Here we go again: EPA to accuse FCA of cheating diesel emissions.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to accuse Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of using software that allowed excess diesel emissions in just over 100,000 U.S. trucks and SUVs sold since 2014, two sources briefed on the matter told Reuters.

The EPA told the automaker it believes its undeclared emissions control software allowed vehicles to generate excess pollution in violation of the law. Fiat Chrysler declined to comment.

Its U.S.-listed shares fell 13 percent to $9.65 as of 10:52 a.m. ET.

The EPA will announce the findings at an 11 a.m. conference call. It comes amid rising scrutiny by EPA of automaker emissions after Volkswagen AG admitted to cheating diesel emissions tests in 580,000 U.S. vehicles.

The EPA, which is led by Administrator Gina McCarthy, has for months declined to certify Fiat Chrysler's 2017 diesel vehicles for sale in the U.S.

So are these the Cummins trucks or the Italian Diesel SUVS?

This article has a little more copy. It's from Automotive News, which I think is typically a reliable industry news source.

Auto News FCA story

UPDATED: 1/12/17 11:02 am ET - adds details, FCA response

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to accuse Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of using software that allowed excess diesel emissions in just over 100,000 U.S. trucks and SUVs sold since 2014, two sources briefed on the matter told Reuters.

The EPA told the automaker it believes its auxiliary emissions control software allowed vehicles to generate excess pollution in violation of the law. Fiat Chrysler declined to comment.

A person briefed on the matter said Fiat Chrysler does not agree with the EPA's assessment. FCA told CNBC it will contest EPA allegations and believes its vehicles meet EPA standards.

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.

FCA's U.S.-listed shares fell 16 percent to $9.32 as of 11:02 a.m. ET.

The EPA is announcing the findings this morning. It comes amid rising scrutiny by EPA of automaker emissions after Volkswagen AG admitted to cheating diesel emissions tests in 580,000 U.S. vehicles.

The EPA has for months declined to certify Fiat Chrysler's 2017 diesel vehicles for sale in the United States, but the automaker has continued to sell 2016 diesel models.

In September 2015, EPA said it would review all U.S. diesel vehicles following an admission from Volkswagen that it installed software in cars allowing them to emit up to 40 times legally permissible level of pollution.

On Wednesday, VW agreed to pay $4.3 billion in criminal and civil fines and plead guilty to three felonies for misleading regulators and selling polluting vehicles.

The EPA has extensively investigated the vehicles and Fiat Chrysler has turned over significant documents as part of the probe, two people briefed on the matter said.

FCA could face fines of up to $37,500 per vehicle if it is proven that it violated emissions rules. The probe covers FCA's diesel trucks and SUVs from the 2014-2016 model years.

In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid:

WaPo article says it's the 3.0-liter diesel in the Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee.. EPA says FCA cheating

There was previously a class-action lawsuit against FCA over the 6.7 liter Cummins. I don't know if this is the same thing.

FCA's response

DukeOfUndersteer wrote: FCA's response

To me, that response reads as: "Yea well your agency isn't going to be around after January 20th anyway. So there."

slowride wrote: There was previously a class-action lawsuit against FCA over the 6.7 liter Cummins. I don't know if this is the same thing.

It's not the same thing, this is a different engine. It's the little Fiat diesel and it's the EPA that's complaining, not owners.

I didn't know about the 6.7 lawsuit, though. Huh. Guess I have a cat failure to look forward to. And here I was being a responsible citizen by leaving it on.
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/fca-and-cummins-face-diesel-emissions-claims-class-action-lawsuit

The0retical wrote:

DukeOfUndersteer wrote: FCA's response

To me, that response reads as: "Yea well your agency isn't going to be around after January 20th anyway. So there."

I agree bigly.

Tom_Spangler wrote:

The0retical wrote:

DukeOfUndersteer wrote: FCA's response

To me, that response reads as: "Yea well your agency isn't going to be around after January 20th anyway. So there."

I agree bigly.

Me, too.

And good luck with that. While the CO2 rules may be relaxed, the old rules that cover today will not change. If they have high off cycle emissions, and don't do anything about it- the laws around it are quite old. I doubt this administration will bother changing that.

Also, maybe 2-3 people will change at the top of the EPA. The rest will still be there.

Here i was hoping that they were going to have too crush the 2014+ fullsizes.

FCA as a whole doesn't have finanical resources to survive this

captdownshift wrote: FCA as a whole doesn't have finanical resources to survive this

Good point.

A precedent has been established with VW so any deviation from it will raise questions regarding favoritism.

I doubt the EPA openly said “we arrived at XYZ fine amount because it’ll really hurt you but not drive you out of business”. Instead, they probably reverse engineered the fine amount to arrive at that outcome but now what do they do when they decide to go after a much weaker company???

Thorny – Thorny - Thory

FCA stock took a beating today in light of this news coming out, FWIW.

In reply to RX Reven':

The biggest costs to VW were related to the fact that many of the vehicles could not realistically be fixed because they were lacking hardware on the majority of affected vehicles. They tried to do it through software alone, but failed to find a setup that the satisfied the EPA. For the vehicles that had the necessary hardware in place, a software update was used to bring them inline with regulations.

The one difference that I see in this case, is that it's not a hardware issue. FCA should be able to fix the affected vehicles with a software flash, which is much faster and cheaper than an all out buyback.

I can see how the costs would hurt the company in other ways though, by delaying new product development, or cancelling programs. And of course the negative PR isn't helping anything.

In reply to alfadriver:

Eric, I am disappointed in you!

You're the most qualified person I know to comment on the specific nature of the modes named, and if they are somewhat normal, and some excursions into other emissions strategies under some circumstances is allowed or not.

For instance, in my world, the fuel type can relax the emissions rules under certain circumstances. Additionally, startup emissions and "part throttle" (we call it turn down) emissions may also be different.

But instead you got all flounder-y.

In reply to tuna55:

???

All I'm commenting is about FCA's reply, and I don't think they have anything to stand on, as the rules they are accused of violating date back a LONG way. Especially the defeat device part.

In car world, there's no rule difference between gas and diesel. There are specific circumstances were one is allowed to "pollute" but they are very specific and normally have to do with not stranding the customer. And, in this case, they have to be declared to the EPA- what, when, how often, why, etc. And even if they are outside of that window, they will be taken to task (which tends to be minor, as that sometimes happens that the usage isn't anticipated that well).

This being a small truck, it has pretty tight standards that include the cold start for 70F as well as standards for 50F and 20F (and 95F with A/C on).

I don't think this is as bad as VW did, as they outright cheated.

But what's interesting about this is that FCA is dragging their feet- indicated with the withholding of the net certifications. Why they didn't want to clear this up right away and instead go to the next administration is really odd.

alfadriver wrote: But what's interesting about this is that FCA is dragging their feet- indicated with the withholding of the net certifications. Why they didn't want to clear this up right away and instead go to the next administration is really odd.

Not odd but telling. Seems to me that they know they're going to get a penalty for this, and expect it will be lighter when a climate conspiracy theorist is in charge of the EPA. If they were confident they were in the right, they'd clear this up right away to get their stock prices back up.

Edit: I would say their choice to drag their feet is practically an admission of guilt.

Eric, I mean this:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/fca-caa-nov-2017-01-12.pdf

AECD # I (Full EGR Shut-Off at highway Speed)
AECD #2 (Reduced EGR with Increasing Vehicle Speed)
AECD #3 (EGR hut-off for Exhaust Valve Cleaning)
AECD #4 (DEF Dosing Disablement during CR Adaptation)
AECD #5 (EGR Reduction due to Modeled Engine Temperature)
AECD #6 (SCR Catalyst Warm-Up Disablement)
AECD #7 (Alternative SCR Dosing Modes)
AECD #8 (Use of Load Governor to Delay Ammonia Refill ofSCR Catalyst

Are these things "the EPA doesn't understand the strategy" or are they something sinister?

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote: But what's interesting about this is that FCA is dragging their feet- indicated with the withholding of the net certifications. Why they didn't want to clear this up right away and instead go to the next administration is really odd.

Not odd but telling. Seems to me that they know they're going to get a penalty for this, and expect it will be lighter when a climate conspiracy theorist is in charge of the EPA. If they were confident they were in the right, they'd clear this up right away to get their stock prices back up. Edit: I would say their choice to drag their feet is practically an admission of guilt.

That's where it gets odd to me- I see a response as- whoops- sorry, didn't anticipate that- here's the simple update repair, and notification. Done. No penalty.

This isn't adding a new set of hardware or something like that- just some calibration. It's certainly not hard.

alfadriver wrote: That's where it gets odd to me- I see a response as- whoops- sorry, didn't anticipate that- here's the simple update repair, and notification. Done. No penalty. This isn't adding a new set of hardware or something like that- just some calibration. It's certainly not hard.

VW could've easily fixed their emissions problems in software too, but there were big downsides, it may be the same scenario here. They don't want to turn all the affected cars into turds, and they're busted, so they're holding out for a lighter penalty.

tuna55 wrote: Eric, I mean this: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/fca-caa-nov-2017-01-12.pdf AECD # I (Full EGR Shut-Off at highway Speed) AECD #2 (Reduced EGR with Increasing Vehicle Speed) AECD #3 (EGR hut-off for Exhaust Valve Cleaning) AECD #4 (DEF Dosing Disablement during CR Adaptation) AECD #5 (EGR Reduction due to Modeled Engine Temperature) AECD #6 (SCR Catalyst Warm-Up Disablement) AECD #7 (Alternative SCR Dosing Modes) AECD #8 (Use of Load Governor to Delay Ammonia Refill ofSCR Catalyst Are these things "the EPA doesn't understand the strategy" or are they something sinister?

All of a sudden, it feels like 1997 all over again.

We, as in Ford, got in trouble back then for some bad off cycle emissions- where after a period of time, vans would go into what was called lean cruise. Blew NOx, but it was done well off the drive cycle.

I read all of that, and see that all over again. I'm quite sure that the EPA understands it, as they've seen it before. On top of that, I'm sure they have portable measuring devices in the bed of the truck measuring that it's being done (just like in 1997).

Sinister isn't what I would call it. Stupid is a better word. Unless the higher managers at FCA forgot the scrutiny we were under 20 years ago for doing the exact same thing.

Well, not exactly the same- it never rose high enough that certification papers were withheld, nor did it get out to the larger press. Mind you- it wasn't long after GM got in a LOT of trouble putting defeat devices onto Cadillac's, which did make the news- so the situation wasn't that much different.

And if anyone here and I are talking in person, I'll tell you the funny story about how I was very remotely involved with the happening in 1997. I never worked on the vans, BTW.

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote: That's where it gets odd to me- I see a response as- whoops- sorry, didn't anticipate that- here's the simple update repair, and notification. Done. No penalty. This isn't adding a new set of hardware or something like that- just some calibration. It's certainly not hard.

VW could've easily fixed their emissions problems in software too, but there were big downsides, it may be the same scenario here. They don't want to turn all the affected cars into turds, and they're busted, so they're holding out for a lighter penalty.

Sort of. But the degree of turdness would have been so bad that they would have been sued anyway.

"Degree of turdness" shall be my new throttle response metric.