I-Roc with my Z

Has anyone used this setup on a stock or lightly modded 350 can anyone tell me how it performs?

Slow89Iroc-Z

With your upcomming mods it will be well worth it if you are still running the stock TPI. I prefer teh HSR however. It is much easier to R&R and is cheaper and performs the same or better is certain RPM areas.

8Mike9

Take a a gander through the "alternative efi" forum, pretty sure I saw a post by someone who bolted the SR on a stock L98 and gained .2 or .3 ET, along with 3mph in the 1/4. I'm also thinking it was through stock exhaust, but don't recall.

GOY

My input is to stay with the SuperRam. It is the ONLY LEGAL intake replacement. It provides more torque through the meat of the RPM band, making more power at 1000-4500 RPM and only starts to lose power to the HSR at 5600 and above in MOST combinations. Some combinations are better suited for the HSR, but I feel if a car is driven on the street, the SuperRam is the only way to go.

I-Roc with my Z

Yeah, I have emissions...so I wanted to use the SR otherwise I would be buying the TPIS Mini Ram or the HSR. I saw a Super Ram application on a 396...11 seconds flat..naturally aspirated and it was emissions legal ^_^. So I am not worried about emissions much heh Ill just buy a older car for stuff like that.

GOY

I love that car....

http://gmhightechperformance.com/tech/0305gm_tpi/
http://gmhightechperformance.com/tech/0303GMHT_Breathe/
http://gmhightechperformance.com/tech/0301HTP_Magnum/
http://gmhightechperformance.com/tec...gmhtp_pumping/
http://gmhightechperformance.com/tec...gmhtp_pumping/
http://gmhightechperformance.com/tec...htp_betternew/

Ragtop89

I love the torque that the SuperRam provides.

Love it.

doc

The SR is a great upper intake, I'm using it on my 395. see sig.
If you go with the SR, be sure to get a larger intake, the Accel of course. You can port the intale and the runners out a bit for better upper RPM flow.

But it is a PITA to assemble. The are several threads containing tricks on how to make it a bit easier, check them out by doing a search.

GOY

I have seen that time and time again for the past 6 years that I've been reading on this board. Finally about 16 months ago I got to take one down and put it back together on someone else's car, and I just don't see what the big deal is. Thread all the bolts you can, and then torque them down once it's all together...

Then again, I use working on a car as therapy so I have to think differently from the start.................

brutalform

Yea GOY, I have had mine on, and off about 6 times on my new engine alone, not counting the previous 357 engine. It is a bit intimidating for a first time install, mabe even a second time. But after that, just like anything, the more used to it you are, the easier it gets.

vernw

iTrader: (2)

doc

GOY - Next time I have to remove my SR, please come up and help. I will supply beer and pizza.

GOY

Michelob Ultra... and maybe drained Tuna? (Fitness freak)

Red Devil

Only 50 state legal one. Distinction.

GOY

Actually... the EPA - A federal board - recognizes the CARB rules as their rules, making it a federally approved intake. Further more, it's against federal law to "remove any emssions equipment," as well as some verbage concerning using anything that increases emissions about factory amounts.

Basically - It's the ONLY LEGAL replacement, based on the FEDERAL EPA. That's not just California gentlemen. EGR's are emissions related. (coughcoughHSRcoughcough)

Red Devil

EGRs can be retrofitted 'Vette style (as an example) in the other states. Notwithstanding the nice grey area from the feds, most every other state just wants the equipment on the car. Technical legalities... I'll need to actually see all the laws (not someone's interpretation) and I'm not really in the mood for it today.

GOY

Well, here's the twist.

If a part does not receive CARB approval, that federal EPA does not accept the part as legal on-road equipment. The EPA has copied/recognized all of the California Air Resources Board as their own Federal Rules and Regulations for licensed automobile transportation for the nation.

The HSR has not received CARB approval, therefore the Federal government does not recognize it as a legal on-road part, and it is considered tampering with emission equipment, no matter what kind of retrofit you do to it. You might ask, why don't LTR's have to get CARB approval then? Because by definition, they are "Within the original manufactures original design."

If you can't use it in California, it's not legal anyplace else. Thanks Mr. EPA

8Mike9

Re :LTR's...my Accels carry an EO#, as does the Accel base...unsure about the others like Edelbrock, AS&M, etc.

Red Devil

Give me a link to the rules and regs GOY. I'd love to see how they are worded. I still see stuff advertised as '49-state legal'. My curiosity is stirring.

GOY

Sorry I read that during an extensive stint of google searching, so I don't have the direct link, but here are some articles that can give you a feel for what I'm walking about. Again - THESE ARE NOT THE CONCLUSIVE RULES that you are asking for - I did not bookmark them after I read them, but some examples of what I'm refering to. Most of these are for motorcycles, on and off road simply because that's the newest "HOT" topic. The Automobile standard has been around for years!

Federal EPA to adopt CARB's streetbike emissions rules:
http://www.amadirectlink.com/legislt...ses/G01032.asp

EPA Pushes California Emission Standards Nationwide
http://www.mrf.org/articles/2001/chokehold.html

This link doesn't say the same thing as I've read, but one line reads... "The EPA recognizes California smog laws as being applicable across the nation." It goes on to say "That is, if it is legal in California, then according to the EPA, it is legal in all other states. While some states do not yet necessarily agree with this, it is likely that most states will come around to the California way."

You notice that says some states don't "Agree" with it, meaning that they don't enforce it - however - federal law overrides states law, just as state law overrides city law, etc. Meaning the EPA recognizes CARB's laws as being enforcable - therefore adopting them - across the nation.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=re...m0LI-oaP-JnKEL


I really wish I could get you the link that basicaly spelled it out as "The EPA put into effect nationwide the CARB rules and regulations concerning automotive pollution controls under EPA Revised Code ####," but unfortunately I do not have it Either way, you can see that they are going that way with motorcycles - so obvious cars were first since even the states that do auto smog checks NORMALLY don't do them for bikes.... yet.

I think it's relatively common knowledge that since 74 or 75 it's illegal to remove things like catalytic convertor's - and EGR's, etc etc etc. I'm not sure why any of this is a suprise to anyone. That's why, for instance, the HSR is not legal for onroad use on any car produced after that 74/75 cutoff unless that car had no EGR to begin with (LS1). No EGR - no play. Sure you can get away with it in some places, but I see that coming to an end within 5-10 years.

GOY

Also, here's a So/So link - a little dated.

http://autos.yahoo.com/owning/mainta...iss%01qamuffle

" WARNING: Federal law makes it illegal for ANYONE to tamper with, disconnect, remove or otherwise render inoperative ANY emissions-related control device."
it uses this as an example.....
"Installing an intake manifold or racing manifold that lacks provisions for the stock EGR valve and/or a heat riser duct"

As in the "Treasured" but very illegal Holley Stealth Ram

GOY

Sorry sorry sorry - I keep coming up with this stuff....

I guess the law was re-worded in the Clean Air Act of 1990, someplace NEAR the RC section 3704.16 and section 203(a)(3)(A) and (B) of the Clean Air Act (Act). That may not be the exact section but it's in the "Neighborhood." Sorry once again, inspecific, but I'm trying to get that exact link for ya Untill then I keep finding mroe and more articles

Oh another one:

HERE IS THE CLEAN AIR CONTROL ACT OF 1990!
This isn't the most recent legislation, but even this states:

(2) Effective date.- The regulations required under
paragraph (1) of this subsection shall take effect in model
year 1994, except that the Administrator may waive the
application of such regulations for model year 1994 or 1995 (or
both) with respect to any class or category of motor vehicles
if the Administrator determines that it would be infeasible to
apply the regulations to that class or category in such model
year or years, consistent with corresponding regulations or
policies adopted by the California Air Resources Board for such
systems.


http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title2.html#iia

That's Federal Law, so guess what - that 49 state legal ADVERTISING line has been bull**** since 1990, effective 1994/1995... hasn't it? There was some more legislation in later 1990's, but I'll try to find that for you too

Red Devil

This is with regard to "Title II Emission Standards for Moving Sources" which is apparently applicable to new car manufacturers, sellers, leasers, etc. There is no jurusdiction given (that I can see) in that section over an individual owner or mechanic or even an aftermarket parts manufacturer. Section 207 (a)(1) under Part A makes that clear. Makes no sense through from all the stuff I've read referenced about the CAA though.

Again, if I get a chance I'll work on it some, but please stop delving into the legal arena, you need to be able to read that stuff to give me a clear view of you r opinion, just reading those two sections does not reveal any basis for your claims stated above.

207 (a) (2) states "In the case of a motor vehicle part or motor vehicle engine part, the manufacturer or rebuilder of such part may certify that use of such part will not result in a failure of the vehicle or engine to comply with emission standards promulgated under section 202."

This is apparently the EPA's standard with regard to parts which can effect emissions. Looks good to me so far. There is a HUGE distinction between 'may' and 'must' in the law.

I'll look into it over this week, but AFAIK there are variations/replacements allowed under the clean air act, otherwise you wouldn't be able to touch a faulty cat. I also note that many of the cats on the market have no EO# or EPD conforming/approval #... that I've seen anyway. Neither does any EGR valve etc.

I've also noted that the Clean air act preempts all states from implementing motor vehicle emission control standards that are different from U.S. requirements. However, the law does recognize that California has special air pollution problems, and gives the USEPA authority to grant the state a waiver for more stringent standards when California can demonstrate its need on the basis of a very specific set of criteria. That is an interesting note there.

I continually see reference to the clean air act and the 'tampering, disabling etc.' line, but have yet to find it in the CAA.

GOY

Given I'm the first step of the justice system, I feel it okay to tell you to go screw yourself for making that ignorant statement. I read the Ohio Revised Code daily, but thanks for playing.

Back on topic - you like to use a lot of verbage, but obviously you can't read. It clearly states that you CAN NOT disable/tamper with emissions equipment, IE and the EGR valve regulates internal combustion tempatures - lowering potential NOx emissions. You obviously have no clue how to take what you read and apply it to REAL LIFE. How about if you leave the arena of reading laws and applying them to cops with common sense and not delve in it. Sounds like you are an ambulance chaser to me, who likes to take a law, and try to squeeze any angle out of it to defruad someone out of money. In this case, you want to try to snake your way out of an OBVIOUS law that you can not remove an EGR!!!

The Ohio Revised Code (just one I know how to get too easily at whim) alone has huge sections on it. The CAA has also stated it, but you just can't seem to understand "Remove and tamper," typical lawyer speach for "We're wrong, but we are going to argue anyways."
http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing...-h.htm&cp=PORC

8Mike9

Couple things I've noted looking for things before.

On the Ca.gov website (may have been the BAR website), you can find a list of all aftermarket parts deemed "non-oem replacement" that have EO#'s.

Also, if a part is deemed "OEM-replacement", then no EO# is needed.

I know it's not "federal", but if what above was stated is true, then looking for the Ca. stuff might give an indication of what you can or can't do.

GOY

Even better - since you got my wheels turning, Title 2 of the CAA is a NON-BIASED RULING! It applies to every person or entity, PERIOD! There are some subsections that specifically apply to certain entities - THAT SUBSECTION IS NOT ONE OF THEM!

Secondly, since you couldn't figure out what tamper meant...

§ 3704.16. Tampering with motor vehicle emission control systems.

(A) As used in sections 3704.16 to 3704.162 [3704.16.2] of the Revised Code:

(1) "Tamper with" means to remove permanently, bypass, defeat, or render inoperative, in whole or part, any emission control system that is installed on or in a motor vehicle.

(3) "Emission control system" means any system designated by the United States environmental protection agency as an emission control system under Title II of the "Clean Air Act Amendments." "Emission control system" includes any device or element of design of the system.

And funny thing I found, when you type "EGR" into the search function, it goes right to the tampering laws. An EGR vavle is a device of element of design of the system.

Good luck "Buddy"

8Mike9

Just for anyones refernce on EO numbers:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermk...es/amquery.php

Okay, I'm going to finish mowing the lawn.

Red Devil

Wow, another lay person who knows the 'law'. I need more of you guys floating around in the world. And playing? Just because you get donuts and write speeding tickets in no way precludes you from the term lay-person. You have no legal training outside of some cursory criminal overviews. Cops, if that's what you are implying you are, are typically even worse when you take them out of the criminal arenas, which most can't do correctly anyway. Man I gotta give more credit to anesthes. Poor guy. Him I'll give credit to.

By your own definition of 'tamper' going with a Corvette set-up as I previously suggested (and that was my reasoning behind the 50 sate distinction) does not construe tampering as it does not "remove permanently, bypass, defeat, or render inoperative, in whole or part, any emission control system that is installed on or in a motor vehicle". Thanks for saving me the time looking it up and proving my point. Now everyone can relax and be happy that, given some work, they can make their set-up street legal in many, if not most, states.

Also, you may note (or maybe need to learn) that when a particular act, law, contract is written, there are defining areas of the subject matter. PLEASE show me where in that the "Title II Emission Standards for Moving Sources" states jurisdiction over an INDIVIDUAL. YOU quoted the the thing, used it as your basis of argument and linked to it. In all of section 202 (which you quoted) I see no mention of consumer or individual.

Go bust a 15 yr old smoking weed behind the high school and leave the thinking to someone else. Or learn how a contract or law is bound and defined.

Oh, and Title II is a non-biased ruling? Of what court and what judge/justice? Contextually please.

As for the search engine, I get:
Searching of the whole site yields 740 matches of which the top ten were not what was looking for.

How about this -I'll let you continue to show up and make cooing sounds at crime scenes not really doing anything to help the victims and I'll continue to fix lay-people's screw-ups in the legal field among other things.

BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question here: https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=315197

Another thread in which you were promulgating misleading information.

I really wish you would decide between a normal online personality and this hard-*** one you keep flip flopping to. I like the other one better.

Oh yea, and it's verbiage. Yes I can express myself. I am relatively articulate, or did you mean I was being obscure with my writing? Who knows, if your definition of tampering precludes me from retrofitting an EGR on from another factory application, you probably were trying to come up with the meaning to garrulous.

Thanks for playing.

GOY

And after all that talk, I had shown that EPA holds the CARB standards as their emissions standards, and you have yet to post anything to defeat that.... Lot's of words, but no evidence of your own.... I love lawyers. All show. You're willing let my personality being the determining factor of validity - while effectively pushing the facts under the carpet. There's always some "Gun Happy" or "Aggressive" cop'er out there, and therefore anything that he proves should be forgotten because he's "Reckless." Now, I post that the EPA holds the CARB standards as their own, give you some supportive evidence - but since I'm such a "Hard ***,:" (that makes cooing sounds untill someone's jackass lawyer thinks he has a right to my crime scene mind you) - what I said is not valid?

Sorry, leave your dog and pony show at home. I gave you the evidence, now post yours or screw off. You're doing what you've been schooled to do; con people into beleiving what you are arguing for without a shred of logical evidence. Great vocabulary - no fact. Show us the legislation that states someone can delete their EGR, or that someone can take a non-carb approved intake, slap it on their small block, and be Federally considered street legal? In fact, best yet, just show us legislation that it's okay to retrofit ANY KIND OF EGR onto a system that wasn't built that way.

IF YOUR CAR CAME WITH A CERTAIN EGR SYSTEM, IT HAS GOT TO REMAIN INTACT, UNTAMERED OR MODIFIED, PERIOD! THAT'S THE FACT - AND LAW - AS I HAVE PROVE WITH MY LINKS AS MUCH A YOU LAWYERS HATE THAT LITTLE THING CALLED LAW

Do you have anything contradictory to that to show us, or just more talk with no evidence?




Oh and as for the 215cc heads, I don't have the email I received from the editor anymore, so you do the footwork and email your damn self.
http://www.superrod.com/ToTheEditor.asp

Or since you think you lawyers are above the law - given that you feel you have the right to manipulate or reword it to your own tastes, that you are too good to write an email too? That or just never put the foort into it in the first place!?!

I hope your thirdgen can keep up with the ambulances out there. You may need a set of those heads if not.

GOY

For the sake of the board and it's bandwidth - unless Red Devil's next post is full of link's only, and no baseless bantering - I will not return to this thread. Let him say what he wants, and better yet, how he wants to attempt to effectively con someone into buying into his theory..... but unless there's links/evidence.... well, I guess OJ was innocent too, right?

Sorry everyone/mods
Having proven my point, this is my attempt to defuse the situation in this thread from my end

Red Devil

Yep, sure do, your own words...

I don't see the word 'alter', 'modify' or actually 'tamper' (other than the term they are planning to use) in there, nor in the other section you quoted. Great job proving my point, thanks! So long as my EGR isn't removed, bypassed, defeated or rendered inoperative, I can do whatever the hell I want... so long as it works properly.

Let me explain something slowly... What is defined is the law. Much like whatever is written into a contract IS the contract. This is what most, apparently including you, don't understand. The word 'tamper' as you have defined it, is not the same as the word 'tamper' in the english lexicon. Any ambiguity, much like in cotractual disputes, is clarified by the courts. They are presided over by those guys in the black robes you hate so much.

Furthermore, you have not shown any proof of the EPA adapting CARB standards, rather you link to someone's interpretation of something else, blah, blah. That's the same **** that gets everyone sued or in trouble. In fact, the only thing I have found is as stated, that the EPA preempts all states from implementing motor vehicle emission control standards that are different from U.S. requirements. EXCEPT CA, where they recognize a patent problem.

As for the EGR issue, MA has effectively converted to the California standards, and it is perfectly acceptable here, even on a Registry inpected vehicle, to alter the EGR system so long as it does not bypass, defeat, or render inoperative, in whole or part the system. Sound familiar? Context is a funny thing.

Additionally, if what you hold as true, then an individual would not even be able to install an egr adapter on say an Edelbrock intake in order to clear tall valve covers.

Oh, BTW, I'm not a lawyer, I consider myself better than that and try to hold myself to a higher standard. Feel free to not visit the thread again, you obviously think whatever you say is law and you have no apparent need to back up anything with factual, concrete evidence. Probably why OJ is free today. It wasn't the lawyers fault, they just go with what they are given, much like the lawyers on the other side.

Guest

Ever heard of "49-state" legal parts? Sure you have.

The clean air act of 1990 is a later 'refined' document based on a much earlier one. You have to read the earlier one because the later one is useless without it.

Red Devil

madmax=shadetree mechanic?

http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/smo..._equipment.htm

Hook a brother up with a job!! But wait, didn't you know it was all a lie. We're wrong!! (Nevermind that anyone that sold their products as such would then be LIABLE to the purchaser as well as open to action directly by the EPA, and could be brought in as an additional party or third party defendant in any action against the installer or owner should thay be smacked about by the EPA... we should just overlook that little fact, big companies LOVE spending money on suits and lawyers right?)

Oops.. I'm pulling a GOY with the non-EPA websites. Oh well, in for penny right?

How about an actual manufacturer of aftermarket parts?http://www.powerdyne.com/tech.htm or even http://www.kennebell.net/faq/faq-answers3(2).htm which actually mentions both in the same sentance. Hell, they even tell you to cal the EPA if you have a problem. They must be mistaken about the '49 state legal thing as well.

Or how about a household name in resellers:
http://www.jcwhitney.com/webapp/wcs/...atalogId=10101
If the EPA wants to actually enforce something you'd think the'd start somewhere like there huh?

And apparently the car magazines didn't get the memo either:
http://mustang50magazine.com/techart...41/index4.html

So Max... about that job... say $80K 5 wks vaca and quarterly bonuses?

GOY

I love how you hope marketing statements equate evidence.
Post some governement run sites, not magazines or companies trying to sell something. Although marketing guys would be your type of people I guess - similar profession in lies and word manipulation.

Once again, lawyer speach for, "Forget what the law says - look over here at what these other people who want to sell you something say." "Murder weapon, blood in vehicle and home.... oh but the glove doesn't fit."

Red Devil

Yup that's got to be it. Why not just admit your wrong. Your own posts and references contradict your stance for crying out loud! It's not my fault that 'legalese' confuses you and so many other people.

GOY

The law says you can't mess with your emissions equipment. Sorry. Until you can find some provision that allows for a the modification of an unapproved part, there's not much else to be said - it's not legal, plain and simple.

Word it anyway you want to. It's all just the same old

Red Devil

Geez, you won't even beleive your own words?!? :lo:

All right, enough fun, I purposefully played a bit earlier and then was just being plain obtuse, but enough people are apparently clamoring for a true resolution so here goes...

I can't link you to an annotated version of this (you know what that is right?) but I'll give you a nice EPA link for the whole shebang:

"PROHIBITED ACTS

Sec. 203. (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are
prohibited...
(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 regula-
tions under this title prior to its sale and delivery to the
ultimate purchaser, or for any person knowingly to remove or

228


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;

from the full current text at http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa.txt which does correspond to your original link to the EPA. You'll note I never mentioned section 203 previously, thus the fun and giving you enough rope. Apparently a little too much.

Now then, this section is relatively straitforward:

Section 3 is the section which concerns us.

Section A is patently clear, I can't "remove or render inoperative any device or element of design ". GREAT! I'm not doing ANY of those by installing an EGR on a miniram.

Section B is also pretty clear, and since I'm not manufacturing or selling anything I can ignore it like sections 1, 2, 4. They have no bearing on me as an individual... Now section 5, that one is rather interesting and I can see people getting a tad confused so here goes, a bit at a tiime...

"(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."

ok, 218 concerns prohibition of production of engines requiring leaded gasoline by manufacturers.
219 is Urban bus standards. Not us.

After subsection (5) I think the EPA meant to have section 203 (b) listed there but must have overlooked it, for the following and I will treat it as such...

1"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.
2Nothing in paragraph (3) shall be construed to require the use
ofmanufacturer 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.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

229

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 .4(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."

Ok then, the bold black numbers are mine for reference...

1Smoking gun? No. This means you can actually alter the design legally for purposes of altitude adjustment. (Section 215 deals with high altitude adjustments.)

2Ok, I don't need to buy and use Stealer parts to maintain or fix my car... THANK YOU SEMA!!!

3Oh my, what that say. Yep read that again. If I need torepair or replace the device, so long as it results in the proper functioning of the device or element I am WITHIN THE LAW!!!! There is the smoking gun. And yes it's applicable in the same way as a 'missing' converter can be 'replaced'.

4 Does not pertain to us.


So there you have it strait from the EPA. And as for the 49-state legal thing, yes it's true, it not a 'marketing ploy' it a Cover My Company's *** ploy so they don't get sued by CALIFORNIANS who may purchase and install their products. Last time, EO#s ARE STATE ISSUED NOT FEDERALLY ISSUED!!! The EPA DOES NOT ISSUE THEM!!! Hell, CARB sometimes doesn't even accept results from some EPA labs for some tests.

Anything else you are confused about GOY?

And sorry to everyone for any 'typi's I haven't proof read this.