With the beginning of a new year, many things can be expected — post-holiday retail sales, broken resolutions, the malaise of putting your nose back to the proverbial grindstone as you return to work and the anticipation of spring.
Another perennial certainty is the continuation of a longstanding debate over access to diagnostic and repair information for independent technicians.
Groups representing techs say the numbers speak for themselves: Out of almost half a billion repairs conducted in a year’s time, only 48 requests for automaker information were made. And of those concerns, all were addressed by a voluntary oversight task force.
Those who support legislation point out, however, that the aforementioned statistic may be deceiving.
So far, those on each side of the debate over how forthcoming vehicle manufacturers really are with diagnostic and repair information have planted their feet firmly in the sand. Some, such as technicians, believe the issue is not so cut and dry; they have said the information is readily available — it’s just too expensive.
Some techs, themselves, do not agree at all with their respective associations’ positions and believe they don’t have fair access to this information.
And then there are those who believe the playing field is equally unequal. A repair shop owner we spoke with says that not even dealerships are privy to completely accurate repair information.
“Service manuals at car dealers are quite frequently inaccurate, in all honesty,” says Robin Ramirez, co-owner of At Your Service Automotive in Bakersfield, Calif., who worked in dealership repairs for 17 years.
Still hoping for a non-legislative solution
Aftermarket representatives hope the proposal for a law to solidify access to repair information, years in the making, will finally see the light of day this year. Congress may still be holding out for a non-legislative solution to crystallize.
After a series of discussions seeking a non-legislative agreement broke down early last fall, the legislative proposal, led by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) was originally expected to be marked up before the end of last year.
“Now that negotiations have concluded, the effort is full bore ahead to try to pass legislation,” said David Parde, president of the Coalition for Auto Repair Equity (CARE), after a House subcommittee hearing in November. CARE represents a number of companies such as NAPA, CARQUEST and AutoZone, among others.
No action on the issue is expected to take place until sometime this year, according to Karen Modlin, press secretary for Barton.
She says Barton is not going to rule out a non-legislative solution just yet, either.
“They’re still kind of hoping that an agreement can be struck between the two sides,” she adds.
Carmaker commitment may be sought
The Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA), another avid supporter of Right to Repair legislation, would support a non-legislative agreement as well, but it would have to cover more than just governance.
A commitment document would need to be signed from every vehicle manufacturer, says Aaron Lowe, vice president of government affairs for AAIA.
“What we really want to see is a clear commitment from each manufacturer, and if we could get that and make sure we get everything we need to repair cars, we would have a non-legislative agreement,” adds Lowe.
Those who vouch for the effectiveness of a current system that includes voluntary oversight say taking the issue through government channels would only convolute enforcement and could actually hinder progress that’s been made so far.
Regarding the numbers cited earlier (only 48 complaints out of 471 million repairs), Lowe says he believes many technicians do not have enough confidence in the current voluntary system of enforcement to even file complaints.
“Most technicians don’t send in complaints because of the time it takes.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also conducting its own audit of service information availability, which Lowe says is still under way. California requirements have led to the regulation of emissions-related information, which affects nearly every automobile system, and, according to the EPA, these websites are a good starting point for auditing the effectiveness of diagnostic and repair information at the technician level.
Meanwhile, the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF), currently charged with overseeing repair information, has voted to formalize itself as a full-time funded organization. The group — comprising automakers, independent technicians, manufacturers and trainers, among others — plans to meet again this month to discuss the formalization process.
Members of the Coalition for Repair and Fair Information Xchange (CARFIX), which represents independent repair shops and service providers, say NASTF is highly effective in resolving service-related issues.
Additionally, CARFIX attests that it’s in the automakers’ best interests to make repair information available to independent techs.
“Historically, about 75 percent of vehicle service and repairs are performed in non-dealer shops,” said Mike Stanton, vice president of government affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers at the House Energy and Commerce hearing in November. “Automakers view these non-dealer shops as important players in providing service to their mutual customers, the driving public.”
“If you step back and look at the big picture, the two largest groups representing the businesses that are actually repairing vehicles both oppose legislation,” says Angie Wilson, VP of marketing and communications for the Automotive Service Association (ASA), which, along with the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), opposes Right to Repair legislation.
These groups say they represent the technicians, those in the trenches who are actually performing repairs.
But that viewpoint could change with AAIA’s announcement that it will launch an Independent Service Providers (ISP) segment within its organization.
Right to Repair does play into AAIA’s plans, admits Lowe, especially for those techs who don’t feel they’re being represented anywhere else. The ISP sector originated from membership requests, he adds.
“We want to provide a national platform for the independent service sector that goes along with what they would like to see happen in Washington.”
Stuck between a rock and a chassis
The willingness of automobile manufacturers to share information represents a Catch-22 of sorts for the industry.
Rumors have circulated that, if there is to be a law approved, carmakers would consider withholding information, says Lowe.
But what’s troubling, he adds, is that the current state of affairs still leaves that possibility open. “What worries us is the fact that they could always hold that over the aftermarket’s head (with or without legislation).”
For now, the “status quo” will remain, and the future is in the hands of Congress, as well as the industry itself. What’s likely to occur is more compromise from all sides of this debate.
