EPA drops controversial race car mention from anti-pollution proposal | News & Observer

Federal Environmental Protection Agency officials say they are not coming after amateur race car drivers for modified engines, pulling back on a proposal that prompted outcry from North Carolina lawmakers and racing fans.

The Clean Air Act appears to give EPA officials authority over vehicles with modified parts that were intended for regular driving, not competition, and recently the agency angered many with a draft proposal that critics said would sweep amateur race cars in with an emissions rule on after-market exhaust parts, often called “defeat devices.”

The EPA’s action had drawn criticism from fans, auto parts makers and elected officials from North Carolina – a state steeped in NASCAR and small-track racing history and economic activity. The agency has maintained it doesn’t want to punish amateur drivers and that the motivation behind its controversial proposal in recent months was to make sure car part manufacturers are following federal laws related to emissions and air pollution.

EPA officials announced late Friday that the agency won’t include language about race cars in the final draft of the proposal, which primarily deals with a new initiative related to fuel efficiency and federal standards for consumer cars.

The EPA’s change of heart, though, doesn’t settle the issue for U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, a Republican from Concord, North Carolina. Hudson was one of four North Carolina lawmakers last month to introduce bills aimed at keeping regulators away from competitive race cars.

Hudson and Republican U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry of Denver, North Carolina, signed on to legislation to stop the EPA’s proposal. North Carolina’s Republican U.S. Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis introduced a companion bill later.

Lawmakers opposed to the EPA having authority over recreational race cars call the agency’s retreat this month a win. But the larger issue of clarifying the agency’s existing powers apparently remains.

Race cars no longer are included in the EPA’s broader policy document, but the agency seems to think it has regulatory power over competition cars, said Tatum Gibson, communications director for Hudson’s Washington office.

Hudson’s bill – called the RPM act, which stands for “Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports” – is “still needed to give long-term certainty to the industry,” Gibson told McClatchy on Tuesday. Hudson intends to move forward with the bill, Gibson said, to make sure future EPA regulations don’t affect competition drivers.

Drivers who modify vehicles’ emissions control systems purely for using the cars in competition have never faced penalties, agency officials have said.

Still, in a statement published Friday, EPA officials acknowledged confusion over the issue and said they wouldn’t include the controversial language in the final proposal.

“The proposed language ... 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 statement said.

Oversight of federal laws intended to protect air and water is one of the EPA’s central responsibilities. The federal Clean Air Act is designed to reduce the amount of toxins, smog and other pollutants in the air. Cars and other types of transportation are considered to be leading contributors to global warming, according to the EPA.