Here is a truly NEW development in the DEF failures

[Archer2]

Originally Posted by jondrew55

”…I disagree that the emulator is “legal” in the sense that it is a modification to the vehicle’s emission system…”

Are you basing your statement on an actual Law or Regulation that you can cite or is it an opinion? Not being argumentative. I would be sincerely interested if you can point me to an official source. The only one I know of is 42 U.S. Code § 7522 - Prohibited acts Thanks

[jondrew55]

Originally Posted by Archer2

Are you basing your statement on an actual Law or Regulation that you can cite or is it an opinion? Not being argumentative. I would be sincerely interested if you can point me to an official source. The only one I know of is 42 U.S. Code § 7522 - Prohibited acts Thanks

When I buy a vehicle in Florida, the seller must sign a certificate that they have in no way modified the emissions control systems. And I have to sign a copy of that to make sure I've read it. So while I cannot cite a specific law (and I would think this is federal law), I'm pretty sure some real law is driving that certification of not tampering with emissions control systems. While certainly up to interpretation, I think this web page cites examples.

https://www.northeastdiesel.org/tampering.html

The intent is prevent people from making emission control systems "inoperative". One could say that this DEF head emulator is not intended to defeat the emission control system for the purpose of increasing emissions, but I'm not sure that matters. Emission control systems must be tested and certified to meet EPA standards and this device modifies that equipment, most likely invalidating the certification. Again, no ill intent.

In my business, once we've certified something to a government specification, we can't just add something to it without recertification. I assume EPA based regulations work the same way.

[redbaron73]

The way the system works will allow you to easily sign a statement that no modifications have been made.

The device only works when installed and only sends signals of a normally operating sensor with respect to quality, quantity, and temperature.

When the device is unplugged, there are no changes left behind.

This emulator only does the job of the sensor head. Nothing more.

[Archer2]

Thanks for your thoughts. I can respect where you are coming from but I’m not convinced. All those situations are for “delete” devices that “disable” an emission control system. This device is exactly the opposite. It actually replaces the functionality of a failed component that, in failing, fooled the ECM into shutting down an otherwise properly functioning SCR system. Thus it actually “enables” an emission control system that had been erroneously disabled.

[ThunderRidge]

Originally Posted by Archer2

Do you know what the FMI code was that went with the 3031? Should have said something like “FMI X” where X=some number.
And did you just get 3031? Not 1761 or 3364 as well?

I just got the 3031 FMI 9

[paulsmi]

So let me chime in here. I typically attend several jury trials as Plaintiff in patent cases each year (pre Covid anyway). I get to see how judges and juries act in the federal court system.

It would be fair to say I was the one that drove the Cummins and the EPA to act on this dangerous issue. I spent time on it because the whole thing is unnecessarily dangerous.

I studied the legislative history and Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) with respect to the Clean Air Act (CAA). I read Memorandums issued by the EPA around this topic that predated this issue.

I spoke to the decision makers at both the EPA and Cummins early on and was in continuous contact with them over the last few months. Many commenters were dubious that the EPA would ever bend the CAA, never mind Cummins taking any action on a part that is not even theirs. But it is the right thing to do. The EPA had a way to quickly implement a solution and was willing to listen to reason. Cummins took a while to come around but with some pressure also bent.

Now lets talk about your baseless allegations of illegality. This is the downside of the internet. Everyone is an expert on things they have zero experience with.

You say its illegal? Based on what information? What is it exactly about the language that you find violates the CAA? Unless you have done the diligence I have, and based upon your simple conjecture and lack of citation I can assume it is just your opinion, not legal fact. Let me help you here. Conjecture wont get you through a courtroom door. Its called MSJ, Motion for Summary Judgement , and thats what would happen to the EPA if they tried to bring a claim here. It would get dismissed on an MSJ.

As for judges and especially juries of our peers, I find they consistently come to the correct decision (many times despite the law) based upon a common sense argument. They can see BS a mile away.

In this case, since either the Emulator or the ECM update solve a dangerous problem, each in a different way. I was derated. I was afraid that my RV would get rear ended killing my family. There will be soon two common sense, easy to implement solutions and any jury would see that.

But lets say your (devoid of any actual legal analysis) was correct. I use the emulator, and the jury finds me guilty of violating the CAA. We then move to the damages phase.

What damages? The emissions system is still doing what is designed to do.

This is when the juries find the defendant guilty and award $1. in damages.

So please unless you spend significant time in a federal courtroom, or are willing to offer a detailed legal analysis of the precise language in the CFR that you feel we are in violation of, save it. There are a bunch of very good people trying to help others.

I know next you'll want a class certified, and that would further prove how little you know.

Safe travels.

[SargeW]

Wow, great information based on knowledge and experience. I like it. A few questions from Archers post. One, is there a list yet that will describe and detail the items needed to assemble the unit, and two, where to get the download information on the needed equipment file? I would spend $120 on it in a heartbeat.

[Archer2]

Hi Sarge. Just stay tuned, there should be more concrete info coming in the next several days. It’s just down to exactly how to make the functionality available to the average user while not being rocket science to assemble. There are a few different hardware choices and sources and each one has its pros & cons. They all will work equally well but it may not be practical to port the code to more than a couple of the most common flavors of hardware.

[jondrew55]

I'm assuming your legal finding below is directed at me for saying my opinion is the emulator is illegal. I was pretty clear why I held that opinion. I was responding to Archer2 who asked me why I felt that way, who by the way said he appreciated my points, but still disagreed. This is called a conversation. Basically your diatribe is telling me to shut up. That's not happening.

And for what it's worth, I do spend time in court in family matters. I testify as a layperson. And I've shut down every tinhorn defense lawyer I've faced when I explain I am presenting my opinion to the court as a layperson using a layperson's common understanding of the law.

Originally Posted by paulsmi

So let me chime in here. I typically attend several jury trials as Plaintiff in patent cases each year (pre Covid anyway). I get to see how judges and juries act in the federal court system.

It would be fair to say I was the one that drove the Cummins and the EPA to act on this dangerous issue. I spent time on it because the whole thing is unnecessarily dangerous.

I studied the legislative history and Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) with respect to the Clean Air Act (CAA). I read Memorandums issued by the EPA around this topic that predated this issue.

I spoke to the decision makers at both the EPA and Cummins early on and was in continuous contact with them over the last few months. Many commenters were dubious that the EPA would ever bend the CAA, never mind Cummins taking any action on a part that is not even theirs. But it is the right thing to do. The EPA had a way to quickly implement a solution and was willing to listen to reason. Cummins took a while to come around but with some pressure also bent.

Now lets talk about your baseless allegations of illegality. This is the downside of the internet. Everyone is an expert on things they have zero experience with.

You say its illegal? Based on what information? What is it exactly about the language that you find violates the CAA? Unless you have done the diligence I have, and based upon your simple conjecture and lack of citation I can assume it is just your opinion, not legal fact. Let me help you here. Conjecture wont get you through a courtroom door. Its called MSJ, Motion for Summary Judgement , and thats what would happen to the EPA if they tried to bring a claim here. It would get dismissed on an MSJ.

As for judges and especially juries of our peers, I find they consistently come to the correct decision (many times despite the law) based upon a common sense argument. They can see BS a mile away.

In this case, since either the Emulator or the ECM update solve a dangerous problem, each in a different way. I was derated. I was afraid that my RV would get rear ended killing my family. There will be soon two common sense, easy to implement solutions and any jury would see that.

But lets say your (devoid of any actual legal analysis) was correct. I use the emulator, and the jury finds me guilty of violating the CAA. We then move to the damages phase.

What damages? The emissions system is still doing what is designed to do.

This is when the juries find the defendant guilty and award $1. in damages.

So please unless you spend significant time in a federal courtroom, or are willing to offer a detailed legal analysis of the precise language in the CFR that you feel we are in violation of, save it. There are a bunch of very good people trying to help others.

I know next you'll want a class certified, and that would further prove how little you know.

Safe travels.

[brobox]

A real life vehicle emissions experience. My 2016 Chevy Colorado had a computer problem that the truck would almost stall leaving a stop light. Very close to getting rear ended several times. GM could not fix it blaming EPA for the programming, a few trucks were taken back by GM they were that bad. Many of us to be safe purchased a third party product, a Pedal Commander. https://pedalcommander.com/. That solved the problem, totally legal and sold openly. Did I violate EPA....no I fixed a problem that never should have been there. Like the Emulator, the Pedal commander can be unplugged when no longer needed and the new owner gets an unsafe vehicle unless they correct the DEF issue.

GM's fix was to change to the Camero engine and transmission in 2017. The DEF problem Shaw has made 7 attempts to fix, but they do not have a Camero engine to substitute and are still releasing unsafe products.

[jondrew55]

There are a couple of things floating around on this thread.

1) Cummins/EPA are working to come up with a software bypass to allow people who suffer this issue to use their vehicles until the situation can be resolved.

2) Some enterprising individuals have come up with device which tricks the DEF system into ignoring the false fail signals that send the ECM into derate

3) Is #2 an illegal modification to emission systems.

I don't think anyone can imagine #1 would have any issues since the manufacturer and regulatory agency are working together. #2 is (at least in my OPINION up for debate). While I'd have no problem whatsoever installing this device to get my coach rolling again, I think it's reasonable to question if it would qualify as an legal modification to the emission control system. It bypasses a control point that is there to endure DEF is being properly delivered. It is not part of the manufacturers certified emission control equipment.

My Jeep has one of those annoying anti idle controls that shut the engine down when you stop at a traffic light and then automatically start it up again when you take your foot off the brake pedal. I hate it. There is a button to defeat this function, but you have to press it each time you start the car. There is a 3rd party product called a TAZER that can give you control over lots of neat functions in your vehicle. One of those is to permanently turn this idle function off. Is it illegal? Don't know. It allows you to defeat a function that at least in theory has an effect over fuel millage and overall emissions of my wonderful V6. I ended up not using this device because my son who is a Jeep service writer told me they were starting to deny warranty claims for people who used this device to reprogram the jeep's ECM. I can live with pushing the button every time I start the jeep.

Originally Posted by brobox

A real life vehicle emissions experience. My 2016 Chevy Colorado had a computer problem that the truck would almost stall leaving a stop light. Very close to getting rear ended several times. GM could not fix it blaming EPA for the programming, a few trucks were taken back by GM they were that bad. Many of us to be safe purchased a third party product, a Pedal Commander. https://pedalcommander.com/. That solved the problem, totally legal and sold openly. Did I violate EPA....no I fixed a problem that never should have been there. Like the Emulator, the Pedal commander can be unplugged when no longer needed and the new owner gets an unsafe vehicle unless they correct the DEF issue.

GM's fix was to change to the Camero engine and transmission in 2017. The DEF problem Shaw has made 7 attempts to fix, but they do not have a Camero engine to substitute and are still releasing unsafe products.

[WDW]

It would seem to me, if the responsible parties, Entegra, Cummins, Shaw invested in providing each owner with a work-around module for emergency use, programmed to time out after 30 days / 3,000 miles (arbitrary numbers) they could put this issue to bed for around $500K. Think of it as the spare tire you don’t have. Potentially there are less than 2,000 Entegra built MHs impacted by this issue. That’s cheap money to put this issue away.

Just my 2cents.

[Meames1]

For what little my opinion matters, I think it's wonderful that someone has designed a fix for this issue....if even temporary. Reading all the ongoing posts about this issue makes my head hurt for the people affected. Legality matters aside, I cannot believe this is what it takes to not have a $700,000 paper weight.

[Archer2]

Hi Jondrew55. I understand why you would think that installing this thing is a “Prohibited Act” by the EPA but as PaulSmi made clear there’s a whole lot of space between what one might assume the law says as opposed to what the law actually says. For example, you assume that the DEF tank and sensor are part of the regulated “Emissions Control System” but are they? Are you sure? The EPA also regulates the amount of Sulfur in diesel fuel. Is the fuel tank part of the ECS? Is the fuel gauge and fuel lines? Do I have a basis to have a “reasonable belief” that this thing does not result in the disabling of an EC device? Does using it fall under the Safe Harbor language contained in 42 U.S. Code § 7522 as part of a repair?
So you can see how people might have significantly different opinions on these subjects so I propose that we stick to topics less controversial, deal?