Gaining access

With a task force charged with overseeing the dissemination of repair and diagnostic information to aftermarket repairers, as well as the federal and state Right to Repair legislative proposals, a number of organizations and interest groups have drawn lines in the sand as to how this information should be distributed.

But before looking at the different philosophies, it's important to note that basically the entire aftermarket has the same goal in mind: to get information to the independent technician so the driver can get his or her vehicle repaired where they wish.

"I don't think you'll find any disagreement that the consumers should have the right to choose where they take their vehicle to be repaired," says Steve Handschuh, president and COO of the Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA). He says everyone in the industry supports a "right to repair." But where he and others part ways is when the subject of legislation is broached.

And from the AASA's standpoint, the group is not the "neutral" party some claim, Handschuh clarifies.

AASA, a division of the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), says there are intellectual property (IP) rights of automakers that must be protected. What constitutes IP also has been the source of debate.

"We don't feel that we're neutral," adds Handschuh. "I think what's hurting the industry's effort is the lack of substantial data to prove this issue one way or another."

For example, legislators were presented last year only with what they refer to as anecdotal evidence that a problem with obtaining diagnostic and repair information exists. "I think the aftermarket would agree that a better job needs to be done at quantifying the issue," he notes. "That is not an easy task. All the aftermarket can ask for is to be able to access all the information the franchised car dealer has."

According to a survey released last year by the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA), which polled more than 1,000 independent repair shop owners, service managers and technicians, $5.8 billion in service and parts sales are lost annually because of the independent repairers' lack of repair information and tools. Additionally, independent repair shops turn away approximately 1.2 million consumers each year due to technicians' insufficient access to information. Those who oppose legislation dispute the validity of those numbers. While believing complaints about access to information are handled expeditiously, opponents to legislation say information is out there and techs either don't want to pay for it or aren't looking in the right places.

Seeking legal footing

A governmental Right to Repair mandate would provide the legal clout necessary to ensure the National Automotive Service Task Force's (NASTF) stated goals will be achieved with complete, ongoing compliance from every OEM selling cars in the United States, according to Aaron Lowe, AAIA vice president of government affairs.

NASTF, of which Handschuh is a Board of Directors member, has been charged with making sure carmakers share diagnostic and repair information, addressing any gaps in the information available to the aftermarket.

Right to Repair measures this year so far have been introduced in a number of states — including New Jersey, Maine, Nevada, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma and Florida, whose bill died in the Legislature — and will be re-introduced during the current Congressional session.

"Congress and the states are keeping their eyes on it," Lowe points out, adding he could not divulge as of press time who would introduce federal legislation this year. "It puts pressure on the OEMs to provide the information."

Another important point is that not all associations have had the same stance since the beginning.

Ron Pyle, president of the Automotive Service Association (ASA), reminds us that contrary to the association's current stance against Right to Repair legislation, at one time ASA was an avid supporter.

"A lot people ask us why we oppose Right to Repair. They really have not looked at the history of the association and its involvement in Right to Repair from the beginning," he explains. "If it had not been for our part in the initial coalition and the testimony we gave in support of the issue of Right to Repair, it would have never moved in."

In 2002, once the OEMs agreed to furnish repair information and sign agreements stating as such, the ASA dropped its support of Right to Repair legislation.

"We had assumed, and we were wrong, that others would join us," says Pyle, who's also an NASTF board member. "We had assumed others would see it's a valid approach, but it didn't materialize the way we thought it would."

What the techs are saying

If a technician can't get the information he or she needs, the power of suggestion to the consumer can be considerable.

"I think the manufacturers will get the big picture when we as independent repair shops start suggesting to our customers what cars not to buy because they are too difficult or too expensive to repair or information is not available — kind of like we are doing now," says Douglass Kirchdorfer, who with his wife, Rebecca, owns the six-bay Downing Street Garage in downtown Denver.

He says he does not support a Right to Repair mandate from on high. "I would be if we were having more of a problem," Kirchdorfer reports. "But not at this time. The problem with legislation is that some manufacturers will comply and some will not. Then we, as an industry, will have to police the problem. There are already too many laws that we all have to follow.

"So far information has not been too big an issue for us. We seem to be able to figure most stuff out," he adds.

Kirchdorfer says he remembers only a couple of instances where there was this type of problem with a repair. They were able to get the information from tech services they use, such as ALLDATA, Mitchell On Demand, Identifix, Euro Diagnostics and through a Delphi subscription.

Lasecke, from Plains Auto Parts and Service, says his shop prides itself on providing prompt service. "We don't have a week to repair a vehicle, so we end up sending them to a dealer" when complications arise, much to the dismay of his busy customers. "We're a ways from town, and people would rather have us work on them than shipping them to the dealer."

At that point, Lasecke explains, the remaining portion of the transaction shifts to the dealership, resulting in reduced revenue for the shop and an unhappy patron due solely to a lack of repair information that he says should be readily available.

Handling the dealings with the dealer in-house and collecting an extra fee from the client is not an acceptable option for Plains Auto. "We're pretty up front with everybody," Lasecke says. "We rely on our reputation, word of mouth and repeat business."

NASTF connects its site to a network of almost 30 OEM Web sites, but many techs prefer to get their diagnostic and repair information through such third-party providers, which they say are more affordable and more efficient.

Others retrieve information through the International Automotive Technican's Network (iATN), which also has a spot on the NASTF board. The iATN boasts 55,178 members and 1.2 million collective years of experience. Online forums allow repair shops from around the world to brainstorm on some of the more difficult repairs they encounter.

In an online survey conducted by Aftermarket Business and Motor Age, techs say if they encounter problems obtaining diagnostic and repair information, they check such sources as ALLDATA and Identifix, as well as tech support hotlines and Web sites. Many note that they contact the dealer or OEM Web sites only as a last resort.

Most agree that if the franchised dealer gets complete service information, so should the aftermarket. In the case of what some automakers perceive as proprietary information, a suggested gauge is, if it's available to the OEMs, it should be available to the aftermarket.

"Because a shop doesn't have access to factory information, the customer gets the perception that the dealer is better equipped to repair their vehicle and maybe they should be taking it to the dealer," observes Waters, from TMK Auto Repair. "This is exactly what the dealers want and that's why — in a nutshell — the manufacturers are doing this and getting away with it. The manufacturers have far more clout than us little guys do."

Requiring OEMs to present the relevant repair data seems like a logical solution, according to Waters. But, contrary to other techs, he says there are limitations to the industry's third-party informational offerings.

"If you own a general automotive repair facility servicing many different manufacturers, it's impractical to purchase subscriptions to each manufacturer's repair information Web site," he explains. "Therefore, we rely more on the ALLDATA, Mitchell systems of the world, which include a lot of boiler plate-type information. The programs are better than nothing, but have a long way to go."

He'd like to see the third-party providers "take the time and energy to make sure their systems are vehicle-specific in all aspects."

Offering stellar customer service is a key goal at the four-bay TMK. A lack of information delays the process and creates a troublesome situation.

"That's where you pull information from other techs in your shop and, if needed, call techs you know in your area (networking), or post to a site like iATN," says Waters. "If all else fails, you take the time to figure out how it works so you can fix what's broken."

Referring a customer back to the OEM is done as a last resort. "We don't stay very involved once a vehicle goes to the dealer," he adds. "Three's a crowd, and we don't want to get into a finger-pointing situation. We do tell the customer to call us with any questions if they need further translation of what the dealer tells them."

A monumental task that no one has undertaken at this point, says Handschuh, is comparing OEM Web sites for franchised dealers against aftermarket sites.

Following Clean Air Act mandates, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) audited emissions-related information that's available online and concluded that although the prices of repair information varied wildly — from the tens to the thousands of dollars for subscriptions — the information needed is readily available from OEMs. Some complaints did include navigational features of sites and lack of keyword searches, which are more aesthetic than vital. Most independent technicians who took part in the EPA survey admitted to using third-party information providers due to the cost of some OEM site subscriptions, according to the EPA.

Handschuh says these third-party agencies are getting their information directly from the OEMs. "I believe NASTF is an honest, good faith attempt on behalf of the carmakers to provide a legitimate mechanism or forum for independent repair shops to file a complaint that information is missing."

Steven Douglas, director of environmental affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) and a NASTF board member, also believes OEMs are sharing pertinent information. "I think there's a genuine desire for all manufacturers to get the information out there."

However, "that doesn't mean there are not problems."

For example, he admits the biggest problem is "reprogramming," and each auto manufacturer has developed its own reprogramming strategy, which can frustrate technicians, especially with newer vehicles.

Douglas says reprogramming problems are the No. 1 complaint topic filed with NASTF.

Reprogramming information, flex fuel diagnostics and gauge and sensor calibrations are noted as hard-to-find pieces of information in our previously mentioned online poll.

The aftermarket has attempted to build a "black box" that covers reprogramming for all makes and models in order to consolidate tools, but this has yet to work out, says Douglas. He compares the process to building a bridge from two opposite sides: engineers and product developers just can't seem to line it up correctly.

Whether independent repairers are getting the information they seek depends on the type of shop, says Dan Freeman, president of Auto Parts Associates, Inc. (APA), an aftermarket program distribution group whose roster includes more than 1,200 service centers. "Some of our members are specialists and only deal in specific models," he adds. "Those guys don't have as hard a time, because they're tied into the dealerships."

On the other hand, the techs who perform general repairs encounter more obstacles throughout this process. "The generalists, they don't really have a lot of technical ability, because there are so many vehicles and models they have to service," Freeman surmises.

Freeman, whose members support Right to Repair, describes the problem as twofold. "One, the manufacturers are fighting to keep the information proprietary; and the second problem is the shops don't take advantage of what is available in some cases," he says. "I think the solution is for our members to form these partnerships with our customer base and at least point them in the right direction to help them out."

Other times, it's a matter of the technicians disliking the fee-based Web sites, Freeman adds.

One segment of repairers sure to follow AAIA's lead in supporting Right to Repair legislation is the membership of the association's Car Care Professionals Network (CCPN), which includes the Aftermarket Auto Parts Alliance repair shops.

"All of the Alliance members are also members of AAIA and thus support the Right to Repair legislation," says John Wick, Alliance director of training. "We believe this legislation is about giving consumers choices where to have their vehicles worked on, and (so) our members enjoy and thrive in a competitive marketplace."

He adds: "Any time a shop cannot access service information and thus not repair a vehicle, it limits our ability to supply parts for that repair. In my opinion, this is contrary to the capitalistic underpinnings that our country is based on."

The stakeholders

The current method of overseeing how this valued information is shared is done through 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 feels 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."

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 backbone is where NASTF began to strike 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 feels 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 believes.

"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," Handschuh believes.

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 elaborates.

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 look at legislation

It's likely that Right to Repair is one of the only divisive issues within the aftermarket, and where parties disagree most is with its legislative aspect.

The bill has been introduced at the federal level three times, according to Lowe, but has not gained enough momentum in any legislative cycle. In 2002, Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., introduced Senate Bill 2617, a companion piece to House Resolution 2735, introduced in 2001 by Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y. In the 2003-2004 legislative session, Barton and Towns again introduced a House resolution, along with a Senate bill introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. In 2005, Barton, Towns and Rep. Darrel Issa, R-Calif., introduced H.R. 2048, but no Senate bill was introduced during this session.

All of these two-year proposals have died on the vine, but those we spoke with foresee a similar proposal this legislative session.

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 multi-year 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," says Plotkin, 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."

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.

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 bureaucratic nightmare'

But what would the industry look like with a federal Right to Repair bill? Some say, upon passage, it could take up to two years for the governing body just to write a law.

"So what happens during that period of time?" Handschuh asks.

There could be legal challenges filed by automakers along the way, which could tie up court systems. The automakers that have filled out memorandums of understanding could withdraw those agreements and force repairers to sue them for the repair information.

As mentioned earlier, NASTF likely would remain a governing body of the disbursement of repair and diagnostic information.

Let's not forget that no computer or data-sharing system is perfect, especially in the automotive repair industry. Techs who have worked for dealerships have told us that even technicians in dealer bays can't get perfect diagnostic and repair data.

Then, in the case of state legislative efforts, "would the associations then be facing some pretty stiff legal bills?" he asks. "Would the state agency that's charged with writing the rules be competent and be able to write rules that the automakers would accept, that would actually work in favor of the aftermarket or work against the aftermarket?"

Any law mandating a national or statewide Right to Repair system would be unnecessary, costly and wasteful, according to Bob Redding, Washington, D.C. representative for ASA.

"It would create a bureaucratic nightmare; it would create litigation," he says.

"We have a voluntary industry solution that works," Redding points out, referring to NASTF. "We have a good situation now. More information is in the marketplace and more information is available than ever before."

The efforts of NASTF are "the glue for solving problems" that may arise in disseminating the needed data. "You need some independent entity that is working to facilitate these problems," says Redding, and NASTF fits the bill for accomplishing this task.

Domestic and foreign OEMs doing business in the U.S. already are on board and "if a new company comes in we would ask them to participate."

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.

Are automakers really sharing?

Our attempts to contact a number of automakers were not reciprocated by press time, but according to NASTF, a majority of OEMs have memorandums of understanding with the task force.

It also appears that aftermarket parts manufacturers have the same reluctance to comment on this issue, as many did not get back to us by press time. This could partly be attributed to the dual interests of parts makers who work in both the aftermarket and OEM channels.

"If the keys are lost, then the vehicle has to go to a dealership for programming," says James Von Ehr, technical information and serviceability manager for Nissan. But he adds that Nissan plans to work with the Vehicle Security Council (VSC) to share key and immobilizer information, currently the sole domain of dealerships, with approved locksmiths. More recently, one model for a live demonstration of this system at a NASTF meeting happened to be a Nissan.

"Anything having to do with vehicle security is an issue of great concern to carmakers, because they're under federal law to provide safety and security," says AASA's Handschuh.

Toyota, on the other hand, plans to post its entire parts catalog online by the end of the year, Pyle adds.

Toyota spokesperson Sam Butto says independent repairers seeking service information can purchase a repair manual from a Toyota dealer (which can be costly, he admits), or they can visit a Web site set up for independent techs where the same information is offered as that found on the Web site for franchised dealerships. The information costs $10 a day, or monthly and annual subscriptions can be purchased.

"They're basically offering everything to independents at a cost," says Butto.

At a recent ASA meeting, Toyota offered each of the association's members a year's free membership.

Import automakers are known for not setting up as many dealerships in the United States as the Big Three, but they're also known for not being as forthright with repair and diagnostic information.

Foreign carmakers like to make the big investment in the metro areas, adds Pyle, who refers to these as the "showcase dealers," but beyond that, "they know they need the aftermarket, or they can't support their customers."

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.

The legislation surge continues

Lowe says AAIA must continue its push for legislation "If the car companies control all the information, they will control the distribution of parts and everything else," he says.

"The technology is not going to stand still on vehicles," and the data access problems will become more acute.

"Without legal authority, we're going to be fighting this battle every year," Lowe adds.

Informational upgrades will have to be ongoing, with every OEM participating to be sure that repairers are able to keep consumers' cars on the road, he notes.

"Right now, the consumers are in the driver's seat because they can take their cars where they want to — and usually they choose the independent aftermarket," Lowe says.

"We'd like to see a level playing field. We don't want the blueprints for the parts, we just want the information to repair the car."

For parts distribution, this issue is incredibly vital, points out the APA's Freeman. "If we've got shops that buy from our members and they can't repair our vehicles, then somebody else gets the job," he says. "We lose sales. That's the biggest problem. If you can't repair the vehicles, you can't replace the parts."

Freeman foresees a future in which information may not come from the automakers. "I think the future of the business for us is, we're going to have to bypass the OEs and go to people like Bosch, DENSO — (those) who build the OE products. They'll have to supply the equipment and expertise."