TfcCDR

It has nothing to do with ignorance of the law.

We are talking about an exemption which was written into the regulation. Not a "loophole," not a "nobody enforces," not a "maybe nobody will catch me," it's a SPECIFIC EXEMPTION. Meet it and the rest of the regulation doesn't apply to you.

If you can reasonably believe that the actual emissions don't exceed the standard for your body model year, then you meet the standards of the exemption. Once that's invoked, it's up to the EPA to prove that the car doesn't meet the standard AND that a reasonable and prudent person would not have been able to believe that it did.

Your marijuana example does apply somewhat -- if you were on the job in Colorado, there is no state or local law mirroring the Federal ban on grass, thus you would no longer have any authority to arrest on simple possession or use, no matter what Federal laws say.

TfcCDR

The cop either wasn't sure they would get a conviction on them, OR you got caught in a "push" regarding license plate mounting, OR you seemed suspicious in some other way, and when you checked out he gave you the one least likely to hurt.

YOU are missing the point here.

I'm not saying it's okay because we don't care, I'm saying it's okay IF YOU CAN MEET THE STANDARDS WRITTEN INTO THE REGULATION.

No, every time I have pointed out the wooden stake that kills the regulation.

For the sake of argument, let's say that I did (or believed that I did) have the authority to enforce Federal regulations, and cited someone for having an engine swap done.

This wouldn't survive the arraignment. There is NO CASE once the exemption is invoked. It's over, unless the EPA chooses to test the car emissions AND the car fails, AND it fails so badly that a "reasonable and prudent person" (this is a standard used in the law) would have reason to believe that it would fail.

That's a pretty steep slope, which is no doubt the reason that there is absolutely no record in the computer networks used by law enforcement indicating any legal action whatsoever against an individual car owner for making an engine swap.

Since there is no authority for me to even write that citation, the only people who can enforce that regulation are the EPA. The FBI can't do it, the kgBATFE can't do it, the IRS can't do it, the Secret Service can't do it, the BLM can't do it . . .do you see a trend here?

If the kid reads the regulation, he's got all the word that he needs.

YOU warned him about the regulation.

_I_ told him about the exemption.

Between the two of us, we gave him the information he needs to make his decision on what to do.

I can't think of a judge who wouldn't accept it. He or she would look pretty stupid before the appeals court if he allowed a trial to continue after invocation of a valid exemption contained within the same regulation being prosecuted.

That exemption is as technical as a law gets.

This regulation isn't arrestable -- an EPA official could, at most, have the car impounded pending inspection. That assumes that they had reasonable cause to make the inspection in the first place (not a real challenge, since most people doing engine swaps aren't shy about telling the world that they did it). But they're not going to do even that, unless they see a lot of smoke or they smell raw gasoline from the tailpipe, because of that exemption. They know that the guy's lawyer will shred them -- not only will there not be an EPA trial, but there will be a civil trial in which the EPA will pay all costs plus thousands in damages.

Once the exemption is invoked, the insurance company has no way out of paying. At that point, the EPA official couldn't even have the car tested (because the accident may have adversely affected the engine operation and emissions).

And insurance companies aren't that tight with their money.

For proof, consider that the law in most states (I can't speak for all) prohibits driving on the public streets if you have raised the vehicle above a certain height. In fact, several laws are directly violated when you jack up your pickup, from headlight height to raising center of gravity. This doesn't even include the tack-ons, such as "unsafe condition."

The insurance companies pay up in accidents involving those vehicles, except when the raising of the vehicle is clearly and directly contributory to the accident (for instance, if the thing falls over on its side while making a turn).

That one's a highly visible violation of the law, with NO exemption to invoke, but the companies pay without a comment. What makes you believe that they would think they would argue about a regulation with a built-in excuse?

BabyGT

Why on earth would they sit and create a regulation then tack on an excuse to ignore the whole thing. How does that make any sense?

READ THE WHOLE THING. Do not pick and choose chunks.

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production...ngswitch_0.pdf

Specifically this part, which you took your excert from without the rest of the paragraph.

EPA received many questions regarding the application of this law to a situation where one engine is removed from a vehicle and another engine is installed in its place. EPA's policy regarding "engine switching" is covered under the provisions of Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. lA (Attachment 1).
This policy states that EPA will not consider any modification to a "certified configuration" to be a violation of federal law if there is a reasonable basis for knowing that emissions are not adversely affected. In many cases, proper emission testing according to the Federal Test Procedure would be necessary to make this determination.

A "certified configuration" is an engine or engine chassis design which has been "certified" (approved) by EPA prior to the production of vehicles with that design. Generally, the manufacturer submits an application for certification of the designs of each engine or vehicle it proposes to manufacture prior to production. The application includes design requirements for all emission related parts, engine
calibrations, and other design parameters for each different type of engine (in heavy-duty vehicles), or engine chassis combination (in light-duty vehicles). EPA then "certifies" each acceptable design for use, in vehicles of the upcoming model year.


The EPA has not certified the 302 to be used in a new edge design. Making it illegal regardless of any other wording. The bit you referenced means you can modify the emissions system for a vehicle/motor if you have reason to suspect it does not affect emissions. Not cram whatever motor in whatever vehicle because you think it should be close enough emission wise. That bit applies only to modifying a preexisting emissions system, not swapping motors.

PNYXPRESS

^just give up you would have an easier time getting Stevie Wonder to see this as a law.

BabyGT

Now that I have reposted in the correct context, within its full paragraph, the chunk he was citing there isn't much more to be done. This thread needs to be locked before anymore misinformation is spread.

TfcCDR

Lock it? Why are you afraid to discuss this?

There are exemptions written into most laws and regulations. Go look. And once you find that an exemption applies, there is no need to read any further, any more than you keep looking for a contact lens after you find it. It's not "picking and choosing chunks."

Federal regulations have a LOT of exemptions written into them, and I've already mentioned a number of exemptions to state law. They put most exemptions in because it makes sense to make the exemption (such as the one allowing a cop to exceed the speed limit if responding to an emergency). Some exemptions are put in so that the law can be passed over opposition (or ridicule). And still other exemptions are put in just to keep the code from being tested in court for fear that it will be thrown out completely -- they will accept whatever level of obedience they get from those unwilling to take the risk.

Apparently you believe that an engine swap is not an applicable "modification to a 'certified configuration'" . . .please cite the section which states that it's not, or that limits the definition of "modification to a 'certified configuration'" -- the passage clearly states that this is in answer to questions about engine swapping, and then refers to "reasonable basis for knowing that emissions are not adversely affected." It doesn't even say that emissions must NOT have been adversely affected, just that there has to be a good reason to believe that they haven't.

In cases of ambiguity in the wording of a law or regulation, legal precedent is to come down on the side of the defendant. Even rewriting the pertinent passage doesn't apply to that case (look up "ex post facto").

But the most telling point is that there are no cases that I've been able to find where an individual was cited (much less prosecuted) for an engine swap. Out of the millions of engine swaps out there, and the thousands of EPA officials, you would think that if your interpretation were correct, SOMEONE would have been issued paper over their change.

I believe that the reason nobody has even been cited is because of the exemption. Do you have an alternate theory?

jthorn9

I do agree....thread locked