p. 1 

# OAR Box 1190 Prepped by Candice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 32 ) I V-A- 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:50 AM

Sheet 32 of 106-. < \ P. 2

MEM A WAIVE R HEARIN G TESTIMON YOUTLIN E I . Timin g A . Whe n shoul d waive rb e applie d for ? 1 . Must b e applie d fo ran d receive d BEFOR E enforcement . Californi a illegall ybega n it s rulemakin g o n OB D I I i n 198 9 before i t ha d receive d a waive rofSectio n 209(a) , an d ha s bee n illegall yamendin g an d enforcin g it s regulation s eve r since . 2 . 

### II . Unti l a 209(b ) waive ri s granted , th e 209(a ) prohibitio n o n th e

state' s enforcemen t ofinconsisten t standard s i s i n effect . Californi a has n o lega l authorityt o enforc e it s inconsisten t standards , an d EP

Ashoul d not allowi t to . Sectio n 209(b ) Waive rAnalysi s A . OB D i s a standar d » 1 . OB D i s not jus t a n enforcemen t procedure , it' s a standard . Th e statut e says "standard s fo rth e contro l ofemissions, " no t jus t emission s limits . Sectio n 209(b) . OB D i s a standard withou t whic h a newvehicl e cannot b e certified . A s such , al l thre e prong s ofth e Sectio n 209(b ) waive rtes t mus t b e considered . B . Protectivenes s hearin g wa s arbitrar y & capriciou s - 1 . CAR B di d not conside rth e issue s raise d byth e aftermarke t regardin g th e nee d fo ranti-tampering , acces s an d informatio n availabilityrequirement s o rcompetitiv e concerns . 2 . CAR B di d not conside rth e consistenc yo fit s propose d regulatio n wit h provision s ofth e Clea n Ai rAct an d othe r federa l law .

E" d E D Q XOJ lN3_l b WdZ*:2 0 S_ wE TID O < i

# I P. 3

C . Californi a ha s no t demonstrate d a compellin g nee d - 1 . Th e stat e has faile d t o implemen t it s I/ M progra m an d t o identif ywh ythi s progra m i s insufficien t t o mee t it s compellin g need . 2 . Encryption , pottin g an d solderin g ofcompute rchi p dat a i s no t necessar yt o meet extraordinar

yan d compellin g conditions . D . Consistency wit h 202(a) - 1 . Anti-Tamperin g i s inconsisten t wit h 202(m)(4 ) an d 202(m)(5 ) and , therefore , wit h 202(a) . Where Congres s ha s mad e a findin g an d mandate d that a particula rgrou p need s greate r protection , as i n Section s 202(m)(4 ) an d (5) , EPAcanno t gran t a waive rt o a Californi a rul e whic h i s inconsisten t wit h thes e requirements . 2 . EP Aha s state d th e tes t fo r202(a ) consistency : "California' s standard s an d accompanyin g enforcemen t procedure s ar e inconsisten t wit h Sectio n 202(a ) i f(1 ) there i s inadequat e lea d tim e t o permi t th e developmen t o ftechnolog ynecessar y t o meet thos e requirement , givin g appropriat e consideratio n t o th e cos t o

fcomplianc e withi n tha t tim e frame , o r(2 ) th e federa l an d Californi a tes t procedure s impos e inconsisten t certificatio n requirement s s o as*tp make a manufacturer

. unable to meet both sets of requirements

within the same test vehicle." See, e.g., 4 3 Fed . Reg . £6371 , 2637 3 (Ma y12 , 1981) . a . Inconsistenc

yi s show n here becaus e th e sam e tes t vehicl e canno t meet th e Californi a an d federa l standard s sinc e Californi a demand s encryptio n an d solderin g ofth e compute rchi p i n OB D I I an d CA A Sectio n 202(m)(4 ) demand s tha t acces s t o th e OB D syste m b e availabl e i n th e federa l vehicle .

fr'd £ 3 d XO J 1KG- H Wd8fr:2 0 QE>. ET1D 0