Emissions Delete, Bye DPF, DEF, Cats Legal Again

[whysoserious]

From what I've read, he is not wrong. I've read his entire argument, and the logic is fairly easy to follow. GDE is now on the list of those who are suing. And trust me, he wouldn't be suing if he didn't think he could win. Notices of Intent to Sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | US EPA

First of all, I appreciate the polite discussion we're having and you reading my replies, and hopefully I have not come across as rude. I do tend to be long winded at times.

I do wish him the best of luck. I have indeed read the NOI, as well as the consent agreement he entered into with the EPA. His "Alternative Emission Strategy Proposal" is an interesting read. It will also be interesting to read the complaint he files and how he deals with and defines "useful life".

However, just based on the NOI, his case to recoup his fines/attorney fees/lost revenue does appear to rest on the definition of "useful life" and his assertion that the emission standards for a vehicle cease to apply once the 5year/50,000 mile "useful life" is reached for (example) a light duty truck up to 6000 pounds. The problem is that "useful life" is defined in §7521 and is for manufacturer certification purposes (it also roles into the "warranty period" in §7541). For example, taking the LDT truck of less than 6000 pounds mentioned prior, under §7521, a new vehicle manufacturer has to certify that during the 5/50,000 period, that LDT won't emit more than 0.085 grams per mile of particulate matter (the particular section I lifted that from is more complicated than that, involving percentage of sales volume and such). His argument in the NOI that once the 5/50,000 benchmark is hit, the emission regulations no longer apply and that LDT is "not subject to emission regulations" is a hard one to swallow. The CAA uses "useful life" for new vehicle manufacturer certification purposes only and included §7522 for the expressed purpose of preventing people from removing/defeating/deleting the emission equipment, even after the useful life certification period.

Again, I look forward to reading the complaint he files.

Sponsored

 

[biodiesel]

First of all, I appreciate the polite discussion we're having and you reading my replies, and hopefully I have not come across as rude. I do tend to be long winded at times.

You've been civil with your side of the debate, so no harm no foul.

It will also be interesting to read the complaint he files and how he deals with and defines "useful life".

Full useful life for light duty vehicles is defined as 10 years or 120,000/150,000 miles, whichever comes first. The EcoDiesel, for example, has a B10 rating of 150,000 miles based strictly on an engineering design standpoint. The service life (full useful life) of 120,000/150,000 miles is the certification level an auto manufacturer issues for a light duty application. FCA/Stellantis chose 150,000 miles for the EcoDiesel emission certification. So, the B10 rating of 150,000 miles is different than the 150,000-mile emissions certification.

After 10 years/150,000 miles, FCA, for example, no longer guarantees the EcoDiesel will meet emissions since components become less efficient and/or fail over time. The EPA understood the inefficiencies with time and use, which is why they used the language "full useful life" when the law was created.

In 2020, the EPA goes back and adds additional language without going through Congress. They add, “The Act’s prohibitions on tampering and defeat devices apply for the entire life of vehicles, engines and equipment. They apply regardless of whether the regulatory “useful life” or warranty period has ended.” That's very different than what was understood for the last 50 years, or since the law was established in 1974!

 

[Jrgunn5150]

I can tell you that right now, whether DOGE assassinates the EPA and whomever is president, there is not a dealer in the state of Michigan willing to perform a HPFP recall on my deleted Ram.

Called every one of them and a few in Indiana too.

 

[RubiNewbCB]

I can tell you that right now, whether DOGE assassinates the EPA and whomever is president, there is not a dealer in the state of Michigan willing to perform a HPFP recall on my deleted Ram.

Called every one of them and a few in Indiana too.

Time to go out of state.

 

[Jrgunn5150]

Time to go out of state.

Unfortunately I don't have infinite time or travel ability to continue banging my head against this particular wall

I changed my HPFP in the parking lot of my office a month ago and moved on with my life.

My only point is just because parties have swapped power, I'd recommend not firing up the Sawzall. They don't care about all the lawyer speak from a forum.

 

[biodiesel]

I can tell you that right now, whether DOGE assassinates the EPA and whomever is president, there is not a dealer in the state of Michigan willing to perform a HPFP recall on my deleted Ram.

All dealerships are required to perform a recall regardless of it being emissions compliant. Unfortunately, not every dealership has competent people.

 

[biodiesel]

My only point is just because parties have swapped power, I'd recommend not firing up the Sawzall.

I agree. With that said, there's a growing number of states wanting to eliminate emissions testing. One of the arguments is that modern vehicles are so clean today that testing is no longer needed. They also make the argument that testing is expensive to taxpayers. It's also expensive to the state, and it places unnecessary burdens on citizens, which has been the main talking point as to why we don't have emissions testing in New Mexico. Our legislators have argued that emissions testing would put an unfair burden on poor citizens.

Many states who have emissions testing don't require testing once the vehicle reaches a certain age.

I've decided to keep my vehicles emissions compliant for at least 15 years, then reevaluate. I'll most likely delete once the manufacturer stops suppling replacement parts to keep the vehicle emissions compliant.

 

[whysoserious]

Full useful life for light duty vehicles is defined as 10 years or 120,000/150,000 miles, whichever comes first. The EcoDiesel, for example, has a B10 rating of 150,000 miles based strictly on an engineering design standpoint. The service life (full useful life) of 120,000/150,000 miles is the certification level an auto manufacturer issues for a light duty application. FCA/Stellantis chose 150,000 miles for the EcoDiesel emission certification. So, the B10 rating of 150,000 miles is different than the 150,000-mile emissions certification.

After 10 years/150,000 miles, FCA, for example, no longer guarantees the EcoDiesel will meet emissions since components become less efficient and/or fail over time. The EPA understood the inefficiencies with time and use, which is why they used the language "full useful life" when the law was created.

There's a couple things in this that I don't agree with, but yes, overall I agree, the term useful life is used only "relating to useful life of vehicles for purposes of certification" (section 7521). But it can't be used as a definition as to when vehicles or engines are no longer "subject to emission regulations" (GDE NOI), because there's nothing in the CAA that backs up his claim. And nowhere in section 7522 (Prohibited Acts) is the term "useful life" found.

In 2020, the EPA goes back and adds additional language without going through Congress. They add, “The Act’s prohibitions on tampering and defeat devices apply for the entire life of vehicles, engines and equipment. They apply regardless of whether the regulatory “useful life” or warranty period has ended.” That's very different than what was understood for the last 50 years, or since the law was established in 1974!

The language you and GDE speak of was from an internal EPA policy memo with the subject line of, "EPA Tampering Policy: The EPA Enforcement Policy on Vehicle and Engine Tampering and Aftermarket Defeat Devices under the Clean Air Act". It's a policy memo. It didn't alter any of the CAA language at all, so there was no need to go to Congress or through the APA. And the memo is correct, in that there is nothing explicit or implied that limits the enforcement of section 7522 to only "useful life" (the certification period).

Here's the relevant portion of section 7522:

§7522. Prohibited acts

(a) Enumerated prohibitions
The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited-

(3)(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 subchapter, 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;

 

[MaximusTX]

This just came out as well

 

[Jrgunn5150]

Youtube videos are great.

What part of policy rollback authorizes anyone to remove Federally mandated emissions devices?

 

[Jrgunn5150]

All dealerships are required to perform a recall regardless of it being emissions compliant. Unfortunately, not every dealership has competent people.

I can only reiterate myself so many times here.

Facebook and forums posts aside... Hours of my time, vacation days used, miles traveled, 23 dealers called, 4 visited...

Not one, ever touched this truck after they knew there was no DPF on it.

 

[RubiNewbCB]

I'm ok with a Stealership never touching my truck again. I accepted that fact after I installed the BANKS products and modified the suspension. Next, process is total delete and complete tune, I'll pay the Tariffs too.

 

[MaximusTX]

I'm ok with a Stealership never touching my truck again. I accepted that fact after I installed the BANKS products and modified the suspension. Next, process is total delete and complete tune, I'll pay the Tariffs too.

Maybe I just got lucky cause I have all the banks products installed, plus 1 ton axles and king shocks and the dealership still does warranty work on mine plus the HPFP recall with no issues. The service advisor told me when I dropped it off technically anything over 3inch lift they shouldn't work on but as long as the customer is cool with them they are cool with the customer and I've never had an issue with them.

 

[RubiNewbCB]

Maybe I just got lucky cause I have all the banks products installed, plus 1 ton axles and king shocks and the dealership still does warranty work on mine plus the HPFP recall with no issues. The service advisor told me when I dropped it off technically anything over 3inch lift they shouldn't work on but as long as the customer is cool with them they are cool with the customer and I've never had an issue with them.

The difference between TX and the Commiewealth of VA.

Honestly, I haven't tried to have the JTRD serviced at the dealership since I installed the MODs. I have the Flashing Locker issue that locks us out of engaging the lockers at 54k on the odo. I could use that as a litmus test and see what they will actually do or won't do.

Supposedly, I can just open up the diff cover and clean the sensor and magnets and fix the issue. But, I'm curious to know if my dealer is lenient.

 

[MaximusTX]

The difference between TX and the Commiewealth of VA.

Honestly, I haven't tried to have the JTRD serviced at the dealership since I installed the MODs. I have the Flashing Locker issue that locks us out of engaging the lockers at 54k on the odo. I could use that as a litmus test and see what they will actually do or won't do.

Supposedly, I can just open up the diff cover and clean the sensor and magnets and fix the issue. But, I'm curious to know if my dealer is lenient.

I don't have that problem but I think this fixes that issue but I could be wrong.

Z Locker OEM

Sponsored