The first link is the article from Autoblog.com, the second is the actual house bill. Feel free to pass this along to all.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/06/o...ket-car-parts/
http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/mea...2186.intro.pdf

 

Who's the short-bus-rider who penned that bill?

dan

 

Yes, pass this to everyone. Contact your representative!

I'm not against "green" bills just have them make sense.

 

HOLY S**T ! !

Nice catch. Will pass this along.

 

That is the most retarded bill I have EVER seen.

 

Has anyone found a link to the actual text of the proposed bill, rather than the "executive summary" linked in the first post?

I was trying to find out more specifics about what parts would be allowed/disallowed, but the only specific thing I can tell from the summary is that it would make it harder to buy performance tires.

Many of the other aftermarket parts that would increase greenhouse gases are already illegal under federal laws that prohibit modifying factory emissions equipment.

 

The second link in the first post IS the entire bill. So far, it's unclear exactly what would be covered, if passed.

Here's the history of it. It's currently in the House Environment and Water Committee. Portland Rep. Ben Cannon from District 46 is the committee chairman.

1-15(H) First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
1-20 Referred to Environment and Water.
2-3 Public Hearing held.
2-10 Public Hearing held.

By the way, I was up at the Capitol a few days before the session began and I see new State Treasurer Ben Westlund has a Mellow Yellow MCS.

 

This is from the second link in the original post:

"The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor′s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced."


That's not the entire bill - it's not even from the bill's sponsors. The reason why it's so vague and lacking in specifics is that it's just an "executive summary" to allow people to get the gist of what's in the actual bill without having to read the whole thing. I'm still trying to track down the actual text of the measure, but I'm not having any luck.

 

Let me repeat, that is the entire bill. As a political reporter in Oregon, I look up scores of bills through the session.

Here's the link to the page that individual file comes from. You can see all of the House bills numbered 2100 to 2199: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measures/hb2100.html

If you want to start from the beginning, go to the Oregon Legislature's home page, at http://www.leg.state.or.us/index.html, and click on the "bills" link at the top of the page.

Every bill has a summary. It's usually two or three paragraphs. There has to be an introduction to give legislators and others a sense of what the bill entails. Many bills are brief to begin with, then expand as they make their way through the system and other legislators add things to them.

 

Okay - I understand now - thanks for the clarification. So the "summary" is only the three lines immediately after the part I quoted, and the rest of it is the actual bill?

So at what point does the "Bill For An Act" get fleshed out to the point where it's actually understandable or enforceable? Before or after it's voted on? Because right now, the 36 lines that evidently make up the entirety of the actual bill are too vague to be useful for much of anything.

 

Basically, everything after the phrase "A BILL FOR AN ACT" is the verbiage of the actual bill.

Sec 3. (1) (d): "Restrictions and prohibitions on the sale and distribution of after-market motor vehicle parts, including but not limited to tires, if alternatives are available that decrease greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles"

This would seem to give the Environmental Quality Commission the ability to restrict sales of after-market parts of all types. They want to stem the flow of after-market parts that increase greenhouse gas emissions where possible. So, your cat-less headers may, arguably, be on the chopping block as well as CPU mods/reflashes that decrease fuel efficiency.

But, only in Oregon-istan. The People's Republic of Washington will be happy to smuggle illegal headers to you Iran-contra style.

dan

 

Understood, but when do the specifics get added? For example, the bill specifically mentions tires. What will be criteria for judging tires? Will it be strictly based on rolling resistance? Does that mean that for any given tire size, there will essentially be only one/brand model that will be legal (the one that results in the lowest level of greenhouse gas emissions)? Will I be able to use OEM factory replacement tires, even if there are tires on the market that result in lower levels of greenhouse gases? I'd hate to own a car that originally came with sticky high-performance tires and have to replace them with rock-hard "economy" tires when they wear out.

How about cosmetic modifications? Who will have the burden of proof when it comes to deciding whether a body kit adversely affects the car's aerodynamics enough to fall afoul of the bill?

Will the bill apply to all cars, or only newer cars?

These are the questions I was trying to answer when I went looking for more information. I'm a little bit shocked and disappointed to find out that those 36 lines are all there is to the bill.

 

"SECTION 3. (1) The Environmental Quality Commission may adopt by rule the following to help this state achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals specified in ORS 468A.205:"

In the above is the problem. I read the above to mean that the commission will simply adopt rules regarding the later-mentioned restrictions. Which means, there would be no vote on the specific rules.

Which means you need to call and/or email your senator and representative. You could also challenge this bill's validity under the OR constitution if it passes.

Vague laws are awesome, because they keep lawyers employed.

dan

 

This bill is quite confusing. I woman called me the other day saying she heard it would prevent a person from buying a trailer hitch, for example, if it wasn't on the car when bought new.

She couldn't believe that was true, but she said the bill was quite confusing. I agreed with her. It's hard to tell exactly what it would prohibit.

Most bills have far more explanatory language. Whether this one receives that later, I suspect, will depend upon whether the bill gets any traction. Many bills never make it out of committee, meaning they never get voted on by the full House, much less get sent over to the Senate.

I can't imagine this one will go anywhere unless it becomes more detailed.

Let's say it did get passed and the tire provisions remained. The actual working rules on what would qualify and what didn't would probably come through what are called Oregon administrative rules. Those are developed after the passage of a law at the agency level to put the working rules in place.

 

Don't forget that there are safety considerations that need to be addressed, and could be the source of any challenges. For instance: a tire with preferable rolling resistance (or lack thereof) for the purposes of greenhouse gas reduction may not be safe enough for regular use due to that lack of traction.

dan