Protection of Motorsports Act of 2016 -- this will pass with your support!

[68fastback]

Still pending ...if you haven't already, let your Congressional reps know you want it passed!

https://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2017...campaign=eNews

[68fastback]

Was reintroduced in both the House and the Senate but not brought to the floor yet

More info:
https://www.sema.org/epa-news?utm_so...campaign=eNews

The future of motorsports remains in jeopardy! The Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports (RPM) Act is critical to protecting the industry now and in the future.
The RPM Act is a bipartisan bill that protects Americans’ right to modify street vehicles into dedicated racecars and the industry’s right to sell the parts that enable racers to compete.
The bill was reintroduced in January 2017, at the beginning of the new Congress, in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 350) by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and in the U.S. Senate (S.203) by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). Both 2017 bills are identical to the 2016 versions.

BACKGROUND:

In July 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced a proposal that would have prohibited the conversion of street vehicles into race cars used exclusively for the track. While the EPA has formally withdrawn the proposal, the agency continues to assert authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the modification of vehicles used for competition. Congressional action is the only way to guarantee that street vehicles can continue to be modified for the track, well into the future.
The RPM Act confirms that it has always been Congress’ intent that racecars are not included in the Clean Air Act’s definition of “motor vehicle.” The RPM Act makes clear that it has always been legal to modify a street vehicle into a racecar used exclusively at the track, and confirms that modifying these vehicles for exclusive track use would not be considered tampering.
HOW YOU CAN HELP:

When the RPM Act was first introduced in 2016, racing enthusiasts and Americans working in the motorsports parts industry flooded Congress with nearly 200,000 letters in support of the bill. The overwhelming response encouraged more than one-fourth of the U.S. House of Representatives to join as bill co-sponsors as a result. However, the shortened election year schedule did not permit sufficient time for passage of the bill by the previous Congress.
Racing enthusiasts and industry members can help sustain this energy this year and encourage Congress to act by sending a letter to support the RPM Act. Even if you have signed a letter in the past, please take a moment and sign another. Click here to tell to your elected officials to support the RPM Act.
SEMA members can bring this energy to their websites, social media platforms, storefronts and garages and rally your customers, employees, followers and friends to take action. Use the assets found in SEMA’s digital toolkit: www.sema.org/rpmtools. And don’t forget to join the conversation on social media using #SaveOurRacecars.
READ MORE:

• Bill Summary
• FAQ about the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports (RPM) Act of 2017
• Debunking the Myths About the EPA’s Proposal to Prohibit the Conversion of Vehicles Into Racecars
• Trump Transition Letter
• Read SEMA’s December 2015 comments in response to the proposed rule here
• Read SEMA’s April 2015 comments in response to the proposed rule here

PASSAGE OF THE RPM ACT IS CRITICAL TO THE FUTURE OF MOTORSPORTS:

The Clean Air Act prohibits the EPA from regulating racecars used exclusively on the track. When Congress amended the law in 1990 to authorize the EPA to regulate nonroad vehicles, it expressly exempted “vehicles used solely for competition” to ensure there was no confusion about the regulatory exclusion.
However, despite withdrawing troubling language from a proposed rule, the EPA maintains that converting a motor vehicle’s emissions system is “tampering” and that a vehicle is forever a “motor vehicle” subject to the Clean Air Act, even if it is unregistered, the license plates have been removed and the vehicle is never driven on the highway. It is at the EPA’s discretion when it can enforce this authority.
The RPM Act would address this vulnerability and provide the public and regulated industry with certainty regarding how the Clean Air Act is applied, and allow Congress to confirm that it has ultimate authority.
Impact on Racers:

The EPA’s enforcement authority could affect any vehicle, including sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs, that starts its life as a street car or motorcycle if it was originally certified to federal emissions standards. Federal emissions standards have been effective since 1968, so the EPA’s prohibition would cover all motor vehicles dating back to that year. Note, the EPA is not claiming authority over purpose-built racecars like those used today in NASCAR, or “nonroad vehicles” (dirt bikes, ATVs, snowmobiles and boats) that are used exclusively for racing.
Impact on Motorsports and Industry:

The EPA continues to claim that it has the authority to regulate street cars modified exclusively for the track. Only clarifying legislation will confirm that such activity is legal and beyond the reach of future EPA regulations. Further, if the EPA decided to enforce this authority, it would have a devastating impact on motorsports since many types of racing rely on production vehicles that have been modified for use strictly at the track. It would also decimate the industry that supplies the products used in motorsports. The specialty equipment automotive aftermarket employs about one million Americans across all 50 states. Current retail sales of racing products make up a $1.4 billion annual market.
Implications for Future Regulations:

Regulators have already targeted manufacturers, distributors and retailers under current Clean Air Act authority. Installers may be the next target. Even if the EPA doesn’t go after individual racers, this uncertainty could have a chilling effect on the supply chain. Legitimate racing products may no longer be developed and sold, and businesses may no longer be willing to modify vehicles.
SEMA PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS ITEMS:

• May 23, 2017: Racing Business Owners and Industry Leaders Head to D.C. for SEMA’s 2017 Washington Rally
• January 23, 2017: Senate Joins House in Support of RPM Act of 2017
• January 9, 2017: RPM Act Gets a Fast Start in 2017
• December 15, 2016: The RPM Act: A Message From SEMA President and CEO Chris Kersting

IN THE NEWS:

• Charlotte Observer: NC lawmakers seek permanent race car exemption from EPA anti-pollution standards (January 13, 2017)
• The Hill: Republicans to EPA: Race cars off limits (January 9, 2017)
• PRI: SEMA Legislative Experts Discuss Status of RPM Act At PRI Trade Show (December 8, 2016)
• The SHOP: SEMA on RPM Act: 'We Intend to Get the Job Done in 2017' (December 8, 2016)
• The Detroit News: Mod-shops push for protection from EPA (July 20, 2016)
• The Detroit News: Aftermarket industry, racers rev up RPM Act support (July 20, 2016)
• Motor1.com: Why Congress needs to weigh in on the EPA’s proposed rules about race cars (July 15, 2016)
• NationalSpeedSportNews.com: “VIDEO: Can the EPA Force a Motorsports Ban?” (May 11, 2016)
• Super Chevy: “The EPA Wants to Outlaw Your Race Car. Don’t Let Them!” (May 5, 2016)
• Richmond County Daily Journal: “Emission Rules Parked: Hudson, McHenry Seek to Protect Racing Industry” (April 22, 2016)
• Beyond The Flag: “EPA Drops Controversial Racecar Rule, Threats Still Remain” (April 17, 2016)
• Hot Rod Network: “EPA Update: Members of Congress Joining Fight to Save Racecars” (March 30, 2016)
• Gaston Gazette: “McHenry: EPA needs to leave racing alone” (March 18, 2016)
• FOX News: “EPA crashes amateur car races with buried regulation” (March 16, 2016)
• Hot Rod Network: “We Need Your Help: Support H.R. 4715 ‘Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2016’” (March 9, 2016)
• Road & Track: “Congressmen Work to Block EPA Proposal on Race-Modified Street Cars” (March 8, 2016)
• Street Legal TV: “How One Proposed New EPA Regulation Could Decimate The Aftermarket” (February 29, 2016)
• Motor Trend: “EPA’s Read Target: The Automotive Aftermarket” (February 12, 2016)
• FoxNews.com: “EPA proposal would restrict road to race car conversions” (February 9, 2016)

FOLLOW SEMA’S EFFORTS AND GET UPDATES ONLINE:

• Facebook: SEMA.org
• Twitter: @SEMAMembers
• Instagram: @semashow
• Website: www.sema.org/epa-news
• Hashtag: #saveourracecars #rpmact

[68fastback]

Starting to really get traction ...status update!

https://www.sema.org/epa-news?utm_so...campaign=eNews

[Boston Mike]

Starting to really get traction ...status update!

https://www.sema.org/epa-news?utm_so...campaign=eNews

Come on, you can make a longer post than this!

[68fastback]

[68fastback]

I received a response from one of our state senators (Kirsten Gillibrand) on the RPM act (S.2659) from my note a couple months ago.

---

Here's what Senator Gillibrand had to say:

Thank you for writing to me regarding your support of S. 2659, the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2016.

I understand your views on this legislation, however I am concerned that, S. 2659, the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2016, would remove protections placed in the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Without protections like these, our children and families could suffer health complications, including asthma and other respiratory ailments.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I believe it is important to ensure we are protecting our clean air. We must not create loopholes for emissions that would potentially harm our environment and families, while also protecting racecar enthusiast’s rights.

Thank you again for writing to express your concerns, and I hope that you keep in touch ... <yada yada>

---

Here's what I had say back to Senator Gillibrand:

I don't think you genuinely understand or are fairly representing the implications of S.2659.

Unless you plan to legislatively ban American vehicular competition in its entirety, S.2659 would actually limit the use of existing converted vehicles to track use only, thereby dramatically reducing annual engine-run hours of those pre-existing former street vehicles which today also get used at the track anyway. By permitting those pre-existing vehicles that presently street-drive and race to be race-only, less CO2 emissions will be released, since the race portion is a wash and any replacement vehicle for street use would necessarily comply with today's stricter tailpipe emissions -- if that is truly your primary concern ...which I am frankly starting to doubt.

I would caution you about promoting EPA overstepping it's legal bounds on such longstanding American traditions as vehicle competition, though I'm thinking you are less concerned about such critical constitutional issues that underpin this otherwise vibrant republic than you are about illegally utilizing the EPA as a tool for off-label political control.

Btw, I do not race now nor have I in the past, but I do have a long love of the great American tradition of motorsports. As a registered independent NY voter you are making it very difficult for me to continue to consider you as a serious candidate for my vote in the future if you hold out on legislation such as S.2659 for such thinly veiled political mischief.

Or maybe you just thought no one actually notices how you play the game?

Regards,
Dan

[twobjshelbys]

Den. Don't even need to look. Trump should dismantle the epa

[Boston Mike]

Den. Don't even need to look. Trump should dismantle the epa

and let global warming/climate control go on unfettered? Blasphemy!!!!

[68fastback]

I'd like it's scope squeezed back a bunch -- into it's originally legislated intent (for a start) and maybe further into clear constitutional bounds. Maybe Trump can do some of that in his first term but I think he can't afford how that would be twisted right now, aside from some Obama EO roll-backs he's already done.

Maybe once Ginsberg kicks the bucket (and maybe even if she doesn't) there may be a clear SCOTUS case to force EPA into constitutional compliance AND make sure it stays there via legislation (9th circuit BS notwithstanding) ...very tough to do in a first term! That is a war I would not risk waging (aside from possibly undoing all the pieces Obama has pimped by EO in defiance of the constitution and redefining emissions targets in total) until it's certain a win is highly likely.

The left is already up in arms over some of the simplest roll-backs of oppressive controls (e.g. mining) ...their hair is on fire! -lol The amount of crap from formerly trustworthy environmental groups (but not all) is truly brainwashing this country at a staggering scale and there are now over 30,000 PAID activists (maybe 150-200K additional rabid types, and 3-5M less rabid) that will be unleashed in demos and marches (some Soros funding orchestrated by Obama and lots more non-profit money), so it has to be done right and with the wheel-chocks only SCOTUS can define, and legislation only Congress can provide to modify and/or replace EPA as we know it. It is surely a creeping crud of hyper-constitutional abuse.

I'm totally for clean air, clean water and sensible protections but we have to be realistic and holisitc -- and do it within the constitution. Besides, it's not clear the current approach is having as positive an environmental effect as can be achieved with far less economic impact ...a whole other subject.

[twobjshelbys]

I'm totally for clean air, clean water and sensible protections but we have to be realistic and holisitc -- and do it within the constitution. Besides, it's not clear the current approach is having as positive an environmental effect as can be achieved with far less economic impact ...a whole other subject.

So logical. But so hard for politicians to see it since logical solutions would of course make their soapboxes no longer necessary.