Please elaborate.

vvv- agreed 100%.

The United States.


From the EPAs point of view, there is no invisible barrier between racetracks / muddy fields / etc which prevents pollutants generated in those areas from drifting out into the general public. And they're correct; things like air and water have a bad habit of moving around.

So it really doesn't matter, from a practical perspective, whether a vehicle is being used for commuting, for competition, or for horsing around in the back 40. If it's generating pollutants, those pollutants cause harm.

I've never understood the whole "off road exemption" myself, and now I understand why. It's because said exemption is a fiction. (I never bothered to do the actual research until now.)


I just hope the coal-rollers are the first to go. I'll give up all of motorsports as a whole in exchange for seeing every antisocial asshole who has modified their truck to emit huge plumes of soot and smoke arrested and sentenced to the stocks.

If that is actually their intent they should do so in regulations for light duty passenger vehicles, not heavy duty trucks while writing in motorcycles and cars or anything with wheels.

What? The "authenticity" (honesty? forthrightness?) of the PR person isn't in question. It's whether a "clarification" made to a car magazine bears any legal weight. 10 years from now, is some EPA middle-manager going to care what a PR person said to Road & Track magazine?

hypocrisy?

A stand alone ECU removes the EPA approved OBD2 computer. before people like DIY and Holley could sell the unit with a "for off road use only" sticker. with what the EPA spokeswoman said they are looking to close the "for off road use only" loop hole. So the manufactures will be targeted and forced to stop making the devices.

it will work kind of like Napster did in the 90's. there will be a bunch of suppliers that jump ship, the rest that hold out and fight the system. they will get sued into oblivion. then the people that try to be quiet but keep using the service will also be sued into oblivion. and this is a rules clarification so statute of limitation will be set for the date the law was passed. this is the clean air act so that date will be 1976. if your car was built before then you have nothing to worry about.

This might be the only upside to this entire situation. I can't stand coal rolling pricks.

the law isn't on the books.. the EPA is trying to close the "for off road use only" loop hole.

i'm sorry if i'm getting a bit squeaky but long time ago i was a 350Z guy, hung out in the nissan fan boy world. the issues the guys had with importing Gt-r's was mid boggling. you had to get the car past customs, the EPA,and state.

i had a good friend bought a r34 GT-R spend 60k on the car. payed to have it legally imported, customs said it was fine, state said it was fine. he got a letter from the epa, then he immediately sold the car. epa showed up for the car, he had to tell them where he sold it to, or face jail time. they found the car and crushed it. i would hate to see that happen to normal people's car if all we have to do is sign a white house thing and support SEMA.

EPA Seeks to Prohibit Conversion of Vehicles Into Racecars
 

That's funny....

Frankly you'd be better off finding your closest Republican Representative and writing them asking for help and citing the specific rule change.

At least they're on record as hating all things EPA.

And yes SEMA.

Is it ironic that the agency responsible for the worst US environmental disaster of 2015 is concerned with a tiny minority of dudes who are actually making their cars perform better in many cases?

more like they are concerned with knocking out a industry that brings in 36 billion / year. and hide the paragraph inside a 600 page heavy duty truck amendment.

He legally imported it, that's why it was crushed.

You do realize that the only legal R34s are the Motorex ones, right?

Any change to the current setup should have hard science behind it for the exact improvements closing the loophole is supposed to make.

Unmodified emissions equipment doesn't do shit at the track anyway. The car will be running too rich for the cat to do its thing, the EGR system will be shut off and the spark timing will be advanced enough, even on an unmodified ECU, to blow the NOx through the roof.

God help us all if they tried to force OEMs to meet emissions requirements at wide open throttle. We will be cranking out HP/liter numbers comperable to your lawn mower.

So what I'm hearing is he paid some people to have it illegally imported and now you're referencing ti as if it has any relevance to what we're talking about.. why? :facepalm:

legally is the word i used

So it was imported by Motorex?

I have a million dollars in my checking account.

Edit: it didn't work.

No idea. He had the car when I met him. One day he shows up with a Lexuskina thing and we heard the story.

It was more of an example of how the epa operates. According to the document the only thing that's clear is the punishment. It read one year in jail, $35,000 fine per violation, EPA has been know to seize the violating vehicle and crush it.

Danm you spell check!!!!!! Gahhhh

Oh, so you're so certain of it's legality, but don't know if it was a Motorex car. Gotcha.

^ You're getting off-topic more than Johnny is..

LeMons just sent out an email:

I recommend reading through that link entirely.

Well, my understanding has always been that when you look at raw numbers, the number of vehicles classified as "off-road" compared to regular licensed on-road passenger vehicles is tiny. So overall, it doesn't really matter if those vehicles are completely emissions compliant, or running straight pipes - their overall contributions to the total emissions output aren't worth worrying about. And they aren't, and should continue to be ignored.

The current wording as described is problematic and needs to be fixed.

If you think your friend "legally" imported an R34, I don't think you know what the definition of "legally" is.

Even the few R34s that *are* here legally were indeed imported illegally, and were made legal to own after the fact.

I like this lawyer

"While troublesome for some autosport enthusiasts of heavy-duty
vehicles and those who like to “roll coal” on their competition brodozers, it is likely that alone,
this would not be problematic for most motorsport activities."

Reading the whole thing, its clear that they are saying: once a "motor vehicle" always a "motor vehicle" and thus under our jurisdiction.

Would be pretty funny if it turns into the gun world equivalent of AR-15 lowers. What is a miata? The shell? The engine block? So an exocet would be free of original sin? Or machine a new block 80%, leave a few holes for the user to drill and then install oem miata parts on it like folks do with AR lowers? It's comical to consder.

So far as I understand the law in most (all?) US States and the Fed, the "soul" of a motor vehicle is enshrined within the VIN. Anything which carries that mark is a part of the original vehicle, and anything which does not, is not.

For motorcycles, this is the frame. So the custom choppers created by various rednecks with limited welding ability are "new" vehicles even if the carry the complete powertrain of a wrecked Harley donor. And a "kit car" such as an Exocet or a Westie is a "new" vehicle regardless of the powerplant which it carries. The same applies to scratch-built race cars.

Engines and transmissions typically carry unique identifying numbers separate from the VIN number of the host vehicle, and are thus not an inseparable part of it.

And +1 :likecat: for Brodozer.

what i meant was he paid a company to import the car and have it registered as a gt-r. as opposed to using the vin off a 240. He had it titled as a gt-r, cleared threw customs, cleared threw the state. i didn't look into any other specifics of the deal. i personally lost interest of importing one when i saw how excited he was about going threw a drive-thew by himself.


we are getting off topic. If the community wants to start a thread dedicated to my spelling mistakes i would gladly contribute.


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1455199745


sorry. :(
yes pat's link explains everything perfectly. he even covers the safety aspect of not being able to use a fuel cell.

*through

Wanna play a game of catch?

Also, it seems like your friend didn't legally import an R34 seeing how the 25 year grey market rules are extremely explicit.

Excellent memorandum.

EPA's regulatory intentions are clear and contrary to the enabling law. This is a large and unauthorized change for non-registered track cars.

Of course, enforcement would be sporadic or minimal and would focus on manufacturers/large shops. Pragmatically, EPA only has so much budget. But the point is that they are grabbing the power to do this, and that power grab MUST be resisted by the free citizens it could affect. That's us.

The cost/benefit impact of this proposed regulatory change is incomprehensibly upside-down.

This is what I keep coming back to. Sure, enforcement may be sporadic, as you noted. But it's not just about whether the EPA actually shows up at your shop and tells you to lock the doors and go home.

Can DIYAutotune afford to continue a business model based entirely around a product that the EPA says is illegal? It's fine to say that the EPA probably won't enforce this very strongly, but enforcement is only part of the question. The threat of enforcement means that companies can't risk the possible penalties and will have to adjust.

This means no DIYAutotune, no MSLabs, no BEGi, and no engine parts from FM, or 949, or Goodwin, or Trackspeed.

Jay Lamm's lawyer's memo explains it as only a lawyer can. The EPA thinks the rule was X and is trying to "clarify" to make it X, when the rule is actually Y (or A, or a number, or not even a Roman numeral at all).

Not cool, EPA.

Letters should be written, but someone with ~3 more years of law school than I have should probably be writing them for us to sign.

I am signing up for SEMA today.

I disagree.

From the point of view of a lawyer, an opinion expressed by the chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee as to the applicability of a certain law is not binding, and does not actually codify or change the applicability of said law. Only judges can change the law based upon their opinions.

Thus, a strict interpretation of the 1965 Clean Air Act is that its provisions do, and have always, applied to all motor vehicles which were originally "designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway."

And this includes all race cars which are based upon a vehicle which was originally designed for on-road use, manufactured with emissions controls, sold by a car dealer as a complete car, etc.

Or, put another way, a spoon doesn't stop being a spoon simply because you're using it to pry a nail out of a board. It was still designed and sold with the intention of being used as an eating utensil.



Do I agree that this is necessary and proper? No. The number of race cars active at any given time is so unbelievably minuscule as compared to the total number of vehicles on the road, that the potential environmental gains that would be had from crushing every single one of them would be immeasurable.

But common sense isn't what's at issue here, it's the law. And the law, in this case, is clear. Nothing has been changed, nothing has been added. The EPA has simply said "Look, we've been ignoring you guys' flagrant transgressions of this law for decades, but we're letting you know that we're going to stop turning a blind eye now, because we're a bunch of bureaucratic assholes and we need to look like we're doing our job."

I am one of those people. Vanderbilt University School of Law 1996. Practiced for several years at major law firms. Currently deal with the FAA almost every day. I only say the above for Joe's benefit, because . . .

This is not true. Legislative intent is almost always used to interpret what a law means, because issues like these come up constantly. That is why those proceedings are recorded for posterity and made public record. Those discussions are considered by judges when making legal interpretations, and would be so used in this case.

What that committee discussion shows is that this issue came up before when the CAA was being considered -- and the interpretation presented to that committee made it clear that the 'ol boys in Alabama could keep racing their Chevrolets, Fords and MOPARs.

Now, whether that interpretation wins the day remains to be seen, but it was an on-point interpretation that legislators relied upon when casting votes for the CAA in 1970. To have an administrative agency unilaterally attempt to change that meaning with language cleverly hidden deep within the bowels of the Federal Register is fundamentally unfair -- it just reeks.

I will also be signing up for SEMA, just to have someone lobbying on my behalf.

If we can't trust the EPA to even make sure we have clean lead free drinking water, who the fuck wants them anywhere near our race cars.

I acknowledge that I am speaking to a practicing attorney, and that while I have had some legal education, I am not a lawyer, I have not passed the bar in any state, and I am not licensed or qualified to offer legal advice. That said;

And when the matter appears in court, I do hope that the judge will take said conversation into account when deciding how the CAA applies with regard to production cars converted for use in auto racing.

But until that happens, the state will simply point to USC Title 42, Chapter 85, § 7522, Subsection A, which reads:

The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited—
(...)

(3)

(A) for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this subchapter prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser, or for any person knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser; or
(B) for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or install, any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this subchapter, and where the person knows or should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or put to such use;

And they will then point to Subsection B, entitled "Exemptions", and point out that no exemption is made to Article 3 with regard to motor vehicles which are used for racing or recreational purposes.

And, from a standpoint of pure paper law, they'd be correct. (I haven't found any case law in which this has been tested.)


To so-called Off Highway Exemption is a myth. It's a widespread and long-standing one which reflects a historically permissive attitude on the part of regulators with regard to the motorsport industry, and I suppose one could make an argument that that, in addition to the recorded statements of Rep. Staggers, makes it a de-facto part of the common law. In fact, I hope that someone makes this argument, because I'm excruciatingly curious to see how the court rules in that case. But until it happens, the law at present remains unchanged.

And I would argue you missed the entire point of his statement...

Fixed to highlight the operative clause:

Argument being, that legislative intent was that the law never applied nor was intended to apply to competition (off-highway) vehicles, thus they are not regulated under this law. It flat doesn't apply, so no stated exemption is required.

Joe, your argument hinges on the definition of motor vehicle. The legal definition of "motor vehicle" is found here*:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/85.1703

(2) definitely applies to race cars which no longer retain DOT-legal seatbelts. The argument would be that any vehicle used strictly for competition is no longer a "motor vehicle" under federal law. The EPA is attempting to argue that a "thing" that starts life as a motor vehicle must always remain a motor vehicle, when it's clear from the written law, and from the intent of the law, that the CAA was never meant to apply to off-highway vehicles.

(* I think. The reference to 216(2) is a reference to the Clean Air Act, but I wasn't quickly able to find the text of that section.)

No, I got that.

The point which the EPA is making concerns vehicles which were in compliance with the regulations at the time of their manufacture and sale, and were subsequently modified for racing use. It doesn't matter that such modifications made the vehicles non-compliant with the points which Savington notes above. The key point in the EPA's argument is simply that if you take a vehicle which is governed by EPA regulations, and then modify it in such a way that it becomes noncompliant, this does not make it exempt from EPA regulations.

If what you're asserting were the case, then you'd be able to avoid smog testing simply by removing the airbag from your car.


Now, I agree with what you're saying with regard to legislative intent. And as to hornetball's point, I do hope that when this is tested in the courts, this section is found not to apply to vehicles which have been modified in such a way that they are suitable only for racing use. But as it stands right now, the EPA would appear to be correct in their assertion that the CAA does not cease to apply to a 1994 Miata simply because you've installed a roll-cage, a racing seat, and Hoosiers.

Nope, sorry. Different section.

The CAA is Title 42, Section 7522.

For the purpose of the CAA, a Motor Vehicle is defined within Title 42, at § 7550. It states:The key word here is "designed." It doesn't matter what changes or modifications are made to the vehicle by the purchaser or subsequent owners; the fact that the vehicle was originally designed (and certified) for highway use means that the provisions of § 7522 continue to apply to it regardless of what application it is used for. This is the same sentence that I quoted (without providing a citation, for which I apologize) in post #93.


The EPA employs a lot of lawyers. And while they may be misguided assholes, they are not dumb.

wow good catch!

Hornet ball, would you say this statement is accurate?

is Savington is right all we would need to do is: install a cage, remove the 3 point, remove so much power that it's top speed is 24mph, remove reverse gear, add tank treads, make it gigantic, or cover it with guns... easy.

Adding to what Andrew is saying and turning away from the regulations and to the CAA itself, if you look at 42 USC Section 7550(10) and (11) (42 USC 7550: Definitions), you'll see the term:

"[A] motor vehicle OR a vehicle used solely for competition" (emphasis added)

So, the law establishes a distinction between "motor vehicle" and "vehicle used solely for competition." This, in fact, was the crux of the legislative history cited earlier where it was clarified that racers could modify a car into a "vehicle used solely for competition" and that a "vehicle used solely for competition" was not subject to CAA requirements.

This has been the interpretation and practice for more than 45 years.

Now the EPA is saying that "once a motor vehicle, always a motor vehicle" and no modification into a "vehicle used solely for competition" is ever possible. That's a HUGE change.

Now, I wouldn't say that the disctinction between "motor vehicle" and "vehicle used solely for competition" is as clear as it could be. In particular, "vehicle used solely for competition" is not explicitly defined in the statute ("motor vehicle" and "nonroad vehicle" are). I suspect legislators of years gone by might have thought the term clear enough on its face. Assuming the term is considered ambiguous, a court would normally turn to legislative history and, in that case, the Nichols/Staggers discussion is extremely strong, directly-on-point evidence of the meaning.

For most laws, I'd say this was a slam dunk. However, given the politically polarizing subject matter, I think the initial outcome will depend entirely upon the judge, and that outcome, whatever it is, will likely go through appeals. I do not expect an Obama-led EPA to pull the proposed regulations, and I would expect SEMA and similar organizations to file suit as this is an existential threat to them. Your desire to see this play out in court is likely to happen.

In the meantime, it would be nice if common sense and cost/benefit prevailed and we could preserve some aspects of the American culture. :cry:

Again, look at the full context. That snippet comes from para 10 & 11 which read, in full:

It's a little hard to read because there's some double-negation, but here's a plain English translation:

10: A non-road engine is one that is not used in either a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition. Thus, a race car does not contain a "non-road engine."

11: A non-road vehicle is one which is neither a motor vehicle nor a vehicle used solely for competition. Thus, a race car is not a "non-road vehicle."


And, as such, the CAA continues to apply to a vehicle designed under the provisions of § 7550, regardless of the fact that the owner of the vehicle chooses to use it on a racetrack.

EPA Seeks to Prohibit Conversion of Vehicles Into Racecars
 

Our sloppy controls of previously stricter rules start to sound like the land for the free...

Can't you just crush the VIN? Making your once road going vehicle a race bespoke lump of steel?

But the huge reduction of the business would be murder.
It's the wannabe s and rivers that build the volume enabling reasonable prices on the useful stuff.

I hope you're right.

An alternative interpretation would be that a "vehicle used solely for competition" is one which is designed specifically for competition use, rather than for road use. Examples here (which would have been relevant in the 1970s) would be Formula cars, USAC (Sprint / Indy) cars, Midget cars, NASCAR (after the end of homologation), and other vehicles which you can look at and immediately say "That is obviously a race car."


This would be as opposed to the wording of 7550, where it states that: (2) The term “motor vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway."

Again, note the use of the word "designed." The Act seems to concern itself with the design intent of the vehicle, not its usage.

Vehicles designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway can function either as road cars or as race cars, wherein the distinction between the two is mostly contextual, and determined by the presence of things like stickers and safety equipment. A 2004 BMW M3 does not cease to be a road car merely because you rip out the interior and win the 24 Hours of Le Mans with it.

Well, I've been digging a bit more (out of curiosity, stubborness and abject horror that what I assumed I've known for decades might not be so) . . . and I'm kind of coming to the same conclusion you are. It just doesn't seem to be there. In particular, the term "vehicle used solely for competition" is only associated with sections dealing with non-road vehicles and only came into the CAA in 1990 -- it was not part of the original act. It would seem that legal memo was a bit hastily written and has some holes.

It looks like an argument will have to rely heavily on legislative history or perhaps some sort of estoppel, cost-benefit theory -- i.e., that an entire industry/culture/way of life has arisen from a prevailing understanding and pattern of enforcement and the economic harm from a change far outweighs the environmental benefit.

Sigh. I really detest all of this fundamental transformation. Less than a year left, right?

That would be just about the only way to do it. Demonstrate that the law has not historically been applied to vehicles used solely for competition, and that it would have massive economic consequences for a large (and mostly) domestic industry.


My fear is that even if they do write in an exemption for competition vehicles, they'd have to craft it in a very strict way (eg: vehicles neither registered nor insured for operation on the public highways), and that this would still have negative consequences for the aftermarket in the form of a chilling effect on the design, sale and use of things like ECUs / programmers and forced induction systems.


Anecdotally related: I miss having access to Westlaw and LexisNexis.

Has the EPA ever hesitated to cause economic harm?

To be fair, the year I was born in Cleveland, OH (where everyone had a good-paying union job in heavy manufacturing), the Cuyohoga River caught fire twice.

But, yeah, things seem to be out of control in the other direction now.

The EPA has essentially killed the mining industry in WV, which is strangling the southern part of the state and eastern KY. Not that the mining industry doesn't need regulated, but they have not issued a new mining permit since the current administration took office. They are treating the permitting process the same as the sheriff's office in LA county treats applications for concealed carry. You can apply, but it goes straight into the circular file.

To me this is a major over reach. These agencies should not have the power to change stuff like this without laws passing through congress. That is what is most frustrating, ultimately, your representative can't do anything about this other than push for the repeal of the CAA or work to defund the agency.

If they give zero fucks about killing coal, how much do you think they care about SEMA. These are not elected officials.

Huh?

The Clean Air Act WAS passed by Congress. Specifically, the 88th US Congress in 1963, under a democratic majority in both the House and the Senate.

The EPA isn't changing anything. They're just saying that they are going to start enforcing the law as it is presently written.

That said, the EPA has reached a point in its existence similar to that of labor unions in the US. Most of the "big" problems have been solved, and yet rather than declare success and disband, they continue to struggle for ways to maintain their power and relevance. Administrative agencies, like organisms, don't like to die.

It's not that they don't have the authorization, it's that they shouldn't. If the intent of the original law was to not cover "competition vehicles" then the law should have specified as such, and the agency shouldn't have the leeway to change course. I guess it's not overreach, unelss you consider that they are ignoring the express intent of the law as the quote from the legislator indicates.

The original act. Another, more stringent act was passed in 1973 with even stronger ammendments in 1990. Both later moves signed into law by a Republican president with both House and Senate under democratic control.

Has there ever been a government agency dissolved in modern times? Not counting times after a conflict.

Sure, I can think of plenty...
Oh, sure- go putting Terms & Conditions on it. :vash:

Fine. The Bureau of Prohibition. Dissolved 1933 after the passage of the 21st Amendment. :D



But in all seriousness, there have actually been tons of them. The Bureau of Mines, the Federal Power Commission, the Bureau of Navigation and Steamboat Inspection, the U.S. Office of Education, the Public Land Commission, the Public Works Administration, the Subsistence Homesteads Division, the United States Grazing Service, the Industrial Commission, the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, the United States Metric Board, the National Inventors Council, the Wage Stabilization Board, the National Production Authority, the Pay Board and Price Commission, the Office of Technology Assessment, the United States Railroad Administration, the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, the United States Shipping Board, the Teacher Corps, the list goes on and on.

All were dissolved after having either outlived their usefulness or having failed miserably at their assigned task.


Trouble is that public consciousness of issues related to environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions continues to rise at a seemingly exponential rate, so regardless of the effectiveness of the EPA, they play to a willing audience. Does that mean that we're actually going to ban the use of fossil fuels for electricity production and switch to carbon-neutral generation sources? Of course not. But they can continue to nitpick and win minor battles.

Related: If you haven't already, check out Erin Brockovich's facebook page. The extent to which this woman (whom we all know from the Julia Roberts movie) has become a mouthpiece for every anti-economic group in existence is profoundly disturbing.

^ I cede to your thoroughness :bowdown:

You had to digg deep for some of those. Some I remember.

^ Don't forget the REA.

No matter how many times you see examples of real benefits and real idiocy from the same agencies, the contrast amazes.

The ability of modern cars to make incredible power while having tailpipe emissions that were unthinkably low 30 years ago is due in large part to these agencies. (Look at aircraft too) That has made seriously life-changing improvements for people. Yet the same basic group of people will make your life a living hell if you attempt to say, put a modern more powerful and cleaner engine into an older chassis despite it being far better in every conceivable way. And they are now looking at totally fucking up a portion of life that's incredibly important to a lot of people - and will probably have no meaningful benefit for anyone.

Power is usually more like a sledgehammer than a scalpel. And people look like nails from 30K feet.

REA was abolished in 1994 and its functions assumed by the Rural Utilities Service. Not found is if those employees ended up moving over to the RUS. Any bets??

Rural Electrification Administration

Rural Utilities Service | USDA Rural Development

This.

Progress Update: Opposing EPA Proposal to Prohibit Race Car Conversions
https://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2016...campaign=eNews

On Florida Senator Marco Rubio's site:
https://marcorubio.com/news/epa-race-cars-modified/