The US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has lodged a complaint against Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles (FCA) of failing to
disclose software in 104,000 diesel pickups and SUVs that allows them to exceed
pollution limits.
According
to Automotive News, the EPA stopped
short of calling the software in 2014-16 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500s a
“defeat device” but said the carmaker failed to disclose its use.
However, Fiat Chrysler Automotive said it
meets all applicable regulatory requirements and will work with President-elect
Donald Trump’s administration to contest the allegations.
The EPA and California Air Resources Board
told the automaker they believe its auxiliary emissions control software
allowed vehicles to generate excess pollution in violation of the law.
"Failing to disclose software that
affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the
law," said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s office of
enforcement and compliance assurance, in a statement. "We continue to investigate
the nature and impact of these devices. All automakers must play by the same
rules, and we will continue to hold companies accountable that gain an unfair
and illegal competitive advantage.”
She added during a press conference: “As
regard to penalties, the notice of violation describes the civil penalty
provisions of the law that may apply. So the statue provides for civil
penalties of up to $44,539 per vehicle sold for the violations that are alleged
in the N.O.V.”
The maximum fine, in theory, were FCA to be
found ‘guilty’, would be about $4.6 billion.
California Air Resource Board (CARB) chairman
Mary Nichols said: "Once again, a major automaker made the business
decision to skirt the rules and got caught."
The US Justice Department is investigating, according
to FCA.
Meanwhile, New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman said in a statement he is "deeply troubled" by the EPA
findings and "will investigate the claims against Fiat Chrysler Automotive
and stands ready to work with our state and federal partners."
FCA chief executive officer, Sergio
Marchionne, during a call with journalists, angrily denied the company was
cheating and has been in talks with EPA and made significant disclosures of
documents.
"We have done nothing that is
illegal," he claimed. "There was never any intent of creating
conditions that were designed to defeat the testing process. This is absolute
nonsense."
He characterized the dispute as whether the
automaker had completely disclosed software that protects the engine, adding
the company was planning updated software to address EPA concerns.
He said the EPA and the company could have
settled the issue in "a more efficient way" without the EPA
announcement, and he said "I'm really pissed off" about reports that
equate FCA's issues with those of Volkswagen AG.
"The way that it has been described, I
think, has been unfair to FCA, and that is the thing that disturbs me
most," Marchionne said. He also suggested regulators had a
"belligerent" view of automakers.
"There's not a guy in this (company) who
would try something as stupid as (cheating on diesel tests) ... We don't belong
to a class of criminals."
Official statement
FCA
said in a statement: "FCA US is disappointed that the EPA has chosen to
issue a notice of violation with respect to the emissions control technology
employed in the company's 2014-16 model-year light-duty 3-litre diesel engines. (These 3-litre engines are made by VM Motori in Cento, Italy and have compacted graphite iron (CGI) vee cylinder blocks.) FCA US intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and
resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US
customers that the company's diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable
regulatory requirements."
FCA claims an automaker can use an auxiliary
emissions control device in limited circumstances to protect the engine from
damage, but it must be declared to regulators.
According to Automotive News, it is not clear how incoming President Donald Trump's
EPA will handle this or similar issues. Trump has nominated Oklahoma Attorney
General Scott Pruitt, a critic of federal environmental regulation, to lead
EPA.
Efraim Levy, an analyst with CFRA, has said that
FCA stands to "get a fresh start with the Trump administration."
Analysis of the
situation
In
the view of jalopnik.com, the FCA’s actions were not as serious as those of VW.
“Let’s
get straight to what Volkswagen did, because it was absolutely egregious,
involved a cover-up, and was illegal. The company installed “defeat devices” on
nearly 500,000 cars to trick regulators into thinking the vehicles were cleaner
than they really were in real-world driving.
Jalopnik
says that defeat devices are defined by the EPA as….....an auxiliary emission
control device (AECD) that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control
system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in
normal vehicle operation and use.
Keep
in mind software can qualify as a “device” under this definition. It’s just a
legal phrase.
It
adds that EPA tests found that VW’s devices actually sensed when the vehicles
in question were on the emissions rolls (dynos) being tested, and if they were,
the software adjusted certain emissions parameters to clean up NOx from the
tailpipe.
Volkswagen’s device used wheel speed and steering wheel sensors to
tell when the car was being driven by a human on a road, or if it was strapped
to a dynamometer, ensuring low NOx when under testing, but not when the
consumer drives the car on the same drive cycle.
Jalopnik
emphasizes that last bit because that is arguably the most damning part about
what VW did: the company literally made it so that pollution during road
driving was worse than when the car was tested even if the car was driven
exactly the same way. VW played the EPA for foo
The
website adds further that the EPA has yet to explicitly accuse Fiat Chrysler of
installing a defeat device that actually senses when the car is on the
emissions rolls being tested, and the company’s CEO Sergio Marchionne addressed
this in a teleconference earlier today, saying:
Jalopnik
claims “There is nothing in the current calibration of the Ram 1500 or the
Grand Cherokee diesel that distinguishes between a test cycle and normal
driving conditions. This is a huge difference because there has never been an
intention on part of FCA to create conditions that are designed to defeat the
testing process. That is absolutely nonsense.
But
what the agency has accused Fiat Chrysler of doing is failing to disclose all
software features that could be considered auxiliary emissions control devices,
or AECDs, which are defined as:…...any element of design which senses
temperature, vehicle speed, engine RPM, transmission gear, manifold vacuum, or
any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying, or
deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system.
These
AECDs, the EPA alleges, cause the 103,828 Jeep and Ram vehicles equipped with
3-litre diesels to emit more pollution in conditions “reasonably expected to be
encountered in normal vehicle operation and use” than under EPA test
conditions.
According
to the EPA, Fiat Chrysler allegedly failed to disclose the following eight
AECDs, which tamper with exhaust gas recirculation, EGR, and selective
catalytic reduction, SCR, under certain vehicle conditions: The EGR systems in
these Jeep and Ram vehicles recycle exhaust gases back into the cylinders to
reduce combustion temperatures and lower NOx emissions, and the SCR system adds
urea to the exhaust stream to convert NOx into nitrogen and water.
In
other words, these are the two systems responsible for lowering a vehicle’s NOx
output under certain conditions. Software adjustments to these two systems work
have a huge effect on tailpipe emissions, and the EPA thinks Fiat Chrysler is
fiddling with these devices illegally.
1 comment:
In its statement, FCA says that lowering its cars’ emissions during testing is necessary to balance EPA’s regulatory requirements for low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions with requirements for engine durability and performance, safety and – crucially - for fuel efficiency. Many readers of that statement will see that reference to ‘balancing’ as an implied justification by FCA for allowing NOx to exceed statutory limits in order to hold down fuel usage and CO2 emissions.
Post a Comment