"EPA Seeks to Prohibit Conversion of Vehicles Into Racecars"

"whoarder is tellurium" (whoarder)
02/08/2016 at 21:54 • Filed to: epa, racecar

https://www.sema.org/news/2016/02/0…

I dont even....

How and what defines a “racecar” ? Why does this need regulation? What if I make a racecar and keep all federally mandated emissions controls intact?

We cant let this happen.

DISCUSSION (57)

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:12

If there was ever a time for the EPA to “fuck off”, better late than never.

EPA, fuck off.

Kinja'd!!!

BorkBorkBjork > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:14

Oh fuck this nanny-state bullshit.

dogisbadob > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:16

But that would mean banning rental cars, so it will never happen ;)

CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist) > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:17

Yeah, fuck off EPA. Get your grubby hands off my car. You already had your fun in California. What is it going to be like, the green police raping my Matrix with a 100 hp tune and cats that alert the government if I remove them? https://youtu.be/Ml54UuAoLSo

slipperysallylikespenguins > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:19

“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”

so pretty much all non CARB legal intakes and exhausts?

Übel > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:20

I have to assume this can’t pass. Racing is big business.

whoarder is tellurium > Übel
02/08/2016 at 22:22

Well, I’d just assume that purpose built race car production would then shoot through the roof. You’d have to pay to play.

whoarder is tellurium > dogisbadob
02/08/2016 at 22:23

Hey, if you race that rental car like a race car it becomes a converted race car.

Careful.

Master Cylinder > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:31

Y’know, I normally appreciate the work the EPA does but on this one they can fuck right off. Is this really a big problem that needs to be solved before, y’know, all the real environmental issues doing serious damage to the environment?

Urambo Tauro > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:31

That seems to be exactly where such a regulation would push things. “You can build a racecar, but you can’t start with an existing road vehicle and modify it.”

Übel > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:32

But then you still have parts suppliers throwing a hissy fit because their customer base just plummeted, a whole slew of smaller R&D companies, medium-small racing series, etc. It’s not OEM level huge, but there’s enough that would get significantly harmed for a negligible environmental effect.

Urambo Tauro > slipperysallylikespenguins
02/08/2016 at 22:32

Kind of sounds like they would be targeting all those parts that come with the disclaimer “for off-road use only”.

aberson Bresident of the FullyAssed Committe > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 22:39

Somewhat fitting

WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon. > whoarder is tellurium
02/08/2016 at 23:16

Before we panic , I am reviewing the EPA’s proposed rule. In short, I don’t really know where SEMA got this idea and have some real doubts that this is happening. If I’m feeling ambitious I’ll write a more detailed post in the morning. We’ll see, but for now:

1. The EPA doesn’t hide regulations within regulations. It has to tell you up front what they’re about and who they affect. Take this quote from page 3 of the 629 page proposed rule :

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

2. Being that it’s 629 pages long, I did a search for “race” or “racing” and some other helpful terms, and found nothing along the lines of SEMA’s panic.

3. As this is a regulation from a federal agency as opposed to a law (those come from congress), it isn’t a matter of whether it will “pass.” Proposed rules/regulations have an open period for comments, and sometimes public hearings if it is “formal” rulemaking, and the comment period for this proposed rule ended October 1, 2015 . I’m not sure how or when SEMA commented, but if they did, it did nothing.

I’m going to bed, and I’m gonna sleep soundly with the belief that the EPA is NOT coming for our race cars. As far as credentials go, I’m not a lawyer in this area, but I am a 3rd year law student who deals with this area pretty damn extensively. I’ll look into it more tomorrow, but that’s the initial synopsis.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon.
02/08/2016 at 23:30

Nice try, EPA. I’m going to keep gripping on my tin foiled wrapped shifter.

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon.
02/08/2016 at 23:38

I’m not worried at all. Because either way, I can’t afford a race car.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
02/08/2016 at 23:42

Not with that attitude! (O_O)

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > K-Roll-PorscheTamer
02/08/2016 at 23:44

Can’t afford a race car. Yet.

Happy now?

Übel > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
02/08/2016 at 23:49

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Not with that attitude!

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
02/08/2016 at 23:53

I’m not happy with that attitude! (O_o)

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > Übel
02/08/2016 at 23:54

Given the fact that I’m under 18, most people probably wont’ even let me near a track.

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > K-Roll-PorscheTamer
02/08/2016 at 23:54

Well.... Fuck you then. It’s my attitude and it can be as bad as I want.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
02/08/2016 at 23:56

Can’t be bad with that attitude!! ^_^

Übel > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
02/08/2016 at 23:59

What’s that have to do with race car ownership?

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > Übel
02/09/2016 at 00:00

What’s the point of a race car if you can’t take it to a race track.

Übel > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
02/09/2016 at 00:08

Kinja'd!!!

Picking up chicks, getting nacho cheese all over your fire suit, just racecar things

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > Übel
02/09/2016 at 00:11

I have always wanted to valet something like that.

DrJohannVegas > WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon.
02/09/2016 at 00:24

Just a heads up: with the EPA, the phrase you are looking for is “off-highway”. If it was Customs, you could find things under “Racing”.

Edit: There’s some language on “racing”:

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.

And, for shits and giggles, all of 40 CFR part 1068, Subpart C (1068.235):

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

(a) New engines/equipment 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 any nonroad engines/equipment after they have been placed into service in the United States so they will be used solely for competition, they are exempt without request. This exemption applies only to the prohibition in §1068.101(b)(1) and is valid only as long as the engine/equipment is used solely for competition. You may not use the provisions of this paragraph (b) to circumvent the requirements that apply to the sale of new competition engines under the standard-setting part.

(c) If you modify any nonroad engines/equipment under paragraph (b) of this section, you must destroy the original emission labels. If you loan, lease, sell, or give any of these engines/equipment to someone else, you must tell the new owner (or operator, if applicable) in writing that they may be used only for competition.

[76 FR 57489, Sept. 15, 2011]

DrJohannVegas > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 00:34

Wait, I think I found the language causing a freakout. On pg 40527:

The existing prohibitions and exemptions in 40 CFR part 1068 related to competition engines and vehicles need to be amended to account for differing policies for nonroad and motor vehicle applications. In particular, we generally consider nonroad engines and vehicles to be ‘‘used solely for competition’’ based on usage characteristics. This allows EPA to set up an administrative process to approve competition exemptions, and to create an exemption from the tampering prohibition for products that are modified for competition purposes. There is no comparable allowance for motor vehicles. A motor vehicle qualifies for a competition exclusion based on the physical characteristics of the vehicle, not on its use. Also, if a motor vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity at any point, there is no exemption from the tampering and defeat-device prohibitions that would allow for converting the engine or vehicle for competition use. There is no prohibition against actual use of certified motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines for competition purposes; however, it is not permissible to remove a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine from its certified configuration regardless of the purpose for doing so.

In other words, you may race your car, but in making it a racecar, you may not make it non-compliant. So, you have to run all emissions equipment on your racecar, because streetcar.

Edit for the share: SEMA’s press release is overblown. The EPA seeks to regulate the conversion of road-certified vehicles into racecars. The rule change does not affect competition-certified equipment and it does not prohibit someone from racing their car. What it does do is specify that a road-certified vehicle cannot be brought out of compliance with emissions certifications in that process. Since SEMA is an industry full of people selling non-compliant products with a tiny “for off-road use only” sticker and a wink and a nudge, you can understand why this rule change, which essentially closes the loophole, upsets them.

71MGBGT Likes Subarus of Unusual Colors > whoarder is tellurium
02/09/2016 at 00:34

Yeah, that’s not ok. Who’s down to do a burnout outside the EPA headquarters?

Übel > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 00:49

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreame…

And here’s SEMAS comments on it I just found. I’m going to still assume that this just won’t be enforced because going after race cars for emissions failures is a waste of time and money for everyone.

DrJohannVegas > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 00:52

One more chain reply. The Revision in question:

§ 86.1854–12 Prohibited acts. * * * * * (b) * * * (5) Certified motor vehicles 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; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3).

DrJohannVegas > Übel
02/09/2016 at 01:02

A few things:

1) Missing the window for comments by nearly 3 months is not going to get them anywhere. For an F Street organization, that’s pretty shameful. If I were a member, I’d be livid.

2) The “hidden” language garbage is pathetic. It’s the lazy person’s defense, and I fucking hate it. It was in print, and it was clear.

3) The “Arbitrary, Capricious and an Abuse of Discretion” section is particularly lamentable. The reference back to the passage of the 1970 CAA, and clarifications while in Committee is somewhat better. Focusing on the wording of the language as used for competition is probably their best angle.

4) They claim that NASCAR is going to be affected by this, but that’s silly. This has nothing to do with competition-only products, but rather the conversion market. It’s a dodge, and a weak one at that.

As for enforcement: I think what you’ll see is a crackdown on manufacturers making aftermarket parts. Going after the end user (scattered all over) has never been a major part of EPA enforcement. You go for the producer (a single point) instead.

JustinAten > WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon.
02/09/2016 at 01:03

Comment removed.

Übel > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 01:07

Yeah,I absolutely agree that SEMA is being pretty shit at this. It’s not anything remotely resembling a ban on race cars. I am however concerned about its affect on the ECU tuning crowd, since this could effectively end that industry depending on how the EPA goes about enforcing this.

DrJohannVegas > Übel
02/09/2016 at 01:08

That’s exactly who it’s going after, the DSMs and the Bro Trucks alike.

Dusty Ventures > WTFMPL's mom drives a brown wagon.
02/09/2016 at 01:12

Page 391:

Page 403-404:

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 certified motor vehicle for purposes of competition. An existing provision in 40 CFR 1068.235 provides an exemption for nonroad engines converted for competition use. This provision reflects the explicit exclusion of engines used solely for competition from the CAA definition of ‘‘nonroad engine’’. The proposed amendment clarifies that this part 1068 exemption does not apply for motor vehicles.

Page 429:

§ 86.1854–12 Prohibited acts.

(b) * * *

(5) Certified motor vehicles 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; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)

Dusty Ventures > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 01:19

I was actually having an in depth conversation with some racers about this today, and it’ll actually affect quite a bit. It won’t affect the top eschelons of NASCAR, but this could devastate the guys going to the local circle track every Friday. It’ll be problematic for a number of the SCCA series as well, and possibly some of the various GT/Trans Am/other road racing series. What will probably be hit hardest though is desert racing and rally.

DrJohannVegas > Dusty Ventures
02/09/2016 at 01:25

Yea, I went back and revised a bunch of things, but after the edit window was closed. I agree that, in order, the folks hurt most by this change are:

1) Rally/SCCA Improved/Off-road (non-buggy/trophy truck) racers

2) Time Attack/Trackday folks

3) Tuners/Enthusiasts

850) NASCAR Cup Teams

If I were SEMA (and I’m not), I’d see if the EPA would consider a process for permanently disqualifying a vehicle as a dual-use vehicle and putting it on a separate list. That seems like a balance between what the Agency wants and what the community needs.

Dusty Ventures > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 01:39

By “dual use” do you mean a vehicle meant for both road and competition? Because the EPA’s wording seems to make it pretty clear they’ve no interest in that. Near as I can tell they’re taking it as far as “If you take a road car engine, stick it in a tube chassis, and run it up Pikes Peak/sand dunes/around Laguna Seca then you’re breaking the law (unless you include all factory exhaust/tune/emmisison control/etc).”

DrJohannVegas > Dusty Ventures
02/09/2016 at 01:42

Yea, that’s what I meant by dual use in my response. As far as the EPA goes, your read is consistent with mine. If you take a certified engine out of a vehicle, you have to put it into another vehicle with all of the equipment used to certify it.

So, bad for the average wrench, but “good” for companies building crate engines for off-road use. Can’t pull an EcoBoost or an LS out of a junker, but you can buy one from Ford Racing or GM performance.

edit: This also bodes poorly for Roadkill.

Dusty Ventures > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 01:51

Oh god. I just thought of something. What about the drag racing industry? And LeMons.

Dusty Ventures > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 01:55

Wait... I just re-read. The rule is for certified engines and certified vehicles. Which means you can’t solve the problem by putting a race crate motor in a car. Because that vehicle was certified as well.

So basically the only thing that will be allowed to race are vehicles that were built for competition from the ground up.

DrJohannVegas > Dusty Ventures
02/09/2016 at 01:56

Oh no.

However, as I said to Ubel above, the EPA generally enforces at the producer level, not the end-user level. So, I kinda think it will affect drag racers much more than LeMons folks, who kinda bolt cheap used stuff to other cheap used stuff. The one area where it might come into play is fuel cells.

DrJohannVegas > Dusty Ventures
02/09/2016 at 01:57

Nope. Not into a road car. I might have misread your comment about buggies/Pikes Peak, where I thought you meant “slap an EJ/LS/EB into a tube frame and run”.

Dusty Ventures > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 02:01

I did. But now I’m saying it’s the same the other way around. Which brings to question at what point does a vehicle become “certified?” Is a body shell certified? Because if so there goes the CTSCC, Porsche GT3, and possibly a portion of the GT field.

DrJohannVegas > Dusty Ventures
02/09/2016 at 02:04

If you get a VIN, you’ve probably gone through a manufacturer, who was required to cert the vehicle under a type certificate. Given the new low-volume rules, I’m not sure how that plays with the EPA rule. (NHTSA vs EPA...again.)

edit: I’m beginning to worry that this warrants a full-on Black Flag article...damn. (Was hoping it was nothing.)

Dusty Ventures > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 02:15

Yeah, the more and more I think about it the more I think this one really is a big deal.

DrJohannVegas > Dusty Ventures
02/09/2016 at 02:21

Might have to see if I can get in touch with someone at the EPA to get more on this. (begins flipping through Rolodex)

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Dusty Ventures
02/09/2016 at 06:48

And that is the whole problem.

However, the one thing the EPA cannot do is have a nationwide testing program by VIN, in order to find all these vehicles with removed cats, etc.

Heck, most states don’t have a testing program.

But if anyone thinks the EPA needs more power and the government needs more control (it’s always about power and control), then there is a fundamental difference between the concept of liberty as it is classically understood and how people choose to interpret that today (i.e. the presidential candidates)

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 06:54

My understanding is that you also need EPA certification to import any engine as well, irrespective of if is actually installed in a car or not.

So both the car and the engine get separate certifications and the EPA rule says both have to be in compliance.

Which also goes with their view on repowering cars with failed engines. They only say that putting the same engine that came in the car is allowed. So no dropping an LS in place of a leaky Jaaaaaaaaaaag V8 or V12 from the 70s.

whoarder is tellurium > 71MGBGT Likes Subarus of Unusual Colors
02/09/2016 at 07:49

Yisss! Right up until their EPA SWAT teams arrive, then we make a run for it.

jariten1781 > DrJohannVegas
02/09/2016 at 08:01

The hidden language complaint is total BS for a lobbying organization. With you there. They completely failed in their duty to their members if they missed the commenting period.

It’s a totally valid complaint in general though. The ostensible reason for public comment is to allow anyone affected to voice their concerns. Nothing in the front matter, executive summary, nor listing of affected parties would lead a non-affiliated small business or independent citizens to believe that modifications of light-duty vehicles were being addressed as a side note in a massive overhaul of heavy/medium duty truck emissions regs.

It’s a patently awful excuse for SEMA’s leadership to use with their membership, but I’d say it’s a pretty valid reason to challenge that languages inclusion in the proposed regs.

CalzoneGolem > whoarder is tellurium
02/09/2016 at 08:24

Don’t forget to save some tire for the escape.

Scott > whoarder is tellurium
02/09/2016 at 08:41

Sadly... way too true.

Scott > whoarder is tellurium
02/09/2016 at 08:43

So much for all those drag racing teslas.

whoarder is tellurium > CalzoneGolem
02/09/2016 at 08:55

I’ll put on some run flats.