Seems good but unlikely to accomplish anything. Manufacturers obviously don't want to make third-party repairs easier because they think they'll lose money, so if the EPA says one excuse isn't valid anymore they'll just find another one. This new guidance doesn't ask or even suggest that manufacturers actually do anything, it just says "hey if you want to help your customers repair stuff, we'd be ok with it".
As long as the manufacturer isn't on the hook for a violation of the EPA when the owner modifies their vehicle to be out of spec.
For automobiles, this has been the case - that the owner is responsible the vehicle goes out of spec... and the owner can also do a lot of customization of their vehicle.
For heavy machinery (which tractors fall into), the manufacture is almost always on the hook for any modification that the owner makes.
> Here’s one real-life scenario that Natalie Higgins, vice president of government relations and general counsel for EDA, shared during a recent presentation for the United Equipment Dealers Assn. “An Ohio equipment owner purchased a tractor and then installed a turbocharger on the engine. The tractor owner sustained injuries and then sued both the manufacturer and the equipment dealer, alleging that his injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the manufacturer and dealer. Remember, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were involved in the turbochargers installation.”
> ...
> And, if you service equipment that has been chipped, the warranty will most likely be denied and you will not be paid for your work. “That can also put your dealership in a sticky situation if technicians in the shop are not conveying to the rest of the dealership what is going in,” says Wareham. F
> Financial consequences can be harsh for not following the law. Under federal law 40 CFR § 89.1006, the penalty for a dealer who removes or renders inoperative emissions controls is subject to a penalty of $32,500 for each violation. Wareham says that one manufacturer of chipping software was initially fined $300,000 by the EPA and then $6 million to ensure future compliance with the Clean Air Act. “The EPA has stated that their intent is to crack down on defeat devices in 2020,” says Wareham.
> A dealer may face liability issues when customers tamper with the equipment they purchased, even if a dealer had nothing to do with the modification. For example, in instances in Ohio and Oregon, customers were injured as a result of modifications and dealers were sued.
But did the tractor owner win the lawsuit? Anybody can sue anybody. Winning is what matters. That anecdote doesn't tell me anything, and the whole article reads as FUD. I wonder if it is paid for by John Deere?
> Whether or not someone is eligible for workers’ compensation depends on their state and the industry they work in. There are no requirements at the federal level that mandate states to have workers’ compensation laws. Nevertheless, every state, except for Texas, requires most employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. However, the majority of state workers’ compensation laws specifically exclude or limit agricultural employers from the workers’ compensation requirement.
Take note of 42:23 where it goes to who is at fault and the liability for it (the case study starts at 21:21 - jumping to 42:23 you can get the "who is paying for it" in two minutes). The entire video is interesting (if you're interested in product liability for industrial (farm) equipment ... but I can understand someone not wanting to watch an hour long video about it). It boils down to "every piece of farm equipment is dangerous from the insurance perspective and a manufacture allowing unapproved modifications to the equipment is still at fault, even if the modification was made by another party."
I can see why that regulation would be in place though. I don't want heavy industrial machinery coming with "here's how to make it run faster and stronger but ruin the environment, which you definitely should not do wink wink."
It's a reasonable goal, but I think that one can find better ways to meet that goal than making manufacturers responsible for what the owner of the equipment does with it. That method is just insanely unfair to the manufacturer.
It'll be hard to do because it's like the more restrictive gun laws. It'll never stick so they never take it though court, but they threaten it to get the conduct they want. OEMs have spent huge sums locking down computer systems "because emissions".
The EPA has a ton of ways to expensively scrutinize (heavy on the "screw") oems at their discretion so it doesn't really need to be a serious threat, just a warning.
Same dynamic as local business vs local code enforcers basically.
The CAA allows parties with no standing to sue, to magically have standing to sue, and then have their victims pay lawyers fees (or otherwise go to jail[0]). So there's no need for the EPA to get involved. You can just be sued by, say " Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment" and end up paying unlimited lawyers fees because some guy 300 miles away says you dropped a particle of carbon on them.
> Here’s one real-life scenario that Natalie Higgins, vice president of government relations and general counsel for EDA, shared during a recent presentation for the United Equipment Dealers Assn. “An Ohio equipment owner purchased a tractor and then installed a turbocharger on the engine. The tractor owner sustained injuries and then sued both the manufacturer and the equipment dealer, alleging that his injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the manufacturer and dealer. Remember, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were involved in the turbochargers installation.”
-----------------------
This is such a weasley disingenuous argument. First of all, it was a guy's insurance company that sued the tractor manufacturer and the supercharger manufacturer. The guy filed an insurance claim, the insurance company is just suing anyone they can possibly imagine to try to make the quarterly results better.
It was also dismissed under summary judgement because the case is ridiculous on it's face. This was not a case where restricting the right to modify things you own based on possible harm to a corporation was justified.
Quite the opposite, this is a case where a greedy insurance company made a really stupid hail-mary lawsuit to try and recover from a legitimate insurance claim.
The fact that we're repeating this blatant corporate propaganda is frankly embarrassing.
Exactly. My understanding is that the manufacturers interpreted the clean air rules as conveniently requiring them to use digital restrictions management (explicit or even just tacit) to prevent tampering (aka repairing) your own equipment. Low-emissions diesel engines then get hated on for the "EPA requirements", with the immediate bad actor corporations sidestepping blame (as usual). Removing the initial motivation / excuse isn't going to get rid of those digital restrictions, openly document the systems, nor provide the tools required to work on them.
The way this is framed, it doesn't even sound like the goal is to affect this dynamic at all. Rather it's to create a loophole of "temporarily" bypassing emission systems, such that if you delete and get caught you can just pinky swear that it's temporary for a repair that you're about to complete real soon. So the only real goal seems to be implicitly rolling back emissions enforcement across the board.
Actual right to repair action would focus on making it so individuals are able to self-repair the emissions control systems to function as designed. So this really just seems like yet another instance of a lofty idea being abused as cover for the destructionist agenda.
It is not just hate because of EPA requirements. These engines are more complicated and prone to failure. Small time operations can not afford the expensive repairs combined with loss of income during repair downtime.
As a result, only corporations remain or the few remaining owner operators avoid any engine newer than the year ~2000. These older vehicles also have the added benefit of having minimal electronics, sensors, and ECMs.
The "more prone to failure" seems to be driven by some abjectly terrible implementations (eg the notorious Kubota B3350). And it's certainly understandable that someone who knows how to repair things based on mechanical linkages would rebel against digital electronics.
But we're on a technology website. We shouldn't really be scared by a extra sensors, a CAN bus, and an embedded controller - assuming all of these things are openly documented and usable with freedom-preserving systems. In fact we should welcome them, as extra telemetry can help avoid downtime and effect repairs.
I think regardless of implementation, if the added complexity reduces reliability and introduces forced failure modes it's reasonable for people to avoid these systems altogether. For example, EGRs causing fouling or DEF engine throttling.
This may be true for our group, but I know numerous blue collar workers at the poverty line struggling due to these systems. Corporations / manufacturers have no incentive to make these systems more accessible. Even if they did, more complex -> more expensive to repair.
> And it's certainly understandable that someone who knows how to repair things based on mechanical linkages would rebel against digital electronics.
They're pretty right to be incensed that something that used to take one skill set now takes two.
>. We shouldn't really be scared by a extra sensors, a CAN bus, and an embedded controller - assuming all of these things are openly documented and usable with freedom-preserving systems
At what cost? For what benefit to the user?
>. In fact we should welcome them, as extra telemetry can help avoid downtime and effect repairs.
Oh, great, so the someone at the OEM can decide my model correlates with a higher $$ use and jack up parts cost. I don't trust you not to do this and I don't even own a tractor. Someone in middle america who's been on the receiving end of the raw deal that the "educated" classes have been peddling for the past 40yr has even less reason to allow your telemetry.
I am not opposed to this (that's why I said "this seems good"), just wanted to point out that I don't believe their claim that "Today’s action will not only expand consumer choice and provide opportunities for farmers but also encourage the use of newer farm equipment". I do think this won't accomplish anything but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't have done it.
This, as others have noted is not a right to repair, it's a right to pollute.
There's a push for agricultural right to repair.[1] That falls under the Federal Trade Commission, not the Environmental Protection Administration. That's about parts and tool availability for the whole machine, not just the Diesel power train. This new announcement has zero effect on that.
Here are the controls of a modern John Deere combine.[2] Very little of that has anything to do with engine control. It's being able to fix that, and all the sensors and actuators connected to it, that's important. Diesels are rather reliable by now.
One of the weird things is the way manufacturers used emissions regulation as an excuse to lock their engines down.
Older engines had no computers. But computer control allows things that are needed to meet emissions like variable valve timing and whatnot. Also, engines are supposed to detect faults in emissions control systems and throw an error code.
So they brought in ECUs, but they DRMed them. Now they said it's so people can't tamper with emissions, but they DRMed everything to the point where now you have to take it to the dealer for servicing.
Do they need DRM to prevent people from tampering with emissions? No, they could have ringfenced it like some devices with radio transmitters do. Does DRM in the ECU prevent people tampering with emissions controls? Also no. There are people doing EGR deletes and whatnot on Tier 4 engines all the time.
But they were able to use emissions as the wedge to do what they really wanted to do: make their equipment not third-party serviceable.
By the way I think this also is a microcosm of the failure of the liberal order. The government should have cracked down hard on manufacturers doing this to begin with. The fact that they allowed manufacturers to turn their customers into serfs "in the name of emissions" obviously just ended up discrediting emissions control.
even when they do something nominally good, they gotta send it through the Propagandaministerium apparatus to glue on all the party-approved buzz words and various other bits and bobs so it reads like your grandma's facebook wall.
Right to repair is such a wild departure from their usual. It doesn't fit with grifting personal wealth, diverting tax income to billionaires, privatizing services, executing protestors, or similar activities. Makes me wonder what fucked-up horror is hidden behind this.
The party that is against everything and for nothing needs a "win" to campaign on for their rural voters. Throw JD under the bus at home and hope the weakening dollar makes up for it increased exports.
How can the alignment of Right to Repair and Republicans not be obvious?
The self-made John Galt who "makes do" without government assistance by repairing all of his things himself, especially his old American muscle car that "they don't make like they used to anymore" is a fantasy that resonates so strongly with the right wing that the FBI might as well just use it to screen for domestic terrorists.
Republicans were a coalition of anticommunists. This resulted in neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and libertarians coming together. When the Soviet Union fell the coalition started to fall apart leading to fewer libertarians supporting the Republican party since the threat was less. The neoconservatives and paleoconservatives remained in the Republican party.
The reasons libertarians have their own party is so they can be blamed for in effect voting for Trump when they did not vote for Trump. It is a form of self-flagellation to ensure no matter which sides when, it is your fault to the other side.
You don't have to read this comment, I'm just throwing down a marker for myself.
I think this is a good policy direction. I don't like the rhetoric and I understand that this as much a political decision as anything else, but I'm glad to see it regardless. A year from now if someone says "you reflexively oppose anything Trump's administration does," I'll have this to look back on.
If I'm reading this correctly, it's basically saying "the manufacturers interpretation of the Clean Air Act is wrong" and that's it? How does this move the needle on right to repair at all? Maybe it'll require some work on the manufacturers part to come up with a new excuse but that's it.
> Boston, MA – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote to Deere & Company (John Deere) accusing the company of undermining its own “right-to-repair” agreements and evading its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act by failing to grant its customers the right to repair their own agricultural equipment.
> On August 4, after prodding for more than a year by PIRG and our allies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent an on-the-record letter to the National Farmers Union in support of Right to Repair. The letter clearly refutes manufacturers’ and dealers’ accusations that repair access facilitates emissions tampering and therefore violates environmental laws.
----
Note that this started in the previous administration and the EPA was chastising John Deer three years ago on this issue.
> ...they are finally getting the regulatory relief to break free from burdensome Green New Scam rules and...
One of the worst Trump-isms that will out-live him is how normalized name-calling has become, even in US agency press briefings. Just childish and shameful.
reply