Over roughly six months in 2018, EPA alleged, Vance & Hines moved thousands of aftermarket motorcycle parts into a national distribution network. The dispute was not simply about louder pipes or customized styling. It centered on whether those parts removed the equipment that treated pollution before it left a motorcycle’s exhaust.

Vance & Hines manufactures and distributes branded aftermarket products for the powersports industry. According to EPA’s consent agreement, an agency information request and the company’s responses formed part of an investigation into full exhaust systems, head pipes, and slip-on exhausts.

EPA alleged that the covered parts did not incorporate exhaust aftertreatment controls. In some instances, the agency said, they were designed to replace catalytic converters. The appendix connects the parts to motorcycles made by Harley-Davidson, Indian, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Honda, and Yamaha.

How an exhaust part can defeat an emissions control

A catalytic converter is not an optional accessory in the federal emissions system. EPA describes it as a control device designed to reduce hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide in the exhaust of gasoline-powered vehicles.

The Clean Air Act prohibits manufacturing, selling, offering to sell, or installing a component whose principal effect is to bypass, defeat, or render an emissions-control device inoperative when the seller knows or should know the part is being offered or used for that purpose.

1. A certified highway motorcycle includes an emissions-control system described in its federal certification.
2. The original head pipe, exhaust system, or muffler may contain a catalytic converter.
3. An aftermarket replacement without exhaust aftertreatment takes the place of that original component.
4. EPA alleged that the principal effect was to bypass, defeat, or render the catalytic converter inoperative.

Conceptual explanation based on EPA’s allegations. The settlement does not report emissions testing for each listed part.

The alleged mechanism matters because vehicle certification covers a complete emissions design, not only the engine. Replacing a component that contains the catalyst can remove part of the system on which the vehicle’s certified emissions performance depends.

The appendix maps a national aftermarket catalog

EPA’s appendix lists 152 line items and assigns a number of alleged violative sales to each. The entries cover Harley-Davidson touring, Softail, Dyna, and Sportster motorcycles, along with Indian, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and Yamaha models.

The largest single line item shown in the appendix is part number 47229, a Harley-Davidson Sportster full exhaust entry associated with 955 alleged violative sales. Other entries range from one unit to several hundred. The list shows breadth across product configurations, but it does not identify the buyers or establish that every listed unit was installed on a motorcycle.

A settlement, not a factual verdict

The legal distinction is central. Vance & Hines did not admit EPA’s factual allegations. It also did not deny them. The company consented to the order without adjudication, waived its right to contest the allegations in this proceeding, and waived an appeal.

The respondent “neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations” in the allegations section. Consent Agreement and Final Order, paragraph 26

That means the $900,000 penalty and the compliance obligations are binding settlement terms. It does not mean a judge held a trial and found every allegation true. The order resolves federal civil-penalty liability only for the violations and facts specifically alleged in the agreement.

EPA and the Justice Department jointly determined that the case was appropriate for an administrative penalty even though the assessment exceeded $472,901. The document says EPA evaluated a documented inability-to-pay claim from Vance & Hines and analyzed the company’s financial information before determining that $900,000 was an appropriate settlement amount.

The payment plan adds $24,091.68 in interest

Vance & Hines may pay the full $900,000 within 30 days of the filing date and avoid interest. Under the installment option, it must make three equal payments of $308,030.56. The settlement applies a 7 percent interest rate and schedules payments within 30, 150, and 270 days of the effective date.

A payment default can trigger a stipulated penalty of $2,000 for each day the default continues after EPA makes a written demand. The agreement also provides for interest, collection expenses, and a 10 percent quarterly nonpayment penalty.

The cleanup reaches support, warranties, marketing, and distributors

The settlement does more than collect money. Vance & Hines represented that it had completed, or would complete by the order’s effective date, a series of measures aimed at removing support for the covered parts. Resolution of liability is conditioned on completion of those measures.

• Ensure that no covered parts meeting the settlement’s description remained in the company’s possession or control for sale in the United States as of the stated August 31, 2022 cutoff.
• Stop providing installation, manufacturing, sales, use, or repair support for the parts, including removing installation instructions and related marketing materials.
• Notify authorized distributors and customers that warranties and technical support for the covered parts would no longer be honored or supplied.
• Notify distributors and customers that bought covered parts since January 1, 2018, as well as company employees, about the EPA settlement.
• Revise marketing, avoid assisting other sellers or installers, and post settlement announcements on the company website and social platforms for at least eight weeks.

The company also certified that, as of the date it signed the agreement, it was fully complying with the Clean Air Act provision governing tampering and defeat devices. The document does not include independent proof that every required notice, removal, or public posting was completed.

What the record says about public harm, and what it does not

The public-interest rationale is clear at the level of mechanism. Catalytic converters reduce regulated pollutants before exhaust reaches the air. A replacement component that disables that control can create a risk of higher emissions and shift the consequences away from the seller and vehicle owner toward anyone breathing the surrounding air.

But the settlement does not quantify that consequence in this case. It supplies no estimate of excess tons of pollution, no installation rate for the 16,888 parts, no geographic map of use, and no health assessment. It therefore supports a finding about the regulatory allegations and the agreed remedy, not a precise claim about environmental damage or individual injury.

The same limitation applies to scale. The appendix calls its figures “violative sales,” while the allegations describe parts that were manufactured, sold, or offered for sale. The document does not break the total into those separate activities.

An eight-year path from the alleged sales period to filing

The filing came roughly eight years after the alleged sales period ended. The agreement says EPA issued an information request and relied on its investigation and company responses, but it does not provide a dated investigative history or explain the length of the interval.

What remains worth tracking

• Whether the penalty is paid in full within 30 days or through the three-payment schedule.
• Whether all distributor, customer, employee, warranty, support, and marketing obligations are completed.
• Whether the required public settlement announcements remain available for the mandated eight-week period.
• Whether later public records provide emissions testing, installation estimates, or other evidence absent from this agreement.

The settlement’s most important lesson is mechanical rather than procedural. A pollution-control system can be undermined without changing the engine itself. In the aftermarket motorcycle business, replacing the pipe or muffler may also replace the equipment that made the vehicle compliant. EPA’s agreement places a price and a compliance program on that alleged conduct, while leaving the actual emissions consequences unmeasured.