Oregon Bill to Ban the Sale of Aftermarket Exhaust Systems
Mar 22, 2011, 07:13 PM
#1
Oregon Bill to Ban the Sale of Aftermarket Exhaust Systems
URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT (UPDATE)
Oregon Bill to Ban the Sale of Aftermarket Exhaust Systems to be Considered by House Transportation and Economic Development Committee
A bill (H.B. 3214) to ban the sale of certain new motor vehicle exhaust systems or exhaust system components that cause motor vehicles to produce noise that exceeds noise limits has been referred to the Oregon House Transportation and Economic Development Committee. Despite repeated requests, the bill sponsor Oregon State Representative Phil Barnhart (rep.philbarnhart@state.or.us) did not withdraw the bill. Under the bill, noise limits would be specified in rules adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission (DEQ). However, in 1991 the DEQ terminated its noise control program. Oregon Bill to Ban the Sale of Aftermarket Exhaust Systems to be Considered by House Transportation and Economic Development Committee
We Urge You to Contact Members of the House Transportation and Economic Development Committee (Contact Information Below) Immediately to Request Their Opposition to H.B. 3214
• H.B. 3214 would prohibit the sale of these exhaust systems in Oregon. The bill would also prohibit the sale of these systems by an Oregon-based business to an out-of-state customer.• H.B. 3214 provides no clear standard to enforce, and refers to DEQ noise standards that are not currently in use. The bill could allow DEQ to resurrect its noise control program or create a new and unspecified standard.
• H.B. 3214 makes no accommodation for SEMA model legislation to allow vehicle hobbyists to buy and install aftermarket modified exhaust systems that meet a 95-decibel limit under a fair and predictable test (SAE J1169).
• H.B. 3214 ignores the fact that aftermarket exhaust systems are designed to make vehicles run more efficiently without increasing emissions.
• H.B. 3214 fails to recognize that aftermarket exhaust systems offer increased performance, which can make a vehicle safer by improving its ability to merge, pass, travel uphill, etc.
• H.B. 3214 would make it difficult for hobbyists to replace factory exhaust systems with more durable, better performing options.
DON’T DELAY! Please contact members of the Transportation and Economic Development Committee immediately to request their opposition to H.B. 3214.
Please e-mail a copy of your letter to Steve McDonald at stevem@sema.org. Also, please forward this Alert to your fellow car enthusiasts. Urge them to join the SAN and help defend the hobby! Thank you for your assistance.
Oregon House Committee on Transportation and Economic Development
Representative Cliff Bentz - Co-ChairPhone: 503/986-1460
Email: rep.cliffbentz@state.or.us
Representative Tobias Read - Co-Chair
Phone: 503/986-1427
Email: rep.tobiasread@state.or.us
Representative E. Terry Beyer - Co-Vice Chair
Phone: 503/986-1412
Email: rep.terrybeyer@state.or.us
Representative Patrick Sheehan - Co-Vice Chair
Phone: 503/986-1451
Email: rep.patricksheehan@state.or.us
Representative Shawn Lindsay
Phone: 503/986-1430
Email: rep.shawnlindsay@state.or.us
Representative Nancy Nathanson
Phone: 503/986-1413
Email: rep.nancynathanson@state.or.us
Representative Jefferson Smith
Phone: 503/986-1447
Email: rep.jeffersonsmith@state.or.us
Representative Jim Weidner
Phone: 503/986-1424
Email: rep.jimweidner@state.or.us
Mar 22, 2011, 08:00 PM
#3
Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty sure the RCW already has that written into it. Doesn't make any difference here though, I bet 90% of people don't even know you aren't allowed to make your car louder than stock.
Mar 23, 2011, 07:22 PM
#7
wow! vote no! I'm glad I live in Seattle.
No front plates is probably what caught the police officers eyes, depending on where you spotted him. Then added the exhaust for good measure. Where were you? Are your exhaust systems loud?
I am also considering a more inconspicuous exhaust setup too. Anyone know of any good ones out?
No front plates is probably what caught the police officers eyes, depending on where you spotted him. Then added the exhaust for good measure. Where were you? Are your exhaust systems loud?
I am also considering a more inconspicuous exhaust setup too. Anyone know of any good ones out?
Trending Topics
Mar 24, 2011, 07:14 PM
#11
Woohoo!
Update: It's dead!
Oregon Bill to Ban the Sale of Aftermarket Exhaust Systems Muffled
At the insistence of SAN, the sponsor of legislation bill (H.B. 3214) that would have banned the sale of certain new motor vehicle exhaust systems has decided to withdraw the measure from further consideration. The bill would have prohibited the sale of exhaust systems and exhaust system components that cause motor vehicles to produce noise exceeding certain noise limits. Under the bill, noise limits specified in rules adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission (DEQ) would have been used to determine which systems would be permitted or banned. However, in 1991 the DEQ terminated its noise control program and no noise testing procedure is currently in place. The bill would have led to significant confusion regarding compliance and enforcement. The sponsor also indicated that he may be seeking SAN’s assistance in the future to create legislation that would allow the sale and use of aftermarket exhaust systems capable of meeting a reasonable and objective test standard.
Thank you and congratulations to all who participated in opposing this bill.
Oregon Bill to Ban the Sale of Aftermarket Exhaust Systems Muffled
At the insistence of SAN, the sponsor of legislation bill (H.B. 3214) that would have banned the sale of certain new motor vehicle exhaust systems has decided to withdraw the measure from further consideration. The bill would have prohibited the sale of exhaust systems and exhaust system components that cause motor vehicles to produce noise exceeding certain noise limits. Under the bill, noise limits specified in rules adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission (DEQ) would have been used to determine which systems would be permitted or banned. However, in 1991 the DEQ terminated its noise control program and no noise testing procedure is currently in place. The bill would have led to significant confusion regarding compliance and enforcement. The sponsor also indicated that he may be seeking SAN’s assistance in the future to create legislation that would allow the sale and use of aftermarket exhaust systems capable of meeting a reasonable and objective test standard.
Thank you and congratulations to all who participated in opposing this bill.
Mar 25, 2011, 10:35 AM
#13
Evolved Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Your mamy's bedroom
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is one small reason why it wouldnt have passed:
The Antitrust Laws
Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.
The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. Courts have applied the antitrust laws to changing markets, from a time of horse and buggies to the present digital age. Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.
Here is an overview of the three core federal antitrust laws.
The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.
The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.
In addition to these federal statutes, most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm
The Antitrust Laws
Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.
The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. Courts have applied the antitrust laws to changing markets, from a time of horse and buggies to the present digital age. Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.
Here is an overview of the three core federal antitrust laws.
The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.
The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.
In addition to these federal statutes, most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm
Mar 28, 2011, 07:38 PM
#14
It will never pass, it has never passed, it gets pulled back at the last minute everytime it comes up. They have tried this with tires (only stock replacement brands and sizes), exhaust, automotive parts, exhaust, and failed everytime.
Sierra Group and other more active "activists" dont understand it and never will. They pedal to work, do 50 in a 65 in their Prius. When they realise that things like exhaust are not the issue one of a few things has happened-
Hell froze over
The World ended (2012 or insert other event here)
Big Brother has turned us all into automatons
(insert favorite reason here)
Aaron
Sierra Group and other more active "activists" dont understand it and never will. They pedal to work, do 50 in a 65 in their Prius. When they realise that things like exhaust are not the issue one of a few things has happened-
Hell froze over
The World ended (2012 or insert other event here)
Big Brother has turned us all into automatons
(insert favorite reason here)
Aaron
Mar 28, 2011, 09:09 PM
#15
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will never pass, it has never passed, it gets pulled back at the last minute everytime it comes up. They have tried this with tires (only stock replacement brands and sizes), exhaust, automotive parts, exhaust, and failed everytime.
Sierra Group and other more active "activists" dont understand it and never will. They pedal to work, do 50 in a 65 in their Prius. When they realise that things like exhaust are not the issue one of a few things has happened-
Hell froze over
The World ended (2012 or insert other event here)
Big Brother has turned us all into automatons
(They made us all midget spec and we could not push the pedal down)
Aaron
Sierra Group and other more active "activists" dont understand it and never will. They pedal to work, do 50 in a 65 in their Prius. When they realise that things like exhaust are not the issue one of a few things has happened-
Hell froze over
The World ended (2012 or insert other event here)
Big Brother has turned us all into automatons
(They made us all midget spec and we could not push the pedal down)
Aaron
