Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 1306974)
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 Quote: § 85.1703 Definition of motor vehicle. (a) For the purpose of determining the applicability of section 216(2), a vehicle which is self-propelled and capable of transporting a person or persons or any material or any permanently or temporarily affixed apparatus shall be deemed a motor vehicle, unless any one or more of the criteria set forth below are met, in which case the vehicle shall be deemed not a motor vehicle: (1) The vehicle cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour over level, paved surfaces; or (2) The vehicle lacks features customarily associated with safe and practical street or highway use, such features including, but not being limited to, a reverse gear (except in the case of motorcycles), a differential, or safety features required by state and/or federal law; or (3) The vehicle exhibits features which render its use on a street or highway unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely, such features including, but not being limited to, tracked road contact means, an inordinate size, or features ordinarily associated with military combat or tactical vehicles such as armor and/or weaponry. (* 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.) 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: |
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1306992)
"[A] motor vehicle OR a vehicle used solely for competition" (emphasis added)
10)Nonroad engine.— The term “nonroad engine” means an internal combustion engine (including the fuel system) that is not used in a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition, or that is not subject to standards promulgated under section 7411 [stationary engines, such as generators] of this title or section 7521 [heavy trucks and motorcycles] of this title. (11)Nonroad vehicle.— The term “nonroad vehicle” means a vehicle that is powered by a nonroad engine and that is not a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition. 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. |
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1306992)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1306995)
Again, look at the full context. That snippet comes from para 10 & 11 which read, in full:
10)Nonroad engine.— The term “nonroad engine” means an internal combustion engine (including the fuel system) that is not used in a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition, or that is not subject to standards promulgated under section 7411 [stationary engines, such as generators] of this title or section 7521 [heavy trucks and motorcycles] of this title. (11)Nonroad vehicle.— The term “nonroad vehicle” means a vehicle that is powered by a nonroad engine and that is not a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition. 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. 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? |
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1307040)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by Ziggo
(Post 1307105)
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.
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.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1307120)
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. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1307120)
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.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1307125)
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.
|
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1307128)
Has there ever been a government agency dissolved in modern times?
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1307128)
Not counting times after a conflict.
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. |
Originally Posted by Sparetire
(Post 1307288)
^ 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. Rural Electrification Administration Rural Utilities Service | USDA Rural Development |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1307125)
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.
|
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/ |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands