ask about that case because it represents an outside opinion from an impartial third party that ( IMHO ) says coverage is a valid and reasonable exercise of ECC authority. I also believe that it can be inferred from the opinion that the guidelines, are for the most part valid.

I have never suggested percent coverage is not a valid exercise of ECC authority. I have suggested it can be a dumb and irresponsible exercise of ECC authority, depending on the specific case.

One can infer nothing more from the court opinion than the court agreed on the specific guideline/s brought to it. To infer that because a court upheld one guideline that all guidelines are thus valid is bad thinking, very bad thinking. It is the equivalent of saying that because some state law is challenged and goes to the Supreme Court and is upheld that it follows all the state's laws are constitutional. Get that thinking cap on.

I would rather use the registration standard to determine junk vs non-junk vehicles than my or your asthetic opinion.

Sorry, but if you truly believe your aesthetic opinion of what constitutes a junk vehicle can determine if a motor vehicle is a violation of the DRs as being junk, then, quite frankly, you should not be on the ECC. There are some brand new cars that look like junk to me.  One could also have a rusty old jalopy that was not junk. The question of a vehicle being "junk" in terms of the DRs has nothing to do with whether a CPI inspector or an ECC member thinks it "looks" like junk. I suspect the legal definition of a "junk motor vehicle" goes well beyond opinions on its appearance.

It is attitudes like this in OPA's enforcement of the DRs that need to changed.