CORRECTIVE LENSES REQUIRED

Wearing glasses with a helmet can be a lot more

difficult than it appears.

Sometimes it’s hard to accept that ailments of age are creeping up on you. After noticing that I was forced to squint my eyes six different ways to read the standard eyesight chart when I

was renewing my driver’s license last year, I finally bit the bullet and went to see an optometrist to get my eyesight checked. And just as I expected, the optometrist said that I’ll need glasses to correct

my distance vision, even though my eyesight with nearby objects is fine. I used to wear glasses from age five, so I’m no stranger to them. But then soft contact lenses made their debut, and I marveled at how much better they worked overall than the comparatively heavy and cumbersome glasses. That is, until I tried to ride with contact lenses on the racetrack. There I was, barreling down the front straight at Willow Springs’ big track at 150 mph, when the lens in my right eye decided it wanted to hit the eject button—right when I was getting ready to hit the brakes for turn one. Thankfully surviving that harrowing incident swiftly made me realize I’d need to wear glasses  when racing. Wearing glasses inside a helmet turned out to not be as bad as I thought it would be, though it was somewhat disconcerting to deal with your whole world seemingly bouncing around along with your glasses as your helmet was getting knocked about by wind buffeting or harsh bumps. I got used to it though, and the ritual of switching between contact lenses and glasses became second nature. Then my optometrist at the time told me about a then-new corrective eye procedure called LASIK

surgery. He said I was a perfect candidate, and even though I would have to pay for the procedure out of my own pocket due to insurance not covering it, I went all in and had it done on both eyes. The procedure was surprisingly quick and painless, and my eyesight was nearly perfect afterward. The freedom of not having to wear any corrective lenses when riding (not to mention waking up in the morning and not having to search for my glasses) was incredible, and I have to admit that nearly 20 years of that freedom made me take it

for granted at times. But now that I’m returning to the world of four eyes, I’m finding that wearing glasses in a helmet isn’t as simple as it seemed to be back then. Unlike my racing years when I only had to wear one helmet, now I’m switching between numerous helmet brands and models every year during the course of my motojournalism duties. So finding a frame that won’t get hung up or bind when wearing a number of different lids is requiring a lot of research on my part. I asked my friend Don Canet at our sister publication Cycle World about his choice of glasses, since he’s worn them from day one of his racing career. It was funny to hear some of his complaints with wearing glasses while racing, as they brought back a lot of memories of the same issues I used to have all the time. Fogging, sweat running down a lens, bouncing vision… Misery loves company, I guess. But his advice of picking a frame that won’t obscure your vision while in a racing tuck was something that I had seriously considered, as it was something that forced me to look high and low back when the selection of frames wasn’t so bewilderingly vast. Walking into the local eyeglass store in my neighborhood recently was like wandering through a huge supermarket of frames, with many famous brand names that were more recognizable in fashion boutiques or sporting goods stores. No drama, as I’m confident I’ll be able to find a pair that will work. Still, getting old sucks.

EPA OVERREACH

In February, SEMA (Specialty Equipment Market Association, which represents the specialty automotive parts industry) issued a press release titled “EPA Seeks to Prohibit Conversion of Vehicles into Racecars.” The release detailed a proposed EPA regulation that would make it illegal to modify an on-road car or motorcycle specifi cally for competition, as well as “make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal.” In effect, the regulation would make any kind of production-based racing illegal and shut down much of the motorcycle and automotive aftermarket that services that industry. I went through the proposed regulation and the referenced laws, and it seems to me the EPA is being very underhanded in trying to slip this new regulation in without people noticing. The proposal is buried in a 600-page document titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Effi ciency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2; Proposed Rule.” In a paragraph of “Miscellaneous EPA Amendments,” the proposal reads: “EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(3) to clarify that the Clean Air Act does not allow any person to disable, remove, or render inoperative (i.e., tamper with) emission controls on a certifi ed motor vehicle for purposes of competition.” Further references in the regulation reveal that it is prohibited to manufacture or sell any parts or components that make a vehicle noncompliant to the EPA’s standards. The revision of 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations for Protection of Environment) is glossed over in a paragraph with a fi rst sentence referencing heavy-duty vehicles and engines and states that certifi ed motor vehicles (a road-going car or motorcycle that meets EPA standards) must remain in their certifi ed confi guration even if used solely for competition. In effect, you could only race a production motorcycle if there were no modifications to anything EPA-related, and roadracing in the US would be drastically affected. SEMA and other automotive people are pointing to amendments made to the Clean Air Act that show this new regulation is in direct conflict with existing law, and for motorcycles an EPA Frequently Asked Questions document issued in 2002 called “Emission Exemption for Racing Motorcycles and Other Competition Vehicles” states: “If you use an EPA-certifi ed vehicle for competition only, it does not need to meet emission standards. This would allow you to modify it however you want, but only if you use it solely for competition and not for any recreational purpose.” Evidently, however, this only refers to non-road vehicles such as dual-purpose motorcycles— even though that is only mentioned once at the beginning of the document. The EPA’s new regulation is set to be made fi nal in July, but in early March, fi ve US Representatives introduced legislation that may intervene and require a clear exemption for competition vehicles, called the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2016 (H.R. 4715, RPM Act). A companion bill was introduced into the senate two days later, with a US House Science, Space, and Technology Oversight Subcommittee Hearing held on March 15. Fittingly, the hearing was called “Racing to Regulate: EPA’s Latest Overreach on Amateur Drivers.” According to testimony at the hearing by Brent D. Yacobucci, section research manager for the Congressional Research Service, much of the trouble here is in terminology and if a racing car or motorcycle is still considered a “motor vehicle” subject to the Clean Air Act. “CRS was unable to fi nd a document from EPA from before 2015 that explicitly stated that conversions of motor vehicles for racing were not eligible for an exemption. However, nor could CRS identify provisions in federal statute or regulations which would explicitly allow for a certifi ed motor vehicle to be classifi ed as something else for purposes of the anti-tampering provisions.” Yacobucci goes on to state that, historically, the EPA has not targeted individuals for enforcement and that, “In all enforcement actions CRS could identify, automakers (original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs), parts suppliers, and repair shops have been the subject of enforcement.” He also pointed out that EPA spokesperson Laura Allen told Road & Track that “The EPA remains primarily concerned with cases where the tampered vehicle is used on public

roads, and more specifi cally with aftermarket manufacturers who sell devices that defeat emission control systems on vehicles used on public roads.” It’s clear the EPA wants to crack down on companies that sell parts “for off-road-use only” to people who end up using them on street vehicles every day on public roads. But the secretive nature of the clarifi cation (whether or not it is an actual change to the existing law) and the actual wording of the documents indicate the EPA would gladly shut down an entire industry to do that. Yes, it would be good for the environment, but

it’s far too draconian a measure for the benefi ts that would be realized. Hopefully the RPM Act will make it through the legislative process and the EPA will be forced to act a bit more

responsibly. SR