Catalytic converter delete

Largest fine EPA has tried to Levy is $2500 ea one removed and that was against the muffler shop that did it. No fines on individuals.

Quote from dangerdarrell

Largest fine EPA has tried to Levy is $2500 ea one removed and that was against the muffler shop that did it. No fines on individuals.

I do not think that applies to motorcycles

Quote from Bigdog

just be aware it’s a $10,000 fine to eliminate your catalytic converter if you get caught.

Does that apply to motorcycles?

I am fairly certain that every motorcycle on the road is running with an aftermarket exhaust that eliminates the cat.

I have been in the motorcycle community for 20+ years and I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket other than repair ticket to pass inspection in the Nazi states.

A few years back the muffler shop could not do it, if caught they had a fine. But we could do it at home DIY to our cars and trucks. Of course the state inspection states might be different. My 89 Firebird had cat delete as soon as I got it home my 98 still has the cat because it is in the down pipe so you have to buy an off road exhaust system.

Glad I live in a state without emmision testing.

Quote from Red

Does that apply to motorcycles?

Why did polaris waste money putting them on? I would say if they were required to install them, (by the government) they had a good reason. I would imagine it has something to do. With motor size. That said if it came installed from the factory if you or someone else removes it....there is a problem. In your state is it a motorcycle or an autocycle?

If you remove the catalytic converter you will be in violation of Federal and some state environmental regulations. The vehicle will run just fine, but you'll pay if you're caught.

Removal of catalytic converters is a whole different story. The removal without replacement of a catalytic converter by individuals or automotive servicers is a violation of Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the federal Clean Air Act.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
June 25, 1974
Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A
SUBJECT: Interim Tampering Enforcement Policy
A. Purpose
The purpose of this Memorandum is to state the interim policy of EPA with regard to enforcement of the "tampering" prohibition-- Section 203(a)(3)--of the Clean Air Act. This Memorandum cancels and supersedes Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1 of December 22, 1972.
Section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act provides:
"The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited--
(3) 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 manufacturer or dealer knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser."
Section 205 of the Act provides for a maximum civil penalty of $10,000 for any person who violates Section 203(a)(3). ^^^^^^^
2. This "tampering" provision of the law has created a great deal of uncertainty, primarily among new vehicle dealers and automotive aftermarket parts manufacturers, regarding what actions and/or use of what parts are prohibited. The terms "manufacturer" and "dealer" in 203(a)(3) refer only to motor vehicle and engine manufacturers and new motor vehicle dealers; however, the law impacts indirectly on aftermarket parts manufacturers through its applicability to vehicle dealers who are customers for their products. Other provisions in the Act establishing manufacturer warranties and authorizing compulsory recall of properly maintained vehicles also have a potential for anti-competitive effects in the aftermarket.
3. In general, it is clear that EPA's primary objective in enforcing the statutory prohibition on "tampering" must be to assure unimpaired emission control of motor vehicles throughout their useful life. It is EPA's policy to attempt to achieve this objective without imposing unnecessary restraints on commerce in the automotive aftermarket.
4. The long range solution to minimizing possible anti-competitive effects that could result from implementation of these statutory provisions may lie in some type of certification program for at least certain categories of aftermarket parts. EPA is currently studying the technical, administrative and legal problems which such a program presents. EPA has yet to develop the policy, procedures, or facilities attendant to any long range solution.
5. In the absence of a long-term solution, and in the absence of proof that use of nonoriginal equipment parts will adversely affect emissions, constraining dealers to the use of only original equipment parts would constitute an unwarranted burden on commerce in the automotive aftermarket. Pending development of a long range solution, the following statement reflects EPA's interim policy in the tampering area. This policy is intended to reduce the uncertainty which dealers now face by providing criteria by which dealers can determine in advance that certain of their acts do not constitute tampering.
6. New vehicle and engine manufacturers have also requested that they be treated, in their aftermarket parts role, similarly to other aftermarket parts manufacturers. Memorandum No. 1 was intended to avoid unnecessary adverse impacts on all aftermarket manufacturers; this revision, therefore, makes it clear that EPA's interim policy extends to vehicle and engine manufacturers.
B. Interim Policy
1. Unless and until otherwise stated, the Environmental Protection Agency will not regard the following acts, when performed by a dealer, to constitute violations of Section 203(a)(3) of the Act:
(a) Use of a nonoriginal equipment aftermarket part (including a rebuilt part) as a replacement part solely for purposes of maintenance according to the vehicle or engine manufacturer's instructions, or for repair or replacement of a defective or worn out part, if the dealer has a reasonable basis for knowing that such use will not adversely affect emissions performance; and

(b) Use of a nonoriginal equipment aftermarket part or system as an add-on, auxiliary, augmenting, or secondary part or system, if the dealer has a reasonable basis for knowing that such use will not adversely affect emissions performance; and
(c) Adjustments or alterations of a particular part or system parameter, if done for purposes of maintenance or repair according to the vehicle or engine manufacturer's instructions, or if the dealer has a reasonable basis for knowing that such adjustment or alteration will not adversely affect emissions performance.
2. For purposes of clause (la), a reasonable basis for knowing that a given act will not adversely affect emissions performance exists if:
(a) the dealer reasonably believes that the replacement part or rebuilt part is designed to perform the same function with respect to emission control as the replaced part, or
(b) the replacement part or rebuilt part is represented in writing by the part manufacturer to perform the same function with respect to emission control as the replaced part.
3. For purposes of clauses (lb) and (lc), a reasonable basis for knowing that a given act will not adversely affect emissions performance exists if:
(a) the dealer knows of emissions tests which have been performed according to testing procedures prescribed in 40 CFR section 85 showing that the act does not cause similar vehicles or engines to fail to meet applicable emission standards for their useful lives (5 years or 50,000 miles in the case of light-duty vehicles); or
(b) the part or system manufacturer represents in writing that tests as described in (a) have been performed with similar results; or
(c) a Federal, State or local environmental control agency expressly represents that a reasonable basis exists. (This provision is limited to the geographic area over which the State or local agency has jurisdiction).

4. For purposes of clauses (la), (lb), and (lc):

(a) except when necessarily done in conjunction with acts under l(b)or l(c) which EPA does not consider to constitute violations of Section 203(a)(3), the permanent removal or disconnecting or blocking of any part of the original system installed primarily for the purpose of controlling emissions will be presumed to adversely affect emission performance; and
(b) the proscription and appropriate publication by EPA of an act as prohibited will be deemed conclusive that such act will adversely affect emissions performance.
C. Discussion
1. Clause (la) will apply to new or rebuilt replacement parts, protecting the dealer when he uses such a part to conduct necessary maintenance if a person familiar with the design and function of motor vehicles and engines would reasonably believe that such a part is designed to perform the same function as the replaced part, or if there is written representation by the parts manufacturer that the part is so designed. Other reasonable bases (e.g., emissions test showing no adverse effect) may exist, but these other bases will probably not occur often in the replacement part context. If EPA gains information that certain replacement parts do adversely affect emissions, a listing of such parts will be published

Norman D. Shulter, Director
Mobile Source Enforcement Division
Office of Enforcement and General Counsel

Quote from Bigdog

Why did polaris waste money putting them on? I would say if they were required to install them, (by the government) they had a good reason. I would imagine it has something to do. With motor size. That said if it came installed from the factory if you or someone else removes it....there is a problem. In your state is it a motorcycle or an autocycle?
If you remove the catalytic converter you will be in violation of Federal and some state environmental regulations. The vehicle will run just fine, but you'll pay if you're caught.

Removal of catalytic converters is a whole different story. The removal without replacement of a catalytic converter by individuals or automotive servicers is a violation of Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the federal Clean Air Act.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
June 25, 1974
Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A
SUBJECT: Interim Tampering Enforcement Policy
A. Purpose
The purpose of this Memorandum is to state the interim policy of EPA with regard to enforcement of the "tampering" prohibition-- Section 203(a)(3)--of the Clean Air Act. This Memorandum cancels and supersedes Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1 of December 22, 1972.
Section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act provides:
"The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited--
(3) 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 manufacturer or dealer knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser."
Section 205 of the Act provides for a maximum civil penalty of $10,000 for any person who violates Section 203(a)(3). ^^^^^^^
2. This "tampering" provision of the law has created a great deal of uncertainty, primarily among new vehicle dealers and automotive aftermarket parts manufacturers, regarding what actions and/or use of what parts are prohibited. The terms "manufacturer" and "dealer" in 203(a)(3) refer only to motor vehicle and engine manufacturers and new motor vehicle dealers; however, the law impacts indirectly on aftermarket parts manufacturers through its applicability to vehicle dealers who are customers for their products. Other provisions in the Act establishing manufacturer warranties and authorizing compulsory recall of properly maintained vehicles also have a potential for anti-competitive effects in the aftermarket.
3. In general, it is clear that EPA's primary objective in enforcing the statutory prohibition on "tampering" must be to assure unimpaired emission control of motor vehicles throughout their useful life. It is EPA's policy to attempt to achieve this objective without imposing unnecessary restraints on commerce in the automotive aftermarket.
4. The long range solution to minimizing possible anti-competitive effects that could result from implementation of these statutory provisions may lie in some type of certification program for at least certain categories of aftermarket parts. EPA is currently studying the technical, administrative and legal problems which such a program presents. EPA has yet to develop the policy, procedures, or facilities attendant to any long range solution.
5. In the absence of a long-term solution, and in the absence of proof that use of nonoriginal equipment parts will adversely affect emissions, constraining dealers to the use of only original equipment parts would constitute an unwarranted burden on commerce in the automotive aftermarket. Pending development of a long range solution, the following statement reflects EPA's interim policy in the tampering area. This policy is intended to reduce the uncertainty which dealers now face by providing criteria by which dealers can determine in advance that certain of their acts do not constitute tampering.
6. New vehicle and engine manufacturers have also requested that they be treated, in their aftermarket parts role, similarly to other aftermarket parts manufacturers. Memorandum No. 1 was intended to avoid unnecessary adverse impacts on all aftermarket manufacturers; this revision, therefore, makes it clear that EPA's interim policy extends to vehicle and engine manufacturers.
B. Interim Policy
1. Unless and until otherwise stated, the Environmental Protection Agency will not regard the following acts, when performed by a dealer, to constitute violations of Section 203(a)(3) of the Act:
(a) Use of a nonoriginal equipment aftermarket part (including a rebuilt part) as a replacement part solely for purposes of maintenance according to the vehicle or engine manufacturer's instructions, or for repair or replacement of a defective or worn out part, if the dealer has a reasonable basis for knowing that such use will not adversely affect emissions performance; and

(b) Use of a nonoriginal equipment aftermarket part or system as an add-on, auxiliary, augmenting, or secondary part or system, if the dealer has a reasonable basis for knowing that such use will not adversely affect emissions performance; and
(c) Adjustments or alterations of a particular part or system parameter, if done for purposes of maintenance or repair according to the vehicle or engine manufacturer's instructions, or if the dealer has a reasonable basis for knowing that such adjustment or alteration will not adversely affect emissions performance.
2. For purposes of clause (la), a reasonable basis for knowing that a given act will not adversely affect emissions performance exists if:
(a) the dealer reasonably believes that the replacement part or rebuilt part is designed to perform the same function with respect to emission control as the replaced part, or
(b) the replacement part or rebuilt part is represented in writing by the part manufacturer to perform the same function with respect to emission control as the replaced part.
3. For purposes of clauses (lb) and (lc), a reasonable basis for knowing that a given act will not adversely affect emissions performance exists if:
(a) the dealer knows of emissions tests which have been performed according to testing procedures prescribed in 40 CFR section 85 showing that the act does not cause similar vehicles or engines to fail to meet applicable emission standards for their useful lives (5 years or 50,000 miles in the case of light-duty vehicles); or
(b) the part or system manufacturer represents in writing that tests as described in (a) have been performed with similar results; or
(c) a Federal, State or local environmental control agency expressly represents that a reasonable basis exists. (This provision is limited to the geographic area over which the State or local agency has jurisdiction).

4. For purposes of clauses (la), (lb), and (lc):

(a) except when necessarily done in conjunction with acts under l(b)or l(c) which EPA does not consider to constitute violations of Section 203(a)(3), the permanent removal or disconnecting or blocking of any part of the original system installed primarily for the purpose of controlling emissions will be presumed to adversely affect emission performance; and
(b) the proscription and appropriate publication by EPA of an act as prohibited will be deemed conclusive that such act will adversely affect emissions performance.
C. Discussion
1. Clause (la) will apply to new or rebuilt replacement parts, protecting the dealer when he uses such a part to conduct necessary maintenance if a person familiar with the design and function of motor vehicles and engines would reasonably believe that such a part is designed to perform the same function as the replaced part, or if there is written representation by the parts manufacturer that the part is so designed. Other reasonable bases (e.g., emissions test showing no adverse effect) may exist, but these other bases will probably not occur often in the replacement part context. If EPA gains information that certain replacement parts do adversely affect emissions, a listing of such parts will be published

Norman D. Shulter, Director
Mobile Source Enforcement Division
Office of Enforcement and General Counsel

Display More

Laws without an enforcement mechanism have no bite. Who is charged with enforcing this?
If you live in a state that has emission testing it still doesn't matter unless it causes it to fail the test. I really doubt anyone is going to disassemble your exhaust to look for a cat.
Why would polaris install them, because the went to sell them in places like California.

Quote from Red

Laws without an enforcement mechanism have no bite. Who is charged with enforcing this?If you live in a state that has emission testing it still doesn't matter unless it causes it to fail the test. I really doubt anyone is going to disassemble your exhaust to look for a cat.
Why would polaris install them, because the went to sell them in places like California.

You would not believe the places I've gone looking for a little pu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,uh what was we discussing??????????????

That's because it's already been removed Mr Ghost. But if you do find what you're looking for, see if she has a sister please

When they first started the emission testing in Cali. The tuned up cars had no trouble passing the test even without the cat.

I have a confession....

Probably shouldn't post this up on a public forum...

And I am not a bad person...

But you know that tag on the bed mattress...

Yep, I removed it!

In my head, I see a worker with raw fingers, in a little "sweat shop", standing up and yelling, "Liberation!"

You can't imagine the feelings of guilt that I have had to carry.

The visions of federal law enforcement kicking in my door and hauling me out of my home in front of my family.

Thank you all for allowing me to get this off my conscience.

I am beginning to feel uneasy now because this now opens the door for that individual to quote law found on the internet.... so sorry.

Cat Police!
slingshotinfo.com/wcf/index.php?attachment/82050/

Reason for CATs on the Sling... Most will not agree but it's mostly management of exhaust fumes. At least the one inside the muffler is 100% for that I'm my opinion.

Soooooo are they gonna cut open the muffler to see if you have bypassed that one?

In California we are not supposed to modify the exhaust system, but at this time there is no smog inspection or testing for motorcycles so there is no real way to enforce these rules. There are sound laws and if you are too loud a police officer can give you a citation, but it would be a fix it kind of thing where you just had to get it signed off on

having said this there is constant talk about starting smog testing on motorcycles and you can bet that sooner or later they will probably have testing that will include a visual inspection

as a side note the one thing about the cat delete pipes that is nice is that they can easily be switched in and out if the need were to arise

YEP! That is why I have two of them. Just need to figure where to cut or drill one hole to open up that chamber to bypass.

can someone tell me if the cat delete pipe is something that can be installed without having to remove the side panel?

Quote from edwardaneal

can someone tell me if the cat delete pipe is something that can be installed without having to remove the side panel?

It can be done but it ain't easy. A good chance of cussing and skinned knuckles.

Quote from edwardaneal

can someone tell me if the cat delete pipe is something that can be installed without having to remove the side panel?

@edwardaneal it is not hard to do. The worst part is reattaching the springs to the muffler. But if you just barely start the manifold screws first then it is easier to attach the springs. You do not have to remove anything except the CAT Pipe and the springs