Legal?

[Hay Dude]

I was thinking if pulled over, DOT cop would look at door jamb tag stating it must meet CA standards, then maybe see DPF missing, then start more crap.

 

[ROUSTABOUT]

2006 IH 7400 with a DT466E
Truck was originally titled in California and equipped with California Emissions
You may know that in 2006 CA emissions meant trucks came with a DPF. They had the same emissions in 2006 as the other 49 states got in 2008.
Years later, the truck was sold to a buyer in South Carolina.
Buyer in SC removed the DPF because no emissions is required for trucks built before 2008.

From what I have read, it is illegal to tamper with any federally mandated pollution device.

However, the truck is no longer being operated in CA. Its in SC and it’s a 2006.

Legal?

We have about five trucks rolling. It's been taken off all of them.

 

[Skagit]

Those didn't have a DPF, at least I don't think so and I used to work for International so hopefully I would know... In 2006 they had a catalytic muffler. Almost all that I know of have been removed now, they were fairly expensive to replace IIRC and most people just put a normal muffler in place. I wouldn't worry about it

 

[Snobdds]

I was thinking if pulled over, DOT cop would look at door jamb tag stating it must meet CA standards, then maybe see DPF missing, then start more crap.

SC DOT cop would have to be really familiar with CA emission standards of 2006 to make any type of case on the side of the road.

He would have to cite a specific violation in SC law that your breaking CA law of 2006.

 

[California]

SC DOT cop would have to be really familiar with CA emission standards of 2006 to make any type of case on the side of the road.

He would have to cite a specific violation in SC law that your breaking CA law of 2006.

Possibly if the door tag says it was built to CA spec and there is a SC state standard that smog gear can't ever be tampered with, then in theory the cop might have a case.

I think CA does have a never-tamper standard and it makes upgrading an old car, difficult.

 

[MTGreen]

I think another point here is that even if some law could somehow be twisted into applying here (which I doubt), YOU didn't remove the equipment -you purchased it that way (blissfully ignorant of the previous owner's choices of course).
The potential issue here is with the ACT of removing, not with ownership later -especially if you are "unaware"

 

[4570Man]

How would they even know where the truck was originally sold. I certainly wouldn’t put a DPF on the truck if that was the question.

 

[Hay Dude]

How would they even know where the truck was originally sold. I certainly wouldn’t put a DPF on the truck if that was the question.

It would have a CA emissions decal on the door jamb. I wouldn’t add a DPF either since (I believe) the other 49 states didnt require manufacturers to install a DPF until 2008.

I think another point here is that even if some law could somehow be twisted into applying here (which I doubt), YOU didn't remove the equipment -you purchased it that way (blissfully ignorant of the previous owner's choices of course).
The potential issue here is with the ACT of removing, not with ownership later -especially if you are "unaware"

You are correct. The 2nd owner removed all of the emissions equipment and straight piped the truck.

 

[Hay Dude]

Politicians are always in search of “revenue” sources.
We are now going into our 15th year of diesel trucks with emissions equipment.

One has to wonder which state(s) will be first to start mandating a “carbon tax” to owners of trucks made before 2008?

 

[Hambone]

Those didn't have a DPF, at least I don't think so and I used to work for International so hopefully I would know... In 2006 they had a catalytic muffler. Almost all that I know of have been removed now, they were fairly expensive to replace IIRC and most people just put a normal muffler in place. I wouldn't worry about it

I came here to say this.