CA - SPCN reg update

[Morgester]

Update on California registration issues:

Out-of-state special construction registrations. I am hearing that DMV is now registering out-of-state special constructed vehicles as SPCN’s which means they must pass emission tests for the year that they are manufactured or have a SB100 exemption. DMV is referring these vehicles to CHP. CHP in turn is confirming the registration process in the foreign jurisdiction. Any error or irregularity in the foreign registration will lead to an initial denial of registration and the requirement to post a bond to insure that the vehicle is not stolen. Assuming valid registration DMV is requiring the SPCN process.

Using out-of-state registration to get around California’s emission rules is a crap shot and considering the cost of these vehicles one that I would recommend avoiding.

Amnesty: The AB 619 is still alive and can be read at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...rch_type=email

As this list is aware a sticking point has been on the issue of emissions. One change this bill makes is to authorize the Department of Consumer Affairs, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, to adopt regulations to create emission standards for specially constructed vehicles that are different from the requirements of specified provisions of this act. This will not decrease SB 100 exceptions. SEMA appears confident that they can create a “Green Rod” program that will allow SPCN to meet California air standards. The bench tests on emission control devices have exceeded expectations. This is still a work in progress. The goal is to allow vehicles that are outside the SB100 exemption to meet current emission standards.

[Excaliber]

As I am considering a move to California I will be watching this closely. The current registration process is so daunting it is a major deterent factor.

[cobra de capell]

“Green Rod” program? Isn't that not within the owning a Cobra program - meaning why bother if one ends up driving a green rod?

[vanoochka]

Welcome back Mr. Morgester,

It's good to see you posting again, as the site has been a little slow lately. This will certainly liven things up.

Does this mean that California is no longer giving "full faith and credit" to an SPCN previously, legally, titled as a "1965 Ford" in a foreign jurisdiction?

Thanks,

Chuck

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

As I am considering a move to California I will be watching this closely. The current registration process is so daunting it is a major deterent factor.

Now there's a man with his priorities straight. Choose your future destination based upon the ease or difficulty of his Cobra's registration process. Obviously, you're not married or the choice would have been made for you.

Ernie, while I haven't completed the entire process (the rest should be easy), the "SB100 gauntlet" is really not that hard, although mine was made a little more difficult than the other 499 registrations in 2008. In the end.

[Morgester]

Remember I am not DMV and it is DMV who decides how to implement the laws as they currently exist in California. The only reason I am involved in this process is to deal with the resulting registration fallout that follows our office’s prosecutions of illegal registration services. Our goal is to place the registered owner in a position they would have been had they registered the vehicle legally.

Here we have two rules at issue "full faith and credit" and the SPCN rule. In the past we have seen DMV Field Offices use the “full faith and credit” to issue a year on a SPCN that allowed it to be smog exempt. DMV’s main office is now looking at the issue and it appears that they will register the vehicles but the vehicles still have to comply with SPCN emission standards – SB100 or pass an emission test for the year of the build.
To be candid these vehicles should meet SPCN emission rules. The use of “full faith and credit” to avoid emissions is at best an unfortunate unintended consequence or simply does not apply to emission testing. DMV is now looking like they will take the position that “full faith and credit” doesn’t apply to emission testing.

So my free advice (worth what you paid for it) – don’t do it. If you choose to do it make sure you disclose everything and then DMV will do whatever DMV will do. Of course if you don’t like what DMV does on this issue there are administrative remedies available to you that you will have to win prior to your vehicle being registered.

Final note, if the amnesty bill makes it through and SEMA’s “greenrod” after market kit allows SPCN to meet current emission testing standards I plan on offering legislation to put to rest the “full faith and credit” issue so that it is clear it does not apply to emission testing. I like things simply, one set of rules that apply to everyone and that are enforced equally and fairly.

The plan is simply – consistent rules that allow hot rods and SPCN to be legally registered in California. Once in place our targeted registration services lose around 90% of their revenue and it will no longer be cost effective for them to remain in business. Without the funding from you folks these services will not be around to register those other vehicles (stolen / lemon / Katrina . . .)

The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.
-- Abraham Lincoln

[Excaliber]

Rodknock, got that right, Cobra first, dogs second, me last. A 3 car garage, fenced back yard and a one bedroom should do nicely.

[RodKnock]

Well, a one bedroom, fenced backyard with a 3-car garage in the SF Bay Area would be a...uh...er....shop with an office and a chair.

Mr. Morgester, thank you for posting. Always. I/we appreciate it very much.

[Slick61]

Reading through all of this, it doesn't look any simpler to me. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it all reads like stereo instructions... too complicated for me... there's got to be a better way.

[donraye]

Well I'm right in the middle of this mess. I bought a car that I was told (by the auto dealer I purchased it from) was legally registered in FL. as a 1966 Cobra.
I brought it here and the DMV refused to even look at it and sent me packing to the CHP. the CHP officer inspecting the car called FL and had the FL DMV "investigate" the FL title. Upon investigation it now seems that Florida screwed up and the title is actually NOT leagal (by a few months before the laws in FL changed as I understand them).
Now
I have $36,000 plus and counting in a car that I can not get CA to register except as an 2006 SPCN and this 351/425hp engine can not in any way pass a 2006 smog test.
I guess I am going to have to let the car sit until January 2009 and camp out at the doors of the DMV on the morning of Jan. 2nd. and try to get an SB100. Not even sure now if I can do that still but will have to find out(?)
I am now driving on a second months temporary and will try to get another for Sept. if some kind soul at the local DMV will give me one again (which would be #3).
What kind of "kit" could possibly be put on my 351 that would make it a "greenrod"? Whatever it might be I'll bet it completely screws up the engine and cost a fortune to buy and install.
The whole CA attitude about these cars is total BS and the issue of "air quality" is a complete fraud. You dirty the air more by using a fireplace one day per year or BBQ once in a while than these cars do. Why don't they outlaw BBQs? Oops, I've given them yet another big brain fart to enact draconian idiot legislation for.

[Got the Bug]

Don - Just sent you an email regarding your situation with your TOP.

[vanoochka]

Don,

My car was legally titled as a 1965 Ford in Arizona, and actually has two different VIN's: the original from Superformance (I assume) and a VIN assigned by Arizona. When I brought it to the CA DMV last year, they used the Arizona VIN and the 1965 Ford designation on my new title and registration. It took them about 45 minutes to complete the process, and a supervisor got involved, so I guess they were doing some checking. (BTW, I honestly didn't discover the SB100 issue until I found this site about a month later)

Prior to Mr. Morgester's above post, I had already decided to go through the process even though my car was technically legal in CA without an SB100 sticker, just to avoid any future entanglements. Now, it looks like I have to do it regardless.

For what it's worth, it now seems that legally registered as 1965 outside of CA or not, we are all in the same leaky boat.

From what I have gathered from speaking with those that have gone through this process, it may be worth your time to drive down to the Santa Clara DMV on Jan 2nd.

Good luck with it.

Chuck

[Got the Bug]

Originally Posted by Morgester

Remember I am not DMV and it is DMV who decides how to implement the laws as they currently exist in California. The only reason I am involved in this process is to deal with the resulting registration fallout that follows our office’s prosecutions of illegal registration services. Our goal is to place the registered owner in a position they would have been had they registered the vehicle legally.

Here we have two rules at issue "full faith and credit" and the SPCN rule. In the past we have seen DMV Field Offices use the “full faith and credit” to issue a year on a SPCN that allowed it to be smog exempt. DMV’s main office is now looking at the issue and it appears that they will register the vehicles but the vehicles still have to comply with SPCN emission standards – SB100 or pass an emission test for the year of the build.

Mr Morgester,

Which governmental entity is responsible for investigating illegal registrations and forwarding them to your office for prosecution? If the DMV's main office is investigating, then they are really auditing inconsistencies regarding how their own field offices interpreted and applied "full faith and credit" to register out of state cars with a smog exemption.

Thanks for posting and your efforts to keep the CC community up to date.

[Excaliber]

Remember guys, it is not prudent to 'shoot the messenger' in any way. If your frustrated and need to vent start a new thread and have at it. If you don't like California, move out, no need to bash the State. Mr. Moregster doesn't need to 'justify' his job or his appointment or by whom he was appointed or why. It is what it is, he's just doing his job.

[vanoochka]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Remember guys, it is not prudent to 'shoot the messenger' in any way. If your frustrated and need to vent start a new thread and have at it. If you don't like California, move out, no need to bash the State. Mr. Moregster doesn't need to 'justify' his job or his appointment or by whom he was appointed or why. It is what it is, he's just doing his job.

What are you talking about?

[Excaliber]

If the shoe fits...

[vanoochka]

You input has been given all the consideration it merits.

[Slick61]

My intention was not to "bash" Mr. Morgester. I appreciate his input to the site. But I still think the process is getting entirely too convoluted & permutated, and is not unilaterally applied. In the immortal words of Mr. Scott (Chief Engineer, USS Enterprise/ USS Excelsior): "The more you try to overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop-up the drain!"

For those doing a new build, the process seems relatively straightforward. For those who legally registered via the "full faith & credit" route, I see a veritable minefield of horrors. When I was researching this process, I went to two different DMV offices where, when I mentioned SB-100 registration, I got the "deer in the headlights" look.

To me, the issue NOW is that this will probably get "sorted out" very late in the year (October/November). Is there time for additional training of DMV personnel? A lot of pay cuts & staff reductions took place in the DMV- which doesn't bode well for January 2nd. This situation could conceivably leave everyone scrambling at the last minute to try & get all the requisite paperwork in place. And, as an ancillary benefit, may encounter DMV personnel who have NOT been briefed and/or trained on the changes to the process... Right now, that setup just does NOT instill confidence in the system.

The separation of registration and emissions testing looks to be a real hornet's nest. I understand the basic objectives of the amnesty bill, but it doesn't appear to address the emissions testing side of the issue. With the potential for a MUCH larger pool of applicants for SB-100 registration (and no guarantee of receiving an SB-100 number), a lot more people could being VERY agitated on that cold day in January.

If the intent is to eliminate the "full faith & credit" clause in the vehicle code, there should be a grandfather clause to address those already legally registered that way. It's fair to those who are legally registered that way, and it's fair to those competing for the sacred 500 SB-100 numbers.

Anyhow, that's my 2 cents... my brain teaser for the day. It just strikes me as ironic that this registration/emission issue is SO screwed up in the state where "car culture" was more or less born... and thrives. The automotive aftermarket & cottage industries are SO big here, but yet there's a perceived effort to run them all off. Whatever... off my soapbox.

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by Got the Bug

Mr Morgester,

Which governmental entity is responsible for investigating illegal registrations and forwarding them to your office for prosecution? If the DMV's main office is investigating, then they are really auditing inconsistencies regarding how their own field offices interpreted and applied "full faith and credit" to register out of state cars with a smog exemption.

Thanks for posting and your efforts to keep the CC community up to date.

We are aware of inconsistencies within DMV field offices and are striving to put forward consistent, understandable, and workable rules.

I am unaware of any arrest or prosecution for registration fraud where the linage of a vehicle is disclosed and DMV choose to register the vehicle in a certain manner. The key for the consumer has always been disclosure. Once you tell DMV what it really is then it is DMV’s issue.

Where you get in trouble is where you know the vehicle was not built in 1965 but you write that down anyway and we all know there is only one reason to do that – getting around emission testing.

[PANAVIA]

Moved to new thread.