Defeat device

Evaluation and Development control room in the EPA's Motor Vehicle Test Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973

A defeat device, as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is any apparatus that unduly reduces the effectiveness of emissions control systems under conditions a vehicle may reasonably be expected to experience.^[1][2] Defeat devices are also forbidden in the European Union, and the use of a defeat device is subject to a penalty.^[3][4]

The term originates from the US Clean Air Act,^[5] and refers to anything that prevents an emissions control system from working.^[6] The EPA has taken numerous enforcement actions against companies that have deliberately, or through error or negligence, allowed defeat devices to interfere with pollution controls at power plants, in motor vehicles, and elsewhere. Aftermarket car parts and accessories, such as exhaust or fuel system modification components, which affect emissions, are considered defeat devices.^[6]

Timeline

1970s

Auto emissions inspection in Norwood, Ohio in 1975

In 1973 the Big 3 Detroit automakers, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company and General Motors, along with import brand Toyota, were ordered by the EPA to stop using ambient temperature switches which disabled pollution controls at low temperatures. The automakers agreed to cease using the ambient temperature switches in the way the EPA said was in violation of the Clean Air Act, while insisting that the switches were not 'defeat devices' intended to evade rules.^[7] The auto companies said the devices improved engine efficiency and actually reduced pollution.^[8] The EPA order affected 2 million 1973 model year cars slated for production, but did not require a recall of cars already on the road.^[8]

Also in 1973, Volkswagen agreed to a settlement with the EPA, in which they admitted no wrongdoing and paid a $120,000 fine, for failing to disclose the existence of two temperature sensing switches that affected emissions function.^[9] In their 1974 model year application to the EPA, VW disclosed the presence of the switches and the EPA rejected them, so they were removed.^[9]

1990s

1995 Cadillac Seville disengaged emissions controls whenever heat or air conditioning was on

In 1995, General Motors was ordered to recall 470,000 model year 1991 through 1995 Cadillacs and pay an $11 million fine for programming the car's electronic control unit (ECU) to enrich the fuel mixture any time the car's air conditioning or cabin heat was operating, since the EPA tests are conducted with those systems turned off.^[10] The richer fuel mixture was needed to address an engine stalling problem, resulting in emissions of up to 10 grams per mile of carbon monoxide (CO), nearly three times the limit of 3.4 g/mi. While the EPA and Justice Department contended that GM intentionally violated emissions standards, GM said that was "a matter of interpretation." Besides the fine, the second largest Clean Air Act penalty to date in 1995, GM had to spend up to $34 million for anti-pollution programs and recall 470,000 Cadillac 4.9 liter Eldorados, Fleetwoods, DeVilles, and Sevilles.^[10] The largest civil penalty under the Clean Air Act was $11.1 million paid by Louisiana-Pacific lumber and paper company.^[10]

In 1996, Honda reached an agreement with the EPA to extend the warranties and offer free services for 1.6 million 1995 Civics and 1996–1997 model year Acuras, Accords, Civics, Preludes, and Odysseys, because Honda had disabled an engine misfire warning light that would have otherwise directed drivers to seek repairs for the misfires. Honda was required to spend a total of $267 million on the warranties, service, pollution reduction projects, and $12.6 million in civil penalties.^[11]

Also in 1996, Ford reached a consent decree to spend $7.9 million to address a defeat device on 60,000 1997 model year Econoline vans which used a "sophisticated electronic control strategy designed to enhance fuel economy", disabling NOx emissions controls while the vans were driven at highway speeds, a circumstance not occurring during lab testing to verify emissions control compliance.^[11]

In 1998, the EPA announced fines totaling $83.4 million against seven heavy truck manufacturers, the largest fine to date, which evaded testing by shutting down emissions controls during highway driving while appearing to be in compliance during lab testing.^[12] The seven, Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Mack Trucks, Navistar International, Renault Trucks, and Volvo Trucks, also agreed to spend more than $1 billion to correct the problem.^[13] The trucks used engine ECU software to engage pollution controls during the 20-minute lab tests to verify compliance with the Clean Air Act, but then disable the emissions controls during normal highway cruising, emitting up to three times the maximum allowed NOx pollution.^[13]

2000s

In 2000 the German motorcycle magazine Motorrad reported about a defeat device delivered with the BMW F 650 GS. BMW responded in issuing an improved injection as of 2001 and calling back the models from the previous year.^[14][15]

2010s

In late 2015, the EPA discovered that software used in millions of Volkswagen Group turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engines included features intended to produce misleading results during laboratory emissions testing.^[16]

Notes

References

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (October 22, 1998), Mack Trucks Diesel Engine Settlement