Quote:
Originally Posted by r33_RGSport
Guys,
SEMA is asking for us the manufacturers, retailers, and customers to sign on this RPM ACT so it can get passed by the Congress.
This act clarifies that a road driven car can be turned into a race car, that's all we're fighting for here.
|
No, the act clearly doesn't say that. As with any change in laws that affect you, it's important to read the actual verbiage being proposed, not just the headlines.
Back story: Evans Tuning gets fined by the EPA for over 100 violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA):
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...stuningllc.pdf
EPA sues Derive:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa...defeat-devices
The title of the act is
VERY misleading. Similar to the "Save Our Tips" Act which was sponsored by restaurant owners in an attempt to keep waitstaff wages below the federal minimum wage limit, the RPM Act is a deliberate attempt to insulate manufacturers and vendors of non-compliant emissions equipment (i.e. exhausts, catless downpipes, intakes, etc) in their efforts to circumvent the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
This Act is sponsored by 21 Republicans and 7 Democrats, and went before the Senate back in October. Read the proposed language and list of sponsors here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/2602/text
Quote:
|
Section 3a: No action with respect to any device or element of design described in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if the action is for the purpose of modifying a motor vehicle into a vehicle to be used solely for competition, and that vehicle is not authorized for operation on a street or highway.
|
This seems as though it's just clarifying the law to exclude cars used only on the racetrack from the provisions of the CAA, buuuut....
Quote:
the Administrator shall not—
(1) create a Federal database, or identify or require the creation of a State database, of vehicle registration information that is required to be consulted at the point of manufacture, sale, installation, or use of parts or components; and
(2) require the registration of a vehicle or a part or component of a vehicle by the manufacturer, seller, purchaser, installer, or user of the vehicle.
|
The implementation language states that the EPA administrator may not create a method for tracking compliance of these items, nor may he/she compel states to do so. California required manufacturers of aftermarket parts to get CARB certification numbers for their parts indicating they had been tested and complied with the state's clean air laws. The proposed language in this bill would prevent the creation of any way to track a vehicle's actual status (road legal or not) with its parts, unless a state went above the regulation, as with California).
Vehicle registration is a funny thing, since it's generally a state responsibility. Manufacturers are required to certify their vehicles as compliant when they offer them for sale, and the bill would prevent any association of federal vehicle records and aftermarket modifications with the existing database. This provision prevents the EPA from compelling aftermarket parts manufacturers or installers to maintain any kind of records about what parts went on what car, so when the EPA delivers a subpoena, manufacturers, sellers, and installers can argue they aren't required to record the specifics of each item they sell. They could simply say "we're not required to track that information beyond what our tax laws mandate" and their sales records could simply say "sold 100 widgets".
The second portion then circumvents California's ARB part registration laws by saying parts are not required to be "registered" by anyone in the supply chain from manufacturer to end user. This could have the effect of neutering California's laws, since a primary method of ensuring compliance is testing and certifying the parts, then assigning a tracking number.
But, we're talking about cars only used on the racetrack, right? Nope, because the RPM Act deliberately blurs those lines as well.
Quote:
The regulation under subsection (a) shall—
(2) provide that evidence of physical attributes of a vehicle to be used solely for competition may be sufficient to qualify for the exemption under the amendment made by section 3(a)
|
So, if a car's physical attributes now may qualify it as a race car, anyone with track-focused parts could argue they are exempt from the CAA. This could reasonably extend to cars that simply have stickers on them, since race cars have stickers.
Quote:
(3) provide that a manufacturer, seller, or installer of a part or component seeking to use the exemption under the amendment made by section 3(a) may not rely solely on unsupported declarations from the purchaser or owner of a vehicle about—
(A) the legal status of the vehicle; or
(B) the intended use of—
(i) the part or component; or
(ii) the vehicle.
|
This last bit is intended to fully insulate the manufacturer, sellers, and installers from any liability under the Clean Air Act by saying they need not inquire with a vehicle's purchaser or owner as to how a part is going to be used. So, everyone running BM3s or catless DPs is now solely responsible for the compliance of their vehicle, and if the Feds wanted to come after the manufacturer, the manufacturer could argue that they weren't required to ask any questions related to how a part was going to be used. It allows the legal assumption that any sale is for off-road use only, and would prevent the EPA from holding accountable companies which had been pursued in the past (like Evans Tuning or Cobb Tuning).
The EPA's settlement with Evans Tuning states, "The EPA's longstanding view is that conduct that may be prohibited by§ 203(a)(3) does not warrant enforcement if the person performing that conduct has a documented, reasonable basis for knowing that the conduct does not adversely affect emissions. See Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum IA (June 25, 1974)." This bill is written specifically to prevent the EPA from enforcing the CAA with their current methods.
So, if the bill passes and the EPA can't come after the manufacturers of such devices, they will have no one left to pursue except the end user, because the bill doesn't insulate the people driving the car on the street.