The EPA thinks its service information access mandate, part of the 1990 Clean Air Act, may provide adequate framework for the sharing of diagnostic information in our industry. The Automotive Service Association (ASA), the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) think the agreement they established two years ago with the original equipment manufacturers is working. The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) suggests that Right to Repair efforts need to be enhanced but oppose the need for legislation, while the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) and numerous other entities support the Motor Vehicle Owner’s Right to Repair Act. And we’re pretty sure the manufacturers believe they have been more than fair, more than cooperative.
We have been obsessed with Right to Repair and for good reason — the final outcome could be damaging to the aftermarket or beneficial for it, serving as the golden key to growth. That’s why opinions and potential solutions are being bounced around by the aforementioned organizations almost daily. Yet, there is one party that has been quite hush during this thunderous debate, and that is the vast community of independent repair shop owners. We somehow, in the midst of it all, forgot to ask repairers — those who will likely be impacted most by this problem — what they think about the information exchange process. But that is soon to change.
After learning that the EPA is launching an audit to gather technicians’ views (which we’ll discuss in more detail later), Aftermarket Business contacted a cross section of shops and asked repairers for their input on Right to Repair legislation and issues they have with OEMs. Many refused to comment, but those who did provided a window into the problems, worries and outright fears independent repairers face in trying to maintain a place in the automotive service market.
Progress with issues to address
When it comes to setting business policies, Chuck Hartogh is somewhat unique among independent shop operators. Co-owner of C&M Auto Service Inc., with two shops located just outside of Chicago, he exclusively hires technicians who — like himself — possess ASE master certifications, qualifying them to work on virtually every vehicle make and model. Hartogh also places computers in each service bay, maintains a fleet of free loaner vehicles, refuses to market discount services and closes his shops on Saturdays and Sundays so his employees can enjoy their weekends.
On Right to Repair legislation, however, Hartogh’s views are a bit more mainstream. Cautious and leaning toward middle ground, Hartogh doesn’t support legislation but is equally adamant that the voluntary agreement supported by the ASA isn’t sufficient. Hartogh believes it needs more teeth. “I think the ASA has done a great job, but I’d like to see something in writing from manufacturers agreeing to supply information,” he says.
Hartogh’s views are indicative of much of the industry. Repairers are suspicious of original equipment manufacturers, who — they insist — might withdraw their promise to supply technical data at any time. They’re also somewhat wary of government intervention, sharing concern that it might harm any of the progress that’s already been made with the manufacturers.
Hartogh, along with all the other technicians surveyed, declares the current OEM agreement suffers from two main problems: a lack of complete information and the need for easier access to technical data. “Some information can be hard to get to,” says Hartogh, “particularly with European automobiles. As for some of the Internet sites, Mercedes is extremely difficult to use. It’s hard to navigate.”
James Even, a technician at C&M, agrees. “I work mainly on European cars, and their manufacturers don’t tell everything.” He adds, “One thing I’d like to see is all the repair websites standardized. I realize it is their information, and each car maker has its own way of doing things, but they should make their technical information more accessible.”
Even also points to another problem widely reported by repairers: an unwillingness by OEMs to sell certain parts. “I was working on a Chrysler vehicle that had a problem with the AVS unit. I found the problem, but they refused to sell me the part. Instead, they wanted me to buy the entire unit. They wanted to do the work. That’s not right. I found the problem. I should be able to fix it.”
With these problems, however, Even still believes legislation is not the answer. He feels that government involvement could upset the current process, making it even harder to obtain information.
Brian England, owner of British American Auto Care in Columbia, Md., echoes this same notion. “The difference between getting repair information before the ASA agreement and after has been like night and day. The agreement is being upheld, and we have access to the information and parts we need. If we had waited for legislation to be passed, we would be five years behind where we are now. It would take five years to build consensus, write the law and get it passed,” says England. He describes the current relationship between independent shops and OEMs as nothing less than “amazing.” He insists that where repair problems have turned up, OEMs have actively supplied solutions. “If you have a question, there’s a process you can go through to report it. The manufacturer will help you,” says England.
Indeed, the main problem England reports finding under the current agreement has little to do with the agreement itself. Rather, England says he and other repairers have confused efforts to work out minor problems with efforts to pass Right to Repair legislation. England says that when petitions were first being passed to members of the Washington, Maryland & Delaware Service Station and Automotive Repair Association (WMDA), he signed them, believing they were efforts to clarify sections of the ASA agreement.
“I think a lot of shops had trouble distinguishing what our association was doing from what was going on with the ASA,” says England, adding, “The WMDA supports legislation. Our president knows I differ with him. To me, right now we are on equal footing with dealer shops. To get where we got in such short time should be applauded.”
Legislation for survival
A number of repairers disagree with England’s assessment and argue that, far from sharing equal footing with dealers, they continue to lose ground. Bob Gugino is one such repairer, a third generation technician and owner of Bison Automotive and Detail, a small repair shop in Buffalo, N.Y. Gugino says he is representative of thousands of “little guys,” small independent repairers whom he contends are gradually being run out of business by the practices of auto manufacturers, practices not addressed by the OEM agreement.
Gugino argues the current OEM agreement doesn’t help small shops because it fails to address one vital area — the cost of acquiring OEM data. Gugino explains, “Most cars now feature five to seven different computer systems. To diagnose problems you have to have the right tools and the right technical information. Getting one or both is very expensive. One diagnostic tool won’t work on all vehicles and systems. In many cases you have to buy a separate diagnostic tool from a manufacturer, not an aftermarket company, and pay for all the updates. That runs into thousands of dollars, especially when you’re buying tools for each manufacturer.
“Then you need technical information, text information, to translate what the tool reports,” says Gugino. “You have to buy each manufacturer’s information. Shops end up paying many thousands of dollars for all this information. That means small shops just can’t compete.”
Gugino believes proper legislation could make vehicle information affordable by compelling OEMs to release all applicable data to aftermarket parts companies. He contends that aftermarket companies — because they have the money to invest — could develop diagnostic tools capable of reading any number of systems built by any OEM, saving shops thousands of dollars. Gugino says aftermarket companies also could purchase the technical data and place it in their own shop systems, giving shops access to complete information for all manufacturers in one convenient resource — again saving small shops significant dollars.
“Companies like Snap-on would love to be able to get this data for their own tools,” argues Gugino, “They know they could resell it. Companies like Mitchell and ALLDATA could then purchase the text information. Small shops would then be able to afford the tools necessary to work on any vehicle.”
So important is this scenario, Gugino and other repairers contacted by Aftermarket Business believe their very existence depends upon it. They see themselves facing a very well-financed, politically connected foe working aggressively to force them out of business. “They want to push as much business as they can into their dealerships,” says Gugino, describing OEMs. “I used to work for a dealership years ago. Back then, they made most of their profits from selling cars. That’s not how it works anymore. Now, they make a little bit on new car purchases and most of their money on repairs. They start by getting new car customers to come in for regular maintenance. Now, they’re counting on bringing in work that independent shops can’t perform.”
One repairer, who asked to remain anonymous, charged OEMs with withholding information to force customers into their repair facilities. Gugino also believes OEMs are engaging in a process designed for such a purpose. He contends that if this process continues, dealerships eventually will perform most repairs while independents are reduced to handling revenue-poor maintenance services such as oil changes. Should this happen, Gugino says large corporate entities like Pep Boys will dominate the maintenance market.
Declaring the repair industry is already at a critical crossroad, Gugino believes action must be taken soon to protect independents. He says, “Cars as old as 1998 models need special diagnostic tools and information. Increasingly, we’re not able to work on them. It’s simply becoming cost prohibitive to stay in this industry.”
Gugino is comfortable with asking the government for help because he sees no other option. He also believes the government understands the need for independent shops and will take their side. “They want us to be able to compete,” says Gugino. “They know the market should not just be made of dealers who get fatter with each job. They have to look to the future. It’s difficult enough now to work on cars. What’s going to happen with hydrogen and alternate fuel cars on the market? Who’s going to work on them?”
Government turns to technician input
The federal government already has, in one potentially significant step, turned to repairers for input on the quality of repair information released by OEMs. On June 27, 2003, the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) set regulations requiring OEMs to make publicly available all information necessary to use on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems and to make repairs on emission systems. OEMs were required, by the end of 2003, to launch full text websites containing this service information for all 1996 and later model year vehicles. The EPA recently initiated efforts to audit these websites using feedback from technicians as a way to ensure compliance.
Technicians will provide responses using a questionnaire developed by an EPA committee composed of 15 industry representatives from OEMs, tool companies, shops and aftermarket associations. In the questionnaire’s current draft form, technicians will use a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is poor and 10 is very good), to answer questions such as:
- Was there a useful list of Diagnostic Trouble Codes relating to this monitor? Did you find the list complete?
- Does the website provide information to identify and diagnose other systems or components that may affect emission systems through multiplex interactivity?
- How easy was website navigation?
- Were you able to access the entire site for the respective time and price? Or were you limited to certain makes or certain model years for the subscription period you had access to?
Technicians are encouraged to enter comments on each question or mark them as non-applicable. They will have approximately three to four months to give their feedback. For further information about the study, Holly Pugliese, policy analyst at the EPA, should be contacted at (734) 214-4288 or [email protected].
Paul Foley, vice president of the Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association and a representative for MEMA on the EPA OEM Audit Steering Committee, reports that a selection process for technicians is being put together. These technicians should begin taking part in the audit in March. The EPA plans to send its findings to manufacturers and the service industry when the study is complete, which should be around September or October, according to a spokesperson from the EPA. The steering committee plans to set up a website on the evaluation process.
As mentioned earlier, MEMA would like to resolve Right to Repair issues without legislative action and is confident it will happen. Bob McKenna, president of the association, told us, “MEMA has its feet on both sides of the fence” with members from both the aftermarket and original equipment communities. “We serve as arbitrator,” McKenna claims.
Foley says many members of the EPA committee also work closely with the National Automotive Service Task Force, a nonprofit that facilitates the identification and correction of gaps in the availability and accessibility of automotive service information, service training, diagnostic tools and equipment, and communications for the benefit of automotive service professionals. NASTF is a voluntary, cooperative effort among the automotive service industry, the equipment and tool industry and automotive manufacturers. Currently, all the OEM websites can be accessed from www.nastf.org.
Because technician complaints are at the heart of criticisms of the current system and also form much of the argument for legislation, the findings from the EPA’s audit do have the potential to affect many of the contentions between OEMs and repairers. For example, should technicians assess OEM emissions repair data as being incomplete, repairers could have potent ammunition to compel OEMs to release complete repair data — covering other repair areas as well — to shops and aftermarket companies.
Regardless of what happens, technicians will have the opportunity to voice their opinions in a public forum both to the federal government and consumers. Their critique will be based upon the availability and completeness of OEM data, which sends a powerful message about the preferred and necessary state of this information. It also presents the shared belief among technicians — whether they support legislation or not — that full access to complete repair data is crucial.
Technicians report that full access is important because it helps build competition, which benefits customers, shops and the business community alike. Even says, “This is the United States of America. We should have a choice. If I buy a computer from one company I shouldn’t have to return it to them for repairs. I should be able to take it where I want, to the people I trust. The same goes for auto repairs. I should be able to choose where I go.”
