LEGISLATION UPDATES: U.S.A

NEW YORK LEGISLATION UPDATES:
Helmet, Motorcycle, Gang, Rights: no updates
----------------------------
New York News

http://www.nymstf.org/News.asp
New York Motorcycle & Scooter Task Force
June 23 2010

NYMSTF Introduces Checkpoint Alerts

In response to the motorcycling community's ongoing problems in New York
with police checkpoints that stop only motorcycles and scooters, the
NYMSTF is pleased to announce the Checkpoint Alert System. Read all
about it here:

http://nymstf.org/CheckpointAlerts.htm

With this system, we leverage the power of the people. Anybody who
witnesses a motorcycle -targeted police checkpoint should send a mobile
phone text message to the NYMSTF's main phone number, 347-410-6783,
start the message with the word "checkpoint" and describe the location.
In less than five minutes, that report will be posted to the NYMSTF.org
web site and to the NYMSTF's account on Twitter.com.

Twitter subscribers who follow the NYMSTF will receive instant email
notifications, and can take advantage of text messaging to receive
Checkpoint Alerts on their cell phones as soon as the report reaches
Twitter.

The Checkpoint Alerts are also available as an RSS/XML feed from the
NYMSTF.org web site.

This service will help area motorcyclists and scooterists avoid the
delays, hassles and safety risks involved in being stopped for law
enforcement's fishing expeditions on New York's busy roadways. This
service can also help motorcycle activists seek out these checkpoints to
document and challenge them.

We encourage all motorcyclists to add the NYMSTF phone number to their
cellphone contacts list to make it easy to send reports. Anyone who
wishes not to be stopped should check the NYMSTF's RSS feed before their
trip, or subscribe to Twitter and follow the NYMSTF.

Sincerely,
Brad Berson
VP, NYMSTF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATES

California:
ABATE of CA- http://www.abate.org/
Smog Checks For Motorcycles - SB 435 - passed out of the Assembly
Transportation Committee

Senate Bill 435 was introduced last year by Senator Fran Pavley and
included language that would have required model year 2000 and later
motorcycles to undergo biennial smog checks, same as automobiles. That
means if you had made ANY modifications to your engine or exhaust,
chances are you'd have to put them back to stock in order to pass.

Thanks to the thousands of motorcyclists who called, wrote and faxed, we
were able to get the Senate Transportation Committee to require her to
remove the language requiring smog checks before they allowed it to
pass. When introduced to the Assembly Transportation Committee earlier
this month, the original language would have required any bike
manufactured after 1983 to have matching federal EPA labels on the frame
and exhaust. We managed to get that down to only model year 2011 and
later as a fix-it ticket by agreeing to be 'neutral' on the bill.
Before the hearing on June 28th it clearly had the votes to pass but so
many motorcyclists showed up for the hearing they didn't find the votes
to pass until 6:30 p.m., long after everyone was gone. Even at that,
the only way they got the 8th vote it needed was when one of the
legislators who originally voted "no" changed his vote at the last
minute when he realized it wouldn't pass.

The bill has a long way to go before it ever hits the Governor's desk
and so we've still got time to stop it, but we need your help. If as
many people who showed up at the hearing had taken the actions we
requested over the last few weeks through our Action Alerts we might
have actually been able to stop it.

http://www.abate.org/IssuesLegislation/CurrentIssuesLegislation.aspx
SB 435 - Motorcycle Smog Check

What Now?

Wow, there were so many people who showed up for the hearing it was
truly awe inspiring. And it wasn't just a bunch old old Harley riders
either, there was plenty of representation from the sport bike
community. It was such a big deal we even made the news:

http://www.kcra.com/video/24077812/index.html (video)
http://www.kcra.com/politics/24075288/detail.html (article)

Like it says on the our home page, we actually almost defeated it and if
everyone who showed up for the hearing had helped out by sending the
letters and making the phone calls before as we had been requesting it
might be dead or mortally wounded by now. As it stands there's a long
way to go before it lands on the Governor's desk. We have no idea
whether he'd sign it as it's written right now but wouldn't count on him
not to. Next stop is in the Appropriations Committee, we'll report on
that once we know the date.

If you live in one of the districts of the Assembly members who voted to
pass this bill out of the Transportation Committee and don't like the
fact that half the 2011 models will be eligible for fix-tickets right
off the showroom floor, call their local office in the district to set
up a meeting and ask if they understand why you're still opposed to the
bill. Ask them if they'd like to make a statement to the rest of the
motorcyclists in their district explaining their vote. We'd be glad to
post it on this website for everyone to read.

The votes to let it pass out of committee are in RED below. You can
click on the name and it'll take you to their website where the local
office contact information is as well of a map of this district so you
can see the area it covers.

California Assembly Transportation Committee
[list:
http://www.abate.org/IssuesLegislation/CurrentIssuesLegislation.aspx ]
---------------------------------------

Maine:

www.bangordailynews.com/detail/147454.html
County police cracking down on road noise
6/29/10
By Jen Lynds, BDN Staff

PRESQUE ISLE, Maine — While some people think it is cool to see a
motorcyclist on a sharp-looking machine, revving up the engine as he or
she zips through the downtown, others aren’t as happy about the
situation.

They see those motorcyclists and motorists riding over local roads in
vehicles with no mufflers as a stain on their desire for peace and
quiet, and they are happy with changes to a state law slated to go into
effect on July 12.

Law enforcement officials from Aroostook County have pledged to crack
down on those who ignore the amended law relating to road noise.

Presque Isle Police Chief Naldo Gagnon, Houlton Police Chief Butch
Asselin and Aroostook County Sheriff Jim Madore met recently with local
media to discuss the changes to the law.

The current law governing road noise says vehicles must have adequate
mufflers that are maintained properly to prevent excessive or unusual
noise. Language was added recently that says excessive or unusual noise
includes motor noise that is noticeably louder than that of similar
vehicles in the environment.

The changed law also states that the exhaust system may not be modified
if the result is amplification or noise that is louder than the muffler
originally installed on the vehicle.

Violators could face a $137 fine.

“In the summer, the top three complaints we get are about speeding
vehicles, motorists who run red lights and noise complaints,” Gagnon
said Tuesday. “We usually issue one or two tickets a week in order to
deal with noise complaints. We especially hear complaints about
motorcyclists who are revving their engines. People want their quality
of life to remain peaceful, and it’s hard if you have got a bunch of
noise coming off the roadways.”

Asselin agreed, saying that the point of the partnership between Houlton
and Presque Isle police and the Sheriff’s Department is to get the word
out about the new law and to correct problems before they get out of
hand.

Asselin said noise complaints are not reported often in Houlton, but
indicated Tuesday that he hears complaints around town and in
neighboring communities.

“I see a lot more motorcycles out there now,” said Asselin. “When people
see me and my officers out in public, they will sometimes complain about
the road noise and ask us what we are going to do about the noise from
the motorcycles. I see a lot more motorcycles ride on the roads now, and
it is tempting for some people to increase the noise being emitted from
their mufflers. It’s different now. We used to hear complaints about
trucks and their Jake brakes. Now the complaints are about motorcycles.”

Asselin said he sees how such noise could disturb the peace.

“If you live along a major road, the noise has got to be distressing at
times, especially if you are trying to rest or you have children,” he
said. “That is true as well if you have a large crowd of motorcycles
going by.”

The chief said the Sheriff’s Department and the Houlton and Presque Isle
police have agreed to issue written warnings for two weeks to violators
who have not changed their exhaust systems to comply with changes in the
law. After that, officers will issue summonses that will cost violators
$137.

Gagnon said the two-week courtesy warning in The County “does not apply
to the blatant violations of excessive, unnecessary and unusual noise
from exhaust so as to cause a harsh and objectionable noise” as
described in Maine Motor Vehicle Law.

Elaine Stanton of Littleton has a house just off U.S. Route 1. She said
that she hears a lot of motorcycles going past her home.

“I can hear them before I see them,” she said Tuesday. “It is not
everyone, of course, but the noise is really irritating. I actually have
spoken to three or four of the riders that I see often around the
community, and what they told me is that trailer trucks are loud, too,
so why is the focus on motorcycles?”

Asselin said that neither he nor the other chiefs are against
motorcycles in their communities. He added that he has a motorcycle
himself and enjoys riding.

“It is all about being considerate and enjoying it, but being lawful and
legal,” he said Tuesday. “You can have fun, but why would you want to
disrupt someone else’s life in the process?”

RECAP:

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi.../PUBLIC639.asp

An Act Relating to Road Noise
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 29-A MRSA §1912, sub-§1, as enacted by PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A,
§2 and affected by Pt. B, §5, is amended to read:

1. Muffler required. A person may not operate a motor vehicle unless
that vehicle is equipped with an adequate muffler properly maintained to
prevent excessive or unusual noise. For purposes of this subsection,
“excessive or unusual noise” includes motor noise emitted by a motor
vehicle that is noticeably louder than similar vehicles in the
environment.

Sec. 2. 29-A MRSA §1912, sub-§3, as enacted by PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A,
§2 and affected by Pt. B, §5, is amended to read:

3. Amplification prohibited. A person may not operate a motor vehicle
with an exhaust system that has been modified [to amplify-removed] when
the result of that modification is the amplification or increase
[the-removed] of noise emitted by the motor above that emitted by the
muffler originally installed on the vehicle.

Sec. 3. Working group; excessive highway traffic noise. The Department
of Public Safety, Bureau of State Police shall convene a working group
to study issues relating to highway traffic noise, including, but not
limited to, unwarranted noise created when an exhaust system is not
properly installed or maintained or is altered. The working group must
include representatives from municipal and county law enforcement, a
commercial motor carrier association, the Department of Transportation,
the Maine Turnpike Authority and a neighborhood or neighborhood
association affected by highway noise. The working group shall submit a
report, including findings and recommendations, to the joint standing
committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over transportation
matters no later than January 15, 2011.

Effective July 12, 2010
----------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire

www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100702-NEWS-7020325

Boston noise ordinance not being enforced
Legal challenge is currently awaiting court action

By Shir Haberman
hamptonunion@seacoastonline.com
July 02, 2010 2:00 AM

NORTH HAMPTON — Those who developed the motorcycle noise ordinance
passed by voters at the May 11 town election often point to the success
of an almost identical ordinance in Boston as the basis for their
argument the town's ordinance can — and should — be enforced.

Previously the town received three legal opinions — from the its legal
counsel, the organization that indemnifies the town against lawsuits and
the Rockingham County Attorney — indicating it is not enforceable.

And now, the success of the Boston ordinance is being questioned.

Calls placed to police and a city councilor's office in that city,
indicate that the Boston ordinance is the subject of a lawsuit and that
police there have yet to try to enforce it.

"As of this time we are not enforcing it," Officer Eddy Crispin of the
Boston Police Department's media relations group said Wednesday.

This directly contradicts e-mails being circulated by supporters of the
North Hampton ordinance that allegedly state the opinion of Janet Knott,
an administrative assistant to City Councilman Salvatore LaMattina, who
sponsored the Boston ordinance. Knott is quoted in these e-mails as
estimating that the Boston police have issued "250 citations in the last
year (in enforcement actions based on the Boston motorcycle noise
ordinance) at $300 each."

Contacted Wednesday, Knott initially said she was not sure of the number
of citations issued, but was confident the ordinance passed last May was
being enforced. When advised of Crispin's statement, Knott indicated
that she would investigate the situation.

She called back later in the day and indicated there was some confusion
over whether the ordinance was actually being enforced.

"I talked to Officer Crispin, and we're investigating it further," Knott
said. "We're going through the Police Department's research department.
That's the way it has to be done."

Crispin's assertion, however, was corroborated by an article that
appeared on the NorthEndWaterfront.com Web site last September, three
months after the Boston ordinance was to go into effect citywide. The
Web site reports news events in the North End and waterfront
neighborhoods of the city.

"The initiative (to begin a voluntary motorcycle noise reduction program
in those neighborhoods) follows the efforts of District 1 City Councilor
Sal LaMattina, who introduced a city ordinance that calls for an EPA
stamp on all approved motorcycle mufflers operating in Boston," the
article stated. "Without such a stamped muffler, the biker will be
ticketed for a $300 fine.

"The ordinance was approved by the City Council and signed by the
mayor," the article continues. "However, a legal challenge has delayed
its enforcement pending court proceedings."

Crispin's claim that police were not yet enforcing the Boston ordinance
was further substantiated by Peabody, Mass., attorney and Amesbury,
Mass., resident Paul Cote, one of the five men who brought suit against
the city over the noise ordinance. It was that legal challenge that
initially stalled enforcement.

"Motorcycles have to be inspected once a year. I have an inspection from
Seacoast Cycles up in Newburyport (Mass.)," Cote was quoted by the Daily
News of Newburyport as saying when the lawsuit was filed in July 2009.
"They put a sticker on my license plate, and that gives me the right to
operate my motorcycle in all 352 cities and towns in Massachusetts, as
well as other states because there's reciprocity. The city of Boston
does not have the authority to do what it did."

Cote confirmed Wednesday that his lawsuit was dismissed in March of this
year based on a Suffolk County Superior Court judge's ruling that
neither he nor the other four plaintiffs had standing to challenge the
law since they were never issued a ticket for failing to comply with it.
A motion to reconsider was filed in April and rejected in May of this
year.

"The judge never ruled on (the ordinance's) merits," Cote said.

He said the issue is now awaiting a review by the Appeals Court.

"We have put out the word to as many motorcycle riders as possible to
get in touch with us if they get a ticket (under the new ordinance)," he
said Wednesday. "We will immediately add their names to the list of
plaintiffs.

"So far, I have not heard of any tickets being issued," Cote said
Wednesday.

The Massachusetts Motorcycle Association, which opposes the ordinance,
issued a statement on May 5 of this year that police had not issued any
tickets for non-compliance with the Boston ordinance.

Even if the Boston ordinance eventually passes court muster in
Massachusetts, North Hampton Town Administrator Steve Fournier believes
the town's new motorcycle noise ordinance will still be unenforceable in
New Hampshire because of differences in the way the governments of the
two states operate.

"We're a 'Dillon Rule' state, (Massachusetts) is a 'Home Rule' state,"
Fournier said.

In a Dillon Rule state, cities and towns can only regulate things the
state specifically gives them the right to regulate. Cities and towns in
Home Rule states have a greater ability to self-regulate, the town
administrator said.

His contention that the differences between the two states would impact
whether the North Hampton ordinance can be enforced was supported by the
Local Government Center in a letter dated May 28, 2010. The center
prepared the letter in response to Fournier's request for a legal
opinion on the new motorcycle noise ordinance.

"(State law) RSA Chapter 266 (which sets motorcycle noise guidelines)
does not contain a provision expressly allowing additional regulation by
municipalities, and the level of specificity of state regulation does
not suggest that local regulation is permitted," wrote LGC Staff
Attorney Kimberly Hallquist in the legal opinion. "Thus it is reasonable
to conclude, given the comprehensive regulation of motor vehicles under
RSA Chapter 266, ... that any local regulations that conflicts with or
frustrates the state's purpose will be found preempted and, thus,
invalid."

Fournier said that he, in keeping with the will of the Select Board as
expressed at its June 14 meeting, is preparing to submit a request for
declaratory judgement on the whether the town ordinance is enforceable
to the Rockingham County Superior Court.

The town administrator is also trying to get similar opinion from the
EPA, he said.
----------------------------------

Federal:

www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3187.asp
7/1/2010

Congress Turns Sour On Red Light Cameras
US House Transportation subcommittee discusses possible legislation to
increase yellow time at red light camera locations.

At a congressional hearing Wednesday, members expressed increasingly
skeptical views toward the safety claims made by the usual cast of
advocates for photo enforcement. The US House Transportation
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit invited five representatives of the
familiar groups that advocate expanded use of red light cameras and
speed cameras. In presentations before the committee and written
testimony, however, members seemed to be more swayed by what the two
camera opponents that appeared had to say.

"I had never heard, until I read the testimony, about people potentially
tinkering with the yellow light period," subcommittee Chairman Peter
DeFazio (D-Oregon) explained in an interview following the hearing.

Cities in DeFazio's congressional district, which covers the southwest
corner of the state, have not embraced cameras. For that reason, DeFazio
said he previously had not given much thought to the issue. The hearing
was scheduled at the request of ranking member John J. Duncan
(R-Tennessee). The city of Knoxville, which is in his district, uses
cameras and has stirred up his constituents.

"A lot of people talked to me about it," Duncan said. "In addition, it
was a real controversial thing in the last session of the Tennessee
legislature."

Georgia state Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Cassville) appeared
before the committee to testify regarding the controversy in his state
over the use of red light cameras and his proposed solution to the
problems the machines raised.

"We started realizing that there was a questionable effect on safety,"
Loudermilk said. "Accident rates have increased at several key
intersections in the state... There was a financial incentive created by
the use of red light cameras that local governments were no longer
induced to seek out proven engineering methods to improve intersection
safety. As a result, we passed House Bill 77... The key component of
House Bill 77 was requiring an additional second to be added to the
yellow time at any intersection that operates photo enforcement."

The benefit of the change was immediate. Violations plunged up to 81
percent and several cities dumped their photo ticketing programs once
they no longer were profitable. Dan Danila with the National Motorists
Association pointed out how unpopular ticketing programs have been
rejected in eleven cities and by fifteen states. DeFazio picked up on
the unpopularity by noting that private companies like Redflex and
American Traffic Solutions failed to appear at the hearing.

"We did invite vendors, and they refused," DeFazio said during the
hearing. "I thought of subpoenaing them, but we have lots of other
things to do. I find it disturbing that none of them wanted to come and
talk about what a great thing they're doing for America here."

DeFazio suggested he would like to see national legislation to address
some of the problems. Such laws would only apply in cases where federal
safety grants are distributed to localities to fund the use of automated
ticketing machines.

"If you were going to use federal funds for automated traffic
enforcement, we want to see that you've gone through a thoughtful
process and evaluated other alternatives and that this is for safety,
not revenue purposes," DeFazio said after the hearing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEW REPORTS

EPA Updating Noise Emission Standards
10NR19 - MRF News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30 June 2010
Contact: Jeff Hennie, Government Relations and Public Affairs

EPA Updating Noise Emission Standards

The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) has learned that the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the regulation that
governs all motorcycle noise emissions. The EPA has sent a letter to
various private companies located in the USA, that import or build
motorcycle exhausts intended for use in the USA, asking the companies to
disclose sensitive financial and business plan information, as well as
trade secrets.

The EPA claims that it must update the regulation because of "technical
changes that have occurred since the last update of the rule". Current
law has decibels capped at 83 for motorcycles built since 1983. It is
not clear from the letter which direction they will pursue, but in the
past, any time the EPA "updated" anything it meant that the regulations
got stricter. Reading between the lines shows that the EPA will likely
lower the decibel limit for motorcycles, not increase it.

The 5 page questionnaire asks for some very sensitive information such
as; overall value of the company, part numbers of items built and or
sold, testing techniques, will the company pass on the costs of more
testing to the customer and so on.

The MRF is arranging a meeting with the EPA to clarify exactly what is
going on here.

If you or anyone you know has received this letter, please put them in
touch with the MRF so that they can join the coalition to ensure that
this does not put in place any hardships for the American rider.

Contents of the letter to manufacturers follows.

Should you want to view the questionnaire click here:
http://www.mrf.org/pdf/EPA_questionnaire_June2010.pdf

###################

(Manufacturer specific information and MRF edits
appear in bold italic to protect the identity of the MRF's source)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Office of Air and Radiation

June 1, 2010

BY CERTIFIED MAIL

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering revisions
to its motorcycle noise emissions regulations (Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 205, Subparts D and E, promulgated December
31, 1980) to address technological changes that have occurred since the
current regulations were developed. As part of this process, we are
collecting information on the types and models of motorcycles and mopeds
manufactured in or imported for sale in the United States. We are also
collecting information on motorcycle and moped exhaust systems that are
manufactured or imported for sale in the United States; this includes
companies that manufacturer (sic) OEM exhaust systems for their newly
manufactured motorcycles and/or mopeds and/or for retail sale and those
companies that manufacture motorcycle and moped exhaust systems for
aftermarket sales only. Also, in order to estimate the impacts of any
increases in manufacturing and/or product costs due to possible required
changes in design and testing costs, we are collecting information on
sales volumes, prices and the costs of manufacture.

This letter is to request completion of the enclosed questionnaire by
the (name and address of manufacturing company) by June 23, 2010. The
purpose of this questionnaire is to determine the products produced,
approximate production volumes, production costs, testing processes and
testing costs, and sales prices for your facility.

Your company may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part
or all of the information. Information covered by such a claim will be
disclosed by EPA only to the extent and by procedures set forth in 40
CFR Part 2, Subpart B. You should clearly identify such pieces of
information at the time it is submitted, using a cover sheet, stamped or
typed legend, or label indicating that the information is company
confidential, proprietary, or trade secret. If no such claim accompanies
the information when it is received by the EPA, it may be made available
to the public by EPA without further notice. It is EPA's policy that
compliance provides sufficient protection for the rights of submitters
of priveleged information.

We have designated EC/R as an authorized representative of the Agency.
As an authorized representative of EPA, EC/R is subject to the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 7414(c) respecting confidentiality of methods or
processes entitled to protection as trade secrets. The EC/R contract
with the EPA is EP-D-09-051.

Your assistance in this very important matter will be greatly
appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this request, please
contact me at (EPA phone number) or (EPA email address) or (EPA
official) at (EPA phone number) or (EPA email address).

Sincerely,
(EPA official)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Lawmakers want federal traffic safety agency to focus on crash
prevention
AMA:
www.ama-cycle.org/news/story.asp?id=2079

Lawmakers want federal traffic safety agency to focus on crash
prevention
Posted July 1, 2010

U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) has introduced a resolution urging
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to
concentrate on motorcycle crash prevention and rider education instead
of lobbying state lawmakers to enact mandatory helmet laws.

The resolution is in response to a statement made by NHTSA Administrator
David Strickland in May reemphasizing Congressional testimony he gave in
March when he stated that the core component of NHTSA's motorcycle
safety plan is to increase helmet use and "anything the Congress does
that would support the movement of riders into helmets would be
efficacious of safety."

On April 2, AMA Senior Vice President for Government Relations Ed
Moreland sought a clarification of Strickland's comments. The letter can
be read here:
AmericanMotorcyclist.com/legisltn/documents/Strickland_Olver_Appropriati
ons_3-25-10.pdf. Strickland's response can be read here:
AmericanMotorcyclist.com/legisltn/documents/Strickland_Response_Helmet_5
-24-10.pdf.

The resolution -- H. Res. 1498, which was introduced on July 1 --
supports efforts to retain a federal ban on the agency from using
taxpayer dollars to lobby state and local legislators. Reps. Denny
Rehberg (R-Mont.), Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Tom
Petri (R-Wis.) co-sponsored the measure.

The anti-lobbying language was originally written into the
Transportation Equity Act approved by Congress in 1998.

"It is the job of Congress to protect the rights of the states and also
the freedom and individual responsibilities that motorcycle riders
across the nation enjoy as they travel the open roads of America,"
Sensenbrenner said.

The AMA's Moreland thanked Sensenbrenner for his efforts.

"The key to reducing motorcycle injuries and fatalities is found in the
implementation of strategies that prevent the likelihood of a crash from
happening in the first place," Moreland said. "We are pleased to see
that Rep. Sensenbrenner and his colleagues who back his resolution are
mindful of the importance of motorcycle crash prevention, and the
pursuit of rider education as a primary means to reduce injuries and
save lives," he said.

Sensenbrenner's resolution notes that federal law currently states: "No
funds appropriated to the secretary for the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration shall be available for any activity specifically
designed to urge a state or local legislator to favor or oppose the
adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any state
or local legislative body."

The resolution also states that federal lawmakers support efforts to
retain the lobbying ban, encourages continued growth in motorcycling,
recognizes the importance of motorcycle crash prevention, and encourages
the traffic safety agency to focus on crash prevention and rider
education "as the most significant priorities in motorcycle safety."

-----------------------------------
MRF: Lobby Ban Supported
10NR20 - MRF News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
1 July 2010

Contact: Jeff Hennie, Government Relations and Public Affairs
Washington DC

Today, 5 Members of the House of Representatives introduced a resolution
that "supports efforts to retain the ban on the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's ability to lobby state legislatures using
federal tax dollars and urging NHTSA to focus on crash prevention and
rider education".

The ban is current Federal law, the resolution simply supports the lobby
ban and puts the Obama Administration on notice that this is an
important law and should remain in place.

There is recent activity to support the fact that the current
Administration would like the ability back to lobby state legislatures.
At a hearing, Obama's NHTSA chief, Mr. Strickland, has said the
motorcycle helmet use will be the core of NHTSA's approach to motorcycle
safety. He went on to say that "anything the Congress does that would
support the movement of riders into helmets would produce the desired
effect of safety."

So, we are pleased that Representatives Sensenbrenner (WI), Ryan (WI),
Rehberg (MT), Lanborn (CO), and Petri (WI) have all sponsored H Res 1498
today, and the Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) hopes more of their
colleagues will follow suit. The bill is a direct result of the MRF's
spring ride to the capitol known as Bikers Inside the Beltway. A group
from ABATE of Wisconsin brought this issue up with Congressman
Sensenbrenner and he agreed to do the resolution.

Prior to 1996, NHTSA could and did send paid staff to State
legislatures, uninvited, to testify in favor of State helmet laws. This
irked the constituents and Members of Congress, who felt that it was a
waste of tax payer money. They felt that the feds should not be able to
use taxpayer moneys against the will of the taxpayers. So, Congress
passed a law that forbids NHTSA staff from entering state assemblies
uninvited. Sensenbrenner led the charge back in ’96.

He had this to say about the issue "It is the job of Congress to defend
the freedom and individual responsibilities that motorcycle riders
across the nation enjoy as they travel the open roads of America,"
Congressman Sensenbrenner said. "Mr. Strickland's plan greatly concerns
me as it is not the job of the federal government to create
one-size-fits-all helmet laws. Mr. Strickland appears to be intent on
pursuing all means possible to enact mandatory helmet laws, either at
the federal level or by violating the principles of the 10th Amendment
and bullying the States into enacting mandatory helmet laws."

Down the Road
It's with a heavy heart that we have to report this next bit, as many of
you know, Sputnik Strain passed away last week. For those of you who
aren't familiar with Sputnik's life work. I'll try to sum it up. Sputnik
organized the State of Texas motorcyclists and convinced a bulk of them
to run for elected office. He was so effective, that by 1996, the entire
State House and Senate were run by biker majorities. It didn't matter to
Sput if you were a Republican or a Democrat, just that you were a biker.
They held the majority until just few years ago. It is, without
question, a feat that has gone unrivaled in the motorcyclists' political
world. Services for Sputnik Strain are going to be held July 10th, in
Austin, Texas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Governors Highway Safety Association
Directions in Highway Safety Newsletter- Summer 2010 | Vol. 12 | No. 4
http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/directions/2010/summer/index.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

Rural Safety News -June 2010 - Vol. 4, No. 2

Rural Safety News is an electronic newsletter of the Center for
Excellence in Rural Safety (CERS) at the University of Minnesota. Rural
Safety News brings you the latest research and resources concerning
rural safety.
www.ruralsafety.umn.edu/publications/ruralsafetynews/2010/02/

----------------------------------------------
EPA Voids Certificates Approving Import of Up to 200,000 Small
Recreational Vehicles /Agency may levy penalties
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6424ac1caa800aab85257359003f533
7/536947c975312e39852577520063c927!OpenDocument

List of Vehicles
http://epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/recveh/rec-vehicles-list.pdf

************************************************************************
****

If you would like to read past New York Freedom Riders "New York
Legislation and News", please visit our blog at:
http://nyfreedomriders.blogspot.com/

Visit our website for the full list of New York Legislation, studies and
reports.

www.newyorkfreedomriders.com
New York Freedom Riders
Riders Against Constitutional Erosion
"Freedom Is NOT A Spectator Sport"