Opinion ID: 426344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-24 Months/24,000 Miles

Text: 34 Because Congress was also deeply concerned with the anticompetitive effects such broad warranty coverage might have on the aftermarket parts industry, 35 it substantially contracted the vehicle manufacturers' responsibility after the first 24 months or 24,000 miles to cover the catalytic converter, thermal reactor, or other component installed    for the sole or primary purpose of reducing vehicle emissions. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7541(b). EPA's regulations similarly limit the manufacturers' responsibilities after the first 24 months or 24,000 miles to cover only those nonconformities resulting from the failure of components which have been installed in or on the vehicle for the sole or primary purpose of reducing vehicle emissions   . 40 C.F.R. Sec. 85.2103(a)(3) (1982). But in defining the remedy that would make this warranty effective, EPA also makes the manufacturer responsible for: 35 All other components which must be adjusted, repaired or replaced to enable a component repaired or replaced under paragraph (a)(1) of this section to perform properly. 36 40 C.F.R. Sec. 85.2107(a)(2) (1982). 36 Petitioners claim that this remedy goes beyond the remedial power Congress has authorized and assert that the net result will be to reduce, not increase, competition in sales of aftermarket repair parts. 37 We think EPA's interpretation is consistent with the statute, and therefore should be upheld. If the warranty is to mean anything, it must cover secondary parts which fail because of a failed primary part. 37 Similarly, 38 [i]t makes no sense to replace a failed part, such as a catalyst, which fails as a result of a second component, such as a spark plug, and not to replace the second component to prevent the replaced part from failing promptly for the same reason its predecessor did. 39 45 Fed.Reg. 34837 (May 22, 1980), JA 417. 38 No emission control device operates in a vacuum, and often mere replacement of a device or system will not be enough to prevent a vehicle from polluting. 39 Congress previously confronted this dilemma and left it to EPA to determine what repairs would be necessary to make the performance warranty an effective component of its comprehensive pollution control program. 40 0] While Congress wanted EPA to reduce the anticompetitive effects of the warranty after 24 months or 24,000 miles, 41 it did not intend for EPA to render the warranty obligation completely meaningless. Congress understood the distinction between the scope of the warranty and the scope of necessary repairs, 42 and EPA has properly implemented this congressional understanding by requiring all repairs necessary to make parts installed primarily for emission control work effectively. 43 40 Furthermore, EPA has responded--and we think adequately--to criticisms that this expansive repair obligation is inconsistent with the goal of reducing the anticompetitive potential of the performance warranty. First, EPA quite reasonably indicated that the lack of warranty coverage, in all likelihood, would not benefit the independent aftermarket parts industry. 44 45 Fed.Reg. 34838 (May 22, 1980), JA 418. Second, it indicated that the provision could be procompetitive if it discouraged warranty outlets from performing unnecessary repairs, and thus fraudulently increasing their sales. Id. Both responses are theoretically plausible ones, and they indicate that EPA has properly considered and responded to claims that its regulation is inconsistent with the thrust of the 1977 amendments. We therefore affirm. 45