ND House Bill 1442

[Kustom Dallas]

  It's time to ralley the troops. There is a bill being introduced in the ND House that will affect us in many ways such as requiring bumpers and fenders.  The bill number is 1442.  The representatives for your area need to be contacted as well as the two who wrote/introduced the bill.  They are Ed Gruchalla-egruchalla@nd.gov -a retired ND Highway Patrol and Dan Ruby-druby@nd.gov.  This can also affect the parts suppliers,repair/custom build shops and state wide events.  Attached is a copy of the bill.

[31Rodder]

it looks like this bill is changing the modified motor vehicle section,not sure but i don't see where this bill is changing 39-21-52 the street rod exemption.

[racerjohnson]

So is there an issue, or. . . ? I don't know how to read that bill. Are the crossed out things being deleted and the underlined items being added? Whats confusing is that sentences are underlined in sections where the number is lined out.  Anybody know what that means? For example, page 1 line 21,22,23,24.


I just thought I'd throw the links to "the rules" of stuff a car has to have, paste the exemption up and list the 3 things it specifically exempts us from having to follow.


"Special Motor Vehicles"  Chapter 37-12-02 Probably something we should all read. www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/html/..%5Cpdf%5C37-12-02.pdf
 
"Equipment of Vehicles" Chapter 39-21 Modification of motor vehicles is discussed here too: www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t39c21.pdf . Inside it is the exemption Todd speaks of:

39-21-52. Exemption for certain street rod motor vehicles. The provisions of this
chapter or chapter 37-12-02 of the North Dakota Administrative Code relating to bumpers, tires,
and fenders do not apply to street rod motor vehicles. However, a street rod must have all
equipment, in operating condition, which was specifically required by law as a condition for its
sale when it was first manufactured. A street rod is a modernized motor vehicle which was
manufactured before 1949 by a recognized manufacturer and which retains the general
appearance and original body configuration as manufactured or a motor vehicle designed and
manufactured to resemble such a motor vehicle. A street rod may have improved modifications
to the body, chassis, engine, brakes, power train, steering, and suspension systems either by
modifying the original equipment or replacing original parts with fabricated parts or those taken
from other existing vehicles. The director may adopt rules to implement this section.

These are the 3 provisions referred to above that street rods are exempted from:

2. Bumpers. To summarize: Every special motor vehicle shall be equipped with a bumper both on the
front and rear of the vehicle. It then goes on to give other exceptions for different types of vehicles and then the dimensions the bumper has to meet. I deleted it all because street rods don't need them. See the link above for specialty motor vehicle info.

4. Fenders. All wheels of every special motor vehicle shall be equipped with fenders
designed to cover the entire tire tread width that comes in contact with the road surface.
Coverage of the tire tread circumference shall be from at least fifteen degrees in front to at
least seventy-five degrees to the rear of the vertical centerline at each wheel measured from
the center of wheel rotation. At no time shall the tire come in contact with the body, fender, or
chassis of the vehicle.

7. Tires. The front tires on special motor vehicles must measure a minimum of sixty
percent of the tread width of the rear tires.

Can a more experienced car guy answer a couple questions: 1) I'm assuming fighting for exemptions like these are one of the main reasons the NDSRA exists? You know, to be like active in a democracy, and 2) Is it assumed by the legislature that since we ask for these exemptions we are expected to "police ourselves" in making sure our vehicles aren't unsafe?

[sko_ford]

it may not explicitly effect the street rod exemption but I do see where it would cause some  comfusion and possibly lead to the repeal of the s.r. Exemption

[Kustom Dallas]

One of the reps for my district emailed me back------I’ve visited with one of the sponsors to see where this is coming from and also to see if it has possibility of passing. I’ll keep an eye on it. In my mind, it looks like it may create more problems. Rick.

[mini]

when i read it, it sounded like they were going after 4x4 trucks being to high off the ground and running into the back of vehicles or in extreme cases the front. and being to high they would not meet up with oncoming traffic if in a collision. when i lived in missouri they made a bill similar to this. not for sure what ended up with it. 

[racerjohnson]

One of the reps for my district emailed me back------I’ve visited with one of the sponsors to see where this is coming from and also to see if it has possibility of passing. I’ll keep an eye on it. In my mind, it looks like it may create more problems. Rick.

So, what did the sponsor say exactly was the troublesome part???

[Tom]

Hey Pete, to answer your question, your right. The crossed out parts are from the original law and the underlined parts are the new additions. Did you guys out east get a hold of your rep? I guess the Minot club raised hell with their rep. Will have to see how it comes out of the committee meeting.

[sko_ford]

I do like the scrub line part but aren't most if not all of these things in the century code?

[racerjohnson]

Hey Pete, to answer your question, your right. The crossed out parts are from the original law and the underlined parts are the new additions. Did you guys out east get a hold of your rep? I guess the Minot club raised hell with their rep. Will have to see how it comes out of the committee meeting.

I went to college with my representative, Joe Heilman, and I have his ear, but I don't even know what to ask him to support as I don't understand what they're trying to change and what it really means. I hate to be the guy up in arms only to later learn that I didn't know what I'm talking about.

Is this it?: "Any modifying equipment must meet specialty equipment marketing
association standards or federal motor vehicle safety standards." I'd bet this would be hard to accomplish and I bet no one even within the gov't wants to be handed the job of inspecting stuff to this standard.
I guess what I'm asking is, what does our organization explicitly want changed or supported, or taken out? Half of the additions are already in Chapter 37-12-02 like the scrub line and the fender laws. If Chapter 39-45 has the exemption for street rods, than what is the big deal? The only main additions I see is that you can't operate your airbags or hydros while the car is moving. Big deal. So what is everybody raising hell about?

[Serious]

The modifacations with inspections is the part thats got me ruffled. Its written way to Broadly.

[Kustom Dallas]

Some of us see this as a stepping stone/get your foot in the door to changes that could affect the street rod bill down the line.  Lanny and I are going to Bis tomorrow for the hearings.

[racerjohnson]

Some of us see this as a stepping stone/get your foot in the door to changes that could affect the street rod bill down the line.  Lanny and I are going to Bis tomorrow for the hearings.

The modifacations with inspections is the part thats got me ruffled. Its written way to Broadly.

Both these statements are a little vague. Which part of the bill is a stepping stone to what undesirable outcome? Which part of the inspection process don't you like?

I guess my point guys is that if were going to start screaming at the legislature every time we feel they are trying to encroach on our positions, we better make sure they actually effectively encroaching and why, we better have a concise understanding of what the laws will look like when applied in real life and if its even feasible to administer the law, and then have a concise stance on the issues at hand to bring to our legislators before we "rally the troops" or we're gonna look unprepared and/or ignorant and it'll hurt our credibility. Eventually they just won't hear us at all if we're just raising hell all the time unnecessarily. Sometimes sniper rifles are better than shotguns. . .

I totally think its cool that you're driving to Bismark for this Dallas. Thank you for finding out whats really going on and if we actually have cause for concern, and for simply being a presence so they know we do give a shit and we pay attention. I'm assuming it won't even make it out of committee and if it does, then its time to rally the troops and call every representative we know to voice our support. Until then, can we just sharpshoot?

[sko_ford]

I could be wrong but it looks like if you took out the things that are already on the books it boils down to inspections. And that could lead to fees.

[racerjohnson]

I'm reading the inspections as the biggest issue too. I bet the State Patrol may dislike that idea as much as we do.