Pending legislation - the good news and the bad news

[Sean]

Two bills of interest, as described on the SEMA Action Network:

Issue: Kit Vehicle
Bill: SB 232
Status: Active
Description: Would remove 500 per year vehicle limitation for specially constructed vehicle registration.
Intro Date: 2/23/2009

Issue: Kit Vehicle
Bill: SB 811
Status: Active
Description: Would require that specially constructed vehicles previously registered outside California to be subject to emission control and inspection requirements applicable to the model year in which the vehicle was originally constructed.
Intro Date: 2/27/2009

Source page: http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?ID=61834

Yes on SB 232! I heard that the original SB 100 that we all know and love only got through because of the 500 car limit. I imagine this bill will have little political appeal.

While I can see the current loophole SB 811 is intended to close, and understand its potential political appeal to both the lawmakers and the masses, it will make it impossible for the well-intentioned to legitimately register most any Seven from out-of-state.

[Mondo]

Agree... I don't think there was a problem getting an exception when SB100 first came out but it's pretty much a lottery now.

That second bill will suck. And people who move here would have to sell their car...

[johnh]

Sb-1578?

When I began my registration odyssey SB-100 had yet to be enacted. When it came along I was denied the opportunity to take advantage of it because my car was 'already in the system' pending registration (even though the registration was incomplete due to smog regs).

The next year Johannessen introduced SB-1578 which allowed me to re-apply under SB-100. Would this apply to someone bringing a specially constructed vehicle into the state?

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1551-160/sb_1578_bill_20020918_chaptered.html

[moosetestbestanden]

I wonder what the demand actually is for SB100 applications. I know for sure it's > 500, but how much greater?

I'm not sure I like the idea of 10,000 specialty constructed (read emissions non-conforming) vehicles entering the roads every year. It's easy to imagine unlimited SB100 registrations being abused, which would lead to an inevitable repeal.

Here's a couple more beauts from the same page:

Issue: Emissions
Bill: AB 859
Status: Active
Description: Would require annual emissions inspection of vehicles 15 years old and older..
Intro Date: 2/26/2009

This one died in committee - essentially yet another regressive tax.

The death of that one means I don't get to pay that special tax every year, instead of every other year on trusty Crusty (1989, 280,000 miles and climbing:D), who passes w/ flying colors every time.

Issue: Street Racing
Bill: AB 986
Status: Active
Description: Would require an inspection by California Highway Patrol any vehicle impounded for engaging in a speed contest to determine if the vehicle has been modified for speed enhancement beyond the manufacturer's original specification; increases registration fees by $30 for vehicles found to be so enhanced.

And another tax. Note that it applies to a vehicle "impounded", not a vehicle wherewith the driver had been convicted.

Issue: Inspection
Bill: AB 318
Status: Active
Description: Would authorize fee for each referee station inspection performed pursuant to the vehicle amnesty program.

Oh, look, another fee. Imagine!

And lastly...

Issue: Miscellaneous
Bill: AB 1015
Status: Active
Description: Would prohibit selling or giving away a device containing nitrous oxide to a person under 18 years of age.

For the above mentioned street contest purpose or some other - take a deep breath Billy, hee hee hee - purpose?

[Sean]

I doubt SB 232 would ever become law as it is currently written, but it would be nice to see the 500 number increased.

[Roll a 7]

It has long been my opinion that those receiving an SB 100 registration should be required to remove one gross polluting clunker from registration, to be crushed. This quid pro quo arrangement would help the air quality situation to some degree. Sort of like trading credits among utilities and other industrial mega polluters.

[Mondo]

I've thought they should just do a sniffer test to be a non-gross polluter. It shouldnt matter what ECU you use or headers etc...

I figured I did my environmental part by using a honda S2000 motor rather than some old V8

[Sean]

It has long been my opinion that those receiving an SB 100 registration should be required to remove one gross polluting clunker from registration, to be crushed. This quid pro quo arrangement would help the air quality situation to some degree. Sort of like trading credits among utilities and other industrial mega polluters.

That is kind of what it did. The old way of registering self-assembled vehicles was to use a pre-smog era engine. People are still going to build Sevens and Cobras and whatnot, but now they can install modern engines that run more efficiently instead of an old 60s engine.

[sdcat]

I think I have an easy, completely legitimate way to register my new car. I am active duty military, and have always maintained my residency in Colorado (official state of residence in the military, taxes, drivers license, voting, etc.). According to the DMV site, I am allowed to have my vehicle registered in my state of official residence:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/militaryvr.htm#military

My new car (assuming it works out) is being built and registered in Colorado, so I may be able to simply register it there when I go home to pick it up! I maintained my Colorado plates on a previous vehicle while stationed here for several years, and there was never a problem, except that I still needed to get a California smog test to park it on base. I don't intend to drive this one to work, though!



Justin

[moosetestbestanden]

My new car (assuming it works out) is being built and registered in Colorado, so I may be able to simply register it there when I go home to pick it up!

You mean you have to register it twice in Colorado?

SB100 just isn't that hard to do, particularly if you aren't building the car.. The very hardest part is getting the number. Once that's in hand it just a couple of stops at various bureaucratic departments and you're done.

[Mondo]

The hard part is being one of the lucky 500... it's pretty much a lottery now as every DMV in the State starts calling Sacramento at 8am and they're all gone in a couple hours.

My DMV didn't even get thru in 08 and I went a year on temps (don't think they'll allow that anymore). To say, I was worried sick the next time around is an understatement.

You actually need to go in 2 or 3 weeks ahead and get all the paperwork done... and be the first one ot two on the list. When a particular DMV gets thru, Sacramento takes one car (or a few, I can't remember but it's not there whole list). That DMV has to go back into rotation and call back (at least that's the rules but who knows).

So if the State doesn't change the rules on the 500 limit. These exceptions are going to be pretty valuable.

[sdcat]

If I knew I could get the SB100, I might go that way. But it looks like I really won't need to. I'm not sure yet how we will register it initially, but if it is already registered in Colorado, I can just continue to have it registered there without all the worry.

[moosetestbestanden]

If I knew I could get the SB100, I might go that way. But it looks like I really won't need to. I'm not sure yet how we will register it initially, but if it is already registered in Colorado, I can just continue to have it registered there without all the worry.

What state issued your driver's license?

[sdcat]

Colorado. Being in the military, I am allowed to remain a Colorado resident while stationed here.

[Mondo]

Perhaps you should try and register it here first.... sounds like you can always register in Co.
That way you'd have the value of the "SB100" should you decide, in the future, to sale it in the never-ending quest of going faster;)