Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RPM Act and Responses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RPM Act and Responses

    I've started reading some of the detail in the RPM Act / Clean Air Act with more interest as small companies are getting large fines from the EPA. Most of the time my eyes gloss over and my face ends up on the keyboard, but I think in the end I understand that the EPA wants to tell me I can't touch anything on my street car, or worse, use any part of a production car to make a race car. Short version, I sent a letter and received a response in predictably vague verbiage written, that reminds me of the scene with Pinocchio trying not to lie in Shrek.

    Anyway, I was curious if you guys and gals have written anyone, and if so, have they responded? I'm wondering if they have a form letter response to the form letter mail SEMA is recommending we send...

    (edit, Source of my concern for clarity: https://bangshift.com/general-news/b...right-to-race/ ).
    Last edited by Monster; June 20, 2021, 09:58 AM. Reason: Political content removed
    Flying south, with a flock of bird dogs.

  • #2
    I don't have any non-street driven race cars. And all the cars that I have that are modified are older than the clean air acts, so they are immune to it. And the modern stuff I have meets all the rules, and will continue to meet all the rules.

    So, have fun...
    My fabulous web page

    "If it don't go, chrome it!" --Stroker McGurk

    Comment


    • #3
      Those responses are basically a form letter. However, they do keep track of "for" and "against" responses so they know that their voters like or don't like any particular piece of legislation - this is why it matters if you respond or not.

      Comment


      • #4
        I doubt the ratio of for/against tells them anything, because most folks don't give a damn...the only form letters they get for this are "for". But the number of them can make a difference.

        I expect Dan to be in favor of it, so he could have a legal race car, for a change
        My fabulous web page

        "If it don't go, chrome it!" --Stroker McGurk

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, I wrote, got varied responses

          but let's define something things:
          1) EPA's jurisdiction ends at 25 years.
          2) this came from an argument by the EPA in a Court hearing - the judge did not address it
          3) oh good lord, they've been doing this to companies for at least 1 if not 2 decades - examples? there was a company in Shelton Washington who advertised how they could delete the DEF system on my 2018 Colorado. Guess what? they got fined out of existence - call it 3 years ago.... point is this really isn't party politics

          but Squirrel is right, nothing he has remains within the jurisdiction of the EPA (though now I question that blanket statement because I thought you had a less-then-25-year-old pickup)... no matter, Unless Congress acts, cars that are less then 25 years old cannot be tampered with according to the Feds. Of course, their jurisdiction is not over individuals - so what people do (think plastic guns) still (at least for now) remains off-limits.
          Doing it all wrong since 1966

          Comment


          • #6
            I do have a Tahoe, and my wife has a 2012 pickup, and a Miata. And they're all stock, and we have no intention to tamper with the emissions equipment on any of them.

            Most emissions laws are enforced by the states, aren't they? And I've never seen anyone go to a race track and start arresting folks for having modified their cars. But then, I don't keep up with all the news in California, either.
            My fabulous web page

            "If it don't go, chrome it!" --Stroker McGurk

            Comment


            • #7
              Modified slightly, so thread discussion is okay so far .. but, walk the fine line and keep politics out of it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by squirrel View Post

                Most emissions laws are enforced by the states, aren't they?
                I believe it's pared down farther than that. Here in this corner of Tennessee, Hamilton County (where Chattanooga is) does emissions testing and they're serious about it. For their residents it's pass it or park it. There may be other spots but most of the rest of the state that I'm aware of doesn't even have any kind of an inspection process.
                Charter member of the Turd Nuggets

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by squirrel View Post
                  I do have a Tahoe, and my wife has a 2012 pickup, and a Miata. And they're all stock, and we have no intention to tamper with the emissions equipment on any of them.

                  Most emissions laws are enforced by the states, aren't they? And I've never seen anyone go to a race track and start arresting folks for having modified their cars. But then, I don't keep up with all the news in California, either.
                  Picture 2, independent sets of law. That is emissions law - some states utterly ignore enforcing emission laws, others, do and even create more for their 'situation' (e.g. LA smog). If the state cares, then police enforce the emissions laws (but the State emission laws, which may or may not have anything to do with the Federal... see, e.g. CA laws)

                  The overlap is the feds create the floor and monitor states for compliance with that floor. They also can prosecute sellers who sell products out of their home state. It's here the EPA can reach businesses via the Commerce Clause of the Constitution but not the individual (as protected by the 14th Amendment). Sell defeat products to in-state only, and odds are pretty good you can defeat an EPA fine. Of course, what happens when someone lies about residence or that product shows up in another state? it's probably (worst word a lawyer will ever say to you) going to be okay because it's no longer owned by the seller - however, in that arena, there is much litigation....

                  So here comes the rub. States (unless something is in it for them) do not enforce Federal laws, the Feds do - so traffic stops, which are not Federal officers (mostly), only enforce that State's laws. There are exceptions but that's the general rule that applies 99.9% of the time.

                  There have been efforts by States to enforce their laws against out-of-state people, but that has had varying success.... e.g. California trying to ban out-of-state off-road vehicles from using their lands.



                  **** the caveat, these are general, overviews of the laws and their interaction, this is not legal advice nor should you rely on it as such. This only is to give the basic contours.
                  Last edited by SuperBuickGuy; June 20, 2021, 10:21 AM.
                  Doing it all wrong since 1966

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I figured it was a continuation of a conversation Chad started, but I am willing to risk a political lock on the thread when the parts suppliers for modifying my off-highway cars become subject to potentially business ending fines. I haven't quite managed to un-lawyer what I'm reading into my primate thinking, but I think I'm reading that you can't make a late model into a race car with OEM parts. That would seem insane, but EPA has not always been super logical. (Cash for Clunkers)





                    Flying south, with a flock of bird dogs.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't think that the buy back programs are EPA....they're smarter than that....

                      The CCA has been around for half a century. I'm well adjusted to the fact that it's against federal law to tamper with emissions equipment on cars, just like it's against the law for me to do all kinds of other things, that you probably have no problem restraining yourself from doing, too.

                      RPM is a neat piece of legislation, by the marketing lobby. I don't care if it passes, or not. I can see how lots of folks would be interested in having it pass.

                      My fabulous web page

                      "If it don't go, chrome it!" --Stroker McGurk

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by squirrel View Post
                        I don't think that the buy back programs are EPA....they're smarter than that....

                        The CCA has been around for half a century. I'm well adjusted to the fact that it's against federal law to tamper with emissions equipment on cars, just like it's against the law for me to do all kinds of other things, that you probably have no problem restraining yourself from doing, too.

                        RPM is a neat piece of legislation, by the marketing lobby. I don't care if it passes, or not. I can see how lots of folks would be interested in having it pass.
                        It's against federal law to tamper with emissions which are less than 25 years old.

                        The irony to me is the permissive attitude toward Finnegan spewing oil across the South; now is "OMG, they're calling us on it" thus I'm finding increasingly difficult to find one GAS.... ICE will be around long after I'm dust
                        Last edited by SuperBuickGuy; June 20, 2021, 05:46 PM.
                        Doing it all wrong since 1966

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          My bigger concern was race car, not so much street car, but you guys answered the question I asked. The reason I asked was the response I received which included this statement:

                          "
                          The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for ensuring the implementation of the Clean Air Act, which limits the use of certain engines and car types that might produce excess pollution."

                          I never read it that way myself, but okay, building motor vehicles isn't this guy's job. I was curious if other folks got a similar reply.

                          I may have gotten sucked in to this a little bit, so I did some more background reading ( CV-20-08003-PCT-JJT ). I'm not real surprised with the outcome after reading the Gearbox Z cease and desist order that seems to have sparked this current controversy. It looked like they advertised themselves right into the penalty box. I'm looking for the other docs now which will probably answer my other questions:

                          ".. Much ink has been spilled already in this case regarding whether a motor sports exception
                          , or exclusion,exists in the CAA and if so, what its limits are.(Docs. 55, 61, 89-1,103, 105.)Indeed, the Amicus Curiae brief and its responses examine this question in great detail... "
                          Last edited by Beagle; June 21, 2021, 01:21 AM.
                          Flying south, with a flock of bird dogs.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X