertinent information about the titling and registration of our vehicles on our public forum. By doing so, you set yourself up as a target for everyone who disagrees with the processes in CA, however you still continue to post and keep us updated. No other state has an official willing to do this, and for this reason alone, I say, "Thank you", especially considering that its your job to prosecute those who break the law.

Happy New Year,
Randy...

[RodKnock]

I would argue, with little to no legal background, that our cars were never built in 1965 and thus any registration showing the build and/or production date of 1965 is erroneous.

[ACademic]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I would argue, with little to no legal background, that our cars were never built in 1965 and thus any registration showing the build and/or production date of 1965 is erroneous.

I agree with you 100%. All I'm saying is that some states receive paperwork and they see a 17 digit VIN and they process it per their own procedures because that is what they were taught to do. The owner pays his vehicle taxes, maybe goes through a vehicle inspection, and then gets his tags and is declared "legal" in the broader sense.

Now let's call a spade a spade, so we know that fraud has been committed. But the originating state errored in their due diligence (sub-standard procedures?) and allowed it to pass. Even if a more knowledgeable state is passed the bad registration, and they really, really suspect it, all they can do legally is contact the originating state and ask if it's valid. The person on the other end of the phone will look at their less-than-desirable database and nod yes.

That being said, the amnesty program in CA is an excellent way to "correct" your paperwork, as future intra-state (within CA) transfers will undoubtedly be red flagged as automated systems tag certain automotive profiles (i.e. '32 Fords are another one). There are more in circulation than good 'ol Henry ever produced!.

[RodKnock]

Well, when writing in the "make" and "model year" on the CA application for title form, I would be VERY circumspect about writing in 1965 Ford or 1965 Cobra or 1965 Kirkham or whatever. You sign under penalty of perjury, no matter what your "insert State here" legal title says.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/reg/reg343.pdf

You have a legal title from another state stating that you have a 1965 something, but it isn't a 1965 something. It replicates a 1965 something, but the CA form doesn't ask for what year it replicates.

Personally, I would be nervous and always looking over my shoulder.

[Excaliber]

All I'm saying is that some states receive paperwork and they see a 17 digit VIN

The question would go back to how the 17 digit vin originated. From that Mustang ya got the parts from or that 1965 Ford Galaxie sitting in the backyard or what....?

[ACademic]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

The question would go back to how the 17 digit vin originated. From that Mustang ya got the parts from or that 1965 Ford Galaxie sitting in the backyard or what....?

And what adds to the confusion is that in the mid 60's some manufacturers had 13 digit VINs (as I recall).

Yes, do the right thing and either follow SPCN and the amnesty program. Those with really deep pockets and/or lack of common sense can go the court route.

[kayakjack]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Well, when writing in the "make" and "model year" on the CA application for title form, I would be VERY circumspect about writing in 1965 Ford or 1965 Cobra or 1965 Kirkham or whatever. You sign under penalty of perjury, no matter what your "insert State here" legal title says.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/reg/reg343.pdf

You have a legal title from another state stating that you have a 1965 something, but it isn't a 1965 something. It replicates a 1965 something, but the CA form doesn't ask for what year it replicates.

Personally, I would be nervous and always looking over my shoulder.

This whole area is a bit grey. Not black and white. If you own a car from a state whose laws align with the SEMA suggested template and therefore have a legal title saying the year the vehicle represents is the year of record (say 1965), answering California's "Make" and "Model Year" is not very clear.

Different people could have different interpretations.

Jack

[tcrist]

I say, How about just stating the truth. Don't try and say that it is what it isn't.

Fill out the correct paperwork and be done with it.

Also, Just because the state that you are in will register it as "What is most resembles" does not mean that it is what it resembles. If it was built in 2007 then it is a 2007.

JMO of course.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by kayakjack

This whole area is a bit grey. Not black and white. If you own a car from a state whose laws align with the SEMA suggested template and therefore have a legal title saying the year the vehicle represents is the year of record (say 1965), answering California's "Make" and "Model Year" is not very clear.

Different people could have different interpretations.

Jack

Jack, it's very clear to me. The form doesn't read "Make It Replicates" and "Model Year It Replicates."

The bulk of these cars REALLY pollute the air, A LOT, but for the new green e-rod alternatives or so I've read. My car was built in 2007, but not on this green earth does it meet federal or state guidelines on anything remotely resembling a 2007 vehicle in terms of smog, crash testing, etc. I should need an exemption (SPCNS/SB100) to the rules and I got one. I think it's a pretty good system in my tiny part of the world. Is it perfect, no, but not bad.

[roadrod2000]

It’s good to see that the amnesty program has been extended so that all the procrastinators out there can get in on this. Doing the right thing should always be your first choice, but some people still like to learn things the hard way. If you have a California registration that says your car is something that it is not that is fraud and you face the possibility of prosecution and/or confiscation of the car. Whether or not it was registered maliciously is something that a court would decide. The DMV can probably be blamed for a lot of the mistakes that were made during registration of these cars and that is why they are offering the chance to make corrections (OK I know they are trying to come up with more tax money as well) so I say why not? We don’t know what will happen In the future and the fact that this is available now may come back to “bite” you if you don’t take advantage of it when they change the rules later. Also, the SB100 numbers are aplenty right now so “smog exempt status” is somewhat easier to get.

[kayakjack]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Jack, it's very clear to me. The form doesn't read "Make It Replicates" and "Model Year It Replicates."

The bulk of these cars REALLY pollute the air, A LOT, but for the new green e-rod alternatives or so I've read. My car was built in 2007, but not on this green earth does it meet federal or state guidelines on anything remotely resembling a 2007 vehicle in terms of smog, crash testing, etc. I should need an exemption (SPCNS/SB100) to the rules and I got one. I think it's a pretty good system in my tiny part of the world. Is it perfect, no, but not bad.

California seems to be a special case. Nothing new there. In most other places in the country if you present a valid 1965 title from another state and say "hey it wasn't really built in 1965, it was built in 2007", the DMV will tell you, "Sorry, once it is legally titled, that is it. 1965 it is."

Jack

[Randy Rosenberg]

Originally Posted by kayakjack

This whole area is a bit grey. Not black and white. If you own a car from a state whose laws align with the SEMA suggested template and therefore have a legal title saying the year the vehicle represents is the year of record (say 1965), answering California's "Make" and "Model Year" is not very clear.

Different people could have different interpretations.

Jack

The words I bolded are exactly what Mr. Morgester refers to when he wrote about how the non-CA state legally titled it. In this case, where the SEMA worded legislation has passed, those cars are titled under this SEMA legislation are legally assigned "1965" as the Model Year. IMHO, replicas titled this way under the SEMA law can be titled in CA as "1965", since the "1965" title is 100% legal and acceptable in CA.

[RodKnock]

For me, SEMA SCHMEMA. All our cars, except for the early CSX cars, were never produced, built, manufactured, advertised, marketed or sold in 1965.

[bingo2]

This debate could go on forever and I expressed my opinion in another thread.

I have a car currently registered and titled and insured in California as a 1966 AC, which it is not. It is a RUCC that I purchased from Texas, where it was also titled and registered as a 1965 AC having been titled and registered previously as such in Alabama.

I wanted to do the right thing by going through the SB 100 process; it hasn't been easy.

The easiest part was getting the SPCN number from the DMV; very nice competent people. The CHP Vehicle Verification took six weeks; there is a 3 week lead time for the appointments and the only officer able to do the verifications was injured and the first appointment was cancelled. I tried several of the CHP office here in SoCal and all had the same lead time.

Today I went to see the BAR referee to get the smog exemption: didn't happen. The car does not meet the bare minimum requirements of having the 1960 mandated PVC system.
It will cost a bit of money but, I will get that exemption.