Some of you will remember the story I relayed last year about the EPA picking on small tuning businesses along with parts makers like Cobb Tuning. After Trump's election, the EPA kind of went into hiding for awhile (see articles on increases of alcoholism among EPA employees - seriously).



There were fears of budget cuts and many EPA employees weren't sure if they'd be employed in 3-6 months.



Well, apparently they have some confidence back, because they have resumed their assault on the automotive aftermarket. In particular, they have proceeded to come back to Evans Tuning with a ruling and fines that are, well, tyrannical might be too nice a word.



As a refresher, Evans Tuning is a mom and pop operation run by Jeff Evans (the tuner) and his wife. Jeff is a nice guy, talented and well respected in the business. He has a very loyal and happy customer base, and was named one of the top 20 tuning shops in the country.



After Cobb Tuning (and other ecu/flash tool makers) were raided last year, Evans Tuning received a demand letter from the EPA giving him one month to submit all his sales and customer data from the proceeding 3 years. It had to be submitted in an EPA mandated format and it was _not_ optional. After Jeff met the EPA demands he did not hear from them again, until just a couple weeks ago. They asked for a conference call with Jeff and his attorney. The conference call took place today.



In it, Evans was told that the EPA had identified no less than 298 violations of the clean air act, and each violation was subject to a fine of several thousand dollars. The net penalty is somewhere in excess of US$1 million. The vast majority of these penalties were not related to Evans' tuning of various vehicles, but rather because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules. Let me repeat that. Evans sold products, available on the market today, that _could_ be used to bypass emissions controls on vehicles. And furthermore, while Evans Tuning is a corporation, they have personally attached Jeff Evans to the fines, meaning even if Evans Tuning goes bankrupt, he is still liable for them personally.



Hopefully you begin to see both the ridiculousness of such an attack, as well as the danger it represents to any enthusiast. The EPA has now resumed its assertion (belayed last year when the US Congress entertained amending the clean air act to fix this) that the Clean Air Act does not exclude production based race cars from the rules forbidding any alteration of any emissions equipment on the car. Historically the EPA had said that race cars didn't fall under the purview of the law, but changed their interpretation last year.



If the EPA's action against Evans succeeds, they will have, in one fell swoop, made illegal over 90% of the products and services provided by the aftermarket in the United States. Any modification that does not undergo California CARB certification or a US FTP emissions cert, would be de facto illegal for use on any vehicle made after 1971, regardless of the usage or venue of usage for that vehicle. No longer will you be able to custom tune a race car, unless you are willing to spend $10k to custom certify the emissions of that vehicle. And all production based racing series (see World Challenge, for example) would be required to use factory catalysts (which will not last in a race environment of course).



The action against Evans is also capricious in that it singles out someone who simply performed a select set of services on the vehicle. A customer who brings in a race car (converted from a street car) that has removed all emissions equipment, added a turbocharger and a stand alone aftermarket ECU is not prosecuted, but the man who tuned the ECU (and indeed made the vehicle run better) is facing bankruptcy and the ruin of his life and career. Of course, after the EPA is done with tuners, the end users may be next. Look for EPA thugs at your local race track soon.



Hopefully the fight is not over yet. Evans is still dealing with the ramifications and shock of being hit with this incredible penalty. But I suspect he will choose to fight and will start a legal fund which I would encourage everyone to donate to. Every little bit counts as this will probably be a 6 figure litigation expense.



You can also help by calling or faxing your Congressman and asking them to please fasttrack and approve the RPM act of 2017 (Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports). This will at least exempt any race vehicles from the EPA's medusan gaze. Then we can get to work on a more reasonable emissions testing process for modified vehicles so that we can all win (modified cars with assurances that they are clean enough for our roads).



In the meantime, if you know anyone in the automotive aftermarket, warn them to be prepared. And if you want to modify a car, buy an old muscle car and go wild.



SC



notyper wrote:

Some of you will remember the story I relayed last year about the EPA picking on small tuning businesses along with parts makers like Cobb Tuning. After Trump's election, the EPA kind of went into hiding for awhile (see articles on increases of alcoholism among EPA employees - seriously).



There were fears of budget cuts and many EPA employees weren't sure if they'd be employed in 3-6 months.



Well, apparently they have some confidence back, because they have resumed their assault on the automotive aftermarket. In particular, they have proceeded to come back to Evans Tuning with a ruling and fines that are, well, tyrannical might be too nice a word.



As a refresher, Evans Tuning is a mom and pop operation run by Jeff Evans (the tuner) and his wife. Jeff is a nice guy, talented and well respected in the business. He has a very loyal and happy customer base, and was named one of the top 20 tuning shops in the country.



After Cobb Tuning (and other ecu/flash tool makers) were raided last year, Evans Tuning received a demand letter from the EPA giving him one month to submit all his sales and customer data from the proceeding 3 years. It had to be submitted in an EPA mandated format and it was _not_ optional. After Jeff met the EPA demands he did not hear from them again, until just a couple weeks ago. They asked for a conference call with Jeff and his attorney. The conference call took place today.



In it, Evans was told that the EPA had identified no less than 298 violations of the clean air act, and each violation was subject to a fine of several thousand dollars. The net penalty is somewhere in excess of US$1 million. The vast majority of these penalties were not related to Evans' tuning of various vehicles, but rather because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules. Let me repeat that. Evans sold products, available on the market today, that _could_ be used to bypass emissions controls on vehicles. And furthermore, while Evans Tuning is a corporation, they have personally attached Jeff Evans to the fines, meaning even if Evans Tuning goes bankrupt, he is still liable for them personally.



Hopefully you begin to see both the ridiculousness of such an attack, as well as the danger it represents to any enthusiast. The EPA has now resumed its assertion (belayed last year when the US Congress entertained amending the clean air act to fix this) that the Clean Air Act does not exclude production based race cars from the rules forbidding any alteration of any emissions equipment on the car. Historically the EPA had said that race cars didn't fall under the purview of the law, but changed their interpretation last year.



If the EPA's action against Evans succeeds, they will have, in one fell swoop, made illegal over 90% of the products and services provided by the aftermarket in the United States. Any modification that does not undergo California CARB certification or a US FTP emissions cert, would be de facto illegal for use on any vehicle made after 1971, regardless of the usage or venue of usage for that vehicle. No longer will you be able to custom tune a race car, unless you are willing to spend $10k to custom certify the emissions of that vehicle. And all production based racing series (see World Challenge, for example) would be required to use factory catalysts (which will not last in a race environment of course).



The action against Evans is also capricious in that it singles out someone who simply performed a select set of services on the vehicle. A customer who brings in a race car (converted from a street car) that has removed all emissions equipment, added a turbocharger and a stand alone aftermarket ECU is not prosecuted, but the man who tuned the ECU (and indeed made the vehicle run better) is facing bankruptcy and the ruin of his life and career. Of course, after the EPA is done with tuners, the end users may be next. Look for EPA thugs at your local race track soon.



Hopefully the fight is not over yet. Evans is still dealing with the ramifications and shock of being hit with this incredible penalty. But I suspect he will choose to fight and will start a legal fund which I would encourage everyone to donate to. Every little bit counts as this will probably be a 6 figure litigation expense.



You can also help by calling or faxing your Congressman and asking them to please fasttrack and approve the RPM act of 2017 (Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports). This will at least exempt any race vehicles from the EPA's medusan gaze. Then we can get to work on a more reasonable emissions testing process for modified vehicles so that we can all win (modified cars with assurances that they are clean enough for our roads).



In the meantime, if you know anyone in the automotive aftermarket, warn them to be prepared. And if you want to modify a car, buy an old muscle car and go wild.



SC







Will the new budget and possible shut down of the Feds affect this? For all we know, those EPA lawyers might be out of work soon.



notyper wrote:

Some of you will remember the story I relayed last year about the EPA picking on small tuning businesses along with parts makers like Cobb Tuning. After Trump's election, the EPA kind of went into hiding for awhile (see articles on increases of alcoholism among EPA employees - seriously).



There were fears of budget cuts and many EPA employees weren't sure if they'd be employed in 3-6 months.



Well, apparently they have some confidence back, because they have resumed their assault on the automotive aftermarket. In particular, they have proceeded to come back to Evans Tuning with a ruling and fines that are, well, tyrannical might be too nice a word.



As a refresher, Evans Tuning is a mom and pop operation run by Jeff Evans (the tuner) and his wife. Jeff is a nice guy, talented and well respected in the business. He has a very loyal and happy customer base, and was named one of the top 20 tuning shops in the country.



After Cobb Tuning (and other ecu/flash tool makers) were raided last year, Evans Tuning received a demand letter from the EPA giving him one month to submit all his sales and customer data from the proceeding 3 years. It had to be submitted in an EPA mandated format and it was _not_ optional. After Jeff met the EPA demands he did not hear from them again, until just a couple weeks ago. They asked for a conference call with Jeff and his attorney. The conference call took place today.



In it, Evans was told that the EPA had identified no less than 298 violations of the clean air act, and each violation was subject to a fine of several thousand dollars. The net penalty is somewhere in excess of US$1 million. The vast majority of these penalties were not related to Evans' tuning of various vehicles, but rather because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules. Let me repeat that. Evans sold products, available on the market today, that _could_ be used to bypass emissions controls on vehicles. And furthermore, while Evans Tuning is a corporation, they have personally attached Jeff Evans to the fines, meaning even if Evans Tuning goes bankrupt, he is still liable for them personally.



Hopefully you begin to see both the ridiculousness of such an attack, as well as the danger it represents to any enthusiast. The EPA has now resumed its assertion (belayed last year when the US Congress entertained amending the clean air act to fix this) that the Clean Air Act does not exclude production based race cars from the rules forbidding any alteration of any emissions equipment on the car. Historically the EPA had said that race cars didn't fall under the purview of the law, but changed their interpretation last year.



If the EPA's action against Evans succeeds, they will have, in one fell swoop, made illegal over 90% of the products and services provided by the aftermarket in the United States. Any modification that does not undergo California CARB certification or a US FTP emissions cert, would be de facto illegal for use on any vehicle made after 1971, regardless of the usage or venue of usage for that vehicle. No longer will you be able to custom tune a race car, unless you are willing to spend $10k to custom certify the emissions of that vehicle. And all production based racing series (see World Challenge, for example) would be required to use factory catalysts (which will not last in a race environment of course).



The action against Evans is also capricious in that it singles out someone who simply performed a select set of services on the vehicle. A customer who brings in a race car (converted from a street car) that has removed all emissions equipment, added a turbocharger and a stand alone aftermarket ECU is not prosecuted, but the man who tuned the ECU (and indeed made the vehicle run better) is facing bankruptcy and the ruin of his life and career. Of course, after the EPA is done with tuners, the end users may be next. Look for EPA thugs at your local race track soon.



Hopefully the fight is not over yet. Evans is still dealing with the ramifications and shock of being hit with this incredible penalty. But I suspect he will choose to fight and will start a legal fund which I would encourage everyone to donate to. Every little bit counts as this will probably be a 6 figure litigation expense.



You can also help by calling or faxing your Congressman and asking them to please fasttrack and approve the RPM act of 2017 (Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports). This will at least exempt any race vehicles from the EPA's medusan gaze. Then we can get to work on a more reasonable emissions testing process for modified vehicles so that we can all win (modified cars with assurances that they are clean enough for our roads).



In the meantime, if you know anyone in the automotive aftermarket, warn them to be prepared. And if you want to modify a car, buy an old muscle car and go wild.



SC





I would suspect that SEMA will have a strong and powerful ally in SEMA.



This isn't surprising, but will blow up in the EPA's face as a completely unenforceable change of interpretation.



First, selling customers something that COULD be used to do harm won't necessarily stand up in court as the seller isn't responsible for its use, nor did the end user necessarily commit an infraction (how can they prove they didn't want it for wall decoration?). It would also be almost impossible to determine whether they were actually used in a manner that was against that would be deemed illegal (how can the prove I didn't flash my car for the track and then return it to stock?).



I see this as a policy push that is unlikely to withstand scrutiny, but unfortunately it could crush guys like Jeff in the process.



Wow, very sad for Jeff Evans and for any tuner or enthusiast. I would suspect if this continues the used market for these parts will grow red hot. This demand won't go away, it'll be like enforcing prohibition.



Have to wonder why they picked on Jeff Evans and not some of the other shops or enterprises? Like all the OEMs that produce and sell the parts or aftermarket manufacturers (won't name names, but there are lots that have cars/parts branded in their names).



Notyper, please post whatever collection info we need for Mr. Evans when it's available. I'd like to help.





notyper wrote:





After Cobb Tuning (and other ecu/flash tool makers) were raided last year, Evans Tuning received a demand letter from the EPA giving him one month to submit all his sales and customer data from the proceeding 3 years. It had to be submitted in an EPA mandated format and it was _not_ optional. After Jeff met the EPA demands he did not hear from them again, until just a couple weeks ago. They asked for a conference call with Jeff and his attorney. The conference call took place today.



In it, Evans was told that the EPA had identified no less than 298 violations of the clean air act, and each violation was subject to a fine of several thousand dollars. The net penalty is somewhere in excess of US$1 million. The vast majority of these penalties were not related to Evans' tuning of various vehicles, but rather because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules. Let me repeat that. Evans sold products, available on the market today, that _could_ be used to bypass emissions controls on vehicles. And furthermore, while Evans Tuning is a corporation, they have personally attached Jeff Evans to the fines, meaning even if Evans Tuning goes bankrupt, he is still liable for them personally.



Hopefully you begin to see both the ridiculousness of such an attack, as well as the danger it represents to any enthusiast. The EPA has now resumed its assertion (belayed last year when the US Congress entertained amending the clean air act to fix this) that the Clean Air Act does not exclude production based race cars from the rules forbidding any alteration of any emissions equipment on the car. Historically the EPA had said that race cars didn't fall under the purview of the law, but changed their interpretation last year.



If the EPA's action against Evans succeeds, they will have, in one fell swoop, made illegal over 90% of the products and services provided by the aftermarket in the United States. Any modification that does not undergo California CARB certification or a US FTP emissions cert, would be de facto illegal for use on any vehicle made after 1971, regardless of the usage or venue of usage for that vehicle. No longer will you be able to custom tune a race car, unless you are willing to spend $10k to custom certify the emissions of that vehicle. And all production based racing series (see World Challenge, for example) would be required to use factory catalysts (which will not last in a race environment of course).



The action against Evans is also capricious in that it singles out someone who simply performed a select set of services on the vehicle. A customer who brings in a race car (converted from a street car) that has removed all emissions equipment, added a turbocharger and a stand alone aftermarket ECU is not prosecuted, but the man who tuned the ECU (and indeed made the vehicle run better) is facing bankruptcy and the ruin of his life and career. Of course, after the EPA is done with tuners, the end users may be next. Look for EPA thugs at your local race track soon.



Hopefully the fight is not over yet. Evans is still dealing with the ramifications and shock of being hit with this incredible penalty. But I suspect he will choose to fight and will start a legal fund which I would encourage everyone to donate to. Every little bit counts as this will probably be a 6 figure litigation expense.







SC





That's insane. They are charging him personally because he runs a company that sells things that could POTENTIALLY allow his CUSTOMERS to break the law? Also, they changed their interpretation of the law last year, but they are looking at his sales for the past three? I'm no lawyer, but that just doesn't sound right. I hope for the sake of everyone that he fights it and wins.



Not saying they should, but it would make a whole lot more sense if the EPA went after car owners. Here, enforcement ranges from roadside emissions testing (usually targets smoky old diesels), to issuing a ticket to have the car inspected at a government facility (for any illegal modifications, not just emissions). Which is fair enough, since it was the car owners choice to make an illegal modification and drive it on the road. Usually, the owner would simply have to take their car to a shop to have everything rectified before inspection, and likely have the mods fitted back on after. Of course they can also choose to impound the car for inspection, which they've also been doing more frequently lately. Either way, it should be the responsibility of the car owner to comply to regulations...





typer_801 wrote:

Wow, very sad for Jeff Evans and for any tuner or enthusiast. I would suspect if this continues the used market for these parts will grow red hot. This demand won't go away, it'll be like enforcing prohibition.



Have to wonder why they picked on Jeff Evans and not some of the other shops or enterprises? Like all the OEMs that produce and sell the parts or aftermarket manufacturers (won't name names, but there are lots that have cars/parts branded in their names).





I believe Evans was picked on for several reasons as part of a new direction in enforcement by the EPA.



1) He has a prolific tuning business, meaning that he has worked on enough cars, from enough manufacturers, doing enough different tasks/modifications that enforcement personnel would have plenty of red meat to chew on.



2) While he is successful, he is a small business. He does not posses the financial or personnel resources to undertake a major fight with one of the biggest regulatory agencies in the world. That means he is more likely to cave quickly to EPA demands and allow them to set a precedent for future enforcement actions.



3) Evans has been a prolific user of information technology to build his business. He maintains a large database of dyno information on his website, and is a regular user of social media. This provided a treasure trove of evidence that the EPA could use against him in its enforcement actions.



4) Evans is the last link before the end user. Thus it allows the EPA to get as close as possible to enforcing laws against the individual car owner while still being able to take advantage of the aggregation of data within a single business entity.



From what I can tell, the EPA fully intends to make an example of Jeff Evans and use this action against him as a chilling effect on the aftermarket business community.



SC



owequitit wrote:





I would suspect that SEMA will have a strong and powerful ally in SEMA.



This isn't surprising, but will blow up in the EPA's face as a completely unenforceable change of interpretation.



First, selling customers something that COULD be used to do harm won't necessarily stand up in court as the seller isn't responsible for its use, nor did the end user necessarily commit an infraction (how can they prove they didn't want it for wall decoration?). It would also be almost impossible to determine whether they were actually used in a manner that was against that would be deemed illegal (how can the prove I didn't flash my car for the track and then return it to stock?).



I see this as a policy push that is unlikely to withstand scrutiny, but unfortunately it could crush guys like Jeff in the process.





I hope SEMA takes an active interest in this, but TBH, their response last year was a bit disappointing. Perhaps now that it has moved from investigation to enforcement action they will wake up and push back forcefully.



Talking to Jeff, the issue seems to be one of de facto law breaking. What the EPA is saying (paraphrasing here) is that _any_ modification to an emissions related system on an emissions controlled vehicle must be proven to not negatively impact the emissions profile of that vehicle.



This creates two major problems. The first is that many modifications to emissions related parts (which is pretty much anything in the powertrain these days) have no impact on emissions _by definition_. An example Jeff brought up was changing the calculated tire size or differential gear ratio in the transmission computer for a car that had modified its wheels/tires/diff. All you are doing is making sure the computer has the correct data, but by law (according to the EPA), you are in violation unless you submit a certification to them showing that changing such ECU data doesn't affect emissions.



This leads us to the 2nd problem which is that the process for proving you didn't change emissions is time consuming and cost prohibitive. Doing a CARB certification, for example, requires that you first start with a stock vehicle equivalent to the one you are modifying. It must be no older than a few years (I forget the exact date) and must not have surpassed a certain mileage limit. You then perform a complete emissions test from cold soak (overnight in a temp controlled room) to full highway operation. Such a test takes 2 days and costs many thousands of dollars. Then you have to perform the same test on your modified vehicle and show that emissions did not increase at all. Of course, this all becomes extremely problematic if you want to modify a car where there are no longer any low mileage, new enough examples to use a control.



I think the problem for the EPA, other than being bureaucratic bastard tyrants, is that they simply don't have the knowledge or expertise to begin regulating modifications in a rational way, so they simply forbid it all. Instead of simply letting someone do a smog dyno test and show they are within limits regardless of mods, they say "Verboten!!".



I have a real problem with this sort of regulation, because it stifles innovation, competition and business in general. If you aren't capable of meaningfully measuring emissions changes without a $20k test cycle, then maybe the differences really aren't that important. If I could certify every car tune with a $100 test, I would buy the equipment and make it mandatory for every car that goes on the dyno. But that won't happen anytime soon.



My tire size example above should also evoke some pretty scary slippery slope scenarios (say that 5 times fast). If, by EPA definition, changing an ECU to reflect tire/gear ratio changes is a de facto violation, then isn't putting a tire on your car that has higher rolling resistance, or is the wrong size, also a violation? What these people really want is for your car to be an appliance, that only the dealer can touch, and that you dispose of after a certain time period to buy another one - at least until they can get you into public transit. And that's why the OEMs aren't really pushing back against this. Because they'd love to lock you into a car that you can't alter, where you have to buy all your parts from them.



We have to stop them somewhere, and soon. Act accordingly.



SC



blackstripe77 wrote:





That's insane. They are charging him personally because he runs a company that sells things that could POTENTIALLY allow his CUSTOMERS to break the law? Also, they changed their interpretation of the law last year, but they are looking at his sales for the past three? I'm no lawyer, but that just doesn't sound right. I hope for the sake of everyone that he fights it and wins.







What has to be scaring the crap out of companies like Cobb Tuning, Hondata, etc. is that the EPA, in its action against Evans, is saying that the simple act of selling an S300, or Kpro, or Flashpro, or Accessport is a de facto violation of the law. Without the race car exception, anything short of a flash tool that limits the user to CARB certified calibrations is illegal. But even then, what if the user uses the wrong calibration on their car (different parts than what were tested)?



In this instance, they went after Evans, but what's to stop them from going after the other companies? Only time and resources as far as I can tell. Knowing that you are only free and unencumbered because the man hasn't looked your way yet is a shitty way to live your life. I have to believe that a good legal team would be able to tie the EPA in knots provided they got the right venue to do it in. You can't simply forbid product sales because it might cause harm, even though plenty of gov't apparatchiks have tried to do so (guns for example, alcohol, etc.).



SC





Last edited by notyper on 04-11-2017 22:37

notyper wrote:

owequitit wrote:





I would suspect that SEMA will have a strong and powerful ally in SEMA.



This isn't surprising, but will blow up in the EPA's face as a completely unenforceable change of interpretation.



First, selling customers something that COULD be used to do harm won't necessarily stand up in court as the seller isn't responsible for its use, nor did the end user necessarily commit an infraction (how can they prove they didn't want it for wall decoration?). It would also be almost impossible to determine whether they were actually used in a manner that was against that would be deemed illegal (how can the prove I didn't flash my car for the track and then return it to stock?).



I see this as a policy push that is unlikely to withstand scrutiny, but unfortunately it could crush guys like Jeff in the process.





I hope SEMA takes an active interest in this, but TBH, their response last year was a bit disappointing. Perhaps now that it has moved from investigation to enforcement action they will wake up and push back forcefully.



Talking to Jeff, the issue seems to be one of de facto law breaking. What the EPA is saying (paraphrasing here) is that _any_ modification to an emissions related system on an emissions controlled vehicle must be proven to not negatively impact the emissions profile of that vehicle.



This creates two major problems. The first is that many modifications to emissions related parts (which is pretty much anything in the powertrain these days) have no impact on emissions _by definition_. An example Jeff brought up was changing the calculated tire size or differential gear ratio in the transmission computer for a car that had modified its wheels/tires/diff. All you are doing is making sure the computer has the correct data, but by law (according to the EPA), you are in violation unless you submit a certification to them showing that changing such ECU data doesn't affect emissions.



This leads us to the 2nd problem which is that the process for proving you didn't change emissions is time consuming and cost prohibitive. Doing a CARB certification, for example, requires that you first start with a stock vehicle equivalent to the one you are modifying. It must be no older than a few years (I forget the exact date) and must not have surpassed a certain mileage limit. You then perform a complete emissions test from cold soak (overnight in a temp controlled room) to full highway operation. Such a test takes 2 days and costs many thousands of dollars. Then you have to perform the same test on your modified vehicle and show that emissions did not increase at all. Of course, this all becomes extremely problematic if you want to modify a car where there are no longer any low mileage, new enough examples to use a control.



I think the problem for the EPA, other than being bureaucratic bastard tyrants, is that they simply don't have the knowledge or expertise to begin regulating modifications in a rational way, so they simply forbid it all. Instead of simply letting someone do a smog dyno test and show they are within limits regardless of mods, they say "Verboten!!".



I have a real problem with this sort of regulation, because it stifles innovation, competition and business in general. If you aren't capable of meaningfully measuring emissions changes without a $20k test cycle, then maybe the differences really aren't that important. If I could certify every car tune with a $100 test, I would buy the equipment and make it mandatory for every car that goes on the dyno. But that won't happen anytime soon.



My tire size example above should also evoke some pretty scary slippery slope scenarios (say that 5 times fast). If, by EPA definition, changing an ECU to reflect tire/gear ratio changes is a de facto violation, then isn't putting a tire on your car that has higher rolling resistance, or is the wrong size, also a violation? What these people really want is for your car to be an appliance, that only the dealer can touch, and that you dispose of after a certain time period to buy another one - at least until they can get you into public transit. And that's why the OEMs aren't really pushing back against this. Because they'd love to lock you into a car that you can't alter, where you have to buy all your parts from them.



We have to stop them somewhere, and soon. Act accordingly.



SC





I agree 100%.





notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.



blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.





It's exactly that; over here, it's perfectly legal to sell all the hydroponics gear you need to grown cannabis, but actually doing the latter is illegal.



So in effect, this is tantamount to applying legislation retrospectively.



But this sort of deep-state* fascism is now happening everywhere.







*Shawn previously objected to my use of the term 'elites' as shorthand for the fascists. I've come up with a new collective term: the Controlling, Unaccountable, Neofascist-Totalitarian Syndicate. But it's rather long-winded and I am looking for a suitable acronym...





HAHA thanks for that one!



I'll be surprised if the EPA is successful against Mr Evans here. Prosecuting someone because they sold a product that "could" be used to do harm is just fundamentally screwed up. How can they do this if the product sold is not illegal in and of itself. This does not compute.





rev2damoon wrote:

I'll be surprised if the EPA is successful against Mr Evans here. Prosecuting someone because they sold a product that "could" be used to do harm is just fundamentally screwed up. How can they do this if the product sold is not illegal in and of itself. This does not compute.







That rationale won't work. It would be like selling a gun and deeming it useless because it has no bulletsin it.





RSX wrote:

rev2damoon wrote:

I'll be surprised if the EPA is successful against Mr Evans here. Prosecuting someone because they sold a product that "could" be used to do harm is just fundamentally screwed up. How can they do this if the product sold is not illegal in and of itself. This does not compute.







That rationale won't work. It would be like selling a gun and deeming it useless because it has no bulletsin it.





An individual could walk right into Home Depot and buy all manner of tools and objects that are perfectly legal, legally traded and "could" be used to..."do things".



The end user is really who the EPA is after here, but they seem to be taking a short cut, or at least attempting to.





Shawn, you might want to send this in to Lew Rockwell at www.lewrockwell.com



It's something I think they'd post on the site.



Nick GravesX wrote:

blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.





It's exactly that; over here, it's perfectly legal to sell all the hydroponics gear you need to grown cannabis, but actually doing the latter is illegal.



So in effect, this is tantamount to applying legislation retrospectively.



But this sort of deep-state* fascism is now happening everywhere.







*Shawn previously objected to my use of the term 'elites' as shorthand for the fascists. I've come up with a new collective term: the Controlling, Unaccountable, Neofascist-Totalitarian Syndicate. But it's rather long-winded and I am looking for a suitable acronym...







Nick, I disagree with your acronym; it's too nice.



blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.





Sure, but its a matter of efficiency. Going after the end user is time consuming and cost prohibitive because you need several people to investigate and build a case for each violation. But if 3-4 EPA employees can build a case against a shop for millions of dollars in fines, now you're getting a positive ROI.



Its all about the $$$. And for Evans, he's basically being attacked because he touched the poison fruit, even if he wasn't the one who grew it or ate it.



SC



Nick GravesX wrote:

blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.





It's exactly that; over here, it's perfectly legal to sell all the hydroponics gear you need to grown cannabis, but actually doing the latter is illegal.



So in effect, this is tantamount to applying legislation retrospectively.



But this sort of deep-state* fascism is now happening everywhere.







*Shawn previously objected to my use of the term 'elites' as shorthand for the fascists. I've come up with a new collective term: the Controlling, Unaccountable, Neofascist-Totalitarian Syndicate. But it's rather long-winded and I am looking for a suitable acronym...







Deep State is the correct word that defines the Political Establisment and your 'Elites'.



Another older word is the "polity"... which in the US includes crony capitalists and the corporate propaganda machine.







TonyEX wrote:

Nick GravesX wrote:

blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.





It's exactly that; over here, it's perfectly legal to sell all the hydroponics gear you need to grown cannabis, but actually doing the latter is illegal.



So in effect, this is tantamount to applying legislation retrospectively.



But this sort of deep-state* fascism is now happening everywhere.







*Shawn previously objected to my use of the term 'elites' as shorthand for the fascists. I've come up with a new collective term: the Controlling, Unaccountable, Neofascist-Totalitarian Syndicate. But it's rather long-winded and I am looking for a suitable acronym...







Deep State is the correct word that defines the Political Establisment and your 'Elites'.



Another older word is the "polity"... which in the US includes crony capitalists and the corporate propaganda machine.









That's the problem - you're already starting to sound like the Spanish Inquisition sketch and you still haven't got around to the Banksters and the QUANGOs, pressure groups and all the other factions.



Polity is a good old word, but it's perhaps a bit too narrow a concept in its normal definition, I think.











Nick GravesX wrote:

TonyEX wrote:

Nick GravesX wrote:

blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.





It's exactly that; over here, it's perfectly legal to sell all the hydroponics gear you need to grown cannabis, but actually doing the latter is illegal.



So in effect, this is tantamount to applying legislation retrospectively.



But this sort of deep-state* fascism is now happening everywhere.







*Shawn previously objected to my use of the term 'elites' as shorthand for the fascists. I've come up with a new collective term: the Controlling, Unaccountable, Neofascist-Totalitarian Syndicate. But it's rather long-winded and I am looking for a suitable acronym...







Deep State is the correct word that defines the Political Establisment and your 'Elites'.



Another older word is the "polity"... which in the US includes crony capitalists and the corporate propaganda machine.









That's the problem - you're already starting to sound like the Spanish Inquisition sketch and you still haven't got around to the Banksters and the QUANGOs, pressure groups and all the other factions.



Polity is a good old word, but it's perhaps a bit too narrow a concept in its normal definition, I think.













Cardinal Fang told me that "Deep State" includes the Banksters, NGOs and old billionares like Soros.



http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/





So I do not support the EPA, hippies and greens, but that guy's webpage has hundreds of dynos of mostly huge horsepower cars with aftermarket turbos. That's basically both evidence and admission, and basically he did the EPA's investigation for them.







outersquare wrote:

So I do not support the EPA, hippies and greens, but that guy's webpage has hundreds of dynos of mostly huge horsepower cars with aftermarket turbos. That's basically both evidence and admission, and basically he did the EPA's investigation for them.









Which I mentioned as a probable reason they chose him as a test case. There are three key issues at play though:



1) He sold parts that are not considered illegal to sell, only illegal if used improperly.



2) Many of the cars were race cars which historically have been exempt, although apparently only because that's the way the EPA interpreted the law until recently....



3)There is no reasonable, effective way to modify an individual car and meet the EPAs requirements for proving it has not increased emissions.



This is still a regulatory overreach by the EPA. They chose Evans because they thought they could build a strong enough case to make the overreach stick.



SC



notyper wrote:

blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.





Sure, but its a matter of efficiency. Going after the end user is time consuming and cost prohibitive because you need several people to investigate and build a case for each violation. But if 3-4 EPA employees can build a case against a shop for millions of dollars in fines, now you're getting a positive ROI.



Its all about the $$$. And for Evans, he's basically being attacked because he touched the poison fruit, even if he wasn't the one who grew it or ate it.



SC





Sounds like another case of the govt using the legal system as a cash point. Like how they will "impose a fine" and then "settle" with a bank that they claim to be laundering money for drug dealers and terrorists, then turning a blind eye until they expect another big payoff.



blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.





Sure, but its a matter of efficiency. Going after the end user is time consuming and cost prohibitive because you need several people to investigate and build a case for each violation. But if 3-4 EPA employees can build a case against a shop for millions of dollars in fines, now you're getting a positive ROI.



Its all about the $$$. And for Evans, he's basically being attacked because he touched the poison fruit, even if he wasn't the one who grew it or ate it.



SC





Sounds like another case of the govt using the legal system as a cash point. Like how they will "impose a fine" and then "settle" with a bank that they claim to be laundering money for drug dealers and terrorists, then turning a blind eye until they expect another big payoff.





Sure. And just like with the banks and the Feds and their grants to various politically favored non-profits, the fine money in the EPA will be used (in part) to fund grants to various eco-warriors who support the cause. It seems that nearly half of the EPA's budget is used for grants and awards to outside entities.....



SC



TonyEX wrote:

Nick GravesX wrote:

TonyEX wrote:

Nick GravesX wrote:

blackstripe77 wrote:

notyper wrote:

because Evans sold products to end customers that could be used to bypass emissions rules





Still don't understand why the owner of the car is not liable. Unless the EPA are also saying that all uncertified parts are basically illegal, and hence making the trading of these goods also illegal, that's like saying selling a meat cleaver to a butcher is illegal because it could be used to murder someone. But then what if the car wasn't modified at a shop? What if some guy welded some pipes in his backyard and threw out all his catalytic converters? Surely that must also be illegal.





It's exactly that; over here, it's perfectly legal to sell all the hydroponics gear you need to grown cannabis, but actually doing the latter is illegal.



So in effect, this is tantamount to applying legislation retrospectively.



But this sort of deep-state* fascism is now happening everywhere.







*Shawn previously objected to my use of the term 'elites' as shorthand for the fascists. I've come up with a new collective term: the Controlling, Unaccountable, Neofascist-Totalitarian Syndicate. But it's rather long-winded and I am looking for a suitable acronym...







Deep State is the correct word that defines the Political Establisment and your 'Elites'.



Another older word is the "polity"... which in the US includes crony capitalists and the corporate propaganda machine.









That's the problem - you're already starting to sound like the Spanish Inquisition sketch and you still haven't got around to the Banksters and the QUANGOs, pressure groups and all the other factions.



Polity is a good old word, but it's perhaps a bit too narrow a concept in its normal definition, I think.













Cardinal Fang told me that "Deep State" includes the Banksters, NGOs and old billionares like Soros.



http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/







Interesting read - thanks.



I suppose if one replaces its US-centric focus with a Global Governance one, the term Deep State may indeed still be applicable.





RSX wrote:

rev2damoon wrote:

I'll be surprised if the EPA is successful against Mr Evans here. Prosecuting someone because they sold a product that "could" be used to do harm is just fundamentally screwed up. How can they do this if the product sold is not illegal in and of itself. This does not compute.







In the end majorities decide the rules when they vote and how they vote. If you are against this, it is up to you to voice up your opinion (like Shawn is doing) or support that guy (like Shawn seems willing to do). Others will approve the measure as a way of having cleaner air, everywhere. It is not fascism, but what we all call democracy, which typically ain't the same as freedom to do whatever one wants.



I'm curious though, because I am not sure I understood. Are they applying emissions regulations to cars which are not street legal? I mean, race cars which cannot be driven on the streets? Or only to cars that people use to race but also get on the roads?



danielgr wrote:

RSX wrote:

rev2damoon wrote:

I'll be surprised if the EPA is successful against Mr Evans here. Prosecuting someone because they sold a product that "could" be used to do harm is just fundamentally screwed up. How can they do this if the product sold is not illegal in and of itself. This does not compute.







In the end majorities decide the rules when they vote and how they vote. If you are against this, it is up to you to voice up your opinion (like Shawn is doing) or support that guy (like Shawn seems willing to do). Others will approve the measure as a way of having cleaner air, everywhere. It is not fascism, but what we all call democracy, which typically ain't the same as freedom to do whatever one wants.



I'm curious though, because I am not sure I understood. Are they applying emissions regulations to cars which are not street legal? I mean, race cars which cannot be driven on the streets? Or only to cars that people use to race but also get on the roads?



Exactly what kind of drugs are you referring to here? Illegal? Controlled substances that people can obtain legally? Please explain. I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm just trying to understand your comparison.



danielgr wrote:



I'm curious though, because I am not sure I understood. Are they applying emissions regulations to cars which are not street legal? I mean, race cars which cannot be driven on the streets? Or only to cars that people use to race but also get on the roads?





This is the crux of the issue. The EPA is now saying (contrary to all policy over the last 25 years) that any car which was produced with emissions control equipment may not ever have that equipment altered in any way that would increase emissions, regardless of use. And that includes production based race cars that would never see the street (nor be able to obtain certification for street use).



This means if you're going to take a Corvette, for example, and gut it, build the engine, put in a roll cage, etc. and race it in one of the many race series out there you can't remove the cats, the evap system, etc. Nor can you even tune the car unless you undergo a new federal emissions certification. This is why this case is so important.



SC

