WTF Emissions DELETES! The smelly Garbage can dumped on Motorsports! WTF

Normally I'd say the same but on this one I liked it.

Where have I heard this before?

https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2019/06/01/2020-chevy-corvette-c8-tuner-proof-ecu/

2020 Chevrolet Corvette to get an 'un-tunable' ECU?

Jack@European_Parts said:

Where have I heard this before?

https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2019/06/01/2020-chevy-corvette-c8-tuner-proof-ecu/

2020 Chevrolet Corvette to get an 'un-tunable' ECU?

Click to expand...

Heh, right?

The other thing is setups like Chrysler's "Security Gateway" to prevent non-factory scan tools from using the OE protocols to communicate with more than just the standardized OBD2 stuff will apparently become more and more common. Currently there is a bypass harness one can install to get something like an Autel scan tool to talk to everything, but it's extra time/labor to do it obviously.

I've been told that most every other OE is looking at similar solutions in the near future as well. I have a friend who works for Harmon/Kardon and they're apparently the ones who devised it for Chrysler and are now being contracted by other OEs to implement similar setups on other brands, including VW, he tells me.

This would mean another headache for Ross-Tech should that indeed come down the pipeline on VAG vehicles.

Also related news: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/performance-diesel-inc-clean-air-act-settlement-information-sheet

Performance Diesel Inc has been effectively shut down by the EPA for installing defeat devices. I have been hearing similar stories in the last month about large diesel truck tuners one by one being raided for evidence and lawsuits flung at them for the installation of "defeat devices". One in Colorado last week called "Diesel Daydreams" was among them from a social media post that I came across that included a photo of one of the shop's owners or employees sitting down while bullet proof vested federal agents were collecting evidence.

The EPA has a site with information on what shops have been "inspected" and include very detailed accounts of what was seen and discussed during their visits, including "Green Diesel Engineering" in Michigan.

Some of the most recently released reports can be found here: https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/tocar/f?p=174:30:13248005132612::NO:::

FLIP SIDE OF COIN!



This means that tuners don't get shit for copyright, patents, or trademarks of software manipulated creating a defeat device & as an AECD, a controller or connected Safety system their tunes circumvent safety and SMOG requirements for a comporting conformity.



Feds Say Automotive Software Isn't Covered By Copyright.


Victory For Shade-Tree Mechanics & Coders! Feds Say Automotive Software Isn't Covered By Copyright
https://www.washingtonpost.com/cars...423d24-7e60-11e5-bfb6-65300a5ff562_story.html


The really cool part is the OEM can't claim such a thing for flash files being passed around as copyrighted materials huh?

That's right fuck you OEM and Tuners!

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/115th-congress/house-report/1073



115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-1073

======================================================================




RECOGNIZING THE PROTECTION OF MOTORSPORTS ACT OF 2017

_______


December 11, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______


Mr. Walden, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 350]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 350) to exclude vehicles used solely for
competition from certain provisions of the Clean Air Act, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Committee Action................................................. 2
Committee Votes.................................................. 2
Oversight Findings and Recommendations........................... 5
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 5
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 5
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 8
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 8
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 8
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 8
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits....... 8
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 8
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 8
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Dissenting Views................................................. 14

Purpose and Summary

H.R. 350, Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of
2017, was introduced by Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
on January 6, 2017. It would clarify that the anti-tampering
provisions in the Clean Air Act do not apply to motor vehicles
used exclusively for competition.

Background and Need for Legislation

Congress did not intend for racing vehicles to be regulated
as ``motor vehicles'' under title II of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).\1\ Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has never taken an enforcement action with regard to EPA
certified vehicles modified solely for racing. However, on July
13, 2015, the EPA's proposed rule on medium- and heavy-duty
truck greenhouse gas emissions standards included provisions
that would have reversed the agency's longstanding practice
allowing for the modification of vehicles to be used solely for
competition. After receiving public comment on the proposed
rule, the EPA decided to eliminate this language from the final
rule, but in doing so asserted it to be a restatement of the
agency's position, leaving a cloud of legal uncertainty over
the competitive racing industry. H.R. 350 clarifies that the
CAA Title II anti-tampering provisions applicable to motor
vehicles do not apply to vehicles used solely for competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\House Consideration of the Report of the Conference Committee
(Dec. 18, 1970), reprinted in A Legislative History of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1970, Vol. 1, U.S. GAO (1974), Serial No. 93-18, at
p. 117
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Action

On September 13, 2017, the Subcommittee on Environment held
a hearing on H.R. 350. The Subcommittee received testimony
from:
Ryan Parker, President and CEO, Endicott Clay
Products;
Vincent Brisini, Director of Environmental Affairs,
Olympus Power, LLC, on behalf of Anthracite Region
Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA);
Frank Moore, President, Hardy Manufacturing Company,
Inc.;
Steve Page, President and General Manager, Sonoma
Raceway;
Alexandra E. Teitz, Principal, AT Strategies, LLC, on
behalf of Sierra Club; and
Rebecca Bascom, Professor, Penn State College of
Medicine, on behalf of American Thoracic Society.
On November 15, 2017, the Subcommittee on Environment met
in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 350, without
amendment, to the full Committee by a record vote of 13 yeas
and 9 nays. On December 6, 2017, the full Committee on Energy
and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 350,
without amendment, favorably reported to the House by a record
vote of 33 yeas and 21 nays.

Committee Votes

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during
the Committee consideration:







[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]








Oversight Findings and Recommendations

Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII, the Committee held a hearing and made findings that
are reflected in this report.

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee
finds that H.R. 350 would result in no new or increased budget
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
revenues.

Congressional Budget Office Estimate

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, the following is
the cost estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 22, 2018.
Hon. Greg Walden,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 350, the RPM Act
of 2017.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jon Sperl.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.

H.R. 350--RPM Act of 2017

Summary: H.R. 350 would amend the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from
regulating emissions from motor vehicles that are modified
solely for motorsports competition. Specifically, H.R. 350
would amend the CAA's definition of a motor vehicle to exclude
vehicles that are modified solely for competition, and it would
make the manufacture, sale, installation, and use of ``defeat
devices'' that bypass emissions controls legal only for
competitive motorsports. CBO estimates that the agency would
spend about $500,000 over the 2018-2022 period to revise
regulations; such spending would be subject to the availability
of appropriated funds.
Because the bill would shift the legal focus of enforcement
cases to how a motor vehicle is ultimately used, it would
significantly increase the burden on EPA to prove that
manufacturers and sellers are complicit in the use of defeat
devices for purposes other than competition. As a result, CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 350 would reduce penalties (which
are recorded as revenues) by $18 million over the 2018-2027
period.
Because enacting H.R. 350 would affect revenues, pay-as-
you-go procedures apply. Enacting the bill would not affect
direct spending.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 350 would not affect
direct spending and would not increase on-budget deficits by
more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year
periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 350 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of H.R. 350 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2018-2022 2018-2027
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECREASES IN REVENUES

Revenues.......................................... 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -8 -18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost less than $500,000, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
350 will be enacted near the end of 2018.

Spending subject to appropriation

To implement the bill, EPA also would need to revise some
regulations. Using information from EPA, CBO estimates that the
agency would spend about $500,000 over the 2018-2022 period to
revise regulations; such spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds. That amount includes
personnel and contract costs required to develop and issue a
proposal, to receive and respond to public comments, and to
issue a final rule for the revision.

Revenues

Under the CAA, EPA prescribes emissions standards for new
motor vehicles and engines and may enforce civil penalties
against any motor vehicle manufacturer, seller, or person who
illegally modifies (or tampers with) a vehicle to bypass its
emissions control system.
H.R. 350 would amend the CAA to prohibit EPA from
regulating emissions from motor vehicles that are modified
solely for motorsports competition. Under current law, EPA may
impose penalties against any company that manufactures or sells
illegal parts, such as defeat devices, that can bypass
emissions controls. H.R. 350 would amend the CAA's definition
of a motor vehicle to exclude vehicles that are modified solely
for competition, and it would make the manufacture, sale,
installation, and use of defeat devices legal for competitive
motorsports.
According to officials in EPA's Office of Civil
Enforcement, the agency currently focuses its efforts on
manufacturers and sellers of defeat devices that affect
emissions from vehicles that are operated on public roads.
Although, EPA has the legal authority under current law to
pursue such violations for any motor vehicle--including those
converted for use in motorsports--the agency has historically
neither enforced that rule nor collected penalties from the
motorsports industry.
Because the bill would shift the legal focus of enforcement
cases to how a motor vehicle is ultimately used, it would
significantly increase the burden on EPA's enforcement
officials to prove that manufacturers and sellers are complicit
in the use of defeat devices for purposes other than
competition.
Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that enacting
the bill would probably lead to the agency shifting enforcement
resources away from manufacturers and sellers and toward
individual users and installers of defeat devices that are not
used in competition and for which end-use violations would be
easier to demonstrate under law.
Over the 2013-2017 period, EPA settled 13 cases--mostly
against manufacturers--for CAA violations related to defeat
devices, resulting in the collection of $14 million in
penalties. Over the same period, the agency collected a nominal
amount in penalties from installers and users of defeat
devices. CBO estimates that enactment of H.R. 350 would reduce
collections by about $2 million a year over the 2018-2027
period, because the agency's enforcement would no longer be
focused on manufacturers. The effect on collections in any
particular year during that period could be higher or lower
depending the details of individual cases that occur in each
year.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in revenues that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 350, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE ON DECEMBER 6, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2018-2022 2018-2027
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact.................... 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -8 -18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 350 would not affect direct
spending and would not increase on-budget deficits by more than
$5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods
beginning in 2028.
Mandates: H.R. 350 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jon Sperl; Mandates:
Zach Byrum.
Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

Federal Mandates Statement

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to clarify
that the anti-tampering provisions in the Clean Air Act do not
apply to motor vehicles used exclusively for competition.

Duplication of Federal Programs

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of
H.R. 350 is known to be duplicative of another Federal program,
including any program that was included in a report to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the most recent
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

Committee Cost Estimate

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits

Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the
Committee finds that H.R. 350 contains no earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, the Committee finds
that the following directed rule makings are contained in H.R.
350:
Section 5 requires the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to finalize any
regulations necessary to implement the amendments made
by H.R. 350.

Advisory Committee Statement

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.

Applicability to Legislative Branch

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title

This section provides the short title of the ``Recognizing
the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2017.''

Section 2. Findings

This section states four congressional findings related to
vehicles used solely for competition and EPA regulatory actions
under the Clean Air Act.

Section 3. Exclusion of vehicles used solely for competition from the
anti-tampering provisions of the Clean Air Act

This section amends section 203 of the CAA to allow any
action with respect to any device or element of design if the
action is for the purpose of modifying a motor vehicle into a
vehicle to be used solely for competition.

Section 4. Exclusion of vehicles used solely for competition from the
definition of motor vehicle in the Clean Air Act

This section amends section 216 to exclude vehicles used
solely for competition from the definition of ``motor vehicle''
in the CAA.

Section 5. Implementation

This section directs the Administrator of the EPA to
finalize any regulations necessary to implement the amendments
made by this Act not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):

CLEAN AIR ACT




* * * * * * *
TITLE II--EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOVING SOURCES

* * * * * * *



Part A--Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards

* * * * * * *



prohibited acts

Sec. 203. (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are
prohibited--
(1) in the case of a manufacturer of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines for distribution
in commerce, the sale, or the offering for sale, or the
introduction, or delivery for introduction, into
commerce, or (in the case of any person, except as
provided by regulation of the Administrator), the
importation into the United States, of any new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, manufactured after
the effective date of regulations under this part which
are applicable to such vehicle or engine unless such
vehicle or engine is covered by a certificate of
conformity issued (and in effect) under regulations
prescribed under this part or part C in the case of
clean-fuel vehicles (except as provided in subsection
(b));
(2)(A) for any person to fail or refuse to permit
access to or copying of records or to fail to make
reports or provide information required under section
208;
(B) for any person to fail or refuse to permit entry,
testing or inspection authorized under section 206(c)
or section 208;
(C) for any person to fail or refuse to perform
tests, or have tests performed as required under
section 208;
(D) for any manufacturer to fail to make information
available as provided by regulation under section
202(m)(5);
(3)(A) for any person to remove or render inoperative
any device or element of design installed on or in a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance
with regulations under this title prior to its sale and
delivery to the ultimate purchaser, or for any person
knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such
device or element of design after such sale and
delivery to the ultimate purchaser; or
(B) for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer
to sell, or install, any part or component intended for
use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine, where a principal effect of the part or
component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative
any device or element of design installed on or in a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance
with regulations under this title, and where the person
knows or should know that such part or component is
being offered for sale or installed for such use or put
to such use; or
(4) for any manufacturer of a new motor vehicle or
new motor vehicle engine subject to standards
prescribed under section 202 or Part C--
(A) to sell or lease any such vehicle or
engine unless such manufacturer has complied
with (i) the requirements of section 207 (a)
and (b) with respect to such vehicle or engine,
and unless a label or tag is affixed to such
vehicle or engine in accordance with section
207(c)(3), or (ii) the corresponding
requirements of part C in the case of clean
fuel vehicles unless the manufacturer has
complied with the corresponding requirements of
part C
(B) to fail or refuse to comply with the
requirements of section 207 (c) or (e), or the
corresponding requirements of part C in the
case of clean fuel vehicles
(C) except as provided in subsection (c)(3)
of section 207 and the corresponding
requirements of part C in the case of clean
fuel vehicles, to provide directly or
indirectly in any communication to the ultimate
purchaser or any subsequent purchaser that the
coverage of any warranty under this Act is
conditioned upon use of any part, component, or
system manufactured by such manufacturer or any
person acting for such manufacturer or under
his control, or conditioned upon service
performed by any such person, or
(D) to fail or refuse to comply with the
terms and conditions of the warranty under
section 207 (a) or (b) or the corresponding
requirements of part C in the case of clean
fuel vehicles with respect to any vehicle; or
(5) for any person to violate section 218, 219, or
part C of this title or any regulations under section
218, 219, or part C.
No action with respect to any element of design referred to in
paragraph (3) (including any adjustment or alteration of such
element) shall be treated as a prohibited act under such
paragraph (3) if such action is in accordance with section 215.
Nothing in paragraph (3) shall be construed to require the use
of manufacturer parts in maintaining or repairing any motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine. For the purposes of the
preceding sentence, the term ``manufacturer parts'' means, with
respect to a motor vehicle engine, parts produced or sold by
the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine.
No action with respect to any device or element of design
referred to in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited
act under that paragraph if (i) the action is for the purpose
of repair or replacement of the device or element, or is a
necessary and temporary procedure to repair or replace any
other item and the device or element is replaced upon
completion of the procedure, and (ii) such action thereafter
results in the proper functioning of the device or element
referred to in paragraph (3). No action with respect to any
device or element of design referred to in paragraph (3) shall
be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if the
action is for the purpose of a conversion of a motor vehicle
for use of a clean alternative fuel (as defined in this title)
and if such vehicle complies with the applicable standard under
section 202 when operating on such fuel, and if in the case of
a clean alternative fuel vehicle (as defined by rule by the
Administrator), the device or element is replaced upon
completion of the conversion procedure and such action results
in proper functioning of the device or element when the motor
vehicle operates on conventional fuel. No action with respect
to any device or element of design referred to in paragraph (3)
shall be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if
the action is for the purpose of modifying a motor vehicle into
a vehicle to be used solely for competition.
(b)(1) The Administrator may exempt any new motor vehicle or
new motor vehicle engine from subsection (a), upon such terms
and conditions as he may find necessary for the purpose of
research, investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training,
or for reasons of national security.
(2) A new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine offered
for importation or imported by any person in violation of
subsection (a) shall be refused admission into the United
States, but the Secretary of the Treasury and the Administrator
may, by joint regulation, provide for deferring final
determination as to admission and authorizing the delivery of
such a motor vehicle or engine offered for import to the owner
or consignee thereof upon such terms and conditions (including
the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to
insure that any such motor vehicle or engine will be brought
into conformity with the standards, requirements, and
limitations applicable to it under this part. The Secretary of
the Treasury shall, if a motor vehicle or engine is finally
refused admission under this paragraph, cause disposition
thereof in accordance with the customs laws unless it is
exported, under regulations prescribed by such Secretary,
within ninety days of the date of notice of such refusal or
such additional time as may be permitted pursuant to such
regulations, except that disposition in accordance with the
customs laws may not be made in such manner as may result,
directly or indirectly, in the sale, to the ultimate consumer,
of a new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine that fails
to comply with applicable standards of the Administrator under
this part.
(3) A new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine intended
solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the outside of
the container and on the vehicle or engine itself, shall be
subject to the provisions of subsection (a), except that if the
country which is to receive such vehicle or engine has emission
standards which differ from the standards prescribed under
section 202, then such vehicle or engine shall comply with the
standards of such country which is to receive such vehicle or
engine.

* * * * * * *


definitions for part a

Sec. 216. As used in this part--
(1) The term ``manufacturer'' as used in sections
202, 203, 206, 207, and 208 means any person engaged in
the manufacturing or assembling of new motor vehicles,
new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new
nonroad engines, or importing such vehicles or engines
for resale, or who acts for and is under the control of
any such person in connection with the distribution of
new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, new
nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines, but shall not
include any dealer with respect to new motor vehicles,
new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new
nonroad engines received by him in commerce.
(2) The term ``motor vehicle'' means any self-
propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or
property on a street or highway[.] and that is not a
vehicle used solely for competition, including any
vehicle so used that was converted from a motor
vehicle.
(3) Except with respect to vehicles or engines
imported or offered for importation, the term ``new
motor vehicle'' means a motor vehicle the equitable or
legal title to which has never been transferred to an
ultimate purchaser; and the term ``new motor vehicle
engine'' means an engine in a new motor vehicle or a
motor vehicle engine the equitable or legal title to
which has never been transferred to the ultimate
purchaser; and with respect to imported vehicles or
engines, such terms mean a motor vehicle and engine,
respectively, manufactured after the effective date of
a regulation issued under section 202 which is
applicable to such vehicle or engine (or which would be
applicable to such vehicle or engine had it been
manufactured for importation into the United States).
(4) The term ``dealer'' means any person who is
engaged in the sale or the distribution of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines to the ultimate
purchaser.
(5) The term ``ultimate purchaser'' means, with
respect to any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle
engine, the first person who in good faith purchases
such new motor vehicle or new engine for purposes other
than resale.
(6) The term ``commerce'' means (A) commerce between
any place in any State and any place outside thereof;
and (B) commerce wholly within the District of
Columbia.
(7) Vehicle curb weight, gross vehicle weight rating,
light-duty truck, light-duty vehicle, and loaded
vehicle weight.--The terms ``vehicle curb weight'',
``gross vehicle weight rating'' (GVWR), ``light-duty
truck'' (LDT), light-duty vehicle, and ``loaded vehicle
weight'' (LVW) have the meaning provided in regulations
promulgated by the Administrator and in effect as of
the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to any
term referred to in this paragraph shall have the same
meaning as the corresponding term.
(8) Test weight.--The term ``test weight'' and the
abbreviation ``tw'' mean the vehicle curb weight added
to the gross vehicle weight rating (gvwr) and divided
by 2.
(9) Motor vehicle or engine part manufacturer.--The
term ``motor vehicle or engine part manufacturer'' as
used in sections 207 and 208 means any person engaged
in the manufacturing, assembling or rebuilding of any
device, system, part, component or element of design
which is installed in or on motor vehicles or motor
vehicle engines.
(10) Nonroad engine.--The term ``nonroad engine''
means an internal combustion engine (including the fuel
system) that is not used in a motor vehicle or a
vehicle used solely for competition, or that is not
subject to standards promulgated under section 111 or
section 202.
(11) Nonroad vehicle.--The term ``nonroad vehicle''
means a vehicle that is powered by a nonroad engine and
that is not a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely
for competition.

* * * * * * *


DISSENTING VIEWS

H.R. 350, the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports
(RPM) Act of 2017, creates a large loophole in the Clean Air
Act (CAA) that could result in a massive increase in dangerous
air pollution by modified vehicles that are used on public
roadways. H.R. 350 undermines the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) enforcement authority to prevent widespread
tampering with the emission control equipment of motor
vehicles.

AMATEUR RACING IS ALREADY PROTECTED BY THE CLEAN AIR ACT

Amateur racing is a popular, long-standing activity
throughout the nation. The CAA establishes no legal barrier to
racing a motor vehicle. However, many amateur racers frequently
modify their vehicles for use as race cars by installing
aftermarket products to improve a vehicle's racing performance.
Some of these products are emissions control defeat devices
that disable or impair the proper function of a vehicle's
emissions controls, resulting in increased pollution; these
would be prohibited under the CAA. As a practical matter,
operation of these modified vehicles is not always limited to
the race track, meaning they are also emitting illegal levels
of pollution when they are driven on streets and highways.
The CAA requires EPA to certify that vehicles, and engines
meet specific emissions standards designed to control dangerous
air pollution--including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds--and prohibits
anyone from removing or disabling these emissions control
systems, or from selling or installing parts that would
``bypass, defeat, or render inoperative'' a vehicle's emissions
controls.\1\ Vehicle manufacturers have invested millions of
dollars and many years in systems to reduce emissions and
improve the environmental performance of the vehicles on our
roadways. The CAA exempts figni such requirements vehicles
manufactured and used solely for professional competition.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Clean Air Act Sec. 203(b)(3).
\2\40 CFR Sec. Sec. 1042620 and 1068.235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 350 UNNECESSARILY CREATES A CLEAN AIR LOOPHOLE THAT COULD RESULT
IN TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF POLLUTION

The RPM Act goes much further than ``clarifying'' the law
with respect to vehicles that have been modified into dedicated
racing vehicles with the installation of a defeat device. The
bill creates an exclusion from the Act's anti-tampering
prohibition. It also amends the definition of a motor vehicle
in section 216 to exclude vehicles ``used solely for
competition'' and vehicles ``converted from a motor vehicle.''
Proponents argue that Congress must pass legislation to
protect amateur racing from EPA enforcement against individuals
who have converted their vehicles into race cars. These
concerns are misplaced. EPA has never enforced this provision
of the CAA against individual vehicle owners, nor does it have
sufficient resources to make this an enforcement priority. EPA
has initiated enforcement cases against manufacturers of defeat
devices for use in motor vehicles not exclusively used for
racing and continue to operate on public roads. Such uses of
defeat devices and modified vehicles are not, and should not,
be permitted.
While we support amateur racing, we cannot support a bill
that would enable the manufacture, sale, installation or use of
defeat devices for vehicles that continue to operate on public
roadways. Any vehicle modified with a defeat device for the
purpose of conversion to a dedicated racing vehicle should no
longer be legal to operate on the road.
EPA reviewed H.R. 350 and indicated that it created
ambiguity in the CAA's definition of a ``motor vehicle'' and,
if enacted, the bill would undermine its authority to control
the illegal sale of aftermarket defeat devices and keep
polluting vehicles off the public roads. EPA's technical
assistance also requested changes to the bill, clarifying that
the only motor vehicles eligible for an exemption from the
CAA's anti-tampering provisions are those that have been
permanently converted to competition use only.
Ultimately, the RPM Act creates a loophole in the CAA that
blocks EPA's ability to enforce against those manufacturing or
selling emissions control defeat devices, regardless of how
they are used. The bill grants immunity to manufacturers of
defeat devices, so long as the manufacturer says the product is
intended for racing. But, the intent of the manufacturer is not
predictive of, nor does it impact how consumers will use these
products. Once they are installed EPA will have little ability
to penalize those using a product beyond its intent. By
preventing EPA from enforcing against the manufacture and sale
of defeat devices, this bill takes away an important tool for
stopping illegal vehicle pollution.
Without this EPA enforcement authority, there is no
assurance that motor vehicles modified with defeat devices
would, in fact, be used solely for competition. Previous EPA
enforcement cases suggest that marketing and sales of defeat
devices can be widespread and difficult to control, and the
additional pollution released is significant. In fact, this is
the same authority EPA recently used to detect that a company,
H&S Performance, had been manufacturing and selling products
resulted in nearly double the illegal NOx emissions of the
Volkswagen diesel scandal.\3\ EPA must retain meaningful
enforcement authority to prevent widespread tampering that will
undermine air quality and harm public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Union of Concerned Scientists, Is Your Representative Setting Us
Up for Another Dieselgate? (Oct. 5, 2017) (blog.ucsusa.org/jonna-
hamilton/is-your-representative-setting-us-up-for-another-dieselgate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESS CAN PROTECT AMATEUR RACERS AND PUBLIC HEALTH

At the December 6, 2017, Full Committee Markup,
Representative Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment to ensure
vehicles modified for racing remained off the public roadways,
and that EPA retains necessary enforcement authority against
bad actor.\4\ Representative Dingell's amendment was consistent
with technical assistance provided by EPA. The amendment also
reflected witness testimony and bipartisan Members' statements
agreeing that any CAA exemption should only apply to dedicated
racing vehicles, not to vehicles used on public roadways.\5\
However, the amendment was not accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Full Committee Markup of
H.R. 350, The Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2017,
115th Cong, Dec. 6, 2017.
\5\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Environment, Hearing on Big Relief for Small Business: Legislation
Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Small Manufacturers and Other Job
Creators, 115th Cong, Sept. 13, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unfortunate the Majority insisted on rushing H.R. 350
through the Committee process before a compromise could be
reached with all interested Members and stakeholders. In its
current form, the RPM Act does not provide the narrowly
tailored CAA exemption the amateur racing community requested.
Rather, it creates a massive loophole in the law. H.R. 350 will
lead to the legalization of widespread vehicle tampering, and
only serves to significantly increase air pollution. We believe
there is a reasonable compromise that would enable an amateur
racer to convert a motor vehicle into a dedicated racing
vehicle without facilitating widespread violation of the CAA.
We remain open to finding that compromise.
For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 350 in its current form.

Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Paul D. Tonko,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Environment.

[all]

[h=3]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5434/text?r=3&s=1


Shown Here:
Introduced in House (12/16/2019)[/h]

116th CONGRESS 1st Session​

H. R. 5434​

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide an exemption from certain antitampering provisions for certain actions for modifying a motor vehicle that is not legal for operation on a street or highway and is to be used solely for competition, and for other purposes.

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 16, 2019​

Mr. McHenry (for himself, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Schrader, Mr. Posey, Mr. Cisneros, and Mr. Burgess) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

---

A BILL​

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide an exemption from certain antitampering provisions for certain actions for modifying a motor vehicle that is not legal for operation on a street or highway and is to be used solely for competition, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2019” or the “RPM Act of 2019”.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM ANTITAMPERING PROVISIONS.
Section 203(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “No action with respect to any device or element of design referred to in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if the action is for the purpose of modifying a motor vehicle into a vehicle that is not legal for operation on a street or highway and is to be used solely for competition.”.

SEC. 3. REGULATION.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall finalize a regulation to implement the amendment made by this Act.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 2 shall take effect not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act without regard to whether a final regulation has been promulgated as required by section 3.

https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/...-sema-urges-industry-to-campaign-for-rpm-act/


Correction: Warning of EPA racecar threat, SEMA urges industry to campaign for RPM Act

https://www.sema.org/epa-news

PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO RACE! THE EPA IS BANNING RACECARS. TELL CONGRESS TO PASS THE RPM ACT NOW AND STOP THE EPA FROM DESTROYING MOTORSPORTS IN 2020. YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU NOW!

• Street vehicles—cars, trucks, and motorcycles—can’t be converted into racecars according to the EPA.
• The EPA has announced that enforcement against high performance parts—including superchargers, tuners, and exhaust systems—is a top priority for 2020.
• The RPM Act was just reintroduced. Even if you are one of the hundreds of thousands of enthusiasts who contacted Congress in the past, we need your support again!
• Tell the bureaucrats in Washington that racecars are off limits!

The RPM Act of 2019 (H.R. 5434/S. 2602) is common-sense, bi-partisan legislation to protect Americans’ right to convert street vehicles (cars, trucks and motorcycles) into dedicated racecars and the motorsports-parts industry’s ability to sell products that enable racers to compete. The bill clarifies that it is legal to make emissions-related changes to a street vehicle for the purpose of converting it into a racecar used exclusively in competition. It also confirms that it is legal to produce, market and install racing equipment.
The RPM Act reverses the EPA’s interpretation that the Clean Air Act does not allow a motor vehicle designed for street use—including a car, truck, or motorcycle—to be converted into a dedicated racecar. This American tradition was unquestioned for nearly 50 years until 2015 when the EPA took the position that converted vehicles must remain emissions-compliant, even though they are no longer driven on public streets or highways. Although the EPA did not finalize the proposed rule, the agency still maintains the practice of modifying the emission system of a motor vehicle for the purpose of converting it for racing is illegal. Manufacturing, selling and installing race parts for the converted vehicle would also be a violation. The EPA has also announced that enforcement against high performance parts—including superchargers, tuners, and exhaust systems—is a top priority for 2020.
Converting street vehicles into dedicated race vehicles is an American tradition dating back decades and has negligible environmental impact. While California is known for having the strictest emissions laws, the state exempts racing vehicles from regulation.
Motorsports competition involves tens of thousands of participants and vehicle owners each year, both amateur and professional. Retail sales of racing products make up a nearly $2 billion market annually. Most of the vehicles raced on the estimated 1,300 racetracks operating across the U.S. are converted vehicles that the EPA considers to be illegal.
The RPM Act does not interfere with the EPA’s authority to enforce against individuals who illegally install race parts on vehicles driven on public roads and highways and the companies that market such products. Tampering with the emissions system of a motor vehicle used on public roads is a clear violation of the Clean Air Act.
The RPM Act will provide the racing community with certainty and confidence in the face of an EPA interpretation of the Clean Air Act that threatens to devastate an American pastime and eliminate jobs in our communities.
Tell Your Elected Officials to Protect Motorsports and Pass the RPM Act
HOW YOU CAN HELP:
Republican and Democrat members of Congress have expressed a desire to provide certainty to racers and the motorsports parts industry. However, there is much more to be done before the RPM Act becomes law.
Use our Action Center to send a message to your Senators and Representative to ask them to support the RPM Act.
SEMA members can help spread the word by including links on their websites, social media platforms, storefronts and garages. Members can also rally their customers, employees, followers and friends to act. Use the assets found in SEMA’s digital toolkit: www.sema.org/rpmtools. And don’t forget to join the conversation on social media using the hashtag #SaveOurRacecars.

Click to expand...

^^^ That's 9 month old "news'.

-Uwe-

Yup, however, still relevant!

I'm wondering how all these YouTube posts with hits for advertisers or Google are going to do when they get hit for a vicarious liability & with EPA/NHTSA enforcement for tampering for aiding and abetting if Trump is successful with his media idea?

Just looking at all the Safety and SMOG delete instruction videos and sites they point to and too sell illegal products?

A place like the Vortex could be in for some serious legal civil issue's by penalties, huh?

Illegal devices that bypass vehicle emissions controls spread across US

You're all fucked now!

Watching the nine month old video I understand many probably won't like the views of the EPA, but like the presenter of the video says, we all breadth air. The other side of the coin is that the presenter of the video is not old enough to go back to the days when we had diesels without any form of filters or emissions controls on them at all. If you also think about other industries we had like the mining industry and the pollution we created from our coal fires to keep warm, the local air quality was very poor back in the 50's, 60's and 70's. many might not like it but there has to be change for the better in that the changes produce local clean air and help stop people being ill for various reasons. As an example, somebody with good health and no experience won't understand how somebody with chest and lung problems, like asthmatic problems would suffer trying to breadth contaminated air.

My mother rang me the other night to call round and experience the smell of fumes in her house. I knew from being in the area of air around her house when I arrived that somebody was burning something local, but could not see any evidence. My mother had shut all her windows and vents and when I walked into the living room the air was very repugnant. In the UK there are laws that prevent this sort of problem but people are ignorant towards others and carry on as if...

Trade Member said:

the local air quality was very poor back in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, it was. There is no doubt that we needed to clean that up, and we have. The question is, will we ever reach a point where we say, "That's good enough"? It seems like the bureaucrats want to keep tightening the standards and will never be satisfied.

Absolutely, it was. There is no doubt that we needed to clean that up, and we have. The question is, will we ever reach a point where we say, "That's good enough"? It seems like the bureaucrats want to keep tightening the standards and will never be satisfied.

Click to expand...

I agree with a straddle.........

The car companies are & have been paid well to implement technology to clean shit up.

When they lie in order to do it, it isn't only cheating the consumer, it's cheating the tax payer & purporting in some cases a possible dangerous lie to environment & that causes possible determent to everyone!

I take issue with it when the aforementioned is used as a basis to lock out an aftermarket shop or owner too!

The reality is, people were or are sold a technology, that was allegedly cleaner & they paid extra for it & there is indeed a market for it otherwise it would not of sold, as is, there an accordingly expectation of performance with anything someone purchases.

A TDI costed a third more money than a gas car & out of the gate, an EV cost even more before incentives to consumer!

Gas cars have such technologies allegedly purportedly available to as a PZEV or SULEV and they cost more money, they are also are certified with longer useful life warranties, just like paying for extra HP or a navigation unit!

Now if the regulations were not written by the OEM for expectation of achievements and indeed they were NOT written by a bureaucrat other than the incentives of PORK, further the writings being automotive Engineers, I'd say you have a point, however, here is where I disagree with you, however, agree some politicians shouldn't be in their position, nor the constituents by appointment!

If a consumer wants something they will pay and there should be no more government incentives or they should increase the penalties for lying about a technology if there are such incentives!

If technologies are found during a history operation, not being able to meet a useful life, they should be permitted to be removed or not certified going forward and examples of such would be an EGR or crankcase breather attached to intake for diluted poor combustion would be a start since they damage the ultimate AECD a CAT!

I would be for adding more CATS and getting rid of the aforementioned examples immediately, I dont see the cost so high in comparison to other unessential accouterments, I do think certain safety devices should be looked at and maybe eliminated or expressed as an option.