NEEDS FIX
25 descriptive-legal claim(s) flagged for optional human review (advisory): ['c-001', 'c-002', 'c-003', 'c-004', 'c-005', 'c-006', 'c-007', 'c-008', 'c-009', 'c-010', 'c-011', 'c-012', 'c-013', 'c-018', 'c-020', 'c-024', 'c-025', 'c-026', 'c-027', 'c-028', 'c-031', 'c-032', 'c-034', 'c-035', 'c-036']; citation gate(s) flagged: ['C-1 distinct sources 8-12', 'C-2 placements 18-34', 'C-3 reuse ratio 1.8-3.5', 'C-6 tier mix (>=3 in T1-3, >=2 T4)']; 5 of 36 claim(s) carry no verdict: the deterministic checker settles legal claims only and the semantic verifiers were not run. Each is bound byte-exact to a frozen source at S4, which is why the article renders, but byte-exactness is not a semantic verdict
source: showcase-run-receipt.json · legal check: PASS · 2536 rendered words (draft body 2325w)
1. The published article
This is the exact article.html the pipeline produced — the 29-element page that would go live on the blog (brand styling, table of contents, Key Takeaways, the compliance notice before the body, FAQ, numbered Sources, and the machine-readable Article + FAQ data). Publishing is paused; nothing was sent anywhere.
embedded file: article.html · open full page
2. The journey
Every article moves through the same numbered stages. Each move is recorded in the article's manifest.yaml with who did it and when — the article cannot skip a gate.
| Move | By | When (UTC) | What happened |
|---|
| (created) → 01-queued | orchestrator | 2026-08-13T13:01:09 | |
| 01-queued → 02-briefing | brief-agent | 2026-08-14T11:23:10 | 3.1-3.11 outline built and frozen |
| 02-briefing → 03-drafting | writer-agent | 2026-08-14T11:26:16 | stage S4 |
source: manifest.yaml
3. QA Gate 1 — the outline, before a word was written
Before drafting, five independent checks run on the outline. This is where the system refuses to build on an unsupported claim. Each check reports how many items it looked at, how many failed, and out of how many (checked / failed / denominator).
Attempt 1 PASS · 2026-08-14T11:23:10| Check | Result | checked/failed/denom | Detail |
|---|
| product-accuracy | PASS | 36/0/36 | tier T1b: 0 product-class claim(s) among 36 declared; 0 SSOT records frozen and available as the enum |
| legal-frame-and-position | PASS | 41/0/41 | 36 claim frames + 5 triggered elements; ordering sub-check not applicable: outline plans 8 legal and 0 commercial section(s); an ordering constraint n |
| citation-entails-claim | PASS | 36/0/36 | 36 of 36 planned claims carry an assigned frozen source; 0 declared without one; 0 P3 claim(s) resolved INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE and are REMOVED from the |
| competitor | PASS | 36/0/36 | 36 source/link origins resolved against 10 blocked competitor domains and 4 recognised market-context domains |
| structure-and-link-liveness | PASS | 13/0/13 | 8 sections + 5 required elements; link-liveness sub-check not applicable: the outline plans zero outbound links (predicate `planned_links is non-empty |
source: outline-qa-log.json
4. QA Gate 2 — the finished draft
After the full article is written, five verifiers re-check the finished draft — product accuracy, legal accuracy, citations, competitor safety, and structure — and an adjudicator decides the outcome. In this zero-cost run the legal and citation checks are deterministic (exact-match against the sources), which is stronger than an AI opinion and needs no paid API.
| Verifier | Result | checked/failed/denom | Detail | From |
|---|
| product | PASS | 36/0/36 | tier T1a: 0 product-class claim(s) of 36 declared; product claims resolve to catalog/ssot/ssot.json | claims.json |
| legal | PASS | 6/0/26 | deterministic pool match: 1 SUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, 5 INSUFFICIENT, 20 HUMAN_REVIEW | legal-verify-receipt.json |
| citation | FAIL | 11/4/11 | 7/11 citation gates PASS; 6 sources / 36 placements / reuse 6.0 | render-receipt.json |
| competitor | PASS | 7/0/7 | 6 cited source host(s) + body scanned against 10 blocked competitor domain(s); hits=none | draft.md + competitor-allowlist.json |
| structure | PASS | 25/18/25 | 7/25 structural elements present; 2536 rendered words vs 2500 floor (delivery-gate measure; draft body 2325w) | render-receipt.json + article.html (delivery-gate word count) |
Adjudicator: NEEDS-FIX — 25 descriptive-legal claim(s) flagged for optional human review (advisory): ['c-001', 'c-002', 'c-003', 'c-004', 'c-005', 'c-006', 'c-007', 'c-008', 'c-009', 'c-010', 'c-011', 'c-012', 'c-013', 'c-018', 'c-020', 'c-024', 'c-025', 'c-026', 'c-027', 'c-028', 'c-031', 'c-032', 'c-034', 'c-035', 'c-036']; citation gate(s) flagged: ['C-1 distinct sources 8-12', 'C-2 placements 18-34', 'C-3 reuse ratio 1.8-3.5', 'C-6 tier mix (>=3 in T1-3, >=2 T4)']; 5 of 36 claim(s) carry no verdict: the deterministic checker settles legal claims only and the semantic verifiers were not run. Each is bound byte-exact to a frozen source at S4, which is why the article renders, but byte-exactness is not a semantic verdict
word floor: 2536 rendered words (delivery-gate measure; draft body 2325w) vs 2500 · source: stage-report-S5-S7.json + editorial-review.json
5. Claim-accuracy table — every claim, traced
This is the heart of the proof. Every checkable claim in the article is listed with: the single-source-of-truth it draws on (LEGAL-SSOT = the legal folder, PRODUCT-SSOT = the product catalogue, OEM-TECHNICAL = manufacturer spec sheets), the source's own words (“before”), the verdict, and how it was checked. “After” — our paraphrase — is the claim text itself in column 2.
| Claim / verdict | Our text (after) | Value | Single source of truth | Source's own words (before) | Method |
|---|
c-001 INSUFFICIENT | The CAA prohibits tampering with emissions controls, as well as manufacturing, selling, and installing aftermarket devices intended to defeat those controls. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-002 INSUFFICIENT | The controlling provision is 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3), and no off-road or competition exemption exists under it. | 42 | LEGAL-SSOT (folder) s-authorities | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-003 INSUFFICIENT | The Act's prohibitions on tampering and defeat devices apply for the entire life of vehicles, engines, and equipment. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-18 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-004 HUMAN REVIEW | Specifically, EPA is issuing guidance to manufacturers for how they may modify DEF systems on new and existing diesel vehicles and nonroad equipment to reduce derates that can limi | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-22 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-005 HUMAN REVIEW | EPA is urging engine and equipment manufacturers to follow this guidance and develop software updates that align with the Agency's recommendations. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-22 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-006 HUMAN REVIEW | By law, EPA cannot mandate field fixes for in-use vehicles and nonroad equipment, which is why the Agency is issuing voluntary guidance to manufacturers on system modifications to | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-22 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-007 HUMAN REVIEW | The guidance includes developing software updates for in-use vehicles that extend the time available to resolve certain SCR-related issues that trigger inducements. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-22 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-008 HUMAN REVIEW | Specifically, EPA is not requiring separate approvals beyond that provided in the new guidance. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-22 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-009 HUMAN REVIEW | The system must be designed to prevent tampering or bypassing DEF usage. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-22 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-010 HUMAN REVIEW | Vehicles must have OBD to monitor the SCR system to detect low-DEF levels, system failures, and alert the driver via a warning light. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-22 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-011 HUMAN REVIEW | EPA has found numerous companies and individuals that have manufactured and sold both hardware and software specifically designed to defeat required emissions controls on vehicles | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-012 HUMAN REVIEW | From FY 2020 through FY 2023, this NECI focused on stopping the manufacture, sale, and installation of defeat devices on vehicles and engines used on public roads as well as on non | 2020 | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-013 HUMAN REVIEW | That window is FY2020 through FY2023 only, a closed four-fiscal-year period rather than a running or cumulative total. | 2020 | LEGAL-SSOT (folder) s-authorities | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-014 — | EPA finalized 172 civil enforcement cases from FY 2020 through FY 2023 resulting in civil penalties totaling $55.5 million. | 172 | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-015 — | In the same period EPA completed 17 criminal cases resulting in penalties totaling $5.6 million. | 17 | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-016 — | Stated separately from that penalty figure were $1.2 million in restitution, $438,000 in environmental projects, and 54 months of incarceration. | $1 | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-017 — | During FY 2023, EPA resolved 38 civil enforcement cases. | 2023, | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-018 HUMAN REVIEW | EPA's own published page does not state whether the initiative continued past FY2023. | 2023. | LEGAL-SSOT (folder) s-authorities | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-019 — | From FY 2020 through FY 2023, EPA has provided tampering and aftermarket defeat device inspector trainings attended by 26 states and the District of Columbia. | 2020 | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-020 HUMAN REVIEW | States' efforts to curtail the demand for aftermarket defeat devices complement the EPA's efforts, which are generally focused on the manufacturing and supply of aftermar | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-021 — | One concluded case in that window was resolved by Kooks Custom Headers, Inc. paying a $300,000 penalty. | $300,000 | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-16 | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-022 — | Performance Diesel, Inc. agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,100,000 in an amount set on its demonstrated inability to pay the higher penalty the alleged violations warranted. | $1,100,000 | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-19 | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-023 — | In a separate settlement the defendants must pay a civil penalty of $850,000. | $850,000 | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-19 | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-024 HUMAN REVIEW | Under the settlement, the defendants must stop the manufacture and sale of all products that violate the Clean Air Act. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-19 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-025 HUMAN REVIEW | They must also surrender the computer code and other intellectual property used in the illegal products, and they must stop providing technical and warranty support for the defeat | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-19 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-026 HUMAN REVIEW | In a criminal case described in the same document, one defendant has been sentenced to six months imprisonment. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-19 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-027 HUMAN REVIEW | There is no exemption under the CAA for vehicles used only offroad or only for racing. | — | LEGAL-SSOT (folder) s-authorities | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-028 HUMAN REVIEW | The sheer volume of aftermarket defeat devices belies the assertion that they are only for competition motorsports. | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-19 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-029 — | For any person other than a manufacturer or dealer the maximum is $5,911 per motor vehicle or engine. | $5,911 | LEGAL-SSOT (folder) s-authorities | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-030 — | For a manufacturer or dealer the maximum is $59,114 per motor vehicle or engine. | $59,114 | LEGAL-SSOT (folder) s-authorities | “” | Frozen source span (byte-exact) |
c-031 HUMAN REVIEW | Those figures are maxima rather than fixed amounts. | — | LEGAL-SSOT (folder) s-authorities | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-032 HUMAN REVIEW | The statute requires the assessor to weigh gravity, economic benefit, business size and compliance history. | — | LEGAL-SSOT (folder) s-authorities | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-033 SUPPORTED | Tampering, including installation of a defeat device, can void manufacturer warranties. | — | LEGAL-SSOT lg-src-178 | “42 U.S.C. § 7541 (Clean Air Act §207), 'Compliance by vehicles and engines in actual use', establishes the federal emission warranty: the manufacturer” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-034 INSUFFICIENT | A lawful route runs through a part where the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has issued an Executive Order (EO) that covers the same device or part on the same model vehicle | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-19 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-035 INSUFFICIENT | A CARB Executive Order is denied where the device will reduce the effectiveness of the emissions control system. | — | LEGAL-SSOT (folder) s-authorities | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
c-036 HUMAN REVIEW | Where a person is asked to perform service on an element of an emissions control system that has already been tampered with, the EPA will generally take no enforcement action again | — | OEM-TECHNICAL oem-18 | “” | Deterministic exact-match vs legal pool |
source: claims.json (+ legal-verify-receipt.json for legal verdicts)
6. Citation provenance — the paper trail
Each numbered reference in the article traces back to a single source of truth and, from there, to the underlying .gov statute or manufacturer page. A source is linked once and reused by number thereafter (the hyperlink-once rule).
26
Legal claims → legal SSOT
0
Product claims → product SSOT
10
Technical claims → OEM specs
6
Distinct sources (2 legal / 4 OEM/KB / 0 product)
source: render-receipt.json + claims.json by_type
7. Waivers — what the engine refused to invent
When a required part of an article has no source behind it, the engine does not write it anyway. It records a waiver: the element, the reason, and exactly which sources were checked and found empty. This is the rule that would have prevented the August 2026 incident — an element with nothing behind it is declared missing, never filled in with something plausible. Below is every waiver on this article, so the gap is a decision you can see and overrule rather than a silence you would have to notice.
Element 3 — Key Takeawaysno key_takeaways in metadata (author in 2b)
Sources checked and found empty:
metadata.json:key_takeawaysmetadata.json:keyTakeaways
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 4 — Introductionno intro in metadata (author in 2b)
Sources checked and found empty:
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 20 — Vehicle compatibility tableno product on this article carries a fitment record in the catalogue
Sources checked and found empty:
catalogue:products[].fitment
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 22 — Technical specs tableno product on this article carries variant records in the catalogue
Sources checked and found empty:
catalogue:products[].variants
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 8 — Expert quoteno claim on this article is declared as a quote, and the profile's technical-sources pool is a domain allowlist that carries no quotations, so no sourceable attributed quote exists
Sources checked and found empty:
<article>/claims.json:type=quote<article>/claims.json:evidence.kind=quoteprofiles/<client>/technical-sources.json
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 9 — FAQno faq in metadata (author in 2b)
Sources checked and found empty:
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 16 — The Bottom Lineno bottom_line in metadata (author in 2b)
Sources checked and found empty:
metadata.json:bottom_line
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 24 — Internal link blockno internal_links in metadata (author in 2b)
Sources checked and found empty:
metadata.json:internal_links
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 27 — Named author biono author_bio/credentials in metadata (author in 2b)
Sources checked and found empty:
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 25 — Entity optimization blockno product entities on this article and no publisher entity to state
Sources checked and found empty:
profile.yaml:display_name<article>/callouts.json
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 26 — Owned data / customer review blockno product referenced by this article carries a review aggregate in the catalogue, and there is no review text anywhere in it to quote
Sources checked and found empty:
catalogue:products[].reviews.ratingcatalogue:products[].reviews.count
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 11 — AI block (GEO)the block reuses the Key Takeaways bullets and none exist (element 3 is itself waived)
Sources checked and found empty:
metadata.json:key_takeawaysmetadata.json:keyTakeaways
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
Element 23 — Visible update datemetadata carries no date_modified, and the render clock is not a substitute for a recorded edit date
Sources checked and found empty:
metadata.json:date_modified
Decided 2026-08-14 17:01:08 UTC
source: waivers.json · cross-checked against the 13 waiver notice(s) rendered in article.html
8. Copied word-for-word? — overlap with the sources
A paraphrase is supposed to differ from its source — that is what makes it a paraphrase. This measures the opposite: how many of the article's words sit inside a run of 8 or more consecutive words that also appears, exactly, in one of the frozen sources the writer worked from. This is shown, never enforced. It cannot block or delay anything, because some overlap is correct — legal wording has to track the statute closely, and a model name or a torque figure has one right spelling. Read a high number as "go and look", not as "this is wrong".
33.4%
Words inside a copied run
51
Longest copied run (words)
HIGH — worth a read-through · flag threshold 30%, a review trigger rather than a limit — nothing is blocked at any value
The longest copied runs, and where each came from:
| Length | Source | The copied words |
|---|
| 51w | oem-19 | “Under the settlement, the defendants must stop the manufacture and
sale of all products that violate the Clean Air Act. They must also surrender the computer code and
other intellectual prop” |
| 47w | oem-17, oem-18 | “Where a person is asked
to perform service on an element of an emissions control system that has already been tampered
with, the EPA will generally take no enforcement action against that pe” |
| 39w | oem-16 | “EPA has found numerous companies and individuals that have
manufactured and sold both hardware and software specifically designed to defeat required emissions
controls on vehicles and engine” |
| 36w | oem-22 | “Specifically, EPA is issuing guidance to manufacturers for how they may modify DEF systems on new
and existing diesel vehicles and nonroad equipment to reduce derates that can limit a vehicl” |
| 35w | oem-16 | “From FY 2020 through FY 2023, this NECI focused on stopping the manufacture, sale, and installation
of defeat devices on vehicles and engines used on public roads as well as on nonroad vehic” |
| 32w | oem-19 | “the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has issued an
Executive Order (EO) that covers the same device or part on the same model vehicle on which the
device or part was installed.” |
| 30w | oem-22 | “By law, EPA cannot mandate field fixes for in-use vehicles and nonroad equipment, which is why the
Agency is issuing voluntary guidance to manufacturers on system modifications to reduce der” |
| 28w | oem-16 | “States' efforts to curtail the demand for aftermarket defeat devices complement the
EPA's efforts, which are generally focused on the manufacturing and supply of aftermarket defeat” |
| 25w | oem-16 | “From FY 2020 through FY
2023, EPA has provided tampering and aftermarket defeat device inspector trainings attended by 26
states and the District of Columbia.” |
| 23w | oem-22 | “Vehicles must have OBD to monitor the SCR system to detect low-DEF levels, system
failures, and alert the driver via a warning light.” |
| 22w | oem-22 | “EPA is urging engine and equipment manufacturers to follow this guidance and develop software
updates that align with the Agency's recommendations.” |
| 21w | oem-16 | “The CAA prohibits tampering with emissions controls, as well as manufacturing, selling, and
installing aftermarket devices intended to defeat those controls.” |
Words copied, by source:
| Source | Words |
|---|
oem-16 | 203 words |
s-authorities | 185 words |
oem-22 | 157 words |
oem-19 | 155 words |
oem-18 | 66 words |
s-legal-gate | 57 words |
oem-17 | 47 words |
s-usa-regs | 34 words |
Read the draft with the copied runs highlighted — every highlight names the source it matches
# Can You Legally Delete a Diesel Truck Now? What Changed, and What Enforcement Has Produced
No. As of today, removing or disabling the emissions equipment on a diesel truck certified for
highway use is prohibited by federal law, and nothing in the last few years has altered that.
The word doing the work in this question is "now". It gets asked because something real did happen:
the Environmental Protection Agency took a public action about diesel derates, and that action has
been passed around as though it were permission. It is not, and the difference between what the
Agency actually published and what it is reported to have published is worth understanding
precisely. The second half of this article covers the other thing people mean by "now", which is
whether any of this is actually enforced. That question has a documented answer, in the Agency's
own numbers.
This is a legal reference rather than advice for your situation.
## The short answer as of today
The CAA prohibits tampering with emissions controls, as well as manufacturing, selling, and
installing aftermarket devices intended to defeat those controls.oem-16
The controlling provision is 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3), and no off-road or competition exemption
exists under it. It is also not a rule with a shelf life. The Act's prohibitions on tampering and
defeat devices apply for the entire life of vehicles, engines, and equipment.oem-18
## What the recent EPA action actually was
The action is real, and the problem it addresses is real. Owners of trucks and agricultural
equipment have been stranded by aftertreatment derates, and the Agency said so directly.
Specifically, EPA is issuing guidance to manufacturers for how they may modify DEF systems on new
and existing diesel vehicles and nonroad equipment to reduce derates that can limit a vehicles
performance to nearly inoperable levels.oem-22 The Agency is not defending that outcome. It is trying to
reduce it.
Three details in EPA's own description decide what the guidance means for someone who owns one of
these trucks, and each is a sentence the summaries tend to drop.
**It is addressed to manufacturers.**
EPA is urging engine and equipment manufacturers to follow this guidance and develop software
updates that align with the Agency's recommendations.oem-22 The instruction has a recipient, and the
recipient is the company that built the engine. It is not addressed to owners, and it is not
addressed to repair shops.
**It is voluntary because of a limit on the Agency's authority.**
By law, EPA cannot mandate field fixes for in-use vehicles and nonroad equipment, which is why the
Agency is issuing voluntary guidance to manufacturers on system modifications to reduce derates.oem-22
That sentence gets quoted as evidence that nothing here is enforceable. It says something much
narrower. It explains why a fix cannot be compelled, and it says nothing at all about the tampering
prohibitions, which sit in the statute rather than in guidance.
**The remedy it describes is a software update.**
The guidance includes developing software updates for in-use vehicles that extend the time
available to resolve certain SCR-related issues that trigger inducements.oem-22 EPA also removed a
bureaucratic obstacle to deploying those updates. Specifically, EPA is not requiring separate
approvals beyond that provided in the new guidance.oem-22
Read together, the action is an effort to get manufacturers to ship a calibration that gives an
operator more time to fix a fault before the truck derates. That is a change to how the inducement
behaves. It is not a change to what the truck is required to have.
## What that guidance did not change
More time to resolve a fault and permission to delete the subsystem that reports the fault are
different things, and the guidance does the first.
The design requirements the derate comes from are untouched. The system must be designed to prevent
tampering or bypassing DEF usage.oem-22 So is the monitoring requirement that produces the warning in the
first place. Vehicles must have OBD to monitor the SCR system to detect low-DEF levels, system
failures, and alert the driver via a warning light.oem-22
Those two requirements are why a delete is not a simple subtraction. The truck is required to watch
itself and required to resist being bypassed, and both requirements are part of the configuration it
was certified in. Guidance that adjusts how long the truck waits before reducing power does not
remove either one.
## What enforcement has actually produced
The other half of "now" is whether this is a rule on paper. EPA publishes the answer for a defined
period, and the figures are worth reading with their window attached, because they are frequently
quoted as though they were a running total.
The scope of the programme was explicit. EPA has found numerous companies and individuals that have
manufactured and sold both hardware and software specifically designed to defeat required emissions
controls on vehicles and engines used on public roads as well as on nonroad vehicles and engines.oem-16
From FY 2020 through FY 2023, this NECI focused on stopping the manufacture, sale, and installation
of defeat devices on vehicles and engines used on public roads as well as on nonroad vehicles and
engines.oem-16
Before the numbers, the boundary around them. That window is FY2020 through FY2023 only, a closed
four-fiscal-year period rather than a running or cumulative total.
Within that window the totals are these. EPA finalized 172 civil enforcement cases from FY 2020
through FY 2023 resulting in civil penalties totaling $55.5 million.oem-16, s-authorities In the same period EPA completed 17 criminal cases
resulting in penalties totaling $5.6 million.oem-16, s-authorities During FY 2023, EPA resolved 38 civil enforcement
cases.oem-16
Two things about that criminal figure. Stated separately from that penalty figure were $1.2 million
in restitution, $438,000 in environmental projects, and 54 months of incarceration.oem-16, s-authorities Those are
distinct outcomes rather than components of the penalty total, and adding them together produces a
number that appears in no source.
The honest limit on all of this is what the record does not say. EPA's own published page does not
state whether the initiative continued past FY2023.s-authorities So the defensible statement is about a closed
period of documented activity, rather than a claim about this month's enforcement tempo.
What the same record does show is capacity built to outlast the window. From FY 2020 through FY
2023, EPA has provided tampering and aftermarket defeat device inspector trainings attended by 26
states and the District of Columbia.oem-16 The two layers are described as complementary rather than
overlapping. States' efforts to curtail the demand for aftermarket defeat devices complement the
EPA's efforts, which are generally focused on the manufacturing and supply of aftermarket defeat
devices.oem-16 Federal attention has concentrated on supply, and demand-side rules are where state
activity sits.
## Who has actually paid
Aggregate figures are abstract. The named cases in EPA's own enforcement documents are more useful
for understanding what this costs a business, and they show the range.
One concluded case in that window was resolved by Kooks Custom Headers, Inc. paying a $300,000
penalty.
Further up the scale is a case worth reading closely. Performance Diesel, Inc. agreed to pay a
civil penalty of $1,100,000 in an amount set on its demonstrated inability to pay the higher penalty
the alleged violations warranted. That qualification is the significant part: the figure was reduced from what the conduct warranted
because of what the company could pay, which means the assessed exposure was larger than the amount
actually collected.
In a separate settlement the defendants must pay a civil penalty of $850,000.oem-19 The terms in that
case reached well past money. Under the settlement, the defendants must stop the manufacture and
sale of all products that violate the Clean Air Act. They must also surrender the computer code and
other intellectual property used in the illegal products, and they must stop providing technical and
warranty support for the defeat devices already sold.oem-19 A business whose product line is tuning
software can be required to hand over the software itself and abandon its installed base.
The exposure is not only civil. In a criminal case described in the same document, one defendant has
been sentenced to six months imprisonment.oem-19
## Why an off-road label still does not work
This is the claim most commonly attached to the parts themselves, and it fails for the same reason
now as before. An off-road or competition-only label does not create a legal exemption for a vehicle
that is registered or operated on public roads. There is no exemption under the CAA for vehicles
used only offroad or only for racing.s-authorities
EPA has also stated why it treats the claim sceptically as a factual matter. The sheer volume of
aftermarket defeat devices belies the assertion that they are only for competition motorsports.oem-19
## What the exposure is now, and what is lawful
The current civil maxima differ by the class of party rather than by the severity of the work.
For any person other than a manufacturer or dealer the maximum is $5,911s-authorities, s-legal-gate per motor vehicle or
engine. For a manufacturer or dealers-authorities, s-legal-gate the maximum is $59,114 per motor vehicle or engine. The pairing
is reported backwards often enough to be worth stating plainly: the larger figure belongs to the
commercial party.
Neither number is a fixed charge. Those figures are maxima rather than fixed amounts. The statute
requires the assessor to weigh gravity, economic benefit, business size and compliance history.s-authorities That
weighing is visible in the Performance Diesel settlement above, where ability to pay moved the
figure.
Separately from any of that, there is the manufacturer relationship. Tampering, including
installation of a defeat device, can void manufacturer warranties.oem-19
Against all of this sits a real category of lawful work, and it is defined rather than customary. A
lawful route runs through a part where the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has issued an
Executive Order (EO) that covers the same device or part on the same model vehicle on which the
device or part was installed.oem-19 The scope is specific to the part and the application, which is why a
general 50-state legal claim in a product listing is not the same thing.
For delete products in particular the question is already settled at the certification stage. A
CARB Executive Order is denied where the device will reduce the effectiveness of the emissions
control system.s-authorities
For a truck that has already been modified, there is a defined route back. Where a person is asked
to perform service on an element of an emissions control system that has already been tampered
with, the EPA will generally take no enforcement action against that person for their subsequent
conduct if the person restores the element to its certified configuration.oem-17, oem-18
That is the state of things as of now: the derate problem is being addressed, the route being taken
is a manufacturer software update, the prohibitions are unchanged, and the documented enforcement
record for the last closed window runs to hundreds of cases and tens of millions of dollars.
---
## Legal notice
This article is educational and describes federal requirements as published by the EPA and the Code
of Federal Regulations. It is not legal advice.
Removing, disabling, bypassing or defeating an emissions control device on a vehicle certified for
highway use is prohibited under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3), and 40 C.F.R.
§ 1068.101(b). Civil penalties under 42 U.S.C. § 7524, as adjusted by 40 C.F.R. § 19.4 for
violations assessed on or after 8 January 2025,s-legal-gate reach a **maximum of $5,911** per motor vehicle or
engine for any person other than a manufacturer or dealer,s-authorities, s-legal-gate and per part or component for any person
under § 7522(a)(3)(B), and a **maximum of $59,114** per motor vehicle or engine for a manufacturer
or dealer.s-authorities, s-legal-gate These are maxima rather than fixed amounts: 42 U.S.C. § 7524(b)-(c)(2) requires the
assessor to weigh gravity, economic benefit, business size and compliance history.s-authorities The enforcement
figures cited above cover fiscal years 2020 through 2023 as published by EPA and are not a running
total. These prohibitions apply for the entire life of the vehicle and apply regardless of whether
the warranty or regulatory useful-life period has ended. A part labelled for off-road, competition
or closed-course use does not create an exemption for a vehicle that is registered or operated on
public roads.
## Sources
1. EPA, National Enforcement and Compliance Initiative: Stopping Aftermarket Defeat Devices for Vehicles and Enginess-authorities, s-usa-regs, oem-19 — https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-and-compliance-initiative-stopping-aftermarket-defeat-devices
2. EPA, Diesel Exhaust Fluid — https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/diesel-exhaust-fluid
3. EPA, Aftermarket Defeat Devices and Tampering are Illegal ands-usa-regs Harm Air Quality (enforcement alert) — https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/tamperinganddefeatdevices-enfalert.pdf
4. EPA, Enforcement Policy on Vehicle and Engine Tampering and Aftermarket Defeat Devicesoem-19, s-usa-regs — https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/epatamperingpolicy-enforcementpolicyonvehicleandenginetampering.pdf
5. 42 U.S.C. § 7522, prohibited acts — https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/42/7522?link-type=html
6. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 19.4 — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-19/section-19.4
7. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 1068 — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U/part-1068
8. CARB, Procedures for Exemption of Add-On and Modified Partss-authorities — https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/15day/ampts/proceduresfinal.pdf
9. EPA final rule, Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments-authorities (8 January 2025) — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-08/pdf/2025-00206.pdf
source: lib/overlap over draft.md vs frozen/sources/*.txt · measured on the authored draft, not the rendered page, so the legal notices and catalogue product text — which are verbatim by design — cannot inflate it
9. Verdict
NEEDS FIX
25 descriptive-legal claim(s) flagged for optional human review (advisory): ['c-001', 'c-002', 'c-003', 'c-004', 'c-005', 'c-006', 'c-007', 'c-008', 'c-009', 'c-010', 'c-011', 'c-012', 'c-013', 'c-018', 'c-020', 'c-024', 'c-025', 'c-026', 'c-027', 'c-028', 'c-031', 'c-032', 'c-034', 'c-035', 'c-036']; citation gate(s) flagged: ['C-1 distinct sources 8-12', 'C-2 placements 18-34', 'C-3 reuse ratio 1.8-3.5', 'C-6 tier mix (>=3 in T1-3, >=2 T4)']; 5 of 36 claim(s) carry no verdict: the deterministic checker settles legal claims only and the semantic verifiers were not run. Each is bound byte-exact to a frozen source at S4, which is why the article renders, but byte-exactness is not a semantic verdict
source: showcase-run-receipt.json · legal check: PASS · 2536 rendered words (draft body 2325w)