EPA wants to outlaw your future racecar conversion, Time sensitive SEMA Press release Options

[okieflyr]

FYI: The EPA wants to eliminate your future street race car conversion option.

This is not new news to some, but the white house petition is time sensitive.


SEMA Press release:
https://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2016/06/epa...s-into-racecars


Whitehouse .gov petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/...cles-racecars-0

[ChrisFoley]

Much ado about nothing. Read the fine print.

[Dave_Darling]

Much ado about nothing. Read the fine print.

I have read some of it, and I disagree with you. They are "clarifying" an existing rule in a way that contradicts the previous interpretations of it. So they can say, "Well you were breaking the law all along, we just never enforced it before." Much the same way that my home state does not require smog tests for 1975 and earlier cars, but they are all supposed to still meet all of the old requirements. So they can later say, "OK, we are testing again--and since the requirements didn't change, nobody is grandfathered out."

It looks like they are going to use this primarily to keep anyone from modifying any street cars, by going after anyone who makes non-certified parts for cars. So no more of getting "for off-road use only" parts though the mail--or if you do get them, they'll cost a whole lot more!

You might want to worry a bit more, Chris. That's your livelihood they appear to be after.

--DD

[horizontally-opposed]

They are "clarifying" an existing rule in a way that contradicts the previous interpretations of it. So they can say, "Well you were breaking the law all along, we just never enforced it before." Much the same way that my home state does not require smog tests for 1975 and earlier cars, but they are all supposed to still meet all of the old requirements. So they can later say, "OK, we are testing again--and since the requirements didn't change, nobody is grandfathered out."

It looks like they are going to use this primarily to keep anyone from modifying any street cars, by going after anyone who makes non-certified parts for cars.

--DD

I tend to agree. SEMA's press release may or may not have been worded well, but this feels like getting ducks in a row to me, and is slipped into a bill that has nothing to do with light-duty trucks or cars—which always raises a red flag. Better to push back now and send a clear signal than to have no choice but to yield later.

To be honest, I am not against smog controls on track cars or even race cars in theory, but the EPA has far, far better things to focus on than that. Whether modified diesel pickups, escalators and hotel hall lights that run all the time, or... And Dave may be exactly right about going after the supplier side. Look at the fines: $3750 vs $37,500. The EPA representative R&T spoke to suggested that they're not all that interested in track cars, given their enforcement history, but her successor or bosses' successors can change all that if the laws are in the books. And they already are. So why the clarification, then?

[DBCooper]

And Dave may be exactly right about going after the supplier side. Look at the fines: $3750 vs $37,500. The EPA representative R&T spoke to suggested that they're not all that interested in track cars, given their enforcement history, but her successor or bosses' successors can change all that if the laws are in the books. And they already are. So why the clarification, then?

Pure speculation. There's no fine for selling parts, never has been and none proposed here, only for using them in ways that are prohibited. There's a LOT of misinformation and speculation swirling everywhere. Look for the analysis of disinterested parties, you're more likely to get a realistic evaluation, not those with stakes in the game.

[horizontally-opposed]

And Dave may be exactly right about going after the supplier side. Look at the fines: $3750 vs $37,500. The EPA representative R&T spoke to suggested that they're not all that interested in track cars, given their enforcement history, but her successor or bosses' successors can change all that if the laws are in the books. And they already are. So why the clarification, then?

Pure speculation. There's no fine for selling parts, never has been and none proposed here, only for using them in ways that are prohibited. There's a LOT of misinformation and speculation swirling everywhere. Look for the analysis of disinterested parties, you're more likely to get a realistic evaluation, not those with stakes in the game.

Not pure speculation. We do, however, agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there. To that end, I found the following two items interesting, and for different reasons.

Road and Track was less sensationalist than the majority, and Laura Allen's remarks are particularly interesting, as are the comments.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/ne...actually-means/

And an alternate take, thanks to Jay Lamm hiring a lawyer on his own dime:
http://www.24hoursoflemons.com/images/EPA-...tm_medium=email

Of interest in the above:

The EPA’s approach reaches its zenith in two different sections of the proposed rule. 40 CFR 86.1854-12(b)(5)14 states that
Certified motor vehicles15 and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad vehicles or engines...

The proposed rule is more draconian in 40 CFR 1068.10116, “What general actions does this regulation prohibit?” The answer is “don’t modify your engine, ever.”...

• Knowingly removing or rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in engines/equipment in compliance with the regulations after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser. Violation of same by a manufacturer or dealer comes with a civil penalty of $37,500 for each engine or piece of equipment in violation; violation by anyone else may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $3,750 per engine or piece of equipment;17
• Knowingly manufacturing, selling, offering to sell, or installing any component that bypasses, impairs, defeats, or disables the control of emissions of any regulated pollutant. Violation of same may draw a civil penalty of up to $3,750 for each component in violation;18
• Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines must remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of 1068.101(b): a civil penalty of $37,500 may be subjected for each engine or piece of equipment in violation by a manufacturer or dealer; violation by anyone else may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $3,750 per engine or piece of equipment;19
• Importation of uncertified engines or equipment is prohibited if it is defined to be “new.” The definition of “new” is broad for imported engines and equipment; uncertified equipment, including used engines and equipment, will generally be considered to be “new;” violators are subject to the manufacturer/dealer penalty of $37,500 for each piece of equipment in violation.20

Perhaps most troubling is the provision in 40 CFR 1068.101(a) that states that it is prohibited to sell, offer for sale, import, or introduce or deliver into commerce in the US any new engine or equipment after emissions standards take effect for the engine or equipment unless it is covered by a valid certificate of conformity for the model year and has the required label or tag...

Sounds to me like this may allow the EPA to trump CARB's current acceptance of later engines in earlier cars so long as all emissions equipment is present and functions as intended—but also that that's a small matter compared to the fines and enforcement structure. Or does the lawyer have it wrong? I'm not so sure...