Comment by burkaman 6 hours ago
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".
Not 100% sure about that one - though even that they were sued is an issue.
Note that part of this is also that worker's comp excludes farm labor. So you can't get compensated through workers comp.
https://nationalaglawcenter.org/workers-compensation-for-agr...
> 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.
Product Liability in the Farm Equipment Industry - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY
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."
It is 100% FUD, as evidenced by the fact they were afraid to link the actual case.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01...
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.
Can you point to a single case where a manufacturer was held responsible for what the owner of the equipment did with it?
> 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.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01...
The rest of that farm-equipment.com article is full of FUD as well - the kind that should be easily recognizable by technologists.
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.
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.
https://www.farm-equipment.com/articles/18110-what-you-need-...
> 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.