BMW News

In June 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rules for cutting carbon emissions for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Contained—some would say hidden—in the 629-page document was a brief paragraph that specifically mentioned vehicles used in competition. It read:

“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; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 42 U.S.C.”

This paragraph seemed to outlaw any modifications to any vehicle systems or powerplants that altered them from their “certified configuration” as far as the EPA was concerned. The EPA claims this policy in one form or another had been in effect for decades, but the EPA never enforced it, thereby creating a de facto allowance for race car builders to use their sanctioning bodies rulebooks, and not the EPA, as their governing rules for converting street cars to race cars.

When the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association (SEMA) called the EPA on this renewed prohibition, the EPA countered that such practices had always been prohibited, but what it was really shooting for were the companies that sold parts and accessories to disable emissions controls and not racers who modified cars to compete on track. The proposed language, said the EPA, was merely an attempt to clarify existing rules.

Some observers asked if this was merely a clarification on rules affecting parts makers for cars converted to race use, why did the EPA bury it in a huge document that addressed medium- and heavy-duty truck emissions?

Needless to say, the reaction from the automotive specialty parts industry, motorsports enthusiasts and participants, and Congressional representatives was swift and strong. Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asking for the EPA’s legal justification for the proposed race car modification language. That letter read, in part, “We remain doubtful that this proposed policy change complies with Congressional intent, which we believe is to exempt racing vehicles from the Clean Air Act’s provisions.”

Possibly as a result of the pressure from the Congressional representative and the motorsports community, the EPA recently released a statement on its web site that stated,

     “EPA supports motorsports and its contributions to the American economy and communities all across the country. EPA’s focus is not on vehicles built or used exclusively for racing, but on companies that don’t play by the rules and that make and sell products that disable pollution controls on motor vehicles used on public roads. These unlawful defeat devices pump dangerous and illegal pollution into the air we breathe.”

    “The proposed language in the July 2015 proposal was never intended to represent any change in the law or in EPA’s policies or practices towards dedicated competition vehicles. Since our attempt to clarify led to confusion, EPA has decided to eliminate the proposed language from the final rule.”

    “The Agency will continue to engage with the racing industry and others about ways to ensure that EPA supports racing and while maintaining the Agency’s focus where it has always been: reducing pollution from the cars and trucks that travel along America’s roadways and through our neighborhoods.”

As the U.S. racing world breathed a collective sigh of relief, we have to ask if this is the end of the matter. Was this whole thing simply a badly handled attempt to outlaw modified parts and defeat devices for road-going cars, or was it a strawman for a future attempt to curtail, regulate, or tax the conversion of street cars for competition purposes?

Without getting into the politics or principles surrounding automotive emissions and environmental concerns, we think that if a federal regulatory agency has a problem with the racing community and its suppliers, it should say so up front. We shouldn’t have to pore through an unrelated 629-page volume of proposed regulations to find such a “clarification.”—Scott Blazey