Clarification on California emission standards

[Morgester]

I received further clarification on California emission standards as it relates to Specially Constructed Vehicles (SPCN) that does not have a SB100 exemption (500 vehicles a year).

BAR’s will be shortly begin to comply to with existing law which requires SPCN to meet the emission requirements of the year that they are first registered in. If you do not have a SB100 exemption and your vehicle is first registered in 2007, you will be required to meet 2007 emission standards.

BAR’s previous policy of testing to the year the engine replicates was at odds with Vehicle Code § 4750.1 (effective Jan. 1, 2003). This section states in part:

“the vehicle shall be assigned the same model-year as the calendar year in which the application is submitted, for purposes of determining emissions control equipment and inspection requirements for the vehicle.”

An unanswered question is what does “inspection requirements for the vehicle.” This appears to relate to emission testing for the vehicle. However it may be interpreted to require appropriate safety equipment for that year vehicle (bumpers, airbags . . .)

With reference to those vehicles that were passed by BAR under the old standard, it appears that BAR will “grandfather” those vehicles in. So the standard that you had to pass to get your vehicle registered will continue to apply to that vehicle.

BAR will begin to implement that standards outlined in Vehicle Code § 4750.1 once DMV begins assigning a “model-year” to SPCN.

It is important to note that I do not work for BAR or DMV. Both BAR and DMV will have the final word on how Vehicle Code § 4750.1 will be implemented.

Final comment, emission standards for SPCN will probably be the subject of future legislation. There are other issues that may play into this that I will address in a separate thread.

[Sledge]

It warms my heart to see the state of California keeping its eye so firmly on the ball, while at the same time holding its residents by the b__s.

[Randy Rosenberg]

Oh my... If I understand this correctly, this means that all new SPCN's must either meet current (model) year Smog Requirements or have SB100 - no other option, like using a vintage block.

This is not good at all for the entire Hot Rod community. I wonder if SEMA has any plans to address this...

[xlr8or]

Randy I think you hit the nail on the head.

[pgermond]

Mr. Morgester,,

Thank you for the update..... not good news for car enthusiast in California. Any further updates will be appreciated, and I promise I won't shoot the messenger.

Thanks again for the information.

[Sledge]

By the way, I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm just admiring the state of California's multitasking abilities. Multitask yes; govern fairly, no.

If it is a big deal to a miniscule number of people, the California legislature hits at it like it was fighting a snake. If it is a big deal to a much larger portion of the population (like the illegal immigration problem), then nobody's home in the State offices.

I don't necessarily like the content of Morgster's messages but I appreciate him keeping us informed.

Cheers

[Rick Parker]

If that's the case, those that are currently registered legitimately may be perceived to be worth more than in the past(???)

[SkipB]

Rick,

Well, I certainly hope you are correct! I wonder what an SB100 exemption is worth today? Tomorrow more?

SkipB

[Jamo]

Thanks Robert...dammit.

[Morgester]

For a number or reasons DMV has not yet implemented that standards outlined in Vehicle Code § 4750.1 (assigning a “model-year” to SPCN). BAR appears to be following the old guidelines (test to engine) until DMV implements § 4750.1. Implementation may be a lengthy process.

[pmfranke]

NV gets better and california gets worse!Sema replica bill signed into effect july 1st. Replicas will be exempt from states emmision inspection program. Wish i lived in NV. Not.

[onefastmustang]

I was talking to a BAR referee yesterday and brought up this thread. He was well aware of it and said it would most likely be years before it came to fruition..

[bdeutsch]

Somehow the original Dirty Harry movie popped into my mind reading this thread.

I go out and spend anywhere between $75k to $100k on a Cobra SPCN, CSX or Kirkham being my primary choice, then I have to take my chances on either grabbing one of 500 SB100 exemptions (remembering that there are more SPCN/Hot Rods beyond a Cobra trying to do the same thing) or try and work my way through State entities that do not seem to know what rules to follow. Remembering at the same time I am trying to do this, She Who Must be Obeyed keeps asking why I am not able to drive my new, expensive toy (with unknown availability of temporary operating permits).

Am I missing something in this analysis?

[pgermond]

bdeutsch,

That about sums it up. That's the reason I haven't built another one.

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by onefastmustang

I was talking to a BAR referee yesterday and brought up this thread. He was well aware of it and said it would most likely be years before it came to fruition..

I am aware of the reasons. Although it may be years, it could be months. Once DMV places the model year on the registration BAR will follow with the new testing requirments.

[4pipes]

Originally Posted by Morgester

I am aware of the reasons. Although it may be years, it could be months. Once DMV places the model year on the registration BAR will follow with the new testing requirments.

In California, SB100 car values may be emulating beach front property values.

[Jamo]

FOR SALE: 2003 SB100 Number. Well-sorted and runs good. $100,000. Includes free tin can.

[bdeutsch]

or more likely increase the number of owners who, and recognizing what I am saying is not legal, register the car in surrounding States, Nevada, Oregon, etc., and take their chances...

One cannot help but wonder how companies who build other variations of SPCNs in California, for example Boyd Coddington, will end up dealing with this. Maybe move their businesses out of California?