Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ultrajim
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    I do understand about taking the credit the year you purchased the vehicle. I did have the conversion done in 2008, but didn't file because I knew it would be turned down. However, I had planned on filing an amended return if Jack's efforts are positive. I still have time since I haven't filed my 2008 state taxes yet. The paperwork is filled out and waiting.

    Leave a comment:


  • RGolden
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    I'm one of the lawyers on Jack's case and we're not tax lawyers or accountants. But presumably if the action against DEQ on the tax credit issue is successful, you should be able to file an amended return. That, of course, would be for the year you incurred the expense of the conversion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yroc
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    yeah, but right now you will not get it, if the lawsuit decides that you should be able to get the tax credit you were not allowed to get, I would assume they will let all who were deined refile, that's the logical route.

    Why assume that since we aren't getting the tax credit in the year we purchased our vehicles (which is what the lawsuit argues) that we won't get them if they rule that we should have!!??

    Leave a comment:


  • Highmarker
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    Originally posted by Ultrajim View Post
    My credit request goes in as soon as I hear something positive. Thanks for your efforts Jack.

    Jim
    Ultrajim,

    The Tax Credit must be taken in the year that you purchased your vehicle or had the conversion done. Then you are able to roll it over for up to 5 years. If you purchased your vehicle (or had it converted) in 2008, then you must claim the tax credit on your 2008 return. I guess you still have time to file.
    You can not purchase (or convert) your vehicle in 2008 and then claim the tax credit for 2009. If you submit your "credit request" make sure that it is for tax year 2008.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ultrajim
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    My credit request goes in as soon as I hear something positive. Thanks for your efforts Jack.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • jmmcintyre
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    I am sure that by now everyone is aware that Judge Toomey issued an injunction and declared the State Safety Inspection rules concerning EPA certification void. We also attended the DEQ Board meeting last week. we talked about the request for Agency action. I expect to have a scheduling order from them fairly soon. I will post the time-line as soon as I receive it. Hopefully it goes well (I have confidence it will) and there will be some folks out there entitled to a tax credit.

    Jack

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrian
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    Originally posted by kim1 View Post
    Ethical?
    Moreover, the idea that a kit which is certified by EPA initially and then expires (which is the case with many technocarb kits) becomes tampering upon expiration seems particularly absurd. It is missing the sticker thus it is tampering, good luck with convincing a judge or a jury that is the case.
    This part of the EPA CNG kit certification rules makes it clear for anyone that it is the EPA that is acting unethically. If anything can be called shady....then this is it. The only logical purpose behind this rule is either to extort money or to hamper CNG growth. I can't believe that any reasonable logical person would think otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • younkin
    replied
    Kim thanks for a breathe of fresh air......

    Just because someone says something over and over does not make it true... I haven't heard one proponent of "EPA" vehicles show me anything definitive about enforcement. Most all "EPA" proponents have a $$$$ motive behind their beliefs. It always seemed illogical that "EPA" would crack down on a Clean Vehicle no matter what it burned as a fuel. That being said I personally have nothing against the EPA, EPA Converted Vehicles or shops who Convert EPA CNG Vehicles, its when they use the "EPA" as a club to bring the rest of the CNG community into submission that I have a problem.
    Below is an article I am starting about CNG I hope this helps to explain how I feel, Jim

    According to IANGV (International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles) the US is ranked 7th in total NGV’s (Natural Gas Vehicles) in the world with 146,876 total. Here are the top 7..

    1) Argentina with 1,650,000
    2) Pakistan with 1,550,000
    3) Brazil with 1,425,513
    4) Italy with 432,600
    5) India with 334,820
    6) Iran with 263,882
    7) United States with 146,876

    While being 7th in the world may make us feel good about ourselves lets look at other statistics…..
    In % of Total Vehicles that are now NGV’s we rank #32 behind the top 7 at .00623%.....this means that in the US we have 1 NGV for every 1,461,846 vehicles. Over the last year by converting 4000 new NGV’s in Utah we increased the total number of NGV’s in the US by 3.6% lets not throw that increase under the bus so to speak.

    1) Bangladesh Total 293472 % of NGV’s 27.3%
    2) Armenia Total 6217069 % of NGV’s 24.9%
    3) Pakistan Total 327477 % of NGV’s 24.9%
    4) Iran Total 1102720 % of NGV’s 23.9%
    5) Argentina Total 7608744 % of NGV’s 21.7%
    6) Bolivia Total 47563 % of NGV’s 13.6%
    7) Colombia Total 1238216 % of NGV’s 16.4%
    32) United States Total 234646314 % of NGV’s .00623%??

    The United States has 234,646,314 Vehicles total which makes us #1 in that respect but as you can see we fall way behind the rest of the world when it comes to NGV Conversions.
    Last edited by younkin; 02-22-2009, 04:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • kim1
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    Ethical?

    It would appear the grey ethics are from those who say that EPA certification is required by law. Even the EPA's own documents state that EPA certification only eliminates "potential liability for tampering". Accordingly, unethical would be stating that someone has violated the law when in fact they have done nothing illegal. It looks to me like EPA has enforced its standards here in Utah. According to the EPA website they have prosecuted several automobile repair shops for releasing refrigerant into the air, and allowing chemicals into the ground water etc. EPA has not been shy about prosecuting under the clean air act here in Utah. As a result, it would appear that EPA has not prosecuted a clean fuel conversion because it is simply not illegal.

    Apparently FuelTek, and Lancer Automotive believe that federal law requires that an EPA certified Kit be installed or it is tampering. Do they have a case that establishes such a law, because it is noticeably absent from the United States Code, the Utah Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Utah Administrative Code?

    Moreover, the idea that a kit which is certified by EPA initially and then expires (which is the case with many technocarb kits) becomes tampering upon expiration seems particularly absurd. It is missing the sticker thus it is tampering, good luck with convincing a judge or a jury that is the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • younkin
    replied
    Re: Biggers CCATS Letter

    Here is my response to Biggers letter....Jim

    Wes, I have never met you but I find your letter interesting. You stated "A certified kit will be installed safely and in compliance with NFPA 52".Where in the EPA regulations does it state that this is the case? I have read the regulations and I find it nowhere. Any EPA shop may in fact go by NFPA52 standards but is this always the case? By now many EPA conversions are almost 15 years old and systems are starting to leak, tanks are beginning to expire and worst of all many of theses systems are now burning dirty and are outdated and untunable.

    You state "The converse of this would be that an uncertified kit is not installed safely nor in compliance with NFPA 52. This is clearly un-true. However, I would argue that installer who is willing to turn a blind eye to federal law (for this is the source of the certification requirements) is more likely to turn a blind eye to safety requirements." CCATS wants all CNG Conversions inspected for Safety and Emissions. I am sure if this was done we would find problems in both EPA and Imported Conversions.

    You postulated "I doubt heavily that ANY of the unsafe conversions you will find on Utah roads are certified conversions. Doesn't that make a fairly loud statement." As stated above many of these EPa systems are getting old, many have had auxilary tanks installed, are all of these installs safe? As I studied over the UHP Fuel System Standards I found rules that would make the majority of the EPA Certified Vehicles in non-compliance. EPA does not always mean NFPA52 compliant....

    You also stated "You imply in the letter that just because a converted vehicle is running on CNG it's emissions must be cleaner than gasoline." I don't remember implying that, CNG systems can run clean or dirty, I am sure some of your systems have ran dirty.
    BTW are you coming to our CCATS Safety Seminar at SLCC on Feb 28th? If you are we could speak in person, Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • younkin
    replied
    CCATS Letter

    Since Lancer chose to post Biggers Letter to us at CCATS (Certified CNG Automotive Technicians for Safety) I felt it only fair to post the original letter.


    Lets Keep Thousands of Safe CNG Vehicles on Utah's Highways

    In 2008, more CNG vehicles were sold or converted in the state of Utah than in the rest of the nation. This influx of CNG Vehicles onto Utah’s highways increased the need to ensure that CNG vehicles are safe and running clean.

    Anticipating the need for trained CNG Technicians, approximately 120 CNG Technicians in the state of Utah were Trained and Certified as CNG System Inspectors and installers in 2008. There are now more Certified CSA CNG Inspectors and installers in the State of Utah than any other State. These technicians have the repair facilities, experience and training necessary to carry out the CNG Inspections for both Safety and Emissions.

    In an attempt to address public concern over the safety of CNG vehicles, in January of 2009 the Utah Highway Patrol ruled that if a CNG system was “EPA certified” the vehicle was “safe” and qualified for registration. This misguided ruling threw the promising CNG industry in the state of Utah into disarray. This ruling suddenly put thousands of conscientious citizens outside the law if they wanted to continue driving their clean running, safely converted CNG vehicles.

    The proposed UHP 2009 inspections did not take into account the fact that all CNG systems, whether EPA approved or not, need to be verified safe and clean running by people trained and qualified to make that evaluation. Many systems have never met for the mandatory 3 year CNG system inspection.

    Who is CCATS and where did it come from?

    CCATS (Certified CNG Automotive Technicians for Safety) was officially organized on January 13, 2009. It was formed in response to the UHP ruling that only converted vehicles with the “EPA certified” stickers were safe to drive in Utah. CCATS members contend that ALL CNG INSTALLS whether EPA or not need to be tested for Safety and Emissions. If an install is safe and clean it should be deemed legal.

    CCATS currently has 8 members on its Governing Board and is open to any number of supporting members, contributing members and specialists.

    Our Governing Board has in excess of 250 combined years of automotive experience. There are members on the Governing Board who have been doing safety and emission testing for the state of Utah since the inception of these programs. All voting members are certified or qualified in testing and repair of CNG systems, ASE certified A1, A6, A8 (many Master), F1 and are certified NAFTC and CSA Inspectors for High Pressure Cylinder systems.

    Our goal - at CCATS is to put thousands of safe, clean running CNG vehicles on the road and have Utah take the lead in demonstrating a viable, efficient system of certifying these vehicles on a regular basis. CCATS feels that education is the key to accomplishing this goal; educating the UHP, working with and educating various state agencies as well as educating the general public are all vital to our overall goal. CCATS will provide this education through our website, informational seminars, technical training, brochures and videos. (For more information about CCATS email: [email protected] or contact any board member)


    Certified Automotive Technicians for Safety (CCATS) Proposes:

    1- Providing CNG informational materials to share with the general public.

    2- Creating Safety and Emission inspection procedures for all CNG vehicles.

    3- Providing CCATS training programs for UHP Inspectors, CNG Mechanics and CNG repair shops.

    The implementation of these programs will:

    1- Encourage more people to safely convert to CNG.

    2- Contribute to safer highways and better air quality.


    We all want clean air and safe vehicles. This proposal provides a way to encourage more CNG vehicles on the road, not less. Implementing this program can set an example to the United States and the rest of the world. Our CNG training, testing, certification and informational materials can be shared with others to promote clean, economical, safe fuel alternatives, and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.



    Sincerely,

    Michael M. Millet

    Chairman CCATS

    [email protected]

    801-957-4142 office

    Rob Mayo

    Vice Chairman CCATS

    [email protected]

    801-787-4568

    Jim Younkin

    Secretary CCATS

    [email protected]

    801-427-2284

    For more information email [email protected]

    Leave a comment:


  • jmmcintyre
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    As I have said before I have no quarrel with a company small or large that chooses to certify its products with EPA. I will say that EPA certification is not required under Federal or Utah State law, it is merely an option. Consequently, an installer who uses an uncertified kit is not turning a blind eye to federal law.

    Regarding the apparent idea that EPA certification is the only way to ensure that a vehicle converted to CNG is cleaner post conversion is simply not true. Perhaps this is why the Division of Air Quality adopted the State Implementation Plan that requires annual emissions testing, and includes a provision (testing)for fuel switching. Also, the Division received EPA approval prior to its adoption of the plan in October 2004.

    The kit installed on the test vehicle for the Agency action was not EPA certified, and the test results prove it is significantly cleaner after conversion. Tampering is defined as removing or rendering any device or element of design of an emission control system. Installing a CNG conversion kit by itself is not tampering period. Installing a CNG conversion kit by itself does not violate federal law period.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lancer Automotive Group
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    Attached is a letter written by Wes Biggers, President of FuelTek. He has been successful in obtaining EPA certifications. This is proof that even a small company can, if they choose, abide by the federal laws and still flourish.

    Dear CCATS,

    I read through the attached information with great interest. Because the EPA seems unwilling to enforce their standards, the State of Utah is trying to find a method of ensuring the safety of the vehicles on their roads. While I hate to make generalizations, I will make the following because of the nature of how certified conversions are sold:

    A certified kit will be installed safely and in compliance with NFPA 52. The converse of this would be that an uncertified kit is not installed safely nor in compliance with NFPA 52. This is clearly un-true. However, I would argue that installer who is willing to turn a blind eye to federal law (for this is the source of the certification requirements) is more likely to turn a blind eye to safety requirements. I doubt heavily that ANY of the unsafe conversions you will find on Utah roads are certified conversions. Doesn't that make a fairly loud statement.

    In the 3rd paragraph, you make the statement that Utah's ruling regarding the registration of uncertified conversions as unsafe "suddenly put thousands of conscientious citizens outside the law". It is not the safety question that put these people (and more specifically the converters of these vehicles) outside the law. It was the very act of using an uncertified conversion, whether installed safely or not, that put these people outside the law. Just because the federal law on certified conversions is inconvenient doesn't give us the right to ignore it. Later on in the letter, you state that a safe conversion should be legal. It is a FEDERAL LAW and your letter makes the supposition that simply making an installation/conversion 'safe' bypasses the issue of legal under the tampering provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act. I've read that law and I don't recall anywhere in that legislation a statement that as long as the tampering of a vehicle is done safely it should be considered legal. You imply in the letter that just because a converted vehicle is running on CNG it's emissions must be cleaner than gasoline. That is blatantly NOT true. A poorly calibrated conversion can actually increase NOX to as much as 3 times that of gasoline. And don't delude yourself that the 'auto calibration' of many systems resolves that issue. The only way to determine the actual emissions compliance of a converted vehicle is to test the vehicle - which is what certification is all about. There are right ways and wrong ways of bringing about change in laws. Ignoring them is not the right way.

    I applaud your efforts to make CNG conversions safer through the education and certification of CNG technicians. However, I think it is very irresponsible of your group to do so knowing that the sole reason you want the ruling defeated is so you can go back to ignoring the legal issues of certified conversions. As a group, are you ethical or not. Or should I be asking what shade of grey you are?

    Sincerely,
    Wes Biggers
    President
    FuelTek Conversion Corp.

    Leave a comment:


  • younkin
    replied
    Here are the links for Jacks Agency Action and Complaint

    Here are the links for Jacks Agency Action and Complaint, Go Jack........


    http://icreatewow.com/pdf/McIntyreAgencyAction.pdf

    http://icreatewow.com/pdf/McIntyreComplaint05.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • nttrainer
    replied
    Re: Lawsuits re: EPA certification requirement (inspections, tax credits, etc.)

    I didn't mean to get off topic but you have some info that I'm interested in. I'll send you a PM to not clog up the thread. Thanks for the info.
    Last edited by nttrainer; 02-16-2009, 01:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X