U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–835PDF 2017

RACING TO REGULATE: 

EPA’S LATEST OVERREACH ON AMATEUR DRIVERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 15, 2016 

Serial No. 114–65 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DON BEYER, Virginia 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 15, 2016 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement submitted by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Witnesses: 

PANEL I 

The Honorable Patrick McHenry, Member, U.S. House of Representatives 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24 

PANEL II 

Mr. Christopher Kersting, President and CEO, Specialty Equipment Marketing Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Mr. Ralph Sheheen, Managing Partner and President, National Speed Sport 

News 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 42 

Mr. Brent Yacobucci, Section Research Manager, Energy and Minerals Section, Congressional Research Service 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 53 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted for the record ...................................................................... 65 

(1) 

RACING TO REGULATE: 

EPA’S LATEST OVERREACH ON AMATEUR 

DRIVERS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barry Loudermilk 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. The Subcommittee on Oversight will 

come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘Racing to Regulate: EPA’s 

Latest Overreach on Amateur Drivers.’’ I recognize myself for five 

minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning. Today’s hearing is an examination of the EPA’s 

efforts to use the Clean Air Act to regulate amateur racecars, 

which is yet another example of EPA regulatory overreach. In this 

case, the EPA is attempting to enforce the Clean Air Act in a way 

that Congress never intended, and is doing so in a covert manner. 

Earlier this year, the EPA issued a proposed rule to establish 

greenhouse gas and fuel consumption regulations for new on-road 

medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Hidden within the 629-page proposed rule on page 584, in the miscellaneous section, is a sentence 

that states: ‘‘Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines 

and their emission control devices must remain in their certified 

configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they 

become non-road vehicles or engines.’’ The impact of that sentence 

cannot be understated. The proposed regulation would affect any 

vehicle used for racing that started as a street or production car. 

Racecars are fast and have been modified to be fast and safe. As 

a result, racecars strictly used at the track are not typically emissions compliant. Any racecar that has a VIN plate, installed at the 

factory, can no longer be out of compliance under this proposed 

rule. This applies to racecars used strictly at drag strips, oval 

tracks, and other types of racing, with no intention of ever seeing 

the open road again. 

The proposed regulation would have a devastating effect on the 

motorsports industry and the industry that supplies the products, 

technology, and services for the racing community. The specialty 

equipment automotive aftermarket employs over one million Americans across the nation representing nearly $1.4 billion in sales of 

racing-related products annually. 

In my home State of Georgia, the Atlanta Motor Speedway contributes $455 million a year to the Atlanta economy. The South 

Georgia Motorsports Park located in Cecil, Georgia, attracts over 

200,000 people a year, generating an estimated $37 million into the 

economy of South Georgia. 

In addition to the major raceways throughout our country, there 

are thousands of local tracks that would be devastated by this new 

regulation. For example, the Dixie Speedway in my district in 

Woodstock, Georgia, is a popular community track that brings in 

150,000 visitors and generates more than $40 million in economic 

activity every year. If the EPA uses this regulation to dismantle 

the race equipment manufacturing industry, drivers at tracks like 

these would be unable to find many of the parts that they need for 

their racecars. If the Dixie Speedway was to go out of business, our 

community would lose tremendous amounts of commercial activity, 

tourism, and recreation that have been part of our local economy 

and culture since the Speedway opened in 1968. 

What is most frustrating to me is the secretive manner that the 

EPA attempted to sneak in this clarification of authority. They de-
6 

liberatively did this under the radar of the American people. The 

EPA violated the Administrative Procedures Act requiring adequate opportunity for the public and interested parties to comment 

on proposed rules. There was no mention of this significant policy 

change in the table of contents of the 629-page rule. It was included with other minor issues in Section 14, Other Proposed Regulatory Provisions. 

The proposed rule establishes next-generation greenhouse gas 

emissions standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. The inclusion of an unrelated topic within a series of 

rulemakings is unprecedented and non-germane. The EPA is seeking to change policy that has been in place for decades and does 

not explain the purpose for changing language to prohibit racecars 

from being emissions noncompliant. 

To change policy without proper notice would likely be arbitrary, 

capricious, and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. 

EPA failed to provide any notice to the regulated industry in this 

case. 

To date, millions of cars have been modified to be used strictly 

at the race track. Products have been manufactured and installed 

on race-only vehicles since the automobile was invented. 

Automotive racing is part of the soul of this country. It is our responsibility to shine a light on the EPA’s attempt to eliminate a 

part of who we are as a nation with one sentence in an unrelated 

rule. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today, particularly Mr. 

McHenry, who introduced H.R. 4715, which clarifies the intent of 

Congress in the Clean Air Act to exclude vehicles used solely for 

competition. Mr. McHenry, we appreciate your leadership on this 

important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Loudermilk follows:] 
7 
8 
9 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. With that, I recognize the Ranking 

Member for his opening statement. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Chairman Loudermilk. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing today. 

While I admit the title of this hearing, ‘‘Racing to Regulate,’’ is 

catchy, I really don’t think the Environmental Protection Agency 

has been racing ahead to apply a 40-year-old provision of the Clean 

Air Act, and I don’t think the EPA has attempted to throttle amateur drivers. In 46 years of enforcing the Clean Air Act, the agency 

has never targeted racecar drivers, and, I don’t believe the EPA’s 

intent in clarifying the legal authority of these regulations last July 

suggests that they’re going to begin to do that today, in spite of 

what the hearing title suggests. 

I too have great empathy for the racing community. I’ve been a 

racecar enthusiast my whole life. I have pictures of my father racing on the beach at Daytona and my mother, because her brother 

was on the same racing team. I grew up going to stock car races 

at Darlington and Dover and Bristol and Richmond, and Manassas, 

especially, and I ran the family’s SCCA racing teams in the 1980s. 

By the way, I checked last night. I am proud of my family relationship with Alexander Rossi, who is the first person ever, American 

or otherwise, to have both an IndyCar ride and a Formula I ride 

in the same season. Let’s hope he wins. 

But the public health benefits of the 1970 Clean Air Act are 

clear, and the EPA enforcement actions against those that violate 

these laws are necessary. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, these regulations have resulted in 11,000 

fewer deaths due to reduced vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide. 

Efforts to violate these regulations willfully have serious environmental consequences. 

I understand, of course, that the EPA’s recent clarification of 

their jurisdictional authority under the Clean Air Act has sparked 

widespread concern within the racing industry. 

EPA had been called to witness—they were not called today, 

which is a disadvantage, because in reading a lot of the EPA stuff, 

I understand that this has been their interpretation the entire 40- 

plus years. Hopefully through our witness from the Congressional 

Research Service we’ll be able to get the EPA’s perspective. 

But we all have a shared interest in preventing companies from 

manufacturing, selling or installing aftermarket automobile parts 

that result in illegally modified automobiles or trucks, not on 

racecar tracks but in our neighborhoods. Think ‘‘Fast and Furious 

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7.’’ 

The EPA has attempted to focus their enforcement actions on 

those who violate motor vehicle emissions laws by targeting manufacturers, sellers, and installers of aftermarket parts that are used 

to turn motor vehicles into hotrods used on public roads and highways. Since 2007 the EPA has had three large enforcement actions 

against enforcement manufacturers—aftermarket manufacturers 

who have sold a total of 167,000 products intended to violate environmental regulations. Unsurprisingly, amateur racing continues 

after each of these actions unaffected by the EPA’s actions. 

Now, the issue here of course is not NASCAR, it is not IndyCar. 

The issues don’t affect them at all. And the EPA is intending sim-
10 

ply to clarify environmental regulations that make it illegal to decertify a motor vehicle and alter vehicles’ emissions control in violation of the law, and I presume, for instance, that no one here condones what is known as ‘‘coal rolling’’ or ‘‘rolling coal,’’ which is the 

process of altering a vehicle’s exhaust to intentionally emit heavy 

black clouds of smoke as the vehicle rolls down the highway, suburban street, or other roadway. 

But we clearly have a problem, Mr. Chairman. EPA’s 46-year-old 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act and its clarification this year 

is that we cannot ever modify the emissions system of a vehicle initially certified for use on public roads, and this of course makes no 

sense, and it’s not the way EPA has applied the rule: no enforcement against amateur racecar drivers ever, and none intended in 

the future. 

So let me point out, there are many, many, many more amateur 

racecars and racecar drivers than there are those represented by 

NASCAR’s top level or IndyCar across the country in thousands of 

counties, amateur races on Friday and Saturday nights. It’s bad for 

the rule of law and for our understanding as law-abiding citizens 

to have laws or regulations on the books that we do not enforce, 

and it is hard to believe that this is ever the intention of Congress 

to ban amateur racing. 

So I look forward to listening to Mr. McHenry’s testimony about 

his legislation and from our witnesses today. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT RANKING MEMBER DON

BEYER

Thank you Chairman Loudermilk. I appreciate you holding this hearing today. 

While I admit the title of this hearing, ‘‘Racing to Regulate’’ is catchy, I don’t 

think the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been racing ahead in applying forty year old provisions of the Clean Air Act, nor do I think EPA has attempted 

to throttle amateur drivers at all. In 46 years of enforcing the Clean Air Act, the 

agency has never targeted racecar drivers per se, and, I don’t believe the EPA’s intent in clarifying the legal authority of these regulations last July suggests that 

they will begin to do that today, in spite of what the hearing title suggests. 

I have great empathy for both the racing community and the automotive industry 

and its partners. I have been a racing car enthusiast my entire life. My father was 

a founding member of NASCAR. I have made my living running my family’s automobile dealership. But I strongly believe that individuals, as well as the automotive 

industry, must comply with established environmental laws whether they agree 

with them or not. 

The public health benefits of the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations are clear 

and the EPA’s enforcement actions against those that violate these laws are necessary. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) these 

regulations have resulted in more than 11,000 fewer deaths due to reduced vehicle 

emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), for instance. Efforts to violate these regulations 

have serious environmental consequences. 

I understand that EPA’s recent clarification of their jurisdictional authority under 

the Clean Air Act has sparked widespread concern within the racing industry. Of 

course if the EPA had been called as a witness to this hearing they could respond 

to questions about this issue themselves. Instead, our witnesses and our Members 

will be left to engage in conjecture about EPA’s intent. 

We all have a shared interest in preventing companies from manufacturing, selling or installing aftermarket automobile parts that result in illegally modified automobiles or trucks that speed loudly through our neighborhoods, endangering residents and polluting our streets. I believe the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), which represents the automotive specialty and performance parts industry, agrees with that position and so does the EPA. 
11 

The EPA has attempted to maximize their enforcement actions against those who 

violate motor vehicle emissions laws by targeting manufacturers, sellers, and installers of aftermarket parts that are used to turn motor vehicles into racecars that 

are used on public roads and highways. Since 2007 the EPA has had three large 

enforcement cases against aftermarket manufacturers who have sold a total of 

167,000 products intended to violate environmental regulations. 

Unsurprisingly, amateur racing continued after each of these actions unaffected 

by the EPA’s enforcement actions. 

This is why I believe it is clear that we share the same objectives: to protect the 

environment and the public’s health while maintaining the nation’s rich racing tradition in a safe and responsible manner. No one, including the EPA, is attempting 

to shut down the Daytona 500 or other professional races. Under the Clean Air Act 

NASCAR and other professional racecars are not ‘‘motor vehicles’’ by definition and 

have been exempt from complying with EPA emissions control regulations. The 

issues we are discussing today will not impact these professional racecars or racers 

in any way. EPA is intending to simply clarify environmental regulations that make 

it illegal to de-certify a motor vehicle and alter a vehicle’s emissions control devices 

in violation of the law. 

I presume, for instance, that no one here condones what is known as ‘‘coal rolling,’’ or ‘‘rolling coal,’’ which is the process of altering a vehicle’s exhaust to intentionally emit heavy black clouds of smoke as the vehicle rolls down the highway, 

suburban street, or other roadway. 

Lastly, while I find this discussion interesting I am not sure any of the issues we 

are discussing today fall within the jurisdiction of the Science Committee. I am also 

disappointed that the Majority chose not to invite any representative from the EPA 

as a witness today to actually help us understand their perspective on the history 

of their enforcement in this area and the intent of their clarification on this issue 

last July. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Science Committee has held many hearings on the regulatory overreach of the Environmental Protection Agency during 

this Administration. Unfortunately, the EPA once again now attempts to unnecessarily and unlawfully regulate the lives of the 

American people. 

The Committee has often revealed how the EPA’s regulatory 

overreach will cost billions of dollars, cause financial hardship for 

American families, and diminish the competitiveness of American 

employers, all with no significant benefit to climate change, public 

health, or the economy. 

The EPA has rushed through many costly and burdensome regulations throughout this administration. Examples include the strict 

new National Ambient Air Quality standard for ozone, Waters of 

the U.S., and the Clean Power Plan. 

Today, we will hear about how the EPA wants to expand its 

Clean Air Act authority and enforce it against amateur racecar 

drivers in the industry that supplies amateur racers with parts and 

modifications. This is an industry that supports American small 

business jobs, manufacturing, and technology. 

For the first time, the EPA seeks to impose the Clean Air Act 

on all non-road vehicles used for racing competitions. This includes 

vehicles that have been legally deregistered so they can be modified 

for use in racing. Congress never intended the Clean Air Act to 

apply to these vehicles, and the law is clear on this point. Racecars 

are not regulated by this law. However, EPA has now put into 

question the legality of non-road vehicles modified to become 

racecars. 
12 

The EPA’s proposed expansion of authority demonstrates the 

agency’s willingness to resort to backdoor and secretive means to 

push its agenda. Agency officials buried this new provision in a 

proposed rule on emissions standards for medium- and heavy-duty 

truck, a regulation that is unrelated to vehicles modified for racing. 

In fact, it took industry stakeholders beyond the official comment 

period to discover that the EPA had even included this provision 

in the rule. 

EPA’s actions show that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 

because the agency failed to give proper notice to the stakeholders 

that would be affected by this provision. 

Even EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy herself seemed to be 

caught off guard by her own agency’s latest power grab. In a hearing before the House Agriculture Committee, Administrator McCarthy correctly asserted that EPA does not have Clean Air Act authority over non-road vehicles modified for competition. If the Administrator agrees that the agency does not have this authority, 

then why would the EPA even propose this rule? 

This regulation of competition vehicles will have a devastating 

impact on amateur racers and the manufacturers that produce 

components for this industry. NASCAR is one of the most popular 

spectator sports in the country with over 75 million fans. Amateur 

racers are often the minor leagues for NASCAR drivers. Nearly all 

businesses that manufacture components for this industry could become the subject of enforcement actions by the EPA. This overreach 

has the potential to result in billions of dollars in enforcement penalties simply for the production of items that have been legally 

used by amateur racers for years. It will stifle technological advances in this field and cause the loss of many American jobs. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to welcome the Deputy Majority 

Whip Patrick McHenry to today’s hearing, and I thought members 

of this Committee might be interested in knowing, as I just learned 

a few minutes ago, that Congressman McHenry actually was an intern for the Science Committee in the summer of 1995. So on those 

grounds, I think he should be made an honorary member today and 

always welcomed to this Committee’s procedures. 

Mr. MCHENRY. I’m honored. 

Chairman SMITH. Last week, Representative McHenry introduced H.R. 4715, the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act 

of 2016. This bill would prevent the EPA from taking action on 

amateur racing under the Clean Air Act. I support Representative 

McHenry’s efforts to assist amateur racers and the industry, technology and jobs that rely on them. 

As we have seen countless times, EPA’s regulatory agenda is bad 

for the American economy and for the American people. We simply 

cannot allow a federal agency to assume power that Congress has 

not given it. The Science Committee will continue to rein in the 

EPA when it oversteps its authority. There is no public scientific 

justification presented for this regulation. Contrary to the EPA’s 

agenda, Americans want to be free from overly burdensome regulations, not tied up in more. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for a statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am a strong supporter of the Clean Air Act Amendments that 

went into effect in 1970 during a Republican Presidential Administration. Those federal regulations have saved many thousands of 

lives, removed tons of toxic contaminants from our environment, 

and continue to have a positive impact on the everyday lives of our 

citizens. They also include key provisions regarding the regulation 

of motor vehicles’ emission control devices, which is at the heart of 

the issue we are discussing today. 

It seems that the Environmental Protection Agency’s clarification 

of these provisions last July generated a lot of interest in the racing car and aftermarket car parts industries. They feared this was 

a new rule that was seeking to expand EPA authority under the 

Clean Air Act and would result in EPA enforcement actions against 

individual drivers and racecars. However, the language of the law 

has not changed, and the EPA has tried to make clear that last 

July’s statement was simply a clarification of existing law. EPA 

has also said that they have never attempted to enforce these provisions by going after individuals and that they do not plan to do 

so in the future. 

It is unclear to me that this hearing would even have been necessary if the Majority had even reached out to EPA for information 

on this issue prior to calling this hearing. For reasons known only 

to them, the Majority did not seek a briefing from EPA on this 

topic and the Majority did not ask the EPA to testify at this hearing. While the Majority has said that this hearing is supposed to 

examine the scientific underpinnings of the EPA decision to enforce 

the Clean Air Act, the Majority also chose not to invite any scientists to this hearing. Instead, they invited the president of the 

industry trade group that is engaged in a public dispute with the 

EPA over this issue and a race announcer, who has a right to advocate his views, but is certainly not a scientist. 

Mr. Chairman, whether you agree with the EPA’s position on 

this issue or not, I would have hoped that you would have wanted 

to understand the views of the agency that you are castigating in 

public and alleging once again has engaged in regulatory overreach. As the Ranking Member of the Science Committee, I wish 

that we would routinely attempt to actually understand the issues 

we look into fully from all perspectives before we offer sweeping 

condemnation, or support of legislation, on issues or agency actions. 

That does not appear to be the path the Majority has chosen to follow today, and as such, it is just another missed opportunity for responsible oversight. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the Clean Air Act amendments that 

went into effect in 1970 during a Republican Presidential Administration. Those fed-
21 

eral regulations have saved many thousands of lives, removed tons of toxic contaminants from our environment, and continue to have a positive impact on the everyday 

lives of our citizens. They also include key provisions regarding the regulation of 

motor vehicles’ emission control devices, which is at the heart of the issue we are 

discussing today. 

It seems the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) clarification of these provisions last July generated a lot of interest in the racing car and aftermarket car 

parts industries. They feared this was a new rule that was seeking to expand EPA 

authority under the Clean Air Act and would result in EPA enforcement actions 

against individual drivers and racecars. However, the language of the law has not 

changed, and the EPA has tried to make clear that last July’s statement was simply 

a clarification of existing law. EPA has also said that they have never attempted 

to enforce these provisions by going after individuals and that they do not plan to 

do so in the future. 

It is unclear to me that this hearing would even have been necessary if the Majority had ever reached out to EPA for information on this issue prior to calling this 

hearing. For reasons known only to them, the Majority did not seek a briefing from 

EPA on this topic and the Majority did not ask the EPA to testify at this hearing. 

While the Majority has said this hearing is supposed to ‘‘examine the scientific 

underpinnings’’ of the EPA decision to enforce the Clean Air Act, the Majority also 

chose not to invite any scientists to this hearing. Instead, they invited the President 

of the industry trade group that is engaged in a public dispute with the EPA over 

this issue and a race announcer, who has a right to advocate his views, but is certainly not a scientist. 

Mr. Chairman, whether you agree with the EPA position on this issue or not, I 

would have hoped that you would have wanted to understand the views of the Agency that you are castigating in public and alleging—once again—has engaged in regulatory overreach. 

As the Ranking Member of the Science Committee, I wish that we would routinely 

attempt to actually understand the issues we look into fully - from all perspectives 

- before we offer sweeping condemnation, or support of legislation, on issues or agency actions. That does not appear to be the path the Majority has chosen to follow 

today. As such, it is another missed opportunity for responsible oversight. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. The gentlewoman yields back, and I’d 

like to remind all of the members of our hearing today, today is an 

initial hearing to hear from stakeholders who are clearly being affected by this EPA proposal, and I think it’s important that we 

hear from those who are being affected. Unfortunately, the Minority has decided to attack the Majority on this, but I think it’s important that we work together to actually hear from the stakeholders, hear from those, and the Minority had every right to invite 

the EPA to today’s hearing. I would ask the Ranking Member if 

you did invite the EPA, if not—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, we had no opportunity. As you 

know, we are very limited as the Minority as to what we can do 

with witnesses. If we had been offered the opportunity, we would 

have taken it. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. Well, the Ranking Member will be reminded that you can invite any witness to any hearing that you so 

deem necessary, and you have a right to do that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. But could you put that in the rules so that we can 

utilize that? 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. Well, I think it’s been utilized in many 

of our hearings that we’ve had in the past. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Not the ones I’ve been involved in, and I’ve been 

involved 24 years. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. And I am advised it is in the rules, and 

I do believe that you do have a witness here today that you invited 

to attend. 
22 

Ms. JOHNSON. I’m not aware of that, but please, if we do, I wish 

EPA was represented since they’re being attacked. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. Let me introduce our witness, the Honorable Patrick McHenry. Our witness today on our first panel is 

the Honorable Patrick McHenry, Chief Deputy Majority Whip, and 

former Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee’s 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. Congressman 

McHenry represents the 10th District of North Carolina, a state 

which is definitely well known for its support of motorsports, and 

we really appreciate North Carolina being the headquarters of 

NASCAR, and for all they’ve done for the great American tradition 

of stock car racing. 

Congressman McHenry is the sponsor of H.R. 4715, the RPM 

Act, which I am cosponsoring, and his bill will be part of the discussion in this hearing. We thank him for being here this morning 

and look forward to hearing about his experiences with this issue. 

I now recognize Congressman McHenry for five minutes to 

present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. PATRICK MCHENRY, 

MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk. I thank you, Chairman Loudermilk, thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Beyer, Ranking Member Johnson. Thank you for having me here 

today. It’s an honor to speak before this great Committee. It’s truly 

an honor personally to be back before the Committee, as the Full 

Committee Chairman said. 

I represent an area of North Carolina that has a rich history of 

supporting and participating in motorsports. From amateur weekend racers to NASCAR drivers, motorsports plays a vital role in 

western North Carolina’s economy and recreational activities. 

Many communities in my district and across the country have racetracks that provide an outlet for motorsports enthusiasts, both 

competitors and fans alike. 

The EPA recently issued a proposed rule that makes it illegal to 

convert a vehicle if its emission system is modified and taken out 

of compliance from its stock configuration. The EPA made this rule 

with little input from the affected motorsports stakeholders, catching many of them by surprise. Mr. Chairman, this is no way for 

an agency to regulate, and certainly not in keeping with American 

tradition of jurisprudence. 

While the Clean Air Act does authorize the government to regulate the emissions of vehicles, Congress never intended for the EPA 

to regulate vehicles that are modified for use on racetracks. 

In 1990, Congress affirmed this exemption when it authorized 

the EPA to regulate non-road vehicles and explicitly excluded any 

‘‘vehicles used solely for competition’’ from the non-road definition. 

While the law has not changed, what the regulations put forward 

by the EPA state are dramatically different with the keeping of the 

last 40 years of regulatory environment. That is in fact the case. 

That’s why we’re here today, is the plain text of the regulation goes 

counter to the Congressional intent of a Democrat House and a 

Democrat Senate Majority as well as a Republican President that 

signed that into law. This is bipartisan legislation, and we’re de-
23 

fending the law against regulatory overreach. That’s the nature of 

the reason why I’m here, to defend those enthusiasts that wish to 

continue to practice their competitive outlets. 

This new regulation will prohibit responsible, law-abiding people 

who wish to modify their cars for racing on closed tracks from 

doing so. The federal government has no place at a racetrack testing vehicle emissions as if it’s a public road. 

The EPA’s action will harm all involved, from owners and operators of tracks, to vendors who sell food and souvenirs, and of course 

families who spend Saturday evening at the local racetracks. 

Furthermore, this regulation targets businesses who manufacture the aftermarket exhaust systems that replace the stock systems. According to the Specialty Equipment Market Association, 

this industry employs over one million people nationally. These systems are essential—essential part of racing and the makers of 

them are often small businesses that cater to specific markets. I 

have many of them in my district, people like Jason from Gastonia 

in my district, a constituent who first brought this EPA overreach 

to my attention. For people like Jason, this is not simply a weekend hobby but rather what pays the bills for him and his family. 

We cannot stand idly by watching the EPA regulate hardworking 

Americans like Jason right out of business. 

In response to this misguided regulation, I have introduced H.R. 

4715, the Recognizing and Protecting Motorsports, or the RPM Act. 

This bipartisan legislation reaffirms Congressional intent that vehicles used solely for competition are not subject to emissions 

standards under the Clean Air Act and that it would not be considered tampering to modify these vehicles for exclusive track use. 

If the EPA gets its way on this issue, it will do irreparable harm 

to motorsports and the businesses that power them. It is imperative we act now to stop the EPA’s heavy-handed approach and preserve this sport that serves as a hobby and living to millions of 

Americans. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for having me here today and inviting me to speak on this important issue. I applaud the Committee’s work in addressing this issue and look forward to continuing 

to work with the Committee and the Committee staff to preserve 

our nation’s rich motorsports heritage for future generations. 

And with that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McHenry follows:] 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. McHenry, for your testimony. We appreciate you also introducing the RPM Act, a very appropriate name. 

At this time we’ll take a very brief recess while the clerk resets 

the witness table. And at this time while the table’s being set up, 

I’d like to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter supporting H.R. 4715 from Sean Stewart, Executive Director of 

the United States Motorsports Association. This letter also contains 

statements of support from Robert Pattison, Executive Vice President of Lucas Oil, Torrey Galida, President of Richard Childress 

Racing Enterprises, and Steve Farmer, Vice President of Corporate 

Development at the University of Northwest Ohio. Without objection, so ordered. 

[Recess] 

[The information appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. We’ll call the hearing back to order at 

this moment, and again, I appreciate everyone in attendance, both 

our witnesses and the members of the Committee, and I would advise members of the Committee, if we can, we’ll try to keep our 

puns as much at a minimum as we can, but with that, gentlemen, 

let the introductions begin. 

I’ll introduce our witnesses of our second panel. First we have 

Mr. Christopher Kersting. He is the first witness of the second 

panel, and President and CEO of the Specialty Equipment Marketing Association. Mr. Kersting previously served as the Vice 

President of Legislative and Technical Affairs at SEMA. Mr. 

Kersting received his bachelor’s degree in business from the University of Colorado and his law degree from Washington College of 

Law at American University. 

Our next witness today is Mr. Ralph Sheheen, Managing Partner 

and President of National Speed Sport News. Mr. Sheheen has 

been broadcasting motorsports for over 20 years and is one of the 

lead broadcasters of the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series. 

Mr. Sheheen has previously worked with a variety of major television networks including CBS, Fox, NBC and ESPN. 

Our final witness today is Mr. Brent Yacobucci, Section Research 

Manager of the Energy and Materials Section of the Congressional 

Research Service. Mr. Yacobucci previously served as the Acting 

Deputy Assistant Director of Resources, Science, and Industry for 

the Congressional Research Service. Mr. Yacobucci received his 

bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology—he’s a Ramblin’ Wreck—and his master’s degree in science, technology, and public policy from George Washington University. 

I now recognize Mr. Kersting for five minutes to present his testimony. Could you push your microphone switch there? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. CHRISTOPHER KERSTING, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKETING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. KERSTING. There we go. Chairman Loudermilk, Ranking 

Member Beyer, Ranking Member Johnson, Full Committee Chairman Smith—when he comes back—and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today 
28 

about the regulations recently proposed by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to prohibit the conversion of street vehicles into 

racecars. 

My name is Chris Kersting. I am President and CEO of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, otherwise known as SEMA. 

SEMA’s a national trade association. It represents more than 6,800 

mostly small businesses that manufacture, market, and sell a wide 

range of specialty automotive aftermarket products including racing equipment for motorsports competition. 

As noted, in July of 2015, the EPA issued a proposal regulation 

to make illegal the act of modifying and converting a street car, 

truck or motorcycle into a race vehicle. If finalized, this regulation 

would contradict 46 years of EPA policy and practice under the 

Clean Air Act as well as the intention of Congress when the relevant portions of the law were enacted in 1970. SEMA contends 

that the EPA’s new interpretation of the law puts this long history 

and practice and the American motorsports tradition itself into 

jeopardy. 

Given this uncertainty and the importance of the matter to so 

many, we urge Congress to now establish a clear exemption in the 

law allowing street vehicles to continue being modified and converted for motorsports competition. 

By way of background, since the 1960s, SEMA has worked closely with the EPA and the California Air Resources Board, otherwise 

known as CARB, as regulations were developed for street vehicles 

and emissions-related aftermarket parts, and SEMA does not view 

the opportunity today as antagonistic. We appreciate the chance to 

shed some light on an important matter. 

Under the longstanding EPA and CARB regulations, it is already 

illegal to knowingly manufacture, market, sell, or install a part or 

component that negatively affects the emissions performance of a 

street vehicle. CARB worked with SEMA in the early years of the 

law to develop an emissions certification program that allows a 

specialty parts manufacturer to test and certify that a particular 

part does not negatively affect emissions. The federal EPA accepts 

CARB certification as demonstrating emissions compliance and allows certified parts sales in the states where EPA has jurisdiction. 

In the past several years, SEMA and CARB have ramped up collaborative efforts on industry compliance. Last October, SEMA 

completed construction on a new CARB-approved emissions testing 

facility where SEMA members get priority to demonstrate that 

their products comply with street-use emissions requirements 

under CARB’s protocol. Further, for the past several years, SEMA 

has been working directly with EPA officials concerning equipment 

that would be illegal if used on road-going vehicles. 

Our industry has a long history of emissions compliance and cooperation with regulators, and we’re working, and you can see 

we’re investing substantially in ways to help our members achieve 

compliance more quickly and cost-effectively. 

The Clean Air Act does not extend authority to EPA to regulate 

competition vehicles. Congress first addressed the issue in 1965 

when it set the definition for how far that authority extends. It’s 

defined as motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are self-propelled vehicles 
29 

designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway. 

While the Clean Air Amendments of 1970—or with the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1970, the on-record deliberations of the Conference Committee made clear that Congress did not intend the 

term ‘‘motor vehicle’’ to extend to vehicles manufactured or modified for racing. The question was actually put and answered. 

Next, in 1990, Congress provided the EPA with the authority to 

regulate non-road vehicles and engines. Since the term ‘‘non-road 

vehicle’’ could have been misunderstood as including racing vehicles, Congress actually included language to make clear that the 

law excludes vehicles used solely for competition. 

And it isn’t only Congress that has consistently excluded vehicles 

modified for use in competition. EPA itself has a history of policies 

and practices that up until the recently proposed regulations have 

recognized the exclusion. For example, the EPA’s regulations pertaining to non-road vehicles specifically allows emissions-certified 

recreational motorcycles as well as snowmobiles and boats to be decertified and converted for competition use, the very issue we’re 

talking about with regard to street vehicles. 

EPA also has specific policies for those wishing to import into the 

United States cars and trucks that have been altered for competition use. EPA’s own import documentation forms specifically ask 

the importer to supply the vehicle’s year, make, model, and VIN 

number. These are street vehicles we’re talking about here. The 

EPA has historically recognized that altered competition vehicles 

are not required to meet emissions requirements and has allowed 

the import of these noncompliant racecars. 

It is against this background that EPA recently revealed its entirely novel interpretation that the Clean Air Act has always provided EPA the authority to prohibit the conversion of emissionscertified street vehicles for use in motorsports. That is why SEMA 

strongly supports H.R. 4715, the RPM Act of 2016. 

This amendment to the Clean Air Act would eliminate any uncertainty now and in the future and make clear that the law allows 

emissions-certified street vehicles to be modified and converted for 

competition use. 

In a few moments, this Subcommittee is going to hear from Mr. 

Ralph Sheheen. He’s going to describe the impact the EPA’s proposed regs would have on American motorsports and the communities supported by racing. Many states see motorsports-related industries as a driving force for their economies. It would be a shocking reversal to suddenly place most of the U.S. motorsports tradition outside of the law, and at risk of elimination. 

As for impacts on the automotive side, EPA’s proposed regulations would cause a devastating outcome since most of the non-professional racing activity in the United States relies on production 

vehicles that have been modified for use at the track, and because 

of the federal emissions standards went into effect beginning in 

1968, the EPA’s proposal would render illegal converted racing vehicles and future racing-parts sales for model years 1968 and forward. 

So what does that really mean? The proposed regs would eliminate the manufacturing, distribution, retail sales, and installation 
30 

businesses that supply the products and services required in motorsports. Retail sales of just the racing parts alone make up a $1.4 

billion annual market, and that’s to speak nothing of related ancillary sales for other equipment. Tens of thousands of jobs would be 

lost. The carmakers would also experience a significant negative 

impact as their racing-related divisions would evaporate including 

racing-related product engineering and development, and vast sales 

and marketing programs. 

Clearly, in the wake of EPA’s newly revealed interpretation of 

the Clean Air Act, the public and regulated industry deserve certainty concerning such an important provision of the law. SEMA 

supports passage of H.R. 4715 to confirm the directives and the intent of Congress. 

I want to add that I agree with Congressman Beyer’s point that 

we don’t want to have laws on the books which we have no intention of enforcing, and yet that is what EPA has indicated in recent 

statements. It really makes very little sense. And I don’t expect 

that folks who have invested both in racecars and in the businesses 

that support racing want to live under the cloud of a line being 

drawn around this activity that deems it illegal. 

Thank you all again for this opportunity to speak on behalf of 

SEMA and this matter of critical importance. I would be glad, of 

course, to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kersting follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Kersting. 

And I now recognize Mr. Sheheen for five minutes to present his 

testimony. You have the green flag, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. RALPH SHEHEEN, 

MANAGING PARTNER AND PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL SPEED SPORT NEWS 

Mr. SHEHEEN. Thank you, Chairman Loudermilk, Ranking Member Beyer, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to speak about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

recent proposal to prohibit the modification of street vehicles into 

race-use-only vehicles. 

Over the past 31 years, I have built a career around the exciting 

sport of auto racing. I am currently one of the owners and President of National Speed Sport News, a publication that dates back 

to 1934. I have also spent much of my career as a motor sports 

broadcaster for a variety of networks including Fox, CBS, NBC, 

and ESPN, and countless radio networks. On any given weekend, 

you can find me calling the action live on TV from racetracks 

across the country. I’m in a unique position to speak to the impact 

this regulatory proposal would have on the motorsports community. 

For me, it began at the age of five. My parents took me to my 

first race at the old fairgrounds mile in Sacramento, California. 

Legendary racers such as Mario Andretti, A.J. Foyt, and the Unser 

Brothers were competing that day. I can still remember vividly to 

this day my father walking me across the track at the end of the 

race and my shoes sticking to the dirt they had just raced on. Seeing the cars and the drivers up close, hearing the roar of the engines, and experiencing the unique smells are indelible memories. 

The blazing speeds and the incredible feats of bravery as these men 

risked it all for the glory that came with the checkered flag hooked 

me for life. These experiences aren’t unique to me. They have been 

shared by millions of race fans young and old across our country 

for generations. 

I chose to make motorsports my career. For 28 years I have been 

a nationally recognized sportscaster, broadcasting some of the biggest motorsports events in the world including the Indianapolis 

500, the Daytona 500, and the Monaco Grand Prix. I’ve also dedicated a large part of my career to saving one of our sports’ true 

treasures: National Speed Sports News, which is America’s oldest 

and most trusted name in motorsports journalism. Due to the passion I have for this sport and its history, Speed Sport is now a fullfledged and thriving media company. We cover motorsports from 

the very top levels all the way down to your local dirt track. 

Most racers begin their careers competing in a division that utilizes a modified production vehicle. That’s because it is the cheapest and most cost-effective form of racing. The EPA regulation to 

prohibit any production vehicle from ever being converted or modified for racing use would be devastating to many types of racing, 

particularly racing at the amateur levels where the racers are not 

in a position to purchase the purpose-built racecars used in many 

professional series. There are over 1,300 racetracks in this country, 

and the vast majority are not dedicated to running high-cost 
40 

racecars like the well-known top divisions of NASCAR, IndyCar, 

and the NHRA. 

Many of the famous drivers who compete in these very popular 

series started their very careers in converted street cars that they 

trailered to their local track every weekend. For many years, the 

great American race, the Daytona 500, as well as the greatest spectacle in racing, the Indy 500, utilized modified vehicles as well, production vehicles that were modified. These world-renowned events 

that are such an integral part of America’s sporting landscape 

would’ve been outlawed by this EPA regulation. 

The racers who would be hit hardest by this proposal are the individuals who are just starting out in the sport, and the communities that support them. Companies supplying the parts used in 

these amateur series and the shops that perform the modifications 

would also suffer. 

These vehicles are frequently converted into track-use-only cars 

and are rebuilt many times throughout their years spent in competition. To remove the ability to create, rebuild, improve, or service these vehicles is to take away the ability of most enthusiasts 

to engage in much of the racing that presently takes place in the 

United States. 

On Friday and Saturday nights at tracks across the country, you 

will encounter amateur racers and the communities that come out 

to support them. The impact of this regulation goes beyond the individual racers in the pits and their ability to build and service 

their cars as entire communities would suffer. Families, men, 

women and children come out to the local racetrack on the weekend to cheer on and support their friends, neighbors and family 

members. Fathers, sons, mothers and daughters spent countless 

hours working together to get the family racecar ready for the next 

weekend’s event. Racing is a lifestyle, and in many towns across 

the country, it is the highlight of the weekend. 

Beyond this practical impact on daily lives, racing provides a significant boost to the economies of communities with motorsports 

businesses and racetracks. 

In Chairman Loudermilk’s home State of Georgia, the owners of 

a successful high-performance parts business are enhancing the 

economy of southeast Georgia by creating the Georgia International 

Raceway Park, which is expected to bring in around $75 million 

annually and more than 200 full-time and part-time jobs within a 

five-year span. 

In Florida, the home state of Representatives Posey and Grayson, 

the Daytona International Speedway and the Homestead Miami 

Speedway generate an annual economic impact of over $2.1 billion 

and over 35,000 permanent jobs. 

And in my home State of North Carolina, approximately 27,252 

residents in 2005 were employed in motorsports-related jobs including employees working for suppliers of the equipment used in racing. This is a $6.2 billion-a-year-old industry in North Carolina. 

That number has almost certainly gone up in the ten-plus years 

since a full-scale economic impact study was completed by economists at UNC Charlotte. 

Until this recent EPA proposal, no government entity has questioned the legality of using modified production vehicles exclusively 
41 

for racing, and an enormous industry has been created as a result. 

It seems absurd that a federal agency could outlaw thousands of 

racecars and the businesses that supply products for these cars 

without legislative authority or justification. 

On behalf of racing enthusiasts across the country and the industries that serve them, I ask for your support for H.R. 4715, the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2016, to make clear 

that converting street vehicles to racecars used exclusively in competition does not violate the Clean Air Act. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheheen follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Sheheen. 

I now recognize Mr. Yacobucci for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. BRENT YACOBUCCI, 

SECTION RESEARCH MANAGER, 

ENERGY AND MINERALS SECTION, 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. Good morning, Chairman Loudermilk, Ranking 

Member Beyer, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Brent 

Yacobucci, the Energy and Minerals Section Research Manager for 

the Congressional Research Service. I was asked to provide background and to discuss CRS’s research on tampering provisions and 

exemptions within the Clean Air Act and to discuss policy options 

to exempt racing vehicles. 

Congressional guidelines require that I confine my testimony to 

technical aspects of matters under consideration and that I limit 

myself to questions within my field of expert. I can discuss policy 

options and ramifications but CRS does not take a position on 

pending or proposed legislation. 

In July 2015, EPA proposed new emissions standards for 

medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. Within the proposal 

are provisions that EPA maintains clarify longstanding policy but 

which part suppliers argue is new policy restricting owners from 

converting road vehicles for racing and suppliers from selling retrofit kits and other parts to those owners. 

The original public-comment period ended in September. In response to comments from SEMA and for unrelated reasons, EPA 

reopened the docket for comments from March 2nd through April 

1st. 

The key policy question is whether a vehicle operated solely for 

racing is a motor vehicle as defined by the Clean Air Act and thus 

subject to tampering and defeat device provisions of the Act. To sell 

a new motor vehicle, the automaker must supply a certificate of 

compliance with federal standards. Under the Act, it is unlawful to 

remove, bypass, defeat or render inoperative any part of a motor 

vehicle’s emissions system. 

In 1990, Congress granted EPA new authority to regulate nonroad vehicles and explicitly excluded those used solely for competition. However, there’s no similar provision in the Act explicitly exempting a racing vehicle from the definition of motor vehicle after 

it has been certified as such. This is arguably a difference in interpretation between EPA and SEMA. EPA maintains that conversion 

of motor vehicles to racing vehicles is part of a larger prohibition 

on reclassifying motor vehicles for any purpose. SEMA, on the 

other hand, maintains that EPA and the Act’s silence on the topic 

before 2015 mean that such conversions are allowed. 

Under the 1990 Amendments, EPA established emissions standards for non-road vehicles and provided specific guidance for converting new non-road vehicles including motorcycles or dirt bikes 

from recreational use to competition. The owner must destroy the 

original emissions label attached to the bike and the owner may 

not then use the bike for recreation. This process is, to our under-
47 

standing, based on owners’ self-compliance, and the EPA does not 

maintain a list of such conversions. 

EPA and other agencies also temporarily exempt importing racing cars through a detailed reporting process. Exemptions are 

granted by case, and importers must supply EPA among other 

things the vehicle identification, or VIN number, a list of race-specific characteristics, and a list of characteristics that preclude the 

vehicle’s safe use on roads. In its guidance, EPA states that not all 

vehicles used in races are excluded from emissions compliance. Determinations are based on the capability of the vehicle, not its intended use. 

This distinction between a vehicle’s capabilities and its use is 

central to EPA’s position. Going back as far as 1974, EPA has 

maintained that it would make determinations on exclusions from 

the motor vehicle definition based on vehicle design, not intended 

use. Since that time, EPA has employed that test for a variety of 

uses including off-road vehicles, kit cars, and imported racecars. 

CRS was unable to find a document from EPA before 2015 that 

explicitly stated that motor vehicles converted to racing were not 

eligible for exemption. However, nor could CRS identify provisions 

in the Act or regulations which would explicitly allow for a certified 

motor vehicle to be reclassified. 

In enforcing the tampering provisions, EPA has historically not 

taken action against individual owners. In all enforcement actions 

CRS could identify, automakers, parts suppliers, and repair shops 

were the defendants. CRS could find no instances of EPA targeting 

owners modifying vehicles for road or track use. Further, CRS 

could identify no cases where EPA took action against parts suppliers who operated solely in the racing market. 

Actions against parts suppliers have often alleged the sale of defeat devices to road vehicle users despite claims by the supplier 

that the parts were for off-road or racing use only. A key issue is 

that for motor vehicles modified for racing, in some cases, there 

may be no way to produce parts that could also not also be used 

on motor vehicles. 

Responding to concerns raised by SEMA and others, an EPA 

spokesperson stated publicly that the agency remains primarily 

concerned with ‘‘aftermarket manufacturers who sell defeat emission control systems on vehicles used on public roads.’’ This statement may not be sufficient to address concerns of racing-parts suppliers as EPA maintains that their actions may still be illegal even 

if EPA chooses not to focus enforcement action on them. 

At least two bills, H.R. 4715 and S. 2659, have been introduced 

to address EPA’s regulation of motor—of racing vehicles. The bill 

would amend the Clean Air Act definition of motor vehicle to include competition—to exclude competition-only vehicles and would 

explicitly exempt such vehicles from the tampering provisions. Policy questions related to these bills include how would EPA implement the new provisions, how the definition change would interact 

with other federal and state laws, and whether there would be a 

process for recertifying racing vehicles for later on-road use. 

I thank the Subcommittee for its time, and I am happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yacobucci follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. All. I thank all the witnesses for their 

testimony, and the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. Sheheen, you had mentioned the economic impact that auto 

racing has in the United States. Could you repeat what that number is? 

Mr. SHEHEEN. In North Carolina alone, it’s a $6.2 billion-a-year 

industry, which is a significant number. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. $6.2 billion just in North Carolina? 

Mr. SHEHEEN. Yes, sir, $6.2 billion-a-year industry. I live in 

Mooresville, North Carolina, which is called Race City, USA. The 

majority of the industry in and around our area right there is all 

racing related whether it’s NASCAR Sprint Cup teams all the way 

down to teams competing in Supercross. There’s sports car racers, 

IndyCar racers, drag racers. They’re all there. It’s not just those 

people but the cottage industries that have sprung up around that, 

people that supply not just the pieces and parts and components 

that make the cars not only go faster but more efficiently and 

quicker and safer but also the people that work in public relations 

industries, media like Speed Sport. You have marketing firms that 

just deal specifically with motorsports. 

There is even a gentleman in Concord, North Carolina, a neighboring city, by the name of Sam Bass who started his career with 

a passion for motorsports as a young kid who just liked to draw 

racecars. He has turned that into a thriving business that not only 

paints pictures of cars but designs paint schemes and the uniforms 

that the crews and the drivers wear, and he has a thriving business out of that. 

So there’s a huge cottage industry that makes up that massive $6.2 billion. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. And as a race fan, I know that NASCAR 

is the icon of our motorsports here in the United States, and it’s 

a significant part of Americana from catch phrases such as 

‘‘boogedy boogedy boogedy’’ to the checkered flag to the ancillary 

businesses such as clothing and souvenirs. A race is a cultural experience, and as you look at those that have become our bestknown drivers, those that you hear about all the time from your 

testimony understand, these guys just did not walk in one day and 

become a NASCAR driver. They worked themselves up through the 

ranks. 

Mr. SHEHEEN. That is exactly correct. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. And those ranks are the industry that 

would be directly impacted by this EPA rule. Am I correct? 

Mr. SHEHEEN. That’s correct, and for example, let’s take the 

Pettys, the first family of American motorsports, if you will, beginning with Lee Petty through King Richard Petty, his son Kyle 

Petty, and then on to Adam Petty, his son. Of those four generations, three of them all utilized production vehicles that were modified for racing that allowed them to have the opportunity to grow. 

Another gentleman out in Roseville, California, Bill McAnally, if 

you want to take it down a step or two just to show how it impacts 

all the way across the board, Bill began racing in 1986 at the age 

of 21 years old in a street stock division in a 1970 Chevelle that 

was modified from production to street to racetrack use only. Bill 
54 

is now 50 years old, owns Bill McAnally Racing, and has two teams 

competing in NASCAR’s K&N West Division and two teams competing in NASCAR’s K&N East Division. He employs 43 people. He 

has won multiple championships. He’s one of the leaders in 

NASCAR’s competition on the regional level, and he has started careers for numerous individuals that have moved on into NASCAR’s 

top divisions, whether it’s his crew chiefs, crew members or drivers. 

So there’s another career that never would’ve happened if this regulation had been passed. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. And thank you. 

And Mr. Kersting, I have a question. 

Mr. KERSTING. Chairman Loudermilk, I just wanted to point out 

that in addition to that ladder effect for professional racing, there 

is a vast amount of sportsman racing going on out there in the 

country. Every day, every year we’ve got a ton of people out there 

enjoying the sportsman categories, and those guys and women are 

generally driving converted vehicles. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. And I’ve had the opportunity at Atlanta 

Motor Speedway to go in the drivers’ meeting and do their devotion 

before the race and meet with the drivers, and they’re impressive. 

But Mr. Kersting, I’d like to ask you a question. How did your 

organization, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, learn 

about the EPA’s proposed decision to enforce the Clean Air Act on 

non-road vehicles for competition? 

Mr. KERSTING. Well, as you would expect, SEMA as an organization representing manufacturers and distributors in this category, 

we maintain offices here in Washington, D.C., to monitor for proposed regulations, proposed legislation, and I’d point out that most 

of the race sanctioning bodies have the same. The vehicle manufacturers are represented here in a similar fashion. And ordinarily, 

the Federal Register, which is the document that alerts us to new 

proposed regulations, is very plain in representing what the new 

regulations pertain to, and that is the public notice portion of our 

regulatory process, and in this case, not only did SEMA not find 

that regulation when it was initially proposed, not a single stakeholder that we’re aware of identified that regulation, and the reason was that it was tucked into a proposed regulation on mediumand heavy-duty greenhouse gas emissions, and it didn’t bear a 

heading in terms of its chapter in the table of contents that would 

indicate that racecars are being regulated. Basically it was under 

a section for other provisions. 

So there’s really no easy way to find it. Our staff found it in December. This rule was introduced in July through kind of an indirect reason, and thankfully we found it. 

So it is unusual that a regulation that would have such farreaching effect would be tucked away like that, and you know, I 

mentioned that SEMA has a good working relationship with regulatory officials at the EPA, at the California Air Resources Board. 

We work with them regularly. And so it was quite a surprise to us 

that this approach to solving the problem that EPA perceives was 

the approach used and that we weren’t informed about it at all. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. And when you found it, I understand it 

was after the comment period had closed? 
55 

Mr. KERSTING. That’s correct. So that regulation had an official 

comment period. Fortunately, the agency has latitude to continue 

to accept comments, and I think under the circumstances, they accepted our comment, and it is a part of the docket. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. So the EPA has re-offered the provision 

that we’re discussing here today for public comment. Did the agency include any justification or analysis when it reopened this issue 

for comment? 

Mr. KERSTING. Not that I’m aware of. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. In your testimony, you discussed the impact on ancillary sales as a result of the EPA’s rule. Would you 

please describe the impact in a little more detail? 

Mr. KERSTING. So as an organization, SEMA represents manufac- turers who have sales in the range of about $32 billion a year. For 

us to isolate just racing sales was something that we were able to 

do in preparation for the hearing here, but for us to be able to really look at the related sales, we would need a little bit more time, 

and we’d be happy to provide this Subcommittee further information as we have the opportunity to collect it. 

But what we’re talking about here is that if Ralph takes his race 

vehicle to the track on Saturday, he’s going to be towing that vehicle with a truck. There’s going to be a trailer. There’s going to be 

a whole range of equipment that is sold in connection with that 

truck and trailer, all sales that make up part of that $32 billion 

industry that we represent, not to mention all the ancillary support 

services, the folks who are there to take care of that vehicle, to 

work on it, provide services for it and so forth. So—— 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. Hoosier Tires. 

Mr. KERSTING. Yes, well, and really you’re talking about a lot of 

local race prep shops that get a lot of business through these 

sportsman category activities, and we just didn’t have the time to 

pull that kind of information together but it’s in the billions and 

substantial. 

Chairman LOUDERMILK. My time has exceeded its limit. 

At this point I’ll recognize the Ranking Member, my good friend, 

Mr. Beyer, from Virginia. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you for coming on March 15th. You know, 

you should beware the Ides of March. Maybe he’s the one that 

needs to be worried about that. 

It was interesting to hear that this is just the first hearing, and 

if this ends up being the committee of markup for Mr. McHenry’s 

bill, it would be excellent, Mr. Chairman, to get the EPA to come 

to actually hear their thoughts on the consequences of H.R. 4715, 

especially with respect to enforcement against manufacturers for 

the Fast and Furious, not the racecar drivers. 

Mr. Yacobucci, let me simplify and clarify since we don’t have the 

EPA here. Number one, that the EPA has always thought that it 

violated the Clean Air Act to modify emissions on a certified car, 

and that the recent clarification was not a matter of sneaking 

something in. In fact, it may be one of the reasons why they reopened it is that they thought it was a clarification of what they 

thought all along. Number two, that it was never the intent of Congress to prohibit racecars from being modified. Number three, that 
56 

this probably is why the EPA has never enforced this against 

racecars or racecar drivers. 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. To the first point, that is our understanding, 

that that is EPA’s position. On the second point, I’m not going to 

weigh in on the intent of Congress. Certainly we could do a legislative history for you and get hearing documents and those sorts of 

things, but I won’t actually speak to Congress’s intent on language 

they did or didn’t include in the act. 

Mr. BEYER. I would love your CRS perspective on why we have 

laws and regulations on the books that we don’t enforce. Let me 

give you a Virginia example. 

One of my friends, a state senator, tried to repeal a Virginia statute that makes it illegal to have sex outside of marriage. It’s a 

$250 penalty and no jail time. And when he went to repeal it, since 

it’s clearly not an enforced law, it turned out that the Commonwealth attorneys wanted to use it in cases when they plead down 

something from a more serious case, they needed something to 

charge them with so that they withheld it. 

Is there—from a CRS perspective, is there any reason to keep a 

law on the books or regulation on the books that has not been enforced and no intention to enforce it? 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. We won’t take a position on that, sir. We would 

take no position on legislation. 

Mr. BEYER. Well, then I’ll ask Mr. Kersting that. 

Mr. KERSTING. Congressman Beyer, if I may, I can provide a very 

relevant portion of the legislative history real quickly. This was 

discussion during the Conference Committee hearings on the Clean 

Air Act Amendments in 1970, which actually put into place the relevant portion of the law that EPA is turning to today. Representative Nichols posed the following question to Chairman Staggers as 

follows: ‘‘I would ask the distinguished Chairman if I am correct in 

stating that the terms vehicle and vehicle engine as used in the Act 

do not include vehicles or vehicle engines manufactured or modified 

or utilized in organized motorsports racing events, which of course 

are held very infrequently but which utilize all types of vehicles 

and vehicle engines.’’ Mr. Staggers in response: ‘‘In response to the 

gentleman from Alabama, I would say to the gentleman they would 

not come under the provisions of this Act because the Act deals 

only with automobiles used on our roads in everyday use. The Act 

would not cover the types of racing vehicles to which the gentleman 

referred, and present law does not cover them either.’’ 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Kersting, let me move on because that was part 

of the written testimony that you had, which is good. 

I understand that SEMA often works with EPA to target 

aftermarket parts manufacturers who intentionally seek to violate 

environmental laws. In H.R. 4715, Mr. McHenry’s bill, is there a 

concern, a reasonable concern, that enforcement against those few 

bad actors in the aftermarket parts industry will be more difficult? 

Is there any concern that legislation that simply says any cars competition only or racing-only vehicle gives these people carte blanche 

to go after the street folks? 

Mr. KERSTING. I think the problem is that the proposed remedy 

here is overkill. SEMA is willing to work with the regulators to address the problem of illegal parts for street use, but to draw a circle 
57 

in express terms that renders illegal all of the race vehicles and all 

of the racing activity that is part of the motorsports tradition in 

this country is unnecessary in order to address what is otherwise 

a very small portion of the overall emissions that are emitted by 

vehicles on the roads in this country. 

Mr. BEYER. So let me clarify. You’d rather do this through rule 

and regulation with the EPA rather than legislation? 

Mr. KERSTING. I don’t even think it requires rule and regulation. 

I think that in fact EPA has a history of recognizing that Congressional intent we were just talking about, and we would work out 

policies that would address how they would handle the matter of 

illegal parts. 

Now, the law already exists that gives the EPA enforcement authority for any illegal parts or modifications that show up for street 

use, and that’s really where we need to focus the discussion. 

Mr. BEYER. There’s been some discussion about whether it makes 

sense to do an exemption or create a different classification for certified cars that become racecars. Do you have an opinion on which 

is more workable? 

Mr. KERSTING. Well, because I think that the Congress was clear 

when we originally designed the structure of the law that these vehicles weren’t considered, I mean, it’s pretty simple. Motor vehicle, 

you have authority. It is a vehicle that’s on the roads. If a vehicle 

is decommissioned, taken out of that use, that’s where the authority resides, right? Now we’re on a racetrack. That vehicle is no 

longer subject to the regulatory authority of the EPA. I think that’s 

the right outcome, and I would rather focus the energies and efforts on the law as it exists than trying to outlaw an entire category of activity that heretofore has been treated as legal. Look at 

entire institutions that have grown up over that time converting 

street vehicles for racing. 

Mr. LAHOOD. [Presiding] The Chair now recognizes Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 

the Chairman for calling this hearing, and I’m very grateful to the 

witnesses for their attendance here. 

There’s been two references to the fact that there’s not a representative from EPA here, and I just would like to remind everyone that the other side of the aisle had an opportunity to bring in 

whatever witnesses they desired to. They chose to bring in somebody from CRS. Maybe that’s because the last couple times we had 

the Director, the Secretary of EPA here, every time I asked her a 

question she said I don’t know, I’m not a scientist, but everything’s 

based on science. Maybe that’s why they chose not to have somebody from EPA here. At least we can get some answers from CRS. 

And so Mr. Yacobucci, the rule in question here that was attempted to be implemented by EPA, just a yes or no, certified 

motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified configuration even if 

they are used solely for competition or if they become non-road vehicles or engines. Is that correct? 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. That is my—I’d have to look at the text but I’m 

pretty sure that is the text, yes. 

Mr. POSEY. Do you have any idea why EPA would have been so 

sneaky trying to implement this if it was so unimportant? 
58 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. I won’t comment on EPA’s intent on this. From 

everything I have read in terms of their argument or the rationale 

is that again that this is just a continuation of a longstanding policy. The definition of motor vehicle in the Act refers to the design 

of the vehicle, not its intended use. If you want, I could pull the 

text of the definition. 

Mr. POSEY. I have the definition here. 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. But so EPA’s argument is that it can police design, not the intent of the owner after the vehicle is designed and 

manufactured. SEMA and others obviously disagree with that interpretation but EPA argues that it’s consistent with—— 

Mr. POSEY. But then again, that’s no reason to try and sneak 

something through without advertising it, without disclosing it 

anywhere, I just think it’s despicable the way the agency tried to 

push this through without anybody knowing about it secretly, clandestinely. 

Mr. Kersting, you mentioned in your testimony that you believe 

the EPA violated the Administrative Procedures Act obviously, and 

so do I. Why do you think they tried to do it? 

Mr. KERSTING. You know, I am really not certain. I think we 

were surprised and disappointed because we do work hard to collaborate and come up with the best approaches for regulating our 

industry. The matter of the California Air Resources Board certification program is a very extensive, detailed program to give parts 

manufacturers the opportunity to test and demonstrate parts as 

legal for street use, and those parts then carry designation as certified parts from there forward. That takes a lot of work and effort, 

and EPA knows that we’re working hard to educate our industry. 

We get new companies coming in to the industry all the time, and 

we are trying to help them as they move toward getting their parts 

in compliance. 

So I’m disappointed about it. I can’t imagine really what the intentions were. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, that’s what shocked me. I know the record that 

SEMA has for working with the agencies, trying to make things a 

win-win situation so that we don’t have losers on either side, that 

we do it fairly, and I was stunned by it. 

Mr. Sheheen, do you see any unfairly discriminating issues with 

the way they have written this rule as to one group of people or 

another group of people, one level or another level? 

Mr. SHEHEEN. Well, actually, I believe it could impact quite a few 

levels obviously from the amateur level that we’re talking about 

where drivers who are not able to afford full-blown million-dollar, 

hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of racecar parts. They just 

can’t do that, go compete in NASCAR’s top division or IndyCar racing. It would certainly wipe them out. 

But at the same point, there’s a lot of manufacturers that would 

see a lot of problems with this. For example, Cadillac competes in 

the Pirelli World Challenge Series, which utilizes basically this 

very form of racecar production vehicle. They pull a racecar, what 

they intend to be a production car, straight off the production line 

randomly and turn it into a racecar but basically using that production vehicle. This is something that many manufacturers such 

as General Motors and Ford and many others use to not just find 
59 

out what their cars are capable of doing, how to make them work 

better, perform better, more efficiently, safer, but also they take engineers and put them with these teams and immerse them in these 

programs so that they learn. So that is knowledge that then gets 

transferred to what you and I drive on the street. So yes, we would 

be wiping out a complete amateur level all across the country but 

also the major automotive manufacturers in this country would 

take a huge hit from this as well. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

The Chair now recognizes myself for five minutes for questions. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and for your 

testimony. I appreciate it. 

The district I represent in central and west central Illinois is a 

very rural district. I have five racetracks in my district. I have lots 

of tractor-pull competitions throughout my district, and I’ve been 

amazed at the industry that’s really been created by my racetracks 

and whether those are garages or mechanic facilities, small- and 

medium-sized businesses throughout my district, and if you come 

to my district in the summertime, you know, the opportunities that 

have been created by the racing industry is really amazing. These 

tracks in my district almost on every weekend are full of families 

and young people, people that go there for enjoyment and watching, you know, the activities that go on there. 

And I guess what puzzles me in sitting here in the hearing today 

is, we as policymakers look at implementing a rule or passing a 

law to solve a problem that’s out there, something that needs to be 

fixed, a void that’s there, and when you think about the 46 years 

of precedent that was mentioned earlier and why this is being done 

now, I mean, it’s what makes people cynical about government in 

some ways, distrustful that an agency like this can come in and implement something like this, and I’m trying to see, you know, 

where are the complaints out there, where are the issues that we 

need to fix, and I don’t see it in my district whether that’s, you 

know, newspaper articles being written or protesters at events or 

police reports being filed, anything that kind of anecdotally or otherwise would tell us there’s a problem that needs to be fixed here, 

and I would guess in your industry in North Carolina or anywhere 

else in the country. Have you seen that anywhere, you know, people complaining we need to fix this? Mr. Kersting, I would ask you 

that first. 

Mr. KERSTING. So I think this is kind of Inside Baseball with the 

regulators. This is something that in their area of concern they pay 

some attention to but I think it’s important to recognize what we’re 

really talking about here. Even in the instance where the EPA is 

concerned about a part finding its way onto a street vehicle, we’re 

talking about the incremental emissions difference between whatever is the certified equipment and whatever is the racing part, 

and we’re looking at the emissions that are generated there in the 

scheme of vehicle miles traveled annually by a car park of 200 million vehicles. So how much is this is really going on by way of a 

percentage of overall automotive emissions? It’s a very small fraction. And in that regard, I believe that EPA should work with the 

industry to come up with better approaches to regulate at the level 
60 

they’re really aiming at, that is to say illegal parts going on street 

vehicles. To do that by drawing a line around racing and calling 

any conversion of street vehicles any alteration from the certified 

configuration illegal is ridiculous overkill, and really kind of unrelated. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Sheheen, do you have a comment on that? 

Mr. SHEHEEN. You know, I would tell you that the thing that 

most people might complain about at the racetrack is that their 

guy didn’t win. They’re just hoping it was the other guy. You know, 

you’re talking about an industry here where if we take this away, 

the opportunity for the amateurs to go compete on a Friday night 

or a Saturday night, as you mentioned in your district there, you’re 

taking away their passion. These are people that don’t own a boat 

to go out on Lake Michigan. They don’t have tickets for the season 

with the Bears or the Cubs. This is what they do. Their whole family comes together and works and gets the car ready. They put everything they have into that. This is their lifestyle. This is their 

hobby. Most importantly, this is their passion, and we’re talking 

about potentially taking that away from them. 

And if you look at it from a grander scale, Henry Ford over 100 

years ago drove the Sweepstakes, which was a modified production 

vehicle, to a victory that kicked off what is now the Ford Motor 

Company, and a massive industry has come out of that, and still 

to this day that massive industry utilizes modified production vehicles so they can learn so that we can continue. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. Kersting, a particular question. The EPA claims that by proposing this rule, they’re trying to stop the sale and use of illegal 

emissions defeat devices. Would this rule in any way assist the 

agency in this goal? 

Mr. KERSTING. So a defeat device by definition is a part or a 

modification that will be done to a vehicle on the roadways. There 

are laws in place, and the EPA and the California Air Resources 

Board have used them for many, many years to regulate the industry. They’ve even cited instances in some of their recent releases 

about their enforcement. That’s the approach they should be using 

to address the problem: find egregious cases and go after those 

egregious cases. To outlaw motorsports, to outlaw the conversion of 

vehicles for racing doesn’t seem to really be a direct hit. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, and to your point, I mean, it seems like EPA 

has the adequate enforcement mechanism to do this. They haven’t 

done that, and it seems as a former prosecutor, if you have appropriate enforcement out there and you send a deterrent message, 

you highlight a number of cases that are, you know, you know, 

cases that can be exposed at a higher level, enforce those and send 

a message in the industry, we’re not going to tolerate that. 

Mr. KERSTING. Right. The law is there. It is—and it’s not as if 

the EPA doesn’t enforce at all. So I think if they are really interested to work on this, we’d be interested to work with them, and 

actually have been working with them. We have been having discussions, active discussions, with the EPA for the last four years, 

and so I don’t know. This is—as I say, it’s a surprise. It’s an odd 

tactic. And the issue that we’re all gathered here for actually is 

that there’s a proposed rule out there. If that rule goes into effect 
61 

and it can’t be defeated in a court challenge, we’re living with a 

matter that all of this equipment and all of this activity is illegal. 

We were talking a little bit earlier about having laws on the 

books that don’t get enforced. The matter that EPA at this juncture 

says well, we really don’t intend to go after racecar drivers and 

their equipment, how could anyone rely on a situation where the 

activity they’re engaged in which in many cases requires quite a 

lot of time and investment is illegal. It makes no sense. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

We’re going to do a second round of questions here, and we’ll recognize Mr. Posey for a second round. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much for the second round, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. Yacobucci, would you agree with the following statement: 

Since 1970, when the Clean Air Act was enacted, industry and enthusiasts have had no doubt that it is legal to modify and race a 

street vehicle as a racecar as a multibillion-dollar marketplace attests. 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. Sir, in general I would agree with that. I think 

that most drivers—and this is anecdotal from my own speaking 

with people who are in amateur racing. I would say most folks 

probably think—or think that what they are doing is legal. But I 

do know of some folks who basically say yeah, I’m pretty sure this 

is a violation but, you know, okay. 

Mr. POSEY. Like what? Give me an example? Who would think 

it’s a violation? 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. I know some racers who’ve modified their vehicles who have basically said that their interpretation is that this 

is a violation that since they are modifying their street vehicle and 

they have not gotten some sort of exemption from the EPA explicitly, that they are maybe in violation of the standards. 

Mr. POSEY. See, I know hundreds, if not thousands, of people 

who race, and I don’t know any of those. 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. I think it is the vast minority, sir. 

Mr. POSEY. When we talk about asides, you know, if EPA succeeded in destroying this industry where people safely for the public and otherwise compete on private property, it would just be devastating to force that back onto the nation’s highways and byways 

and side streets just by trying to harm an industry, you know, unfairly. 

Mr. Sheheen, would it be fair to say that under the proposed 

rule, the Sports Car Club of America, Lemans, tractor pulls, et 

cetera would all become illegal? 

Mr. SHEHEEN. Yes. This would greatly impact all of those divisions and many, many more. In kind of addition to what Mr. 

Yacobucci was saying, in all the different garage areas, pit areas, 

paddocks that I’ve been in, I have never met a racer who has ever 

thought that they were illegal with anything that the EPA was proposing. They might wonder if they’re going to meet the tech inspector’s rulebook as to whether or not they’ve got too much weight 

shifted to one side of the car or the other, but never have I ever 

been in a conversation from the very top levels of motorsport to the 

very bottom layers where anybody has ever even discussed the 

EPA and what the regulations are and how it might impact motor-
62 

sports until this came out, and when this came out, everybody, for 

lack of a better way of putting it, freaked out because they could 

not believe that this was out there or a potential problem for them. 

So no, rulebook-wise, nobody ever worried about this particular 

rule, but yes, in answer to your original question, all of those divisions and so many more from the very top to the very bottom 

would be impacted. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. 

Now, Mr. Kersting, would you explain the difference between defeat devices and racing equipment? The EPA seems to be fixated 

on defeat devices. 

Mr. KERSTING. Right. We talked about that just a moment ago. 

Parts for racing, you don’t have to be concerned about the emissions impact. A defeat device by definition is a device or a modification that would have an impact to take a vehicle out of compliance, 

that is, a vehicle in use on the roadways. So as we discussed, there 

are clear statutory and regulatory provisions to address that, and 

that’s where we believe the EPA needs to put the focus. 

Mr. POSEY. It just seems like common sense. If the effort is to 

attack defeat devices, you just enforce the law against defeat devices that is already in effect, and why mention anything else? I 

just wondered if anyone else could tell us that. 

Mr. KERSTING. It’s something that—again, we’re here because 

this is such an unusual step, and I believe the approach is so misdirected that Congress reacted with proposed legislation within a 

couple of weeks of learning of this. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, there’s always going to be the omnipresent offenders of the nonexistent problems of the people, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for the second round. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Beyer for five minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. I’d like to first clarify Ranking Member Johnson’s 

testimony about the EPA being invited. Up until March 4th, the 

Minority Committee staff was under the assumption that the Majority actually intended to invite the EPA because it made the most 

sense to have them here. When they found out on March 4th that 

the Majority wasn’t going to invite, they went to the EPA, who said 

that it was going to take three weeks to identify a witness, to write 

the testimony, then they have to clear both the agency and clear 

the OMB, and that everybody already apparently knows this is a 

three-week process. So that’s why they’re not here. 

I do hope that if we are the Committee of markup for H.R. 4715 

that the EPA has a chance to talk about the implications of 4715 

on the people we actually want to enforce the law against, not the 

racecar drivers. 

By the way, I also want to clearly resist the idea that our job 

here is to demonize the EPA. I know they were referred to as despicable recently. You know, the EPA reopened comments, a sign of 

good faith. I think it’s pretty clear that the EPA since 1970 has 

thought that this was the law, that it wasn’t a matter of burying 

something that was brand new. It was a clarification in an overall 

rule stuff. I think it’s unfortunate that we keep making the EPA 

the bad guy here, especially when they’ve never enforced this 
63 

against racecar drivers and there was never any intention to move 

forward and take it against racecar drivers. 

I do think that we need to be careful about the egregious cases, 

as Mr. Kersting mentioned, but let me quote—I think my friend 

Mr. Posey says that things of no importance to the general public. 

Essentially we were talking about the fear that there might be enforcement rather than actual reality right now. 

Mr. Yacobucci, the California Air Resources Board has a program 

that permits aftermarket auto parts manufacturers to get their 

parts certified by California under an executive order. This shows 

that their installations would be compliant with the Clean Air Act 

and not violate emissions control regulations but they also have a 

program to grant exemptions for compliance with these regulations 

for competition-only racecars. Do you believe the California laws on 

this issue could be a roadmap for federal legislation? Is there something we could learn from what California does that would help us? 

Mr. YACOBUCCI. I mean, certainly we can learn from any policy, 

you know, state or local or federal, to help us write new policy. 

Clearly, California has a structure that works for them, and the 

question going forward would be, you know, either under this 

stat—I’m sorry—under the proposed bill or under existing statute 

whether EPA if they were to grant or have imposed upon them 

from the legislation an exemption for racing vehicles, the next 

question would be what would be the processes for exempting specific vehicles, for example, would the agency require registration 

similar to that for imported racing cars where the vehicle owner 

submits the VIN number, information about the vehicle’s characteristics for racing, things that make it non-road legal, and then 

basically would that information be maintained in a database 

where a parts supplier could then query the database and say we 

are selling this part to this owner of vehicle XYZ and it is thus 

checked off so that there’s some sort of verification process. 

On the other end of the spectrum, the way things are done right 

now with competition non-road vehicles is largely based—or is 

based on owner self-compliance, and as I said, to our knowledge, 

EPA doesn’t maintain a database. So there’s a real range of how 

this could be implemented whether it’s under existing statute, if it 

was determined that existing statute was sufficient, or if new statute is required, something like H.R. 4715. There’s a real range of 

how that would be implemented or could be implemented. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you. 

Mr. Kersting, a short question. Do folks who modify their 

racecars, as Mr. Sheheen talked about, the many, many people, do 

they typically work with their local DMVs to brand the title, get 

rid of the private tags they’d have to drive it on the streets? 

Mr. KERSTING. I think that the matter of decommissioning, so to 

speak, a vehicle is a state-by-state matter, and I can’t say I’m familiar with it in all states. But I believe that removing the plates, 

discontinuing registration are typically the sort of things that take 

a vehicle officially out of use as a motor vehicle. For example, I 

think state insurance laws vary on whether and when a vehicle 

needs to be insured and so forth, and those are the sort of things 

that I think we could look to to say okay, this vehicle’s officially 

out of use. 
64 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Great. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

Without objection, the email from the Minority staff requesting 

that the Chairman invite the witness from CRS and the email sent 

to all Committee staff and Members containing the list of invited 

witnesses are entered into the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix I] 

Mr. LAHOOD. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony 

here today and look forward to our dialog on this. 

The record will remain open for two additional weeks—— 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, a point of—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. —for additional comments and written questions 

from Members. 

Mr. BEYER. Will the Chair yield? 

Mr. LAHOOD. And at this time the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(65) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
66 

REPORT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BARRY LOUDERMILK
67 
68 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DONALD S. BEYER, JR. 
69 
70 
71 
72 

1974 REGULATION DEFINING MOTOR VEHICLE
73 
74 
75 
76 

CAA-FEDERAL EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 

AMA LETTER ON RACING
116 
117 

DEBUNKING THE MYTH
118 
119 
120 

SEMA 2010 EPA DIESEL AFTERMARKET PARTS DISCUSSION
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 

SEMA COMMENTS TO EPA 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 

NSD 2015 EDITION TRACK SURVEY INFOGRAPHICS
147 
148 

TELL THE EPA TO WITHDRAW ITS PROPOSAL TO PROHIBIT THE CONVERSION OF

VEHICLES INTO RACECARS
149 
150 

PRI REGIONAL RACE MARKET PROFILE - GEORGIA
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 

SCOTT-LAMALFA EPA REG LETTER
156 
157 
158 

ONE PAGER ON FEDERAL LAW RE COMPETITION VEHICLES

Æ