Washington, DC (February 8, 2016) – 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.

CEO note: If you're not already a member of SEMA SAN, get over to SEMA.org and get involved. The political process only works for us if we engage.

Yup that's the best use of their time. The big polluters. Evil, racecar enthusiasts.

EPA, rather than listen to these evil car drivers try to convince you of the idiocy of this, allow a "scientist" to weigh in. I offer you a three point count proposal.

1. Ban all importation of Chinese manufactured goods. You want to know where all the polution is coming from, take a look %$#@tards.



Want a view from space?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... point.html

2. Shut the &%$# up. Your constant plume of hot gas when you spout off like this contributes to greenhouse gasses.

3. Go &%$# yourselves. I don't think it will significantly improve air quality, but you really need to do it. It's the right thing.

I'll let you go, this river would like to talk to you jackasses.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /31320641/

Oh, and %$#@ you.

Please, everyone get on the band wagon to stop this senseless s***. Spread the word, post this $hit everywhere.

https://www.sema.org/news/2016/02/08/ep ... o-racecars

Here is a petition on change.org : You do not have to pay to sign, just hit the skip step.

https://www.change.org/p/u-s-house-of-r ... _signature

EVERYONE PLEASE SIGN this petition and let everyone know!

The EPA is GROSSLY overstepping its bounds, proposing to ban the conversion of street vehicles into race cars AND THE SALE OF PARTS FOR THAT PURPOSE!

They're trying to kill automotive culture in America!

Sign petition, get pissed, TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

https://www.change.org/p/president-of-t ... m=copylink

This is asinine on multiple levels.

Firstly: This is not the EPA's purview, nor their responsibility.

Secondly: This is another case of attacking a minor "offender" in the case of climate issues, rather than a significant contributor. The statistically significant emissions sources are all still unregulated, but the EPA chooses to go after the ones that can't fight back as effectively instead--everyday private citizens. f***. THAT. Last I checked, those clowns work for US. I'm sick of getting the short end of their stick just because I don't have a lawyer on retainer.

Thirdly: Anyone with two synapses to fire together has to realize that motorsports are one of the most key areas of technological advancement for automobiles specifically and large industry in general. Manufacturing techniques, materials science, engineering, alternative fuels, a lot of the tech that allows cars to achieve what they can today originated from motorsports. Carbon fiber? Wouldn't be practical or affordable without motorsports. High-volume Aluminum and Magnesium production? Same thing. Advanced metalforming techniques? Again.
Formula One has restrictions on fuel consumption, power unit longevity, all sorts of things.
Audi advanced their diesel tech significantly thanks to Le Mans efforts.
IMSA mixed-class racing combines thirsty V10s with tiny boosted I4s on the same track, using different fuels. Lessons learned from those cars can be applied to consumer automobiles.

This is stupid. Not only will the environmental impacts of this law likely be negligible at best, but the cascading impacts across multiple industries due to the loss of this technical proving ground will be monumental.

Anyone favoring this law is an enormous fool. It is wrong in every sense of the word.

Petition is close to 12k signatures in under 12 hrs...good, but not good enough... need to get people involved.

Guys, please read the attached R&T article to understand what's ACTUALLY being proposed. The EPA is not trying to prohibit road cars from becoming rcecars or kill motorsports altogether. Just like political memes, things tend to get distorted.


http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports ... lly-means/

It's clearly a dumb proposal and should not become law. So kudos to SEMA for uncovering it, but the government is not going to reposess your LeMons car. it's not as dire as what is being portrayed.

I see the distinction there, but as often happens in legislature, the wording is too vague. This could EASILY be one of those things that gets changed into something else later. If that's their intention with the rules, they simply need to re-word it to make that more clear. To me, this falls in line with the MANY rules that were like the 2nd Amendment. At the time it was written to ensure that the people had the right to bear arm against a over-reaching government. Unfortunately, that wasn't specifically stated, so over time, it's interpreted meaning has changed. Vague legislation is dangerous in that way, and I think this falls into that category.

One of the car news outlets spoke to a person from the EPA that stated that they were just trying to clarify a law that everyone was miss-using. Being me, I decided to actually go and dig out the text from the 2007 edition of the CFR which their new statement directly conflicts with. It's pretty clear in the earlier version that they are willing to waive the need for emissions conformity for competition vehicles prior to that.

They wouldn't go through the trouble of "clarifying" the law if they didn't have a goal in mind. Since they also decided that they have regulatory power over puddles, this isn't a stretch at all.

Pardon the extraneous passages, but I thought it was important to grab it all so there would be no question as to the context of the original intent of the law

Direct excerpts from the 2007 edition of the CFR

1068.235 What are the provisions for
exempting engines used solely for
competition?
(a) New engines you produce that are
used solely for competition are generally
excluded from emission standards.
See the standard-setting parts for
specific provisions where applicable.
(b) If you modify an engine after it
has been placed into service in the
United States so it will be used solely
for competition, it is exempt without
request. This exemption applies only to
the prohibition in § 1068.101(b)(1) and is
valid only as long as the engine is used
solely for competition.
(c) If you modify an engine under
paragraph (b) of this section, you must
destroy the original emission label. If
you loan, lease, sell, or give one of
these engines to someone else, you
must tell the new owner (or operator, if
applicable) in writing that it may be
used only for competition.

1068.101(b)(1) ........................................... Tampering with emission controls by a
manufacturer or dealer.
42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)
Tampering with emission controls by
someone other than a manufacturer or

(b) The following prohibitions apply
to everyone with respect to the engines
to which this part applies:
(1) Tampering. You may not remove
or disable a device or element of design
that may affect an engine’s emission
levels. This restriction applies before
and after the engine is placed in service.
Section 1068.120 describes how this
applies to rebuilding engines. For a
manufacturer or dealer, we may assess
a civil penalty up to $32,500 for each engine
in violation. For anyone else, we
may assess a civil penalty up to $2,750
for each engine in violation.

Abolish these governmental agencies that have no accountability to anyone. Period.

I know the Animas River and have recreated in that area where they tried to "Clean up" that mine many times. What they did there was abominable, yet there was no accountability.

Ever see a jet take off? I work in Phoenix just west of the run ways and there's time I go outside, especially on cold days, and I can't breathe from the jet exhaust. Yet indirectly the EPAs restrictions ultimately led me to sell my 240Z back in the day - a decision I still regret.

So another interesting thing that I've found is that the section that I've referenced here has two different versions. One at gpo.gov and one at ecfr.gov. The one at ecfr does mention nonroad in the competition exemption text where as the GPO office does not. I haven't been able to find revision dates for either, but this is interesting.

Anyone else want to take a shot at figuring out why they are different?

AZhitman wrote:The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted strictly for use at the track.

No.

Is bubba the only one here doing anything other then reading headlines and running around waving arms and signing internet petitions?

The EPA remains primarily concerned with cases where the tampered vehicle is used on public roads, and more specifically with aftermarket manufacturers who sell devices that defeat emission control systems on vehicles used on public roads.

So unless your "racecar" is built for public roads... this doesn't really seem about you.
So far its looks to be a law that you can't remove federal emissions controls from your street car.

Keep an eye on it, but save the sensationalism for

Krazykouki wrote:Please, everyone get on the band wagon

I know this being the internet its a crazy proposition... But instead of urging everyone to "get on the bandwagon", we encourage people to read the proposed changes and make rational decisions?

Uh, before you start bashing my reading, know this:

My DD (and yours) likely see track use. Mine is modified (i.e. "the tampered vehicle is used on public roads") and I do business with "manufacturers who sell devices that defeat emission control systems on vehicles used on public roads."

This includes, in the broadest sense of the reading, damn near every aftermarket part you can buy, save some dress-up goodies.

I didn't make up that post, Slick. That came directly from the SEMA press release.

However, since you want to nitpick, I did read the entire text, and this much remains true: The verbiage that the EPA added to its regulations literally makes it illegal to make ANY changes to the emission control devices of ANY vehicle that was originally sold as complying with emissions standards for street use, EVEN if the vehicle is being converted for racing and will NEVER again be used on public roads.

F*** THAT.

OH - and if the EPA says they don’t plan on enforcing, then why the F*** are they adding that language to the regulations? Sorry, bub. Those nitwits work for me, not the other way around, and if someone's wasting time adding language to a law that they have no intent to enforce, then that person / position / department / agency is unnecessary. GTFO.

You can swing on the sack of those who love the thought of more unnecessary regulation. I'll be over here waving my arms and defending the right of a guy to take a junkyard S13, pull off the cats, install a standalone and bigger injectors, turn up the boost, and trailer it to the track every weekend.

I already think it's unjustifiable s*** that I am not allowed to modify my vehicle's emissions controls. I don't agree with them. I don't support the laws mandating them. I don't want to pay to keep them operating nor pay more for a car because it's required to include them from the factory.

This is just another step along that line: holding CONSUMERS responsible for the laws specifying how a product is MANUFACTURED. It's unacceptable. If you want to require me to include emissions controls to pass inspection for use on public roads, that's one thing (though I still strongly disagree with that as well). But stating that I'm not allowed to mess with MY OWN POSSESSION because there's a law requiring certain equipment JUST BE THERE regardless of usage is unacceptable. Utterly, completely intolerable. It's full-on Orwellian and I've never supported it, never agreed with it. I will passionately argue against it at every opportunity.

I firmly believe that the EPA's existing regulation of consumer automobiles is already overreaching, broken, ill-implemented, and wrong. I am in favor of ANY measure to more thoroughly examine and, where sensible, limit that regulation. If getting a little more up-in-arms about this than is may seem strictly sensible on the surface helps to draw attention to those facts, it's worthwhile.

Well, you could avoid that by refusing to buy a new car.

http://cars.oodle.com/detail/1969-linco ... sequim-wa/

Greg, since none of your vehicles are 2018 models, I don't believe the proposed regs apply to your fleet. If that's the case and if you want to track Bex's Zoom-Zoom or even your Model A , I don't think you need to fear US government car carriers repossessing them in a raid at a race track. Thing is, even if it did apply to all cars, an important fact here is that there is zero budgeted for any kind of enforcement, which likely means the only way you're gonna get caught, if the reg passes, is if you live in a state that has annual emissions tests, and your car flunks the emissions test because of the modifications. And in some of those states, like PA, you're emissions exempt if you drive less than X miles per year in that car. (For example, I haven't had an emissions test on my track car since I bought it new) Yes, there are car owners that track their street cars, and yes, some of them disable emissions stuff to improve their performance. And some of those people live in states that require emissions tests. So if that specific group of car owners want to keep their track cars street legal in a state with emissions tests, assuming they're not exempt, until now, they have had to do something very shocking. Brace yourself. They re-hook up the emissions stuff to pass the test, then change it back to race spec after it passes. If you have lived in sniff test state like I have, this practice has been going on for years. That is why I don't think this reg is changing anything. I can certainly understand SEMA being so concerned about it as many of their members sell products that would end up flunking those emissions tests. I get it. But I also think SEMA is doing a old political trick by isolating excerpts to make it appear to be more dire for the general public than it is. I do agree the wording is poor, and for that reason I have signed the petition. But if the proposal somehow passes as written, I'm not sure I see it impacting the overwhelming majority of us track folks, especially for a regular joe like me who tracks a street legal car. I think we all need to calm down a bit. Am I wrong???

Not wrong at all.... and that's a great breakdown of the real gist of it.

I remain pretty certain of two things:

One, they'll keep inching towards "feel-good" restrictions that the general populace will support - "Damn those no-good racers and their polluting hot rods!" until they whittle away the opposition.

Two, they've expended how much time, effort, paper and bureaucracy to codify something that they themselves admit won't (or can't) be enforced? That's just lunacy, and a prime example of waste.

I don't believe the regulations are restricted to 2018 and later vehicles - "illegal to make ANY changes to the emission control devices of ANY vehicle that was originally sold as complying with emissions standards for street use, EVEN if the vehicle is being converted for racing and will NEVER again be used on public roads."

Regardless, unless people lose their s*** when these nitwits get froggy, they're gonna get more and more comfortable strolling up the driveway. I'd prefer they have a healthy fear of automotive enthusiasts as a whole, and go pick on some other demographic.

Greg just nailed my opinion as well. There is no need for any of it. It shouldn't be there and it's serving no purpose.

I don't want to be the fear monger, and I really hope that everyone that has gotten worked up over this is wrong. What has me concerned is that word that the EPA used "primarily" certainly doesn't mean that they will be ignoring anyone other than shops and manufacturers.

Bubba, you mention 2018. These "clarifications" would be effective for any car that had pollution controls installed on it. We COULD be plunged into the draconian enforcement that CA has to endure. The EPA certainly doesn't have a huge budget at the moment, but that hasn't stopped them from trying to seize GTRs and Land Rovers that have been imported. Who's to say that they don't go after some low hanging fruit and show up at a race track with a mobile emissions dyno and pat them selves on the back when they impound 70% of the cars there?

Again, I really hope that it is being blown out of proportion, but I don't see them going through the effort of this clarification unless they already have a plan on what they want to do.

the converted wrote:I don't want to be the fear monger, and I really hope that everyone that has gotten worked up over this is wrong. What has me concerned is that word that the EPA used "primarily" certainly doesn't mean that they will be ignoring anyone other than shops and manufacturers.

Bubba, you mention 2018. These "clarifications" would be effective for any car that had pollution controls installed on it. We COULD be plunged into the draconian enforcement that CA has to endure. The EPA certainly doesn't have a huge budget at the moment, but that hasn't stopped them from trying to seize GTRs and Land Rovers that have been imported. Who's to say that they don't go after some low hanging fruit and show up at a race track with a mobile emissions dyno and pat them selves on the back when they impound 70% of the cars there?

Again, I really hope that it is being blown out of proportion, but I don't see them going through the effort of this clarification unless they already have a plan on what they want to do.

I guess I'm more of a optimistic pragmatist. If I'm not mistaken, most of the "gray" market GT-R's were seized after owners registered them, so it's comparatively easy for Uncle Sam to trace what serial numbers did not go thru all the required legal clearances when it came to the country. That can be done by computer. But think about the street cars used on track. There is no notification to the government whatsoever, making it very difficult for them to figure out who actually does it, much less make mods, except for annual state inspections. Racers that do it represent a very small percent of the cars on the road. So with the lack of tracing ability combined with $0 (that's ZERO) budgeted for enforcement, I just don't see the government setting up an elaborate task force with portable emission inspection kits and car carriers to enforce/grab cars at race tracks. As far as "low hanging fruit", I'll also wager there will be plenty of fools that'll forget to undue their mods when state inspection time arrives, assuming they live in a state that even has inspections.

I'm hoping that's the case.... which, again, begs the question: Why?

We've already got insurance companies hiring PIs to go take pics at local track days and race events... I don't put anything past anyone - least of all, the s***heads in government.

AZhitman wrote:I'm hoping that's the case.... which, again, begs the question: Why?

We've already got insurance companies hiring PIs to go take pics at local track days and race events... I don't put anything past anyone - least of all, the s***heads in government.

I agree Its totally unnecessary, but there's a big difference between Insurance companies and the US govt. As profit entities, insurance companies do that kinda thing to protect their investments, especially for sporty models at locations near race tracks. Fortunately, very few insurance companies realize Carlisle has a little track (heh-heh). But it's in their financial interest to uncover that kinda misuse, and have it budgeted. But that's not the case for Uncle Sam, specifically the EPA, whose overall budget's been cut many times in recent years. They have no money to establish/implement such a large task force for such a small percentage of registered vehicles.

That's good. They need to take a lesson in opportunity cost, start with gross polluters, and work down from there.

Lives saved: 0
Spotted owls saved: 0


f*** the EPA.

AZhitman wrote:That's good. They need to take a lesson in opportunity cost, start with gross polluters, and work down from there.

It would also seem sensible, at least to my reasoning, to place accountability somewhere OTHER than with the end-purchaser; someone who has zero involvement with the bureaucratic processes involved in these decisions and makes no personal commitment to upholding them upon purchase. Making a law that says a populace can't do something is fine in theory. In practice, enforcement can prove challenging if said populace has no firsthand investment in upholding that law. Case in point: battery and electronics disposal regulations. How many of you actually take batteries to an approved battery disposal receptacle? So tell me, then: what good is that law doing?

Expecting vehicle owners to uphold standards agreed upon by parties entirely unconnected to them is broken. The process is broken. The foundation for enforcing the law is broken. And that's all long before we get to the fact that the law itself is broken.

I quite simply do not give two s*** about motor vehicle emissions. I will not spend my own money to maintain them except where legally enforced, and I will object and cut corners wherever possible in that case. It's flatly not my problem. I didn't voluntarily assume responsibility for it and I don't support it.

These unreasonable and bootless laws are already entrenched, however, so the recourse available to us is to prevent their advancement.

Frankly, if I lived in a non-emissions county permanently, I'd ship my EGR, PCV, cats, and charcoal canister off to the EPA in an unlabeled container along with a photograph of my middle finger. They're welcome to recycle the platinum if they want.