Can we legally challenge the new MA DEP regulations?

[Scott L]

The MA DEP has changed the emission requirements for kit cars. It appears that it will be nearly impossible for me to register my non donor build in MA - I have a running go cart that was legal on 9/30, but is now impossible to register (see this thread - http://www.ffcobra.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199223 )

I have a new crate motor that would have passed the old 2 stage idle test. It will never pass the visual inspection for a new 2007 motor. This will effect all kit cars from all manufacturers (yes, even the “real ones”)

As a result of these changes a number of in process builds are stalled. People bought components that were legal only to have the rules changed after the fact. More significantly, MA has made it impossible to resell currently registered crate motor cars in MA. While any car that had a first emissions test before 10/1/08 is now “safety only” from an inspection point of view, these cars will need to meet the new regulations if they are ever reregistered. In other words, the new owner will need to replace the engine before a new registration will be granted. This just doesn’t seem right to me – The state has destroyed the retail value of these cars.

In my original post on ffcobra ( http://www.ffcobra.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199250 ), Mr. Barry commented:
“Federal law was in effect, but the State of MA did not have the regulation...Therefore, the State law was made "after the fact" , that you have already complied with the State law, previously in effect, and don't have to comply with the new law....Here's where a group should get together in Mass. , and hire a really good Constitutional lawyer, and sue the State.”

I tend to agree with him.

When CT changed their requirements last year, they did it based on the purchase date of the engine. This certainly seems a lot fairer to existing owners, and it avoids the whole problem we now have here in MA.

Would any of the lawyers on the forum be willing to comment on this? Does anyone have any advice on who might be willing to take this on? I would appreciate any insight you might have on whether “ex post facto” applies. Thanks - Scott