p. 1



# OAR Box 1190 Prepped by Candice Davis



## Document

Number: 

# 38 ) IV-A-8 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:51 AM

Sheet 38 of 106P. 2 \ « . 1 

# U\^^h VH- S 

# ; STATEMEN T OFTH E AUTOMOTIV E PART

S & ACCESSORIE S ASSOCIATION , INC .

j 

### CONCERNIN G CAR B REQUES TFO R A SECTIO N 209 WAIVE R FO R ITS ON-BOAR D DIAGNOSTI C I I REGULATION S

PRESENTE D TO

1 

### TH E ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y! i i I 

### OCTOBE R 17,199 5 RE : DOCKE

TNO . A-90-2 8 !

i 

# iP. 3

Th e Automotiv

e Parts an d Accessories Associatio n appreciates th e opportunit y to provid e th e followin g testimon y regardin g whethe r EPA shoul d waive Federa l preemptio n pursuan t t o Sectio n 209(b ) o fth e Clea n Ai r Ac

t fo r California' s OB D I I regulations . APA A i s a trad e associatio n representin g ove r 1,70 0 manufacturers , manufacturer s representatives , distributor s an d retailers o fautomotiv

e parts an d services , sol d primaril y i n th e independen t aftermarket .

Th e automotiv

e aftermarke

t i s a $20 0 billio n industr y employin g wel l ove r 2 millio n people . B y havin g acces s t

o a wid e arra

y o fdeale r an d non-deale r service facilities a s wel l a s O E an d non O E replacemen t parts , U.S . ca r owner s enjo y th e mos

t convenien t an d affordabl e vehicl e service industr y i n th e world . APA

A believes tha

t th e anti-tamperin g provision s o fth e CAR B OB D I I amendments jeopardize s th e viabilit y o fth e competitiv

e aftermarke

t an d therefor

e i s o fgrea t concer n t

o ou r members .

A t th e outset , w e are surprised tha t CAR B has requested tha t it s waive r be considered a s a n in use enforcemen t procedur e rathe r tha n a n emission s standard . It i s unclea r t o us , a s t

o ho wa rul e whic h imposes rigorou s emission s equipmen t certificatio n requirements b y bot h CAR B an d EPA , ca n be considered a n enforcemen t procedure . Whil e a chec k o fth e OB D syste m a s par t o fa n I/ M progra m coul d be considered a n enforcemen t tool , th e actua l syste m an d it s requirements are directl y required t o contro l vehicl e pollutio n b y ensurin g th e prope r functionin g o fth e emission s contro l system . I n fact , CARB' s mai l out 93-3 8 whic h describes proposed revision s to th e OB D I I rule , does no t eve n mentio n enforcemen t a s th e primar y purpose o

fth e OB D system , but instead promote s i t a s a technology necessar y t o provid e "lifetim e in-use emission s reduction s fro m moto r vehicles. "

However , no

t withstandin g whethe r th e reques t i s considered a n emission s standard o rP. 4

enforcemen t procedure , th e Agenc y mus t rejec t th e waive r du e t

o th e critica l fac

t tha t th e anti tamperin g provision s o

fth e rul e are inconsistent wit h Sectio n 202(a ) o fth e Clea n Ai r Act .

As you r Agenc

y i s wel l aware , th e federa l an d Californi a requiremen t fo r th e installatio n o fne w sophisticated on-boar

d diagnosti c systems , capabl e o fmonitorin g nearl y al l function s o fth e vehicles ' emission s system , has bee n on e o fou r industry's greatest concerns . Whil e th e OB D system s wil l be o

fmajo r assistance t

o technician s i n quickly an d efficientl y findin g an d fixin g emission s relate d problems , it also wil l provid e increased opportunitie s fo r vehicl e manufacturer

s to contro l acces s b

y bot h th e service an d part s industr y t o th e entir

e emission s contro l system .

Thes e monopolisti c concern s were shared b y th e U.S . Congress durin g deliberation s ove r th e Clea n Ai r Ac

t an d le d t

o th e introductio n an d passag e o fprovisions , mainl y Sectio n 202(m)(4 ) an d (5) , intended t

o ensur e ful l acces s b

y th e independen t aftermarke t t o th e OB D system , as wel l a s al l informatio n necessar y t o perfor m emission s relate d repairs . Throug h enactmen t o f thes e provisions , Congress clearl y signaled tha t whil e th e OB D syste m wa s a critica l elemen t i n maintainin g th e performance o fth e emission s syste m in-use , th e syste m wa s no t to be used i n orde r to alleviate competitio n i n th e repai r industry . The n Senato r Alber t Gor e durin g Senat e floo r debate declared : "Ifw e are goin g t o mandate a ne

won-boar

d diagnosti c system , we mus t giv e consumer

s th e freedo m t

o choos e wher e the y wil l g o t

o hav e thes e system s maintained an d repaired. "

Hence , Sectio n 20 2 (m)(4 ) o fth e Clea n Ai r Ac

t states that : "(A

) any connector

s throug h whic h th e emissio n contro l diagnosti c syste m i s assesse d fo r inspection , diagnosis , service o r repai r shal l be standard an d uniform o n al l moto r vehicles an d moto r vehicl e engines an d (B ) acces s t oP. 5

th e emissio n contro l diagnosti c syste m throug h suc h connector s shal l be unrestricted an d shal l no t requir e an y acces s cod e o r an y device whic h i s only availabl e fro m a vehicl e manufacturer. "

Yet , th e Californi a OB D I I rul e provides tha t "th e computer-coded engin e operatin g paramete r shal l no t be changeabl e withou t th e use o fspecialized tool s an d procedures. " Th e Burea u requires manufacturer

s whic h use E/

E PROM s t

o "emplo y method s to dete r unauthorized reprogrammin g whic h ma y includ e copyrightabl e executabl e routines o r othe r methods. " Further , th e rul e provides tha

t beginnin g wit h th e 199 9 mode l year , "manufacturer s shal l includ e enhance d tampe r protectio n strategies includin g data encryptio n usin g method s to secur e th e encryptio n algorithm , an d write protec t feature requirin g electroni c acces s t o a n off-site compute r maintaine d b

y th e manufacturer. " Clearly , th e Boar

d has ignored Congressiona l concern s a s t o th e competitiv

e impac t o frestrictin g acces s to th e OB D system , choosin g instead to issu e rules whic h severel y narro wacces s t

o th e OB D system . CARB' s rules literall y place th e vehicles ' emission s syste m unde r loc k an d key , providin g only on e ke

y t o th e ca r companies-ou r direc t competitor . Suc h actio n does , what Congres s hoped the

y had prevente d i n th e Act , threaten s th e ca r owner s wit h th e possibilit

y o fa monopoly i n th e availabilit y o fvehicl e parts an d service .

What i s mor

e surprisin g i s tha

t th e Board , durin g deliberation s ove r th e adoptio n o fthes e requirements , recognize d th e anti-competitiv e impac t o fthes e provisions , but th e members resolved no

t t o addres s them . Boar

d membe r Dou g Vagi m state d durin g th e Decembe r 8,199 4 hearin g that " fo r the m (meanin g th e independen t aftermarket) to g o to manufactur e a par t tha t i s equa l t o mee t ou r regulation , the

y wil l alway

s hav e t o go bac k

t o tha t gatekeepe r (meanin g th e ca r company

) to as k permission....basicall y we are , throug h regulation , creatin g a pat h o fmor eP. 6

lik e a monopoly. " Ms . Lynne Edgerton , anothe r Boar d member , responded to thi s argumen t durin g th e debate declarin g tha t "i t i s simply th e case , i

t seem s t

o me , i n ou r economi c system , th e technologica l innovatio n i n on e secto r does impac t th e overal l competitiv

e structure . An d I don' t kno who wmuc h we ca n do abou t that . It' s sor t o flik e gravit y is. " Sh e wen t o n t

o conclud e tha t "I' m no t sur e tha t m y rol e here , i s t

o mak e sur e they'r e no t a monopoly. " APA

A submit s tha t whil e i t ma y no t b e th e ARB' s rol e t

o protec t agains t a monopoly, Sectio n 20 2 clearl y impose s th e responsibilit

y o n EP A no

t to gran t a waive r to an y CAR B rul e whic h coul d create a monopoly.

CAR B requirements regardin g th e installatio n o fprogram s o n car

s equipped wit h E/

E Flas h PROM s als o i s inconsisten t wit h Sectio n 202(m ) o fth e Act . Unde r CARB' s anti-tamperin g rules , a n independen t technicia n woul d no t only nee d t

o purchase th e equipmen t necessar y to download a progra m o n t o a PRO M fro m a C D Rom , bu t als o th e equipmen t necessar y to acces s th e ca r company compute r i n orde r to unloc k th e data fro m th e C D Rom . As w e state d above , th e Ac t specifies tha

t th e OB D syste m shoul d b e accessibl e withou t th e nee d fo r "an y acces s cod e o r any device whic h i s only availabl e fro m th e vehicl e manufacturer. " Certainly , ARB' s requiremen t violate s th e lette r ifno t th e spirit o

fth e law . I n addition , federa l service informatio n rules whic h requir

e ca r companies t

o provid e reprogrammin g capabilities t o independents , hav

e n o write protec

t requirement . It i s unclea r a s t o th e specia l nee d residin g i n Califomi a fo r establishin g a uniqu e reprogrammin g schem e whic h does no t exis t i n th e othe r 4 9 states . Th e onerou s cos

t imposed b

y th e establishmen t o

fdifferin g system s wil l b e born e no

t only b y ou r members , but als o th e vehicl e manufacturer s i n establishin g th e syste m an d ultimatel y th e ca r owne r i n procurin g service fo r thei r late mode l vehicle .

I n fact , there i s littl e actua l justificatio n fo r th e CARB' s anti-tamperin g provision s othe r tha n a unsubstantiated fea r tha t absen t a loc k

o n th e system , ca r owner s wil l attemp

t to tampe r wit h th eP. 7

syste m b y changin g vehicl e calibration s an d erasin g faul t codes . However , tamperin g certainl y i s no t a specia l Califomi a concer n an d i s addressed i n Sectio n 203(a ) o fth e Ac t whic h specificall y prohibit s any perso n fro m removin g o r renderin g inoperativ e any device o r elemen t o fdesig n installed o n o r i n a moto r vehicl e i n compliance wit h regulations . Had Congres s desire d t o permi t manufacturer

s th e opportunit

y t o loc k certai n area s o

fth e vehicl e fro m ca r owners , the y woul d hav

e included suc h a anti-tamperin g requiremen t a s par t o feithe r Sectio n 202(m ) o r 203(a) . They di d not .

CAR B furthe r appears t o justif y th e nee d fo r anti-tamperin g provision s du e t o futur e plan s t o replace curren t I/

M wit h OB D checks . Yet , EPA , i n it s lates t proposa l t

o mak e OB D check

s required a s par

t o fth e I/ M programs , provide

s certai n safeguard s fo r th e OB D system s i n orde r to preven t tampering . Specifically , th e proposa l woul d requir e tha t readines s codes be stored i n th e on-board compute r t o indicat e whe n th e diagnosti c syste m had completed al l monitorin g check s an d determine d tha

t al l monitored system s were functionin g properiy . Thi s wil l enabl e I/ M inspector s t o be certai n tha

t malfunctio n codes hav e no t merel y bee n cleared , withou t actua l repai r o fth e malfunction . Ifadopted , thi s requiremen t woul d appea r t o provid e sufficien t safeguard s fo r Califomi a I/ M program s withou t resortin g t o onerou s measures whic h woul d jeopardize competition . I n addition , a t leas t initially , since OB D check s wil l be required i n conjunctio n wit h th e curren t emission s testing , th e State an d federa l governmen t shoul d hav e th e opportunit

y t o determin e iftamperin g i s indeed a proble m o r simply a n assumptio n b y th e Board .

I n conclusion , APA

A strongly feel s tha

t CARB' s obsessio n wit h blockin g al l attempts b y individual s to tampe r wit h th e system s only wil l serv e t o increas e th e economi c valu e o fthes e bypass techniques to th e criminal . Th e anti-tamperin g provision s wil l promot e th e developmen t o ftw o monopolies : on e fo r th e vehicl e manufacturers , wh o wil l hav e successfull y eliminate dP. 8

, . . •

many legitimate aftermarke t producer

s o fpart s an d th e secon d bein g th e sophisticated individual s whic h possess th e tim e an d knowledg e t o brea k th e codes whic h CAR B has placed i n thei r path . Thos e lef

t behin d ar

e th e legitimat

e companies , wh o wil l fin d th e pat h t o participatin g i n th e marke

t too difficul t an d expensive . Ultimately , th e majo r lose r wil l be th e ca r owner , wh o wil l experience highe r parts an d service prices du e t o CARB' s fea r o

fth e unknown . Congress had th e foresigh t an d th e inclinatio n t o preven t attempts b

y OE s to buil d fortresses aroun d thei r system s suc h tha t competitio n woul d b

e snuffed out . Unde r Sectio n 209 , EPA i s obligated to ensur

e tha t any state action s remai n consisten t wit h thi s stron g pro-competitio n mandate . Therefore , EPA has n o choic e bu t t o rejec t th e waive r reques

t i n it s presen t form . Than k yo u agai n fo r thi s opportunit y t o testif y an d I a m availabl e to answe r any question s regardin g m

y statement .