PRI sues EPA

It's really never been OK it's just the likelyhood of getting caught was near zero, and still is. Some of the parts that don't have EO numbers may be harder to get unless you can prove the intended use is on non emissions controlled vehicles. That is going to be a challenge for the manufacturers to deal with.

I would like to see an exemption for "limited use" but that's just me dreaming. Similar to getting classic, hot-rod, whatever tags that are only a few k a year and only on sunny sundays.

The problem isn't them putting an offroad use only sticker on their junk and then people disregarding it.   Its companies putting offroad only stickers on their junk and then marketing it using videos and pictures from street use.   Rolling coal on Priuses and E36 M3 like that.    Then they cry foul when called out for it.   This is a video from a channel literally called Diesel Sellers for a website called dieselpowergear.com on a street and yet they can't figure out why anyone would try to check on their emissions lineup of products.   

 

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

I would like to see an exemption for "limited use" but that's just me dreaming. Similar to getting classic, hot-rod, whatever tags that are only a few k a year and only on sunny sundays.

Agreed.  Even if it's not a full exemption I'd be happy.  Give me some kind of basic test to have done on the thing every year or 2 to prove that it's at least making a reasonable effort to maintain decent emissions and confirm that it's not being driven more than X miles / year.  Maybe tie it to a minimum vehicle age as well.  Yeah, it won't be as good as doing the full suite of tests on it, but it wouldn't be too hard to arrange leaving it at a shop overnight so they can test from cold the next morning and then pick it up after. 

Keith Tanner said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Keith Tanner said:

Apis Mellifera said:

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

 I don't recall brodozers spewing soot in the early 2000s or even early 2010s.

 According to the EPA filing, Bully Dog sold at least 86,000 tuners and 18,500 EGR delete kits from 2010-2013 and were charged with over 114,000 violations. They were fined a cool million bucks in 2015.

There was definitely brodozer action in the 2000s.

Under ten dollars per unit?

 

"Hey guys!  Prices of tunes went up from $500 to $510!"

 

I would like to note that tractor pulling at a grassroots level is an actual thing, and people build dedicated pulling trucks that get towed to events.

The initial fine was cut down due to demonstrated inability to pay. Most of the ones I've seen have been scaled to really hurt a business but not sink it. Here's the ruling if you're interested: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/hscafo.pdf 

I've seen coal rolling for a long time.

Interesting.

I find it a little peculiar that no one is the slightest bit concerned that a Federal agency takes it upon themselves to play 'judge, jury, and executioner'. If you look at the documents, they are not proceedings from a Federal court, they are an administrative hearing within a department of the EPA.

I too welcome the EPA's enforcement actions, because this overreach will provide the basis to prune back and curtail some of the bloated authorities the EPA has assumed over the decades and contemporary review through the judicial system should apply some Constitutionality and checks and balances to an agency that has been acting outside of its authority, in my opinion, for decades.

Otherwise, I think its sad and pathetic for a collection of 'car guys' to cheer on an agency that is poised to destroy 'our' hobby and passion.

Flounder king is back

In reply to FatMongo :

Dude. I don't know what happened to you in your life.  But man you are just super angry all the time.   Please stop going down the flounder hole. I hope you have a nice day. 
 

In reply to FatMongo :

I couldnt agree more. Sadly, anything else I want to add would be seen as providing aquatic protein to the convo so for that reason, I am out.

Personal responsibility doesn't work, so instead of trying to encourage personal responsibility and hold the users responsible for their actions, we add multiple layers of nannies and enforcement on manufacturers and people who are not in control of the the actual violations.

Typical EPA.

Same agency that says dirt is the most common pollutant in water, then regulates the E36 M3 out of construction activities (where erosion control manufacturers have massive lobbying influence) but keeps their hands off DOT, farming, and mining operations. (for political reasons)

The obvious answer is to use the tools that already exist to put pressure on the actual violators and encourage personal responsibility.  Standard emissions testing should have more teeth on the endline users.  But it's easier and more profitable for the EPA to go after manufacturers.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Flounder king is back

 

In reply to FatMongo :

Dude. I'm sorry to what happened to you in your life.  But man you are just super angry all the time.   Please stop going down the flounder hole. I hope you have a nice day. 

Not a flounder. I stated my opinion on the matter. YOU are trying to make it a flounder because an opinion differs from yours - reflects more on who/what you are than anyone else.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to FatMongo :

Umm no. You questioned the constitutionality of the enforcement of an act of Congress.  You brought politics into this and floundered it. You have a recent history of such. Please enjoy your day. 

Not engaging you anymore. You are twisting things so you can cry foul to a moderator.

Good day to you as well.

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

I don't trust anyone will do the right thing when no one is watching.  I'm hopeful they will but don't expect it. 

This past year more people than ever visited the BWCA. It's America's most visited wilderness area.  The new visitors(because they couldn't do other things for vacation) decided to ignore the rules and trash the place. Campgrounds looked like hell. Trees cut down when they weren't supposed to be.  Lots of news coverage.  Anyway. Now there are new rules to ensure that everyone knows the rules they should have already known because some jakholes can't think beyond themselves. 

In reply to FatMongo :

Not my mo.  I've been on this board for over 20 years. I've had my timeouts due to my own poor choices. Trying to head you off before you do it again.  

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Personal responsibility doesn't work, so instead of trying to encourage personal responsibility and hold the users responsible for their actions, we add multiple layers of nannies and enforcement on manufacturers and people who are not in control of the the actual violations.

They are going after the manufacturers and retailers who glorify and advertise their products in ways that encourage use that violates the regulations and then try to hide behind an off-road use only sticker.   See the rolling coal video above.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

I don't trust anyone will do the right thing when no one is watching.  I'm hopeful they will but don't expect it. 

I agree.

I also don't trust regulating agencies to do the right thing, and expect them to take power grabs when they can.

Rules exist now, and the tools to regulate them do as well.  They should do their job and regulate.  They don't need more laws.  Especially if they won't enforce them.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Personal responsibility doesn't work, so instead of trying to encourage personal responsibility and hold the users responsible for their actions, we add multiple layers of nannies and enforcement on manufacturers and people who are not in control of the the actual violations.

Typical EPA.

Same agency that says dirt is the most common pollutant in water, then regulates the E36 M3 out of construction activities (where erosion control manufacturers have massive lobbying influence) but keeps their hands off DOT, farming, and mining operations. (for political reasons)

The obvious answer is to use the tools that already exist to put pressure on the actual violators and encourage personal responsibility.  Standard emissions testing should have more teeth on the endline users.  But it's easier and more profitable for the EPA to go after manufacturers.

 

Not sure where you are getting at- but "personal responsibility" was a pretty huge loophole the whole motorsports arena was given ever since the non-tampering rule was put into place.  For the most part, nobody did anything about it, until pretty obvious trolling was going on, and the EPA was essentially forced to enforce their own rules.  New rules were not invented, just that enforcement of said rules is happening due to complaints.

Unless we want to pretend that coal rolling does not exist, which is the oblivious path where citizens demand action.

And, by law, the actual violators are the makers of the part- that's where the EPA has their jurisdiction.  States and localities have the power over individuals.  Some states have inspections, some have simple dyno tests, some have complex tests- and each of them deal with individuals on their own.

You've made your own point about EPA, DOT, DOI, etc- they have their own domains that are not supposed to cross over.  Laws are written, and then clarified if needed, for specific agencies do to specific things.  It's far from a perfect way, and we are all allowed to contact our representation to fix problems with interactions.

In terms of implementation- do we all want to have to annually present our cars for inspection that we are not violating the law, or would it be easier (and cheaper) to just prevent things that are not legal to be made and sold to the general public?  

And I'm not sure that the EPA is a profit center.  The money they get for fines just goes back into the federal coffers, and it's pretty small in the scheme of things.

Hate them all you want- if you have a better way to prevent people from putting things on their cars that cause emissions problems, what are they?  Ones that don't cost a lot of tax payer dollars to implement.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

I don't trust anyone will do the right thing when no one is watching.  I'm hopeful they will but don't expect it. 

I agree.

I also don't trust regulating agencies to do the right thing, and expect them to take power grabs when they can.

Rules exist now, and the tools to regulate them do as well.  They should do their job and regulate.  They don't need more laws.  Especially if they won't enforce them.

You don't trust users, and you don't trust regulators.

So then what?

Kind of in a pickle there.

FatMongo said:

Otherwise, I think its sad and pathetic for a collection of 'car guys' to cheer on an agency that is poised to destroy 'our' hobby and passion.

Here's the thing- if we don't do something about it, the public perception of motorsports will kill the industry on it's own.  

A very small percentage of citizens are car people, in spite of what we all think.  Fewer of those are going out and modifying their cars to play with them.

And given the very legal CAA rules that have been on the books for 50 years now, it would take a handful of court cases that will lead to the SC instrucing the EPA to enforce every single rule to the letter of the law all the time.  And if that happens, no mode mods will ever happen.

So it's in our best interest to not be bad players in the eyes if the public.  Brodozers who are coal trolling people make that really hard.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

I don't trust anyone will do the right thing when no one is watching.  I'm hopeful they will but don't expect it. 

I agree.

I also don't trust regulating agencies to do the right thing, and expect them to take power grabs when they can.

Rules exist now, and the tools to regulate them do as well.  They should do their job and regulate.  They don't need more laws.  Especially if they won't enforce them.

You don't trust users, and you don't trust regulators.

So then what?

Kind of in a pickle there.

He answered that in the last line. Please re-read that. 

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

I don't trust anyone will do the right thing when no one is watching.  I'm hopeful they will but don't expect it. 

I agree.

I also don't trust regulating agencies to do the right thing, and expect them to take power grabs when they can.

Rules exist now, and the tools to regulate them do as well.  They should do their job and regulate.  They don't need more laws.  Especially if they won't enforce them.

You don't trust users, and you don't trust regulators.

So then what?

Kind of in a pickle there.

No pickle.  It would be much easier to trust regulators if they enforced the rules they create.

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

They are, and we are complaining about it.  They are enforcing the anti-tampering laws that have been on the books for a long time.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

The authority issue is a bit of a red herring.

Yes.  States have authority over individuals.  In GA (where I work) that would be the GEPD.  But the EPA has authority over the GEPD, so I don't buy the argument that the EPA has no authority.  That's just passing the buck.

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

It's not passing the buck at all. EPA tells GEPD that thety are non-compliant, so the GEPD puts a plan together to either become compliant.  First thing most non-compliant places do WRT cars is fuel blends.  And then "Ozone action days"... and goes on. 

At some point, they will have to put in some kind of inspections- visual, OBD lights, sniffer, or full dyno tests.

When it comes to a person violating an emissions law, the states would be the ones enforcing it, including making their own penalties for that.  The EPA has no input to that part.  Just that an area is non-compliant.

Call it a red herring all you want- the EPA will not be enforcing individual pollution laws unless the actions cross state borders in a bad way.  Again, if they were, they would be taking legal action against their own employees- and i'm not aware that they ever have done that.  Passing the buck is just passing the enforcement to the right group.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

They are, and we are complaining about it.  They are enforcing the anti-tampering laws that have been on the books for a long time.

 

That's not what the lawsuit is about.

The lawsuit is about a plain language law (the CAA) which has been standing for 45 years, which the EPA has maintained a specific interpretation of for that entire time, and is now CHANGING their interpretation, contradicting their own previous 45 year long interpretation.

The law has existed.  The EPA's interpretation for an extended time has been clear and established in extended legal precedents.  Now they don't like how their own interpretation has been utilized, and they want to change their interpretation, instead of going through the process of changing the law, or enforcing the downstream users (through other agencies they have influence over).

I completely agree with your strong support of emissions equipment and standards in racing.  You are good at that, and right.  But I don't understand defending the EPA for their flippant and casual waffling on their own interpretation of their own law.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

In terms of implementation- do we all want to have to annually present our cars for inspection that we are not violating the law, or would it be easier (and cheaper) to just prevent things that are not legal to be made and sold to the general public?  

Note: quote shortened to specific area I'm commenting on. 

I'm in one of those states with annual inspections for safety and emissions. I think it would prefer to see that happen instead of penalizing everyone for the actions of a few. 

When I was younger and had some sketchy vehicles I had some different opinions about the inspections, but that has changed over the years. 

I actually like the idea that I know that the others cars on the road have at least had some level of safety check in the last 12 months. Sure there's some cost and inconvenience, but it keeps a lot of the really dangerous stuff off the roads. 

Same with the emissions, older cars are only subject to visual inspections and newer ones just get plugged in to check system status. It isn't perfect, but it can help reduce the prevalence of on road vehicles with emissions controls disabled. It keeps the honest people honest, and the ones that work around it would have found a way to do it anyway.