
EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations - denzil_correa
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-notifies-fiat-chrysler-clean-air-act-violations
======
blakeyrat
Note: they mean exceeding in the bad direction, not the good direction. At
first I thought this was some kind of spoof article, or Chrysler marketing
effort. It should probably read "exceeding limits" not "exceeding standards".

EDIT: actually the press release doesn't even say that really. It says Fiat
Chrysler installed software that could impact emissions testing but didn't
tell the EPA about it, which is considered a violation of the Clean Air Act.
It doesn't say the software cheats on tests.

~~~
avn2109
For automotive scandals like e.g this one and Dieselgate it's always
surprising how much outrage people muster.

If an automaker sells N cars exceeding some emissions limit by 100%, people
get out the pitchforks.

But if that same automaker sells 2N conforming cars, it's widely heralded as a
Good Thing.

However, to a first approximation, the environmental impact is equivalent in
each case (or arguably worse in the latter case, because of increased energy
and materials consumption).

~~~
_yosefk
But... but! If you sell N cars exceeding the limit, someone else will sell the
other N cars of the 2N in your "2N conforming cars" in the other possibility,
and they'd emit, too! Or does selling N cars exceeding the limit somehow
eliminates the demand for the other N?

I mean you can say that the limit is too low, but I don't understand this N/2N
argument at all.

Also, I dunno about pitchforks, but if I park illegally, I'll get a ticket,
even though maybe the parking restrictions are wrong in some important sense,
and I'd sorta like it if law applied to corporations. If that's a pitchfork
then it's a pitchfork to fine me for how I park my car.

------
cptskippy
I have a feeling this is just the first in a long line of violations that are
going to surface due to the VW scandal.

~~~
avn2109
If you've ever been near a major automaker's test engineering lab, you quickly
realize that ~all of them are doing shady things to hit their numbers.

This is a result of the cold hard engineering fact that our current level of
technology is insufficient to hit the numbers without raising costs
significantly. But once one automaker starts to fudge the numbers at a given
price point, all the others must do the same thing or they fall behind. Being
honest might add hundreds or thousands of dollars to the dealer cost of a
family sedan, which is an absolute dealbreaker when your rivals are getting
the same benefit by just lying.

There's a spectrum from shady-but-nearly-defensible to absolute lies, and
different manufacturers fall on the spectrum at different points.

One that comes to mind is Mitsubishi [0], but there have been others. And as
you suggest, there will be plenty more in the future.

[0] [http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-
ch...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-cheating-
fuel-tests-25-years/)

~~~
afterburner
"This is a result of the cold hard engineering fact that our current level of
technology is insufficient to hit the numbers without raising costs
significantly. But once one automaker starts to fudge the numbers at a given
price point, all the others must do the same thing or they fall behind."

I'm going to have to remember to bring this up as an example whenever people
claim private industry can police/regulate themselves. It's perfect.

~~~
wonder_er
there'd be no incentive to lie if the EPA wasn't forcing these "standards" on
them.

Now, there's no reason to innovate because someone spends big bucks to
actually do what everyone else is lying about.

This isn't damming of private industry - it's damming of the regulation.

(Er, to me. Obviously you might come to a different conclusion. Just wanted to
throw in how this article can be read both ways.)

~~~
xenadu02
If standards weren't forced on them we'd be living in smog-choked cities.
Markets can't efficiently deal with tragedy-of-the-commons situations because
the air belongs to everyone and there is no way to do price discovery. Even a
manufacturer could advertise based on being eco-friendly the effects would be
minuscule thus consumers would have little reason to prioritize such features.

You're essentially claiming we should abolish all regulations period because
some people will cheat. The actual solution is to heavily punish cheaters. We
don't have to guess and argue about this; go visit China then come back here
and regale us about how horrible the EPA is and how we should eliminate
pollution regulations.

The technology may not exist yet but government standards can be a forcing
function that makes manufacturers invest in creating it and bringing the cost
down.

In fact government has had a huge hand in many forms of innovation; the trans-
continental railroad was only made possible by government backing. The
internet could not have been created by private companies from scratch, but
government investment made bootstrapping possible.

~~~
wonder_er
I feel like there are more differences between China and the USA than just the
EPA, and that's not at all what I was arguing.

What did you read my argument as? Can you restate my argument? Either I spoke
unclearly, or you read poorly. So, let me figure this out.

~~~
ch4s3
>Now, there's no reason to innovate because someone spends big bucks to
actually do what everyone else is lying about.

This statement just doesn't make sense. If we punish actors who cheat the
incentive is to innovate towards meeting the goal. If there's no mandate, and
no punishment then there's no reason to innovate in a direction that protects
the commons. There's simply no market mechanism for protecting the commons
that works in practice.

------
byronwall
The Notice of Violation (NOV) [0] is worth checking out if you're interested
in the nitty gritty details of regulatory enforcement. It's quite readable and
paints a clear picture that EPA believes FCA violated the Clean Air Act.
Specifically that they have software/code (AECDs) which were "neither
described nor justified". Also interesting that they already set up a short
URL for this particular issue. [1]

[0]
[https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents...](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/fca-
caa-nov-2017-01-12.pdf)

[1] [https://www.epa.gov/fca](https://www.epa.gov/fca)

------
JumpCrisscross
Volkswagen, a German company, admitted wrongdoing, is paying $4.3bn in fines
and will see its executives, domestic and overseas, jailed by the U.S.
government [1]. Curious if Fiat Chrysler will see those checkboxes--admission
of wrongdoing, material fines and jailed executives--filled.

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/US/volkswagen-pleads-guilty-
pays-43-bi...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/volkswagen-pleads-guilty-
pays-43-billion-fines-settle/story?id=44715043)

~~~
yuhong
I personally don't think that jail for simply emitting NOx above limits is
worth it

~~~
btilly
An estimated 60 people have died because of these excess emissions.

What penalty would you consider appropriate for someone breaking the law,
resulting in 60 deaths?

Should it matter what law was broken, or how those deaths were caused?

~~~
yuhong
60 people was just an estimate from statistics, and NOx emissions are not a
new problem either.

~~~
btilly
NOx emissions are not a new problem, and our ability to estimate its effects
are pretty good. The exact number is an estimate, but the real number is very
unlikely to be off by more than a factor of 2.

If you randomly shoot 30 people, what is the appropriate penalty? What if you
were shooting blindfolded and couldn't see when or who you killed? What if you
were being paid money to take shots?

That is an exact analogy to what Volkswagon did when it sold cars that
exceeded regulatory limits.

~~~
yuhong
I mean in the sense that the emissions before the EPA was created was far
worse.

~~~
x0x0
And murders were worse 10 years ago too.

How on earth is that related to giving someone a pass for a murder now?

~~~
Udik
The law does give a pass for murder now. Just half the number it gave until a
few years ago. So it's really hard to argue that a company in this situation
is morally responsible for the murder of some number of people. As that would
be equivalent to saying that the government has decided how many people you
can murder, perfectly legally, every year. So unless you accept this, it's not
murder.

------
bischofs
We tested their engine back in 2013, it had an offset and a timer for the
coolant temperature. So if you waited long enough between the test cycles the
timer would run out and the actual coolant would be relayed to the ECU which
would then run a different calibration. Its a joke but diesels unless they
have major after-treatment systems just cant run that clean - as they become
hotter (read: more efficient) they produce more NOx.

------
grzm
Actual title: "EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations"

------
all_usernames
When the EPA fines a company (e.g., $4.3Bn for VW), where exactly does that
money go?

~~~
adventured
[http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/When-
governm...](http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/When-government-
fines-companies-who-gets-cash-3189724.php)

------
verytrivial
I've been expecting revelations like this. If the other manufacturers were
legit in these measures I would have expected them to e.g. run full page ads
poking fun at VW to curry favour. They've been curiously silent.

------
Zigurd
The most interesting thing about the arrest of a senior VW manager and this is
that, evidently, software isn't too hard to investigate. It's probably not
easy, but if a white-enough-box test of the ECU shows it cheats by detecting a
dynamometer using a simple expedient that has no practical use on the road,
then you have evidence that will stand up in court.

------
kylehotchkiss
Why don't they just do emissions tests by attaching a probe to exhaust and
taking the car on a normal drive. Harder to fake results when you're not
performing them in the same lab conditions.

~~~
jpollock
It makes it impossible to compare between models or even between model years.

Since a key use of the information of for a consumer to compare between two
cars to decide which they should purchase based on emissions and fuel economy,
a repeatable test is a key requirement.

~~~
oh_sigh
Then put the car on rollers for a fixed speed/acceleration/time profile

~~~
LeifCarrotson
That's exactly what they do now. Volkswagen and Chrysler (and probably
everyone else) have ECU firmware that watches for those profiles and adjusts
the engine tuning for emissions differently compared to normal operation.

They need profiles that are more difficult to identify and more of them to
solve this technically. Or the EPA and other regulatory agencies can bring
down the hammer when they catch cheating like this.

~~~
jpollock
Or else they rewrite the legislation to say "You can't ever exceed X on
emissions". Then they do two tests, one for the legislation, which is a random
drive over a period of time from a randomly sampled vehicle, and a second
which is the dyno test for consumer information.

------
draw_down
Oh, oh, let me guess: it's the fault of a single rogue engineer, and does not
in any way implicate company upper management.

~~~
ssully
I am assuming your comment is referencing Volkswagen's emissions controversy?
It doesn't really fit considering six executives have been charged [1] over
the incident.

[1]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/business/volkswagen-
diese...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/business/volkswagen-diesel-vw-
settlement-charges-criminal.html)

~~~
adventured
I suspect the parent comment is referring to the way VW attempted to deflect
blame from management / executives to claiming initially that it was rogue
engineers. (rather than referring to who has or hasn't been charged by the
government)

------
rubidium
You think they would've done something after the Volkswagon disaster... this
is either extreme ignorance (we don't really know what our code does) or
malicious intent (let's hope we don't get caught like them).

~~~
cptskippy
The release doesn't actually state that they violated emissions standards. It
just says that they failed to notify the EPA of the presence of software that
can alter the vehicle's emissions profile.

Do trucks and SUVs in the US even have emissions standards? I know they're
exempt from emissions tests in many states which is part of the reason for
their popularity.

~~~
dplgk
That's not why they're popular. They're popular because the average American
thinks bigger is better and they also want a bigger car for when they have an
accident, they can kill the other person instead of themselves.

~~~
mikestew
Though I see a slight grayish tint to your comment indicating some down votes,
you're spot on. Does anyone _really_ think someone's automotive buying
decision goes something like, "yeah, it's hard to park and the mileage sucks,
but at least I don't have to take 30 minutes out of my day once every few
years to go get emissions tested. That'll make the rough ride and the hundreds
of extra dollars in fuel expenses worth it."? No, no one has ever thought that
when buying a car.

~~~
Zak
Big cars were always popular in the US. Until the mid 1970s when fuel economy
standards and an oil crisis or two changed the market. The oil crisis passed,
but the economy standards did not.

Trucks weren't held to the same standards as cars, so manufacturers started
making more carlike trucks to meet consumer demand for larger vehicles. The
improved visibility and image of toughness and independence also helps drive
truck and SUV sales.

~~~
galdosdi
The visibility is modified, not improved. Far away objects are more visible
and very nearby objects (like curbs or children) are less visible.

Bad drivers driving huge cars through dense places are scary...

~~~
Zak
Consumers with this preference perceive that their visibility is better. Don't
confuse them with facts.

I think it's mostly related to the percentage of other vehicles that they can
see over.

------
exabrial
If you buy a vehicle, is it unreasonable to receive the source code so you can
later fix it if necessary?

------
josu
Donald Trump was celebrating just a few days ago that Chrysler was going to
open a new plant in Michigan instead of in Mexico[1][2]. Could this be a
political move by the EPA?

[1]
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/81846086267555840...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/818460862675558400)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/81846146776682496...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/818461467766824961)

~~~
matthewmacleod
It _could_ be, but it almost certainly is not.

~~~
problems
Yeah, I mean I don't think he's complained about the EPA busting emissions
violators, has he? He at least seemed to be pushing a "clean air and water"
thing, which something like this should certainly fall under, even if you
don't want to police carbon emissions aggressively as some would like to.

I think problems like this deserve investigation effort and aren't
particularly political - probably an easy play to your average citizen.

------
bit_logic
This is all happening because at some point the car companies had this choice
to make:

1) Deprecate/shutdown gas-only car factories, build hybrid factories with an
upgrade roadmap to plugin-hybrid and eventually EV. Then make all models and
all trim levels (from base to premium) hybrid as a starting point

2) Continue using gas-only car factories to get more ROI and profit, use shady
tactics that either secretly violate EPA regulations or at best comply with
the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Make a few hybrid
factories to profit from the eco-friendly market.

Look at the new car market today, it's clear which option the car companies
picked.

~~~
lutorm
This is a curious statement given that both this and the VW violations pertain
to _diesel_ -powered vehicles, not gasoline ones (hybrid or not).

