Tweet
*excerpt from MSRA's Legislative Committee Meeting Report*
Minnesota House File 863/Senate File 481 - California Emissions.
This legislation would align MN with CA on the portion of their air quality regulations dealing with vehicle emissions. Bill Strusinski of Capitol Hill Associates, the MSRA lobbyist, has been working on this issue and has kept the MSRA Legislative Committee in the loop. Representative Hortman is the author of HF863 and she called MSRA Legislative Committee co-chair Butch Pream on the 14th and wanted to talk about HF863. An email that Butch and Lois sent to their State Representative, plus bill Strusinski's background work prompted that call.
Butch and Marty Moody met with Representative Hortman on March 17 to discuss the concerns of the MSRA membership. Representative Hortman stated that her intent was not to impact the streetrod and collector car hobby. She agreed to propose an amendment that would do two things: specify the particular sections of the California Air Resource Board (CARB) rules that are included in her bill; and more importantly for MSRA and the old car hobby, the amendment states explicityly that vehicles specified in MN Statutes 168.10 are excluded from the proposed legislation. MN Statutes 168.10 is where collector vehicles, streetrods, etc. are defined. That amendment was successfully added to HF863 on the 18th of March.
There is a companion bill, SF481 that has had the same amended language inserted on March 18th. Senator Marty is the primary author of SF481.
There is much confusion about the California Air Resource Board (CARB) program and its rules and their impact on the old car and streetrod hobby. The Legislative Committee talked to many California folks that should understand the rules -- rod builders, car club members, magazine editors -- but the didn't seem to understand. There are thouseands of regulations listed under "Title 13 Motor Vehicles" on the CARB website. Representative Hortman's amendment specifies the two regs out of those thousands (13/1961 and 13.961.1) that are the basis of HF863. At least a person can read the 30 pages of those regulations and get an idea of what is included in the proposed MN legislation. Those two sections of the CARB program do have an impact on our future daily drivers -- and you should form an opinion and talk with your legislators about their position on the bill. Run to the Hill would be a good time.
From an MSRA, streetrod and collector car standpoint, the amendment explicitly excludes collector vehicles (pioneer, classic, collector - at least 20 years old -- and streetrods) as defined in MS 168.10. We (ALL of MSRA's members) have to make sure the amended language remains in the bill as it is flying through the legislative committees this session. As long as that language stays intact, MSRA is OK. Because the House and Senate bills currently do contain language that excludes collector cars and streetrods, the MSRA position is "neutral with concerns".
An MSRA concern, and it may be a concern for your future daily driver as well, is the language in the bills that says the MN rules will ALWAYS have to be identical to the CA regulations 13/1961 and 13/1961.1
Regardless of what the CARB does to those two regulations, MN would have to adopt those changes. If CA makes a change we have to adopt it here whether we agree or not. That is a concern for MSRA and anyone in MN.
You still need to study the bill, form your opinion, and discuss the merits of the bill with your representative and senator based on the bill's future impact on your daily driver(s).
Run to the Hill, Tuesday, April 22nd.
MSRA website
Minnesota House File 863/Senate File 481 - California Emissions.
This legislation would align MN with CA on the portion of their air quality regulations dealing with vehicle emissions. Bill Strusinski of Capitol Hill Associates, the MSRA lobbyist, has been working on this issue and has kept the MSRA Legislative Committee in the loop. Representative Hortman is the author of HF863 and she called MSRA Legislative Committee co-chair Butch Pream on the 14th and wanted to talk about HF863. An email that Butch and Lois sent to their State Representative, plus bill Strusinski's background work prompted that call.
Butch and Marty Moody met with Representative Hortman on March 17 to discuss the concerns of the MSRA membership. Representative Hortman stated that her intent was not to impact the streetrod and collector car hobby. She agreed to propose an amendment that would do two things: specify the particular sections of the California Air Resource Board (CARB) rules that are included in her bill; and more importantly for MSRA and the old car hobby, the amendment states explicityly that vehicles specified in MN Statutes 168.10 are excluded from the proposed legislation. MN Statutes 168.10 is where collector vehicles, streetrods, etc. are defined. That amendment was successfully added to HF863 on the 18th of March.
There is a companion bill, SF481 that has had the same amended language inserted on March 18th. Senator Marty is the primary author of SF481.
There is much confusion about the California Air Resource Board (CARB) program and its rules and their impact on the old car and streetrod hobby. The Legislative Committee talked to many California folks that should understand the rules -- rod builders, car club members, magazine editors -- but the didn't seem to understand. There are thouseands of regulations listed under "Title 13 Motor Vehicles" on the CARB website. Representative Hortman's amendment specifies the two regs out of those thousands (13/1961 and 13.961.1) that are the basis of HF863. At least a person can read the 30 pages of those regulations and get an idea of what is included in the proposed MN legislation. Those two sections of the CARB program do have an impact on our future daily drivers -- and you should form an opinion and talk with your legislators about their position on the bill. Run to the Hill would be a good time.
From an MSRA, streetrod and collector car standpoint, the amendment explicitly excludes collector vehicles (pioneer, classic, collector - at least 20 years old -- and streetrods) as defined in MS 168.10. We (ALL of MSRA's members) have to make sure the amended language remains in the bill as it is flying through the legislative committees this session. As long as that language stays intact, MSRA is OK. Because the House and Senate bills currently do contain language that excludes collector cars and streetrods, the MSRA position is "neutral with concerns".
An MSRA concern, and it may be a concern for your future daily driver as well, is the language in the bills that says the MN rules will ALWAYS have to be identical to the CA regulations 13/1961 and 13/1961.1
Regardless of what the CARB does to those two regulations, MN would have to adopt those changes. If CA makes a change we have to adopt it here whether we agree or not. That is a concern for MSRA and anyone in MN.
You still need to study the bill, form your opinion, and discuss the merits of the bill with your representative and senator based on the bill's future impact on your daily driver(s).
Run to the Hill, Tuesday, April 22nd.
MSRA website
Comment