OGRacing

iTrader: (1)

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.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

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.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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.

NiklasFalk

iTrader: (1)

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.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

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?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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.

Roda

Has the EPA ever hesitated to cause economic harm?

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

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.

Ziggo

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 ***** about killing coal, how much do you think they care about SEMA. These are not elected officials.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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.

Ziggo

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.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

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.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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

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



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.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

^ I cede to your thoroughness

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

Sparetire

^ 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 ******* 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.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

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

JasonC SBB

This.

ThePass

iTrader: (3)

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/