California: Amnesty Passes

[Morgester]

The Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 619. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to develop and administer a vehicle registration amnesty program which would be in effect from January 1, 2010, until December 31, 2010, for vehicles that were previously registered or classified incorrectly and that, pursuant to the program, become correctly registered, as defined. The department would be required to grant amnesty to a vehicle owner if all of the specified conditions are met by December 31, 2010, including, but not limited to, the owner filing a completed application, signed under penalty of perjury, with the department. These provisions would not become operative until July 1, 2009, and would be repealed on January 1, 2011.

The language can be found at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...rch_type=email

I anticipate a major outreach between now and July 1, 2009 to get the word out. The goal is to get everyone back in compliance with State law. Following amnesty there will be stepped up enforcement action and fraudulently registered kit cars and hot rods will be treated exactly as any other fraudulently registered vehicle.

[Got the Bug]

Robert,

Based on a quick read of the bill, this sounds like a one shot deal. If someone applies for Amnesty on January 2, 2010 and doesn't get an SB 100 Certificate, it looks like they may be out of luck.

According to the bill, amnesty will be repealed on January 1, 2011 (prior to the release of the 500 SB 100 certs for 2011). If someone didn't get their SB 100 in 2010, it appears as though their only option would be to pass emissions.

Thanks for the continued updates.

[Morgester]

1. Call it a "do over." It places back at the begining where you either pass emissions or wait for a SB 100.

2. SEMA is working with the ARB to get approval of the "green rod" concept. I have been told that they have developed an "after market" kit that would allow these cars to meet current emission standards. There are a few wrinkles in the testing that would require a waiver from ARB. So the idea is that either you (1) pass emissions for the year of the build (or year of amnesity if seeking amnesity); (2) get a SB 100 pass; (3) or have a "green rod" kit and pass under that standard. With these three options in play all of these cars should be registered and on the road.

[Got the Bug]

So timeline really applies to the application for amnesty vs. securing an SB 100 exemption within the amnesty period.

This could (depending on the number of amnesty applications) make it extremely tough to get one of the 500 SB 100 exemptions in 2010.

[Morgester]

During the first year amnesty is offered only 500 SB 100s will be available. So if your outside SB100 you need to pass emissions or go "green rod."

But why wait? There are 500 SB 100 slots available this year. Amnesty was offered to allow folks to freely fix the registration without getting hauled into court. Now that amnesty is law I do not foresee anyone using our limited resources to prosecute a car owner for getting a head start.

Recently we went through this very excercise with the owners of cars purcased from California Cobra. They went into DMV and said "bad registration" and "need to get it fixed."

Just make sure you have all your paperwork and you need to demonstrate that it was not a turn key build - that means it did not come completly assembled.

Feel free to tell DMV that Morgester sent you.

[Got the Bug]

My car is registered under SB 100, but it's great to see the state recognize the value in offering a constructive solution to register cars with bad registration. That and some sort of "green rod" solution is good for the car hobby and the economy.

Anyone know if anything close to a "green rod" motor is being built today? What do you think the specs on a motor like that would be?

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by Got the Bug

Anyone know if anything close to a "green rod" motor is being built today? What do you think the specs on a motor like that would be?

Not an engine but an aftermarket emission control device. I was told that it is effective in reducing emissions to current standards. I imagine once there is an agreement with ARB that SEMA will release the information.

My memory is that they tested it on existing crate motors. As to specifics, I did not take notes.

Knowing SEMA I am sure you wil be able to get it in chrome or painted to match your color scheme.

[Jamo]

Robert...muy goodo. Not overdone either with a one year lifespan.

[lilhawk]

I need some help on a previous California registration. I recently purchased a LA Exotics replica that was registered in California in 2000 using the donor 1965 mustang VIN (stamped on the block and a matching LA Exotics plate on the frame). The car was then sold and titled in Missouri in 2002 using the same VIN. I live in Kansas and would like to title the car in Kansas but I am having problems with the mustang VIN. I would prefer to keep the existing VIN and save a lot of time and money but I need some help to do so. I know some states allow you to transfer the title of the donor car to the replica but I am not sure if California allowed this in 2000. I know CA no longer does this but I am not concered with SB100, just what was legal in 2000. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

[Morgester]

Welcome to my world - I am assuming that the only thing donated from the original mustang was the VIN. As such it was fraudulently registered in California. Feel free to give me call off line and I would be more then happy to look into LA Exotics.

There is no such beast as a "donor VIN." Either you have the original car or you don't. If you start with the original donor vehicle and make changes you can keep the VIN. The question is how much of the original vehicle must exist to maintain the VIN. Feed back from law enforcement is you need at least the frame, perferably more.

All you "donor VIN" California owners . . . get in line for amnesty and correct your reg.

[DaelB]

Robert,
I know this is a Cobra forum and you have been upfront and very helpful to this group.

I have several friends in a very large group with VW pan based speedsters registered as VWs. Will they qualify for amnesty and is there a green motor option for them.

The majority of the VW pan based cars in California believe they are legally registered as "VW" because they are using the vehicle ID on the pan. Is that legal?

Thank you Cobra guys for letting me learn from your experiences.

Daelb@aol.com

Dale
SB100 legal

[Slick61]

how does this apply for those titled under the "full faith & credit" clause...

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by DaelB

Robert,

The majority of the VW pan based cars in California believe they are legally registered as "VW" because they are using the vehicle ID on the pan. Is that legal?

Thank you Cobra guys for letting me learn from your experiences.

SB100 legal

You will have to educate me on the build for me to answer this question. Feel free to call me directly at 916 445 9330.

[DaelB]

Thank you for the offer. I will contact you.

dale

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by Slick61

how does this apply for those titled under the "full faith & credit" clause...

If you disclosed all information regarding your vehicle (SPCN, year of build, cost of build) and it was legally registered out of state as a SPCN and given a pre-1970 registration year per state statute and Cal. DMV accepted this year then you are legal.

At some point DMV may catch the mistake and you may be asked back for an emission test.

Note:

(1) DMV is now requiring out of state SPCN to meet emission standards for the year of the build regardles of what the registration says. They will honor the registration but you still have to pass smog.

(2) I am proposing legislation this year that will mandate that out-of-state SPCN that are re- registered in California meet emission standards of the year of the build. In short we are closing down this possible loop hole. Goal is for all SPCN to be treated equally regardless of where they were originally built or registered.

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by Morgester

(2) I am proposing legislation this year that will mandate that out-of-state SPCN that are re- registered in California meet emission standards of the year of the build. In short we are closing down this possible loop hole. Goal is for all SPCN to be treated equally regardless of where they were originally built or registered.

Curious as to why you wouldn't consider year of body style as an alternative, which would align it with existing SB100 law? We're talking about a very limited number of vehicles (0.00xx% of the total registered population) that do not even get driven daily.

-Dean

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by RedBarchetta

Curious as to why you wouldn't consider year of body style as an alternative, which would align it with existing SB100 law? We're talking about a very limited number of vehicles (0.00xx% of the total registered population) that do not even get driven daily.

-Dean

The goal is to have one set of rules that applies equally. Any SPCN can either get a SB100 exemption or pass emissions based on the year of the build. If approved by ARB there will be a third “green rod” option. That is if you are using an “approved green rod” emission system for your engine you can also register your car. So the goal is to have three options; SB100, emission based on year of the build, or green rod that will apply to a SPCN regardless of where it comes from (in state or out of state).

Full faith on out of state registrations on SPCN circumvents all of the above systems. Let’s do a “thought experiment.” Imagine that California let’s this loop hole remain. What will happen? If you build cars, will you build them in California knowing that if they are registered out of state they can come into California free of emission testing? (Builders will leave California) What about legally registering these cars out of state? We will create new business in SPCN friendly states whose sole purpose is to register and then transfer SPCN to California. (Think I am kidding; take a look at RV registration).

Bottom line is that the current trickle of out-of-state registrations will turn into a flood of emission exempt vehicles. This is not good for California “hot rod” industry nor for California in general.

As for changing emission testing policies in California to allow all SPCN to be registered as the year of the body style . . . talk to the legislature. As it stands 500 cars per year can do that (SB100), all other have to need emission standards based on the year of the build. I do not see a change. However, if the “green rod” concept is approved by ARB this will create a third viable option for registering SPCNs.

[Ron61]

Robert,

Just a question and not trying to start anything, but there is something in one of your earlier posts that seems kind of a waste of money if I am reading it correctly. As my car is already SB-100 legal I have no problems but would like an explanation of this.

(1) DMV is now requiring out of state SPCN to meet emission standards for the year of the build regardless of what the registration says. They will honor the registration but you still have to pass smog.

(2) I am proposing legislation this year that will mandate that out-of-state SPCN that are re- registered in California meet emission standards of the year of the build. In short we are closing down this possible loop hole. Goal is for all SPCN to be treated equally regardless of where they were originally built or registered

If the DMV is already requiring that, why waste money on legislation that says exactly the same thing if I am reading this correctly? I don't see any loop hole in the above statements from your previous post.

Thanks,

Ron

[Slick61]

I am proposing legislation this year that will mandate that out-of-state SPCN that are re- registered in California meet emission standards of the year of the build. In short we are closing down this possible loop hole. Goal is for all SPCN to be treated equally regardless of where they were originally built or registered.

As long as all the taxes are paid on the full purchase price, I really don't see what the big deal is, considering it's for such a small number of cars. It seems more and more states (with the exception of the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia) have something like the SEMA plan where vehicles are titled as the year they represent. Why California is fighting this is beyond me... it's got bigger fish to fry.

[mrmustang]

Robert,

I believe that California has not made things easier to administrate. With the rising costs associated with health care, health insurance, etc you would think that California would be tightening their belts administratively and trying to minimize the background costs associated with these new rules and regulations. Otherwise are you really doing the state of California justice when you yourself are looking at things strictly as an income producer?

As far as what should have been written and accomplished, I suggested the following to Barbara Boxer several years ago, and not just for SPCN

1: Emissions based on the year of the engine block
2: Annual safety inspections
3: 2,000 miles a year exemption (IE: if vehicle is driven less than 2,000 miles a year it is exempt from emissions inspection)


With these three very simple rules you not only cut down on the administrative costs, but the implementation costs and future costs to set it up in the system. The cost savings alone (while still collecting your taxes and fees) to the state of California (have you yet to pass a viable budget this year?) would be over $1,000,000 annually. Sure you would be laying off some state employees in the process (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few), but the revenue generated by those who currently have secondary residences outside of California and choose to not register their vehicles in California due to the current lopsided and mismanaged infrastructure would once again offer a positive revenue stream where there currently is none.

You really need to take a step back with your colleagues and rethink this as if it was strictly a business. Look at the cost to run the program vs the potential real world income and go from there.


Sincerely,

Bill S.