You will be required to perform a tire inflation service (check and inflate) on all passenger vehicles

that are brought to your shop for service or repair.

In addition to "checking and inflating," you will be required to do the following:

1) On the invoice, you will need to note that the inflation service was performed to

the recommended psi (and you will note the recommended psi).

2) You will need to keep a copy of the invoice for three years.

3) You will also need to use a tire pressure gauge with an error rate no more than ± 2 psi.

4) Finally, you must have access to a "tire information resource" that is current

within three years, such as a manual, CD-ROM, or on-line data. ARB staff is also

developing a "best practices" reference guide for non-OEM or non-standard sized

tires and wheels or tires with a different load index than originally specified for the

vehicle.

There are some exceptions to the regulations:

-- You do not have to fill out paperwork for a consumer requesting a "courtesy" tire inflation.

-- You do not have to fill out paperwork on a vehicle with a gross weight of 10,000 pounds or more.

-- You do not have to fill out paperwork if the customer's tires are inflated with nitrogen and you do not

have a nitrogen inflation system and the customer declines the service.

-- You do not have to fill out paperwork if a customer declines the service because he/she "affirms" the

following: 1) if a "check and inflate" has been done within the past 30 days, or 2) if a "check and inflate"

will be done within the next 7 days.

If you do not provide the tire inflation service because of one of the above reasons, you are required to

note why the service wasn’t provided on the customer's service invoice. Note: a courtesy (free) tire

inflation without other service does not require such information since there will be no invoice.

The tire check and inflation issue has been the subject of meetings and discussions for almost two

years. The California Tire Dealers Association and representatives of other organizations opposed the

regulation for a variety of reasons, but with the Governor's strong support, the ARB approved it in December 2009.

There are highs and lows to most occupations, but in government relations one low point occasionally

experienced is the repetition and frustration associated with repeated attempts at passage of legislation

that is just, necessary and will have important ramifications for your industry. This is the only way we

can characterize our participation in the quest to pass H.R. 2057, the Motor Vehicle Owner’s Right to

Repair Act. Currently at 54 co-sponsors (press time), we continue to engage on the issue with members

and non-members alike.

Of course, much of the discussion is listening to the disappointment from folks who are committed to

the passage but we also hear frequently from members who do not believe the legislation is necessary.

This highlights some of the difficulties associated with lobbying for this cause. The opposition has done

a very good job of dividing the industry and we struggle with our grassroots efforts to provide day-to-day

examples of the repair information shortfall or lockout. We also readily acknowledge that in the past few

years the manufacturers have made a great deal of information available to aftermarket repair facilities.

The cost factor of this information is another topic entirely that we will not address here, except to say

that is it a significant problem for many of our members.

At TIA, we continue to puzzle over how shop owners and technicians alike could believe that without the

threat of this legislation over the years there would be anything but very limited information available to

them. What’s more, if this threat goes away without legislation or some negotiated settlement, the continuing

sophistication of all components in vehicle design will work against us and those of us in the aftermarket

repair industry will find ourselves in the same position we were in10-20 years ago. The vehicle

manufacturers will eventually shut us out again and it could happen so slowly that no one will understand

what happened.

We are loathe to remind you but the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008 included a tax-gap- closing

provision to require “credit-card networks” (the bill calls them “payment settlement entities” because it

involves more than just credit cards) to send an information report (like a Form 1099) to the IRS and to

the business for which the “credit card network” processed payments. The amount reported on the form

would be the receipts the business received from its customers through such transactions. From the day

this first appeared as a tax-gap proposal, we were very concerned about it. The explanation and purposes

changed through the debate and the scope of “merchants” expanded (basically, any business that accepts

payments by credit or debit cards or electronically). 

Since enactment, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been working on regulations to implement it.