Cal: AB 619 Vehicle Registration Amnesty
 

Introduced today:

AB 619, as introduced, Emmerson. Vehicle registration amnesty
program.
Existing law generally requires all vehicles operating upon the
highways of this state to be registered and all fees and taxes to
have been paid.
This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to
develop and administer a vehicle registration amnesty program for
vehicles that have been previously registered or incorrectly
classified. A participant in the program would be required to
complete an amnesty application with the department, signed under
penalty of perjury, by December 31, 2008

If your car is illegally registered you should self correct and re-register it legally. Self correction is far better then the current risk of being discovered, cited or arrested, and having your vehicle towed for being fraudulently registered. The above amnesity provision was crafted to deal with the issue that in self correcting you are admitting that you committed a felony violation of perjury (lied about make and model year of vehicle). Goal is to get everyone back in compliance.

Robert,

So, lets say I buy a car from out of state that is legally registered in another state as say a "1965 Cobra". The car is actually a Superformance Cobra replica built in 2003. Would I be allowed to register the car here in California as what? The legally way it is registered now, or would I be able to change it to the 2003 version?

One of many potentially confusing scenarios.

SkipB

Thank you
 

Morgester,
Thank you for keeping us updated on such news;)

In California it would considered a SPCN (Specially Constructed) and would need to be registered as such.

I recognise that other states may handle "vehicle year" of replicas differently. In California this is a 2003 SPCN.

Assuming that an out of state registration was used to register the vehicle as a 65 Cobra, it needs to be fixed. Assuming the amnesty bill passes there will be no issue as to the possible perjury issue as to the true make and year of the vehicle. Nor of the value, assuming the true price was underreported. You just have to correct the information and pay what ever fees you should have originally paid.

Robert.

As a precursor to my questions, there are several states that treat the kit cars and replicas differently than California. As such, several of these states legally title and register these cars as the year they replicate and not the year they were produced.

Now with that said, I have the following questions I would like answered if at all possible.

1: Since it is a federal offense to alter a VIN and state title as legally issued by another state, why is it that California's DMV does so on a regular basis when it comes to these "legally titled and registered" automobiles?
(I am not talking about a car using Titles Unlimited or any other service such as that one).

2: Why is it that California is the only state in the nation to force the retitling (a change in title, year, make, model, or otherwise any change to another states legal document) and recertification of a new California VIN when a federal mandate and law has already supplied both of these items?

Again, I am talking about a "legally titled" car from another state and not one using illegal means for it's original title documentation or registration here.

It seems to me that California's legal system feels that they are above the laws that the Federal Government set in regards to titles, Vehicle Identification Numbers and the transfer of such title documents between states.

I'll await your legal response and your personal comments and we'll go from there. I do thank you in advance for this chance to have a frank discussion on this subject.

Sincerely,

Bill S.

Since it is a federal offense to alter a VIN and state title as legally issued by another state, why is it that California's DMV does so on a regular basis when it comes to these "legally titled and registered" automobiles?
(I am not talking about a car using Titles Unlimited or any other service such as that one).

California asks under penalty of perjury what year the vehicle was manufactured. We can all agree that the vehicle was not manufactured in 1965. This not a question of honoring a vehicle title from another state (your welcome to visit and drive your out-of-state vehicle here) but rather complying with California law once you choose to register your vehicle here. Just because another state allows a vehicle to be registered doesn' mean that California has to allow that same vehicle to be registered.

2: Why is it that California is the only state in the nation to force the retitling (a change in title, year, make, model, or otherwise any change to another states legal document) and recertification of a new California VIN when a federal mandate and law has already supplied both of these items?

Ask the kit car manufactures if the are a vehicle manufacture for federal VIN purposes. Don't confuse federal requirements (or really lack thereof) with State registration. At issue is when you choose to bring a car to California as a California resident and drive it, you must comply with California law.

I was under the impression that once the vehicle was registered in any state, it could be registered in any state. Doesn't federal law for interstate commerec (or something like that) come into effect. Isn't this why California had to repay all the california emission penalties in the late 90's that was imposed on vehicles brought in from other states?

We are comparing apples and oranges. These are all different issues.

We have to treat neighbors who are moving to California just like we treat someone in California. In turn, if you are coming to live in California, you are held to the same rules that apply to all Californians.

On the federal side, do some research. You will find that there is very little regulation on kit cars. If you want federal regulation, your kit car producers will be vehicle manufactures, which gives you the VIN number, safety requirements (airbags / bumpers) and a whole lot of other requirements. None of which these cars will pass.

I know of no kit car that receives a VIN number. Which is why under the SPCN program CHP "blue tags" them to give them a VIN number.

Note: A frame number from the manufacture is not a VIN number.

When I moved from CA with a spcn motorcycle, that I built and registered in CA, my new state took all the information from CA and used that as my new registration. When the vehicle was being inspected the station thought I would need to have a state applied VIN which would erase the CA VIN. However, I was later told that they could not change the VIN once it was put into the system.

I just figured it would also go in reverse if I am to build a car out of CA, register it in my current state and then move into CA

Robert,
Thanks for the update on this. Hopefully the state reps will understand it is better to bring everyone into compliance voluntarily instead of chasing them. Now if we could just make it easier for those building new vehicles to get them properly registered and in the SB100 process.

Mr. Morgester,

Two quick unrelated questions regarding DMV rules.

To register your car in California, do you have to be a legal resident of the state of California or legal resident of the United States?

What documentation do I need to prove I am a legal resident or the United States?

The reason I ask is the last visit to the DMV I made, there were more non English speaking South Americans there than English speaking citizens, several with no ID's that were still being allowed to register cars!?!?

Thanks
Michael

Robert

So if they completed the amnesty application with the DMV would they still have to apply for SB100?

JP

...and why is SB 100 limited to just 500 numbers, that were all allocated in the first week of January?

Here's the nuts and bolts of it from the CA site:

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Emmerson

FEBRUARY 21, 2007

An act to add and repeal Section 9565 to the Vehicle Code,
relating to vehicles.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 619, as introduced, Emmerson. Vehicle registration amnesty
program.
Existing law generally requires all vehicles operating upon the
highways of this state to be registered and all fees and taxes to
have been paid.
This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to
develop and administer a vehicle registration amnesty program for
vehicles that have been previously registered or incorrectly
classified. A participant in the program would be required to
complete an amnesty application with the department, signed under
penalty of perjury, by December 31, 2008. Because a violation of this
provision would expand the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill
would impose a state-mandated local program.
These provisions would be repealed on January 1, 2010.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting a
vehicle registration amnesty program to improve compliance with state
vehicle registration laws and accelerate and increase collections of
certain owed state fees and taxes.
(b) The Legislature finds and declares that a public purpose is
served by the waiver of criminal prosecution in return for the
immediate reporting and payment of previously underreported,
nonreported, or certain nonpaid vehicle registration fees and taxes.
The benefits gained by an amnesty program include, among other
things, accelerated receipt of certain owed fees and taxes,
permanently bringing into the vehicle registration system vehicles
that have been previously misidentified to avoid appropriative state
taxes and fees and providing an opportunity for vehicle owners to
correct their vehicle registration requirements and satisfy tax and
fee obligations before stepped-up vehicle registration enforcement
programs take effect.
(c) Further, the legislative intent of enacting this amnesty
program is that the program is a one-time occurrence that shall not
be repeated in the future, because any expectations of future amnesty
programs could have a counterproductive effect on current
compliance.
SEC. 2. Section 9565 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
9565. (a) The department shall develop and administer a vehicle
registration amnesty program for vehicles that have been previously
registered or incorrectly classified. That program shall include the
following components:
(1) The department shall collect all fees and penalties owed for
the underreporting of vehicle value and the nonpayment of taxes or
fees previously determined or proposed to be determined.
(2) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a criminal action for
false statements relating to the value, make, model, or a failure to
register the vehicle shall not be brought against a current vehicle
owner who has made a request for amnesty under this section.
(b) This section does not apply to violations of this code for
which, as of January 1, 2008, either of the following applies:
(1) The current vehicle owner is on notice of a criminal
investigation by a complaint having been filed against him or her, or
by written notice having been mailed to him or her, that he or she
is under criminal investigation.
(2) A criminal court proceeding involving the vehicle has already
been initiated against the current vehicle owner.
(c) A vehicle participating in this amnesty program is required to
be either of the following:
(1) Correctly registered under this code.
(2) Issued a certificate of ownership without registration
pursuant to Section 4452.
(d) To be eligible to participate in this vehicle registration
amnesty program, the vehicle's current owner shall do all of the
following by December 31, 2008:
(1) File a completed amnesty application with the department
attesting, under penalty of perjury, to the owner's eligibility to
participate in the vehicle registration amnesty program.
(A) Has applied to register the vehicle under existing law or has
obtained a certificate of ownership without registration pursuant to
Section 4452.
(B) Discloses to the department the make, model, and the true cost
of the vehicle including parts and labor.
(C) Pay in full the fees, taxes, and penalties due on the vehicle
for which amnesty is requested.
This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2010 and
as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is
enacted before January 1, 2010, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.

Here's the info on the person that submitted it:

Assemblyman Bill Emmerson
Assembly District 63

Proudly Serving: Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Redlands, San Bernardino, Highland, Loma Linda, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Yucaipa, Moreno Valley, Riverside

Capitol Office
State Capitol Office
Room 4158
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916)319-2063
Fax: (916)319-2163

District Office District Office
10681 Foothill Blvd.,
Suite 325
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: (909) 466-9096
Fax: (909) 466-9892

Robert,

Thanks for replying to my question and others. I now believe I better understand how the system works here in California. It should be a big money maker for the state!

I am just glad my car has an SB100 exemption. But, will all the amnesty cars receive a similar exemption after fees and taxes are paid? Will the owners have to seek out a smog referee, CHP, brake and light stations as well to get finally certified and legally registered? Or is simply paying taxes and fees the final step?

Just curious.


SkipB

That's the big question Skip. The bill doesn't mention the smog complaince aspect of registering the car properly which would be SPNCS which I believe would make it subject to the year of the block without SB100.

I have not read the bill over carefully, however if it is anything like previously proposed bills to provide amnestly, then, no, it does not deal with smog exemptions.

This bill (as well as others that did not pass) is an attempt to get people to correct their title voluntarily. Mr. Morgester has already detailed this, along with the reasons why people should do this, so I'm not going to repeat them.

I would strongly assume that most replicas (Cobras and others) and other custom vehicles (bikes) are titled with "older years" in order to avoid smog requirements. Sure, one could use the loophole to try to avoid tax, but the real reason is to avoid smog. Why? Because many Ford powered replicas have 351 motors with hot cams or stroked, and these will not pass smog, when tested against the standards for "year of block". Even a warmed up FE block will not pass the snif test for "year of block". And forget those with 460's...

So, these folks who have replicas with un-smog-able engines will need to either get themselves a Sequence Number or replace their engine with one that is smog compliant for "year of block". With all 500 annual Sequence Numbers being allocated within hours on Jan 2 every year, if there is no additional relaxation of smog requirements, then I cannot see many people taking advantage of this amnesty problem. I cannot imagine that hundreds (thousands?) of people will swap out their current engine for a smog compliant one just to take advantage of this amnesty. Of course there will be those who will want amnesty for the reasons that Mr. Morgester gave, and for those, they will have to make their replica smog compliant or acquire a Sequence Number.

I'm not advocating that people to not self-correct, however I am cautioning those who choose to self-correct that making your replica smog compliant may not be easy, and will most likely get harder as the 500 annual Sequence Numbers become harder and harder to acquire. Self-correcting last year was easier than this year, and next year will be harder than this year. The year I corrected my replica's title, I acquired my Sequence Number in April, and the last Sequence Number that year was not allocated until June.

Last, I was given last year a copy of the BAR "policy" which you can find here:

http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...mogChk-pg1.jpg
http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...mogChk-pg2.jpg

I was informed that this policy is not an official formal policy. And I've been contacted by fellow Cobra replica owners that some BAR referees have denied it's existence and will not follow it. Obviously, when we don't even have a clear understanding from BAR, and when each BAR referee acts independently, making a vehicle smog compliant will be difficult.

Regards,
Randy R...

I know of TWO cars here in Hawaii that STILL carry both an Arizona VIN number tag AND a Hawaii Vin number tag. Both tags placed next to each other. When I registered my previously Calif registered ERA replica here I was issued a new VIN tag from Hawaii. It would seem to be common practice for the States to issue their own VIN on 'self assembled' type vehicles, go figure!

It does appear the 'amnesty' program is somewhat misleading as it does not gaurentee you CAN actually 're-register' your vehicle and walk away with a good title and LICENSE plates! It seems what it really does is allow for MOST folks to 'get in line' come January in hopes of getting a SB100 number! Meanwhile, pay the tax and park your car until next year (and hope to get lucky)?

I think you might have better luck with Boyd Coddington and the other mega builders rather than harassing hobbyists.

If any of you decide to take the bait and "get legal", I have a 1966 std bore 428 block which would require no emissions controls. $2,000.