[Jockey]

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

As it should be - companies should be able to manufacturer performance parts for off-road or race use. If someone decides to knowingly use those parts, deleting their cats for example, it’s on the end user because they’re the ones who chose to violate the state or federal ordinances by using their vehicle with those modifications on the street.

But we all know 90% of those parts never see the track or "off-road" use.

It's like big tobacco saying they didn't know their products were addictive.

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

Originally Posted by Jockey

But we all know 90% of those parts never see the track or "off-road" use.

It's like big tobacco saying they didn't know their products were addictive.

Not at all the same - exhaust manufacturers and other parts companies, at least the legit ones, have been putting warnings/disclaimers “for off-road or race use only” for decades. Tobacco companies literally advertised smoking as healthy. Now, any one who takes up smoking can’t plead ignorance with all the health warnings on the ads/packaging.

The chuckleheads shouldn’t ruin it for those using it for legit uses. I know several people who have dedicated track cars and they don’t register them or try and street them because they are law abiding citizens.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by FlyingLow78

No, the act clearly doesn't say that. As with any change in laws that affect you, it's important to read the actual verbiage being proposed, not just the headlines.

Back story: Evans Tuning gets fined by the EPA for over 100 violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA):

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...stuningllc.pdf

EPA sues Derive: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa...defeat-devices

The title of the act is VERY misleading. Similar to the "Save Our Tips" Act which was sponsored by restaurant owners in an attempt to keep waitstaff wages below the federal minimum wage limit, the RPM Act is a deliberate attempt to insulate manufacturers and vendors of non-compliant emissions equipment (i.e. exhausts, catless downpipes, intakes, etc) in their efforts to circumvent the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

This Act is sponsored by 21 Republicans and 7 Democrats, and went before the Senate back in October. Read the proposed language and list of sponsors here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/2602/text

This seems as though it's just clarifying the law to exclude cars used only on the racetrack from the provisions of the CAA, buuuut....

The implementation language states that the EPA administrator may not create a method for tracking compliance of these items, nor may he/she compel states to do so. California required manufacturers of aftermarket parts to get CARB certification numbers for their parts indicating they had been tested and complied with the state's clean air laws. The proposed language in this bill would prevent the creation of any way to track a vehicle's actual status (road legal or not) with its parts, unless a state went above the regulation, as with California).

Vehicle registration is a funny thing, since it's generally a state responsibility. Manufacturers are required to certify their vehicles as compliant when they offer them for sale, and the bill would prevent any association of federal vehicle records and aftermarket modifications with the existing database. This provision prevents the EPA from compelling aftermarket parts manufacturers or installers to maintain any kind of records about what parts went on what car, so when the EPA delivers a subpoena, manufacturers, sellers, and installers can argue they aren't required to record the specifics of each item they sell. They could simply say "we're not required to track that information beyond what our tax laws mandate" and their sales records could simply say "sold 100 widgets".

The second portion then circumvents California's ARB part registration laws by saying parts are not required to be "registered" by anyone in the supply chain from manufacturer to end user. This could have the effect of neutering California's laws, since a primary method of ensuring compliance is testing and certifying the parts, then assigning a tracking number.

But, we're talking about cars only used on the racetrack, right? Nope, because the RPM Act deliberately blurs those lines as well.

So, if a car's physical attributes now may qualify it as a race car, anyone with track-focused parts could argue they are exempt from the CAA. This could reasonably extend to cars that simply have stickers on them, since race cars have stickers.

This last bit is intended to fully insulate the manufacturer, sellers, and installers from any liability under the Clean Air Act by saying they need not inquire with a vehicle's purchaser or owner as to how a part is going to be used. So, everyone running BM3s or catless DPs is now solely responsible for the compliance of their vehicle, and if the Feds wanted to come after the manufacturer, the manufacturer could argue that they weren't required to ask any questions related to how a part was going to be used. It allows the legal assumption that any sale is for off-road use only, and would prevent the EPA from holding accountable companies which had been pursued in the past (like Evans Tuning or Cobb Tuning).

The EPA's settlement with Evans Tuning states, "The EPA's longstanding view is that conduct that may be prohibited by§ 203(a)(3) does not warrant enforcement if the person performing that conduct has a documented, reasonable basis for knowing that the conduct does not adversely affect emissions. See Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum IA (June 25, 1974)." This bill is written specifically to prevent the EPA from enforcing the CAA with their current methods.

So, if the bill passes and the EPA can't come after the manufacturers of such devices, they will have no one left to pursue except the end user, because the bill doesn't insulate the people driving the car on the street.

As I assumed. Thanks for confirming!

[FlyingLow78]

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

As it should be - companies should be able to manufacturer performance parts for off-road or race use. If someone decides to knowingly use those parts, deleting their cats for example, it’s on the end user because they’re the ones who chose to violate the state or federal ordinances by using their vehicle with those modifications on the street.

So where does the manufacturer's responsibility end? Can we extend the same line of thinking to food makers, since it's the end user that ultimately buys the product and puts it in his/her mouth? "I sold it to you, and what you do with it is none of my concern."

The car industry itself has fallen afoul of CAA regulations as well, with VW's diesel scandal and Honda's cold-engine misfire detection issues in the late 90s. Honda, in particular, tried arguing that their cars were fine as-sold, and it was only after the warranty had expired that they became non-compliant, so the fault was with the owners. The EPA disagreed and won, and forced Honda to provide several 96-97 Civic and Accord models with free tune-ups after 100,000 miles to reduce the tendency to misfire.

As with the DMCA, owners of digital content have pursued those who illegally download content online. Someone downloads a torrent, their IP address is traced back to an ISP, and the ISP gives up the person's email address. That person get a nasty-gram from the DCMA's lawyers, and the process works because it's highly automated by scripts.

The Clean Air Act plainly states that everyone from the manufacturer to the end user and anyone who services a car has a responsibility to ensure its continued emissions compliance. The EPA's enforcement methods have been more akin to other federal agencies (such as the DEA) in that they pursue sources of illegal contraband far more than the end users of such products. They bust drug producers and attack supply chains, and don't generally bother with end users.

So, does it make more sense from a legal and manpower perspective to investigate and sue 10,000 car owners or 5 parts suppliers? Again, the current language of the CAA makes it crystal clear that parts manufacturers must ensure their parts don't increase emissions.

Because this is a car community, and lots of people have modified their cars, it's natural for us to want to defend the decisions we've made regarding the things we enjoy. The EPA has a job to do, and if suing manufacturers of non-compliant parts helps them achieve cleaner air, then it's something they're going to do.

How, then, do we enforce compliance if the EPA can't sue manufacturers, can't correlate off-road parts manufacturing and sales to actual users, and can't get a budget big enough to pursue individuals that are using these parts on the street? We, as a community, know that these parts are widely used on roads, so perhaps it's a question of what we will tolerate.

[FlyingLow78]

Originally Posted by OhMyXM

Make tuners who sell &/or install "off-road" parts send in a form to DMV. Keeps them clean and clear and free to do business with actual race cars & their owners...

The RPM bill is trying to defeat exactly this. They don't want any tracking of anything. I understand this is a little too "big brother" for a lot of people, and there administration costs associated with this. So who pays those?

Originally Posted by OhMyXM

So just slap a clause in there with any car registered as "off road" not being assigned a physical plate and will be impounded immediately with additional fines incurred upon infraction.

This language already exists in a way, just from my cursory reading this morning. When the EPA went after Evans Tuning, each of the corporation's 103 infractions could have levied a $3,750 fine. It's safe to assume this statute applies to end users as well.

Originally Posted by OhMyXM

Make tuners who sell &/or install "off-road" parts send in a form to DMV. Keeps them clean and clear and free to do business with actual race cars & their owners...

This is too "big brother" for a lot of people, and there are administration costs with this, so who pays those? The EPA mandates compliance of anything "pre-treatment" (from the cat converter forward), and in California manufacturers had to test their parts in a certified facility, then get a CARB number affixed to the part. Emissions testing facilities were legally compelled to verify the presence of the compliance sticker/plate (but a lot didn't).

You have my absolute agreement that race cars should be race cars, and I don't see the EPA messing with legit race cars in any way - it doesn't pass the sanity test and would have huge economic implications.

Originally Posted by Jockey

But we all know 90% of those parts never see the track or "off-road" use.

It's like big tobacco saying they didn't know their products were addictive.

****in' eh.

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

Simply put, it comes down to freedoms and personal responsibility. Yes, a food manufacturer who makes spicy foods shouldn’t be liable if I’m an idiot and rub it in my eyes. So long as they’re making a product that is safe (i.e. not contaminated) and not using ingredients that are banned, they shouldn’t be infinitely liable for what the end use does with their product.

If the EPA really wanted to make a dent in clean air, they would start to go after states with lax emissions laws and testing requirements. Compared to CA, there’s ton of states where no one even has to worry about running these parts because they don’t have to pass emissions regularly. Look at Japan tuning culture where if you really want to drive a modified car, you have to essentially return it to stock every couple years to pass inspection. Worrying about track cars that started their lives as a street car is practically a non issue. Even the 90% of people using these parts on street cars is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall driving population.

And emissions laws don’t always work as intended. I had to drive around unnecessarily just to clear a low tire pressure light on a car before my smog check. I had to actually pollute MORE to clear an error code just to go pass emissions inspection, because if I didn’t it would have failed due to the warning light.

As a community, we should be standing up to over-regulation. CA enthusiasts were able to get the exhaust decibel law pulled because of petitioning because it was poorly crafted and allowed cops to ticket unnecessarily.

Unless you prefer the government and manufacturers to tell you what you’re allowed to drive. How would you feel about electronically regulated top speeds based on speed limit? Max HP limits? Mandate you can’t drive anything older than 5 years?

[FlyingLow78]

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

Not at all the same - exhaust manufacturers and other parts companies, at least the legit ones, have been putting warnings/disclaimers “for off-road or race use only” for decades. Tobacco companies literally advertised smoking as healthy. Now, any one who takes up smoking can’t plead ignorance with all the health warnings on the ads/packaging.

What is the origin of the "off road use only" disclaimer? It might be associated with products that either:

a) have not been tested to ensure Clean Air Act compliance, or

b) are are suspected of or known to be non-compliant.

With smoking, the sheer number of lawsuits associated with tobacco companies proves that public opinion considers it a tolerated activity, but whose side effects are intolerable. Is it fair to say that increasing your car's horsepower with a tune is tolerable, but the decrease in your city's air quality is intolerable?

Back in the 80s I lived in the San Joaquin Valley in California. I knew we lived near the Sierra Nevada mountains, but I never saw them. In 2011 I went back to the area for a reunion and saw the mountains from our old house...they were quite imposing and I had no idea the scale of how tall they actually were. California's clean air efforts have made a small, but noticeable difference.

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

The chuckleheads shouldn’t ruin it for those using it for legit uses. I know several people who have dedicated track cars and they don’t register them or try and street them because they are law abiding citizens.

I friggin' love this and totally agree. But what about everyone running around with catless downpipes and BM3s?

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

As it should be - companies should be able to manufacturer performance parts for off-road or race use. If someone decides to knowingly use those parts, deleting their cats for example, it’s on the end user because they’re the ones who chose to violate the state or federal ordinances by using their vehicle with those modifications on the street.

The states not the EPA insure emissions compliance. The states are ill-equipped or just aren't interested in running down violations. They do the bare minimum in order to meet AQ goals for their region.

For example my state (Georgia) doesn't even test diesel.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

Simply put, it comes down to freedoms and personal responsibility. Yes, a food manufacturer who makes spicy foods shouldn't be liable if I'm an idiot and rub it in my eyes. So long as they're making a product that is safe (i.e. not contaminated) and not using ingredients that are banned, they shouldn't be infinitely liable for what the end use does with their product.

If the EPA really wanted to make a dent in clean air, they would start to go after states with lax emissions laws and testing requirements. Compared to CA, there's ton of states where no one even has to worry about running these parts because they don't have to pass emissions regularly. Look at Japan tuning culture where if you really want to drive a modified car, you have to essentially return it to stock every couple years to pass inspection. Worrying about track cars that started their lives as a street car is practically a non issue. Even the 90% of people using these parts on street cars is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall driving population.

And emissions laws don't always work as intended. I had to drive around unnecessarily just to clear a low tire pressure light on a car before my smog check. I had to actually pollute MORE to clear an error code just to go pass emissions inspection, because if I didn't it would have failed due to the warning light.

As a community, we should be standing up to over-regulation. CA enthusiasts were able to get the exhaust decibel law pulled because of petitioning because it was poorly crafted and allowed cops to ticket unnecessarily.

Unless you prefer the government and manufacturers to tell you what you're allowed to drive. How would you feel about electronically regulated top speeds based on speed limit? Max HP limits? Mandate you can't drive anything older than 5 years?

Some states don't test for emissions because they don't have AQ issues. California (LA basin in particular) due to topography has severe AQ issues.

Currently it's against federal law to alter emissions equipment yet people do it all the time because enforcement is difficult if not impossible.

Are you saying current law is excessive?

BTW Govt already does tell you what you can/can't drive. For example I can't just drive an 18 wheeler.

[FlyingLow78]

First, thank you for providing a reasonable, coherent viewpoint on this issue. As others have said, some participants have resorted to name-calling and other nonsense earlier in the thread, and I appreciate reading your perspectives.

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

If the EPA really wanted to make a dent in clean air, they would start to go after states with lax emissions laws and testing requirements. Compared to CA, there’s ton of states where no one even has to worry about running these parts because they don’t have to pass emissions regularly.

I concur. Without doing a ton more reading, it's likely the EPA has delegated certain rights to states/municipalities to deal with their air quality issues as they see fit. California has problems due to the weather, topography, and population density, whereas places in the plains do not because the wind constantly blows the pollution away. But, if the states don't enact emissions testing laws, the EPA still tries to get its way by mandating initial compliance by car makers and enforcing the topic of this conversation (engine mods), because they are under its purview.

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

And emissions laws don’t always work as intended. I had to drive around unnecessarily just to clear a low tire pressure light on a car before my smog check. I had to actually pollute MORE to clear an error code just to go pass emissions inspection, because if I didn’t it would have failed due to the warning light.

Seems wrong, doesn't it? This is about catching people who would reset the ECU just before they went to test because whatever problem or non-compliant part their car had wouldn't throw a code right away.

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

As a community, we should be standing up to over-regulation. CA enthusiasts were able to get the exhaust decibel law pulled because of petitioning because it was poorly crafted and allowed cops to ticket unnecessarily.

I remember when this law was announced. I didn't live in California anymore and recall feeling quite relieved, because I had a fart can. The law was idiotic to begin with, because it set a maximum decibel limit, but provided no guidance on a standardized testing method. Tracks in Italy conduct exhaust decibel tests and clearly explain the procedure in the waiver so there are no surprises. (It's one reason I love having valves to quiet my exhaust).

I'm in favor of reasonable regulation, and if the RPM bill passes, my concern is that diesel tuners could have a field day. Rolling coal is so stupid.

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

Originally Posted by FlyingLow78

What is the origin of the "off road use only" disclaimer? It might be associated with products that either:

a) have not been tested to ensure Clean Air Act compliance, or

b) are are suspected of or known to be non-compliant.

With smoking, the sheer number of lawsuits associated with tobacco companies proves that public opinion considers it a tolerated activity, but whose side effects are intolerable. Is it fair to say that increasing your car's horsepower with a tune is tolerable, but the decrease in your city's air quality is intolerable?

Back in the 80s I lived in the San Joaquin Valley in California. I knew we lived near the Sierra Nevada mountains, but I never saw them. In 2011 I went back to the area for a reunion and saw the mountains from our old house...they were quite imposing and I had no idea the scale of how tall they actually were. California's clean air efforts have made a small, but noticeable difference.



I friggin' love this and totally agree. But what about everyone running around with catless downpipes and BM3s?

I grew up in SoCal so I remember the haze, but the improvement came with overall emissions on all vehicles, not going after a minority of the cars on the roads. Nowadays, you can’t even look at an out of state car that has a mods on something like Bring a Trailer because getting it registered in CA would be a fat no without a lot of effort. Forget about 25 year rule cars like R32s without a ton of money. So if you’re in a more lenient state, count yourself as lucky because you have a lot more freedom to modify your cars and have better air quality as well.

If you’re running cat less down pipes on the street and get popped for it, that’s on you. If your local LEO or highway patrol/state police don’t want that ticket money, that’s their choice to make. In CA it’s not unheard of for cops to ask you to pop the hood or poke around under the car to see what you’re running. Too low, too loud, etc..

[FlyingLow78]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

The states not the EPA insure emissions compliance. The states are ill-equipped or just aren't interested in running down violations. They do the bare minimum in order to meet AQ goals for their region.

For example my state (Georgia) doesn't even test diesel.

I disagree. The EPA's website describes the effort to ensure clean air as a partnership between states and the federal government.

https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-ov...-air-pollution

Some states are ill-equipped to deal with their emissions issues, but I'm sure the people they employ are interested in doing a good job. The EPA is the same, but has a different role. Both have enforcement powers and it's about making the biggest difference with the manpower and budgetary resources you have.

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Some states don't test for emissions because they don't have AQ issues. California (LA basin in particular) due to topography has severe AQ issues.

Currently it's against federal law to alter emissions equipment yet people do it all the time because enforcement is difficult if not impossible.

Are you saying current law is excessive?

BTW Govt already does tell you what you can/can't drive. For example I can't just drive an 18 wheeler.

I’m not saying current law is excessive in a lot of places, but CA is pretty tough. I am saying that if EPA wanted to really make a difference in air quality or compliance, getting the states on board with better enforcement would make a bigger dent than going after after market parts companies. The only reason I even allow that the EPA has good reason to do so is that you can’t claim states rights on something like pollution that doesn’t obey state lines.

Yeah, you can’t just drive an 18 wheeler, on the street, but if you pass the test for a license you can. Just like you should be able to buy a straight pipe and remove your muffler if it’s for your track car

[FlyingLow78]

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

I grew up in SoCal so I remember the haze, but the improvement came with overall emissions on all vehicles, not going after a minority of the cars on the roads.

I'm glad you were able to reap the benefits of cleaner air as well, because it was sooo bad for such a long time. Since the effort focused on improving all vehicles, why should we allow some vehicles to undo some of those gains?

Also, at what point do the minority of non-compliant vehicles have an unacceptable effect on the majority? Is it similar to a situation where we should tolerate "some" level of littering or armed robberies? I think the exhaust law stemmed partly from a belief that noisy exhausts were emissions non-compliant, but also annoying, so they went about achieving a desired end state the wrong way.

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

Originally Posted by FlyingLow78

First, thank you for providing a reasonable, coherent viewpoint on this issue. As others have said, some participants have resorted to name-calling and other nonsense earlier in the thread, and I appreciate reading your perspectives.


I'm in favor of reasonable regulation, and if the RPM bill passes, my concern is that diesel tuners could have a field day. Rolling coal is so stupid.

Thanks - having known a bunch of people in the industry and knowing how passionate they are about cars, the community, making a living doing what they love, it’s frustrating when they don’t get some love back from the rest of us. Don’t even get me started on replica parts or the eBay thread...

Fully agree that manufacturers shouldn’t get a pass on emissions cheating. They should abide by a higher standard since they are making and selling a product that purports to meet federal standards for safety and other regulations like emissions. Diesel trucks that bellow the smoke from the stacks should be an easy enforcement target - just follow the black smoke.

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

Originally Posted by FlyingLow78

I'm glad you were able to reap the benefits of cleaner air as well, because it was sooo bad for such a long time. Since the effort focused on improving all vehicles, why should we allow some vehicles to undo some of those gains?

Also, at what point do the minority of non-compliant vehicles have an unacceptable effect on the majority? Is it similar to a situation where we should tolerate "some" level of littering or armed robberies? I think the exhaust law stemmed partly from a belief that noisy exhausts were emissions non-compliant, but also annoying, so they went about achieving a desired end state the wrong way.

You’re telling me - I did track/cross country on smog alert days!

I think if you had better emissions testing on all vehicles nationally and a bit more enforcement at the local level, you’re probably left with a small enough number of violators who are streeting their cars that it’s a negligible impact. Weigh that versus the impact to the industry and legit track community and I would prefer to err on the side of freedoms.

What is annoying is that it’s so subjective. Follow a 70s muscle car which is probably exempt from a bunch of things and you can literally smell the pollution. Compare that to an F80 with a cat less down pipe. I can’t imagine the more modern car with mods is putting out more pollution than a 30 year old larger displacement car with it’s ancient emissions equipment. 1975 and older cars are smog exempt as classic cars. Why? Because there aren’t that many of them.

[FlyingLow78]

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

Diesel trucks that bellow the smoke from the stacks should be an easy enforcement target - just follow the black smoke.

I honestly think that’s what really got the EPA’s attention and made them go after tuners.

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

You’re telling me - I did track/cross country on smog alert days!

I think if you had better emissions testing on all vehicles nationally and a bit more enforcement at the local level, you’re probably left with a small enough number of violators who are streeting their cars that it’s a negligible impact.

This is an approach I can get behind. I would like to see more assistance for tuning companies at the federal or state level to get their products certified as emissions-compliant. The process should be easy and inexpensive. I think we should also encourage the use of mods that increase power, but still provide robust emissions compliance. Catless downpipes should give way to high-flow catted units. Tuning modules that increase boost should only be sold as a package with larger, high flow cats as well. We can have both if we try hard enough.

Back in the day, Sport Compact Car magazine had an ultimate street car challenge and one of the tests was for tailpipe emissions. An RX-7 had the overall win in the bag, until they saw the numbers from his catless exhaust. A good street car can (and should) be good in all areas.

[positiveions]

in the mean time, I am waiting for the new year. I am glad that I get to drive two generations of 3 series and might look into purchasing an M2cs.
No never been to Sema. Yes love to tune my cars but if it’s not gonna happen so what. Yes I still have my cats on the cars. No I will not race in my own cars unless I buy a roller car that I can dedicate for racetrack only.
Happy New Year all!

[MachinesWithSouls]

If a race car has an emissions compliant exhaust, i fail to see how it becomes a deterrent for turning a regular street car into a race car.

But I will say that I've gotten stuck behind plenty of catless exhaust "race" cars and they stink. They also usually run rich so the smell becomes overpowering.

This is coming from someone who lives in the shadow of raceway park, so I get the culture. Before long, it'll be batteries anyway. Let it go.

[Wingnutts]

The last thing we need is another new piece of legislation on the books. If they want to amend an older one fine, but to add one more ambiguous bill to seem relevant when it's time for them say they "did something" while in office is asinine.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by AlpineWhite_SJ

Not at all the same - exhaust manufacturers and other parts companies, at least the legit ones, have been putting warnings/disclaimers “for off-road or race use only” for decades. Tobacco companies literally advertised smoking as healthy. Now, any one who takes up smoking can’t plead ignorance with all the health warnings on the ads/packaging.

The chuckleheads shouldn’t ruin it for those using it for legit uses. I know several people who have dedicated track cars and they don’t register them or try and street them because they are law abiding citizens.

Actually it's pretty close to the same.

We all know those stickers are nothing more than a legal loophole.

Cat-less exhaust manufacturers know there's absolutely no way the majority of their products only make it onto only track cars. If that was the case, there would be traffic jams on track days.

[LakeSurfer]

Im enjoying all the opinion based facts in this thread backed up with random percentages pulled from out of the blue.

An opinion is not a fact, so enough with your percentages unless you have hard data to back it up. You have no idea how many people do or do not track or race their cars.