H2O_Doc
Well-Known Member
There is a fair point made a couple of posts above that addresses what had originally been the assertion at hand.
The original videos made claims about EPA interpretations of the CAA and their interests in enforcing those interpretation. The most extreme contention was that the result would be that you could not modify your car. Little evidence was offered for this contention.
The clarification that some of us here, in response, have tried to make is that the claim that EPA can or intends to ban car modifications seems clearly unfounded and is contradicted by statements released by the EPA. There is also an absence of a plausible mechanisms that would allow such a ban under the CAA. There is clear interest by the EPA in addressing the use of devices that defeat or bypass pollution controls on cars driven on the public roadways.
To the extent that mods do not increase tailpipe concentrations of regulated pollutants to a level that violates standards, your mods are just fine despite what some people have claimed. Your CAI is fine, your cat-back exhaust is fine, even your tune is fine so long as you can pass a sniffer test. The EPA has made it clear they donāt care about your mods beyond the aforementioned.
EPA does car about you decatting your car and bypassing emissions controls. But catalytic converters have been on cars for decades and there is nothing new here. You canāt legally decat a car and drive on the public roads.
Now, in fairness to those that expressed a concern about modding cars, there is a twist related to the distinction of what is and is not an off-road vehicle, modifying a road car into a race car, and how this fits into enforcement. The salient piece at the end of the day for me is this: I canāt put a catless downpipe on my Supra and legally drive it on the road. If I turn it into a ārace carā (track use only), I may feel free to do so without legal penalty. This seems reasonable.
If you donāt like the EPA or the burden of clean air regulations, then it is easy to react and even believe what industry lobbies have helped spin-up. But, many of their claims fall apart under scrutiny.
I think thatās what all of this comes down to. What is the real intent? I think itās also fair to ask what the original interpretation of the CAA was that got us here and is it reasonable? Much of the rest is theater.
The original videos made claims about EPA interpretations of the CAA and their interests in enforcing those interpretation. The most extreme contention was that the result would be that you could not modify your car. Little evidence was offered for this contention.
The clarification that some of us here, in response, have tried to make is that the claim that EPA can or intends to ban car modifications seems clearly unfounded and is contradicted by statements released by the EPA. There is also an absence of a plausible mechanisms that would allow such a ban under the CAA. There is clear interest by the EPA in addressing the use of devices that defeat or bypass pollution controls on cars driven on the public roadways.
To the extent that mods do not increase tailpipe concentrations of regulated pollutants to a level that violates standards, your mods are just fine despite what some people have claimed. Your CAI is fine, your cat-back exhaust is fine, even your tune is fine so long as you can pass a sniffer test. The EPA has made it clear they donāt care about your mods beyond the aforementioned.
EPA does car about you decatting your car and bypassing emissions controls. But catalytic converters have been on cars for decades and there is nothing new here. You canāt legally decat a car and drive on the public roads.
Now, in fairness to those that expressed a concern about modding cars, there is a twist related to the distinction of what is and is not an off-road vehicle, modifying a road car into a race car, and how this fits into enforcement. The salient piece at the end of the day for me is this: I canāt put a catless downpipe on my Supra and legally drive it on the road. If I turn it into a ārace carā (track use only), I may feel free to do so without legal penalty. This seems reasonable.
If you donāt like the EPA or the burden of clean air regulations, then it is easy to react and even believe what industry lobbies have helped spin-up. But, many of their claims fall apart under scrutiny.
I think thatās what all of this comes down to. What is the real intent? I think itās also fair to ask what the original interpretation of the CAA was that got us here and is it reasonable? Much of the rest is theater.
Sponsored
