SEMA vs. EPA: What’s Really Going On

The breathless press release arrived in the automotive industry’s collective inbox around 6 p.m. Monday. “EPA Seeks to Prohibit Conversion of Vehicles into Racecars,” it read. Car people freaked. By Tuesday morning, the mantra had been repeated all over the auto enthusiast Internet: The EPA is coming for your race car! The truth is far more complicated, but the messaging reveals as much about SEMA as it does about the proposed rule change.

Make no mistake: This issue is complicated. The rule the EPA is proposing to change is somewhat vague and contradictory, as are the EPA’s proposed changes and its motivation for doing so. A degree in public policy is required to untangle all the legalese. SEMA, meanwhile, is being paranoid and reactionary, shooting from the hip and making a mountain out of a molehill. Neither side can claim much of a moral high ground here.

The other half of the problem is that they’re both technically right. The root of the controversy is the Clean Air Act of 1963, which predates the EPA. It’s been amended several times over the years, and it’s what gives the EPA the power to regulate vehicle emissions, among many other things. It contains different requirements for on-road and off-road vehicles, and it has some exemptions for, among other things, competition.

Here’s where today’s controversy comes in: The EPA claims the Clean Air Act has always prohibited the modification or disabling of automotive emissions control equipment, even for the express purpose of competition, and these latest changes simply clarify that. SEMA contends that’s a new reading of the rules and completely at odds with 53 years of history and enforcement.

Cursory research suggests both sides have a point. At least as far back as the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, the rules have stated it’s illegal to touch the emissions equipment on a street vehicle, even if you plan to turn it into a pure race car. However, to SEMA’s point, that rule has never been enforced. In my research so far, I can’t even find an enforcement mechanism in the rules, just an associated fine. Clearly, little use has been made of this rule given that everything from Spec Miata to the 24 Hours of LeMons exists and are predicated on converting a street vehicle to race-only use (sans emissions equipment).

Here’s where things get murky. Because the various rules pertaining to modified vehicles are spread throughout a massive body of regulations (tens of thousands of pages) and are somewhat contradictory, it’s difficult to determine what the rule actually is. More than that, it’s unclear why the EPA has suddenly decided to revisit this particular rule or why the agency thinks it now needs clarification. The fact these updates were buried in a massive and seemingly unrelated proposal to increase regulations on medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles makes it all the more confusing.

This is where SEMA comes in. SEMA monitors automotive-related regulation carefully for just this reason: to catch proposals it does or (more often) doesn’t agree with. It’s easy to cast SEMA in the role of altruistic watchdog here, alerting us all to a sneaky regulatory change intended to take our race cars away, but to do so gives SEMA too much credit.

It’s instructive at this point to recall whom SEMA represents. The Specialty Equipment Market Association is not a voice for the grassroots racer. Rather, it’s a voice for the companies of the automotive aftermarket. Just read SEMA’s own “About SEMA” boilerplate:

“SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association founded in 1963, represents the $36 billion specialty automotive industry of 6,633 member-companies. It is the authoritative source for research, data, trends and market growth information for the specialty auto parts industry. The industry provides appearance, performance, comfort, convenience and technology products for passenger and recreational vehicles.”

SEMA exists to represent and fight for the companies that build aftermarket parts for your car, through public outreach, lobbying, and the like. This is why SEMA is making a stink about the EPA’s wording changes. Those changes stand to hurt the companies SEMA represents. If SEMA’s interpretation of this rule change is correct and the EPA intends to suddenly begin cracking down on race cars, SEMA’s members stand to lose a lot of money, if not their entire businesses.

That, of course, is a massive “if.” SEMA has interpreted these clarifications as the first step in a secret plan to shut down parts makers whose products alter or eliminate emissions controls (and, you know, punish their customers and kill grassroots racing). Is that what these clarifications actually say? A critical reading says no, it is not. The actual changes simply clarify that the competition exemption that exists for vehicles like dirt bikes and snowmobiles does not apply to road cars used in competition. That’s what the rules already say, in fewer words, and the proposed changes don’t go any further than that. No new rules, no new penalties, not even a new way to enforce the rules.

A closer examination of the SEMA press release should be a clue as to the organization’s true motivation. It contains no citations of the actual proposal, not even a quick copy/paste of the relevant passages. Likewise, it spends virtually no time explaining the proposal and dedicates the majority of its words to attacking the EPA and grandstanding.

As car and racing enthusiasts, we should care about this controversy because it indirectly affects us. If the EPA’s intent is to eventually crack down on race car emissions, it will have a major effect on the motorsports we enjoy and participate in as well as the companies we buy performance parts from. The evidence, however, doesn’t yet support that conclusion, and SEMA has done us all a serious disservice by crying wolf. SEMA’s kneejerk reaction hurts its credibility and exposes it (again) as the lobbying firm it is as much as it actually informs us all of important regulatory activity. The government is not coming for your race car, and it’s disingenuous and manipulative for SEMA to suggest so. What’s worse, it’s created a false controversy that will cloud the important discussion to be had about the actual regulation.

SEMA’s primary concern is its members’ pocketbooks and its own, not you and your race car. There’s nothing wrong with that, but don’t be fooled into thinking SEMA is doing this for you. You, the enthusiast, are being used to browbeat the EPA into altering regulation for the benefit of SEMA’s members primarily, and your own indirectly. Yes, you might benefit if SEMA wins this fight, but SEMA isn’t fighting it for you.

The post SEMA vs. EPA: What’s Really Going On appeared first on Motor Trend.

from Motor Trend http://ift.tt/1Q7XFJX