Questions to the FCA GROUP Ahead of the EMIS Hearing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A 013189 15.12.2016 Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector Questions to the FCA GROUP ahead of the EMIS hearing No. Question 1 Fiat Chrysler have been accused by the German authorities of using an illegal cheat device to switch off exhaust treatment systems. The KBA found that emissions treatment system was being throttled back after 22 minutes. The normal duration of the NEDC type approval test is about 20 minutes. However, you refused to appear before the KBA to explain and justify the defeat strategy used. Moreover, the Italian Ministry for Transport has said that the cars conform to current emissions rules and do not contain defeat devices. Could you please explain the rationale of the emission control strategy used and how this “meet[s] the objective of reducing NOx emissions and at the same time preserve the engine from damage and the occupants from safety risks”? We do not believe that it is appropriate for us to comment on the details of a matter which is the subject of mediation between the competent homologation Authority and the KBA and of litigation initiated by Deutsche Umwelthilfe. In general terms we can only reiterate that, as confirmed by the competent homologation Authority, the 500X complies with all applicable emission regulations. 500X meets the relevant Euro 6 limit in the regulatory NEDC test and does not detect that it is being tested. Contrary to allegations, 500X does not deactivate its emission control system after 22 minutes from cranking, but uses control strategies, which modulate the emissions control system solely to protect the integrity of the engine and the safety of the vehicle occupants in accordance with applicable regulations. FCA has provided evidence for the reasons of such control strategies, based on the features of the employed technology, the experimental evidence acquired through the extensive testing activities carried out at the time of introduction of the Euro 6 calibrations as well as for their subsequent update and problems encountered in the field. Our experience in conducting these activities justified the adoption of engine- protective strategies. Whether these strategies are justified is the only subject that we are aware of on which the KBA apparently does not agree with the competent vehicle homologation Authority. This is therefore a judgment as to whether another set of engine protective strategies would have been more appropriate at the time the vehicles were homologated. Any comparison of 500X to vehicles, which detect that are being tested is therefore 1 No. Question factually wrong and unacceptable. Allegations that FCA refused to cooperate with the KBA are also incorrect. FCA attended several meetings at the KBA’s request. FCA provided extensive information and explanations to the KBA since November 2015. The Italian Homologation Authority repeatedly advised FCA and the KBA that it had exclusive jurisdiction on the matter and eventually insisted that its jurisdiction be respected and that FCA work only with it in testing the relevant vehicle to confirm its compliance with applicable requirements. FCA respected the competent Authority’s determination both as to its exclusive jurisdiction as well as to the outcome of testing. As announced on February 2, 2016, FCA has undertaken voluntary steps to improve the emissions performance of its vehicles. In that context FCA has updated its Euro 6 calibrations, including that of 500X. The updated calibration, which ensures an improved and more stable emissions performance, is now not only implemented in all new 500X sold, but also available to all owners of 500X sold in the past at no charge. Therefore KBA’s questions relate to a calibration that is no longer used in vehicles currently sold. 2 Regulation 715/2007 provides for three derogations on the general ban on the use of defeat devices: a) the need for the device is justified in terms of protecting the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle; b) the device does not function beyond the requirements of engine starting; c) the conditions are substantially included in the test procedures for verifying evaporative emissions and average tailpipe emissions. What is your understanding of the definition of defeat devices and the ban, which is imposed on their use? How would you distinguish them from the so-called cycle beating or defeat strategies? Are those one covered by the definition in the Art. 5(2) of the 715/2007 Regulation? Do you consider that switching off the emissions control system of a vehicle after operating the vehicle for 22 minutes of (slightly exceeding the 20-minute duration of the NEDC test) must be considered a defeat device? If not, which of the derogations outlined above do you consider to apply in these situations? A device which detects that the vehicle is being tested and alters its emission performance for the bench test is not covered by the exceptions provided in Art. 5 (a) – (c) of Regulation 715/2007. Our vehicles do not detect that they are being tested. They also do not deactivate the emission control systems after 22 minutes after cranking, contrary to allegations. The emissions control system is modulated to protect the engine and the safety of the vehicles occupants. Modulation of the emission control system for engine and safety protection reason is not only allowed by 2 No. Question applicable rules, but indispensable. The derogation is set forth in letter a) of Art. 5(2) of Regulation 715/2007. In modern electronically controlled diesel engines, numerous sensors, software calibrations and algorithms must be used to modulate and control multiple aspects of the engine operation. This includes the operation of the emission control system. EGR and NSC management requires modulation by an electronic control unit employing software and/or hardware that embodies a control strategy. Examples include strategies that customize the management of emission control systems to, for instance, barometric pressure, intake manifold pressure, engine revolutions per minute, fuel rate (actual or average), ambient temperature, actual or inferred gear ratio, intake manifold temperature, engine coolant temperature, oil temperature, or any other inputs. Given that no diesel engine can function indefinitely under an intensive operation of the emission control system without exposing the engine to damage and the occupants of the vehicle to safety risks, strategies justified in terms of protecting the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle are permitted. Regulation 715/2007 does not contain a definition of terms like “engine damage or accident” or “safe operation of the vehicle” or “effectiveness of the emission control system” or “normal vehicle operation and use”, nor requires or prohibits the use of specified parameters in the modulation of the emission control system. Until the VW case, no further specification of EU regulatory limits, nor guidance from regulators, nor enforcement precedents capable of providing direction as to the strategies that could be considered justified were available. In that context manufacturers have been exercising their best judgment and their technical discretion to develop control strategies that respect emissions regulatory limits and at the same time preserve the engine from damage and the occupants from safety risks. These determinations were based on considerations which take into account, on a case by case basis, the expected performance of the vehicle and of the various components of the emission control system, the impact of their operation on the engine and the likely risks related to the functionality of the engine and the safety of occupants. Often such assessments were subject to refinement over time, based on field experience and additional testing. Only in recent times novel interpretations of the applicable rules surfaced, so restrictive as to contradict the literal meaning of the relevant regulatory provisions. 3 On 07.06.2016, EU Observer quoted Commissioner Bieńkowska saying that the “car companies have not acted in good faith”. She further stated that “there is a lack of enforcement on a national level that had led to an environment in which carmakers believed they could get away with it”. How do 3 No. Question you understand these statements? Do you feel you did not act in good faith with regard to the ban of defeat devices? Our vehicles comply with all applicable emission regulations and are certified by the competent authorities. We made good faith determinations based on applicable emission regulations and the results of extensive testing activities as well as our genuine concerns as to the protection of the engine and of the safety of the vehicle occupants. They were made in compliance with applicable regulations. We fully support the EU’s efforts towards the adoption of a new testing procedure in order to bring it closer to real world driving conditions. Also, we advocate the prompt implementation of these new regulations. This will provide clarity for the customers and the industry. 4 Manufacturers are accused of not using the full potential of emission control systems of diesel-fuelled light duty vehicles on purpose, to increase the durability of the diesel particle filters. Would switching off the emission control and reduction systems result in a lower accumulation of ash and soot in the LDV's diesel particle filter? We do not believe that it is necessary to reduce the efficiency of the emissions control system to increase the life of the Diesel Particulate Filter (“DPF”). In new-generation diesel engines, low ash content oil are used and the DPF filters are designed from the beginning to take into account the maximum ash loading expected for the entire vehicle life time. FCA Emission Control System modulation does not have the goal to reduce the soot and ash accumulation in the filter, but is driven by the need to prevent and limit the formation of dangerous moist soot (rich of condensed hydrocarbons) that could create deposits leading to malfunctions of engine components (e.g.