Bureau personnel conducted training sessions for the licensing and relicensing of fleet emissions inspectors. At the completion of training, the trainees were examined to determine their qualification for licensing. As of December 31, 1977 there were 751 licensed fleet emissions inspectors. The syllabus and examinations used were developed by Bureau personnel. Classes were also conducted on visible emissions for licensing emissions inspectors working with diesel fleets. One hundred twenty-nine inspectors were certified or recertified to read smoke opacity.

SUMMING IT ALL UP

The Arizona Vehicular Emissions Inspection Program is a viable and cost effective strategy for the reduction of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions from vehicles. The emission reductions experienced in 1977 with mandatory maintenance are significant when compared to emission levels during a period of voluntary maintenance. The program is capable of obtaining more emissions reductions with more stringent emission standards and improved quality of repairs. With slightly more stringent standards and continued emphasis on tune-up procedures, the ambient air quality standards for CO will be met in 1982 and the oxidant standard by 1984.

Finally, as a result of improved maintenance on the vehicles operated in Maricopa and Pima counties, it is estimated that gasoline consumption can be reduced by 30 to 35 million gallons annually.

Mr. METCALFE. Thank you, Mr. Stone, for your fine testimony. Our next witness will be Mr. A. G. Richardson, Jr., president of the Automobile Owners Association Council.

Mr. Richardson?

STATEMENT OF ARCHIE G. RICHARDSON, JR.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Archie G. Richardson. I am president of the Automobile Owners Action Council. I am delighted to be with. you today in order to discuss with you the important subject of auto repairs and the needs for diagnostic centers.

If you take a pair of shoes into the shop for heels, there is no particular problem: the heels are worn out, the job to be done is the replacement of those heels; the shop gives you a price, and if you accept, you leave your shoes and come back at the prearranged time to inspect and pickup, pay your bill and take your shoes home repaired. The transaction is relatively simple, the responsibilities of the parties is quite clear. The price to be paid is usually established and agreed to ahead of time. It is possible to inspect the work at once and make a decision as to whether the job has been done to your satisfaction.

With automobile repairs, the situation is completely different. There is a problem from the very beginning. Usually, the consumer does not know exactly what is wrong with the vehicle. He or she may only be able to describe the problem in terms of symptoms. There is certain abnormal noise; it is not performing well; it won't start, or it seems to run sluggishly. These descriptions are vague, and the repair shop must interpret them. The mechanic or service manager, given such vague statements, may not be in a position to inform the consumer as to what the repairs will cost unless he is clairvoyant. All that he can do is make an educated guess. The consumer may be told to leave the vehicle and call back later in the day. When the consumer calls, he or she may be told just about anything. Often, the consumer may be told that several components are all malfunctioning and must be replaced. For instance, a consumer complaining about a starting problem may be told that the starter, voltage regulator, battery, and alternator are all shot. In addition, he may be told that the car needs to be rewired and the job will cost $506.78 including parts and labor. The car will be ready in 3 days. How is the consumer supposed to respond? No, don't do the work; we will have it towed to another garage tomorrow for them to make a second estimate? When the consumer, agreeing to the work at the estimated price, returns to pick up the vehicle, he may be told that there were more problems with the electrical system than the shop had originally anticipated. The repair bill has now been increased to $557.00. At this point, what can the consumer do? Is he supposed to say, "No, I refuse to pay the bill; put the car back the way it was." Even where there are regulations concerning the providing of an estimate and setting limits on estimate deviations, the price may still vary by 10 percent

or more.

Now, our consumer has been without the car for 3 days. Even if the shop calls and informs the consumer that the job will take

43-030 - 79-12

longer than anticipated, for whatever reason, what protection does our consumer have from this delay? None. The reason may be entirely legitimate, or it could be that the shop did a terrible job of scheduling their work or that the shop had to redo its entire repair job on our consumer's car. Even when the repair shop is entirely responsible for the delay, the owner again is without any real protection. In this event, the consumer will be inconvenienced and put to additional expense in finding substitute transportation. The repair shop normally will not deduct a dime from the bill for causing the delay. If the parts are not available, the car can be tied up in the repair shop for weeks and the consumer has no convenient recourse.

Let us suppose that our consumer encounters no undue delays and returns to pick up his car. He pays his bill and drives out hoping that the car has been repaired. The following morning he gets in his car ready to drive to work, and, you guessed it, the car won't start. Our consumer calls the repair shop. He is told that the shop will arrange to pick up the vehicle, inspect it, and if it is a problem that they are responsible for, then they will fix it under warranty. Of course, if their inspection reveals that it is a problem which, in their opinion, is not their fault, or does not relate to the work previously done, then our consumer will have to pay for the repairs and for the towing. In the meantime, our consumer has to arrange for substitute transportation for which he must pay. Sure enough, that very afternoon, the shop calls our consumer and informs him that his problem is something new. It definitely is not related to the work the repair shop did the previous day. This time it is the starter solenoid or the battery cable ends, or a fluffler valve, or whatever. They will get to it as soon as possible, and they will call and give another repair cost estimate.

During the 5 years I have been president of the Automobile Owners Action Council, we have processed and investigated some 7,000 consumer auto complaints. The problem which I have described is fictitious but, in reality, it is descriptive of the repair problem most frequently encountered by consumers. In short, it happens all the time. According to Joan Claybrook, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, each year consumers pay in excess of $20 billion for inadequate repairs, incompetent repairs, or fraudulent repairs. This kind of waste demands that a solution be arrived at.

The major problem, we have discovered, is that the auto consumer rarely knows just what is wrong with his or her vehicle when a problem surfaces. The owner is entirely dependent on the repair shop for an accurate, honest estimate of the work that needs to be done. There is no mechanism available to millions of American car owners to get a routine examination performed on their vehicle at a reasonable price. If such a mechanism were available, consumers could become aware of problems as they develop and plan for remediation in order to prevent major repair problems. Moreover, there is no convenient way for auto owners to discover if their vehicles are performing in a fuel efficient manner, and, if not, to discover what needs to be done by way of corrections. In conjunction with this problem, there is no convenient way for a vehicle owner to get a routine evaluation of his vehicle's exhaust emissions