p. 1



# OAR Box 1190 Prepped byCandice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 36 ) IV-A- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

Printed 5/5/20089:13:50AM

Sheet 36 of 106P. 2

TESTIMON

YO F TH E AUTOMOTIVE PART S REBUILDER S ASSOCIATION

AND AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE REBUILDER S ASSOCIATION

ONTH E REQUES T FROMTH E CALIFORNI AAI R RESOURCE S BOARD FORASECTION209(b ) WAIVE R FORIT S ON-BOARD-DIAGNOSTI C I I REGULATION S

OCTOBE R 17 , 199 5 (Thi s testimon

ywa s prepare d b

yMichae l J . Conlon , lega l counse l t o bot hAPRAan

d AERA . Mr . Conlo n woul d normall yhav e come t o testif yhimself . However , becaus e APRAi s conducting it s boar d meetin g an

d trad e showthi s week , Mr . Conlo n i s unabl e t o b e here . Aaro n Low e o f th e Automotiv e Part s & Accessorie s Associatio n ha s bee n aske d t o read thi s statemen t fo r him. ) Th e Automotiv e Part s Rebuilder s Associatio n (APRA ) an d th e Automotiv e Engin e Rebuilder s Associatio n (AERA ) appreciat e th e opportunit yt o presen t testimon yo n whethe r EPAshoul d gran t a waive r t o th e Stat e o f Californi a unde r Sectio n 209(b ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t fo r it s On-Board-Diagnosti c I I Regulations . APRAi s a n internationa l trad e associatio n fo r businesse s whic hrebuil d moto r vehicl e part s (othe r tha n engines ) fo r resal e an d reuse . I t ha s ove r 1,90 0 members . AERAi s th e internationa l clearing hous e fo r engin e rebuilding specification s an

d machin e shop information . It s ove r 3,75 0 member s includ e rebuilder s o f ligh t duty , heav yduty , industrial , highperformanc e an d marin e interna l combustio n engines . Moto r vehicl e part s hav e bee n rebuil t fo r wel l ove r fift y year s an

d rebuilder s ar e among th e pioneer s o f busines s ecology . Rebuilding i s th e ultimat e for mo f recycling . Unlik e mer e reus e o f recyclabl e materials , i t extend s produc t lif e an d save s mor e o f th e energy , material s an d labo r tha t wen t int o originall ymanufacturin g th e product .P. 3

Bot hAPRAan

d AER Aoppos e California' s regues t fo r a waiver . W e believ e tha t th e tampering provisio n i n th e OB D I I regulation s i s no t consisten t wit hSectio n 202(a ) o f th e Federa l Clea n Ai r Act . Moreover , implementatio n o f thi s provisio n wil l severel yan d unnecessaril ylimi t th e numbe r o f servic e facilitie s wher e consumer s ma yhav e emission s relate d repair s made . Th e resultan t increas e i n inconvenienc e an d expens e wil l caus e consumer s t o delay makin g necessaryrepairs , thu s reducing th e effectivenes s o f th e OB D program . Finally , th e provisio n directl ycontradict s clea r Congressiona l inten t tha t OBD system s no t b e use d t o preven t independen t servic e facilitie s fro mperformin g emissio n relate d repairs . Amon g th e regulation s t o b e issue d unde r Sectio n 202(a ) i s on e unde r Sectio n 202(m)(5 ) whic hrequire s th e vehicl e manufacture r t o provid e t o th e vehicl e servic e industry"an yan d al l informatio n neede d t o mak e us e o f th e emissio n contro l diagnostic s system prescribe d unde r thi s subsectio n an d suc hothe r informatio n includin g instruction s fo r making emissio n relate d diagnosi s an d repairs. " Thi s provisio n i s broad an d all-inclusive . Informatio n ma yonl yb e withhel d fo r on e reason , tha t is , "the protectio n o f method s o r processe s entitle d t o protectio n a s trad e secret s unde r Sectio n 208(c ) o f th e Act. " Denia l o f informatio n t o th e servic e industryt o preven t possibl e tampering i s no t permitte d o r eve n condone d —n o matte r ho wwell-intentioned . Sectio n (d ) o f th e Californi a regulation , title d "Tampering Protection, " impose s blanke t restriction s o n th e fre e availabilit y o f informatio n i n OB D I I system s withou t specifying ho wsuc hP. 4

restriction s ar e necessaryt o protec t trad e secrete d method s o r processe s an

d withou t requiring vehicl e manufacturer s t o demonstrat e suc ha necessity . I n fact , th e Californi a regulatio n provide s n o justificatio n o f an ysor t fo r th e restriction s o n acces s i t requires . Th e regulatio n actuall yimplie s tha t informatio n ca n b e denie d fo r almos t an

yreaso n —a t th e discretio n o f th e vehicl e manufacture r —becaus e i t allow s manufacturer s t o exemp t themselve s from

th e protectio n feature s fo r reason s relatin g t o chi p availability , performanc e o f th e vehicl e an d sale s volume . Non e o f thes e relat e t o trad e secre t protection . I n it s informatio n acces s regulation , writte n pursuan t t o Sectio n 202(a) , EPAha s instructe d vehicl e manufacturer s t o provid e dat a streaminformation , bi-directiona l contro l capabilit yan d reprogrammin g capabilit yt o th e servic e secto r unde r certai n conditions . Th e onl yinformatio n whic hwa s totall ywithhel d from th e aftermarke t wa s recalibratio n information . However , i n al l case s EP Aonl yallowe d informatio n t o b e withhel d o r restricte d becaus e th e manufacturer s claime d tha t otherwis e a secre t metho d o r proces s woul d b e disclosed . Byrequirin g enhance d tampe r protectio n strategie s fo r OB D I I systems , including dat a encryptio n an d writ e protec t features , withou t limitin g suc hprotectio n t o thos e necessaryt o protec t secre t method s an

d processes , Californi a ha s adopte d a standar d whic hi s inconsisten t wit hth e informatio n availabilit y requirement s o f Sectio n 20 2 an d EPA' s own regulations . Congres s chos e no t t o allo winformatio n t o b e withhel d a s a mean s o fP. 5

addressing suppose d tampering problems . And EP Aha s n o authorit y t o besto wgreate r right s o n California . Therefore , a waive r ma y no t b e granted . California' s restriction s wil l als o hampe r repai r o f emission s relate d defects . Bylimiting accessibilit yt o th e informatio n neede d byth e independen t marke t t o mak e thes e repairs , i t i s assuring tha t whe n (an d if ) th e repair s ar e mad e the ywil l b e mor e inconvenien t an

d expensiv e fo r consumers . Fo r tha t reaso n consumer s wil l delayhaving th e servic e don e o r bal k a t payin g high price s i f th e situatio n mandate s repairs . Limitin g th e numbe r o f servic e outlet s an

d increasing consume r cost s i s directl ycontrary t o Congressiona l intent . Finally , w e woul d remind EPAtha t i t ha s previousl ywithdrawn it s own anti-tampering regulation s relating t o OB D systems . A t th e time i t di d s o i t stated , "EP Ai s continuing t o revie wit s polic y concern s regardin g tampering . EPAma yi n th e futur e determin e tha t i t i s appropriat e t o promulgat e ne wregulation s t o addres s thes e concerns. " T o ou r knowledg e EPAha s no t ye t decide d whethe r i t i s possibl e t o adop t anti-tampering regulation s consisten t wit hth e requirement s o f Sectio n 202(m ) o r whethe r suc hregulation s ar e eve n necessary . Therefore , sinc e EPAha s stil l no t resolve d thes e issues , i t canno t gran t a waive r t o Californi a fo r rule s whic h woul d usur p thi s authority . APRAand AERAtherefor e respectfull ysubmi t tha t EP Ama yno t legall ygran t th e waiver , an d therefor e reques t tha t i t b e denied . Thank yo u fo r you r time an d attention .