H.R. 2048, THE MOTOR 

VEHICLE OWNERS’ RIGHT 

TO REPAIR ACT OF 2005 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 17, 2006 

Serial No. 109-93 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2006 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

29-471PDF 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

 (EX OFFICIO)

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

 Ranking Member 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO) 

(II)
CONTENTS 

Page 

Testimony of: 

Majoras, Hon. Deborah Platt, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission.............................. 16 

Marzulla, Nancie G., Partner, Marzulla & Marzulla, on behalf of The Coalition for 

Auto Repair Equity ........................................................................................................ 34 

Stanton, Michael J., Vice President, Government and International Affairs, The 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ......................................................................... 43 

Lowe, Aaron, Vice President, Government Affairs, Automotive Aftermarket Industry 

Association ..................................................................................................................... 48 

Gorman, Charles G., Chairman, National Automotive Task Force ................................... 57 

Additional material submitted for the record: 

Lowe, Aaron, Vice President Government Affairs, Automotive Aftermarket Industry 

Association, response for the record.............................................................................. 77 

Stanton, Michael J., Vice President, Government and International Affairs, The 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, response for the record .................................. 79 

Majoras, Hon. Deborah Platt, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, submission for 

the record........................................................................................................................ 80 

Shapiro, Gary, President and CEO, Consumer Electronics Association, submission for 

the record........................................................................................................................ 82 

Kelly, Paul T., Senior Vice President, Federal and State Government Affairs, Retail 

Industry Leaders Association, submission for the record.............................................. 83 

(III) 

(1) 

H.R. 2048, THE MOTOR VEHICLE 

OWNERS’ RIGHT TO 

REPAIR ACT OF 2005 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns 

(chairman) presiding. 

 Members present: Representatives Upton, Radanovich, Bass, Terry, 

Rogers, Otter, Murphy, Blackburn, Schakowsky, Green, Strickland, 

Gonzalez, Baldwin, Dingell (ex officio). 

 Staff present: David Cavicke, General Counsel; Chris Leahy, Policy 

Coordinator; Brian McCullough, Professional Staff Member; Will Carty, 

Professional Staff Member; Billy Harvard, Legislative Clerk; Jonathan 

Cordone, Minority Counsel; Jonathan Brater, Minority Staff Assistant; 

and Chris Treanor, Minority Staff Assistant. 

MR. STEARNS. Good morning, everybody. 

 The subcommittee will come to order. 

 Today’s hearing is the third time in the last 2 years that my 

subcommittee has addressed the issue of a consumer’s “right to repair” 

their own vehicles. That fact is indicative of how much all of us would 

like to see a mutually-agreeable, and preferably, a non-legislative 

solution to this issue. We wanted to provide time for this progress. 

Unfortunately, the time for a deal has come and gone, and we are now 

scheduled to have a markup of Chairman Barton’s bill H.R. 2048, the 

“Motor Vehicles Right to Repair Act of 2005” next week. 

 My colleagues, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, NHTSA, out of the approximately 250 million vehicles 

in the United States, about 75 percent are serviced and repaired by 

independent mechanics from the “mom and pops” to the large 

franchisees like Midas and Jiffy Lube. It is a market in which Americans 

alone spend close to $40 billion a year in repair and service of their 

vehicles. When car manufacturers’ warranties run out, usually in 5 years 

or less, American consumers overwhelmingly choose independent shops 
2

for the car repair they need. Likewise, American consumers choose 

many of the aftermarket parts, many of which are supplied to 

independent garages to replace worn OEM or original equipment 

components. All of this choice and the competition benefits the 

American consumer. 

 The issues of information and access addressed in Chairman 

Barton’s bill seem to appear most frequently when working on and 

repairing newer, more advanced vehicles, some more computerized than 

the Space Shuttle. It is clear to me, after learning more about the 

sophistication of these systems and the technicians that service them, that 

the old shade tree mechanic is now more akin to a rocket scientist than 

Mr. Good Wrench. And whether it is installing new brake pads, 

upgrading flash memory, or tuning our favorite motorcycle to get that 

extra 40 horsepower, new vehicles require new, expensive tools and 

expertise, not the socket wrench, grease gun, and the dog-eared Chilton’s 

book that your father used to unleash on his clunker on the weekends. 

As more and more government regulation makes emission standards 

more stringent, safety systems like airbags and anti-lock breaks more 

robust, and security systems more intimidating and vault-like, cars are 

becoming more like supercomputers on wheels than the old-fashioned 

rides that many of us fondly remember. 

 My colleagues, the bottom line is that accurate information and the 

ability to access that information is a necessary capability for any 21st

century mechanic who wants to assure that the annoying little “check 

engine” light stops glowing, whether it is triggered by a catastrophic 

transmission failure or a simple loose gas cap. The legislation before us 

today is intended to get us closer to that goal: first, by making sure that 

the information needed to service or repair the vehicle, that is the fault 

codes that trigger that annoying little light, is available and accurate; 

second, by making sure there are available, scan tools, that are needed to 

access the codes that route your mechanic to the source triggering that 

little light and that the codes are divined easily through the vehicles 

internal OBD system; and finally, by making sure that those codes can be 

cross-referenced accurately with information that is provided by the 

manufacturer on websites, CD-ROMs, and manual that is specific to the 

make and model of that car with the glowing “check engine” light so that 

a fix can be found. Sounds simple, but as we have seen, the devil is in 

the details. And believe me, trying to find common ground over the 

details has been more of a challenge than any of us expected it to be. 

 To get some of those details today, I would like to have each of the 

witnesses, including Chairman Majoras, the FTC chairlady, to comment 

during the question-and-answer period on some of the more important 

and controversial elements of this bill, including: What should constitute 
3

“information” for the purposes of the bill? Fault codes? Engine 

mapping algorithms? Training information? Two, how should we 

interpret what is meant by “diagnostic tools and capabilities related to 

vehicle repair” in section 3 of the bill? Does this mean scan tools? What 

are the other “capabilities” referring to? How would the FTC enforce 

this legislation? What resources would be required to implement this bill 

as it is now written? And finally, would the bill allow States to sue 

manufacturers under its current language? 

 These are difficult questions, and we were very respectful of how 

difficult they are. 

 I would like to thank our witnesses today, and especially Madame 

Chairman Majoras for coming, for taking up their valuable time to be 

here. We appreciate that very much. 

 I would like to also inform folks that Chairman Barton is a bit under 

the weather today, and he regrets that he can not be here for this opening 

period. I assume he might be coming later. We wish him well, and we 

hope he has a speedy recovery. 

 And with that, I welcome the Ranking Member, Ms. Schakowsky. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF STEARNS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Good morning. Today’s hearing is the third time in the last two years that my 

Subcommittee has addressed the issue of a consumer’s “right to repair” their own 

vehicles. That fact is indicative of how much all of us would like to see a mutuallyagreeable, and preferably, a non-legislative solution to this issue. We wanted to provide 

time for progress. Unfortunately, the time for a deal has come and gone, and we are now 

scheduled to mark up Chairman Barton’s bill, HR 2048, the “Motor Vehicle Owners’ 

Right to Repair Act of 2005” next week. 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), out of 

the approximately 250 million vehicles in the United States, about 75% are serviced and 

repaired by independent mechanics – from the “mom and pops” to the large franchises 

like Midas and Jiffy Lube. It is a market in which Americans alone spend close to $40 

billion a year on repair and service of their vehicles. When car manufacturers’ warranties 

run out –usually in five years or less- American consumers overwhelmingly chose 

independent shops for the car repair needs. Likewise, American consumers chose many 

of the aftermarket parts, many of which are supplied to independent garages, to replace 

worn “OEM” or original equipment components. All of this choice and competition 

benefits the American consumer. 

The issues of information and access addressed in Chairman Barton’s bill seem to 

appear most frequently when working on and repairing newer, more advanced vehicles – 

some more computerized than the space shuttle. It is clear to me after learning more 

about the sophistication of these systems and the technicians that service them that the 

old shade tree mechanic is now more akin to a rocket scientist than Mr. Good Wrench. 

And whether it’s installing new brake pads, upgrading flash memory, or tuning our 

favorite pocket rocket to get that extra 50 horsepower, new vehicles require new, 

expensive tools and expertise – not the socket wrench, grease gun, and the dog-eared 

Chilton’s that your father used to unleash on his clunker on the weekends. As more and 
4

more government regulation makes emissions standards more stringent, safety systems 

like airbags and anti-lock brakes more robust, and security systems more intimidating and 

vault-like, cars are becoming more like supercomputers on wheels than the old fashioned 

rides I fondly remember. 

The bottom line is that accurate information and the ability to access that 

information is a necessary capability for any 21st Century mechanic who wants to ensure 

that the annoying little “check engine” light stops glowing - whether it’s triggered by a 

catastrophic transmission failure or a simple loose gas cap. The legislation before us 

today is intended to get us closer to that goal. First, by making sure that the information 

needed to service or repair the vehicle – i.e. the fault codes that trigger that annoying little 

light - is available and accurate. Second, by making sure that there are available tools - 

scan tools – that are needed to access the codes that route your mechanic to the source 

triggering that little light and that the codes are divined easily from the vehicle’s internal 

OBD system. And finally, by making sure those codes can be cross referenced accurately 

with information provided by the manufacturer – on web sites, in CD ROMs and manuals 

- that is specific to the make and model of that car with the glowing “check engine” light 

so that a fix can be found. Sounds simple, but as we have seen, the devil is in the details - 

and believe me, trying to find common ground over the details has been more of a 

challenge than anyone ever expected. 

To get to some of those details today, I would like to have each of our witnesses, 

including FTC Chairman Majoras, to comment during the Q and A on some of the more 

important and controversial elements of HR 2048, including: 

• What should constitute “information” for purposes of the bill? Fault codes? 

Engine mapping algorithms? Training information? 

• How should we interpret what is meant by “diagnostic tools and capabilities 

related to vehicle repair” in section 3 of the bill? Does this mean scan tools? 

What are the other “capabilities” referring to? 

• How would the FTC enforce this legislation? What resources would be 

required to implement the bill as written? 

• Would the bill allow states to sue manufacturers under its current language? 

I would like to thank our witnesses here today, especially FTC Chairman Majoras, 

for coming to offer their views. I also would like to inform folks that Chairman Barton is 

a bit under the weather today and regrettably will not be able to attend this morning’s 

hearing. We wish him well and a speedy recovery. Thank you. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Okay. I appreciate you holding today’s hearing on H.R. 2048, the 

Motor Vehicle Owners’ right to Repair Act, of which I am one of the 102 

co-sponsors. 

 I believe this bill addresses the current problem independent repair 

shops run into when they can not access the technical information they 

need to work on cars. This bill would also restore consumers’ right to 

choose where they want to take their business. 

 We made a number of advances in car design and maintenance 

through the years. Although we have a way to go, cars are safer, more 

environmentally sound, however, the technological advances have also 

created some complications for the corner garage and consumers. 

Having car problems is stressful. Simple repairs are turning out to be not 

so simple after all. Even getting a diagnosis may prove impossible, and 
5

many have found that they can’t take their cars to the mechanics they 

trust and have been using for years merely because those mechanics 

can’t get the service information they need or they can’t get it in a timely 

fashion. Highly skilled mechanics are being forced to send their business 

to dealers, because the auto manufacturers have the diagnosis and repair 

information on lockdown. 

 According to AAA, consumers spend almost $200 billion annually to 

repair and maintain the 200 million cars on the road. Seventy percent of 

consumers take their cars to independent repair shops once their warranty 

expires. If we don’t do something to ensure that the diagnosis and repair 

information sharing goes more smoothly than it has been, then we are 

severely limiting consumers’ choice and undermining small businesses 

who already have the deck stacked against them. 

 I believe it is important to protect the trade secrets and intellectual 

property of auto manufacturers. The motor vehicle industry is the largest 

manufacturer in the country, and their innovations have helped fuel the 

economy. However, I believe that information necessary to diagnose, 

service, and repair vehicles sold in the United States should be disclosed 

to car owners, repair shops, and the Federal Trade Commission. I 

believe the balance between protecting the rights of manufacturers and 

the rights of the consumers can be found and that H.R. 2048 is on the 

right track towards striking that balance. 

 The reason I decided to co-sponsor H.R. 2048 is because a couple of 

years ago, I met over coffee with a number of small repair shop owners 

in my district. Those shop owners and mechanics shared their stories 

about how their business is being driven straight to the dealership 

because of roadblock after roadblock being thrown up by the auto 

industry. Even though their shops are more convenient to use and often 

cheaper, they are losing their customers. 

 While I was glad to hear that the stakeholders in H.R. 2048 tried to 

work out an agreement, it is my understanding that an impasse was 

reached, and that is why we are here today. As is the case in many of 

these types of battles, consumers are the ones who pay for the industry 

disputes. 

 Again, this is ultimately about the consumers for me. Since the 

industries involved can’t work out a solution, then I support moving H.R. 

2048 through the committee. We need to ensure that the information 

provided to the car owners and independent repair shops is easily 

accessible, accurate, timely, and not priced out of reach. 

 Again, I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ take on the bill. 

 Thank you very much. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

 The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 
6

 MR. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I believe in the old adage that all politics is local, so when this socalled “right to repair” issue first came up, I started asking folks around 

my district about it, the people that service my car and a number of 

different repair folks, as well as my constituents. And not one person 

told me that they had a problem seeking the proper information to repair 

our autos. 

 And I attended some hearings on it, read the materials from folks 

about it. One thing really does stand out in my mind, and that is out of 

the 500 million non-warranty repairs last year, there were only 57 

requests for additional information about the National Automotive 

Service Task Force were made. Fifty-seven out of five hundred million. 

It seems to me that a lot of those were resolved as well. Now I have 

always stood for less government, not more, and I think that this bill, 

H.R. 2048, could be a bill that is looking for a problem. If it ain’t broke, 

don’t fix it. And it doesn’t seem to be broken when you have only 57 

problems out of some 500 million of us that take our cars to get serviced. 

 Since I have a little extra time, I might just also ask the chair about a 

piece of legislation that I helped author and pass on the House Floor with 

Mr. Markey, which was the Grand Theft Auto video game asking the 

FTC to investigate as to whether or not problems were there as it was 

labeled “M for mature” rather than “A for adult”. And because it was 

“M”, it got into Best Buy and Target and a whole bunch of different 

places and became the number one video game in the country. And we 

passed legislation, a resolution in the House, with nearly 400 votes 

asking the FTC to investigate as to why it got that label. We are now 10 

months later from a vote on the House Floor, passed with wide bipartisan 

support, and we still have no answer despite a number of phone calls 

that we have had thinking we would hear some word before Christmas 

and then Easter. It is now Memorial Day. We are soon to pass 1 year 

from when we passed this. And I don’t know how, for the life of me, if 

you can’t investigate Grand Theft Auto, how you can possibly 

investigate something that has got 500 million complaints like this. 

 And I yield back the balance of my time. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe the old adage that “all politics is local,” so when this so called “Right to 

Repair” issue first came up, I started asking around my district about it. I talked to my 

service station repair folks, my auto dealers, and constituents. And not one person told 

me that this is a big problem. 
7

Then I attended our hearings on it, read all the materials from folks about it. One 

things stands out in my mind – out of 500 million non-warranty repairs last year – only 

57 requests for additional information from the National Automotive Service Task Force 

were made. 57 out of 500 MILLION! And it sounds to me like they were all resolved. 

I have always stood for less government, not more and I think that HR 2048 is a bill 

looking for a problem. 

I have the greatest respect for my Chairman, but I just have to say – If aint broke, 

don’t fix it! 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

 The Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Dingell, is 

recognized. 

 MR. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me. 

 Good morning to you and good morning to everyone here. 

 I am pleased we are holding this hearing today on H.R. 2048, the 

Motor Vehicles Owners’ Right to Repair Act of 2005. It was reportedly 

introduced to help small repair shops. 

 This appears to be a magnificent cure for a problem that does not 

exist. And I find myself distressed that with all of the other important 

business we have at hand here in this committee and in the Congress that 

we would be fiddling around with something of this quality. 

 Years ago, I was a senior member of the Small Business Committee, 

and I was very helpful to my friends in the small business community, 

generally, and very specifically, in the community of automobile repairs 

and people in the independent garage industry and so forth. And we 

addressed their concerns and problems with considerable vigor. 

 The legislation is a significant improvement over the version we 

considered last Congress, but the bill may impede competitiveness of 

American manufacturing at a precarious time for the automotive 

industry. I am pleased, however, that the hearing is being held, because 

it will give us a chance to find out whether there is anything here 

justifying Congressional action. All of the evidence which we have says 

the automobile industry has been working very hard to meet the concerns 

of the independent repairmen. 

 Now it is quite clear that the issue is not as simple as some would 

make it. The publicly stated objectives of the legislation are laudable. 

Consumers should be able to choose who repairs their automobiles. I 

have always taken the position that this is a fundamental consumer right. 

It is not, however, the bill’s stated objectives that I am concerned about. 

It is the means through which the legislation seeks to achieve its stated 

objectives and the consequences, whether intended or not, that give me 

pause. It is possible to help consumers and to assist independent repair 

shops without jeopardizing the rights and the concerns of automobile 

manufacturers and their suppliers. 
8

 Independent service stations across the Nation have joined with the 

world’s automotive manufacturers to create the National Automobile 

Service Task Force. This organization was designed as a non-legislative 

means in which the stated objectives of the bill are and can be achieved. 

 Mr. Chairman, since the committee last examined this issue, the 

National Automobile Service Task Force, NASTF, has formalized its 

organization. It has appointed a Board of Directors. It has hired the 

Independent National Institute for Automobile Service Excellence to 

manage day-to-day operations. I am told that the independent service 

stations are now receiving the information they need to repair all, I 

repeat, to repair all makes and models of motor vehicles. And that in 

2005 there were only 86 requests for assistance made to NASTF. These 

actions represent meaningful progress. To the extent the effectiveness of 

this program remains in doubt, we should engage in suitable oversight in 

order to assure that the laws are faithfully being carried out by the 

regulatory agencies, but there is no need for additional legislation. 

 I believe that legislative oversight is a useful tool, and we should 

certainly use that tool here. But the use of that tool does not simply 

justify the movement forward towards legislation where none, in fact, is 

needed. 

 I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for your kindness. And I look forward to whatever work this 

hearing will disclose needs to be done by this committee. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished member. 

 Mr. Rogers. 

 MR. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding this 

hearing today. 

 I want to echo the sentiments of the distinguished member from 

Michigan, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Upton as well. 

 I continue to have serious concerns with this issue and with this 

legislation. First and foremost, I am concerned that H.R. 2048 is a 

solution in search of a problem. 

 Consumers clearly have a right to have their cars serviced at the 

station of their choice. In fact, today’s witnesses lay out in detail the 

legal arguments supporting that right. We are being told by one party 

that there is a serious market failure here and that consumers are being 

denied their legal rights. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, why have not 

the FTC nor the DOJ acted? Why have not these same witnesses brought 

a lawsuit? Or why are they not here today demanding FTC and DOJ 

action? If what is happening today is already illegal, why do we need a 

new law? 
9

 Perhaps it is because, as this committee has heard repeatedly, there is 

scant hard evidence that consumers and repair shops are actually unable 

to gain access to the information needed to repair automobiles. 

 I have other major concerns as well, Mr. Chairman. 

 I am also concerned that this legislation could jeopardize the 

intellectual property of automakers. I am concerned that this change is 

how intellectual property rights are protected could have a ripple effect 

throughout the automotive industry, costing jobs in my home State of 

Michigan. 

 I am also deeply concerned that the findings section of this 

legislation, coupled with the tough enforcement provisions of the FTC 

act, will serve as a boon to the trial bar. It is wholly conceivable that this 

bill will open a floodgate of litigation against the automakers, parts 

suppliers, auto dealers, and even certain independent repair shops, 

depending on size and skill. 

 Finally, this bill could threaten consumer safety. H.R. 2048 does not 

provide adequate provisions to ensure that the security data is kept 

secure. Modern technology has made cars much harder to steal and 

much easier to track down. H.R. 2048 could well undo this progress. 

 Again, Mr. Chairman, I again want to join my colleague from the 

great State of Michigan, Mr. Dingell, in expressing my concern for this 

bill, especially now. And I certainly would urge that throughout this 

hearing we come to a quick conclusion that this is as far as this bill 

should go. 

 And I yield back the remainder of my time. 

 MR. STEARNS. The gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin. 

 MS. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I am pleased that you are holding this hearing today on the Right to 

Repair Act, and I am interested in learning from the various perspectives 

that are going to be represented here today, especially because I come to 

this issue from a slightly different perspective. 

 Several years ago, I was contacted from JT Packard, a company in 

my district that maintains distributed energy supply systems. Essentially, 

these are backup supply-generating systems that companies use in case 

of a power surge or a complete loss of power. JT Packard came to me, 

because they used to perform routine maintenance on this equipment, 

that is until the equipment manufacturers installed encrypted software 

codes that only enabled the manufacturer to do the repair. Needless to 

say, my concern for this company led me to understanding many of the 

arguments that have been made in support of Chairman Barton’s 

legislation, and as a result, I have been a co-sponsor in this session and 

the last. 
10

 As a co-sponsor, I have seen this legislation in different forms, and I 

have also seen the industry join together to work on this issue in a way 

that could possibly have beneficial results, removing the need for 

government intervention. I was pleased to hear that the National 

Automobile Service Task Force voted to formally reorganize itself in 

March of this year, and I am hopeful that it will meet its mission and 

ensure that timely, accurate, and affordable diagnostic information, tools, 

and training are provided to independent repair facilities. 

 As we review this issue today, we must recognize the proactive steps 

that the industry has taken. At the same time, our top priority must 

always be the protection of consumers. Gaining access to service 

information and diagnostic tools should not result in less consumer 

choice, higher prices, or longer waiting time. And independent auto 

repair shop owners should not have to fear losing business because of 

hurdles that block access to vital information. 

 I look forward to this hearing on how we can work together through 

this legislation or by other means to address the concerns of 

manufacturers, service providers, and most importantly, consumers. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Terry. Mr. Terry waives. 

 Mr. Gonzalez. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 I am going to be brief. 

 First, with some apologies. I want to assure the witnesses that I will 

be reading your written statements. I have to leave to attend an 11 

o’clock meeting where I need to make a presentation. 

 Within the past 2 years, I met with who I refer to as my repair and 

parts people in San Antonio. But even within that group or association, 

there wasn’t really total agreement about the need for legislation. I had 

some that were asking what would have been my position, what is going 

to happen and such, but I had others that said, “We simply have not had 

any problems. We were able to work with manufacturers and others to 

the extent that we can provide the necessary repairs with the necessary 

technological information that is needed.” To this day, those same 

individuals at that meeting, and I admire and respect all of them, because 

what I told them is, “Give me concrete examples of what is going on in 

the Congressional district regarding the need for this information.” I 

have yet to receive any of that information. The last hearing we had, I 

again simply indicated, “Give me concrete examples.” So I am hoping in 

today’s testimony we are going to have more information forthcoming 

that clearly demonstrates that we do have this problem out there that 

needs to be addressed by federal legislation, which would be appropriate. 
11

 Anticipatory prospective legislation seldom is very good, because we 

really don’t do well looking into the crystal ball and figuring out how we 

are going to fix a situation that hasn’t already reached some sort of 

critical mass. Has it, at this point? 

 Again, I look forward to the testimony. I regret that I won’t remain 

through the whole hearing, but I guarantee you that I will be reading the 

testimony with a great interest. 

 And I yield back. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. 

 And by unanimous consent, we will have 5 days available for all 

members to put their opening statement as part of the record. 

 [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today on H.R. 2048, and 

the complex issue of information availability and access to auto repair information. 

Since introducing this legislation, I have been openly working with all parties to 

facilitate an agreement that would negate the need for legislation. As I have said many 

times in the past, my hope has been that the industry would work out that agreement. 

However, now that these negotiations have not produced a consensus, this Committee is 

prepared to move the bill. Today, I am glad we have a chance to listen to suggestions 

that may improve the bill, as we move toward marking it up in the near future. 

Let me start by saying that I have a wonderful General Motors plant in my district, 

in Arlington, TX. And, like most Members, I have local dealers that I hear from 

occasionally. So this is not a constituency whose views I have failed to hear on the 

underlying legislation. I want to be clear, I am not out to inhibit the technological 

advances achieved by our automakers or to give away their trade secrets. The bill is 

NOT about gaining proprietary information, as some suggest. What it IS about is 

consumers’ choice in auto repair. They should be able to choose where they have their 

vehicle repaired, and whether they choose aftermarket replacement parts or Original 

Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts. 

Computer-controlled technology is an integral part of modern automobile functions 

and has necessitated new considerations for effective service, repair, and maintenance. 

Nowadays, car repair usually involves interaction with a car’s on-board diagnostic (OBD) 

computer using specially designed tools. These tools are used to identify an error code, 

and that code is then linked to information providing the specifics of the problem and the 

procedures for correcting it. 

While current regulations and industry agreements have tried to insure that all the 

information necessary to make use of the OBD system is provided to the independent 

repair shops, there are still holes in the system. Further, there is no agreement among the 

parties about how to resolve disputes. What is the recourse for independent repairers and 

consumers—or the penalty for the automaker—if the information and tools are not made 

available to them? Also, there is still a disagreement over the governance structure of the 

National Automobile Service Task Force (NASTF). Because this process seems to have 

reached an impasse, I believe H.R. 2048 is necessary. 

H.R. 2048 is a very straightforward bill. It directs the FTC to write rules within one 

year requiring auto manufacturers to make certain necessary repair information available. 
12

The same service and training information must be made available to all independent 

repair shops in the same way that it is given to franchised dealerships. Furthermore, the 

same diagnostic tools and capabilities that are made available to franchised dealerships 

must be made available to independent repair shops as well. The FTC would treat a 

failure to do so as an unfair and deceptive trade practice. 

Importantly, H.R. 2048 makes sure that the bill should not be considered to be a 

requirement to disclose trade secrets, nor should it be interpreted to require the public 

disclosure of any information related to the design and manufacture of motor vehicle 

parts. And finally, the FTC rulemaking is restricted from prescribing rules that would 

interfere with the authority of or conflict with any rules prescribed by the EPA related to 

emissions control systems. 

I appreciate the willingness of all the stakeholders to sit down and try to work this 

out, but given the apparent roadblock, it is time to move this bill. 

I want to welcome Chairman Majoras back to the Committee and thank her for 

offering the FTC’s perspective today. I appreciate all our witnesses’ participation, and I 

look forward to hearing suggestions about how to perfect the legislation. 

Thanks again to you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF TEXAS

I’d like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding these hearings 

today. I think this issue is an important consumer issue and has challenged parties on 

both sides of this issue. 

I am disappointed that both sides could not reach an agreement that would have 

prevented moving forward with this legislation. 

Before we held a hearing on this bill over a year ago, I met with 20 repair shop 

owners from my district asking me about this legislation and what Congress could do. 

Since then, I have received a list of almost 100 shops in my district voicing concerns 

over having access to information that would enable to repair today’s high-tech 

automobiles. 

Like most large cities in the United States, Houston has as many independently 

owned repair shops as we do shade-tree mechanics. However, with the level of 

technology used in today’s automobiles, the shade tree mechanic is often led to their 

nearest repair center which is most often an independent shop. 

When I got my first car, I was able to buy a Hanes or Chilton manual that showed 

how the car could be repaired. 

These manuals include wiring diagrams, clock times to adjust the timing, and torque 

specifications for everything from the lug nuts on the wheels to the bolts securing the 

engine block. 

Things have changed and computer systems in newer vehicles control everything 

from Air bag deployment to emissions. 

I’m supporting this bill because I’m concerned about the consumer. If my 

constituents own a newer model car or truck, they should be able to take it to their local 

mechanic to be repaired. High tech advances shouldn’t make repairing your vehicle at a 

neighborhood shop out of reach. 

The goal of this legislation is simple: auto makers should be able to supply 

information to local repair shops so those shops can repair a vehicle. However, auto 

makers should also be fairly compensated for this information due to their investment in 

developing and engineering the cars and trucks in the first place. 

Beyond that, there is concern I have regarding trade secrets and intellectual property. 

I believe being able to repair your automobile at the shop of your choice is important. 
13

However, I do not want to see automakers and engineers here releasing information 

to people in China to reverse engineer high technology in our automobiles. 

Another concern I have is with the National Automotive Service Task Force. The 

86 complaints filed in the last 18 months does not seem to reflect the urgency of the 

problem. 

I want to make sure that consumers can get their cars repaired, independent shops 

have access to what they need to make the repairs, and the manufacturers can protect 

their trade secrets and intellectual property. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield the balance of my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TED STRICKLAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF OHIO

Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. I 

believe this issue is important to all of our constituents because it will allow car owners 

greater freedom to choose auto repair shops. This is important for driving down prices 

for car repairs, which, as we all know, can be extremely high. 

In my own district, public transportation options are few and far between. Most of 

my constituents depend on their cars for all of their transportation needs. Affordable car 

maintenance is vital for ensuring that my constituents are able to get to work and bring 

their children to school. I believe H.R. 2048 will help to make car repairs more 

affordable by allowing independent auto repair shops to compete effectively with 

dealerships for car repair and maintenance jobs. Currently, independent mechanics may 

not have access to the necessary software updates that manufacturers share with 

dealerships. In fact, according to some studies, more than 50% of independent mechanics 

have had to turn a customer away because they simply couldn’t access the information 

they needed to fix the customer’s car. Therefore, car owners are often forced to choose 

the dealership for repairs, despite the fact that dealerships can be more expensive and less 

convenient than local independent mechanics. 

In addition to driving down prices for auto repair, I believe this bill has the potential 

to increase accessibility of high-quality car maintenance in rural areas and small towns. 

In Ohio’s Sixth District, if a family car breaks down, many of my constituents currently 

have to worry not only about how to pay for the repair, but also how to get their car to a 

dealership or mechanic that can repair it. For example, a car owner living in Gallipolis, 

Ohio, may have to travel over 40 miles, to Athens, Ohio, to reach their closest dealership. 

For a family relying on a single car, this could mean missed school and work, not to 

mention the expense and inconvenience of the travel. 

I understand that many of my colleagues have legitimate concerns about the need to 

protect intellectual property. We certainly do not want to force any car manufacturer to 

reveal their private manufacturing process or trade secrets. It is my understanding that 

the bill clarifies that auto manufacturers would be required to provide only the 

information currently provided to car dealerships – no more and no less. The bill then, is 

actually consistent with current Clean Air Act emissions requirements, and should not 

present a new threat to intellectual property protection. However, I know this issue 

continues to cause concern for the auto manufacturers and for many of my colleagues, 

and I hope that some of today’s witnesses will further address this issue. 

Ultimately, I am hopeful that this hearing can shed some new light on the issue, and 

allow all parties to come to an agreeable conclusion. This can be accomplished more 

quickly without legislation; however, should legislation become necessary, I believe H.R. 

2048 is a good, bipartisan bill. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2048, and I cosponsored similar 

legislation in the 108th Congress. I look forward to hearing today’s testimony. 
14

 MR. STEARNS. With that, we will move to our first panel: the 

honorable Deborah Platt Majoras, who is Chairwoman of the Federal 

Trade Commission. I welcome her. And thank you for your opening 

statement. 

 MS. MAJORAS. All right. Mr. Chairman-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Move it a little closer to you, too, if you don’t mind. 

 MS. MAJORAS. All right. I would be happy to. Thank you. 

 MR. STEARNS. There you go. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DEBORAH PLATT MAJORAS, 

CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

 MS. MAJORAS. Mr. Chairman, Madame Ranking Member, I am 

Deborah Majoras, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 

2048. The views expressed in the written testimony represent the views 

of the entire Commission. My oral testimony and responses to your 

questions reflect my own views and may, but do not necessarily, reflect 

those of the Commission or any other individual Commissioner. 

 Over the past couple of decades, as this subcommittee has 

recognized, automobile manufacturers have dramatically improved the 

cars we drive. Today’s cars are safer, more reliable, and offer features 

unheard of even 20 years ago. These improvements have precipitated 

changes in the automotive repair aftermarket where sophisticated 

computer programs are now as essential as socket wrenches and 

screwdrivers. 

 Repair shops, therefore, increasingly need access to computer codes 

and high-tech codes to conduct their businesses, and they are concerned 

that they are not getting complete and timely access. 

 Automobile repair is important to American consumers. U.S. 

consumers spend billions of dollars each year to repair and maintain the 

millions of cars currently on the road. We are a Nation on the go. And 

certainly I understand any frustration American consumers may feel if 

they can not have their cars repaired in a convenient and timely manner. 

 H.R. 2048 would require automobile manufacturers to promptly 

disclose to a vehicle owner or a repair facility of the owner’s choice the 

information necessary to diagnose, service, or repair the consumer’s car. 

In particular, it requires manufactures to provide equal access to service 

and training information to both dealers and independent shops on a nondiscriminatory basis, including activation of controls and diagnostic tools 

and capabilities. It also requires manufacturers to provide service and 

training information and manufacture diagnostic capabilities to 

companies who make tools to compete with the manufacturers. Auto 
15

manufacturers would be exempt from providing information that 

constitutes a trade secret unless the information has already been 

provided to a dealer or another repair facility. The proposed legislation 

requires the Commission to promulgate the regulations, to prescribe the 

manner in which the information would be provided. This is a muchimproved version of the bill, and we appreciate Chairman Barton’s and 

Chairman Stearns’ willingness to consider our concerns in drafting the 

current legislation. 

 Despite these improvements, the Commission continues to believe 

that a voluntary, self-regulatory approach is the best solution to the issues 

that have been raised in this area. Self-regulation could address 

disclosure issues with greater speed and more flexibility than can 

government regulation. 

 Despite the prodding and considerable patience of Members of 

Congress, the automobile manufacturers and aftermarket repair shops 

have, to date, been unable to work together to resolve the matter. And I 

share the frustration of many members with the parties’ failure to reach a 

final agreement. 

 In August and September of last year, at the direction of Chairman 

Barton and Senator Graham, representatives of the automotive 

manufacturers and independent repair shops met with the Better Business 

Bureau mediator and Commission staff for more than 60 hours to try to 

reach a voluntary agreement. Some progress was made, including 

agreement that the creation of an independent National Automotive 

Service Task Force board was the first step to resolving the remaining 

issues. Since last summer, the parties’ failure to build on that success is 

troubling. My understanding is that the CARE Coalition and the Auto 

Alliance have not had a single meeting since the conclusion of those 

talks. 

 I believe it is in the interest of American consumers that both sides 

take responsibility and sit down in earnest to hammer out a solution. 

They claim they care most about consumers. If that is correct, they will 

work harder at this and not continue to look to the government to solve 

what can be individual disputes in the marketplace on a going-forward 

basis. I will grant that that is not easy, because these issues are more 

complicated than they appear, but that may be an even greater reason 

which underscores why it would be so difficult for one agency with no 

experts in auto repair to solve these individual issues. 

 If, though, you determine that legislation is appropriate, we believe 

that the parties’ points of agreement should receive serious consideration. 

For example, in their discussions, both sides agreed on many core issues, 

such as the strengthening and funding of the NASTF process, setting up 

dispute resolution procedures, and providing some remedies for a third-
16

party dispute resolution program. In particular, the parties reached a 

general agreement to use the NASTF organization to arbitrate disputes 

over access to repair information and tools and to mete out consequences 

for a failure to meet the standards. These points of agreement could 

provide the basis for a solution. 

 One final point, I just would like to address Congressman Upton’s 

point. We have opened the Grand Theft Auto investigation as a law 

enforcement investigation, not just simply as a Congressional inquiry. I 

know that he has not been happy that investigation has not been 

completed. I am not particularly pleased about it, but unfortunately, I am 

not at liberty to tell you what has happened along the way, because it is a 

law enforcement investigation. I can only assure you that we have been 

working very hard on the investigation, and I do think that soon we will 

be able to publicly explain what we found and where we are. 

 I thank the subcommittee for giving the FTC an opportunity to 

provide its input today. We look forward to continuing to work with this 

subcommittee and with all of the stakeholders. 

 And obviously, I am happy to answer your questions. 

 Thank you very much. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Deborah Platt Majoras follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBORAH PLATT MAJORAS, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL 

TRADE COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the Subcommittee, I 

am Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or 

“Commission”).1 I appreciate this opportunity to discuss H.R. 2048, the “Motor Vehicle 

Owners’ Right to Repair Act.” 

The Federal Trade Commission’s mission is to enhance consumer welfare and 

protect competition in broad sectors of the economy. The FTC enforces the Federal 

Trade Commission Act2

 and other laws that prohibit business practices that are 

anticompetitive, deceptive, or unfair to consumers, and seeks to do so without impeding 

legitimate business activity. The agency has responsibilities under more than fifty federal 

laws, including the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing 

Act,3

 the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act,4 and the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act.5

 The FTC also promotes informed consumer choice and public 

understanding of the competitive process because an informed consumer is an 

empowered consumer. 

 

1

 This written statement presents the views of the Federal Trade Commission. Responses to 

questions reflect my views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or any other 

Commissioner. 

2

 15 U.S.C. §41 et seq. 3

 15 U.S.C. § 7701 and implementing regulations. 

4

 15 U.S.C. § 7601 and implementing regulations. 

5

 Pub. L. No. 108–159, 117 Stat. 1952 (Dec. 4, 2003), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 
17

The FTC is currently hard at work reviewing its Appliance Labeling Rule pursuant 

to Section 137 of the Energy Policy Act of 20056

 and is on track to meet rigorous 

Congressional deadlines. 

The Commission’s work is critical to protect and strengthen free and fair markets in 

the United States. Among the Commission’s accomplishments are the implementation 

and enforcement of the National Do-Not-Call Registry, the protection of the availability 

of lower-cost prescription drugs, the halting of deceptive or abusive lending practices, the 

elimination of unfair or deceptive practices in e-commerce, and the challenge of mergers 

and acquisitions that likely would harm competition. 

Auto repair is an important service for U.S. consumers. U.S. consumers spend 

billions of dollars each year to repair and maintain the more than two hundred million 

cars currently on the road.7 Consumers thus have a significant interest in automobile 

repair and maintenance markets that operate effectively and efficiently, consistent with 

safety and other quality standards. 

For some time, Chairmen Barton and Stearns, and this Subcommittee have 

considered ways to ensure that independent car repair facilities and vehicle owners have 

access to information and tools needed to diagnose, service, or repair vehicles. 

As the Commission has previously noted, such access is not as easy or inexpensive 

as it once was. Auto manufacturers have adopted sophisticated technology to improve 

the performance, comfort, safety, and security of their products. This technology requires 

expensive computerized tools to diagnose and repair problems, as well as knowledge of 

particular software access or computer codes. Independent repair shops claim that it can 

be difficult to acquire all of the equipment it may need to repair all makes of cars, or to 

easily access all of the information required to make timely repairs. Generally, the 

marketplace will provide strong incentives for automobile manufacturers to ensure that 

their customers have an appropriate range of repair options because the manufacturers 

depend on repeat purchases of their products. With the increasing sophistication of 

automobiles, however, independent repair shops have been concerned about continued 

access to the high tech information and tools they need to repair motor vehicles. 

H.R. 2048

To address these concerns, last May, Chairman Barton and Representatives Towns, 

and Issa introduced H.R. 2048. This legislation would require automobile manufacturers 

to promptly disclose to a vehicle owner, or to a repair facility of an owner’s choice, the 

information “necessary to diagnose, service, or repair” the owner’s car. In particular, it 

requires manufacturers to provide equal access to service and training information to both 

dealers and independent shops on a non-discriminatory basis. The information would 

include activation of controls, and diagnostic tools and capabilities. Auto manufacturers 

would be exempt from providing any information that constitutes a trade secret unless 

that information already has been provided to franchised dealerships or other repair 

facilities. The proposed legislation also would require the Commission to promulgate 

regulations to prescribe the manner in which the information would be provided. 

A violation of this regulation would constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice 

in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act8

 and would be treated as a violation of a rule 

defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice.9

 Violations would, therefore, be subject to 

both civil penalties and injunctive relief. 

 

6

 Pub. L. No. 109–58, 119 Stat. 594 (Aug. 8, 2005). Section 137 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6291 et seq. 7

 U.S. Census Bureau, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE U.S. (2006). 8

 15 U.S.C. § 45. 

9

 15 U.S.C. § 57a(a)(1)(B). 
18

This bill is the successor to a bill from the prior Congress, H.R. 2735. The 

Commission appreciates the willingness of Chairmen Barton and Stearns, and the 

Subcommittee to consider the concerns of the Commission and its staff in drafting the 

new legislation.10 Among other things, H.R. 2735 required the Commission to review 

massive amounts of highly technical information on an ongoing basis to determine 

whether particular information is entitled to trade secret protection. H.R. 2048 has 

removed this potentially weighty burden. Other important revisions include eliminating 

the broad requirement to disclose information of any kind used for diagnosis, repair, or 

other services in favor of ensuring equal access to information on an equal basis by both 

dealers and independent shops; and authorizing greater flexibility in the manner in which 

information is provided, allowing disclosures to conform to legitimate industry needs and 

practices. 

To date, a comprehensive voluntary solution to the issue of information provision 

has proven elusive. The Commission is disappointed that, despite efforts to bring those 

on each side of this issue together to reach a mutually agreeable solution, the parties have 

thus far been unwilling to make the compromises necessary to resolve the matter. Last 

year, Chairman Barton and Senator Graham urged representatives of the independent 

auto repair facilities and automotive manufacturers to try to reach a voluntary agreement 

for the provision of service information. In August and September 2005, manufacturer 

and aftermarket representatives met for more than sixty hours of discussions facilitated 

by the Council of Better Business Bureaus (“CBBB”) and attended by Commission staff. 

In these discussions, the parties looked to the information-sharing structure created by the 

National Automotive Service Task Force (“NASTF”)11 to provide information, training, 

and tools to automotive service professionals.12 In the course of their discussions at the 

CBBB, both sides looked to improve the NASTF structure to streamline the process and 

provide the necessary support to technicians who face problems obtaining information. 

Although the parties’ negotiations resulted in some significant areas of agreement, 

the parties failed to develop fully a mutually agreeable solution. The parties continued to 

have difficulties in reaching agreement regarding a number of issues, including (1) 

certain aspects of the information that the automobile manufacturers would be required to 

provide independent auto repair facilities; (2) the manner of restructuring and governing 

NASTF to ensure that all interests were represented in a balanced matter; (3) the 

mechanism for resolving disputes regarding tools, including tool costs; (4) the calculation 

of monetary remedies for aggrieved parties; (5) the penalties, if any, to be assessed 

against a non-compliant manufacturer; and (6) a means of providing key codes to the 

aftermarket without compromising vehicle security. 

Last November, the Commission testified before this Subcommittee to discuss the 

efforts of the manufacturers and aftermarket representatives to reach an accord. We 

expressed our disappointment that the parties were unable to come to a final agreement 

and our hope that the parties could eventually reach consensus. 

One key area of agreement between the parties was the creation of an independent 

NASTF board to oversee the information sharing process. Significantly, both 

 

10 Some of these concerns were expressed in a letter from the Commission to Ranking Member 

John D. Dingell, October 8, 2004. 

11 NASTF was formed by a group of automotive trade associations to aid in the provision of 

timely service information needed by independent repair facilities. Members include the Alliance 

of Automobile Manufacturers, the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers, the Automotive 

Aftermarket Industry Association, and the Associated Locksmiths of America. 12 In addition, third-party information providers, such as ALLDATA and Mitchell, can provide 

useful services to automobile repair facilities. The amount of auto repair data available is 

voluminous and not always easily accessible. By packaging data for sale, third-party information 

providers can allow repair facilities to access necessary technical information with the speed the 

marketplace demands.
19

manufacturers and aftermarket representatives agreed that if they could concur on board 

membership, that board could resolve other areas of dispute. The parties, however, did 

not then agree on the composition of the board. 

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. 

While the parties still have not succeeded in resolving their disputes and developing 

a comprehensive solution to the issue, the Commission staff has been informed that 

NASTF recently elected a Board of Directors with the mission of providing automotive 

service information, training, and diagnostic tools and equipment to automobile repairers. 

NASTF’s Board includes representatives from the Equipment and Tool Institute, the 

Automotive Service Association, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the 

Associated Locksmiths of America. NASTF also has secured funding for its program. 

Although this is a unilateral action, it may provide a first step toward a mutually 

acceptable agreement. 

We understand that any ultimate solution that does not involve the consent and 

participation of all the parties is not a perfect solution. We, therefore, continue to 

encourage the parties to initiate and take the lead on further discussions to try to reach a 

mutually satisfactory resolution that reflects the parties’ consensus. Commission staff 

would be willing to attend those discussions if the parties feel that our presence would aid 

them in reaching agreement. 

If Congress determines that legislation is appropriate, the Commission believes that 

elements on which the parties were able to reach agreement should receive consideration 

throughout the ongoing legislative process. For example, in their discussions, both sides 

agreed on several core issues, such as strengthening and funding of the NASTF process, 

many remedies for a third party dispute resolution program, and dispute resolution 

procedures. In particular, the parties reached a general agreement to use the NASTF 

organization to arbitrate disputes over access to repair information and tools, and mete 

out consequences for the failure to meet the standards for providing information. Such an 

area of agreement could provide the basis for a solution to this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for providing the Federal 

Trade Commission the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee. We look 

forward to continuing to work with you. 

 MR. STEARNS. Thank you. 

 I will start with my first questions. 

 Did I hear you say that should the committee mark this up, and if, 

somehow, this bill passed, that you really don’t have the personnel and 

the people right now to enforce this bill, as it is written? Is that what you 

are saying? You don’t have the specialized people. So your agency, as it 

presently exists today, could it enforce this bill? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Well, I don’t want to go so far as to say we could not 

enforce the bill. 

 MR. STEARNS. But you sort of alluded to the fact you don’t have the 

people with this esoteric knowledge of dealing with things like this. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Sure. For example, Mr. Chairman, we are down the 

road. We have promulgated some regulations, and we have now 
20

received a complaint that the manufacturers have not complied with the 

regulations in the statute, and there is a he said/she said going on. And 

we have to sort out now who is right in this dispute. And if the dispute 

could be, you know, “We needed this tool to fix this and we don’t have 

it,” we certainly would have to hire experts to help us if those are the 

types of disputes that end up being brought before us, because it is true 

that this has become quite complicated. That is why we are sitting here. 

And for us to find out who is right or wrong based on what tools and 

information are necessary to fix a car, no, we don’t know how to fix a 

car. 

 MR. STEARNS. So it would be fair to say today you don’t have the 

resources at the Federal Trade Commission to implement this bill? That 

would be a fair statement? 

 MS. MAJORAS. If individual complaints actually do come to us that 

we have to resolve, there could be instances in which we would not, yes. 

 MR. STEARNS. I am interpreting that as a yes. Okay. 

 Secondly, if you do not now have the resources to effectively handle 

this bill, are you getting many complaints today? You mentioned one 

right now. Have you gotten any complaints in the last year? 

 MS. MAJORAS. We have looked, and we have about 500 complaints 

that relate to auto repair, but in looking at-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Is that over a year, 500? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Since January, but none of them were on this issue. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. Okay. So you have had 500 complaints since 

January of this year. None of them have dealt with owners’ right to 

repair, which is the subject of this bill? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Correct. 

 MR. STEARNS. And how many complaints did you get that are 

pertinent, applicable to the owners’ right to repair of those 500? How 

many would you count? 

 MS. MAJORAS. None that we know of. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. Would it be fair to say that right now the 

Federal Trade Commission has had no complaints filed in this area of 

this discussion this morning? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Well, since January, to be sure, I can’t tell you in 

years past that this has not been--as you know, this wasn’t an issue that 

we brought to the committee because we were getting a lot of consumer 

complaints, so I can’t tell you there has never been one before this year. 

 MR. STEARNS. No. But out of the 500, how many can you identify 

as complaints that would be applicable to this hearing? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I can’t identify any. 

 MR. STEARNS. Any? None? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Correct. 
21

 MR. STEARNS. Well, I think there are two statements you have said 

that are pretty significant here this morning, one, that you don’t presently 

have the resources at the Federal Trade Commission to handle this, 

because it is quite esoteric when you get into, for example, engine 

mapping, algorithms, fault codes, training information, something like 

that. One of my questions is what constitutes information for purposes 

of this bill. I mean, I have a little trouble saying to you, “Can you 

answer these questions?” because they are quite esoteric, but you have 

indicated that, one, you don’t have the resources right now, and two, you 

have received no complaints, that you are aware of, as chairwoman of the 

Federal Trade Commission. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Correct. 

 MR. STEARNS. Well, another one is how should we interpret what is 

meant by “diagnostic tools and capabilities related to vehicle repair” in 

section 3 of the bill? Does this mean scan tools? What are the “other 

capabilities” referring to? That is quite an esoteric question. I am not 

sure you could answer it. I am not sure that anybody up here could 

answer it. And would it be fair to say that you are not in a position to 

answer that question? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I cannot answer that question today. 

 MR. STEARNS. No, I understand. I understand. 

 How about this question? Would the bill allow States to sue 

manufacturers under its current language? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I don’t believe it allows the States. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. 

 MS. MAJORAS. No. 

 MR. STEARNS. Well, I have a series of four questions, and, you 

know, basically the only question you can really answer is you don’t 

have the ability to enforce this legislation, you don’t have the resources, 

and two, you have had no complaints. 

 Let me ask you this, and maybe you could be more candid. Do you 

think the committee should revise this bill in any way? Are there 

suggestions from your department to reflect anything that we should do 

to change this bill? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Well, if you move forward with the bill, I would 

think about taking the points on which there have been agreement among 

the interested parties and consider how, perhaps, they could be 

incorporated, because we have always thought that these are the folks 

with the expertise. These are the folks who know what is going on here. 

What they could decide mutually would be a good step forward. And so 

if we go forward with legislation, that would be one thing that I would 

consider. 
22

 MR. STEARNS. I am going to ask you my last question, and it is also 

a little difficult for you to answer, because it is making a personal 

observation and opinion here. Does the legislation expose manufacturers 

to disclosure of proprietary secrets or technology? Is the savings clause 

for trade secrets sufficient to protect secrets? Is that something you or 

someone on your staff could answer? If you can’t answer it this 

morning, you could provide a written reply to us. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Yes, we can provide a written reply. I think-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Because that is one of the key areas here, the idea of 

disclosure of proprietary secrets or technology is being argued about in 

this debate, and if you could give us, you know, what your opinion is, 

that would be helpful. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Sure, because there is a difference, of course, Mr. 

Chairman, between trade secrets and intellectual property. And so there 

has been some question raised whether some of the tools provisions in 

this bill would require exposure of intellectual property. So we would be 

happy to write an answer for you that explains that further. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. My time has expired. 

 The Ranking Member, Ms. Schakowsky. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being 

here. 

 Let me just say that I think that if there is a real problem, that it is 

never sufficient to say, “Well, we don’t have enough. The reason for not 

doing it is because we don’t have enough resources.” I mean, I think, 

then, that is a separate issue that we may have to deal with. If you are 

saying that it is not enough of a problem and that there are other 

mechanisms to deal with it, I think that is a different issue. And so, you 

know, which is it? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Well, in truth, we don’t know. We don’t fully 

understand yet the scope of this problem. We were brought into the 

debate when legislation was already underway, and when we have asked 

for more specifics on the scope of the problem, we haven’t gotten many 

specifics. So that is harder for me to say. But it-- 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. But weren’t you part of some of the 

conversations about the-- 

 MS. MAJORAS. Oh, surely we were. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. 

 MS. MAJORAS. We were part of the mediation process. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Absolutely. We were willing to take on faith from 

this subcommittee. Of course, we will help with this. We will help this. 

The subcommittee believes it is a problem, and so we were involved. 

My point is not so much, “Gosh, you know, I just don’t have the people 
23

to do that.” Obviously, it is your job to decide what you want me to take 

on, and we will do it. The point, though, is that one of the reasons we 

continue to push for a self-regulatory solution and we have a lot of 

experiences with self-regulatory solutions, is because if we are looking at 

something where even members of the industry, because of differing 

interests, because of different things that have happened and so forth, and 

because of the difficulty of this problem, are saying, “We can’t get it 

right together.” My only point is it may be difficult for those of us who 

actually aren’t working in this industry to do it. Now granted, when you 

have a law enforcement stick, I realize that sometimes people suddenly 

get more reasonable. Of course, I understand that that is what we do. 

But nonetheless, what we really want here is speedy and efficient fixing 

of cars. That is what we really want. We don’t want a lot of lawsuits. 

And so my point is that if they could come up with, and what we have 

been pushing for them to come up with, is a solution that can make that 

happen in a real-time basis, that is what is really going to work for 

consumers, and that is what is really going to resolve their frustration. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. You said that you haven’t gotten complaints, 

but I know that you referred to the 60 hours of discussions with the 

Better Business Bureau. Apparently, they have received complaints, is 

that not correct? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I don’t know whether the Better Business Bureau 

has or not. I have never heard that. I know, you know, CARE has told 

us about complaints that they know about, but I don’t recall the BBB 

telling us that they had. The BBB often serves as a mediator in such 

situations, which is why we suggested that they be brought in. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission 

sent a letter to our committee spelling out a number of the problems with 

the predecessor H.R. 2735, and you mentioned that there were a number 

of revisions that you applied. So what is your opinion of this version of 

the bill? 

 MS. MAJORAS. The opinion is it is much improved, but we would 

still prefer to see a self-regulatory solution. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. And as I said last year, you did 

participate with the stakeholders in an attempt to create this selfregulatory program. In a letter addressed to the FTC at the end of the 

discussions, the CBBB concluded that there were a number of 

outstanding issues that would need to be resolved for a self-regulatory 

program to be created. Do you think that H.R. 2048 addresses those 

issues? What would the bill need to do? If we were doing a bill, what 

would it need to do to address the problems that are still outstanding? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Well, it doesn’t address the issues specifically, and 

of course, some of the agreement that was reached and some of the 
24

disagreements that went to that are about having this board that would be 

able to try to resolve disputes in real time. And so one thing that the 

legislation could look at is whether Congress could establish that sort of 

a board. 

 The other thing that I think needs to be resolved is exactly what are 

we trying to do here. There is an issue. The one that is talked about is 

we need to get the information to the independents so they have the 

information to fix the cars. The tools issue, though I have learned, is a 

different issue, and this is shops wanting to be able to purchase tools 

cheaply and therefore wanting to put terms on what could be charged by 

the auto manufacturers. That, I understand, was a pretty significant issue 

in the talks as well, and I think to prevent problems down the road, that 

would probably need to be addressed perhaps more specifically in this 

bill. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you 

 MS. MAJORAS. You are welcome. 

 MR. STEARNS. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry. 

 No questions. 

 Mr. Dingell. 

 MR. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

 Madame Chairman, welcome to the committee. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Thank you. 

 MR. DINGELL. The Commission has jurisdiction over the following 

items: consumer protection, unfair and deceptive practices in trade, anticompetitive practices, actions which constitute monopoly or are in 

restraint of trade or tending to the restraint of trade or tending towards 

monopoly. So there is broad authority in the Federal Trade Commission 

to address questions of this kind if that needs be done, is that not correct? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Correct, if it rose to the level of an anti-trust 

violation. That is correct. 

 MR. DINGELL. I want to be sure, you said correct. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Correct. 

 MR. DINGELL. Now I want to be very clear here. I heard you tell the 

chairman that you have had no complaints in any of these areas, and you 

have had no complaints about the subject matter which the bill might 

address. Is that correct? 

 MS. MAJORAS. None this year. I can’t speak for forever in the past, 

but it is-- 

 MR. DINGELL. Since January 1? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Correct. 

 MR. DINGELL. Now then, let us address the question prior to January 

1, would you have any complaints about behavior which would 

contravene the context of the legislation before us? 
25

 MS. MAJORAS. We are not aware of any. We haven’t gone back in 

past years for our entire database. 

 MR. DINGELL. Would you, as a kindness to me and the committee, 

and in the interest of having an adequate record, please do that and find 

out how many complaints you have had in a reasonable time prior to 

January 1 so that we might evaluate whether or not there is anything 

going on here of significance that requires legislative action by the 

Congress? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I would certainly like to do that for you. Let me just 

check, because have hundreds, now we have millions of complaints of-- 

 MR. DINGELL. Madame Chairman, I am not asking for excessive 

actions on your part. I am asking-- 

 MS. MAJORAS. All right. 

 MR. DINGELL. --only for your best efforts. 

 MS. MAJORAS. All right. 

 MR. DINGELL. I am satisfied that you will give that to us. 

 MS. MAJORAS. We will always make our best effort, sir, of course. 

 [Response appears at the end of the hearing record.] 

MR. DINGELL. I want you to know, I have great respect for you and 

also for the Commission. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Thank you. 

 MR. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy to me. 

 I thank you, Madame Chairman. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

 Mr. Murphy is recognized. 

 MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Just a couple of questions. As I have been meeting with constituents, 

whether they are auto dealers or independent repair shops, on this, there 

are a number of issues that continue to come out, which I am wondering, 

in your reading of this bill, does this address that. One is the issue of 

parts, and that is that manufacturers of the automobiles make their own 

parts, and yet I am getting a sense from some other suppliers that they 

would like the ability to build or access to build aftermarket parts and 

provide a competitive price. What I am hearing from auto dealers and 

manufacturers is they made it. They would like people to use this quality 

part, and they don’t want to be responsible for someone using something 

that could be secondary. A second issue is the procedures for repair, and 

this can be anything from how to take care of something in the 

complicated system of an automobile to very often an electronics issue. 

For example, a body shop may repair the car, but now the lights on the 

panel are still on and something else is not working, and they need to 

take that car, literally drive it over to an automobile dealer, have the 

buttons reset with their software, and also know how else to do that, and 
26

they feel they can’t get that information. And the third one is just the 

software for the diagnostic analysis of the problems that a car may be 

having that does not operate effectively. So it is the parts, the procedures 

for repair, and the software for the diagnostic analysis. Do you feel that, 

from your review of this legislation, this bill addresses those kinds of 

concerns adequately, or is there something else we should be looking at 

in the wording of that legislation? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Well, I think on the first issue, I think parts are not 

what are addressed here. It is the diagnostic tools. But I think it is the 

same sort of issue, as I understand it. Generic makers of parts, but also 

diagnostic tools, sell them more cheaply, typically, than do the 

manufacturers, and I understand that those in the aftermarket want to 

make sure that reasonable prices are charged to them. And what I can’t 

tell exactly, the bill here uses the phrase “for reasonable business 

means”. And I am not sure whether that is a sort of pricing mechanism 

or not. I am not recommending one, but I am not sure about that. 

 On the electronic information, my understanding is that that is 

exactly what this bill is intended to get at and on a non-discriminatory 

basis, this would need to be provided. 

 And software diagnostics, I may have just addressed, sir, when I 

addressed your question on parts, I believe. 

 MR. MURPHY. And then let me ask another question or two. I am 

laying those out as things you could perhaps get back to us on. I 

recognize a lot of this is going to need further analysis. But you had 

addressed the chairman’s questions. Basically, you said you have not 

received direct complaints about these issues. Would they go to another 

agency or some other group if there were complaints on these besides the 

Federal Trade Commission? 

 MS. MAJORAS. They might go to another group. I am sorry. I can’t 

remember the name. I don’t believe it is a government agency. It is 

possible that they wouldn’t-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield? 

 Is it possible that they would go to NHTSA, the National Highway 

Safety Commission, Madame Chairwoman? Would they go there, 

perhaps, instead of you or to the Consumer Products Safety 

Commission? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I don’t believe the Consumer Products Safety 

Commission unless there was truly a safety issue with the particular part 

of the car. It is possible. The National Association of Consumer Agency 

Administrators often have auto repair issues, I understand, on the top of 

their complaint list. And that is another possible area. But Mr. 

Chairman, I am not aware that NHTSA collects such complaints. 

 MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
27

 It was just one of those issues that I would hope, in your review, if 

there are other areas where complaints may be occurring, wherever that 

might be. Even if they were from some of the professional organizations 

that are out there, it would be important to have accurate information on 

those issues. I appreciate that. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Thank you. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

 Ms. Baldwin. 

 MS. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Madame Chairwoman, in my opening statement, I referenced that 

my interest in this legislation stems from a company in my district that 

became unable to perform some of its functions due to an encrypted 

system that had been installed in the equipment that they tried to 

maintain by the manufacturer. And I know that it is not in the same 

industry that we are talking about. But granted you are not really excited 

about the legislation before the subcommittee today, but I would like you 

to elaborate on your answer to Mr. Dingell’s question about what tools 

do exist right now within the FTC. Do you have jurisdiction to ensure 

that large manufacturing companies, whether automakers or, as the 

example I supplied earlier, the energy supply companies, or some other 

industry, won’t strive to take over the services performed by smaller, 

sometimes independent “mom-and-pop” shops, if you will, steering 

consumers toward manufacturer-approved or manufacturer-related repair 

operations? And more importantly, what tools exist for you to protect 

consumer choice? 

 And if you would, just maybe walk us through how you would tackle 

one of these in the absence of legislation, like the bill before the 

subcommittee today. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Okay. Well, what we would do is look to the antitrust laws, because that is what is encompassed in our work under 

Section 5 in competition. And we would look at the entire picture for 

consumers with respect to competition, and generally, the first thing that 

we look at is does the manufacturer who is being accused of doing this 

have market power. And we would look at that throughout the whole 

marketplace. So for instance, the tendency is to look simply in the 

aftermarket, but in fact, we have to look at what the manufacturer is 

doing all of the way through the chain and whether they have market 

power. So for example, a manufacturer may not have market power in 

this space, because in fact, if they are so determined to drive out 70 

percent of the repair shops in this country, that they stop letting them 

have access to this information, and let us just say car company A, 

because I don’t want to use a real live example, then people are going to 
28

talk about that. And we have consumers who are really powerful who 

are going to know about that, and we are going to tell our friends and 

family, and people are not going to want to buy a car from car company 

A, because they want to get their car fixed at the shop where they want to 

fix it. so we would look at whether the manufacturer, for example, has 

so much power that, in fact, they can dictate this completely without 

losing a sufficient amount of business so that they could therefore drive 

out all of the independents and only work with the dealers. 

 Now I will say one other thing, and I know you have limited time, it 

is just complicated. 

 The one thing to remember about the anti-trust laws today, and the 

Supreme Court just affirmed this in 2004, is that typically, under the antitrust laws, we start with the presumption that companies have the right to 

deal with whom they wish. In this situation, though, it would seem that 

manufacturers have an economic interest in dealing with these shops 

because otherwise consumers are going to become quite angry and stop 

buying particular buys where they can’t get their car fixed. 

 MS. BALDWIN. How long would a comprehensive examination like 

that take from point of contact for the FTC in complaint? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Well, you are talking about a law enforcement 

investigation now and not a Congressional inquiry? 

 MS. BALDWIN. The investigation you just described. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Okay. Anti-trust investigations take a while. We 

have to call an economist, I admit, and so it could take, certainly, a year 

and maybe more. 

 MS. BALDWIN. Okay. Now looking at the legislation before us, if it 

were to pass into law, it requires that within a year of enactment of the 

bill, the FTC-prescribe regulations for disclosing information. However, 

it does not specify what terms the service providers and manufacturers 

should operate under during the transition time, the period of time 

between the passage of the bill and the FTC regulations. What do you 

see sort of happening during that transition time? And do you think that 

in that intervening time, NASTF should be used to settle complaints 

about access to repair information? Or what would you see the transition 

time looking like? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I think probably using that organization, which is 

now trying to improve itself to be better able to handle these complaints, 

would probably be our best bet. And I would have to check with our 

General Accounting Office. It might be possible for us to issue a 

preliminary regulation that says this is what we are going to do in the 

interim until we actually can get the regulation into place. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

 The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn. 
29

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madame Chairman. We appreciate 

your time on this. 

 I want to be certain that I heard you correctly in answer to Mr. 

Dingell’s question that you have had no complaints on this issue this 

year. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Correct. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. And then in the findings section of the 

legislation that we are discussing today, H.R. 2048, there is point seven. 

And I want to see if you agree or disagree with this: “Automobile 

manufacturers have restricted access to the information motor vehicle 

owners need in order to diagnose, service, and repair their vehicles in a 

manner that has hindered open competition among repair facilities.” Do 

you agree or disagree with that statement? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I don’t have the information in front of me. I am not 

aware that this is the case. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. So you are not aware? You have no findings at 

the FTC that would indicate that to be a true statement? Would you 

agree with that? 

 MS. MAJORAS. That is correct. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Also, I want to be sure that I am 

understanding and making my notes correctly, that the two main issues 

causing the groups not to agree on a private system of handling this, 

which, as you have said, a self-regulatory system is preferred, the two 

main disagreements are government and then the requirement of the 

information from the manufacturers, the tools that they would need? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Yes, and penalties for non-compliance. That would 

be the third I would put in that category. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. So you would actually make it three? 

Thank you. 

 And have either the FTC or the GAO done a study on this issue? 

 MS. MAJORAS. We have not. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. You have not? Okay. Do you know if anyone 

other than a couple of the groups pushing the legislation, has anyone else 

done a study to identify problems? Are you aware of anyone else? 

 MS. MAJORAS. No, I am not aware. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. I was not, either. I thought maybe that you 

could provide some insight there. 

 Do you think that a GAO study would be necessary on this issue or a 

study from you all would be necessary? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Well, I think it certainly could be helpful. There 

obviously have been a number of questions raised in the subcommittee 

about the extent of the problem, and I am afraid I can’t today provide 

you that information, and I-- 
30

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Well, that is fine. And I understand that 

is difficult for you to do, because you haven’t had complaints. So we are 

trying to solve a problem that some people would say doesn’t exist. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Certainly some people have said that, yes. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. All right. And outside of passing 

legislation, would you see any other actions that Congress should take on 

the issue that would force action on the issue? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Well, if there is a way we could find, frankly, to beat 

some heads together, again, and get the stakeholders in this back 

together, I still think, in the long run, we will all benefit from that. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. And thank you so much for your time. 

 Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

 Mr. Strickland. 

 MR. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman-- 

 MR. STEARNS. I am sorry. I beg your pardon. Mr. Gonzalez. I am 

sorry. Mr. Gonzalez, I beg your pardon. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Ted, I am late for a meeting, otherwise, I would let 

you go. 

 But real quick, Madame Chair, let me ask you. In your opinion, 

from your vantage point, is there a problem that would require federal 

legislation? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I can’t tell yet. What I have seen is anecdotal 

evidence. I am very sympathetic to those who had a problem based on 

that anecdotal evidence. When we have asked to at least drill down on 

the anecdotes so we could, you know, get both sides of the story and try 

to figure it out, we have not received that information. So I am just 

handicapped by not having very much information. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. If we had a problem that reached to the appreciable 

degree or extent, wouldn’t you expect that it be your agency that would 

be the focal point receiving those complaints? Or where else would 

people go? Who else has jurisdiction? Who else would be looking into 

the complaints? 

 MS. MAJORAS. I am not aware of any other agency that would take 

such a complaint. We receive complaints of all types, as you know. 

Probably it would be us, but in fairness, there are times when consumers 

just don’t know who to call. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Right. Well, maybe Charlie Gonzalez owning his 

car, or not a Member of Congress, of course, but surely the repair shop 

where I am going or their association or organization would be 

sophisticated enough to know that this might be something your agency 

would be the appropriate agency to contact? 

 MS. MAJORAS. Certainly these organizations-- 
31

 MR. GONZALEZ. I mean, there is no one in this audience that doesn’t 

know that and that would be testifying today. But by your own 

testimony, there doesn’t appear to be evidence that it has reached that 

point. So where we find ourselves today is, for whatever reason, because 

it is a very popular argument, and I would agree with it. I buy a car from 

a manufacturer, it is out of warranty or whatever it is, there is some 

reason I don’t want to go to that dealer. I believe that I am entitled to the 

information that would allow me to get it repaired, whether I want to do 

the repairs myself or I want to take it to a local operation there in my 

neighborhood. And so I think we have had this discussion before, and I 

think I have had manufacturers and others say, “Yes, we probably do 

owe that to our customer, our consumer, the individual that bought the 

car.” So is it just a matter that we go ahead and provide a power of 

attorney to those that repair our cars? It is all kind of crazy, but this is 

what has happened. There has been a problem out there. It is a very 

popular one that appeals to many. It is understandable on the most basic 

level, at the consumer level, and so we responded, and we said, “Okay. 

All stakeholders, get together and come up with a solution to this 

problem, which we are not really sure to the extent or the degree that it 

exists.” When there wasn’t any movement, then all of a sudden, it 

appears that we will assume that responsibility. But we are assuming a 

responsibility for a problem that may not even exist, to the extent that it 

really requires federal legislation. And I am being told by the chair of 

the agency or the department in government that should be the recipient 

of all of these complaints that you are not receiving any. And it is really 

difficult for me to justify going forward with this piece of legislation at 

this point in time. 

 But I do appreciate your testimony and the job that you are doing, 

and I understand what you are saying is, “If you are going to do this to 

us, at least give us the resources.” And you surely deserve that. 

 Thank you very much. 

 I yield back. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Thank you, sir. 

 MR. STEARNS. There is no one on this side. 

 Mr. Strickland. 

 MR. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I was not here for opening 

statements, and I would request permission to-- 

 MR. STEARNS. With unanimous consent, so ordered. 

 MR. STRICKLAND. And I have no questions for the witness. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. 

 MR. STRICKLAND. Thank you. 

 MR. STEARNS. The questions are over, and so we will go to the 

second panel. 
32

 We want to thank the chairwoman for her indulgence and patience, 

and we appreciate her coming every time she does. 

 And thank you. 

 And we will bring up the second panel. 

 MS. MAJORAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Sure. 

 MS. MAJORAS. --Madame Ranking Member. 

 MR. STEARNS. My colleagues, Ms. Nancie G. Marzulla, Partner, 

Marzulla & Marzulla on behalf of the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality 

is here. Second, is Mr. Michael Stanton, Vice President, Government 

and International Affairs, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 

We have Mr. Aaron Lowe, Vice President Government Affairs, 

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, and Mr. Charles G. 

Gorman, Chairman of the National Automotive Service Task Force. We 

welcome all four of you. 

 And Ms. Marzulla, we will start with you with your opening 

statement. If you don’t mind, just put on the microphone and move it 

close to you so that we can hear you. 

STATEMENTS OF NANCIE G. MARZULLA, PARTNER, 

MARZULLA & MARZULLA, ON BEHALF OF THE 

COALITION FOR AUTO REPAIR EQUALITY; MICHAEL J. 

STANTON, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, THE ALLIANCE OF 

AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; AARON LOWE, VICE 

PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AUTOMOTIVE 

AFTERMARKET INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION; AND 

CHARLES G. GORMAN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

AUTOMOTIVE TASK FORCE 

 MS. MARZULLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be 

here. And I thank you, as well, members of the subcommittee. 

 As I said, I am delighted to be here today to testify in support of H.R. 

2048. I have been actively involved in the legal research and analysis of 

the motor vehicle owners’ right to repair since this bill’s inception. As a 

partner of the Washington, DC law firm of Marzulla & Marzulla, I serve 

as outside counsel of the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality. I also serve 

as a part-time Director of Defenders of Property Rights, a national nonprofit organization devoted to protecting property rights. Having 

devoted many years of my professional life to advocating for greater 

protections for all forms of property, I actually had to step back and 

independently research and satisfy myself that intellectual property rights 
33

would not be infringed by CARE’s approach to this issue before I agreed 

to come on board. 

 Having done so, however, I am here today to express my 

wholehearted and enthusiastic support for the Right to Repair Act. This 

act, I can confirm, is anchored on bedrock law. The right-to-repair 

doctrine is based on concepts of fairness and common sense. It says that 

if you buy a product, you have the legal right to make any and all repairs 

to that item throughout the product’s useful life. 

 The right-to-repair doctrine is not a new principle. It was established 

over 150 years ago by the United States Supreme Court in a seminal 

case, Wilson v. Simpson. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a 

consumer who purchases a new product or good has a right to repair or 

replace parts or components when they become broken or worn out. The 

right-to-repair doctrine has been consistently applied to automobiles. In 

Electric Auto Lite Company, the court found no patent infringement 

when the defendant was merely providing replacement parts for a 

patented ignition system in a motor vehicle. In Dana Corp., the federal 

circuit court of appeals held that rebuilding clutches on heavy-duty 

trucks was “permissible repair”. In Aero Manufacturing Company, the 

Supreme Court held that the doctrine permitted replacement of worn-out 

fabric for the patented folding top of a convertible. 

 And of course, the right-to-repair doctrine doesn’t just apply to cars. 

The doctrine applies to all kinds of manufacturing products we encounter 

in our daily lives, such as refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, 

computers, or air-conditioning units. Thus, you may buy your computer 

from Dell but you can call Computer Geeks or Geeks on Call if 

something inside your computer breaks or if you want to take the back of 

the computer off and install more memory. Dell doesn’t have the legal 

right to tell you that you have to send the computer back to Dell just to 

make a repair or upgrade the computer. 

 In April, the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, 

relying on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Aero Manufacturing 

underscored the continuing vitality of the right-to-repair doctrine, stating 

that the purchaser’s long-established right to use and repair an article that 

has been legally purchased from the patentee. 

 Although the right-to-repair doctrine is well-established at common 

law, the use of computers in the modern vehicle is increasingly 

interfering with the vehicle owner’s ability to exercise his right or her 

right to even diagnose much less service or repair a vehicle. Without the 

information necessary to access the computer in the vehicle, the owner 

can’t even accurately diagnose what is wrong with the car, much less 

make simple repairs. Without the ability to talk to the computer in the 

vehicle, cheaper, more readily available replacement parts can not be 
34

installed in the vehicle, because the computer may be programmed to 

reject them. Even the replacement parts may be of superior quality. 

 In closing, let me stress that nothing in H.R. 2048 will authorize 

anyone to reproduce or distribute any patented product or creative work, 

and all remedies for violations of patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and 

trademarks remain in force under the bill. 

 In short, H.R. 2048 will do nothing more than simply allow car 

owners to continue doing what they have always done: change their tires, 

replace worn-out engine parts, install new batteries, upgrade stereo 

systems, replace burned-out taillights, and fix broken ignition systems. 

 I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

 Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Nancie G. Marzulla follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCIE G. MARZULLA, PARTNER, MARZULLA & MARZULLA, ON 

BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR AUTO REPAIR EQUALITY

 Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be 

here today to testify in support of H.R. 2048, the Motor Vehicle Owner’s Right to Repair 

Act on behalf of the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE). CARE is a non-profit 

organization representing companies in the $200 billion-a-year, five million employee 

aftermarket industry. CARE’s members operate businesses at 34,820 locations 

throughout the United States. Of these, 15,270 are automobile repair facilities. CARE’s 

members also include companies that sell replacement parts to “do-it-yourselfers” or 

independent repair facilities. 

Second only to a home, the automobile is the most expensive thing a consumer buys. 

A motor vehicle is quintessentially a consumer product that must be regularly maintained 

and repaired in order to operate safely and properly. For example, brakes wear out and 

must be replaced. Likewise, transmissions become worn and need repair. Finally, even 

engine parts wear out and must be continually serviced and repaired. In short, virtually 

any component of an automobile will wear out and need replacement or service over the 

useful life of a vehicle. 

 The American automobile owner has long enjoyed the right to choose by whom, 

where, and when to have his or her vehicle diagnosed, serviced, and repaired without this 

choice being dictated by the automobile’s manufacturer. This right to repair is something 

the vehicle owner buys at the time he or she purchases the automobile, and this freedom 

of choice is the American way of car ownership. The car belongs to the owner, and he or 

she may repair, service, improve or change accessories as desired. Such choice allows 

the vehicle owner to develop relationships with local or small independent repair shops. 

Likewise, the owner can shop around, and search for and compare prices or hours of 

operation. The owner can also choose the brand and quality of fluids, filters, batteries, 

tires and other replacement parts he or she wishes to install and, if he or she is talented 

enough, can install them. If the automobile manufacturers have their way, however, this 

proud American tradition of auto ownership ability to choose who and where an 

automobile will be repaired will be as commonplace as a horse and buggy. 

 This is because automobile manufacturers are increasingly using technology to 

successfully “lock out” automobile owners from maintaining and repairing their vehicles. 

Thus, even such seemingly simple matters as determining what a light on a dashboard 

means requires a trip to the dealership. Modern automobiles contain computers that 

control many components such as the braking system, the steering mechanism, air bags, 
35

ignition, and the climate control system. Lacking the ability to talk to the vehicle’s 

computers, the owners or their auto technicians cannot begin to diagnose, service, or 

repair modern vehicles. Thus, increasingly, manufacturers are forcing vehicle owners to 

go to only one place for their service and repairs, to automobile dealers. This scheme, to 

destroy the competition for automobile service and repair, is anticompetitive. Moreover, 

forcing the vehicle owner to go back to the dealer for diagnosis, service, and repairs of 

the vehicle defies the settled and reasonable expectations of the American automobile 

consumer to choose who and where to have his or her vehicle repaired. 

Although it is impossible to know the exact extent of the current problem, we 

estimate that independent repair technicians are turning away approximately 15 percent 

of all vehicles because manufactures have not released the information, information that 

they do release to their representatives. Because we are just now working with vehicles 

coming off their five-year warranty, the first generation of computer-controlled cars, we 

are seeing just the tip of the problem and we believe this number to be increasing each 

year as the auto fleet matures. This would be consistent with Automotive Service 

Association’s testimony before the U.S. Senate in 2002 that 15 percent of all incidents of 

service are rejected due to lack of repair, which amounts to 161 million incidents of 

nonrepair, costing the industry 18 billion dollars. 

A survey conducted by the Tarrance Group several years ago provides empirical 

evidence that 2 million Americans are annually forced to take their automobiles to 

manufacturers’ representatives rather than independent repair shops. A poll of 800 

owners or managers of automotive aftermarket businesses found that 59 percent have 

problems getting the necessary information to repair or provide parts for automobiles. 

That poll also found that 44 percent of aftermarket shops send one to six vehicles per 

month to a manufacturer representative for repair because of lack of information or tools, 

while another nine percent send over six vehicles per month. With approximately 

178,000 independent repair shops in this country, that means approximately 2 million 

vehicles per year are diverted from independents to manufacturers’ authorized 

representatives, a substantial disruption of the free market and a denial of the right of 2 

million Americans to choose who will repair and service their automobile each year. 

 Increasingly, thus, the independent repair shop can no longer access the 

sophisticated on-board computers at all, and the automobile owner often has no choice 

but the manufacturer representative to service and repair the vehicle. This legislation will 

halt the demise of the independent repair shop, and preserve the vehicle owner’s right to 

choose who will repair the vehicle. 

I. The Consumer’s Right to Repair 

The right of the consumer to repair a piece of equipment that he or she purchased is 

bedrock law. In the landmark case, Wilson v. Simpson, 50 U.S. 109 (1850), the United 

States Supreme Court established the right to repair doctrine, holding that a consumer 

who purchases a new product or good has the right to repair or replace parts in that 

product or piece of machinery when they had become broken or worn-out. 

Wilson involved a claim of patent infringement. In this historic case, an owner of a 

planning machine was sued for patent infringement because the owner had replaced 

worn-out cutter knives that were part of the machine. The Supreme Court held that the 

owner had a right to repair or replace parts of the machine, even if the machine, as a 

whole, was subject to a patent: 

It is the use of the whole of that which a purchaser buys, when the patentee sells to 

him a machine; and, when he repairs the damages which may be done to it, it is no 

more than the exercise of that right of care which every one may use to give 

duration to that which he owns, or has a right to use as a whole. . . . The right to 

repair and replace in such a case is either in the patentee, or in him who has bought 

the machine. Has the patentee a more equitable right to force the disuse of the 
36

machine entirely, on account of the inoperativeness of a part of it, than the 

purchaser has a right to repair, who has, in the whole of it, a right to use? 

Id. at 123. The Court emphasized the fact that the planning machine was designed to last 

for several years, while cutter-knives, which are a part of the planning machine, were 

designed to last only sixty to ninety days. Thus: 

The right of the assignee to replace the cutter-knives is not because they are 

perishable materials, but because the inventor of the machine has so arranged them 

as a part of its combination, that the machine could not be continued in use without 

a succession of knives at short intervals. Unless they were replaced, the invention 

would have been but of little use to the inventor or to others. 

Id. at 125. 

 Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes subsequently applied this doctrine in Heyer v. 

Duplicator Manufacturing Company, 263 U.S. 100, 101 (1923). In Heyer, the Supreme 

Court reviewed another patent infringement case involving the patent for “improvements 

in multiple copying machines.” One part of that machine was a band of gelatine attached 

to a spool or spindle that fit into the machine and allowed a print to be multiplied up to 

about a hundred times. The Court upheld the right of the consumer to replace the bands 

explaining that “[t]he owner when he bought one of these machines had a right to 

suppose that he was free to maintain [its] use, without the further consent of the seller, for 

more than the sixty days in which the present gelatine might be used up. The machine 

lasts indefinitely, the bands are exhausted after a limited use and manifestly must be 

replaced.” Id. at 101-02; see also Schayer v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, 56 F. Supp. 903 

(S.D.N.Y. 1944) (holding repair and maintenance of machine did not constitute patent 

infringement); Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 131 F.2d 406 (6th Cir. 1942) (holding 

that replacing parts of an “automatic progressive-feed stoker” did not constitute patent 

infringement); F.F. Slocomb & Co. v. A.C. Layman Mach. Co., 227 F. 94 (D. Del. 1915) 

(holding that both owner of machine and third party effecting repair of machine have 

right to replace parts of the machine); and, Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Kelsey 

Electric Railway Sepcialty Co., 75 F. 1005 (2d Cir. 1896)(upholding the right to replace 

trolley stands as not violative of patent holder’s rights). 

 In 1935, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit again applied the “right of 

repair” to two separate suits involving the repair and use of replacement parts of a motor 

vehicle. In Electric Auto Lite Company v. P. & D. Manufacturing Company, 78 F.2d 

700, 703-4 (2d. Cir. 1935), the court reviewed a lower court decision that found no patent 

infringement where the defendant was merely providing replacement parts for a patented 

ignition system in a motor vehicle. The Second Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision 

and in so doing, left no doubt that a car owner has the right to repair his or her car by 

replacing broken or worn-out parts: 

A purchaser of a car having an ignition system made pursuant to any of these 

patents was entitled to have it repaired when necessary or replaced as to any of the 

parts in issue, in order to enjoy the continued usefulness of this ignition system. 

The car owner could repair or replace the part and would not be guilty of 

infringement if he did so. In like manner, he had the right to obtain the necessary 

part when his own need therefor arose. Indeed, the ignition apparatus is so designed 

and built as to make it possible to quickly and simply detach, for replacement 

purposes, the parts referred to and thus to meet the demands of wear or destruction. 

Id. at 703. 

 In the second case, General Motors Corporation v. Preferred Electric & Wire 

Corporation, 79 F.2d 621 (2d Cir. 1935), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals again 

upheld a vehicle owner’s right to replace the parts of an ignition system in his or her 

motor vehicle. The court stated that the right to repair or replace such parts is: 

an incident of the rightful use of the purchased car. After purchase, the car owner 

has an apparatus wholly free from the limits of a monopoly. That it is no 
37

infringement to make ordinary repairs or replacements that may reasonably be 

expected as necessary during the life of the car as a whole has been established by 

authorities. 

Id. at 623 (citations omitted). The court further noted that such vehicle parts are 

“intentionally made so that they might be quickly detached and replaced when worn. 

They were relatively perishable and wore out before the device as a whole was worn and, 

moreover, it was the custom of the trade to effect repairs by replacement of the defective 

parts.” Id. 

More recently, in Aro Manufacturing Company v. Convertible Top Replacement 

Company, 365 U.S. 336 (1961), the Supreme Court applied the right to repair doctrine in 

a patent infringement suit regarding a certain patented folding top for a convertible motor 

vehicle. The defendant manufactured and sold replacement fabrics to be put into the 

patented combination. The Court concluded that the replacement of the fabric was a 

“permissible repair.” Id; see also Hewlett Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. 

Co., 123 F.3d 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1997), rehearing denied, suggestion for in banc declined 

(Oct. 14, 1997)(quoting Mitchell v. Hawley, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 544, 547 (1872) (“[T]he 

rule is well established that the patentee must be understood to have parted to that extent 

with all his exclusive rights and that he ceases to have any interest whatever in the 

patented machine so sold and delivered.”); R2 Medical Systems, Inc. v. Katecho, Inc., 931 

F. Supp. 1397, 1442 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (“Once a patent owner sells a patented article, the 

purchaser also acquires an implied right to use and maintain that article continually. . . . 

The right to repair extends to the replacement of perishable components whose useful life 

is regularly exhausted by the proper use of the article.”); Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon 

Indus., Inc. 45 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding doctrine of repair is not limited to 

temporary or minor repairs; it encompasses any repair that is necessary for maintenance 

of use or use of the whole of patented combination through replacement of spent, 

unpatented element.); FMC Corp. v. Up-Right, Inc., 21 F.3d 1073, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 

1994)(“[M]ere replacement of broken or worn-out parts, one at a time, whether of the 

same part repeatedly or of a different part successively, is not more than the lawful right 

of the owner to repair his property.”). 

Although the right-to-repair doctrine is well established at common law, the use of 

computers in the modern vehicle truncates the vehicle owner’s ability to exercise his or 

her right to actually repair the vehicle. Without the information necessary to access the 

computer in the vehicle, the owner cannot accurately diagnosis repair symptoms. 

Without the ability to access the computer in the vehicle, cheaper and more readily 

available replacement parts cannot be installed in a vehicle because the computer may be 

programmed to reject them, even though they are of superior quality. This bill updates 

the right to repair, bringing it into the computer age. 

Nothing in H.R. 2048 authorizes anyone to reproduce or distribute any patented 

product or creative work, and all remedies for violations of patents and copyrights remain 

in force under the bill. The Copyright and Patent Clause of the United States 

Constitution provides as to copyrights: “Congress shall have Power ... [t]o promote the 

Progress of Science ... by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the 

exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, 

cl. 8. 

 When granting a patent, the government allows a temporary monopoly, but the 

limits of that monopoly require public disclosure of the patent to take into consideration 

the public’s interests in that invention. 69 C.J.S. Patents § 139. “The specification [for 

the patent] shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and 

process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable 

any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly 

connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by 

the inventor of carrying out his invention.” 35 U.S.C.A. § 112. 
38

In Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, 504 U.S. 451 (1992), where the 

Kodak company in 1985 had “implemented a policy of selling replacement parts for 

micrographic and copying machines only to buyers of Kodak equipment who use Kodak 

service or repair their own machines,” the Supreme Court found that the trial court could 

make a finding that there was a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by Kodak 

making such a “tying” arrangement. Id. at 458, 479. The actions by the auto 

manufacturers to keep independent service providers from obtaining the information 

necessary to repair automobiles are similar to the illegal “tying” actions of Kodak. 

Because the auto manufacturers are “tying” their market power from the auto and auto 

parts manufacturing market to their commerce in the repair markets, they are violating 

Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. 

In In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation (“Xerox”), 203 F.3d 

1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Xerox 

could refuse to sell its patented replacement parts to independent service repair 

organizations. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that intellectual property rights do not 

confer a privilege to violate antitrust laws, but went on to state that as a general rule, the 

antitrust laws do not prevent the owner of intellectual property rights from excluding 

others from use of its patented property. The court found that unless the antitrust 

defendant engages in illegal tying, Patent and Trademark Office fraud, or sham litigation, 

it could enforce its statutory intellectual property rights without violating the antitrust 

laws. Xerox, 203 F.3d at 1327. 

“Notably, Kodak was a tying case when it came before the Supreme Court, and no 

patents had been asserted in defense of the antitrust claims against Kodak. Conversely, 

there are no claims in this case of illegally tying the sale of Xerox’s patented parts to 

unpatented products.” Xerox, 203 F.3d at 1327. Because our case with the auto 

manufacturers has related antitrust issues, the ruling in Xerox would not directly apply to 

our case with the auto manufacturers. 

II. Role of the FTC in Protecting the Automobile Owners’ Right to Repair

H.R. 2048 authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is the nation’s 

lead consumer protection agency, to promulgate regulations ensuring that new motor 

vehicle owners have all the information necessary at their disposal for diagnosing, 

servicing, repairing and choosing the replacement parts for their vehicles. The Federal 

Trade Commission has in place broad statutory authority to enforce a variety of federal 

antitrust and consumer protection laws. The two separate missions of the FTC are part of 

the FTC’s original mandate from Congress, the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 

which granted the Commission the power to determine and prevent “unfair deceptive acts 

or practices in commerce” (consumer protection mission) and “unfair methods of 

competition (antitrust mission).” See 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a)(1) (West 1999). 

In 1938, the Wheeler-Lee Amendment broadened the FTC’s jurisdiction and stated, 

in relevant part, that “[t]he Commission is empowered and directed to prevent persons, 

partnerships, or corporations . . . from using unfair methods of competition in commerce 

and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.” Wheeler-Lee Amendment, ch. 

49, § 3, 52 Stat. 111 (1938). 

The Magnuson-Moss Act of 1974 further expanded the FTC’s power to promulgate 

substantive rules regarding consumer protection. As a result of the Magnuson-Moss Act, 

section 18 was added to the FTC Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe: 

(A) interpretive rules and general statements of policy with respect to unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (within the meaning of 

section 45(a)(1) of this title), and 

(B) rules which define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (within the meaning of 
39

section 45(a)(1) of this title). . . . Rules under this subparagraph may include 

requirements prescribed for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices. 

See 15 U.S.C.A. § 57a (West 1999). This Act also altered the language of section 5(a)(1) 

of the FTC Act which now reads: “[t]he Commission is hereby empowered and directed 

to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations . . . from using unfair methods of 

competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or 

affecting commerce.” See 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a)(1) (West 1999) (emphasis added to 

indicate amended language). 

In addition to its original mandate to protect consumers against unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices under the FTC Act and its amendments, the FTC has also been given 

authority under several consumer protection statutes to prohibit specifically-defined trade 

practices and, as the present bill does, require disclosure of certain information to 

consumers. For example, under the Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 68-68j, 

the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 69-69j, the Textile Fiber Products 

Identification Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 70-70k, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising 

Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340, and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 1451-1461, the FTC has been given the authority to mandate content 

disclosure in the labeling, invoicing and advertising of certain products. Similarly, under 

the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f, the FTC has been granted the 

authority to require all creditors who deal with consumers to make certain written 

disclosures concerning finance charges and other aspects of financial transactions, and 

under the Fair Credit and Charge Card Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1637(c)-(g), the FTC 

can require credit and charge card issuers to provide certain disclosures in applications 

and solicitations. 

The FTC has been given specific authority under the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 1667-1667(f), to require that certain automobile lease costs and terms be 

disclosed. Also, under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6201, the FTC is 

authorized to issue requirements for the labeling of certain fuels and to issue other 

energy-efficient rules regarding lamps, transformers and small electric motors. 

The purposes of the present bill are to protect American consumers from the unfair 

and deceptive practice of vehicle manufacturers in refusing to disclose certain 

information necessary for the repair, service and diagnosis of their motor vehicles and to 

ensure that American consumers have the opportunity to choose their own vehicle repair 

technician. The goals of this bill directly parallel the two missions of the FTC to protect 

consumers and encourage competition in commerce. Furthermore, as shown above, the 

FTC has been given a broad grant of authority, under the FTC Act, to accomplish its 

missions and promulgate corresponding rules and regulations. Similar to the abovementioned statutes which authorize the FTC to prohibit certain trade practices, the 

present bill would authorize the FTC to prohibit the unfair practice of “locking out” 

consumers from their own vehicles by requiring disclosure of information necessary to 

ensure that their vehicles are maintained and repaired accurately and safely. Although it 

will certainly impose some new duties on the FTC, we believe that these duties are 

neither foreign to the Commission nor beyond its competence. 

III. Self-Regulation Has Failed to Protect the Consumer and to Preserve 

Competition in the Auto Repair and After-Parts Industry. 

In order for a voluntary agreement to be effective, there must be effective 

enforcement and oversight of the agreement. 

The close vertical marketing arrangement between automobile manufacturers and 

their authorized representatives makes it easy to build in the repair business as part of the 

price the consumer ultimately has to pay for the vehicle, and the profit which the 

manufacturer representative makes on the sale. This, in turn, increases the price the 

authorized representative can afford to pay the manufacturer. To the extent the 
40

manufacturer can also guarantee after-market warranty repair work to its representative 

by locking out independent repair shops and after-market parts producers, both the 

manufacturer and their representatives profit at the expense of the consumer. There is 

simply no economic incentive to allow independent repair shops to compete with 

manufacturer representatives for the same work, or to allow after-market parts to compete 

with the auto manufacturers’ “genuine factory parts” sold at premium prices. The 

legitimate role of government is to intervene in the case of such market failures. 

IV. A Model for This Information Disclosure Program Already Exists Under 

EPA’s Mobile Source Rules 

The successful EPA program requiring precisely the same kind of disclosures under 

the mobile source provisions of the Clean Air Act leaves little doubt that legislative 

proposal will work. Indeed, H.R. 2048 is directly modeled on the Clean Air Act 

Amendments, which insures the availability of the information necessary to repair the 

car’s emissions or pollution control system. H.R. 2048 simply takes the nondiscrimination provisions already applied to the car’s emissions system, and applies them 

to all of the other systems in the motor vehicle. 

In the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress adopted a provision virtually 

identical to the present bill. That provision states: 

The Administrator, by regulation, shall require . . . manufacturers to provide 

promptly to any person engaged in the repairing or servicing of motor vehicles . . . 

any and all information needed to make use of the emission control diagnostics 

system . . . and . . . instructions for making emission related diagnosis and repairs. 

No such information may be withheld under section 7542(c) of this title [relating to 

trade secrets] if that information is provided (directly or indirectly) by the 

manufacturer to franchised dealers or other persons engaged in the repair, 

diagnosing, or servicing of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines. . . . 

42 U.S.C. § 7521(m)(5). To implement this statute, EPA has issued regulations detailing 

what information automobile manufacturers must make available and specific procedures 

for doing so: 

Manufacturers shall furnish or cause to be furnished to any person engaged in the 

repairing or servicing of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines . . . any and all 

information needed to make use of the on-board diagnostic system and such other 

information, including instructions for making emission-related diagnosis and 

repairs, including, but not limited to, service manuals, technical service bulletins, 

recall service information, data stream information, bi-directional control 

information, and training information, unless such information is protected by 

section 208(c) as a trade secret. No such information may be withheld under 

section 208(c) of the Act if that information is provided (directly or indirectly) by 

the manufacturer to franchised dealers or other persons engaged in the repair, 

diagnosing, or servicing of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines. 

40 C.F.R. § 86.094-38(g)(1); see also 40 C.F.R. § 86.1808-01(f)(2)(i). 

In addition, automobile manufacturers must provide this information “at a fair and 

reasonable price” to be determined by EPA. 40 C.F.R. § 86.094-38(g)(3); 40 C.F.R. § 

86.1808-01(f)(7)(i). Any manufacturer that does not provide the required information at 

this price is deemed to have made the information unavailable. 40 C.F.R. § 86.094-

38(g)(4); 40 C.F.R. § 86.1808-01(f)(8). 

Each manufacturer must provide an index to its required information or provide the 

information on its website (40 C.F.R. § 86.094-38(g)(5); 40 C.F.R. § 86.094-1808-

01(f)(3), (10)(2)), update the index or website (40 C.F.R. § 86.094-38(g)(5)(i); 40 C.F.R. 

§ 86.094-1808-01(f)(3), (10)(2)), and maintain the index or website (40 C.F.R. § 86.094-

38(g)(7); 40 C.F.R. § 86.094-1808-01(f)(7)(i), (10)(2)). 
41

Manufacturers must provide the information at the same time they give it to their 

authorized representatives (40 C.F.R. § 86.094-38(g)(6)), and must mail certain requested 

information within one business day of receiving an order. 40 C.F.R. § 86.094-38(g)(9); 

40 C.F.R. § 86.1808-01(f)(10)(2). 

Like the FTC, EPA is not an information-gathering agency, but primarily a 

regulatory agency with expansive civil and criminal enforcement authority. Yet EPA has 

found no difficulty in administering this program and, as a consequence, consumers have 

had no problem getting their pollution control systems repaired. 

H.R. 2048 would simply expand the consumer’s right to repair to encompass all of 

the automobile’s systems. We would expect that, when mandated by law, automobile 

manufacturers will comply with the disclosure requirements (as they have under the 

Clean Air Act), minimizing any need for FTC involvement in enforcing these provisions. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Nancie G. Marzulla 

 MR. STEARNS. And I thank you. 

 Mr. Stanton. 

MR. STANTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Almost 500 vehicle service events are undertaken per year, and while 

automakers attempt to ensure that all information is available, we 

recognize that with millions of pages of service and repair information, 

there will be instances where that information may not be readily 

available or apparent. Automakers try to correct these gaps as quickly as 

possible. There are situations, however, where access to some 

information is neither reasonable nor appropriate, such as information to 

override immobilizers that are part of vehicle security systems or 

override vehicle safety or emissions operating software. 

 In 2000, the National Automobile Service Task Force was created to 

facilitate the identification and correction of gaps in the availability and 

accessibility of automotive service information, service training, 

diagnostic tools and equipment. The NASTF inquiry process, which has 

been highly publicized for several years in major trade publications, like 

Motor and Motor Age Magazine, has received only 57 requests for help 

in obtaining information for all of 2005. In other words, on average, 

aftermarket repair technicians requested access to repair information 

from NASTF just once in every five million vehicle repairs. 

 Turning to the text of H.R. 2048, we continue to have concerns about 

the need for this legislation. We also have substantial concerns about the 

language of the legislation and several points regarding its apparent 

intent. 

 First, the finding sections of the bill conclude that automakers have 

systematically engaged in “a manner that has hindered open 

competition”. This simply is not true. Since anti-competitive behavior is 
42

illegal under federal and State law, branding all automakers with this 

unfounded conclusion is both unreasonable and places them at legal risk. 

Moreover, the findings address an issue that goes beyond the scope of 

the legislation, mainly whether consumers should always be able to 

choose between original parts and aftermarket parts for vehicles repairs. 

The findings, coupled with the disclosure requirements in section 3, 

create an atmosphere of promoting lawsuits under State consumer 

protection laws. This will lead to an unnecessary increase in litigation 

and the release of proprietary information. This threatens the 

manufacturers’ intellectual property and has nothing to do with the 

availability of service information. 

 Section 3 of H.R. 2048 requires “the same service and training 

information related to vehicle repair shall be made available to all 

independent repair facilities in the same manner and extent as it is made 

available to franchised dealerships”. This would include vehicle security 

information, the release of key codes, and the release of immobilizer 

override information. This would compromise the security systems that 

have cut auto theft in half. The Highway Loss Data Institute and a recent 

study by JP Research, Inc. confirmed the effectiveness of these systems, 

which are now in 75 percent of new models. Decreasing the 

effectiveness of these systems could jeopardize the discount consumers 

get today on their auto insurance. 

 And finally, the issues H.R. 2048 attempts to address have never 

been documented or quantified. 

 And Mr. Chairman, from our viewpoint, in looking at how do we 

document this, our coalition, which is made up of all of our members, 

which is nine manufacturers, plus the Association of International 

Automobile Manufacturers, we represent all of the vehicles that are 

being sold in the United States, those manufacturers. Our manufacturers 

tell us, in fact, that they are making all of this information available. 

They make the same information available to the aftermarket that they 

make available to the dealers. 

 Secondly, another member of our coalition is the Automotive 

Service Association, which is comprised technicians. And they will 

testify and tell you that, in fact, all of the information is available. 

 Third, we look at the NASTF inquiry process. In all of 2005, there 

were only 57 requests for information. 

 And then finally, all of our members have their own databases that 

are open to the public. The cost of them is investigated by the EPA. 

They are reasonable costs. And yet the requests for information for those 

are all in double-digits. And we just don’t think there is a problem. 

 Thank you, sir. 

 [The prepared statement of Michael J. Stanton follows:] 
43

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. STANTON, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, THE ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade and Consumer Protection regarding H.R. 2048 the “Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right 

to Repair Act of 2005.” I represent the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

(Alliance), a trade association of nine car and light-truck manufacturers. Our member 

companies include BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, 

General Motors Corporation, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota Motor North America 

and Volkswagen of America. One out of every ten jobs in the U.S. is dependent on the 

automotive industry. 

 Alliance member companies have more than 600,000 employees in the United 

States, with more than 230 manufacturing facilities in 35 states. Overall, a University of 

Michigan study found that the entire automobile industry creates more than 6.6 million 

direct and spin-off jobs in all 50 states and produces almost $243 billion in payroll 

compensation annually. 

Historically, about 75 percent of vehicle service and repairs are performed in nondealer shops. Automakers view these non-dealer shops as important players in providing 

service to their mutual customers, the driving public. Just as motor vehicles have become 

more complex, the servicing of them has also become a high technology business 

requiring skilled, trained technicians and a sizeable investment in diagnostic and repair 

equipment. Automakers provide independent repair technicians access to training 

information, specialized tools, and service and repair information necessary for servicing 

their customers’ vehicles. 

 Almost 500 million non-warranty service events are undertaken each year. While 

we make every attempt to ensure every element of information is readily accessible for 

every one of these aftermarket repair events, we recognize that with literally millions of 

pages of service and repair information that need to be accessed for these repairs, there 

will be instances where needed information may not be readily available or apparent. 

The automakers try to correct these gaps as quickly as possible. There are situations, 

however, where access to some information is neither reasonable nor appropriate – such 

as information to override immobilizers that are part of theft deterrent/security systems or 

overwrite vehicle safety or emissions operating software. 

In 2000, the National Automobile Service Task Force (NASTF) was created to 

facilitate 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 partnership between automakers, the independent aftermarket 

repair community, the automotive equipment and tool industry, automotive trainers, 

locksmiths, suppliers, the insurance industry, law enforcement, auto dealers and others. 

The NASTF inquiry process, which has been highly publicized for several years in major 

trade publications like Motor and Motor Age Magazines, has received only 57 requests 

for help obtaining information for all of 2005. In other words, aftermarket repair 

technicians requested access to repair information in .00000019 percent of all repair 

attempts. That is six zeros to the right of the decimal point! Of the 57 inquiries, most 

were resolved to the satisfaction of the requestors. The NASTF complaint process is well 

established at this point, readily accessible on the Internet (at www.nastf.org) and every 

request for information and its respective solution is transparent on the International 

Automotive Technicians Network, a well-recognized Internet forum of over 48,000 

professional independent and dealership automobile repair technicians. 

 Working together, the volunteers at NASTF have implemented web based links to 

every automakers’ service information website with contact information. NASTF has 

succeeded in improving communications between automaker engineering groups and the 
44

Equipment & Tool Institute to ensure that scan tool information is readily available to 

aftermarket tool manufacturers. NASTF has reached out to the locksmith community and 

the National Insurance Crime Bureau and established the NASTF Vehicle Security 

Committee to address the controversial and highly complex issues surrounding methods 

to provide information to automotive security professionals without compromising 

vehicle security and customer safety. 

 Since its inception, automakers and the Automotive Service Association (ASA), the 

nation’s largest association of independent repair shops and technicians have invited all 

other interested parties to participate in the NASTF voluntary process. 

 Last month, NASTF established a board of directors to oversee the organization and 

update its mission, vision, and structure. The Board also elected officers at this meeting. 

The Chairman of the NASTF Board is with the Equipment and Tool Institute. The ViceChairman is with the Automotive Service Association and the Secretary/Treasurer is with 

the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The Board then chose the National Institute 

for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) to provide day-to-day management of NASTF. 

The Alliance believes the formalizing of NASTF is another major step that ensures 

service information, tools, and training will continue to be available to independent repair 

facilities. Six organizations (The Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association, The 

Equipment and Tool Institute, The Associated Locksmiths of America, The Association 

of International Automobile Manufacturers, The Automotive Service Association, and 

the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers) have pledged to fund NASTF for the first 

year. 

H.R. 2048 

Turning to the text of H.R. 2048, we continue to have concerns about the need for 

this legislation. We also have substantial concerns about the language of the legislation 

and at several points its apparent intent. 

 The findings of the legislation are unnecessarily harsh and factually inaccurate in 

many cases. The language is unfair to the automakers that have made significant 

investments in human and financial resources to provide convenient access to service 

information and tools to all independent automotive service providers 24 hours a day, 7 

days a week. Automakers have already demonstrated their commitment to making 

service information and tools available and have been doing so for some time. Although 

a small number of important issues were identified during our negotiations with the 

Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE) Coalition, we did not hear allegations of any 

widespread breakdown of the systems established to resolve service information and tool 

gaps. For this reason, we strongly take issue with the statements in the “findings” section 

of the bill that concludes that automakers have systematically engaged in “a manner that 

has hindered open competition.” This simply is not true. Since “anticompetitive 

behavior” is illegal under federal and state law, branding all automakers with this 

unfounded conclusion is both unreasonable and places them at legal risk. 

Moreover, the findings address an issue that goes beyond the scope of the 

legislation: namely, whether consumers should always be able to choose between 

original parts and aftermarket parts for vehicle repairs. This issue quickly fell off the 

table during Better Business Bureau discussions and is not appropriate for the findings 

portion of this bill. 

The legislation is not precise in describing the scope of what is being sought by the 

proponents of the bill. For example, the language appears to confuse “service 

information” with information to design diagnostic “tools.” It also appears to override 

the standard and accepted practice of providing some service and training information to 

the independent service providers by alternative means other than that used to 

communicate with dealers. The satellite networks and programs used to communicate 

with dealers cover a wide variety of business support services and are not appropriate for 
45

use by independent repair facilities. However, hard copies of materials or CD-ROMs of 

the relevant portions of these broadcasts are often used to provide the relevant 

information on service/repair issues to independent facilities. EPA intentionally carved 

out this provision from its service information rules because automakers cannot be 

expected to build special delivery infrastructures for the aftermarket. The CARE 

Coalition has not otherwise sought access to the satellite-based information delivery 

system of the manufacturers, and this legislation should not force changes in the current 

practices. 

 Section 3 of H.R. 2048 requires “the same service and training information related 

to vehicle repair shall be made available to all independent repair facilities in the same 

manner and extent as it is made available to franchised dealerships, and shall include all 

information needed to activate all controls that can be activated by a franchised 

dealership.” This would include, in the case of most automobile manufacturers, vehicle 

security information, the release of key codes, and release of immobilizer override 

information. This would compromise the security systems that have been found to cut 

auto theft by more than 50 percent and jeopardize consumers’ anti-theft insurance 

discounts. This is in direct conflict with the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Theft Acts of 

1984 and 1992 that provided a limited exemption from parts marking for antitheft devices 

determined by NHTSA to be as effective as parts marking in reducing motor vehicle 

theft. The effectiveness of these systems, which are now in 75 percent of new models, 

has been confirmed by the Highway Loss Data Institute and a recent study by JP 

Research, Inc. 

As another example, the text in Section 3 would also require making the “same 

diagnostic tools and capabilities related to vehicle repair” available to the independent 

service provider as are available to franchised dealers. We do not know what is intended 

by the word “capabilities” in this context. It could mean that manufacturers would have 

to grant access to their dealer “hot lines,” which are used to provide one-on-one 

diagnostic help to dealers who call for technical assistance. Virtually all of these “hot 

line” requests are while the vehicle is still under warranty. 

In addition Section 3, coupled with the “Findings and Purposes” section create an 

atmosphere of promoting lawsuits under State “little FTC laws.” This will lead to an 

explosion of litigation and the likely release of proprietary information. 

We also strongly object to the language in the bill that says that failure of a 

manufacturer to comply is automatically “an unfair method of competition and an unfair 

or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce” under the Federal Trade 

Commission Act. While automakers will always strive to comply with any Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) regulation, minor discrepancies should not give rise to an automatic 

pre-determination that they reflect the very serious charge of being “an unfair method of 

competition and an unfair or deceptive act or practice.” The FTC has ample authority 

and established legal standards to decide when a regulatory violation constitutes “an 

unfair method of competition” or “an unfair or deceptive act or practice.” In fact, the 

Center for Auto Safety has petitioned the FTC (March 13, 2006) to “...investigate the 

practices of auto companies in not releasing programming information for smart keys and 

charging exorbitant fees for nominal programming costs.” To establish a new regulatory 

requirement would be redundant and unwarranted based on the lack of a documented 

problem. 

Finally, the issues H.R. 2048 attempts to address have never been documented or 

quantified. In addition, it would: 

• Create a new federal bureaucracy to oversee the very small number of 

complaints raised each year about lack of information availability. 

• Establish a process for pursuing state lawsuits based on the “right” to this 

information and the “duty” for automakers to provide whatever is deemed 

necessary. 
46

• Jeopardize the intellectual property and proprietary information of automakers 

regarding parts design and vehicle operating systems. Aftermarket parts 

manufacturers want to produce competing repair parts and may allow parts that 

do not meet original equipment specifications, safety or emissions requirements 

to be used in repairs or vehicle modifications. 

• Require the release of information on vehicle security systems and result in 

increased vehicle thefts. 

The Alliance, AIAM, ASA and NADA and others continue to address service 

information issues as they arise and believe that legislation is not needed to further this 

process. We strongly support the recent formalization of NASTF, and we will continue 

to improve the NASTF program that identifies occasional gaps in service information and 

ensures that these gaps are quickly remedied. H.R. 2048 would create an unneeded 

federal bureaucracy to replace the existing voluntary process of providing information 

and resolving disputes. The FTC and the Better Business Bureau have both testified 

before Congress that the best way to address issues relating to service information is 

through a voluntary, non-regulatory organization -- not legislation. H.R. 2048 may well 

undermine the unprecedented cooperation between automakers and the aftermarket repair 

community and quite possibly destroy the voluntary program (NASTF) developed to deal 

with service information issues. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Lowe. 

MR. LOWE. Thank you. My name is Aaron Lowe, and I am 

testifying in behalf of the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association 

in support of passage of the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act. 

 We are a Bethesda-based trade association whose more than 8,000 

member companies and affiliates manufacture, distribute, sell, and install 

motor vehicle parts and accessories. Throughout our membership, we 

represent more than 100,000 repair shops, parts stores, and distribution 

outlets. 

 The Right to Repair Act is really very simple. It seeks to ensure that 

manufacturers share the same information and tools with independent 

repair facilities that they provide their new car dealers. There are many 

car companies that have claimed repeatedly that they are making 

everything available. Passage of this legislation will impose no new 

requirements since they are already in compliance. For those that have 

been withholding information and tools, they will need to do what they 

should have been doing in the past, making sure that everybody who 

repairs their vehicles have access to the right information and tools to do 

the job. 

 While AAIA strongly supports the passage of right-to-repair 

legislation, we were hopeful that a non-legislation agreement could be 

reached that would provide for a third-party voluntary enforcement 

program. As we discussed during the November hearing on right to 

repair, the aftermarket met with the car companies last summer at the 

Better Business Bureau to develop a non-legislative alternative to 

passage of H.R. 2048. Although much progress was made during these 
47

negotiations, the discussions broke down over three major issues: a 

commitment from the car companies to make all information necessary 

for our tool suppliers to include the same repair and diagnostic 

capabilities that are available to new car dealers through car company 

proprietary tools; two, whether all manufacturers will provide 

independents the ability to access vehicle immobilizer systems for both 

diagnostic and repair purposes. These systems provide that a chip in the 

key must perform an electronic handshake with another chip in the 

engine system in order for a vehicle to be started. If certain parts are 

replaced in the engine, the system must be reinitialized. Further, 

technicians must have the ability to diagnose problems with the 

immobilizer system that, for example, could be preventing the vehicle 

from being started. Three, an agreement over a system of governance of 

the organization that will oversee a non-legislative agreement that would 

be fair and effective. Although AIAA fully supports broad 

representation on a full board, there needs to be a smaller executive 

committee that will over see the day-to-day work of the organization. 

The executive committee should be split evenly between the independent 

aftermarket and the car companies to ensure a fair and one that is not 

nominated by one side or the other. We further agree with the suggestion 

made during the last hearing that the executive board should contain 

independent representatives to ensure fairness and credibility for the 

organization. 

 I want to reiterate that AIAA feels strongly that a non-legislative 

agreement that has a strong and comprehensive commitment from each 

manufacturer, which is enforceable by a third party, is preferable over 

legislation. However, the current effort to formalize NASTF, while a 

step in the right direction, is a long way off from taking the place of 

right-to-repair legislation. The truth is that the work that was 

accomplished during the Better Business Bureau negotiations last 

summer moved our industries very close to a resolution that not only was 

acceptable, but would go a long way toward improving information tool 

availability for our industry. Unfortunately, the discussions currently 

taking place at NASTF appear to be making changes that would move us 

further away from an acceptable agreement. For example, the 

discussions of our third-party enforcement center on developing 

arbitration system that will move any information dispute into a system 

that would be costly and time-consuming and probably rarely used by 

independents. Further, while the governance structure now approved by 

NASTF has a wide representation from industry, the same groups that 

ran NASTF are still on the executive board in this version of NASTF. 

Unless the organization completely changes its leadership and the way it 

operates, it will continue to be ineffective and lack credibility. 
48

 The bottom line is that we should not be reinventing the wheel, but 

instead building on the progress we made during the BBB negotiations. 

To that end, Coalition for Auto Repair Equality sent a letter to the 

vehicle manufacturers outlining a resolution to the three issues discussed 

previously. I have attached a copy to my testimony. On every issue, the 

letter represented an attempt by our industry to compromise our position 

in order to address car company concerns. To my knowledge, CARE has 

not received a response to that letter. 

 Further, at the request of this subcommittee, the aftermarket brought 

some of its leaders to Washington to meet with the manufacturers in 

order to see if the final issues regarding a non-legislative agreement 

could be resolved. Unfortunately, the manufacturers brought people to 

the meeting that they admitted could not make decisions regarding a 

possible agreement. Further, they only allotted 1 hour to this meeting, 

and this is insufficient time to seriously negotiate the remaining issues. 

 Based on their response, or lack of response, it appears clear to us 

that the manufacturers, despite all of their public talk, do not want to 

resolve this issue and are hoping the legislation just goes away. 

Therefore, on behalf of the broad list of national and State aftermarket 

groups, consumer groups, and small business groups, we urge the 

subcommittee to wait no longer and move soon to enact right-to-repair 

legislation. U.S. consumers deserve some assurance that the vehicles 

they purchase will be repairable anywhere they choose and that the 

system is not controlled by the manufacturer. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to share our views on this important 

issue. And I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

 [The prepared statement of Aaron M. Lowe follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AARON M. LOWE, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,

AUTOMOTIVE AFTERMARKET INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

The Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association is pleased to provide testimony in 

support of the “Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act” (HR 2048) sponsored by 

Representative Joe Barton and now co-sponsored by a bi-partisan list of 102 legislators. 

AAIA is a Bethesda, Md.-based trade association whose more than 8,000 member 

companies and affiliates manufacture, distribute, and sell motor vehicle parts, 

accessories, service, tools, equipment, materials and supplies. Through its membership, 

AAIA represents more than 100,000 repair shops, parts stores and distribution outlets. 

There has been an independent aftermarket around in this country almost since the 

invention of the automobile. Most surveys indicate that between 70 to 80 percent of car 

owners choose to patronize independent repair shops over the new car dealer for 

maintenance and repair of their vehicle after their new car warranty has expired. We 

attract many consumers because our members are often more affordable and convenient 

than the local dealer. More often than not, independents are able to provide effective 

repairs for their customers on the same day that they bring their vehicle into the shop. 

This minimizes the inconvenience for today’s stressed out car owners and keeps repair 

prices affordable. 
49

However, today’s highly sophisticated vehicles are posing extensive challenges for 

all service facilities, whether dealer or independent. Repairing late model vehicles 

requires sophisticated tools, information and training. While the independent service 

industry is more than willing to take up this challenge, much of the information and tools 

are only available through the original equipment manufacturer. As vehicles become 

more sophisticated, the need for enhanced information from the car company will only 

grow. Some vehicle manufacturers have recognized the importance of having an 

effective independent repair industry and have made the tools and information widely and 

affordably available. Other car companies have either made access difficult, or have 

totally prevented access to the information needed to provide repairs for their late model 

vehicles. If something is not done, many motorists may find themselves forced to wait 

for appointments with the new car dealers, and paying substantially more for the repairs 

once they are there. 

The Right to Repair act is really very simple; it seeks to ensure that manufacturers 

share the same information and tools with independent repair facilities that they provide 

to their dealer. Of course, this is not a free ride for the aftermarket since car companies 

would be permitted to charge independents for access to the needed information and 

tools. For the many car companies that have claimed repeatedly that they are making 

everything available, passage of this legislation will impose no new requirements since 

they are already in compliance. For those that have been withholding information or 

tools, they will need to do what they should have been doing in the past, making sure that 

anybody who repairs their vehicles have access to the necessary information and tools to 

do the job. 

Let me clear; we are not asking for proprietary or patent information. Our 

manufacturing members do not need access to the car company blueprints for developing 

parts. In fact, the aftermarket has produced competitive replacement parts that are as 

good, and in many cases, better than the parts produced by the vehicle manufacturers. 

Sometimes the parts are sourced from the same company. What our members are 

concerned about is that if access is denied to the independent service facilities, our 

manufacturers and distributors will lose their primary market since most new car dealers 

only source from the car company. 

The trade secret protections provided in the current version of HR 2048 are virtually 

the same as those in the Clean Air Act which requires the sharing of emissions related 

service information and tools. These rules have worked for the past 10 years without a 

single challenge from the manufacturers. Therefore, we are stunned to continue to hear 

from the manufacturers that we are after their intellectual property. We have made it 

clear to the manufacturers that it is not our intention to obtain this information through 

this legislation and have offered to work with the car companies and the committee to 

clarify this issue. Thus far, other than unsubstantiated allegations, no one has produced 

any examples as to how the current language falls short. Of course, as we move toward 

mark-up, we are still open to revisit this language in order to ensure that the legislation 

only requires the sharing of the same service information and tools that are available to 

the dealer. 

While AAIA strongly supports passage of right to repair legislation, we were 

hopeful that a non-legislative agreement could be reached that would provide for a third 

party voluntary enforcement program. As we discussed during the November hearing on 

Right to Repair, the aftermarket met with the car companies last summer at the Better 

Business Bureau to develop a non-legislative alternative to passage of HR 2048. 

Although much progress was made during these negotiations in developing an effective 

program for ensuring service information and tools are available to our industry, the 

discussions broke down over three major issues. Resolution of the following issues is 

key to ensuring the future competitiveness of the independent service industry. 
50

1. Car companies must make all information necessary for our tool supplier 

to include the same repair and diagnostic capabilities that are available to 

new car dealers through car company proprietary tools. Since most 

independents work on multiple makes and models of vehicles, they often 

purchase tools that contain the capabilities to work on many different vehicle 

makes. Not only is this more cost effective, but it also ensures competition and 

thus makes the tools more affordable. While the provision to tool suppliers of 

this information can be subject to whatever commercial terms are appropriate, 

independents need to be able to obtain aftermarket tools that have the same 

capabilities as the dealer tools. 

2. Independents must have the ability to access vehicle immobilizer systems 

for both diagnostic and repair purposes. These systems provide that a chip 

in the key must perform and electronic handshake with another chip in the 

engine system in order for the vehicle to be started. If certain parts are replaced 

in the engine, the system must be reinitialized such that the two chips can talk 

to each other and the ignition will operate properly. Further, technicians must 

have the ability to diagnose problems with the immobilizer system that for 

example could be preventing a vehicle from being started. While car 

companies claim that they cannot provide this information without risking that 

a vehicle will be stolen, we are not so certain this is entirely true. Some car 

companies are currently providing this information without jeopardizing 

vehicle security. In addition, this information is available to the new car dealer 

which means that it is being shared outside of the car company offices. We do 

not believe that the dealer is any more trustworthy than the independent service 

industry. The bottom line is that the immobilizer is a major issue in today’s 

repair market and access by the independent repair industry must be resolved 

by every manufacturer or competition and car owner choice will suffer as a 

direct result. 

3. Governance of the organization that will oversee a non-legislative 

agreement must be fair and effective. Although AAIA fully supports broad 

representation on a full board by the various parties that are involved in the 

repair industry, we also strongly believe that there needs to be an executive 

committee that will oversee the day-to-day work of the organization. In order 

to ensure fairness, this executive board should be split evenly between 

independent aftermarket and the car companies to ensure that it is fair and not 

dominated by either side. Furthermore, we agree with the suggestion made 

during the last hearing that the executive board contains independent 

representatives to ensure fairness and credibility for the organization. 

I want to reiterate that AAIA feels strongly that a non-legislative agreement that has 

strong and comprehensive commitments from each manufacturer and, that is enforceable 

by a third party is preferable over legislation. However, the current effort to formalize 

the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF), while a step in the right direction 

to improve information availability, is a long way off from taking the place of Right to 

Repair legislation. In fact, it is unclear whether the governance structure is sufficiently 

different from that of the previous NASTF and whether any discussions over information 

availability will be acceptable to us and the car companies. 

The truth is the work that was accomplished during the Better Business Bureau 

negotiations last summer moved our industry very close to a resolution that was not only 

acceptable, but would go a long way toward improving information and tool availability 

for our industry. Unfortunately, it seems that the discussions taking place in the current 

NASTF arena are attempting to make changes to that work that will move us further 

away from an acceptable agreement. For example, the discussion over a third party 
51

enforcement program centers on developing an arbitration system that will move any 

information dispute into a system that will be costly and time consuming and probably 

rarely used by independents. Further, while the governance structure now approved by 

NASTF has a wide representation from the industry, the same groups that ran the last 

NASTF are still on the executive board for this version of NASTF; the Automotive 

Service Association, the car companies and the tool companies. Unless the organization 

completely changes its leadership and the way it operates, it will continue to be 

ineffective and lack credibility. 

The bottom line is that we should not be reinventing the wheel, but instead, building 

on the progress that we made in the Better Business Bureau negotiations. To that end, the 

Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE) sent a letter to the vehicle manufacturers that 

outlined a resolution to the three issues listed previously. I have attached a copy of this 

letter. On nearly every issue, the letter represented an attempt by the aftermarket to 

compromise our position in order to address car company concerns. To my knowledge, 

CARE has yet to receive a response to this letter from the vehicle manufacturers. 

Further, at the request of this subcommittee, the aftermarket brought some of its 

leaders to Washington to meet with the manufacturers in order to see if the final issues 

regarding a non-legislative agreement can be resolved. Unfortunately, the manufacturers 

brought people to the meeting whom they admitted could not make any decisions 

regarding a possible agreement. Further, the manufacturers only allotted about one hour 

to the meeting, stating that they had a more important meeting to attend. 

I want to thank the staff of this subcommittee for the extensive efforts they have 

made to help bridge the gap between the car companies and the aftermarket. You have 

gone way beyond the call of duty to try to obtain a non-legislative agreement that would 

ensure motorists continue to have a choice in automotive repair. However, it appears 

clear to us that the manufacturers, despite all of their public talk, do not want to resolve 

this issue and are hoping that this legislation goes away. 

Therefore, AAIA, consumer groups, and small business organizations urge this 

subcommittee to wait no longer, but to move as soon as possible to enact Right to Repair 

legislation. Every day, more and more vehicles are entering the market, and we can no 

longer wait while the manufacturers use the present process to stall attempts to ensure 

competition in the vehicle repair market. U.S. consumers deserve some assurance that 

the vehicles they purchase can be repaired anywhere they choose and a system that is not 

controlled by the manufacturers. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, whether you believe the 

manufacturer’s contention that everything is available; or if you believe the many 

technicians and shop owners that have come before this subcommittee that have 

questioned this conclusion and warned that competition is being threatened; most 

everyone agrees that car owners should be able to get their vehicle repaired where they 

choose. This legislation will only serve to ensure that car owners remain in the driver’s 

seat when it comes to deciding who will repair their vehicle now and in the future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views on this important issue and I am 

available to answer any questions you might have. 
52

ATTACHMENT #1 

March 8, 2006 

To: Mr. Mike Stanton 

Vice President Government Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufactures 

 

Mr. John Cabaniss 

Director Environment and Energy, Association of International Automobile 

Manufactures 

From: David Parde 

 President, Coalition for Auto Repair Equality 

RE: RIGHT TO REPAIR NEGOTIATIONS

As you will recall, at the end of the Better Business Bureau negotiations this past 

summer, several issues were left unresolved at the end of the approximately two months 

of talks. Those remaining issues concerned NASTF Governance, Tools and Tool 

Information, the cost of Tools and how that would be handled in the enforcement process, 

Penalties, and Service Information. Here is our current position on these issues. 

GOVERNANCE

CARE has supported several different configurations of a board, which originally 

included a 4-4 split of interested parties, an evenly split board with independent board 

members added, a completely independent board, and most recently we propose a 

compromise that includes the NASTF proposed board with a smaller, executive board 

composed of the parties of direct interest to the issue of information availability. 

We believe that a smaller executive board is justified for several reasons. First, 

putting aside for the moment the issue of whether the makeup of the 15 member board is 

“fair” or not, we do not believe that the structure of the NASTF board is conducive to 

providing strong leadership in resolving the issues, as they may come along, of 

information availability. We say this for two reasons. One, we believe that a 15 member 

board is too large to effectively conduct business. We have consistently maintained 

throughout our negotiations that the board must be kept small to be effective. We have 

always been open to wide participation in working groups and committees. 

Secondly, many of the 15 proposed NASTF board members are duplicative of one 

another and many do not get into the day to day issues of shops obtaining the necessary 

tools and information. They are involved in the broad issues of reparability, but not 

whether a piece of information is available when the car is in the shop. 

We believe that a smaller evenly divided board could tackle issues of information 

availability in a timely and fair manner, while the broader issues that may be only 

tangentially related to information availability can be handled by the larger board. 

In summary, we believe there is a lot duplication in the NASTF board, with the 

same groups represented multiple times. Moreover, most of these groups aren’t directly 

involved in the issue. They may be necessary to other NASTF concerns, but they do not 

add value, in our opinion, to resolving the core issues. They do, however, add a lot of 

uncertainty. 

For these reasons, we would propose a 3-3-2 executive board that is composed of 

CARE and AAIA and AASP, on our side, AAM and AIAM and ASA or the Dealers (or 

whoever you want) on yours, and two independents. We would propose as the 
53

independents AAA and AARP or a similar type organization, and a consumer group, but 

if these are not acceptable they could be chosen by the FTC upon mutual agreement. 

TOOLS / TOOL INFORMATION

Manufacturers shall make available to equipment and tool companies all generic and 

enhanced (car company specific) Tool Information necessary to produce generic tools 

that contain the same diagnostic and repair capabilities that are available to all franchised 

dealers. 

Restricting only “scan tool information” to the aftermarket is not acceptable. On 

this issue we cannot move off what was in our final proposal before the BBB. 

Tool issues need to be under the control of NASTF, but, the aftermarket agrees to 

leave the details of exactly how this would be implemented to future negotiations, if, the 

manufacturers would commit both to fully provide tool information and to a timetable for 

resolving the details. 

COST OF TOOLS

Reluctantly, we would agree not to press (at this time) to have the cost of tools issue 

be enforced by NASTF. 

PENALTIES / ENFORCEMENT

We accept the $ 2,000 in monetary penalties proposed by the BBB document. We 

continue to demand an independent third party enforcement mechanism be put into place. 

We would recommend that the BBB be that third party. 

IMMOBILIZERS

The aftermarket is generally happy with the method being used by Ford to resolve 

this issue. We would recommend and encourage all manufacturers to adopt a system like 

Fords. 

However, we recognize that due to security concerns, certain manufacturers feel 

they cannot provide tool information that is necessary to work with vehicle security or 

immobilizer systems to tool manufacturers. Therefore, it is appropriate that the 

aftermarket and the manufacturers develop a method that will permit manufacturers to 

provide independent technicians with the ability to obtain within 24 hours or less, and at a 

fair and reasonable price, the necessary tools and information to fully repair vehicles 

equipped with immobilizer systems. This interim method will provide manufacturers 

with a period of time, not to exceed two (2) years to redesign their vehicle systems such 

that providing the necessary tool information to aftermarket tool companies will not 

jeopardize these systems. 

*NOTE* - we want it recognized that not all problems linked to the immobilizer systems 

are security related. 

SERVICE INFORMATION

All service related information shall be made available when it is generally available 

to all dealers. 

Finally, we believe that any final agreement document needs to be signed by all 

manufactures within a reasonable period of time not to exceed (2 weeks). We would like 

to remind the committee that the CARE board is in town on March 15th, and we stand 

ready and willing to meet with equal participants from the manufacturers to resolve these 

issues at that time. 
54

ATTACHMENT #2 

 

 Motor Vehicle Owner’s Right to Repair Act 

 Groups Supporting H.R. 2048 

National Aftermarket Groups

Alliance of Automotive Service Providers (AASP) – www.autoserviceproviders.com

Automatic Transmission Rebuilders Association – www.atra.org

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) - www.aftermarket.org

Automotive Engine Rebuilders Association (AERA) - www.aera.org

Automotive Oil Change Association – www.aoca.org

Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association (APRA) - www.apra.org

Automotive Warehouse Distributors Association (AWDA) - www.awda.org

Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE) - www.careauto.org

Consumer Electronics Association (CAE) – www.ce.org 

Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) – www.retail-leaders.org

Service Station Dealers of America (SSDA) - www.ssda-at.org

Tire Industry Association (TIA) - www.tireindustry.org

National Organizations 

AAA – www.aaa.com

National Federation of Independent Businesses - www.nfib.com

National Grange - www.nationalgrange.org

The 60 Plus Association - www.60plus.org

Mobile Enhancement Retailers Association (MERA) - www.merausa.org

Motorcycles Rider Foundation – www.mrf.org

State Aftermarket Groups 

Alliance of Automotive Service Providers 

Massachusetts/Rhode Island (AASP-MARI) – www.aaspmari.org

Minnesota (AASP-MN) – www.aaspmn.org

New Jersey (AASP-NJ) – www.aaspnj.org

Pennsylvania/Delaware (AASP-PA) – www.aasp-pa.org

Automotive Aftermarket Associations (ASAAA) - www.asaaa.com

Automotive Aftermarket Assn of the Carolinas & Tennessee (AAACT) 

Automotive Aftermarket Association Southeast (AAAS) – www.aaas.us

Automotive Service Councils of California (ASCCA) – www.ascca.com

Automotive Wholesalers of Arizona (AWOA) - www.awoaonline.org

Automotive Wholesalers of Illinois (AWOI) – www.awoi.com

Automotive Wholesalers of Texas (AWOT) – www.awot.org

California/Nevada Automotive Wholesalers Association (CAWA/NAWA) - 

www.cawa.org

Chesapeake Automotive Business Association (CABA) – www.caba.biz
55

Independent Garage Owners of North Carolina (IGONC) – www.igonc.com

Florida Automotive Industry Association (FAIA) – www.faia.org

Kentucky/Indiana Automotive Wholesalers Association (KAWA/IAWA) 

Louisiana Automotive Industries Association (LAIA) 

Michigan Automotive Parts Association (MAPA) 

Midwest Automotive Industry Association (MAIA) 

New York State Automotive Aftermarket Association (NYSAAA) 

Ohio Valley Automotive Aftermarket Association (OVAAA) – www.ovaaa.org

Oregon Automotive Parts Association (OAPA) 

Pennsylvania Automotive Wholesalers Association (PAWA) 

Petroleum Retailers & Auto Repair Assoc. (PRARA) 

Rocky Mountain Automotive Wholesalers Association (RMAWA) 

Virginia Automotive Parts & Service Association (VAPSA) 

Washington Automotive Wholesalers Association (WAWA) – www.wawa-pas.com

Wisconsin Automotive Parts Association (WAPA) - www.wapaonloine.com

 MR. STEARNS. And I thank you. 

 Mr. Gorman. 

MR. GORMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before this committee. 

 MR. STEARNS. You need to put your mic on. Is it on? Just move it 

closer. 

 MR. GORMAN. Okay. 

 MR. STEARNS. Just move the mic a little closer. 

 MR. GORMAN. Is that good? 

 MR. STEARNS. That is perfect. Thank you. 

 MR. GORMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

 I thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee. I am 

Charles Gorman, the newly-elected Chairman of the National 

Automotive Service Task Force, NASTF. I am also the Executive 

Manager of the Equipment and Tool Institute, a trade association 

representing the major automotive tool and equipment manufacturers. 

 The purpose of my testimony today is to inform this committee about 

NASTF's current situation and its future. NASTF has been somewhat 

misrepresented by both sides of the right-to-repair debate. In past 

testimony, one side claimed that NASTF does not attempt to resolve 

complaints regarding the availability of information. This isn’t true. I 

am also the Chairman of the Equipment and Tool Committee of NASTF, 

and I can tell you that we have made tremendous strides in gathering the 

information necessary to build tools that emulate dealership tools. 

 Similar strides are being made in the Vehicle Security Committee. 

They have accomplished several key objectives to help move them closer 

to implementing a Secure Database Release Model and a locksmith 

registry. 

 The other side has made some incorrect statements as well. One 

person testified that last year NASTF received 48 complaints regarding 
56

service training and tool information. All 48 complaints were resolved. 

This, of course, isn’t true. There were answers, but in some cases, those 

answers were not what the complainants wanted to hear, or were willing 

to accept. The current process is a little slow and lacks incentive for 

automakers to comply. 

 The reality is that NASTF, although successful, is not as successful 

as it needs to be. And this brings us to the current situation. 

 NASTF is in the process of reorganizing. On October 19, 2005, after 

the FTC Better Business Bureau negotiations ended without resolution, a 

group of automotive-related associations representing a complete crosssection of the automotive repair marketplace met to begin the process. 

On November 2, 2005, at the NASTF general meeting, members present 

voted unanimously to go forward with the plan to reorganize. The 

planning committee met three times. There were two formal meetings 

facilitated by the Society of Automotive Engineers and one conference 

call. On April 4, 2006, NASTF’s new Board of Directors met for the 

first time and elected officers. 

 The goal is to create a permanent organization that can not only do a 

better job of processing complaints regarding missing information, but 

also provide a means of enforcement. 

 To date, we have accomplished quite a bit. We have created an 

initial funding model and received commitments from six key 

associations to fund NASTF for the first year. We have appointed a 

Board of Directors representative of most of the industry segments. We 

are currently in negotiations with ASE to incorporate NASTF as a C-6 

not-for-profit corporation. The ASE will also handle the day-to-day 

management of NASTF, providing us with a full-time staff person, along 

with part-time support in the financial, communications, and IT areas. 

This will allow NASTF to respond quicker to service information gap 

complaints. 

 Documents originally drafted as part of the FTC BBB negotiations 

last summer are being edited so that all parties can agree to them. This 

includes the Third Party Arbitration Process document. There were key 

agreements made during these negotiations last summer, and we will 

keep the momentum going. There were also some important issues left 

for later in these documents, and we will add language to cover the 

missing segments. We are off to a great start, but there is still much 

work to be done. And this brings us to the future. 

 In addition to the work that is ongoing, we have specifically 

identified the work items we need to complete. Among those are things 

such as bylaws and a sustainable funding model, et cetera. 

 The Board of Directors has also identified some new goals. Many of 

the problems relating to information availability stem from the 
57

automobile manufacturers’ inability to predict the need for certain 

information. Automakers today are not vertically structured as they once 

were. They no longer own all of the rights to some specific service 

information. These rights may belong to a component or system 

supplier. The NASTF Board of Directors has discussed the possibility of 

sponsoring best practices efforts within existing standards organizations, 

such as SAE. These best practices will provide guidelines to the 

automakers to ensure that the need for service information is included in 

the design and manufacturing processes and included as part of supplier 

agreements. NASTF’s job could be made a lot easier in the future if 

potential service information problems are solved before the vehicles are 

designed and manufactured. 

 We have also discussed the role of the Communications Committee. 

Automakers respond to industry and public opinion regarding their 

products. NASTF will be looking for ways to report to the automotive 

trade press as well as the general press regarding automakers that have 

shown a willingness to provide repair information beyond the minimum. 

We also plan to publicize those instances where automobile 

manufacturers have refused to provide information and the reasons for 

doing so are insufficient. 

 It is difficult to get all of the different interests within this industry to 

agree on something as complex as the availability of automotive service 

information, but a good faith effort is underway. It is my belief that the 

work currently being done by NASTF needs to be done regardless of 

whether it is backed by legislation or not. Many of the problems facing 

us can only be solved by industry experts. These experts need a forum 

where problems can be heard and solutions founds. I believe NASTF is 

that forum. 

 [The prepared statement of Charles G. Gorman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES G. GORMAN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE 

TASK FORCE

INTRODUCTION 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Commerce, Trade and Consumer 

Protection Subcommittee regarding H.R. 2048 the “Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to 

Repair Act. I am Charles Gorman, the newly elected Chairman of the National 

Automotive Service Task Force. I am also the Executive Manager of the Equipment and 

Tool Institute, a trade association representing the major automotive tool and equipment 

manufactures. 

The purpose of my testimony today is to inform this committee about NASTF’s 

current situation and its future. 

NASTF has been somewhat misrepresented by both sides of the “Right to Repair” 

debate. In past testimony one side claimed that NASTF does not attempt to resolve 

complaints regarding the availability of information. This is not true. I am also the 

chairman of the Equipment & Tool Committee of NASTF and I can tell you that we have 
58

made tremendous strides in gathering the information necessary to build tools that 

emulate dealership tools. 

Similar strides are being made in the Vehicle Security Committee. They have 

accomplished several key objectives to help move them closer to implementing a Secure 

Data Release Model (SDRM) and a locksmith registry. 

The other side has made some incorrect statements as well. One person testified: 

“Last year, NASTF received 48 complaints regarding service, training and tool 

information. All 48 complaints were resolved”. This, of course, isn’t true. There were 

answers, but in some cases those answers were not what the complainants wanted to hear 

or were willing to accept. The current process is slow, and lacks incentive for 

automakers to comply. 

The reality is that NASTF, although successful, is not as successful as it needs to be. 

This brings us to the current situation. 

CURRENT SITUATION 

NASTF is in the process of reorganizing. 

On October 19, 2005 after the FTC BBB negotiations ended without resolution, a 

group of automotive related associations representing a complete cross section of the 

automotive repair marketplace met to begin the process. On November 2, 2005 at the 

NASTF general meeting the members present voted unanimously to go forward with the 

plan to reorganize. The planning committee met 3 times. There were two formal 

meetings facilitated by the Society of Automotive Engineers and one conference call. On 

April 4, 2006 NASTF’s new Board of Directors met for the first time and Elected 

officers. 

The goal is to create a permanent organization that can not only do a better job of 

processing complaints regarding missing information, but also to provide a means of 

enforcement. 

To date we have accomplished quite a bit. We have created an initial funding model 

and received commitments from six key associations to fund NASTF for the first year. 

We have appointed a Board of Directors representative of most industry segments. We 

are currently in negotiations with ASE to incorporate NASTF as a C-6 not-for-profit 

Corporation. ASE will also handle the day to day management of NASTF providing us 

with a fulltime staff person along with part time support in the financial, communications 

and IT areas. This will allow NASTF to respond quicker to service information gap 

complaints. 

Documents originally drafted as part of the FTC – BBB negotiations last summer 

are being edited so that all parties can agree to them. This includes the Third Party 

Arbitration Process document. There were key agreements made during those 

negotiations last summer and we will keep the momentum going. There were also some 

important issues “left for later” in those dicuments and we will add language to cover the 

missing segments. We are off to a great start, but there is much work to be done. This 

brings us to the future. 

THE FUTURE OF NASTF 

In addition to the work that is ongoing, we have specifically identified the work 

items we need to complete. Among other things these include bylaws and a sustainable 

funding model. 

The Board of Directors has also identified some new goals. Many of the problems 

relating to information availability stem from the automobile manufacturers’ inability to 

predict the need for certain information. Automakers today are not vertically structured 

as they once were. They no longer own all the rights to some specific service 

information. These rights may belong to a component or system supplier. The NASTF 

Board of Directors has discussed the possibility of sponsoring “best practices” efforts 
59

within existing standards organizations such as the Society of Automotive Engineers. 

These best practices will provide guidelines to the automakers to insure that the need for 

service information is included in the design and manufacturing processes and included 

as part of any supplier agreement. NASTF’s job could be made a lot easier in the future 

if potential service information problems are solved before vehicles are designed and 

built. 

We have also discussed a new role for the Communications Committee. 

Automakers respond to industry and public opinion regarding their products. NASTF 

will be looking for ways to report to the automotive trade press as well as the general 

press regarding the automakers that have shown a willingness to provide repair 

information beyond the minimum. We also plan to publicize those instances where an 

automobile manufacturer has refused to provide information and the reasons for doing so 

are insufficient. 

CONCLUSION 

It is a difficult task to get all the different interests within this industry to agree on 

something as complex as the availability of automotive service information, but a good 

faith effort is under way. It is my belief that the work currently being done by NASTF 

needs to be done regardless of whether it is backed by legislation or not. Many of the 

problems facing us can only be solved by industry experts. These experts need a forum 

where problems can be heard and solutions found. I believe NASTF is that Forum. 

 MR. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Gorman. 

 I will start off the questions. 

 Just sort of a general overview. Ms. Marzulla, I think that you and 

Mr. Lowe are going to have to make the argument, based on what the 

Federal Trade Commission said that there were no complaints. They 

don’t have the resources if this bill passed. So you have got to make the 

arguments here. 

 Now based upon the evidence, it appears that this bill is not needed, 

but I think you have the heart of most consumers. They feel that the 

automobile is complicated. They can’t get it fixed. A little light goes 

wrong, and they have got to pay $150 to have it serviced. There is just a 

general feeling, I think, to the consumers that, “Golly, I sure would like 

to go to my local gas station to get this fixed, and I have that right.” So 

you know, you have the heart argument, but the facts and the mind 

argument doesn’t quite show it. 

 Now Mr. Gorman, I understand that you are President of the 

Electronic Tool Institute, also. And as I understand the Electronic Tool 

Institute, all of the manufacturers have to give you all of the information 

on the parts, is that correct? 

 MR. GORMAN. Right now, the only law that requires that is the 

Clean Air Act. 

 MR. STEARNS. Yes, but for emissions. 

 MR. GORMAN. For emissions-related. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. Have you had any trouble getting the car 

manufacturers to give you all of the information? 
60

 MR. GORMAN. Yes. 

 MR. STEARNS. You have? And so-- 

 MR. GORMAN. But I want to say that it is just a few. The majority 

of manufacturers cooperate completely. 

 MR. STEARNS. And over what period of time have you gotten these 

complaints? 

 MR. GORMAN. Oh, complaints? 

 MR. STEARNS. Are they complaints? Or excuse me, failure to give 

you the information, over what period of time? 

 MR. GORMAN. Well, since the beginning, since there have been, you 

know, computers on vehicles. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. So would that be 15 years? 

 MR. GORMAN. Since 1981. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. So 25 years you have had cases where 

automobile manufacturers would not give you the information? 

 MR. GORMAN. Correct. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. Is it significant enough to say that it is a 

problem? You said yes earlier. 

 MR. GORMAN. You have to put it in perspective. It is some-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Over 25 years, did you get 100 companies that would 

not-- 

 MR. GORMAN. Well, the way we operate-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Not 100 companies, but did you get the major 

manufacturers many, many times not give you the information? 

 MR. GORMAN. I think it is safe to say that with major 

manufacturers, we have no problem. It is just some of the small 

manufacturers, low volume. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. And why is that, do you think? 

 MR. GORMAN. I am not sure. You know, I think it-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Now a lot of these parts that are made are made in 

China, and I think this is for Mr. Stanton, because a lot of the 

manufacturers today manufacture their parts in China, isn’t that true? 

 MR. STANTON. All manufacturers are looking for good quality, 

competitive parts. 

 MR. STEARNS. Well, that is a good answer. 

 Okay. I am told that automakers and their aftermarket buy many of 

their parts from the same sources, such as makers Dana and Federal 

Mogo. If so, why is there concern that H.R. 2048 would somehow allow 

aftermarket parts people to undercut automaker parts? 

 MR. STANTON. Well, I think that the issue goes to whether or not the 

aftermarket will be able to continue, which we think they should be able 

to, to reengineer the part and then sell it or whether or not they get the 
61

manufacturers’ algorithms and plans and specs so it would avoid the 

reengineering of the part. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. I am asking a question that, since Chairman 

Barton is not here, I am going to ask on his behalf. And Mr. Stanton, this 

would go to you. In September of 2002, 35 automakers of the 

Automobile Alliance and Association of International Automobile 

Manufacturers signed a letter of agreement with Senator Dorgan to 

provide the information sought by the aftermarket. And I could give you 

all of the details, the different things they talked about. So I think 

Chairman Barton’s idea was to codify this agreement that you folks 

signed in 2002. So his question is since everybody signed this agreement 

in 2002, and he feels strongly that this bill just codifies that language. So 

his question is how does the language in the bill H.R. 2048 differ from 

the language that is in this codification? I can read it to you, if you want, 

with respect to what information is being asked for. Why is the language 

in the bill, which mirrors your own signed agreement, somehow 

disagreeable to the automakers? And please be specific. 

 MR. STANTON. I will try to be as specific as I can. The agreement is 

that we would provide all of the tools, the training information, and the 

services needed, the same that we give to our dealers, that we make 

available to the dealers. We would make it available to the aftermarket 

as well. This legislation does something quite else. First of all, it creates 

a duty for manufacturers to provide certain information. And it also 

establishes rights. And the rights to any person in the United States that 

is 16 years or older will then have the right to this information, the way 

that the bill is currently written. This presents, in our view, the 

opportunity for regulation where it is not necessary and also for 

litigation, because of the definitions. And you raised the question earlier 

as to the question of what does the word “capability” mean. If we have a 

duty, and others have rights, and these are newly-created duties and 

rights, I think it is right for litigation in the States under the consumer 

protection laws. 

 MR. STEARNS. Ms. Marzulla, would you like to reply to that, 

because I think Chairman Barton’s basic point is that the folks here, the 

Automobile Alliance, all signed this agreement? And this draft 

legislation just codifies it. You have heard that Mr. Stanton does not 

agree, that the agreement he has signed, it goes much further. What is 

your opinion? 

 MS. MARZULLA. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have to confess that I was 

surprised to hear Mr. Stanton’s answer, because, in fact, I have a copy of 

the letter before me, and I was reading it as he was speaking. It seems to 

me that the legislation pretty much mirrors and tracks pretty darn closely 

the letter. And of course, if it were entered into as an agreement and 
62

signed by all of the parties, of course it would likewise create binding 

obligations, contract obligations. And theoretically, car owners could be 

intended third-party beneficiaries of the agreement likewise able to 

enforce the agreement. So I am surprised and mystified as to why the 

manufacturers, on the one hand, would be willing to enter into a binding 

contract and yet, at the same time, find the legislation which basically 

tracks almost close to verbatim. I haven’t gone through and done a sideby-side work check, checking the legislation against the agreement, but 

just a quick side-by-side comparison, it looks pretty darn close. 

 MR. STEARNS. To Lowe and Mr. Gorman and then I am complete. 

Do you have any comments in reference to this discussion on the bill as 

attempting to codify the agreement from September of 2002 that the 35 

automakers have signed? 

 MR. LOWE. Yes, I mean, I actually think it is pretty interesting that 

the biggest problem he had was that it imposed an obligation on them to 

share the information and tools with our industry, which is exactly what 

we are attempting to do. We are concerned that the letter doesn’t provide 

any assurance that would provide that information. The language 

mirrors it, but what it does is it says, “You will make sure that the 

information is available to our industry.” And that is what we really 

need to have that assurance. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Lowe, staff has advised me, you mentioned in 

your opening statement that Mr. Stanton never replied to you, and I have 

a copy of the letter here of March 14, just for your information. And you 

are welcome. We can show it to you. Is that correct, Mr. Stanton, that-- 

 MR. STANTON. That is correct. 

 MR. LOWE. I think the letter didn’t respond to our points that we 

made in the offer. 

 MR. STEARNS. But the point is-- 

 MR. LOWE. What the letter said was you need to go through this 

other process. 

 MR. STEARNS. But the point is that he did respond. Yes. 

 Mr. Gorman. 

 I mean, all I am asking you is if this agreement that they signed in 

2002, these 35 automakers, do you think the codification of that in law is 

a reasonable thing? 

 MR. GORMAN. Yes. I think that the Dorgan letter is what spurred on 

the founding of NASTF in the first place. But I think the devil is in the 

details, as usual. And there is a lot more in the legislation than there is in 

that letter. And of course, there will be a lot more on top of that when 

you get to rulemaking. So I think that, in the one case, the letter is very 

flexible whereas in the lawmaking and rulemaking that follows, it would 

become very specific, and I think that is what-- 
63

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. 

 And Ms. Schakowsky. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I would like to follow up on the chairman’s 

comments with Ms. Marzulla and Mr. Lowe. 

 How do you explain the fact that there are no complaints and the 

FTC has no evidence that this is a problem? 

 MS. MARZULLA. Well, if I could jump in first, and I am sure Mr. 

Lowe could respond to that more directly than I can, because I will 

confess that I am not here as an expert to talk about the complaints and 

so forth, but listening to the chairman’s testimony today, I agree that it is 

one of those issues that is sort of hard to get your arms around. And I 

can speak as a consumer that I, myself, would not necessarily know 

where to go with complaints about my own vehicle, although I am 

immersed in the legalities of the issue. I think it is one of those issues 

that a consumer has a check engine light come on in his vehicle. For 

example, I own a 2001 Lexus, and I have driven for months with that 

check engine light on, because I don’t want to drive out to Rockville to 

the dealer, you know, to take a morning off from work to go drive to the 

dealer. I am not going to file a lawsuit. I haven’t filed a complaint with 

the FTC, but it is annoying. Whereas I have a 1996 RAV-4 that my 

teenage daughter drives. I can take that car down to the corner garage 

that I have a relationship with. I can talk to the technician. I can tell him 

that my teenage daughter drives the car, and he has known my daughter 

since she was a baby. I can tell him to make sure that the brakes are 

fixed. I feel comfortable with him. The dealership repair shop probably 

does an excellent job, but they don’t even have my name spelled 

correctly in the database, and every time I have taken the car in for the 

last 5 years, I have to explain to them what my name is, and yes they do 

have my records in the system. So I think it is just one of those problems 

that perhaps isn’t easily measured by some of the more standard 

measuring techniques. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Lowe. 

 MR. LOWE. I think, you know, you have to realize that this is an 

extremely competitive industry. I have been involved in the industry for 

a long time. Small, competitive shops are working hard to repair that 

car. The last thing that a car repair shop wants to do is send that car back 

to the dealer unless they absolutely have to. And when they do find that 

they can’t get the information, they are going to go whatever means they 

can to get that information. And what is happening now in the industry, 

is that they are forced to go behind the back door to get this information 

through the dealer. They have to get it through friends in the dealer. 

They have to learn how to find it. The car owner doesn’t know why it 

takes-- 
64

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me interrupt you for a second. 

 I am co-sponsor of the legislation, but I think it is a valid question to 

ask. And the ranking democrat on the Full Committee said that this is a 

solution looking for a problem. 

 MR. LOWE. Yes. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. And let me just say that without some sort of 

concrete evidence that there is a problem, and by that, there are certain 

measurements. And as someone who has been a long-time consumer 

advocate and organizer, I would say to you that the failure to establish 

that there is some sort of a problem in some sort of a measurable way is a 

very strong argument against this legislation. And if you have people 

who have run into problems, and if the repair shops have run into 

problems, I would suggest that there has to be some way to quantify that 

in order to bolster the argument. I think this is a valid critique of the 

legislation. 

 MR. LOWE. Yes. We have surveyed the service industry, and we 

found that 53 percent of the industry has at least one vehicle per month 

that they have had to send back to the dealer. We have had 74 percent of 

technicians say they experience problems frequently. ASA the group is 

supporting it, but members of that group have had problems getting 

information and have had to send cars back to the dealer in fairly 

sizeable numbers. So we know that there is a problem out there from our 

membership. We have met with the FTC, and we have presented them 

with specific problems we are having with information. We didn’t do 

this with the chairperson, but with the staff at the FTC, we talked about 

the specific problems that we are having. So I was a little bit mystified 

by their response to that question. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I think we need to have some 

documentation that can be presented as part of the argument in this 

discussion of this legislation. And I think the burden really is on you. I 

agree with the chairman of the committee that on the face of it, the 

argument is very appealing to consumers, those who have run into the 

problems that Ms. Marzulla has talked about as consumers. You know, 

we need to have that information in hand, the anecdotal information I 

think is not, in and of itself, sufficient. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Bass. 

 MR. BASS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

 I just have one question. 

 If this bill is just about getting information, why shouldn’t it just 

contain the following sentence, I am looking it up right now, which is on 

page 5, line 23: “No information necessary to repair a vehicle shall be 

held by a manufacturer if such information is provided directly or 
65

indirectly to a franchised dealership or other repair facility.” Why not 

limit the bill to that only? 

 MR. STEARNS. Who are you asking? 

 MR. BASS. I am going to ask it of all four. And I have got 7 minutes 

and 13 seconds left to get an answer. 

 MS. MARZULLA. I see I am first in line here, so I will grab the 

podium then. 

 I guess it could just say that. I mean, I think that is a fair rendition. I 

think the letter that was talked about by the chairman earlier, the 

September 20, 2002 letter in which the manufacturers, the Alliance, the 

AIAM, ASA put forward what they thought would be acceptable 

language, however, seemed to serve as a logical and good statement of a 

sort of wholesome way of approaching and solving the issue. And given 

that the Alliance itself had drafted it, it seems to me that that is a 

reasonable approach as well. But I think that you put your finger on the 

heart of the issue, the problem, which is that the information should be 

disclosed in a non-discriminatory fashion. 

 MR. BASS. Thank you. 

 Mr. Stanton. 

 MR. STANTON. Mr. Bass, that would make a bad bill a lot better. 

 MR. BASS. Thank you. 

 Mr. Lowe. 

 MR. LOWE. I think there is some relevance to look into that. 

 MR. BASS. Thank you. 

 Mr. Gorman. 

 MR. GORMAN. Yes, I would just like to say that there is direct 

information and there is indirect information, in other words the 

information required to build tools or security access and so on. As long 

as that would include indirect information to provide those-- 

 MR. BASS. It says that in parentheses “directly or indirectly”. 

 MR. GORMAN. Then I would-- 

 MR. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 I have no other questions. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

 Ms. Baldwin. 

 MS. BALDWIN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I, too, have a question that I would like to pose to all of the panelists. 

 The National Automobile Service Task Force formally reorganized 

itself in March. However, as we have heard, the organization has been in 

existence since 2000. And negotiations between the parties have had 

their high points and their low points. Please explain where NASTF 

stands in terms of self-regulation, and answer for me whether you believe 

there has been sufficient to allow this system to operate. And perhaps 
66

how much time would be sufficient? How long should we give NASTF 

to settle into its role? 

 MS. MARZULLA. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to really 

comment on that directly. However, I will note that the first iteration of 

this bill was introduced, as I understand it, in 2001. That is my 

recollection. This issue, and this bill, at least a variation of this bill, has 

been pending for 5 years. It seems like quite a long time has elapsed 

since the issue was first raised, and I know the parties have been working 

diligently for 5 years, at least that is my understanding. But I will yield 

to those on the panel that can better speak to the issue. 

 MS. BALDWIN. Mr. Stanton. 

 MR. STANTON. Ms. Baldwin, thank you. 

 Yes, it is a complicated issue. And our industry is evolving very, 

very quickly. And it is kind of like a moving target as far as new 

technology is concerned. I am sure 5 years ago, some of the things like 

OnStar weren’t even thought of that might be covered under this bill. 

We are very, very committed to NASTF. In the 2 months of the 

discussions, I think the thing that came out is that, by and large, 

manufacturers are providing all of the same service information. We 

make it available. But the new systems are complex. And each 

manufacturer has their own computer system. And what we found, 

really, what was needed was more information on how to navigate a 

manufacturers’ system. So we want the information to be out there. We 

want our customers to be happy from the time they purchase the vehicle 

to the time that they sell it. So we would like to see it move as quickly as 

possible. 

 MR. LOWE. The problem with NASTF is it takes weeks and months 

to get an issue resolved. You, as an independent mechanic, have a car in 

the shop that day. You need to get it repaired. The problem is that there 

needs to be information out there the first time and not having minimized 

the complaints out there. The reason people don’t go to NASTF and why 

they have so few complaints is that when you have that car, you don’t 

have time to wait weeks and months. You have lost that car if you wait 

that long. So we need to move to put more teeth into this whole process 

in order to get the information process going, whether that is a nonlegislative agreement or whether that is legalization. There needs to be 

teeth to make the system work. 

 MR. GORMAN. We have given ourselves a year, you know, from 

when we incorporate to get the structure in place, which includes, you 

know, the staffing and all of that. A lot of it will happen sooner than 

that, but our goal is to do this within a year and then also to have a 

sustainable funding source at the end of the first year. 

 MS. BALDWIN. Mr. Gorman, if I can follow up on that. 
67

 A year to just become fully functioning or a year to resolve the 

pending issues that have yet to be resolved? 

 MR. GORMAN. Well, you know, I can’t really say whether we can 

resolve pending issues. We are trying to remain apolitical on this. There 

are missing associations on our board, and you know, so I can’t say 

whether they will come back to the table or not. So those issues may 

always exist, but we do have a cross-section on our board, and we feel 

that we can put something together within a year that the industry can 

use. 

 MS. BALDWIN. And then for Ms. Marzulla. 

 You testified that automobile manufacturers are increasingly using 

technology to successfully lock out automobile owners from maintaining 

and repairing their vehicles. You go on to say that “lacking the ability to 

talk to the vehicles’ computers, the owners or their technicians can not 

begin to diagnose, service, or repair modern vehicles”. And I am 

sympathetic to this argument, as you heard in my opening statement, 

however, I am also a little confused, because one of the members of 

CARE is Auto Zone, is that correct? 

 MS. MARZULLA. Yes. 

 MS. BALDWIN. And I understand that they have a subsidiary 

ALLDATA advertising that its products and services offer “the 

information and solutions that technicians and shop owners need to 

efficiently repair vehicles and boost shop performance”. So is that 

information available or not? I am just confused by that. 

 MS. MARZULLA. I think, again, to fully answer your question, I 

would like to be able to get back to you. But it is my understanding that 

some of the information is available from some of the manufacturers 

with respect to some of the components. But all of the information all of 

the time from all of the manufacturers is not available. If you would like 

me to follow up with more information that would directly respond to 

you about your specific question, I would be more than happy to do so. 

 MS. BALDWIN. I would appreciate that. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Murphy. 

 MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 As I was visiting some of my local independent auto repair dealers 

and car dealers, a couple scenarios came up, and I would like to describe 

it and then ask people to respond to it. One was the dealer independent 

repair technicians, they showed me a lot of the small computers and the 

devices they would attach to the cars to do the analysis. They said they 

could only fix certain models of cars with this particular computer. They 

couldn’t fix everything. You had to have different parts and different 

systems for that. But one told a story where he was trying to replace and 

repair a driver’s side power window in the vehicle. He could install the 
68

window and the new motor, but it couldn’t work, because he couldn’t get 

the software needed to have the car recognize a new window was 

installed. It couldn’t go through the system there. Does that sound like a 

kind of a problem that this is resolvable? 

 MR. STANTON. Mr. Murphy, from our point of view, it should be 

solvable. That tool should be made available. The manufacturers make 

the information available to ETI, but then they also sell their own 

diagnostic and scan tools. So I don’t understand why a tool to fit that 

need would not be available. 

 MR. MURPHY. Anyone else? 

 MR. LOWE. Yes, I would like to comment on that. 

 A lot of the problems we have in our industry is that you do get all of 

the information to install a part, then you get down to the end and you 

can’t get the code to get the car started again or to download the latest 

program onto it. So-- 

 MR. MURPHY. Is that code issue the one that, Mr. Stanton, you 

referred to that is sometimes needed for security of the vehicle? 

 MR. STANTON. No, that is actually a different code. And it depends 

on who manufactures the tool as to whether or not the codes are there. If 

it is manufactured by an aftermarket manufacturer, they may freely, for 

competitive reasons, not include every code. If they buy a tool from the 

manufacturer, it will have the same codes that the dealers have. 

 MR. LOWE. Well, we disagree on that, but you know, I would say 

that in the cases, like if you replace a fuse, sometimes, you have to bring 

the car back to the dealer to get it reinitialized so that the car will start 

and all of the electronic parts on it will work again. So there are a lot of 

issues that are not necessarily available to the aftermarket in some cases, 

especially with some of the foreign car companies. 

 MR. MURPHY. Another example was that someone was taking care 

of a car that had been in an accident, and part was they got the things 

taken care of, including a new airbag, but the airbag was computercontrolled and until they got some other work done, the car did not 

recognize there was a new airbag there, and of course the people didn’t 

want to have an airbag that had a light on it that says it was not working, 

it was not deployable. I think in some cases they talk about having to put 

the car on a flatbed, take it to a dealer, have them reset it, and then it is 

there, but it is a larger expense. Does that sound like a typical problem 

or is that atypical? 

 Mr. Lowe, do you want to comment? 

 MR. LOWE. I think that is a typical problem. 

 You know, I have a car. I had the same problem, and they had to get 

the dealer to help reinitialize the system again so that it would start. It 

was a Volkswagen. 
69

 MR. MURPHY. Mr. Stanton, are you saying that is not characteristic? 

 MR. STANTON. Well, it depends. If it has to do with the immobilizer 

and the immobilizer is attached to the vehicle’s security system, that 

information, during all discussions, we do not think that information 

belongs out in the general public. But having said that, we are working 

very, very hard through the NASTF with the locksmiths, with the 

insurance community and with the law enforcement community to 

develop a secure system so that we can get that information out. 

 MR. LOWE. This is not a locksmith problem. This is a problem with 

diagnosing repairs and repairing cars. You can fix the key problem, but 

you can’t necessarily fix the engine problem the same way, so while they 

are working to do that, they are not helping us out on the engine side. 

 MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Lowe. 

 Mr. Gorman, did you have a comment on that? 

 MR. GORMAN. Yes, in the case of the door panel, it is more of 

identifying a new part on the network. And if you have a factory tool, 

you could easily do that. And as we incorporate new capabilities into 

aftermarket tools, you would be able to do that, depending on, again, 

some obscure, you know, vehicle makes and so on. In the case of the 

SRS, in most cases, that can be done by an aftermarket tool, but there are 

situations where it would require a security, because it is tied to a 

security module, and that would be a problem. But we are working on 

those things. 

 MR. MURPHY. And Ms. Marzulla, did you have any comments on 

those issues? 

 MS. MARZULLA. No, I do not. 

 MR. MURPHY. Okay. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have. 

 MR. STEARNS. The gentlelady from Tennessee. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I want to go back, Ms. Marzulla, to you. 

 On quantifiable evidence, and I know Ms. Schakowsky was talking 

with you about this, and in November, we had a hearing in this same 

subcommittee and I asked at that time if any of the organizations had 

quantifiable evidence, and you know, we haven’t seen it. But you 

referenced some statistics in your testimony. And I wanted to know, has 

CARE done any study that shows the number of incidents that the 

companies have experienced in the past year or even in the past 5 years? 

Yes or no. Have you? 

 MS. MARZULLA. I have referenced the statistics in my testimony, to 

my knowledge, that is-- 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. I am going to stop you right there, 

because the statistics that you referenced in your testimony are not a 

CARE study. And you give some stats to highlight the problem. You 
70

use an Auto Service Association survey from 2002. You do a parents 

group study from several years ago that show two million cars turned 

away, but there is nothing that quantifies your footnotes. I would like for 

you not to respond now. I would like for you to submit something in 

writing. You all are saying that there is this problem. The FTC doesn’t 

see a problem. And, you know, I am just saying where is the issue. Mr. 

Lowe comes along and says that there have been problems in 74 percent 

of the repairs. You know, those are the things that we need in writing so 

that we have some documentation and we don’t come back in here and 

have a lot of anecdotal, trying to get us to legislate on something that 

doesn’t seem to be a problem. 

 So I would appreciate that. 

 Also, Ms. Marzulla, you argue that case law shows that the Supreme 

Court has traditionally supported the right of the consumer to repair a 

product that they purchased. And you gave some testimony on that fact. 

Are you currently addressing any situations in the court or not? Yes or 

no. 

 MS. MARZULLA. With respect to this issue? 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Yes, ma'am. 

 MS. MARZULLA. No, I am not. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. And would this legislation provide you a 

greater legal standing to pursue this in the courts or not? 

 MS. MARZULLA. I don’t think so. I think my answer is no. And I 

just wanted to say, I would be happy to provide those statistics. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Very good. Thank you. I would like to see 

those. 

 I would like to ask you also about your member organizations, and 

Mr. Lowe, I am going to come to you with the same question on this. 

 I have talked to some of my tool and die manufacturing guys. And 

one of the things that we are concerned about is manufacturing that is 

moving to China. So what I would like to know is how much from your 

member organizations, and you all may submit this to me in writing, I 

don’t want to vote for something that is going to send manufacturing to 

China and take it out of our manufacturing plants here. And what I am 

hearing from some of our guys is they think this might be a problem, that 

you are trying to get their IP to go manufacture these things over in 

China and then bring them back here, sell them at the same price with a 

greater markup and increase profits. So if that is not true, I want you to 

refute that. But again, I don’t want this anecdotally. I would like to have 

this in writing. I want to know how much of your manufacturing occurs 

overseas or specifically in China as opposed to in the United States. And 

if this bill requires part specifications to be released and easily provides 

for reverse engineering, what will prevent this technology from getting 
71

into the hands of the Chinese or those that would like to be off-pricing 

and knocking off these parts and moving it into our aftermarket parts 

manufacturers? We know that that creates a liability issue for many of 

our small business manufacturers. 

 Yes, sir. You may respond. 

 MR. LOWE. Okay. Thank you. 

 First of all, this bill does not provide any opportunity for us to get 

specifications for parts or blueprints or patents from the manufacturers. 

It doesn’t expand that. I think the one thing that we agree with the 

manufacturers is that they don’t want to provide us that information. We 

aren’t asking for that information. If there is a difficulty in the language, 

we would be more than happy to work and resolve that. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. 

 MR. LOWE. As far as your question regarding China, of the $81 

billion of auto parts that are imported from-- 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. How much again? 

 MR. LOWE. Eighty-one billion dollars. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Eighty-one billion dollars. Okay. 

 MR. LOWE. Of those that come into the United States from overseas, 

only about $4 billion come in from China. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. 

 MR. LOWE. And that is ITC stats. 

 I don’t see how this bill would provide any ability that would, you 

know, grow that in any way from China. This bill really only is directed 

at service information and tool information, not parts. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

 My time has expired. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

 We have completed our questions. I think I will just, on behalf of 

Chairman Barton who is not here, follow up with a question I think he 

would want to ask after the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, 

offered an abridgement of the bill in which he said that the whole bill 

would come down to “no information necessary to repair vehicles shall 

be withheld by a manufacturer if such information is provided directly or 

indirectly to a franchisee, dealership, or other repair facilities.” And he 

asked each of you, if that was the bill, would you accept it, and so would 

you like to reiterate, for the chairman’s benefit, particularly you, Mr. 

Stanton, do you think you and all of your members, if the bill H.R. 2048 

came down to that one sentence, and of course there would be some, you 

know, boilerplate language dealing with enforcement, but if that was the 

gist of the bill, would you and your members accept it? 

 MR. STANTON. I think there are two points on that, Mr. Chairman. 

One is I really think that we ought to have federal legislation when it is 
72

necessary, when it is called for. We don’t think that there is a case here. 

The problems that are out there we are trying to address through the 

NASTF, and we would hate to see the start of a legislative process that, 

in the end of the day, might not end up the same way that it starts. 

 The second point is that we have argued all along that there does 

need to be a cut-out for vehicle security issues. This is extremely 

important. Motor vehicle theft has grown over time. This committee 

addressed it back in 1984 and then again in 1992. And these anti-theft 

devices that are proven to be effective in cutting motor vehicle theft, I 

don’t think anyone wants that information out in the general domain. 

And the language that you were talking about would not have a carve-out 

for anti-theft devices, and we think that is critically important. 

 MR. STEARNS. Would anyone else like to answer? 

 MR. LOWE. I would like to respond to the anti-theft issue really 

quickly, because while the anti-theft issue, the immobilizer, is huge 

because it includes being able to diagnose problems. If a car can’t start, 

it could also be due to the immobilizer system. But some manufacturers 

have been able to provide that information to our industry, such as Ford, 

and done it in a way that prevents theft of the car. And if Ford can do it, 

we don’t understand why other manufacturers can’t work on their 

systems. We offered in our compromise to say let us give a couple of 

years for them to develop and make sure that their systems can prevent 

theft but still make sure the information is out there. This is probably 

one of the biggest complaint areas we are getting from our members is 

they are having difficulty, when they finish the repairs, restarting the car 

or diagnosing some problems with the immobilizing system. It 

absolutely needs to be solved. 

 MR. STEARNS. Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Stanton’s point is that sometimes 

this one-sentence legislation, as it goes through the process, changes 

dramatically and so forth. Even before you start legislation with one 

sentence, you would have to define what “information” means, because it 

says “no information necessary to repair a vehicle shall be withheld”. 

Can you, here today, tell me what the definition of that word 

“information” is? I mean, do you feel comfortable with a good 

definition? Could you give it to me? 

 MS. MARZULLA. I don’t know that off the top of my head. I can 

give you a complete definition. I think that was one of the reasons why 

the drafters of the bill had the wisdom to suggest that FTC might 

promulgate regulations that would flush out some of these definitions, 

but I would suspect that we all understand that we are talking about the 

information necessary to allow the computers’ replacement part to talk to 

the system in which the part would be placed or that would allow a 

technician to diagnose and be able to complete the repairs in the cars. I 
73

think it boils down to something that simple, and I think that was the 

beauty, a simple, elegant solution that was suggested. The one addition I 

might add to that, however, is that there be explicit protections for the 

intellectual property rights of the manufacturers. I think that is an 

important component. And Mr. Stanton, I am surprised you didn’t call 

for that yourself, but I certainly think that that would be something that 

would need to be in the legislation. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Stanton, you know, the question I asked from 

Ms. Marzulla about defining “information”, do you feel that 

“information” can be defined? I mean, with you and all your members, 

is that word “information” pretty much clearly understood? 

 MR. STANTON. No, sir; it is not. That has been one of the problems. 

As our industry moves forward, information today, and this is one of the 

things we have struggled with. For example, I used this before, but I 

think since 2004, under the GM OnStar program, you can sign up, and 

they will actually track the information that you need and give you the 

information when you are due for an oil change, for an example. That is 

information. That is repair information. Would that be covered? Would 

that not be covered? And then look in 2008 and what the technology that 

is coming down the road and what will be implemented into the new 

vehicles, I don’t know if we know enough today to define the word 

“information” satisfactorily. 

 MR. STEARNS. But in 2002, the 35 automakers signed an agreement 

where the word “information” was used, Mr. Stanton. So I see it in the 

agreement. It is right here. And evidently, you signed this agreement, 

and it has service information, training information, diagnostic tools, and 

to the same extent. So-- 

 MR. STANTON. And that was a big qualifier. And that letter was not 

easy to come by, too, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. STEARNS. But it would admit that you have signed on to some 

understanding of what “information” met in this. 

 MR. STANTON. Absolutely. And I want to assure the committee that 

our members want the information out there. That is not the issue. We 

want it out there, and there are qualifiers in there, which is really the 

same information that we give to the dealer or make available to the 

dealer as well. And when we had our discussions back in August and 

September, that fell off the table almost immediately as long as we put 

the litmus test there that said if we make it available to our dealers, we 

are more than willing to make it available to the aftermarket. And we 

will still stand by that. 

 MR. STEARNS. All right. 

 Mr. Gorman, do you want to have the last word or Ms. Schakowsky? 

 Yes, Ms. Schakowsky. 
74

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. If we could just put that agreement into the 

record, if we could get unanimous consent. 

 MR. STEARNS. Yes, by unanimous consent, I will put this agreement 

that was signed into the record. 

 [The information follows:] 
75
76

MR. STEARNS. Mr. Gorman, we are going to close here, and I-- 

 MR. GORMAN. Yes. Without taking a position on the bill itself, 

there is a definition that already exists within the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR, 

I believe. 

 MR. STEARNS. So that everybody could understand what 

“information” means. 

 MR. GORMAN. Yes. It is a little old and may need to be revisited, 

but it does exist. And I believe the Dorgan letter refers to CARB 

regulations, which also has the definition. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. With that, we will end the subcommittee, and 

I thank the second panel. 

 [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
77

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY AARON LOWE, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,

AUTOMOTIVE AFTERMARKET INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

June 21, 2006 

The Honorable Cliff Stearns 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Stearns: 

Enclosed, please find my responses to questions that were directed to me by a Member of 

the Committee as a result of the May 17, 2006 hearing before the Subcommittee on HR 

2048, The Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act of 2005. 

Please feel free to contact me should you have any additional questions or need any 

clarification regarding my responses. 

Sincerely, 

Aaron M. Lowe 

Vice President 

Government Affairs 
78

Responses from Aaron Lowe, Vice President to Government Affairs for the 

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) to questions from the 

Honorable Joseph R. Pitts: 

1. Can you tell me a little about the CARE that supports this legislation? It’s my 

understanding that it is made up largely of Fortune 500 parts distributors and 

their local distribution and service outlets, not independent repairers. Is that 

correct? 

Response: 

Since the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE) was represented as a witness at the 

hearing, we feel that it is more appropriate that this question be directed to CARE for 

response. While AAIA and CARE share some members, we are separate organizations 

that support passage of Right to Repair. In addition to CARE and AAIA, the coalition 

supporting passage of Right to Repair legislation is composed of a large number of 

organizations representing independent repair shops. This includes the Service Station 

Dealers of America with 10,000 independent repair shops; Alliance of Automotive 

Service Providers with 7,000 independent repair shops, Tire Industry Association with 

40,000 shops, National Federation of Independent Businesses that represents 24,700 

independent repair shops, and AAA with 7,000 approved auto care facilities. 

2. Do you represent independent repairers or parts distributors? How many 

independent repair shop owners sit on your AAIA or the CARE Board of 

Directors? How many Fortune 500 companies sit on CARE’s Board of 

Directors? 

Response: 

AAIA is comprised of virtually every segment of the vehicle aftermarket including 

manufacturers, distributors, retailers and installers of automotive parts and accessories. 

Our membership is further comprised of large, medium and small businesses. 

Independent service facilities have their own segment under the AAIA umbrella called 

the Car Care Professional Network. This segment represents the interests of 70,000 

independent service and repair shops around the country. The governing board for CCPN 

is composed of independent repair shop owners, state groups representing service facility 

owners, technician training organizations and other groups that serve this industry. 

Again, we urge that you direct any specific questions regarding the composition of CARE 

or its leadership to that organization. 
79

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY MICHAEL J. STANTON, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, THE ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has been very concerned about the 

“findings” provision of H.R. 2048. The findings are factually inaccurate in many cases 

and unfair to the vehicle manufacturers that have made significant efforts to provide 

service information and tools to the independent service provider sector. 

The question identifies a good example. Contrary to the “finding” regarding the 

alleged restriction of access to information, the record shows that service information and 

tools are generally available to the independent service provider sector, and that auto 

manufacturers have made great strides in meeting the information needs of the 

independent service providers. The Alliance has been concerned that these baseless 

findings unreasonably increase the risk of litigation against the manufacturers by 

consumers, independent garages or others. 

During the recent Subcommittee markup, the “findings” were deleted, and a new 

provision was added, expressly stating that the bill does not give rise to a private right of 

action. While these were helpful steps in addressing the risk of private litigation arising 

directly from this legislation, it does not address all of the litigation risks the Alliance has 

previously identified. For example, the legislation expressly preserves the right of a State 

attorney general to proceed against automobile manufacturers under state consumer 

protection laws, even if the action is premised on an alleged violation of the “duty to 

disclose” newly created by the Federal legislation. And, the legislation does not preempt 

the states from enacting mirror-image laws that could give rise to private lawsuits. 
80

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DEBORAH PLATT MAJORAS, CHAIRMAN,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
81
82

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD BY GARY SHAPIRO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CONSUMER 

ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION
83

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD BY PAUL T. KELLY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL AND 

STATE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, RETAIL INDUSTRY LEADERS ASSOCIATION
84○