1 2 3 ... 11
SyntheticBlinkerFluid
SyntheticBlinkerFluid UltimaDork
2/8/16 9:19 p.m.

David Frieburger just posted this on Facebook:

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 8, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a non-related proposed regulation entitled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2."

The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted strictly for use at the track. While the Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to motor vehicles, it is clear that vehicles built or modified for racing, and not used on the streets, are not the "motor vehicles" that Congress intended to regulate. "This proposed regulation represents overreaching by the agency, runs contrary to the law and defies decades of racing activity where EPA has acknowledged and allowed conversion of vehicles," said SEMA President and CEO Chris Kersting. "Congress did not intend the original Clean Air Act to extend to vehicles modified for racing and has re-enforced that intent on more than one occasion." SEMA submitted comments in opposition to the regulation and met with the EPA to confirm the agency's intentions. The EPA indicated that the regulation would prohibit conversion of vehicles into racecars and make the sale of certain emissions-related parts for use on converted vehicles illegal. Working with other affected organizations, including those representing legions of professional and hobbyist racers and fans, SEMA will continue to oppose the regulation through the administrative process and will seek congressional support and judicial intervention as necessary. The EPA has indicated it expects to publish final regulations by July 2016."

N Sperlo
N Sperlo MegaDork
2/8/16 9:20 p.m.

Government overreach is nothing new...

MCarp22
MCarp22 Dork
2/8/16 9:21 p.m.

Why can't they tell us what the regulation actually says so I can decide if the headline is true or not before I get upset?

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
2/8/16 9:23 p.m.

I've heard of some EPA types being all hot and bothered about this. Not in writing, but in conversations with some big name tuners.

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
2/8/16 9:24 p.m.
MCarp22 wrote: Why can't they tell us what the regulation actually says so I can decide if the headline is true or not before I get upset?

Google "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2" and you'll find some links on the EPA site.

pointofdeparture
pointofdeparture GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
2/8/16 9:50 p.m.

SEMA just posted a press release about this as well. It's the real deal, folks.

https://www.sema.org/news/2016/02/08/epa-seeks-to-prohibit-conversion-of-vehicles-into-racecars

93EXCivic
93EXCivic MegaDork
2/8/16 9:58 p.m.

How the hell do you prohibit that?

I mean in Alabama I can slap a plate on about anything so what makes it a race car.

Travis_K
Travis_K UberDork
2/8/16 9:59 p.m.

I would guess that the intention (or at least a big part of it) is to end the sales of "for off road use only", etc performance parts. I can see a lot of people being quite unhappy about this.

NickD
NickD HalfDork
2/9/16 5:41 a.m.

Seriously, what percentage of cars do these even account for anyways? Are they that big an issue? And does it only cover cars that have to be emission tested? For example, my 1990 Miata doesn't have to be emission tested in NY, so if I toss the catalytic converter would I run afoul of EPA law?

captdownshift
captdownshift GRM+ Memberand UltraDork
2/9/16 6:05 a.m.

The EPA doesn't regulate roll cages and suspension modifications.

foxtrapper
foxtrapper UltimaDork
2/9/16 6:22 a.m.

SEMA lies, quite regularly. Keep that in mind. Been through that with them regarding our own state regulations and their lies regarding them.

Bear in mind too that they provided no link to this supposedly proposed regulation, and in doing a cursory search for it, I can't find it in the Federal Register or on EPAs web page.

Not saying it's not real, but I certainly can't find any proof of it at the moment.

Flight Service
Flight Service MegaDork
2/9/16 6:22 a.m.

"§ 85.525 Applicable standards. To qualify for an exemption from the tampering prohibition, vehicles/engines that have been converted to operate on a different fuel must meet emission standards and related requirements as described in this section. follows:(a) The modified vehicle/engine must meet the requirements that applied for the OEM vehicle/engine, or the most stringent OEM vehicle/engine standards in any allowable grouping. Fleet average standards do not apply unless clean alternative fuel conversions are specifically listed as subject to the standards."

This kills the homemade diesel to waste veggie oil conversion and methanol converted race engines with being able to pass a sniffer.

"Subpart R—Exclusion and Exemption of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines 11. Section 85.1701 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 85.1701 General applicability. (a) * * * (1) Beginning January 1, 2014, the exemption provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, apply instead of the provisions of this subpart for heavy-duty motor vehicles and engines regulated under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, except that the competition exemption of 40 CFR 1068.235 and the hardship exemption provisions of 40 CFR 1068.245, 1068.250, and 1068.255 do not apply for motor vehicle engines.


  1. Section 85.1703 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 85.1703 Definition of motor vehicle.

(b) Note that, in applying the criterion in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, vehicles that are clearly intended for operation on highways are motor vehicles. Absence of a particular safety feature is relevant only when absence of that feature would prevent operation on highways."

EPA doesn't give a damn about you converting a car to a race car. They just say that it still has to meet emissions if it started life as a street car.

If you remove headlights and go to non-dot slicks that would bypass this rule completely.

Carro Atrezzi
Carro Atrezzi GRM+ Memberand HalfDork
2/9/16 6:25 a.m.

In reply to NickD:

I'm in no way siding with the EPA here, but if you toss the cat on your '90 Miata you're already running afoul of them. They don't currently have any way to prevent you from doing it. That's NY's job.

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
2/9/16 6:37 a.m.
Keith Tanner wrote:
MCarp22 wrote: Why can't they tell us what the regulation actually says so I can decide if the headline is true or not before I get upset?
Google "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2" and you'll find some links on the EPA site.

But when I go to the epa website that specifically describes this proposal there isn't any reference to race cars.

All I read on their page is reference to trucks and bigger.

edizzle89
edizzle89 HalfDork
2/9/16 7:11 a.m.
Travis_K wrote: I would guess that the intention (or at least a big part of it) is to end the sales of "for off road use only", etc performance parts. I can see a lot of people being quite unhappy about this.

guess they will just have to make them "for show use only" now, everyone likes a good 'show car'

Appleseed
Appleseed MegaDork
2/9/16 7:26 a.m.

Wonder if coal rolling bro-dozers have anything to do with this.

Flight Service
Flight Service MegaDork
2/9/16 7:32 a.m.
Appleseed wrote: Wonder if coal rolling bro-dozers have anything to do with this.

I would bet that is a root cause problem.

As much as I agree with what they are trying to do (I like breathing without a respirator, weird I know) I don't see how they can enforce anything with POVs if they don't have inspections in their state.

Tom_Spangler
Tom_Spangler GRM+ Memberand UltraDork
2/9/16 8:00 a.m.
Appleseed wrote: Wonder if coal rolling bro-dozers have anything to do with this.

Reason #1 that I've always hated those idiots. They give the whole car-modding community a bad name.

steronz
steronz Reader
2/9/16 8:04 a.m.

Thanks for providing the actual regulation, Flight Service. Seems like SEMA is guilty of causing undo alarm, at best.

foxtrapper
foxtrapper UltimaDork
2/9/16 8:08 a.m.

Found it, and SEMA is indeed lying.

This is the federal register notice: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-13/pdf/2015-15500.pdf

Page 40527 "As noted above, the exemption provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, already apply for heavy-duty highway engines. EPA is proposing to add a clarification that the exemption from the tampering prohibition for competition purposes does not apply to heavy-duty highway vehicles. This aligns with the statutory provisions for the racing exemption."

So it's a proposed ban setting up heavy-duty highway vehicles for racing, while clarifying that other vehicles can indeed be modified for racing.

SEMA, always lying for drama and ratings.

Flight Service
Flight Service MegaDork
2/9/16 8:19 a.m.

On a side note, it was interesting to see how everyone's bias showed up right off the bat without looking at the regs. Which was just a title google search.

iceracer
iceracer PowerDork
2/9/16 8:19 a.m.

In reply to NickD: The converter has to be there. Visual inspection.

kb58
kb58 Dork
2/9/16 8:22 a.m.

I think it's time we take a stand. We'll form a group and take over a smog-testing station for as long as it takes until the government meets our demands. We'll all wear Stig outfits to convey how serious and bad-ass we are - who wants to be in charge of food?

NickD
NickD HalfDork
2/9/16 8:25 a.m.
iceracer wrote: In reply to NickD: The converter has to be there. Visual inspection.

Oh, yeah, whoops. Think I'd remember that, being a state-licensed inspector and all

szeis4cookie
szeis4cookie HalfDork
2/9/16 8:39 a.m.

There's a very conveniently located section called "Does this apply to me" on the second page of the proposed rule document, and it says this:
"This proposed action would affect companies that manufacture, sell, or import into the United States new heavy-duty engines and new Class 2b through 8 trucks, including combination tractors, all types of buses, vocational vehicles including municipal, commercial, recreational vehicles, and commercial trailers as well as 3⁄4-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks and vans. The heavy-duty category incorporates all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 lbs or greater, and the engines that power them, except for medium-duty passenger vehicles already covered by the greenhouse gas standards and corporate average fuel economy standards issued for light-duty model year 2017–2025 vehicles."

So, unless you're racing semi's, this rule doesn't apply.

1 2 3 ... 11

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
0fo17FmUG0CfVAyZxVofJPWYWIl1EGL24yqjrNVIc4cwmcmnnorZnOxeckqiYOSU