NASTF UPDATEAccess to Service
Information
Reaches a Crossroads
LAS VEGAS (Nov. 5, 2005) - The metamorphosis of access to service information for the independent service and repair industry is not unlike the transformation of coal into diamonds. It is a process involving time and pressure.
Time spent to date and the current forces that face us today - the breakdown of Council of Better Business Bureaus (BBB) mediated talks between stakeholders that was initiated by the sponsors of the proposed Right to Repair (R2R) legislation, the formalization of NASTF and the series of meetings leading to tomorrow's U.S. Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing - place the industry squarely in the fulcrum in which the industry's future hangs.
Time nurtures trust and meaning Information, like carbon, has always been there, but shaping it in a way that is brilliant, transparent and viable requires a timely blending of risk, a cautious building of trust between industry stakeholders, and the decision to proactively cooperate. Bridging the gap from confrontation to collaboration is not an easy task, and the time taken to make progress that is tenable and meaningful for all has taken patient and persistent leadership, an open dialogue, and the deliverance of the truth to those who work in the trenches servicing and repairing consumers' vehicles.There is also significant progress being made in filling the service technology gaps that will inevitably occur as dealer service support spirals upward with vehicle technologies. There is active discussion and agreement within technical circles at automakers that standardization of diagnostic interfaces is a good thing. It allows for robust diagnostics to be exported into the aftermarket without disclosing proprietary communication protocols and messages to equipment companies.
The relationship between automakers, aftermarket repairers, tool makers, trainers and locksmiths is improving every day. One source suggested, "It has never been better in my 40 years of working in the industry."
What is the real pressure - legislation or the 'threat' of legislation? It's human nature to be resistant to change. Like a car staged at a drag strip starting tree, just to get moving in a positive direction requires huge effort and energy from a standstill start, as well as sustained exertion and skillful driving to get to the finish. Just as important, the amount of patient and purposeful work invested behind the scenes, before the car is even staged, is enormous. So, too, with finding a workable resolution to access to service information.For access to service information, one form of pressure has been the threat of legislation, most prominently the proposed Right to Repair (R2R) legislation. In fact, legislation advocates point out that many bad situations in our nation's history have only been solved by strong, pointed legislation with the teeth for enforcement. However, advocates for a non-legislative solution say that the pressure felt by the threat of legislation may be far more powerful and more beneficial to a cooperative environment between automakers and the aftermarket than any regulatory solution. Just look at the cooperation seen since California's AB1146 and the work leading up to implementation of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) service information regulations. That initial legislation made the automakers realize that they either fix the remaining problems or face a politicized regulatory process.
For instance, through the National Automobile Service Task Force (NASTF), automakers and other participants are working diligently on resolving gaps in areas that were not covered by previous CARB and EPA regulatory efforts, such as vehicle security systems and manufacturer-equivalent training for the aftermarket. These items are too complicated and difficult to regulate, but given time they are resolvable through good-faith negotiation.
A number of sources indicated that legislation, and the subsequent shifting of resources toward regulations, has the potential to polarize independent repairers and automakers again, as well as slowing or halting much of the unprecedented dialogue between these two groups.
The push for a non-legislated solution U.S. Representative Joe Barton and Senator Lindsay Graham, sponsors of proposed R2R legislation, recently asked all stakeholders to meet and resolve the service information access issue without legislation. Holding off on the reintroduction of legislation, their desire for a collaborative solution was made clear to all parties. For with any proposed legislation, there is no guarantee it would pass or fail in the House, let alone the Senate, despite the time, money and lobbying pressure expended.A series of 10 meetings facilitated by the BBB and observed by the Federal Trade Commission were held. While much progress was made, they broke down on Sept. 30. While there were several issues that could not be resolved, the major reasons for the breakdown centered on governance, penalties for not supplying service and tool information and vehicle security. (Note: All of the irreconcilable issues were reported earlier in a Motor Age story.)
Regarding governance, the introduction and insistence by one aftermarket stakeholder that the appointment of half of a new NASTF board be controlled by that group failed to find concurrence. Representatives for dealership and independent aftermarket service professionals and automakers could not accept this; these groups reasoned that it placed 50 percent of power in the hands of only one group relative to all other stakeholders, as well as excluding representation from training providers and tool making groups.
With regard to penalties for non-compliance, an aftermarket participant did not believe the car companies were willing to live up to the promises they made if those commitments were going to be made enforceable. Automakers countered that the information was being made available already through NASTF, and that gaps when identified were resolved.
Of particular importance to an aftermarket association was the auto manufacturers' unwillingness to share with independent shops the information and tools necessary to repair cars that are equipped with advanced technology immobilizer systems. Automaker and shop/technician representatives pointed out that the privacy and safety of consumers are too important to risk without involving outside parties to ensure proper safeguards for consumers and the industry were in place. To that end, a model for sharing vehicle security systems access with vetted, bonded technicians is being actively discussed within NASTF, in conjunction with law enforcement agencies and the National Insurance Crime Bureau.
NASTF moves towards formalizing The National Automobile Service Task Force (NASTF) held meetings over the past three weeks with a view towards formalizing NASTF into a full-time, funded organization. Participants were invited to an information meeting October 19 in Detroit to discuss an initial formalization proposal. The meeting was open to all segments of the industry and proceeded with representation from independent service shops, parts and equipment manufacturers, toolmakers, automakers, training or certification groups, the federal government and vehicle security organizations.The dialogue between participants was open and respectful, and covered the merit of the proposal, buy-in to moving forwards, timing, several concerns needing attention, and steps to take next. Those who attended the Detroit meeting reached consensus to move forwards with the concept of formalizing NASTF, with the provision that awareness of the concept should be expanded and discussed further during Industry Week in Las Vegas. This would provide an opportunity for discussion and direction from a larger body of stakeholders who were unable to attend to the Detroit meeting.
On Nov. 2, NASTF met again, this time in Las Vegas. After the introduction and discussion of the initial proposal, a motion was made to move forward with the concept of formalizing NASTF. While most were in favor, a few participants raised concerns which were addressed, such as the benefit to technicians and the fear that NASTF would end up being controlled by the groups contributing the most money. Upon a vote being called, the motion was passed unanimously by those who voted. The next face-to-face meeting is scheduled for early April 2006, with at least two conference calls to be held in the interim.
Back on Capitol Hill Early last week, a series of private meetings were held with Barton's senior staff. Each of the stakeholders met with the staff separately. The focus of these meetings was to discuss the BBB facilitation and each stakeholder's thoughts on why an agreement was not reached. These discussions will provide background for the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection hearing today, Nov. 10 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. Many of these same stakeholders will provide testimony at the hearing. Those interested in listening to a Web cast of the hearing can do so by clicking here.According to several sources both for and against R2R legislation, it was reported that the sponsors for the proposed legislation were disappointed that a workable, non-legislated solution wasn't reached, and that many elected officials are tired of the time this issue has taken up at the expense of others related to energy and commerce. Some suggested that following the hearing, legislation will be marked-up and reintroduced into the House and Senate, to be filled or killed.
The industry is at a crossroads., and the impact of these major decisions that are pending is like a two-sided sword. If it dies on either the House or the Senate floor, what will be the impact on future cooperation between automakers and the downstream aftermarket industry? If it passes, will the aftermarket be faced with another polarizing and stagnating experience similar to Fed World?
In either event, a working and cooperative industry organization such as NASTF will be needed to help facilitate communication and the delivery of service information and the resolution of concerns that arise. Given the progress to date, the cooperation between parties has transcended boundaries, with stakeholders sharing more than the regulated minimum standard that a law would impose.
The momentum of collaborative goodwill and bonafide cooperation between industry stakeholders may well be at stake. Let us hope the interests of service professionals is considered and not lost in the lobbying going forwards. For whether the service industry reaps diamonds or lumps of coal is in the balance, as is the future business survival of many.
