Connecticut: Registration, Inspection & Emissions

[SJK2]

I concur with both Don & Jay,
Its imperative that we all follow up and support.....

[Cashburn]

Originally Posted by SJK2

I concur with both Don & Jay,
Its imperative that we all follow up and support.....

At this juncture it is important to contact members of the Transportation Committee and voice your support. Once we get approval by the committee it then becomes important to contact your representative for your district and request their support when the bill is heard in the full house.

The tact to take is that we would like to see these vehicles registered and held to the standards of the vehicle they intend to recreate.

If it is a '34 Ford then the standards are safety and no emissions (over 25 years)

If it is a '65 Cobra then the standards are safety and no emissions (over 25 years)

If it is a replica of a 1990 Lambo then the standard should be safety and emissions based on 1990 standards.

The concept to stress here is that the architecture of the original would not support all advancements made to vehicles since its creation without a significant investment and the loss of the original intent. This hurts the hobbyists and the preservation of automotive history.

[Don]

The 34 members of the Transportation Committee

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/Membe...=TRA&doc_type=

At any one time, there were approx 12 to 15 members present at the Public Hearing. Every member receives a copy of the written testimony

If you have not submitted the written support for the Bill:

FAX: 869-240-0021: Direct the FAX to Antonio in the House Transportation Committee and mention HB 5790

e-mail to Antonio:

antonio.peronace@cga.ct.gov

[Don]

For HB5790, there were 9 written documents submitted, as of 9:00 AM on 2/9, even though there were three ways of submitting, in person, fax, or e-mail. The 9 came from the Connecticut Council of Car Clubs ( 4Cs ), Vintage Motorsports ( BackDraft Racing ), ERA, SEMA and 4 individuals.

We were able to take copies of all the written testimony. I was very disappointed that after all the Reply ,Posting and View traffic on this Thread regarding the topic there were only 9 written documents submitted. The reference for this Thread had also been posted on the FFR Forum by a Club Cobra member.

It is recognized that individuals might have sent e-mails to Legislators and/or Claire Janowski which would also have supported the initiative . There would be no way of knowing how many selected the alternative. In hindsight, after gaining experience with the process, appears all three methods, contacting a specific Legislator and the Bill sponsor , and providing testimony for use by the entire Committee, are needed to gain maximum exposure.

Another unknown is how many of the approx 300 Composite owners in CT have Cobras.,GT 40s etc and/or follow the Club Cobra and FFR Forums. Another hindsight , finding all the other Forums in CT, other than Cobras , that have Composite members.

The value of written testimony :

* Allows all 34 members of the Transportation Committee to become informed. At any one time during the Public Hearing only 12 to 15 members of the Committee were present due to schedule conflicts and/or other Committee assignments.
* There is a discussion reference for the Senators and Representatives to use when the entire Committee meets and takes a vote on reporting the Bill out of Committee
* Provides a variety of individual personalized viewpoints on the same subject
* Etc., etc.,

I have asked the LOB Transportation Committee office if written testimony can still be submitted, If I hear back, I will post the reply.

For Bills other than HB5790, I did notice during the Public hearing that Legislators, not on the Transportation Committee, testified. If anyone knows Legislators that have similar interests as we have and might also be of assistance, they also should be contacted.

For the future, if this initiative is not successful , there will be nothing to prevent additional reductions in the emission standard for Composites registered after 2007. Included is the possibility of making the future standards retroactive, such as eliminating the 2000 standard and adopting the 2005 standard for Composites that were already registered, as noted below:

2000: HC 484, CO 5.09 ( eliminated )
2005: HC 800, CO 4.00
2006: HC 220, CO 1.20
2007: HC 220, CO 1.20