CLEVELAND -
The current method of overseeing how this valued service information is shared is done through
the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF), a board that essentially has the support of the entire industry for its efforts.
Looking at the board's roster, there is a heavy OEM presence: AAM and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
(AIAM) among them. But there's also a national locksmith association and the Equipment and Tool Institute
(ETI), not to mention the Automotive Service Councils of California (ASCCA).
The NASTF board has recently chosen the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) to provide day-to-day management of its operations. According to NASTF board member Allen
Pennebaker, ASCCA president-elect, the panel is populated with "committed representatives from all of the industry," including domestic and foreign automakers.
"It's effective because the people who sit on the board are committed to making it work," Pennebaker says. "Give credit where credit is due; it's important that the industry understand that the original equipment manufacturers are constructively and seriously participating in the process."
He offers that it's always a balance, because some of the members "have different needs than we do" in the independent mechanical/collision service sector. He adds that he thinks it is in the OEMs' best interest to make the repair and parts procurement process as easy as possible throughout the entire aftermarket.
When people are pondering the purchase of a new car, Pennebaker says he believes they are more likely to buy a given OEM's line of vehicles when they are able to obtain prompt and reasonably priced repairs for their currently owned model at their favorite local shop.
The ASCCA favors passage of Right to Repair legislation, either nationally or on a state-by-state basis, Pennebaker says. "The simplest way would be to have it done at the federal level," he explains. "We do not believe that is in opposition to NASTF's goal."
a Key to Unlocking Door System Codes By James E. Guyette, News Correspondent
It's pouring rain and a frazzled motorist is wrestling with an umbrella. The confusion results in the keys being locked in the car. In the past, a call to the local police department brought out an officer armed with a tool to solve the problem.
Not so anymore in today's increasingly security-minded society, as door lock technology has become highly sophisticated with electronic codes taking the place of traditional keys and tumblers.
Automotive technicians are thus challenged when faced with these types of repairs, as are mobile motor club personnel, professional locksmiths and others involved in unlocking the key to these systems.
To open up the process while safeguarding security, the Associated Locksmiths of America (ALOA) has a seat at the table with NASTF. ALOA "is most interested in providing access to key codes and other repair information to all locksmiths," says the organization's executive director, Charles W. Gibson Jr., who also sits on NASTF's board of directors.
"As far as the part of NASTF that concerns locksmiths most - the Vehicle Security Committee [VSC] - things are progressing rather well," he observes. The committee has established a computer-based system for OEMs to use to facilitate the dissemination of key codes and other sensitive information to appropriate industry professionals.
"In short, NASTF will establish a registry of qualified persons. A person wanting a code will go the OEM Web site and ask for the code. The OEM Web site will access the NASTF registry to see if that person is approved. The National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) will simultaneously be notified of the transaction," Gibson explains. "Only if the person is on the registry will the OEM release the code. One OEM has already built the programs necessary to access the VSC registry from its Web site."
In February, NASTF's board approved the VSC's proposed Secure Data Release Model (SDRM) for pilot testing. A presentation and demonstration of the SDRM took place at an April NASTF general meeting, and the system is expected to be fully operational by January 2008.
"The SDRM and its Automotive Security Professional Registry will give automakers a flexible system to provide 24/7 access to vehicle security information for preapproved locksmiths and technicians," says Mary Hutchinson, NASTF's administrative director. "It allows aftermarket service providers to support consumer needs without undermining the integrity and basic purpose of vehicle security systems."
Gibson emphasizes that this industry-driven progress makes moot the need for any legislative proposals, such as a pair of matching measures that had been introduced in Maryland's upper and lower statehouse chambers.
"The bills are similar to Right to Repair legislation in that they would have required information to be provided to the aftermarket," he notes. "The Maryland legislature has adjourned without action on the bills - they are, therefore, 'dead.' They were being driven by the American Automobile Association [AAA]. AAA has introduced similar bills in other states. One of those, in California, has passed. NASTF was not involved at all in the legislation."
With NASTF experts available to assist in promulgating the details, "it will be the easiest and most logical way for regulators to make it happen" should a federal measure gain Congressional approval, Pennebaker says.
NASTF's involvement with the Right to Repair movement started evolving in the 1990s when California, and later Congress, mandated that on-board diagnostic
(OBD) systems be installed to help reduce exhaust emissions. The AAIA's Lowe says as repairers struggled to crack these codes, "car companies were still skirting some of the requirements," which ultimately resulted in informational availability being written into the U.S. EPA's Clean Air Act.
"We went to California to pursue this," Lowe recalls. "We got it through the legislature. It took three to four years to get it passed. It took a lot of grassroots work and the industry really stuck together to get it done."
The EPA then adopted the California rules. And onto this foundation is where NASTF began to build agreements for non-emissions information to round out technicians' access.
In the 1990s, repair information access for technicians through the World Wide Web was basically a disaster, admits Douglas with
AAM. There's always been a concern over the independents obtaining parts information, he adds. He says he believes that vehicle manufacturers have been forthright with sharing information - the techs just need to know what to ask for. With
NASTF, there is an open dialogue among automakers, toolmakers and independent repairers, he says.
"I don't think the manufacturer appreciates the independent perspective unless they have that dialogue, and I think the opposite is also true," adds Douglas, who also is the secretary-treasurer for
NASTF.
The task force has its own arbitration and investigation process for complaints, which those involved say has been honed into a more effective system than in years past. If the NASTF administrator receives a service information complaint, it's forwarded to the automaker in question, which has a certain period of time in which to respond.
"From time to time, an OEM is going to say no, and clearly it's going to be a challenge to get that information made available, but those kinds of [occurrences] are few and far between," says
Handschuh.
Handschuh and Pyle say maybe NASTF's message is not penetrating the repair segment as much as it should. But Pyle warns that those who support NASTF do not want to use it as a political tool. "We don't want it to appear that any positive press from NASTF's accomplishments be construed as a negative attack or a statement about whether or not Right to Repair is valid, so it's a very fine line," he says.
Some service information complaints the task force receives reflect this lack of awareness of NASTF's true mission. Pyle says one tech "submitted a request that said, 'I can't find a windshield wiper for my van,'" which leaves him wondering, "How in the world does that have anything to do with service information?"
Wick, from the Alliance, says he believes many techs are not as aware as others of NASTF or its purpose.
a stronger organization."
- Aaron Lowe,
vice president of government affairs, AAIA
And in light of this spotty track record, it appears a divide-and-conquer approach among states also is in the battle plans this year. Wick predicts these state laws will help push federal legislation forward.
Pyle, on the other hand, forecasts problems in the proposals garnering approval in Maine and Oklahoma, but admits, "New Jersey concerns the automakers, and it concerns us."
California is one state where Right to Repair legislation will not be introduced this year, according to Norm
Plotkin, legislative advocate for the California/Nevada Automotive Wholesalers' Association
(CAWA).
"CAWA supports the Right to Repair, but there's no plan to run a bill this year," he says. "We're going to wait and see what happens in other states where this has been introduced. Introducing a bill in California is very expensive, and you have to prepare for a multiyear press - you have to be prepared to commit vast resources."
He discounts the notion that most of all the relevant information is being made available through
NASTF: "I don't believe that for a minute," referencing the numerous instances he's heard about where repairs have been stymied by a distinct lack of data. The OEMs populating the organization make this task force suspect, he alludes. "Car companies are trying to compete to a greater extent for repair; they all have a lot of bays," Plotkin points out.
"I'm doubtful that this process can yield any significant movement. I'm concerned because a process without any teeth is doomed to failure," he adds. "Without solid authority behind NASTF's Right to Repair endeavors, there are no ramifications for not coming to the table. There's no hammer to get them to move."
ASA says it has such a hammer to hold over automakers. Pyle says, hypothetically, to the automakers, "We might decide we don't like the agreement, and if you pull out, we're going to take you directly back to Congress, and we're going to write some legislation." This, he adds, serves as a "trump card" for
NASTF.
Nailing down a national legislative solution is equally daunting, according to
Plotkin. "The federal government moves at a glacial pace, and the political situation in Washington is difficult at best," he observes. Nonetheless, Plotkin does anticipate eventual success as the Right to Repair controversy attracts more attention: "I can't imagine that this will go away."
Those who support NASTF say the task force still be will integral should federal legislation be approved.
"Legislation will make NASTF a stronger organization," Lowe says, because it will play a major role in disseminating the data. "Without any teeth, NASTF can't keep the car companies at the table. They make a lot of money through their parts and service on the dealership side.
"We'd all prefer to have a national program, and I think the manufacturers would prefer a national program - but so far, they have refused. It seems a legislative push has to happen before the manufacturers will fully participate," he adds. "If we drop the bill, we don't think we'll see the cooperation from manufacturers that they say they are giving today."
General Motors (GM) says it is opposed to Right to Repair legislation and believes the real purpose of legislation is to "provide OEM-proprietary information to the aftermarket parts industry, which would gain a competitive advantage by avoiding reverse engineering costs," says Jeff Spitzer, director of GM Service and Parts Operations
(SPO) Service & Business Support. "Like other OEMs, GM spends millions each year on engineering, testing and validation."
Without legislation or political pressure, Lowe says some OEMs are likely to scale back on the flow of information to the industry. "We see that there has been a lot of progress because of this legislation," he says, referring to the accomplishments noted by
NASTF.
As an example, Lowe cites the struggle to obtain key codes for the locksmith industry, which NASTF is in the process of opening up following the enactment of legislation in California. "It really didn't happen until California passed that law," Lowe says.
(Click
here to see related articles.)
A wild card for enforcement of this proposed legislation is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which could be charged with policing the dissemination of repair and diagnostic information should a bill pass. In House testimony last year, FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majors said, "We continue to believe that the best approach to resolve particular disputes between the parties, including the determination of the composition of any governing board, should be decided and implemented by industry participants rather than the government. Such an approach is preferable because the parties' full faith in the board is imperative for it to accomplish the goals of a self-regulatory process, and that full faith would best be obtained by consensus in determining its composition."
A non-legislative agreement came close to fruition last year, but the parties involved were unable to reach a consensus. Another significant turning point last year occurred when the House Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee approved the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act (H.R. 2048) 14-13, after Rep.
C.L. Otter (R-ID) switched his vote at the last minute. The removal of a provision to permit lawsuits against manufacturers that do not comply with the bill prompted a number of legislators to remove their sponsorship of the bill. Those in opposition say this last-minute removal basically rendered the legislation "toothless."
- Steve Handschuh, president/COO, AASA
Domestic and foreign OEMs already doing business in the United States are on board and "if a new company comes in, we would ask them to participate," he says.
When the association conducted a survey of its membership, "the polls showed 96 percent were in favor of the ASA position on Right to Repair," Redding reports.
Lack of adequate information is not an issue, he contends. "Last year, we had 32 complaints," which is viewed as a small number considering the vast scope of the nation's independent auto repair segment, he explains: "The bottom line is the complaints aren't there."
While "it's hard to predict" the fate of various Right to Repair measures being pursued in state legislative chambers, "ASA will continue to oppose legislation that places unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles between the repair of our customer's vehicle and the information and training required to make the repair," Redding says.
The study, sponsored by the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE), was conducted by the Tarrance Group from July 28 to Aug. 12, 2004. Overall, respondents showed overwhelming support for the Right to Repair Act, with more than 92 percent of respondents favoring passage of this legislation, including 79 percent who "strongly" favor its passage.
The study shows that even ASA members, the only aftermarket industry group to oppose the bill, showed overwhelming support for passage of an earlier Right to Repair proposal when polled.
The level of support was consistent among Alliance of Automotive Service Provider members (98 percent), ASA members (93 percent), AAIA members (94 percent) and members of state-level automotive retailer trade groups (92 percent).
GM makes its electronic service information available to independent techs, who can receive discount rates if they participate in the automaker's Total Service Support (TSS) program, says Spitzer. Repairers who purchase more than $3,000 a month in parts from GM can enroll to receive this service information for no charge, he adds.
"GM also makes service/repair information available through its Technical Information System 2 Web, or TIS 2 Web Internet-based subscription service," he says. "TIS 2 Web provides GM vehicle calibrations and Tech 2 diagnostic software updates to any independent service center." The company offers the same information and training to independents that's available to GM dealers, adds Spitzer.
Handschuh estimates NASTF has received fewer than 150 complaints since 2000, many of them resolvable concerns. He believes there is no true conspiracy on behalf of automakers to keep the aftermarket out of the service information loop. "Generally, they're sins of omission and not commission," he says, referring to errors that crop up in information distribution.