40 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHEPA wants your track cars
Leading reported evidence
Use solely
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
provision reflects the explicit exclusion of engines used solely for competition from the CAA
Leading evidence: 'Use solely' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Clean air act' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(3) to clarify that the Clean Air Act
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
What the proposal actually says " 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.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
That is of course horse****, they always very clearly intended to exclude offroad use and this is a sea change but they won't say that.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
reference to the rounding procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 to replace the references to outdated
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
What the proposal actually says " 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.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
40 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T130754Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
RLOT's not bad. The P&C sub-forum is a different story
I don't see how it won't be finalized. EPA, FTC, FCC, and FAA have all shown in recent years that Congress can't keep them in check and they care more about their political backers than the industries and groups they are screwing over.
Why not focus on when the epa, just a few short months ago, accidentally dumping a bunch of toxic gunk into Animas river in Colorado but they didn't even get a slap on the hand. Governments always good at these dodge and deflect type situations.
Can someone post (In large CAPITAL LETTERS) when the proposed regulations are published for public comment. Hopefully with a link to where comments can be submitted.
Government panels do take into account submitted comments (I know as I sit on a Department of Commerce Advisory panel). If we don't point out the stupidity of this proposed rule (and in large numbers), we may end up with losing our ability to track anything but stock vehicles. What's next, ruling out racing slicks for track cars?
To repeat myself, would someone post when the proposed regulations are published for public comment.
This is a a huge regulation about medium and heavy duty engine rule making/manufacturing. It's not like they're targeting racers as the title misleads you to think. It's something the EPA sneaked in there.
Reading and clicking a link too hard for you? Really?
DT already asked for more details so I reposted a second comment from the RLOT thread that had links to the details. The first contains (in a very clear and obvious form) the timeline of this garbage.
Yeah that's the big problem with his BS (as well as how most laws get passed these days), they stuck it into something else that it has nothing to do with.
I wonder what some of our forum sponsors (e.g. Fabspeed) think of this, particularly that last paragraph quoted by Gnat. It smells like a business killer. Go Big Government.
R
3 felonies per day.
That's the basic premise of every person over 18 in the US. If the feds/state/muni wants to convict you of something, they will find a way. There are plenty of examples out there.
Jalopnik has actually done some good reporting on this today. Sounds like EPA is saying that they never intended to exclude offroad use from emissions requirements and they are clarifying the regs.
That is of course horse****, they always very clearly intended to exclude offroad use and this is a sea change but they won't say that.
But, yeah, it's not the end of the world for racers/HPDE participants, it just means you have to be emissions compliant or you theoretically could face sanctions.
It is the end of the world for aftermarket suppliers of certain parts, as this would cripple their ability to market their products.
I still doubt this sees implementation as there will be significant litigation over this and you might see a compromise regulation implemented that provides significant penalties for defeating emissions control devices in an onroad scenario.
I hope to **** they start with rolling coal jackholes.
Look at my post re: more gov. Infusion. Page 862
I skimmed over a good portion of this bill and to me it looks more like design criteria for light and heavy duty truck, trailer, and emergency vehicles.
On p. 862, you'll only find one paragraph, but one that certainly effects all car guys/gals.
Here is the paragraph that matters:
EPA is also proposing two minor amendments related to highway motorcycles. First, we
are proposing to correct an error related to the small-volume provisions for highway
motorcycles. The regulation includes an inadvertent reference to a small-volume threshold based
on an annual volume of 3,000 motorcycles produced in the United States. As written, this would
not consider any foreign motorcycle production for importation into the United States. This
error is corrected by simply revising the text to refer to an annual production volume of
motorcycles produced “for” the United States. This would properly reflect small-volume
production as it relates to compliance with EPA standards. Second, we are proposing to clarify
the language describing how to manage the precision of emission results, both for measured
values and for calculating values when applying a deterioration factor. This involves a new
reference to the rounding procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 to replace the references to outdated
ASTM procedures. 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
Page 863 of 1329
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Secretary of Transportation, Anthony
R. Foxx, and the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, on June 19, 2015. We have taken steps to
ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
definition of “nonroad engine”. The proposed amendment clarifies that this part 1068 exemption
does not apply for motor vehicles
Skimming over it is the problem. You are correct about the majority of the document, which is part of the problem (e.g. they snuck unrelated stuff in).
If you go back to the first page of this thread I quoted someone else's review with quotes and page locations of the offending parts.
You're reading the sema article that says "prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars."
What the proposal actually says " 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. "
The part you quoted is what I was making my assumption on. Re-reading it, however, I'm not sure that I'm right.
I was reading it as "certified motor vehicles" and "for competition" as separate parts, but looking again I read it as the vehicle being certified for completion use.
Who knows. Clear as mud
I thought the certification was for on road. Basically, as I read it, if the car is legal for street use, you gotta leave emissions stuff alone. If the car was not for on road use, have at it.
Which makes sense if the current actual target is on road use of emission defeating equipment, which I think the EPA is now saying is their intent. And that's I guess a fine goal with which reasonable people can disagree and have a debate but sneaking it in like this is really ****ty and avoids, or at a minimum appears like an attempt to avoid, that very debate.
SUMMARY: EPA and NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation, areeach proposing rules to establish a comprehensive Phase 2 Heavy-Duty (HD) National Program that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
fuel consumption for new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. This technology advancingprogram would phase in over the long-term, beginning in the 2018 model year and culminating in standards for model year 2027, responding to the President�s directive on February 18, 2014, to develop new standards that will take us well into the next decade...NHTSA�s proposed fuel consumption standards and EPA�s proposed carbon dioxide (CO2) emission standards are tailored to each of four regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles: Combination tractors; trailers used in combination with those tractors; heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans; and vocational vehicles.
I looked at one of the forums for applying for an off road engine exemption permit in Arizona. It's for farming/heavy machinery.
I honestly don't think we have anything to worry about.
You should read this. It's a good summary of EPA's statements on this. I hope you are right but I don't see it that way.
http://jalopnik.com/the-epas-crackdo...ned-1758111546
