Diesel Tuner Faces Year in Prison

jmabarone said:

No sympathy for that guy but just wanted to remind you guys about this:
 

SEMA Challenges EPA's Motorsports Regulations in Court | Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)

 

They are eyeing motorsport activities.  They know we are here and they have expressed interest in regulating modern cars in motorsports.

Tailpipe emissions fall into 2 basic categories:

1) GHGs- These rise into the atmosphere and impact climate. (CO2, Methane, etc)

The transportation sector was the largest producer of GHGs in the US in 2020:

2) Smog forming- These stay pretty localized (regional level) and impact local air quality and human health. NOx, and PM are probably the biggest ones that regulators have focused on.

The transportation sector produced 55% of NOx in the US impacting local air quality. NOx emissions are most prevalent in diesels that have been modified. These deleted vehicles are each polluting literally hundreds of times what they should be.

So, knowing that the transportation sector is the largest source in both emissions categories makes that little, innocent old car community look a lot more like a critical target for regulators. We all like to justify our own choices by minimizing the impact they have, but enforcing stuff like this is an efficient way to put an end to some pretty abusive actions.

I also think it's important to remember what the EPA is and is not. The EPA is only able to regulate things in the US. Stuff like Cruise ships are often registered elsewhere for this reason. Regulators are not overlooking these other sources, they're simply limited in their reach. They're tightening restrictions in the sectors and locations where they can

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I agree with Tuna!!  Better check in with hell to see if it's frosty down there!!

Hey that's great! 

I wish they EPA had a constitutional bound, and I would welcome a constitutional convention to decide exactly what jurisdiction and authority it has. The benefit of pollution control on city centers is undeniable. I absolutely think people are heavy handed and awful about implementation. I also think falling into "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" traps is stupid. That's why I take issue with Freiburger and his "gasoline forever" crusade against EVs. I drive a Bolt so I can afford a cool truck project without spending it all on gasoline just to get me to work and back. I'm living in some world where guys like our diesel friend here find my beyond contempt because of my ev, and environmentalists think me terrible because I eat meat and want to restore an old pickup and enjoy racing. I guess that makes alright if the crazies on both sides think I'm crazy?

Anyway I suspect we feel the same with most of this sort of thing. I could go on about the foolishness of the libertarian mantra, which I had previously espoused myself, about the right to swing ones fist ending at another's nose, but I'm already off topic enough. 

In reply to dps214 :

If the goal is to materially reduce pollution, the process should not be "go after the ones you can get." The process should be go after the ones that make a difference. Arresting these small fish guys isnt making a difference. I can tell you around me it has not slowed deleting or tuning diesels. Instead of buying the parts from Spartan, you buy them offshore, or they arent exhaust parts, they are art.

If the goal is to spend a bunch of money arresting people and fighting the cases in court and end up exactly where you started, yah they are doing a bang up job.

I dont buy that doing stuff like this doesnt stop them from doing stuff that really matters, because they have a finite amount of resources and time and your less efficient in reaching your goal, reduce pollution, if you wasting resources on stuff that doesnt matter. The argument that you cant go after other companies because they arent breaking the law is equally as crazy, think about all the companies that get caught breaking the law, then realize we dont have a single law/rule/regulation in this country that we catch 100% percent of offenders. People and companies knowingly and unknowingly break the law all day everyday.

Keep in mind im not defending these coal rollers or this guy (he should probably be in jail), I think they are as dumb as everyone else does, but I dont believe this had any effect on reducing pollution. If the coal rolling trucks are whats polluting, how many did this action take off the road? None. Did this stop people from being able to buy stuff to delete emissions equipment? Nope

STM317 said:

 

Tailpipe emissions fall into 2 basic categories:

1) GHGs- These rise into the atmosphere and impact climate. (CO2, Methane, etc)

The transportation sector was the largest producer of GHGs in the US in 2020:

2) Smog forming- These stay pretty localized (regional level) and impact local air quality and human health. NOx, and PM are probably the biggest ones that regulators have focused on.

The transportation sector produced 55% of NOx in the US impacting local air quality. NOx emissions are most prevalent in diesels that have been modified. These deleted vehicles are each polluting literally hundreds of times what they should be.

We all like to justify our own choices by minimizing the impact they have, but enforcing stuff like this is an efficient way to put an end to some pretty abusive actions. And the EPA is only able to regulate things in the US. Stuff like Cruise ships are often registered elsewhere for this reason. They're not overlooking these other sources, they're simply limited in their reach.

I don't like it, but look to the model that CA uses for their emissions with regards to large truck emissions.  Want to dock at US ports?  Gotta meet these standards.  Make it something that progressively comes into total compliance.  

Not arguing with you, just pointing towards a slippery slope that was already being looked at.  

STM317 said:

 

I have questions about your map, there seem to be a few extra states :)

If you ask anyone who has lived in LA for decades, they totally understand the effect that emissions regulations can have. Like so many other political divides, it comes down to the rights of the individual versus the rights of society and the effects on society are fairly obvious and measurable in this case. 

In reply to Keith Tanner :

That map seems to be post the 2024 US election and the Maple Syrup Liberation Wars of 2025. Someone messed up letting it leak back down the timeline.

Sorry for the threadjack, but it looks like the Supreme Court may have just reduced the EPA's power in the "greenhouse gas" reduction business https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-limits-epa-in-curbing-power-plant-emissions/ar-AAZ2oND  

If this is too political i'll delete the post.

Opti said:

In reply to dps214 :

If the goal is to materially reduce pollution, the process should not be "go after the ones you can get." The process should be go after the ones that make a difference. Arresting these small fish guys isnt making a difference. I can tell you around me it has not slowed deleting or tuning diesels. Instead of buying the parts from Spartan, you buy them offshore, or they arent exhaust parts, they are art.

If the goal is to spend a bunch of money arresting people and fighting the cases in court and end up exactly where you started, yah they are doing a bang up job.

I dont buy that doing stuff like this doesnt stop them from doing stuff that really matters, because they have a finite amount of resources and time and your less efficient in reaching your goal, reduce pollution, if you wasting resources on stuff that doesnt matter. The argument that you cant go after other companies because they arent breaking the law is equally as crazy, think about all the companies that get caught breaking the law, then realize we dont have a single law/rule/regulation in this country that we catch 100% percent of offenders. People and companies knowingly and unknowingly break the law all day everyday.

Keep in mind im not defending these coal rollers or this guy (he should probably be in jail), I think they are as dumb as everyone else does, but I dont believe this had any effect on reducing pollution. If the coal rolling trucks are whats polluting, how many did this action take off the road? None. Did this stop people from being able to buy stuff to delete emissions equipment? Nope

The tuners are harder to find than they were. And the ones you can find most easily tend to be legal. I have a Superchips tuner for my WJ that has an EO number and I bought it from a major vendor like Summit without having to search around for some Romanian selling stuff. The EPA is also watching social media and advertising to see who is selling this stuff - a lot of the folks who have been hit with big fines brought themselves to the EPA's attention by bragging about what they're doing.

14k deletes from a single source is not a small fish guy. Someone who sold 14 tuners is.

Do you have any proof that it's NOT affecting the ability to buy deletes? It would not surprise me that someone at the EPA is trying to track the change, which is much more accurate than "I still see coal rollers so it can't be working".

In reply to jmabarone :

They do that already. That's why the map shows a border around the US (and the Northern Annex). If you're in US waters, you're expected to comply with US regulations. But they can't control what ships do outside of those borders, which in most cases is switching to cheaper but much dirtier fuels. So when you see data about shipping emissions, the vast majority comes from ships outside of US waters, and many of those exact same ships clean up their act in regulated waters.

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Your comments on the competition exemption.  Do you think the EPA would have gone down this road if coal rolling hadn't started to become a thing?

Very likely not. Diesel trucks are used as the example of the effects of emissions deletes in all the EPA's materials. That's because there are a whole lot of them, a very high percentage have deleted emissions components, they're highly visible and a subset of them are active shiny happy people who are drawing attention to themselves. It's possible that the decision didn't come from the EPA internally but they got some external pressure from others who were tired of it or just asked "why aren't you doing something about these guys who think it's funny to blot out the sun?"

It's been building for a while, though. This isn't something that popped up just a year or two ago. Our jailbird friend was first fined in 2015. Bully Dog got busted for 330,000 tuners in 2018 and that paperwork mentions dates as far back as 2013. Alfadriver started telling me that FM needed to pay more attention to emissions quite a while ago.

Also, Bully Dog, one of the bigger names in turners, now sells emissions legal parts. So the enforcement sure had an effect there.

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

Sorry for the threadjack, but it looks like the Supreme Court may have just reduced the EPA's power in the "greenhouse gas" reduction business https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-limits-epa-in-curbing-power-plant-emissions/ar-AAZ2oND  

If this is too political i'll delete the post.

I think it's fair, and I commented on it earlier. The EPA doesn't really have any authority based on the constitution. I believe we have a majority of judges who are ruling based on the text, agree with that premise or not. I also believe that the majority of the states enjoy having an EPA of some form. I think it needs to be enumerated in the constitution, and there are processes to do just that. I would welcome my representatives working to that end.

In reply to STM317 :

Transportation is talking about the movement of people and goods. Passenger cars and trucks are just a part of that, and then deleted diesels are an even smaller part of that. I think the last time this came up they estimated there are 500K deleted diesels, but there are almost 300 million cars on the road. When you continue to subdivide that 27% to smaller and smaller and smaller groups the actions have no real effect on pollution. Do the deleted diesels have an outsized impact, sure. Would removing every single one of them off the road (which will never happen) have a material effect on pollution? No probably not. Did spending 5 years chasing Spartan actually get any of these polluters off the road? No

All this probably began because some senator got coal rolled by a dummy.

In reply to Opti :

We don't need to guess, or estimate or hand wave these numbers. They're all readily available:

You can read the EPA's 2020 report on deleted diesel pickups here (focus on smog forming emissions)

"Based on this analysis, for the cases that EPA has investigated (further described in Sections 3
through 5), AED estimates that the emissions controls have been removed from more than
550,000 diesel pickup trucks in the last decade. As a result of this tampering, more than 570,000
tons of excess oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 5,000 tons of particulate matter (PM) will be emitted
by these tampered trucks over the lifetime of the vehicles. These tampered trucks constitute
approximately 15 percent of the national population of diesel trucks that were originally certified
with emissions controls. But, due to their severe excess NOx emissions, these trucks have an air
quality impact equivalent to adding more than 9 million additional (compliant, non-tampered)
diesel pickup trucks to our roads."

It may be a small percentage of total vehicles that are the issue, but they're WAY out of bounds if we're considering impact per vehicle. If emissions from 550k deleted trucks are equivalent to emissions from 9 million non-deleted trucks, then each deleted truck has the same impact on local air quality as 16 equivalent trucks that haven't been tampered with. If we think about it on a per mile basis, an average deleted truck does 16 miles worth of damage for every 1 mile that it's driven. That means that driving a deleted truck 10k miles per year is equivalent to driving a stock truck 160k miles. If the 14k deletes that this specific guy sold drive 150k miles each over the life of the vehicle, that's 2.1 billion miles driven, where they're emitting 16 times what the intact trucks do. So this 1 "small business owner" is responsible for emissions equivalent to 33.6 billion miles driven by stock trucks.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Im a consumer, and if I didnt think deleting diesels was dumb, I could have my components and tune tommorrow. It has had literally no effect on my ability to procure parts and labor to have it done.

Why do people think the EPA is outside the Constitution?  They are bound like every other government thing. They are part of the Executive branch and have been given authorization to write laws by congress. That's how it works. 
Maybe because they win far more challenges than they lose?  Dunno. What that tells me is that they have a strong understanding of their bounds. In this case, it's about their bounds to go after companies, but not the customers. 
As for maritime rules, there are some pretty stringent treaties that cover maritime emissions outside of national boundaries. 
And there are tons of rules bounding emissions from stationary places, too. We are light years better than when I was a kid in the 70's - and that took a system approach as opposed to just looking at one thing. 
 

IMHO, the recent debate over CO2 is political vs science. Which it has been for +30 years in the US. There are real reasons that the international community is so frustrated with the US on that. 

In reply to STM317 :

I agree with you 100 percent. They have an outsized impact. Do I think they are dumb? absolutely.

My question is have these actions led to less deleted diesels on the road? I dont think so, you may disagree, thats fine.

Do you think we can get them all off the road or make any real difference in the number on the road? I dont think so, this tiny percentage of people already know they are breaking the law and dont care, and we arent even going after the consumers, we are going after the sellers. We go after both with drug users and plenty of people still get drugs, its not even hard.

Finally, Lets say you think these actions are leading to removing a decent number of these off the road and maybe we can get to 100% of them off the road or close (which I disagree with, we cant get 100% compliance of ANY law) , does removing this tiny percentage of actual cars on the road have a material effect on pollution? Remember there are something like 280 million cars on the road and we are talking about half a million deleted diesels, plus passenger cars only make up a portion of total transportation pollution which also includes shipping by land sea and air and travel by land sea and air. I dont think so.

I think they are going after such a tiny populace when the vast majority of diesel owners are compliant, they are long past the point of diminishing returns, and this probably started based on a personal vendetta because some shiny happy person coal rolled a senator and it snowballed.

alfadriver said:

Why do people think the EPA is outside the Constitution?  They are bound like every other government thing. They are part of the Executive branch and have been given authorization to write laws by congress. That's how it works. 
Maybe because they win far more challenges than they lose?  Dunno. What that tells me is that they have a strong understanding of their bounds. In this case, it's about their bounds to go after companies, but not the customers. 
As for maritime rules, there are some pretty stringent treaties that cover maritime emissions outside of national boundaries. 
And there are tons of rules bounding emissions from stationary places, too. We are light years better than when I was a kid in the 70's - and that took a system approach as opposed to just looking at one thing. 
 

IMHO, the recent debate over CO2 is political vs science. Which it has been for +30 years in the US. There are real reasons that the international community is so frustrated with the US on that. 

We have disagreed on this topic before and we won't settle it now. I don't suppose it has much bearing on this anyway. Personally I believe that the EPA should have clearly bounded authority enumerated in the constitution. I'm a constitutionalist. This would also make the power unable to be swayed by the SCOTUS or the POTUS in either direction.

In reply to Opti :

I don't think this is about getting them off the road immediately. I think it's about getting them off the road over time. When vendors start seeing other sellers be fined heavily or have to do jail time it's a pretty strong disincentive to make, market and sell these parts. I agree that you'll never have 100% compliance, and that truly determined people will likely always be able to subvert the laws just as they currently do with drugs or weapons. The idea is to put enough deterrents, hurdles and penalties in place to dis-incentivize the majority, not to achieve perfection. We don't have to be perfect to be better. We don't have to fix every industry or every nation to justify action. Improvement alone can be worthwhile.

I also think somebody in a rural location with higher percentage of trucks and lower likelihood of emissions testing will likely have a different view on the effectiveness of pursuing punishment than somebody in an urban area with emissions testing. We know for a fact that tighter emissions standards have helped improve air quality since their inception. We know for a fact that this particular seller will not be able to continue selling their product. Even if we don't feel like something is being effective, there can be real, quantifiable improvements that we simply don't really notice. How many trucks would have to be taken off the road to make you feel as if it's being effective? If 1 deleted truck is taken off the road, that's equivalent to 16 factory stock trucks. Are you likely to notice if a single truck or two are taken off the road (or prevented from being deleted in the first place)? That can still have meaningful impact that we simply don't perceive. Would you notice if there were a 10% reduction in deleted trucks in your area?

In reply to Opti :

So, if we can't get 100%, we shouldn't try at all?

And before you say, 'well let's focus on something yielding better results like tankers, cruise ships, power plants'. Do you think they're not doing that as well already?

In reply to iansane :

Im saying we already have a 93% compliance rate

Are you saying they have infinite resources, so working on one futile thing, doesnt have a negative impact on their ability to work on actual effective measures? We already know how efficient government is /sarcasm

tuna55 said:

alfadriver said:

Why do people think the EPA is outside the Constitution?  They are bound like every other government thing. They are part of the Executive branch and have been given authorization to write laws by congress. That's how it works. 
Maybe because they win far more challenges than they lose?  Dunno. What that tells me is that they have a strong understanding of their bounds. In this case, it's about their bounds to go after companies, but not the customers. 
As for maritime rules, there are some pretty stringent treaties that cover maritime emissions outside of national boundaries. 
And there are tons of rules bounding emissions from stationary places, too. We are light years better than when I was a kid in the 70's - and that took a system approach as opposed to just looking at one thing. 
 

IMHO, the recent debate over CO2 is political vs science. Which it has been for +30 years in the US. There are real reasons that the international community is so frustrated with the US on that. 

We have disagreed on this topic before and we won't settle it now. I don't suppose it has much bearing on this anyway. Personally I believe that the EPA should have clearly bounded authority enumerated in the constitution. I'm a constitutionalist. This would also make the power unable to be swayed by the SCOTUS or the POTUS in either direction.

It isn't the EPA's fault, or even the executive branch's fault for that matter, that the legislature just surrendered their oversight in those areas to the agency.  While I fault the EPA for overreaches, they are generally doing what they are allowed to do with minimal restriction.  I don't like it, which is why I appreciate the SCOTUS decision today.  All agencies that are just given power are at the sway of the leader at hand which is down to the POTUS at the time.  

The manufacturers who sold these trucks originally are partly to blame too, of course they are going make what people will buy, but most of these type ot trucks have engines that are much more efficient and powerful without the emissions equipment, which is needed but unreliable and expensive to maintain, and will lead to the truck being mechanically totaled at pretty low mileage when deleting it would extend the life of the truck far longer.  It's not an argument to allow people to pollute, but more that I am not sure they should have ever existed to begin with.

In reply to Tk8398 :

A good example of this is the 6.0/6.4 which is generally considered on of the least reliable modern big diesels in passenger trucks. In busses where they are exempt from emissions, reports are these things are workhorses and very hard to kill

Opti said:

In reply to iansane :

Im saying we already have a 93% compliance rate

Are you saying they have infinite resources, so working on one futile thing, doesnt have a negative impact on their ability to work on actual effective measures? We already know how efficient government is /sarcasm

You haven't presented evidence that the EPA's action is futile, or that it's stopping them from their ability to work in other areas. 

If all you have left is "Hurr Durr government bad" it's probably time to lock the thread.