European Union Empowered to Recall Vehicles Over Emission Violations

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Updated rules have granted the European Commission the ability to not only check cars for emissions compliance, but also issue recalls for those found in violation.

Previously, recalls were required to be issued by the EU member nations that initially certified the vehicles. But the European Commission claims this tactic has allowed automakers to easily circumvent regulatory mandates, making large-scale recalls slower to progress for almost a decade. Following Volkswagen’s diesel emissions scandal in 2015, the EU ramped up efforts to consolidate regulatory powers after the United States was the one that initially busted the German automaker for cheating during pollution tests.

The European Commission will now be able to enact recalls on its own authority and fine automakers up to 30,000 euros ($35,725 USD) per vehicle. Those in broad opposition of giving Brussels additional authority have criticized the changes, while those supportive of the EU claim it will be able to deliver environmental justice more swiftly than individual nations.

According to Reuters, the European Commission will also be able revoke roadworthiness certifications. That’s likely to make the automotive industry more vulnerable to compensation claims from European customers purchasing vehicles that are later taken off the road. Rather than taking several smaller hits over a longer timeline, European manufacturers would now be subjected to one colossal lump sum. The Commission has already invested roughly €7 million into two testing labs for conducting vehicle tests.

However, individual nations will still be required to conduct tests on models already in circulation to ensure they’re eligible for continued certification. In fact, the EU suggested this will be an important aspect of uncovering vehicles utilizing defeat devices that are primarily aimed at beating preliminary emissions assessments (typically conducted in labs) but are less adept at fooling on-road appraisals.

[Images: Quinta/Shutterstock]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
10 of 20 comments
  • Gasser Gasser on Sep 01, 2020

    Don’t forget that Boris Johnson swore to the British that belonging to the EU was costing them 350 million pounds a week which would be spent on their ailing National Health Service. That’s about $20 Billion per year, or now what Britain will probably lose in a month post Brexit. P.S. Boris, don’t ask the U.S. for a handout, we have our own problems.

    • See 5 previous
    • Highdesertcat Highdesertcat on Sep 03, 2020

      @Inside Looking Out Arthur Dailey, " there are always going to be some who are against universal public health "... ... after reading your post I felt compelled to tell you that MY brother-in-law, married to the older of my two sisters, is a natural-born Canadian citizen, and..... ....HE prefers the US health system over anything Canada has to offer. He's been there, done that. Less drama with the US system, less wait time, far greater selection of doctors and specialists, and when he needs medical checkups or attention, he actually travels from Vancouver, BC, to the Seattle/Poulsbo/Desmoines area to see their doctor. I think you missed the boat with your conclusion, and fell into the water with your observation. You're in over your head and sinking. People from all over the world travel to the Mayo Clinic (in Scottsdale and elsewhere) for the better treatment and surgeries. Hell, the Mayo and other centers will even treat a patient if they do not have insurance coverage. Some people, given up for dead in Canada, undergo treatment at US medical centers and live many, many more decades after that. My brother-in-law was one of those given up for dead. But he is still alive and well today. I hope you or yours will NEVER need real-serious medical services because you can't get that under a Universal Health Care system, anywhere. Under such a system it is less expensive to let a patient die than to fork over $50-$60K for surgery and/or treatments.

  • ThomasSchiffer ThomasSchiffer on Sep 02, 2020

    It is about time that the EU[SSR] collapses. In order for that to happen, Germany needs to collapse. Merkel is doing a good job in that regard.

    • See 1 previous
    • Inside Looking Out Inside Looking Out on Sep 02, 2020

      @karonetwentyc There cannot be EUSSR without Russia. Russia must join EU first. Otherwise it may not collapse.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next