Opinion ID: 184485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: California's OBD Regulations

Text: California first required automobile manufacturers to install OBDs in new cars sold in the state in 1988--two years before Congress mandated the installation of OBDs in carssold nationwide.7 It revised those regulations for use in 1994model year cars (the OBD II regulations). The stateexpects the OBD II devices to detect misfires and monitorcatalyst efficiency, evaporative systems, exhaust gas recirculation systems, fuel systems, oxygen sensors, secondary airsystems, and electronic emission-related powertrain components, among other things. See 15 Cal. Reg. L. Rep. 124, 126(1995). California has long been concerned that OBDs could easilybe disabled, altered, or replaced with parts manufactured byindependent parts manufacturers in the aftermarket, negating their ability to restrict automobile emissions. For example, the state has evinced concern that the computer chipsthat control the OBDs could be replaced by performancechips that reset the operating parameters of the emissionscontrols imposed by the devices on automobile exhaust systems. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 48,276 (describing the effects ofperformance chips). In 1989 California's Air ResourcesBoard (CARB) staff reported that [a]ftermarket 'performance chips' ... usually alter the emission control systemcalibration and in many cases disable emission control equipment. 8 The report recommended that anti-tampering features be required for OBDs so that such chips could only besubstituted with difficulty. Id. In 1992, CARB's staff reiterated its concern that there are no straightforward meansof regulating the use of aftermarket chips, and accordinglyexplained that the OBD II requires vehicle computer monitoring systems to be tamper-proof to help ensure that suchchips cannot be used. Letter from CARB to William Reilly, Administrator, EPA 4 (Sept. 15, 1992). The state there__________ 7 See S. Rep. No. 101-228 at 97, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N.2285, 3482. 8 CARB, Revisions to Malfunction and Diagnostic SystemRequirements Applicable to 1994 and Later New CaliforniaPassenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicleswith Feedback Fuel Control Systems 21 (1989) (hereinafterCARB Report). fore required that [c]omputer-coded engine operating parameters not be alterable without specialized tools andprocedures. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, s 1968.1(d) (1993). California also required all reprogrammable computer codesystem[s] to include proven write-protect features. Id. In addition, the state briefly insisted that manufacturers include enhanced tamper protection strategies including dataencryption using methods to ensure the encryption algorithm, and write protect features requiring electronic accessto an off-site computer maintained by the manufacturer intheir OBDs beginning with the 1999 model-year. Cal. CodeRegs. tit. 13, s 1968.1(d) (1995). CARB recently deleted theoff-site computer requirement from the state's regulations. CARB, Initial Statement of Reasons For Proposing Rulemaking 24-25 (1996). Consequently, as of September 25, 1997, California's revised anti-tampering regulations read: Computer-coded engine operating parameters shall not be changeable without the use of specialized tools and procedures (e.g., soldered or potted computer components or sealed (or soldered) computer enclosures). Subject to Executive Officer approval, manufacturers may exempt from this requirement those product lines which are unlikely to require protection. Criteria to be evaluated in making an exemption include, but are not limited to, current availability of performance chips, high performance capability of the vehicle, and sales volume. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, s 1968.1(d) (1997). While California amended its anti-tampering regulations,the state also sought a waiver of federal preemption for itsOBD II regulations. On June 14, 1995, CARB requested theEPA Administrator to grant a waiver of preemption forCalifornia's regulations as they stood in 1995. After noticeand comment, EPA concluded that California had compliedwith the relevant requirements of the Clean Air Act, andgranted CARB's application for a waiver. See CaliforniaState Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards, 61 Fed.Reg. 53,371 (1996). Petitioners sought review of the EPA Administrator's decision in this court, pursuant to section307(b)(2) of the Act. See CAA s 307(b), 42 U.S.C.s 7607(b)(2).