Two Maine Right to Repair Working Group members have requested a one-year postponement to comply with the telematics portion of a “right to repair” law that would require a standardized access platform beginning Jan. 5.

Maine voters approved an R2R referendum in November 2023 and as a result, an R2R law, LD 1677, was later passed by the legislature. The working group was formed as part of the new law.

The members’ request for delayed compliance came as part of the group’s Dec. 6 draft recommendations to the legislature, which outline suggested responsibilities and functions of a future state Motor Vehicle Right to Repair Commission.

A public hearing on the recommendations will be held at noon on Dec. 20 in person and via Zoom.

Group member Elizabeth Frazier, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators) and nearly all major automakers, asked as part of the recommendations that the term “standardized access platform” be defined in the law. Auto Innovators also recommends OEM compliance with the telematics portion of the law not be contingent on implementing a specific technological solution.

“The Alliance recommends that the section be ‘technologically neutral’ with respect to compliance, such that compliance would be determined based not on whether a specific technology is implemented but on whether data is provided as required by the law,” the draft recommendations report states. “Both the Alliance and Tesla recommend that implementation of Section 1810(6) (the telematics provision) be postponed.

“The Alliance and Tesla contend that until Section 1810(2) is amended to clarify that the entity will not maintain, provide access to, or
otherwise exercise control over vehicle data, it is uncertain what vehicle manufacturers must do to comply with Section 1810(6). The Alliance and Tesla recommend that implementation of Section 1810(6) be delayed until one year after any amendments to Section 1810.”

The draft report also includes what the group members recommend the commission’s four major responsibilities will be:

1. 1. “Monitoring and assessing implementation of the right-to-repair law, including manufacturers’ compliance with the law’s requirements;
   2. “Attempting to informally resolve any complaints from owners and independent repair facilities alleging a manufacturer’s non-compliance with the law, and, if a complaint cannot be resolved, considering whether to refer the matter to the Attorney General for enforcement action;
   3. “Designating one or more technical experts with whom the Attorney General may consult in assessing enforcement referrals and
      maintaining enforcement actions; and
   4. “Making an annual report to the legislative committee of jurisdiction, the Governor, and the Attorney General describing the entity’s activities during the preceding year, identifying any implementation or compliance issues that it encountered, and recommending any amendments to the statute, including amendments providing the entity with additional authority, or additional legislation, to address any implementation or compliance issues. There was consensus that the entity should not be a state agency but instead should be an
      independent commission.”

Group members and the public have voiced privacy and cybersecurity concerns via third-party access since the group first met in August.

“Ultimately, there was a unanimous consensus that the entity should not maintain, provide access to, or otherwise exercise control over vehicle data,” the draft report states. “Rather, all vehicle data should be directly accessible by owners and (upon authorization by owners) independent repair facilities to the extent required by 29-A M.R.S. § 1810. As is the case now, manufacturers would remain responsible for addressing potential privacy and cyber-security issues in making data available pursuant to 29-A M.R.S. §1810.

“The working group recommends that the statute be amended to make clear that the entity will not maintain, provide access to, or otherwise exercise control over vehicle data.”

The group recommends that the future commission, at least at first, “serve a purely advisory role and have no rulemaking or enforcement authority.”

It also recommends the member chosen to represent the public should serve as the commission’s chair and each member should serve a three-year term. The group agreed that some of the initial appointees should serve a shorter length of time to stagger the terms.

“The working group recognized that depending on how manufacturers implement the telematics requirements of the law, it may become necessary to provide at least some level of standardization across all manufacturers,” the report states. “If the commission determines that access to vehicle data should be standardized, it could recommend in its annual report that it be given the necessary authority to adopt and implement appropriate standardization requirements. The commission can also consider issuing, solely as non-binding recommendations, “best practices” for manufacturers to use in providing access to vehicle data.

The commission won’t immediately need rulemaking or enforcement authority and shouldn’t act as a “gatekeeper” between owners, independent repair facilities, and vehicle manufacturers, according to the group.

However, the group has agreed on amendments it recommends the legislature make to the R2R law, including more detailed enforcement provisions.

The amendments state that if the commission believes a manufacturer violates the provisions, the matter will be referred to the attorney general. The AG, whether by referral or on their own, can bring the issue to the Superior Court of any county in Maine to seek injunctive relief and a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.

“There was consensus that the statute should be amended to make clear that a referral from the entity is not a prerequisite for enforcement action,” the draft report states. “If the commission determines that it needs its own enforcement authority, it can so recommend in its annual report.

“The working group recognizes that the role it recommends that the commission play may not be entirely consistent with the role that the right-to-repair law seems to contemplate for the independent entity. That said, there was unanimous consensus that the role outlined above makes the most sense during the initial implementation of the law, with the understanding that the commission may well determine it should be given increased authority and responsibilities if issues are encountered with compliance during the law’s implantation.”

Jack Quirk, who was chosen to represent new motor vehicle dealers in the group, also recommends the commission consider:

• • “What cyber-security rules should apply to telematics data;
  • “Whether the privacy protections of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley [Act] should apply to independent repair facilities;
  • “Whether to require that independent repair facilities be bonded;
  • “Whether to require independent repair facilities to disclose to customers that they have no affiliation or relationship with a motor vehicle dealer and the extent of any warranty protections for work they perform;
  • “Whether to require independent repair facilities to notify customers (either via a poster or work order) whether the technicians working on the vehicle are certified by the manufacturer of that vehicle and whether they have all of the repair equipment required of franchised dealers; and
  • “Whether to require independent repair facilities to disclose whether parts certified by the manufacturer will be used in repairs.”

The group’s final recommendations are due to the legislature by Feb. 28, 2025.

Images

Featured image: Zoom screenshot of the Maine Right to Repair Working Group’s Dec. 2, 2024 meeting.