Source: https://www.miataturbo.net/general-miata-chat-9/epa-emboldened-kill-motorsports-87724/
Timestamp: 2017-12-18 10:59:43
Document Index: 68141042

Matched Legal Cases: ['§208', '§7550', '§7550', '§7550', '§ 1037', '§ 86', '§ 1068']

EPA Emboldened to Kill Motorsports? - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.
EPA Emboldened to Kill Motorsports?
The attached file was sent to me today. Here is cut an paste, but the PDF is probably easier to read. I guess it's real. The Miata pros may know something about it.
TO: Jay Lamm, 24 Hours of LeMons
FROM: Pat Mulry
RE: EPA Rule Change Regarding Ban on Modifying Emissions of Certified
Vehicles & Potential Effect on Motorsport
Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning regarding the so-called “LeMons Law”, I
have reviewed the existing applicable U.S. Code sections, the Code of Federal Regulations
(“CFR”) and the rules changes proposed by the EPA, as set forth in volume 80 of the Federal
Register. These are the rules changes referred to in the SEMA press release of February 8, 2016.
This memo will review the applicable law, explain the proposed changes in the law, and discuss
the likely impact these changes would have on motorsport in the United States.
SEMA sent out a press release on February 8, 2016 stating that the EPA has proposed a
regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into race cars. It
stated that the regulation would impact “all vehicle types,” including the light-duty passenger
cars and light-duty trucks typically modified for racing. The press release contained no citations
to the actual rules that the EPA is proposing to change, but noted that Congress has never
authorized nor extended the Clean Air Act to regulate competition motor vehicles.
2. Existing Law
In order to understand the current issue, we must begin with understanding the current state
of the law regarding emissions as it relates to competition motor vehicles.
As noted by SEMA in its official comment on the proposed rules, the Motor Vehicle Air
Pollution Control Act of 1965 (the “1965 Act”) was the first federal law to regulate motor
vehicle emissions. The 1965 Act first defined the term “motor vehicle” as “any self-propelled
For the purposes of this Memorandum, the discussion of “competition motor vehicles” is limited to those vehicles
that began their lives as passenger cars and light-duty trucks – street cars – which were certified for use on the
streets and highways of the U.S. This Memorandum is not concerned with purpose-built race cars, such as tubeframe
oval track cars, IndyCars, etc., as those are exempted from emissions regulations.
vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway.”
2 50 years later,
that remains the definition of “motor vehicle” contained in the United States Code.
In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments (the “CAA”). The CAA did not
disturb the definition of “motor vehicle” as set forth in the 1965 Act, but it did mandate new
emissions standards and expanded the anti-tampering provision to require that no person render
emissions controls inoperative after first sale. While on first blush that would seem to require
emissions controls on all racing vehicles that are converted from their original street use, the
committee notes make it clear that the intent of the legislation was never to regulate racing
R. NICHOLS: “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 for, modified for or utilized in
organized motor racing events which, of course, are held very infrequently but
which utilize all types of vehicles and vehicle engines?”
R. STAGGERS: “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.”
The CAA has been amended numerous times since 1970, including in 1977 and in 1990.
Neither amendment sought to include racing vehicles in the definition of “motor vehicle,” which
has remained the legal term for a motorized vehicle intended to carry people or objects on public
Motorized vehicles which are
not intended to carry people or objects on public roads—
bulldozers, farm tractors, snowmobiles, airplanes, etc. – are generally considered “nonroad
vehicles.” In 1990, Congress amended the definition of “nonroad vehicle” to permit the EPA to
regulate some nonroad vehicles such as locomotives, snowmobiles, and off-highway
motorcycles. However, Congress unequivocally excluded competition vehicles from the
definition of “nonroad vehicle” (“the term ‘nonroad vehicle’ means a vehicle that is powered by
a nonroad engine and that is not a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition”).
Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, Pub. L. No. 89-272, 79 Stat. 992 (1965) at §208 (2).
42 U.S.C. §7550 (2) (2015).
House Consideration of the Report of the Conference committee, Dec. 18, 1970 (reprinted in A legislative history
of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, together with a section-by-section index
, U.S. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
NVIRONMENTAL POLICY DIVISION, Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off. Serial No. 93-18, 1974, p.117).
Similarly, a “nonroad engine” means an internal combustion engine that is not used in a motor
vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition.
As a result, based on the statutory text and the legislative history,
emissions have never fallen under the ambit of the EPA and the CAA, as amended
On Monday, July 13, 2015, the EPA published its proposed rules
7 entitled “Greenhouse Gas
(such as farm tractors).”
8 The EPA intends to publish the final rule in July 2016.
9 recognizes that competition vehicle emissions do not fall squarely within the
emission controls on a certified motor vehicle for purposes of competition.
42 U.S.C. §7550 (11) (2015) (“nonroad vehicle”); 42 U.S.C. §7550 (10) (2015) (“nonroad engine”).
good tutorial on this process can be found at
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/tutorial/tutorial_070.pdf
refers to both entities simply as the EPA, this memorandum will do so also.
The EPA’s use here of “clarify” seems Orwellian at best.
11,12 While troublesome for some autosport enthusiasts of heavy-duty
for nonroad engines in competition use
13, but not for street vehicles modified for use solely in
86.1854-12(b)(5)
14 states that
Certified motor vehicles
15 and motor vehicle engines and their emission control
The proposed rule is more draconian in 40 CFR 1068.101
16, “What general actions does this
40 C.F.R. § 1037 is the section that contains the administrative rules for “Control of Emissions from Heavy-Duty
Heavy-duty vehicles are generally defined as exceeding 8,500 pounds GVWR or having a curb weight in excess
Racing snowmobiles, racing dirt bikes, racing ATV’s, etc.
40 C.F.R. § 86 is the section that contains the administrative rules for “Control of Emissions from New and In-
Use Highway Vehicles and Engines.”
A certified motor vehicle or engine/emissions system is a vehicle or system that has passed the EPA testing and
40 C.F.R. § 1068 is the section that contains the administrative rules for “General Compliance Provisions for
civil penalty of up to $3,750 per engine or piece of equipment;
Knowingly manufacturing, selling, offering to sell, or installing any
*****Continued in next post *****
EPA-Memo.pdf (137.1 KB, 55 views)
02-11-2016, 02:23 PM #2
https://www.miataturbo.net/current-e...acecars-87667/
02-11-2016, 02:24 PM #3
******Continued with small overlap********
Importation of uncertified engines or equipment is prohibited if it is defined to
until 2021,
22 this provision could be interpreted to indicate that the proposed rule be applied to
80 Fed. Reg. 40720 (2015) (to be codified as 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1)).
80 Fed. Reg. 40720 (2015) (to be codified as 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(2)).
80 Fed. Reg. 40720 (2015) (to be codified as 40 CFR 1068.101 (b)(4)(ii)).
80 Fed. Reg. 40720 (2015) (to be codified as 40 CFR 1068.101 (b)(5)).
80 Fed. Reg. 40719-40720 (2015) (to be codified as 40 CFR 1068.101 (a)(1)).
4. What Impact Would this Have on Motorsport in the US?
The proposed rules essentially ban the modification of any component of the engine, fuel,
and emissions systems. By placing draconian fines on anyone who could be considered a
manufacturer or dealer of aftermarket parts that would be used on production-based racing
vehicles, these proposed rules will have an incalculably chilling effect on the aftermarket parts
market. It is difficult to see how any aftermarket part manufacturer could continue to make and
market performance parts without running afoul of this proposed rule unless the part was
essentially identical to the factory-certified part.
The result of the die-off of aftermarket parts manufacturers will be dramatic. The proposed
rules would also ban users from doing many of the things that draw participants to motorsport –
including and in particular to mechanically creative series such as 24 Hours of LeMons. For
example, weird engine swaps will be a thing of the past if motor vehicles and motor vehicle
engines must remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition.
Cam swaps, different exhaust headers, different intake manifolds are among the equipment
which will be banned due to their impact on increased emissions. Not only will the fuel cell
manufacturers essentially cease to exist (other than by making fuel cells for purpose-built race
cars that are competition vehicles from the outset), it will become illegal to put a fuel cell into
the former street cars that comprise the vast majority of motorsport activity in the US. In short,
As we discussed this morning, I would be glad to work on coordinating 24 Hours of
LeMons’ response to this proposed rule. I will be in the office again all day on Wednesday if you
want to discuss this matter further.
02-11-2016, 02:26 PM #4
Kill this thread, if you wish.
OK. Thanks. Kill this thread is fine with me. I'm late to the game.
I think its great it got posted. LeMons sent out an email about it just this week, though I think the original doc mentioning this came out in the summer of '15. Pages 862 and 863, the relevant part laughably buried in a paragraph that starts with a totally unrelated topic about production numbers of motorcycles in the US and total numbers of motorcycles imported every year. Maybe accidental, but it sure looks like a petty tactic.
I think this might really shake the left-wing foundations of this forum
I would love to see the comparo of all the pollution from all the race tracks in the US in one year (however you want to quantify that) against one day of commuting from any major city like LA, NY, Boston, Seattle, etc.
Oh wait, nobody has that study. I read some of the stuff from EPA and they used the words 'significant' IIRC.
Brought to us by the same people who put temperature monitoring stations next to asphalt parking lots and heater vents and then claim global temps are rising. Pure BS
Global temps are rising.
But racing is probably about .01% of the cause. That's a guess - I seriously would love some actual info on that but I don't even know where to look. I doubt Google-Foo is the solution on that one.
But since racing is a high profile .01%*, lots of people will howl until it dies so that they can feel better and convince themselves they are part of the solution while buying new cars, heating huge homes, eating meat with every meal, retiring with IRAs and 401Ks full of stocks from corporations that pollute far more than any individual or even any form or motorsport.
Its not about actually fixing an actual problem. Its about making people feel like it's being dealt with without impacting their lives in any meaningful way. Its really no different from any other proposal which is pushed by people who claim that there's no real downside except to the 'them' - who are selfish, evil, and need to be put in their place. Which describes pretty much everything proposed at any significant legislative level anymore. it's just 'we' are the 'them' in this case. By the time that everyone realizes that they are a part of 'them' in one way or another (if that ever actually happens) things will probably be pretty fucked up on a legal level among other things.
All of which is basically an outgrowth of modern society (not even just western society)that has elevated the comfort and validation seeking self to the status of sacred cow.
02-11-2016, 09:13 PM #9
Are you actively trying to earn the record for the most negatively propped member of the forum?
02-12-2016, 02:14 AM #10
It's not his fault, Sav. It's the autism. He had all of his vaccines as a child, and is autistic now. Fortunately, he has The Food Babe's book, and is eating only organic kale sprouts and is doing a lemon cleanse every day, and so his prognosis is good. Once he gets in his order of Healing Crystals from David Avocado Wolfe, his chi flows will be re-orientated to their proper paths, and his life path will be back on track.
Nobody needs to get all social justice warrior on me about autism.
02-12-2016, 08:29 AM #11
Speaking of cows, aren't the mad scientists trying to put catalytic converters on cows?
02-12-2016, 09:34 AM #12
While I agree that there is significant overreach happening, I has a serious question: current built race cars not-withstanding, wouldn't this mandate make racing a little more competitive in the future?
Imagine spec miata where everyone has to run EXACTLY what the factory tuned engine can run. I know that its not optimal, nor even perfect, but couldn't iit result in a little more competitive class? A class that truly demonstrates driver ability over checkbook size?
Besides, suspension, brakes, and tires don't affect emissions.
02-12-2016, 10:07 AM #13
Depending on classing, current SCCA & NASA rules pretty much spell out factory equipment in SPEC classes. Done that way to more or less even out the equipment field.
When it comes to the MOD type of classes it's more a how much money/ingenuity do you have vs the other guy. Frankly IMO I don't really need the government to direct/mandate competitiveness in auto racing.
02-12-2016, 10:56 AM #14
I counter with the spec miata cheater head debacle.
What I envision is a 100% untouched factory driveline being the rule, rather than a selection of the best factory components sourced from multiple years, built to the ragged edge of the rules
02-12-2016, 11:10 AM #15
That has nothing to do with this issue. The EPA is about emissions and your talking about some engine builder who either stepped outside the rules, or the rules weren't clear enough, and built heads that were ruled illegal to the rules.
Someone else can comment (I'm not a SPEC racer) but I think the rules, as written, make for pretty competitive racing as it is.
If you forced a SPEC class racer to only buy a new "unopened" engine from Miata (or an authorized builder like Formula Mazda) you'd pretty much drive the low budget racer out of the game. That would really help...
Otherwise, how would you source (unopened) engines? Troll the yards for "low mileage" engines and hope they never had the head pulled for any reason? I guess this is getting off topic.
02-12-2016, 01:53 PM #16
LOL when a lot of factory emissions gear presents safety issues, like engine bay temp issues due to horribly designed EGR systems and charcoal canisters that start bursting into flames.
The truth is that this is/was the heyday of auto racing as we know it. Electric and hybrid will change it in some incredible ways.
But this would accelerate that process and screw up a wonderful thing for a lot of people. Not to mention demolish things in such a way that historic series are jeopardized too.
And it has a great chance of passing because while SEMA might sick its legislators on it, the OEMs just might love this one. Its hilarious that Scion is being killed off just as a piece of legislation is being proposed that would defacto make it's model of factory upgrade path the law. Just imagine the kinds of profit margins parts counters might realize with this. Their speedy parts are from the factory and EPA approved. So run this $750 intake tube with the hologram/serialized sticker that has roughly the same performance characteristics as a Pringles can, because you might wind up 3500 down if you make one yourself.
What's really sad is that personally I understand that I am a dinosaur. I get it. I get that with 7+ billion people on the planet the things I love are not really feasible in the long run across the whole population. I've already made a lot of changes in my life to proactively adjust to that reality. But living and working in Denver, I can tell you that that's just not enough for people in this (and probably most other) culture anymore. Not only do I have to give up on things I really enjoy and adjust my life, in the eyes of self-righteous ******** of the majority, I have to enjoy it. I have to be happy that I make these changes while some fat **** with a huge mcmansion and hybrid SUV who has 2 kids and consumes 10 times what I do feels like he's saving the world because he votes Democrat and drives a hybrid. Since I drive a used vehicle that not flashy, and I go hunt my own meat rather than buy it from some organic free range cruelty free farm where the cow is thrilled to die, I am part of the problem.
I'd say rant mode off but honestly I don't think it ever will be. **** the human race.
Last edited by Sparetire; 02-12-2016 at 02:00 PM. Reason: Needs more rant.