Your Source for Up-To-Date News and Research on the Collision Repair Industry 

 

click here to subscribe to the FREE INSIGHT Editor's Desk News Alert Email

SUBSCRIBERS-ONLY
Today's News
INSIGHT This Month
INSIGHT Archives
Survey Center
Letter to the Editor

Business Tools
Subscription Information
CSI Reporting
Financial Analysis
IRS Audit Guide

Management/
Technical Info
Market Watch Rates
INSIGHT Inside this month's issue...

Feedback
Letter to the Editor

A Shallow Victory?

ASA says its agreement with automakers will open up OEM service and repair information to independents, but some observers claim the industry is giving up too soon on a legislative fix.

When the Automotive Ser-vice Association (ASA) in late September announced a surprise agreement with the automakers regarding access by independent repairers to service and repair information available to dealerships, it used words like "historic" and "a success and a victory" to describe the accord.

"This agreement is an investment in the future of independent automotive service," said Dan Frohlich, chairman of ASA's national board and owner of A.R.S. Auto-motive, a collision and mechanical shop in Pitts-burgh, Pa. "By building bridges between manufacturers and the aftermarket, ASA is ensuring the long-term viability of independent repair. One cannot overstate the historical significance of this covenant."

But within days, a number of other groups (see list on page 13) that along with ASA had been pushing for federal legislation that would require the OEMs to make service and repair information and tools available to non-dealerships were questioning the value of the ASA agreement and saying they would not halt their legislative efforts.

While the battle for OEM service and repair information often centers around emissions and other mechanical-related concerns, independent collision repairers are no strangers to the difficulty of getting OEM repair information. Indeed, Collision Industry Conference (CIC) participants last year cited access to repair information as a key goal for a newly-formed CIC OEM Committee.

INSIGHT spoke with all sides in the information accessibility issue to try to determine the motivations at work - and what it will mean for the collision industry.

Progress was being made

By all accounts, there has been good progress by the independents over the past two years in the battle for OEM service and repair information. A combination of cooperation and coercion culminated last fall in a "letter of intent" from more than a dozen of the OEMs to make such information available by January 1 of next year. While viewed as a step forward, the agreement was somewhat limited.

"There are really three aspects to the OEM information issue: availability, accessibility and affordability," said Bill Haas, the ASA vice president who oversees the association's mechanical and collision divisions. "At some point, all of these things are going to have to fall in place. [Last fall's letter by the OEMs] might address the availability issue, but that doesn't mean that the information is accessible and it certainly doesn't mean it's affordable."

That's why ASA and a variety of industry organizations continued to push forward with proposed federal legislation that would force automakers to open up. In 2001, U.S. Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., introduced H.R. 2735, "The Motor Vehicle Owner's Right to Repair Act," and a Senate version was introduced earlier this year by Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn. In both cases, the legislation states that vehicle owners have the right:

• To all information necessary to allow the diagnosis, service and repair of their vehicles;
• To choose between OEM parts and non-OEM parts when repairing their vehicles; and,
• To make, or have made, repairs necessary to keep their vehicles in reasonably good and serviceable condition during the expected vehicle life.

The bill states that restricting service information limits consumer choice, which in turn limits competition. It also gives vehicle owners the option to file a civil lawsuit if the law were violated.

During ASA's annual meeting, held last April in Washington, D.C., two busloads of shop owners spent a day on Capitol Hill, calling on members of Congress from their states to ask them to support the legislation. The effort had some nearly immediate impact: By the end of the week, seven more House members had signed on as co-sponsors of the H.R. 2735, bringing the total number of co-sponsors to 29. Another 21 co-sponsors were subsequently added.

In July, Haas, along with several ASA member shop owners and representatives of the aftermarket groups, testified in favor of the bill during a hearing held by a Senate subcommittee. Their message appeared to get through to lawmakers.

"Independent automotive repair shop owners have not come to Congress looking for a handout," Wellstone said during the hearing. "They simply want to be able to compete for the driving public's repair dollar on the basis of quality, service and price. Independents don't mind competition, but they can't stay in business if they don't have access to the information to repair newer cars."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the subcommittee, agreed that the issue "needs to be resolved fairly and fully."

"It is not appropriate for the dealers to monopolize information," Dorgan said. "If progress is not made, Congress will be forced to pass legislation that will require information be given to the independents."

For their part, the automakers continued to deny any attempts to block access to service and repair information. They showed lawmakers last fall's letter of intent. They point to the web-based access to information that is now or soon will be offered by a growing number of OEMs, most notably GM, Toyota and Volkswagen. And they tout their efforts to work with a relatively new entity, the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF). The NASTF matrix

Like CIC, NASTF is not a formal organization with dues-paying members; it is open to any participants interested in helping facilitate the NASTF mission: to identify and correct gaps in the availability and accessibility of automotive service and repair information, training, diagnostic tools and equipment.

Indeed, through conference calls, monthly email updates and two meetings per year, NASTF has produced a matrix showing what types of service and repair information and tools (and, eventually, training) are currently available from each auto manufacturer, listing the phone numbers or websites shops can use to obtain them.

The matrix, which is being updated two or three times per year, can be viewed or downloaded at: http://www.iatn. net/nastf/oematrix.html. The site also includes a complaint form shops can use to report problems in accessing OEM information.

While all sides agree the matrix is still a work in progress, some of its limitations - for the collision industry, in particular - became very apparent earlier this year. Mike West, owner of Southtowne Auto Rebuild in Tukwila, Wash., and a member of ASA's Collision Division Operations Committee, put the NASTF matrix to a test. Over a 20-day period, he methodically contacted the two dozen auto manufacturers using the phone numbers or email addresses listed in the matrix.

"I found that 13 manufacturers didn't have collision repair information available, or if they do, the people answering their phones aren't aware of it," West said. "Six of the manufacturers do have some [collision repair] information available, and five didn't know if they have information available or not. As the matrix is now, it would be a source of frustration three out of four times for collision repairers."

"We'd been working this on the mecha-nical side for about a year, and we wanted to bring collision into it," Bob Redding, ASA's national lobbyist said of West's efforts.

Indeed, collision repair information was added to the NASTF matrix this summer. But gaps in the information availability still exist, and with the seeming momentum gathering for federal legislation, it took many by surprise this fall when ASA announced it was dropping its support for the federal legislation because of an agreement with the automakers.

The ASA-OEM agreement

Under the agreement, two OEM trade groups - representing a total of 35 automakers - have committed to providing the same service and training information available to franchised dealerships to independent repair shops by August 31, 2003,.

A joint letter from ASA and the two OEM trade groups to Sen. Dorgan states, "This commitment will continue the viability of the automotive service industry and preclude the need for current legislation while we work on implementation. More-over, successful implementation will eliminate the need for future state and federal legislation."

"This includes everything we need as independent repairers to have a successful future," Redding said. "Yes, we believe there will be issues. There will be bumps in the road. You're dealing here with 30-some individual companies. But we have a forum, with the NASTF, to deal with those problems."

But other groups backing the federal legislation say they are "disappointed" with the agreement, and say they weren't "consulted or notified by ASA or the manufacturers" about it.

"We have long promoted the principles in The Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act (HR 2735), but the recent offer to make repair information public by the automobile manufacturers doesn't come close to the requirements in [HR 2735]," David Parde, president of the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE), said.

CARE and other groups say the August 31 deadline in the ASA agreement is six months later than the January 1 deadline the OEMs agreed to a year ago. More importantly, the ASA agreement offers no "enforcement mechanism or regulatory recourse should the car companies fail to live up to their commitments," says Jim Eady, president of the Automotive Warehouse Distributors Asso-ciation (AWDA).

"The Federal Trade Com-mission needs to be involved in the enforcement of this agreement," Eady said. "While we are pleased with the progress, without some oversight, the aftermarket and the motoring public have no assurance, that in the long term, service information and tools will be available to ensure a competitive vehicle service industry."

Redding disagrees, saying that ASA's agreement is both more specific than the automakers' 2001 letter or intent, and more importantly, has the involvement of Congress.

"Let's just pretend for a moment it all fails," Redding said. "We're not going into it thinking it will fail. We think it will succeed and that everyone is at the table dealing in good faith. But if that were to occur, and timetables are not met and information is withheld, then we go back to the Congress. And they've told us they want us to come back. They want to hear from us. So we will periodically report to the Congress about our progress, how it's working or not working."

Political realities may have also played a role in ASA's decision. The agreement with automakers came just weeks prior to the end of the Congressional session. It will be almost three months before a new Congress is in session in January - at which time the legislation would have to be re-introduced and the process would have to start over.

And even if it were to pass by next fall, it would be another year or two before the regulation would be in place for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission - an entity that some sources say has shown little interest in the issue.

But CARE and AWDA and other are undeterred and are continuing to push for the legislation. They have written to Sen. Wellstone, urging him to reverse his announced decision that the legislation is no longer necessary. And they have placed ads in two Capitol Hill newspapers thanking Reps. Barton and Towns for their commitment to continue to support HR 2735.

Redding said he doesn't think the other groups' response should deter the industry from viewing the ASA-OEM agreement as a victory.

"This is a good thing, and we should treat it as such," he said.   o

Feedback

Have a comment about this article? Send Email to Charles Baker, INSIGHT's Publisher

©2002 Collision Repair Industry INSIGHT
All Rights Reserved

FEATURED
LINKS:

INSIGHT Supports the NABC!
Do You?