U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

23–178 PDF 2005

HOW THE CLEAN AIR ACT AFFECTS AUTO REPAIR

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT 

& GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 28, 2005

Serial No. 109–23

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

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

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice 

Chairman 

SUE KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TED POE, Texas 

MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin

J. MATTHEW SZYMANSKI, Chief of Staff 

PHIL ESKELAND, Deputy Chief of Staff/Policy Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT AND GOVERNMENT 

PROGRAMS 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin

PIPER LARGENT, Professional Staff

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES

Page 

Barton, Hon. Joe, Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee, US House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 4

Houska, Mr. Dennis, Houska Automotive Service ................................................ 13

Bordoff, Mr. Fred, Vice President, Service Station Dealers Association ............. 14

Ehlert, Mr. Eddie, Mazdonly, Ltd. ......................................................................... 16

Lowe, Mr. Aaron, Vice President, Government Affairs, Automotive 

Aftermarket Industry Association ...................................................................... 17

Cabaniss, Mr. John, Jr., Director of Environment and Energy, Association 

of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. .............................................. 20

Marvaso, Ms. Kathleen, Managing Director, Government Affairs, AAA ............ 21

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn .................................................................................. 30

Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn ............................................................................... 32

Prepared statements: 

Barton, Hon. Joe, Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee, US 

House of Representatives ............................................................................. 33

Houska, Mr. Dennis, Houska Automotive Service ......................................... 37

Bordoff, Mr. Fred, Vice President, Service Station Dealers Association ..... 42

Lowe, Mr. Aaron, Vice President, Government Affairs, Automotive 

Aftermarket Industry Association ............................................................... 46

Cabaniss, Mr. John, Jr., Director of Environment and Energy, Association 

of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. ....................................... 57

Marvaso, Ms. Kathleen, Managing Director, Government Affairs, AAA ..... 62

Additional material: 

Tire Industry Association ................................................................................. 64

(III) 

(1)

HOW THE CLEAN AIR ACT AFFECTS AUTO 

REPAIR 

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT AND

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m. in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marilyn N. Musgrave, 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Musgrave, Lipinski, Shuster, Udall, 

and Westmoreland.

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Good afternoon and welcome to the 

Workforce, Empowerment and Government Programs Subcommittee. Today’s hearing will focus on how the Clean Air Act affects auto repair. 

I appreciate everyone’s participation in this hearing, particularly 

those of you that have traveled great distances to get here. 

When the Clean Air Act of 1990 was passed, it included a provision that required automobile manufacturers to provide an onboard diagnostic system to monitor emissions. Car makers were required to show this information to facilitate repair diagnoses pertaining to emissions. No other vehicle systems were subject to the 

disclosures mandated by the Clean Air Act. 

However, as more systems on our cars became electronically controlled, some independent repair shops began reporting difficulty in 

acquiring information to diagnose other computer-controlled systems within vehicles. 

Today, automobiles have several complex computer systems that 

control braking, ignition, security, steering, emissions, safety, and 

climate control. As a result, the information and expertise needed 

to diagnose and repair them has increased dramatically. 

It is estimated that most newer vehicles have a minimum of 15 

separate computers on-board. This hearing will focus on H.R. 2048, 

‘‘The Motor Vehicle’s Owner Right to Repair’’ bill introduced by 

Representative Joe Barton. I appreciate Chairman Barton coming 

here today to offer his testimony before this Subcommittee on this 

bill. 

U.S. consumers spend almost $200 million to maintain and repair the 200 million cars on the road. The American economy also 

benefits from a competitive after-market industry that provides 

jobs to more than 5 million workers in almost 500,000 predomiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:26 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23178.TXT MIKE
2

nantly small businesses, and generates more than $200 billion in 

sales annually. 

I look forward to receiving testimony from other witnesses as 

well. It is important to hear the perspective of all parties effected 

by this issue, whether they are franchisees, independent repair 

shops or dealership owners, all of them have one thing in common. 

They are all small businesses. 

I now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, Representative Lipinski, for his opening statement. 

[Chairman Musgrave’s opening statement may be found in the 

appendix.] 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

As we advance in the twenty-first century so do our cars and 

trucks. Today’s vehicles continue to get more and more sophisticated with technological advances such as computerized navigation 

and ignition systems. In recent years, there has been a push to 

make our cars more resilient, powerful, and environmentally 

sound. 

Along with today’s automotive advancements comes a need for 

advanced knowledge of repair and service. There is an obvious gap 

here. The types of repair manuals that may have sufficed a decade 

ago simply do not provide the information necessary to repair 

newer, more complex vehicles. 

Today’s repair shops need to know how to check settings, component schematics, and equipment interfaces, something they simply 

aren’t able to get from repair manuals. 

As vehicles become more complex, the lack of readily accessible 

repair information would have undesirable consequences. With 

fewer shops available to do a repair, we have to expect increased 

cost for car owners. Given the expenses that already exist with today’s vehicles, consumers do not need any additional cost for their 

cars. 

It is important that consumers have options when it comes to 

getting their cars repaired, and that they can rely on their local repair shops to get the job done. Many people turn to their long-time 

neighborhood mechanics, the ones that they have come to trust, 

who are usually small business owners, but how do mechanics understand the mechanical, technical, and computer systems on each 

car model? 

Currently in place is a voluntary system for sharing information 

between automobile manufacturers and service shops. This system 

is designed to allow web-based access to information on how to repair and service vehicles from over 30 different brands. But there 

are questions about how well this voluntary system works. 

Today’s hearing will examine whether there is a problem and to 

what extent it persists. We will specifically look at one possible solution, H.R. 2048, the Right to Repair Act, which has been introduced by Mr. Barton, Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I applaud Mr. Barton for his work on this issue, and I look 

forward to hearing his testimony. 

H.R. 2048 creates a system that would allow access via the Internet to repair information and service training for all parts of the 

vehicle. This would be administered and enforced by the FTC. In 

addition, the bill creates a legal duty to immediately provide a veVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:26 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23178.TXT MIKE
3

hicle owner or repair shop of the owner’s choosing with all the necessary information to diagnose or repair the vehicle. This sounds 

like a reasonable approach, but we must evaluate all of its possible 

implications. 

As the Committee proceeds today to examine this issue, it is important to ensure that whatever solution is found does not have unintended negative consequences. While working to solve one problem, we need to guard against creating additional ones through our 

actions. 

Clearly, there are small businesses on both sides of this issue, 

whether it is an independent repair shop or a local dealership, all 

of whom would be impacted by the right to repair bill. It is very 

important that we carefully examine the issue and evaluate the necessity for these types of changes. 

The automotive service and repair issue involves many players—

repair shops, dealerships and consumers, and we need to make 

sure that any changes are fair and balanced for all of those involved. We want to have a system that provides information, 

doesn’t give one entity an advantage over the other, and in the end 

gives the consumer the best possible deal. 

This is an important topic and I look forward to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses and to our discussion. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. Westmoreland, would you like time for an opening statement? 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chairman, 

for holding this hearing today, and I appreciate all the willingness 

of all you to come testify and to be present during this hearing. It 

is nice to see that we have got somebody from Georgia here, Mr. 

Ehlert, and we welcome him to testify, and I have met with representatives from most of the organizations and associations 

present today, and I must admit something is not quite making 

sense about this whole thing. 

Now, I have not heard from any of my constituents. I have called 

some of the auto repair dealers in my district, but what I have 

heard from is a lot of people from across Georgia that are not in 

my district, and somebody out there, Ms. Chairman, is spending a 

lot of money doing some third-party phone calling. And I know it 

is good money that you are spending and I would use it wisely, but 

when you connect them with a congressional office you might want 

to make sure that it goes to the office that they actually have some 

representation from. 

Always, there are a lot of disparities in the stories that you hear 

up here, and this one is no different. I look forward to hearing 

today from both sides. I am going into this hearing with an open 

mind, and the main thing that really bothers me, I guess, is the 

fact that we are trying to create a new bureaucracy for them to 

look at a problem or an issue that from my understanding and 

from my looking into the issue that there is already a private sector mechanism that is in place to work. 

Now, it may have some problems, but we are here today to hear 

about those problems and learn what we can do about it, and Ms. 

Chairman, that is what I have. Thank you. 

4

[Congressman Westmoreland’s opening statement may be found 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Madam Chair, thank you very much, and appreciate 

you holding this hearing. I think that we are all concerned about 

the Clean Air Act and concerned about how the Clean Air Act impacts auto repair and small business. 

I would welcome the witnesses. I know that many of them have 

come from a long distance, and appreciate having them here. 

Clearly, there are a couple important issues here today. One concerns consumers, and the ability for them to get their autos repaired. Another is the issue of small business. We have independent small businesses and also franchise dealer shops and other 

variations that are out there, and we need to make sure we are 

being fair to all of them, and the key issue, as the previous speaker, my colleague just mentioned, is this national automotive service 

task force. 

We have a voluntary system in place. I will be very interested 

to hear from the witnesses how it is working, what are the problems, and it seems a key issue here is if it is working well, why 

replace it. 

So with that I look forward to getting to the witnesses, and 

thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

We are waiting just a moment on Chairman Barton. We will see 

if he can be here shortly, if you will be patient for a moment, 

please. 

[Off the record.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Welcome to the Committee, and we are 

delighted that you are here and look forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE BARTON, ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE COMMITTEE 

Mr. BARTON. I am glad to testify before the Small Business Committee on H.R. 2048, the Right to Repair Bill. I have a formal 

statement. Do you want me to just put in the record and talk, or 

do you want me to read it? 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Why do you not put it in the record and 

just talk to us. 

Mr. BARTON. Okay. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. That would be great. 

Mr. BARTON. Then I would ask unanimous consent to put the 

statement in the record, and let me just briefly apprise the Committee of what we are trying to do. 

We all have in our districts hundreds and in some cases maybe 

thousands of small businesses that sell auto parts and repair cars 

and trucks. Many of our constituents do not have new cars. The 

cars are not in warranty. So when they need a repair, they need 

a part. They want to take it to an independent auto repair shop. 

Because of the complexity of today’s engines, more and more the 

diagnostics are such that it takes special computer equipment, special computer programs to even find out what is wrong with the 

car. And our automobile manufacturers who have done world-class 

5

engineering more and more are reluctant to share the information 

with the small independent auto repair shops. 

So about four years ago I was approached by some—in the repair 

industry in my district, and we sat down with the dealers and we 

sat down with the manufacturers, and we tried to come up with a 

voluntary agreement to share nonproprietary information with 

these repair shops. 

There was a volunteer agreement. That volunteer agreement 

kicked in in late 2002, which is almost three years ago or is three 

years ago, and the manufacturers and the dealers said problem 

solved. 

The problem with that is the problem is not solved. You can pay 

for the computer. You can pay for the software. You can get your 

PIN number, and somebody comes in with a vehicle to an independent shop, it can take between eight days to two weeks to get 

the information necessary to repair that vehicle. Not many people 

are going to wait that long. 

So earlier this year I reintroduced H.R. 2048 which would require that that information be shared. Again, it is nonproprietary. 

We are not trying to seal the trade secrets of GM or Chrysler or 

Ford or Toyota or Mazda or anybody else, but we are saying that 

it is the tradition in this country that you have an independent 

auto parts industry and an independent repair industry, and if the 

industry cannot have a voluntary agreement, then we will stipulate 

in federal law how that information—again in a nonproprietary 

fashion—has to be shared. 

The bill is introduced. It is in the jurisdiction of the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, which I happen to Chair, and we are waiting to see if we can get voluntary agreement. If we cannot, I am 

prepared to move the bill, and I believe I know how to count votes. 

I believe we have got the votes to pass it. I think if we put it on 

the floor, it is going to pass overwhelmingly. 

In the last Congress, a bill similar to this bill had over 100 cosponsors, and we are endorsed by the AAA, the NFIB, which is a 

small business association, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and a number of other groups. So I think this issue has legs. 

I think the publicity that you are going to give it today and the information that is going to be elicited by this hearing will probably 

give us some much needed momentum. 

And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I would be happy to answer 

questions. 

[Congressman Barton’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. I think at this time I will ask, Mr. 

Westmoreland, if you have questions. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, you said that with the voluntary system as it is 

now if somebody went on the web page or whatever it is to get it, 

it would take? 

Mr. BARTON. Eight to 15 days. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Eight to 15 days. Now, is this from the 

website that the manufacturers and dealers have put up or is this 

another site? 

Mr. BARTON. No, it is the site that has been voluntarily agreed 

to, and the repair, the independent repair shop still has to pay for 

6

the computer, has to pay for the software, has to pay a licensing 

fee, has to get a PIN number, but when they do that they go 

through the protocol, and eventually it just comes up. They do not 

get the information. 

They call the hot line number, and they get, you know, they get 

referred, and get back to you. On the other hand, if you are a certified dealer, they will get you an answer in about 30 minutes. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. The proprietary portion of this, this 

is nothing—these requests do not have anything to do with those 

types of things such as emissions or security— 

Mr. BARTON. No. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. —or whatever? 

Mr. BARTON. And the bill as drafted now stipulates that. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. 

Mr. BARTON. See, I have dealers too, and I have a GM assembly 

plant in my district. I am not trying to— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. No, sir. I understand. 

Mr. BARTON. —take unfair advantage. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I understand that, but do you happen, and 

this is where I am having a little bit of problem understanding it, 

do you have a list of specifics that you could give that would, I 

guess, make it—to show that it is to a point that has to have federal legislation to correct it? 

Mr. BARTON. Well, we could have a laptop computer brought into 

your office or probably even on your own computer and let you run 

through the protocol. You would have to get the correct passwords 

and that kind of thing, and let you see for yourself. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I know, but I am talking about the specific 

things. Is this like a braking system? Is it for carburetor adjustment? 

Mr. BARTON. Oh, it varies. It really varies more by manufacturer 

than it does by specific components. You know, some of the manufacturers have worked very well to try to comply and some of them 

have paid lip service to it, but have not really been—in terms of 

what is the most difficult information to get, my understanding is 

it is not like you can get information on diagnosing a suspension 

problem, but you cannot get information diagnosing an emission 

problem. I am not led to be—it is kind of an across-the-board thing 

by manufacturer. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So it could be more GM or Ford or Mazda 

or Toyota? 

Mr. BARTON. It is really more the—the U.S. manufacturers have 

been more cooperative than the non-U.S. manufacturers. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Mr. Lipinski, do you have a question? 

Mr. BARTON. Is that how you always announce Mr. Lipinski’s 

questions? 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. He is a very important member. 

Mr. BARTON. God comes into the hearing room and says now we 

hear from Mr. Lipinski. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Happens all the time. 

7

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming here before our Committee. I just wanted to—just one thing I wanted to ask you. What 

has been the opposition to this legislation? 

Mr. BARTON. The opposition? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Why has there been—why has there been opposition? Why is there opposition to it? And what would your arguments be? 

Mr. BARTON. Well, there is a natural tension between the certified dealers, which we all have in our district, and the independent auto repair groups. The dealers, you know, rightfully believe in their—you know, if you are a Ford dealer and somebody 

has a Ford, they ought to bring it to your shop to be repaired. And 

the manufacturers obviously give preference to their authorized 

dealers. 

So the tension is really between the independents and the authorized dealers of the original equipment manufacturers, and the 

manufacturers are not—they do not say they have no obligation to 

share this information, that would—they agree that they should. 

They just do not put as high a priority on getting the information 

in a timely fashion, and they do make the argument that some of 

what the independents want is proprietary. 

I think the proprietary argument is a specious argument. I do 

not—you know, we have got specific language in the bill that we 

are not trying to get proprietary information. If they testify later 

in the day, their argument is probably going to be they do not want 

to give away proprietary information, and that they have a right 

to give preference to their authorized dealers. 

I do not argue on the authorized dealers having some preference, 

but even having said that I still think the independent has a right 

to get the information in a timely fashion, and I do not think eight 

to 15 days meets the definition of timeliness. 

My young staffer had a little fender-bender last week, and he 

was without a vehicle for a week. That is not right. You know, you 

need to get it fixed and get going. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay, thank you for your work on this, and thanks 

for coming before the Committee. 

Mr. BARTON. My pleasure. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Mr. Udall, do you have questions? 

Mr. UDALL. Just one brief question, Madam Chair. 

Chairman Barton, thank you very much for coming today and I 

know you are very busy over in your Committee, and we appreciate 

you spending a few minutes with us. 

As I understood your testimony earlier, it sounded to me like you 

really wanted this voluntary system to work. 

Mr. BARTON. That is true. 

Mr. UDALL. And that you are saying you would only move the 

bill if this system could not be fixed and up and working and all 

of that. 

I am looking at the—the question I have is at the opposite side 

of that, is if you pass your bill, does that do away with the voluntary system? Do you view it as supplanting the voluntary system 

that is in place? 

Mr. BARTON. Well, it would certainly enhance it. It would make 

some of these things mandatory. It would have an enforcement 

8

mechanism to it. I would prefer a voluntary agreement. I have been 

waiting three years. I mean, I started this process in 2001. They 

had the agreement in 2002. It is now 2005, and again the dealers 

and the manufacturers say it is all there, it is working. The people 

have to use the system say, well, we can now get on the Internet 

or the phone and dial up, but we still cannot get the information. 

And to go back to Mr. Westmoreland’s question, you really do not 

know what you are not going to get until you cannot get it, so they 

are very frustrated by this continuing hamstringing of this socalled voluntary system. 

Mr. UDALL. So would you view it as supplementing the voluntary 

system or doing away with it completely, your bill? 

Mr. BARTON. I think the straight answer would be it would replace it. 

Mr. UDALL. Would replace it. 

Mr. BARTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much for your candor and appreciate 

having you here today. 

Mr. BARTON. Sure. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Chairman Barton, has the legislation 

changed significantly since you first introduced it? 

Mr. BARTON. We have tried to take the concerns of the manufacturers and the dealers on the proprietary nature, and the original 

bill had a mandatory enforcement provision that we have taken 

out. So we have really tried to work with the manufacturers and 

the dealers to address the problems that they have talked about in 

the testimony before my Committee. 

I think if we move the bill, at least some of the manufacturers 

would be supportive, and I think some of the dealers groups would 

be supportive. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. I believe Mr. Westmoreland has another question, and thank you for answering that one. 

Mr. BARTON. Sure. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, kind of what Mr. Udall said 

as far as the voluntary and the mandatory. I have sat down with 

both groups and both groups have told me they were willing to sit 

down. 

Mr. BARTON. They have been telling me that for four years. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So from talking to you it seems like they 

did not. Do you know—they have both been telling you the same 

thing, that they are willing to sit down and do something? 

Mr. BARTON. And progress has been made. I do not want to mislead this Committee. The system works better today than it did 

four years ago. You can get information. Sometimes you can actually get it on a timely basis, but there are a lot of times that you 

cannot. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do you think this may be like the settling 

of lawsuits on the courthouse steps, that it will be only after the 

dropping of a bill or whatever before an agreement can be reached 

where one side or the other side is willing to make concessions? 

Because evidently from talking to both groups, you know, they 

both say they are ready to sit down, and one says the other one 

will not, and the other one says the other one will not. 

9

Mr. BARTON. I am sorry you have gotten in the middle of that. 

I thought I was the only one that had that problem. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, we share that enjoyment, and it has 

been fun meeting and hearing both sides of it. 

Mr. BARTON. The difference is that my patience is about exhausted. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You have been dealing with it a lot longer 

than I have. 

Mr. BARTON. Now that I Chair the Committee instead of just a 

Subcommittee— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. —I am very confident that if we cannot get an 

agreement, that we can move the bill. I mean, you folks know as 

much as I do about how the vote would be on the House floor, but 

we have got a lot of support from consumer groups and low-income 

groups. A lot of members of the Black Caucus are either sponsors 

or willing to be sponsors. I think this bill on the floor probably gets 

350 votes. 

It is a question if you are a Republican, do you believe in volunteerism or do you believe in another federal mandate? And I 

have been trying not to have to resort to a federal mandate. But 

if we do not get them together pretty quick, we are going to start 

moving the bill, and I have got a couple of senators have said they 

will introduce the bill in the Senate, so I think we could make this 

a law pretty quick if we had to. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, sir. Well, I agree with you. I think volunteerism is certainly the approach. We hope it will take, and I 

really cannot get a good grasp on the magnitude of the problem, 

and if this is one person or two people or 100 people or whatever 

going without their car for three or four or five days. You know, 

I have been without mine that long, so I understand that. 

But you know, I hope that the magnitude of it is out there that 

would warrant something like this, and I am sure that you have 

heard all the evidence and feel comfortable that that is the case. 

And so, you know, it is something that we need to look into, and 

I appreciate the Chairman having this meeting so we can hear the 

different sides of it. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, sir. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. I just would ask you a couple more 

things. Are there specific things that would just remedy this situation? Could you give me any specifics of what you would like to see 

happen? 

Mr. BARTON. You have to have a system that if the independent 

repair entity pays the appropriate amount of money, gets the software, gets the code words, gets all of the proper documentation so 

that they have access to the system, not trying to rip them off, not 

trying to get something for free, not trying to do something back 

door. But you go through all the certifications, and that can cost 

30 to 40 - 50 thousand dollars. I mean, it is a non-trivial sum. But 

if you do that, and a vehicle comes into your shop, you should be 

able to access the system through the various websites that have 

been authorized with the appropriate software, and get an answer 

that day. Get an answer as soon as you get logged into the system; 

10

not get the answer—these endless do-loops that they just get the 

run-around and run-around, and you have provided all the certification and all the documentation, and you just end up—the system 

does not provide you the information. 

So my litmus test is, you know, that I do not think it has to be 

as fast as the dealer network. I respect that. You know, if I am authorized dealer of General Motors, I think I should have priority. 

I am okay on that. 

But if the dealer gets it instantaneously or gets it within 30 minutes, the independent ought to be able to get it within a couple of 

hours, something like that. That is kind of where I am. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Okay, anymore questions for the Chairman? 

Mr. Shuster is here. 

Mr. BARTON. Is that ‘‘Home run Shuster?’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BARTON. You know he could have had an inside the park 

home run in the congressional baseball game. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Speedy Shuster. Well, I just want to tell you, Mr. 

Chairman, that was the first lay-down triple in the history of baseball. 

[Laughter] 

Mr. SHUSTER. Because after I hit it, I had to go in the dugout 

and lay down. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BARTON. Well, you know, I saw you coming around second 

base. The ball is still out at the outfield fence, but it did not look 

to me like you had the steam to make it to home. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I did not. I did not. 

Mr. BARTON. But you did hit it far, that is the good news. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That is what counts, and Putnam scored. 

Mr. BARTON. He did. He did. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Mr. Shuster, after hearing about your 

personal physical condition, I am wondering if you have any questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. I think I bring a perspective to this that other 

members may not. My family had a tire business which was a repair shop. I went to work for the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in a repair shop, and then I owned an auto dealership for 13 

years. 

My concern is that we are going to set up a new bureaucracy in 

the federal level, and I do not know that we already have not 

solved our problem with the industry and what they are doing, because I know we were able to get that information, maybe not as 

quickly—when I was in the repair business—as quickly as a dealer 

does. 

But on the other side of that coin the dealers spend a lot of 

money, and the manufacturers spend a lot of money developing 

these things, and the notion that private car owners do not have 

a choice, I do not think is accurate because they do have a choice. 

There is six Chevy dealerships within an hour of my house, or five 

Chrysler dealerships, so I think there is choice out there, and I 

11

know from experience that the independent garage can get that information, maybe not as quickly, but on that same point. 

I do not know that they have spent the money and have the investment that a dealer has that they should get it. 

Mr. BARTON. You missed some of my opening statement. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I apologize. 

Mr. BARTON. I do not—you do not have to apologize. It was not 

that good of an opening statement, you know. 

But I am not quibbling with the dealer having access to the information instantaneously or as quickly as possible. You know, if 

your care is under warranty, most people are going to take it to the 

dealer. 

It is these cars that are secondhand, used cars that are not 

under warranty, a moderate income family does not have the 

means to take it into the authorized dealer because of the higher 

labor cost and the overhead cost and all of that, so they take it to 

an independent repair shop. 

The independent repair shop, if they paying the licensing fee, if 

they pay for the software, if they get the proper code words and 

passwords and PIN numbers, that independent repair shop, in my 

opinion, as a right to get the information as long as it is nonproprietary in a timely fashion. It does not have to be—if the Chevrolet 

dealer can get it in 15 minutes, I do not think the independent 

ought to get it in 15 minutes, but they ought to get it some time 

that day. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. BARTON. They ought to be able to get it and get the part and 

repair the vehicle, and diagnose the problem, and get it back to the 

owner. And again, I have had the laptop computer set up in my office, and watched them try to get access to the information, and 

they finally get to a screen, and it just—it just dead ends. It is just 

kind of the straight line on the heart monitor. It just is not going 

to happen. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And I would say too coming from a dealer’s point 

of view, sometimes the dealer does not get the information as 

quickly as we should for a number of different reasons. 

But still I wonder too, I know that CARE, the Coalition for Automotive Repair Equality, I am not—I think I know who they are. 

My concern is is that these huge automotive parts companies 

that—what they are doing by trying to get this information is to 

reverse engineer these parts, and be able to get these parts cheaper, and take that—take a lot of that business away from dealers. 

Mr. BARTON. But the bill specifically says that is illegal. We are 

not trying to do that. We are not trying to take the best engineering of Detroit, and as you put it, reverse engineering. That is not 

the concept that we are attempting to get. 

What we are trying to do—I mean, everybody in everybody’s district, you have got a lot of authorized dealerships, and you also 

have a lot of independent repair shops, and that has built up over 

100 years. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. BARTON. The technology has changed. It used to be—I am 

old enough that I actually could work on my cars. You know, I 

could actually go out and change the spark plugs, and adjust the 

12

timing, and change the timing belt, and put in new rings and all 

this kind of stuff. 

Now when the car stops you have to plug it into a computer, 

okay, and the computer is going to tell you what the problem is, 

and what I am saying is the independent shop, if they are willing 

to make the investment, needs to have access to that same diagnostic ability and be able to pinpoint the problem and get the part 

and get the car repaired. If we can work that out on a voluntary 

basis, fine. 

I have been trying for four years to get a voluntary agreement 

that actually works. The people on the manufacturing and the dealer side say that it works. The people on the receiving end say it 

does not work. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I—and again, with all due respect to the 

Chairman, I think that that information is out there. It is available. It is not always as smooth and as easy as it could be, but as 

a former dealer, and there were times when we could not get that 

information as quickly as we wanted to, and I would just caution 

us against the federal government going out there and doing something, setting up a new bureaucracy, trying to force things down 

peoples’ throats. 

And I think that you are right that the manufacturers, and I 

think they do, they want—they have customers out there that do 

not always want to go to the dealers for various reasons that you 

have mentioned, and they want them to have other opportunities. 

So I hope we can do this without legislation. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. I have a feeling in the next week or so 

some of these independent repair shops may contact you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I look forward— 

Mr. BARTON. We may let them show you their system. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I look forward to that. Thank you. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, sir. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate you being here today. 

Mr. BARTON. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. At this time I would like the second 

panel to come up. Mr. Westmoreland mentioned that he had someone here from Georgia today. Well, I have someone here from Fort 

Collins, Colorado. So the second panel will come up, please. Mr. 

Houska, Fred Bordoff, Eddie Ehlert, Aaron Lowe, John Cabaniss 

and Kathleen Marvaso. 

[Pause.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Welcome all of you, and when you 

speak if you would pull the microphone a little closer to you. The 

acoustics are not that good in this beautiful room, but then we can 

all hear you. 

Mr. Houska, welcome. Proud to have a Coloradan here today 

from my district, and we are looking forward to hearing from you. 

We will adhere to the five-minute rule, so if you will watch the 

light, and that will give you an indication of when you should sum 

up. Thank you. Go ahead. 

13

STATEMENT OF DENNIS HOUSKA, HOUSKA AUTOMOTIVE 

SERVICE 

Mr. HOUSKA. Madam Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, 

I am Dennis Houska, President of Houska Automotive Services Inc. 

located in Fort Collins, Colorado. Thank you for the opportunity to 

address you today on an issue that is vital to my business. 

My father started our auto repair over 50 years ago in a two 

small bay garage. I am the second generation in the business and 

my son will be the third. I have grown up in and spent my whole 

life in the auto repair business. Our shop has grown up over the 

years to be a 24-bay facility that works on all types of vehicles. 

Houska Automotive now has 25 employees. We pride ourselves in 

being a one-stop auto repair for all of our customers’ needs. We 

have built our base on loyal customers because of our quality work, 

convenience, and competitive price. But, even more, based on trust. 

Our shop has many business affiliations. We are a AAA Preferred Auto Repair, AC Delco Service Center, Bosch Repair Center, 

and a member of the Better Business Bureau, and a member of the 

NFIB. 

I have been a member of ASA for many years. Even though I am 

a member of ASA, I strongly disagree with their position on this 

bill. For some reason, they do not believe that there is that bad of 

a problem in getting timely information, but my years of experience 

has told me otherwise. 

We are also a NAPA Auto Care Center since the implementation 

of the program. To be a NAPA Auto Care Center, you must employ 

ASE certified technicians, have an ongoing training program and 

adhere to the NAPA’s code of ethics. 

I am also a member of the Bottom Line Impact Group. This is 

a collection of independent auto repair businesses from around the 

country and we get together to discuss automotive management 

problems and the future of our industry. 

We have technicians who are specialized in the different areas 

and makes of automobiles. Our technicians are ASE certified—

most are master techs with an L1 certification. Many of our employees have been factory trained in different makes of cars. We 

have an ongoing education through classes offered by NAPA, AC 

Delco, Automotive Training Groups, Car Quest, Bosch, our state 

education programs, and even through ASA. 

We also have an on-line and N.I.A.T. self-study courses available. 

Several of our employees have received the Top Tech Award for our 

community for their commitment to further their education. Each 

employee is required to continue his or her education every year. 

Being an independent auto repair business owner has great rewards and sometimes great challenges. But one challenge that I believe is unnecessary is the challenge of accessing all the information in all the model lines of all the different manufacturers. This 

challenge can be overcome by the passage of the Motor Vehicle 

Owner’s Right to Repair Act. 

There is no one diagnostic tool that gives us enough information 

for all the makes. Several years ago we made the decision to invest 

in the scan tools of the different manufacturers, at a great expense 

to us. If the information was accessible for the tool manufacturers, 

they would be able to develop and produce one tool that could acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:26 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23178.TXT MIKE
14

cess and reprogram all the different makes of cars, saving us an 

our customers a great deal of added expense. 

We have purchased the Snap-on scanner, the Master Tec, the Tec 

2, the Val Tec, the DRB-3, Pro Link, Genisus, and NGS, just many 

other manufacturers’ tools. Not only do we have the initial cost of 

each tool, but also the cost of the year update, but another problem 

is that the manufacturers are also always changing the scan tools, 

so every few years we have to repurchase an additional scan tool 

for the make. 

But this is not the main reason I support the bill. Tools are part 

of the challenge no doubt, but the main challenge and the one I am 

left—if left uncorrected could put me and my business—put me out 

of business information. 

We subscribe to several information systems. We have Alldata, 

On-Demand, IATN, and Identix. We also use service of hot lines, 

which we can call when we need more information. These are great 

resources, but there are times when we need more precise information that is absolutely necessary to properly diagnose and repair 

the vehicle. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Okay, your time has expired, and perhaps in questioning you will get an opportunity to say some more 

things. Thank you. 

Mr. HOUSKA. Thank you. 

[Mr. Houska’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Okay, our next witness is Mr. Fred 

Bordoff. 

STATEMENT OF FRED BORDOFF, SERVICE STATION DEALERS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BORDOFF. Good afternoon. My name is Fred Bordoff. I am 

Vice President of the Service Station Dealers of America and Allied 

Trades, known as SSDA-At. SSDA-AT represents over 15,000 independently owned service stations and repair facilities in over 50 

states, either through direct membership or through affiliation 

with affiliated state associations. 

On behalf of our members, I want to thank the Chairman and 

Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our 

views on the challenges and difficulties encountered by the independent auto repair technicians as a result of the refusal of the 

auto manufacturers to share with us the same technical information furnished to their own dealers. 

The direct result is that the independent technician is not able 

to perform repairs on these automobiles. In instances when manufacturers do grant access to information and programs, it is done 

at costs which are often prohibitively high to the small independent 

auto repair shops, thus effectively causing them to be unable to 

render these services, and forcing their customers to have repairs 

done at auto dealerships. 

The complex computerized systems of the modern automobile 

render it essential to have the proper information and training. 

I am the President of the New York Center for Automotive Technology, an independent general repair shop located in Queens, New 

York. Because my facility is engaged to perform repairs for a major 

dealership in New York, which sells great numbers of used cars 

15

and which owns several new car franchises, I am granted some access to information which allows us to perform repairs, but in general the average independent technician often cannot tend to a customer’s repair needs. I will offer a few examples to illustrate the 

problem. 

A Volvo owner complains that the driver’s side window does not 

go down. After testing, the diagnosis is a bad window switch. A 

new switch is purchased from Volvo and installed. The new switch 

does not work. Further investigation reveals that the switch has to 

be programmed by the Volvo dealer. The car then has to go to 

Volvo to complete the repair. This is likely to cause delay and frustration to the customer, who will resort to Volvo services in the future instead of the independent facility. 

Another example is that of a motorist driving a BMW, who experiences poor performance on the road, and then sees the service engine light go on. He or she pulls into a convenient diagnostic facility. It is determined that the throttle body is at fault. A new throttle body is purchased from the local BMW dealership and installed. 

The car will not even start now without being programmed by at 

the BMW dealership. Imagine the reaction of that customer who 

drive on a car and has to see it towed out. 

On many of today’s cars, if the battery goes dead, the radio loses 

its memory. After a new battery is installed, it is discovered that 

the radio now does not operate. The radio now has to be coded by 

a dealership service facility since they are the ones with access to 

the code. Obtaining the radio code takes between one and four minutes, depending on the speed of your Internet access. Most dealership service facilities charge one hour labor for this service. Is 

there any wonder why they want to keep this information to themselves? 

Manufacturers have two information systems, and for a fee, they 

will allow independent repair shops to access the Technician Information Service. The other system is the Dealer Information System. I can tell you that they are not the same at all. The Dealer 

Information System is more complete and easier to use. The dealership service facilities also have access to tech support, which the 

independent repair facilities do not, again, leaving the independent 

at a disadvantage. 

With companies like Alldata and Mitchell supplying information 

to the independent shop at a reasonable cost, it is the same as the 

Technician Information System that the manufacturer also supplies to the independent. Another difficulty with Alldata and Mitchell is the lag between getting information, publishing it, and distributing it to the shops. There can be a three to six month lag by 

the time the shop gets the information. 

While access to information is a problem, the greater issue is 

that of the programming ability, or lack thereof, available to the 

independents. Without it, the entire repair at the independent facility is viewed as useless by the customer. 

Last year, our facility spent in excess of $65,000 on manufacturer’s specific scanners and we still have difficulties with some cars. 

These costs are not something that small independent repair shops 

can insure as a cost of doing business, and keep costs down to the 

motorist. 

16

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Your time has expired. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

[Mr. Bordoff’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Our next witness is Eddie Ehlert from 

Chamblee, Georgia. Welcome to the Committee. And if you will pull 

that microphone closer, we will be able to hear you very much. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF EDDIE EHLERT, MAZDONLY, LTD. 

Mr. EHLERT. Good afternoon, Chairman Musgrave, Members of 

the Subcommittee. My name is Eddie Ehlert. I am President and 

owner of Mazdonly, Limited in Chamblee, Georgia. I have been in 

the automotive repair industry since 1977, and have owned my 

own repair facility for 20 years. I am immediate past president of 

the Automotive Service Association of Georgia and currently serve 

on their board of directors. 

I am here today representing the Automotive Service Association, 

ASA, our national association. Our association represents 13,000 

independent repair facilities nationwide employing 65,000 technicians in all 50 states. ASA is the oldest and largest trade organization in the automotive industry with the distinction of serving only 

those businesses that perform service and repairs for the motoring 

public. 

Independent repairs typically receive in their shops those cars 

coming out of warranty. We repair approximately 75 percent of all 

cars out of warranty. Franchised new car dealers repair approximately 25 percent. This structure of the repair marketplace is stable now and for the foreseeable future. 

The ASA testified before the House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection on September 22, 2004, on the Right to Repair issue. Our message today 

mirrors our testimony of 2004. The ASA-Automaker Agreement for 

service information, tool, tool information and training is working. 

I want to make three points this afternoon. 

There is a viable industry solution already in place for the service information. Service information opportunities have expanded 

under the ASA-Automaker Agreement, and independent repairers 

want less federal government bureaucracy in their businesses, not 

more. 

The 1990 Clean Air Act protected independent repairers in the 

area of emissions service information. Unfortunately, it took the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 13 years to develop a regulation that it could enforce with the automakers. The 

act did not give the authority to EPA in the area of non-emissions 

information. This is the area of contention. 

After a U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing in July of 

2002, members in the House and Senate ask ASA and the automakers to try to resolve this issue prior to the next Congress. 

The ASA and the automakers were successful in signing a voluntary, industry service information agreement in September of 

2002. This agreement ensured independent repairers the same 

service, tool, tool information and training provided franchised new 

car dealers, including both emissions and non-emissions information. 

17

With 451 million repairs handled by independent repairers each 

year, a process had to be in place for allowing any issues or complaints that might arise. An industry organization, the National 

Automotive Service Task Force, NASTF, is in place to address consumer, technician or shop owner complaints relative to service information. 

The NASTF is an industry success sorry. Repairers, automakers, 

new car dealers, parts distributors, and information providers work 

together in face to face meetings, conference calls, and via the 

Internet to resolve industry issues. Of the 451 million repairs in 

2004, the NASTF had 48 complaints, less than a fraction of one 

percent of all repairs. Of those 48 complaints, 48 were resolved in 

2004. 

In March of this year, ASA and the National Automobile Dealers 

Associations, NADA, sent a letter to every member of the U.S. 

House of Representatives. We are the two largest trade associations representing the repair industry segments in the United 

States, independent repairers and franchised new car dealers, respectively. Our association stated in this joint letter that, ‘‘NADA 

and ASA want to make perfectly clear to all parties, and most importantly to their customers, that they can repair vehicles because 

the service information and diagnostic tools needed are available to 

them in the marketplace.’’ 

Since the more complex vehicles have entered the repair marketplace, information availability has expanded rather than contracted 

for independent repairers. The Clean Air Act amendments directed 

EPA to regulate automaker websites for emissions service information. 

The ASA-Automaker Agreement expanded this to non-emission 

service information, tools, and tool information and training. But in 

actuality, day by day, independent repairers still go to the same 

source for service information they have gone to for many years, 

third party information providers. 

Prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and prior to EPA 

regulations, prior to the ASA-Automaker Agreement, third party 

information providers were available such as Alldata, Mitchell I 

and Identifies for their service information needs. 

For those shops choosing not to directly access the automaker 

websites, these companies still provide service information to the 

independent repair technician. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. The time has expired. Thank you very 

much for your testimony. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Our next witness is Aaron Lowe, Vice 

President, Government Affairs, Automotive Aftermarket Industry 

Association. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF AARON LOWE, AUTOMOTIVE AFTERMARKET 

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LOWE. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Aaron Lowe 

and I am vice president of government affairs to the Automotive 

Aftermarket Industry Association. 

The AAIA is a Bethesda-based trade association with more than 

7,566 member companies and affiliates that manufacture, distribute and sell motor vehicle parts and accessors. AAIA represents 

18

more than 54,000 parts stores and repair shops nationwide. Many 

of these shops are family-owned operations and have been in business for generations. 

We are placed to be here to discuss the Motor Vehicle Owner’s 

Right to Repair Act that was introduced by Representative Barton. 

Passage of this legislation is critical not only to the thousands of 

small businesses that comprise the automotive repair industry, but 

also their customers who depend on local repair shops to keep their 

vehicles operating safely, cleanly and dependably. 

I will not go over the history of this legislation since I think you 

made some really good points, but as you said earlier, the bill was 

brought about because of the expansion of the use of computers beyond just emissions-related items, to brakes, air bags, entertainment systems to anti-theft systems. 

The computer chips control virtually every aspect of the vehicle. 

No longer is it just enough to have information on emissions-related items, you need information on computers impacting all aspects of the vehicle. 

A little over one year following introduction of the Right to Repair bill in 2001, the car companies issued a letter promising to 

make emissions and non-emissions-related information available by 

August 31, 2003. 

Clearly, this letter was a major step forward for the aftermarket 

in that it was the first time, short of regulation, the manufacturers 

had ever promised to make any information available to our industry. However, the promises of the car companies, while progress, do 

not go far enough to either resolve our current issues or ensure a 

future of the competitive repair market. 

Our central issue with the letter is that it is not enforceable. 

Should any of the car companies determine to walk away from it, 

there is nothing the industry could do or the car companies to hold 

them to their promise. 

Today, you have heard only a few of the specific instances where 

critical information is being withheld by the manufacturers. These 

examples and others that have been brought to our attention call 

into serious question the car company performance in meeting their 

own promises. 

A recent survey of repair shops performed by the Tarrance Group 

found that 59 percent of respondent had problems getting access to 

repair information and tools needed for repairs. Sixty-seven percent 

reported that they had been forced to send their vehicle back to the 

dealer. Ninety-three percent of the respondents that said they 

wanted the Right to Repair bill were ASA members. 

Our further concern is the National Automotive Service Task 

Force that was cited in the letter as the enforcement entity for the 

promise. By nearly any objective measure, NASTF is an enforcement group, but simply a clearinghouse for information requests 

from the technicians that are routed to the responsible car company. Once there, it is up to the car company to decide how to answer. 

NASTF as a entity does not force nor negotiate resolution on behalf of the independent technician. And in April 22, 2005, letter to 

Kirland & Ellis that represents the vehicle manufacturers, FTC 

stated for a third party review system to be effective they must be 

19

impartial and objective, be public, and apply standards consistently. 

Clearly, NASTF is neither impartial nor objectives since it is operated and controlled by the vehicle manufacturers. 

I have to add that because of the time it takes, which is eight 

to 15 days by NASTF’s own testimony at the Energy and Commerce Committee, most independent repair shops cannot wait that 

long to get the information to get their customers out the door. 

The bottom line is that while promises helped move the ball forward, our industry cannot rest its future on them without some 

hammer to ensure everyone stays at the table. Car companies have 

racked up a long track record of withholding needed information 

and tools, and they make too much money in the aftermarket to 

accept anything else. 

According to the NADA, National Automotive Dealers Associations, even though dealership parts and service departments comprise just 11.8 percent of typical dealer’s total sales, it contributes 

48 percent of total operating profit. New car sells make up 60 percent of total sales, but only contribute 35 percent of total profit. 

Our fear is that the marketing and competitive interests of the 

manufacturers will override their current promise to make information and tools available should the threat of legislation disappear. 

The Right to Repair legislation was revised this year, but the 

goal is the came—ensure car companies keep their promises that 

they made in their letter, to make all information available. 

Over the past couple of months we have worked hard with the 

Federal Trade Commission to make sure it is easily implemented 

and fair to the car company. Particularly important, the newly 

drafted bill provides significant protection to the car companies 

trade secrets. 

During last year’s discussions, the car companies thought that 

this is was parts bill because it would require the use of trade secrets. I want to be clear that it has never been our intention to 

have any parts information, and we have provided clarification in 

the current bill to make sure that is true. Only information that 

they provide to the new car dealers must be made available to the 

independent aftermarket. 

We hope that this legislation will not add to the regulatory burden but just simply expand what has already been done in the 

emissions-related information by EPA be provided to the independent aftermarket, and that the non-emissions-related would 

also be included on those websites. 

Thank you. 

[Mr. Lowe’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. Our next witness is John 

Cabaniss, Jr. of the National Auto Service Task Force, and welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. CABANISS, JR., ASSOCIATION OF 

INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC. 

Mr. CABANISS. Thank you. My name is John Cabaniss. I am testifying for the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. 

20

I have been with AIAM for 10 years. Prior to that I worked for 

EPA for 15 years, and I began my experience working on cars in 

my dad’s auto shop when I was 11 years old. For five years, I have 

been the chairman of the National Automotive Service Task Force. 

The U.S. auto industry is highly competitive, more so today than 

ever before. About 70 to 80 percent of all non-warranty vehicle 

service is performed in independent shops. Because of this, automakers must respect the aftermarket industry as their partners in 

ensuring customer satisfaction and protecting brand loyalty. To do 

otherwise would be contrary to their own interests. 

Let us review some of the proponent’s claims. 

First, the proponents claim modern vehicle technology is limiting 

consumers’ choice for vehicle repair and service. The reality is consumers continue to have the choice of where to get their vehicles 

serviced and repaired. Independent shops continue to provide quality services at competitive prices, performing over 400 million successful repairs annually. 

Internet and e-commerce technologies are being used today to 

provide these shops with the latest technical information faster and 

cheaper than ever before. 

Second, the proponents claim automaker service websites do not 

include complete information. The reality is automakers are doing 

all that they reasonably can to make the same service information, 

training materials and factory tools available to independent shops 

as to dealers. 

All automakers have service websites containing service and 

training information available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

Is every manufacturer’s information perfect? Of course not. There 

are millions of data points and from time to time something will 

fall through cracks. Like any complex data network, improvements 

are continually being made to benefit dealers and independents 

alike. 

Third, proponents claim automaker service websites are too expensive. The reality is nearly all automaker websites are available 

for a period of 24 to 72 hours for 10 to 20 dollars. Frequent users 

have the option for monthly or longer subscriptions, but obviously 

they have to consider their own business case whether to take advantage of that. 

Fourth, proponents claim the voluntary approach provides no enforcement to ensure continued good faith of automakers. 

The reality is the continued good faith of automakers is ensured 

because the marketplace requires it. Automakers must ensure that 

customers can get their vehicles repaired at the shop of their 

choice. Due to fierce competition, automakers cannot afford any 

bad press that would result in not providing full support to customers, dealers, and independent shops. 

Fifth, proponents claim using the NASTF complaint process 

takes too long. 

The reality is in virtually all cases shops are getting the information they need, when they need it, on a 24/7 basis from either automaker websites or independent providers. In 2004, NASTF received 

48 complaints. This is obviously a very small number compared to 

the 400 plus million vehicle repairs conducted annually. 

21

Most NASTF complaints are handled quickly, but a few take 

longer because they require updating documents or making tool 

changes. Automakers strive for continuous improvements of their 

websites, just as they do their vehicles. 

Sixth, proponents claim legislation and regulation are needed to 

ensure automakers continue to provide information and address 

the problems they have identified. 

The reality is the types of problems identified by proponents, 

such as the cost of accessing sites, differences in sites, occasional 

content errors, and lack of enforcement, are not issues which will 

be effectively addressed in regulations by the FTC or any other 

agency. 

The current cost structure in websites are based on EPA’s current regulations, and approved by EPA, and there is no reason to 

believe the FTC would conclude any significant changes are needed, and federal regulatory processes are laden with procedural 

steps that do not lend themselves to addressing problems quickly. 

As noted by the FTC in a recent letter to Representative Dingell, 

self-regulatory programs are often the best ways to address matters. This is especially true in a dynamic area such as information 

technology. The only thing that federal regulation would clearly do 

is slow down the process and delay further progress. This outcome 

benefits no one, not the service industry, not the automakers, not 

consumers. 

In conclusion, automakers remain committed to the National 

Automotive Service Task Force. We welcome the participation of all 

parties to improve and expand this voluntary process. Bringing everyone’s efforts and resource to bear on producing results, not rhetoric, can only improve the process. 

If any members of the Subcommittee are contacted by constituents with any type of service information, question or problem, 

please contact me so we can address the issue. 

For the record, we oppose H.R. 2048 because we believe it is unnecessary and counterproductive. We acknowledge that there have 

been some modifications to this year’s bill, but we continue to have 

concerns about the protection of intellectual property and the potential for excess litigation. 

Thanks for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. 

[Mr. Cabaniss’ testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. Our final witness is Kathleen Marvaso. Welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN MARVASO, AAA 

Ms. MARVASO. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to 

testify on behalf of AAA, and provide testimony in support of the 

Right to Repair bill. 

I am Kathleen Marvaso, the managing director of AAA’s Washington office, where we advocate a wide range of consumer and 

safety issues that affect the traveling public’s safety and mobility. 

AAA has represented the interests of car owners for more than 100 

years, now serving more than 48 million members, 25 percent of 

all U.S. households. 

22

The AAA has a strong interest in the Right to Repair legislation 

because we believe it is necessary to ensure our members’ safety, 

and their access to high quality, convenient and competitivelypriced auto repair. 

The AAA’s goal has always been to ensure that manufacturers 

make service and training information and the appropriate diagnostic tools available to any repair facility, not just those in their 

franchise dealer network. 

Ideally, this should occur voluntarily. Yet our members and independent repair facilities in our approved auto repair network continue to tell us that there are many instances where technicians do 

not have the information or tools they need to fix today’s vehicles, 

and as a result consumers are denied choice among qualified repair 

options. Often they are inconvenienced, and some AAA members 

are left with no choice but to drive their vehicle long distances for 

repairs. 

Too often today’s consumers are essentially denied something 

that they buy when they drive off the lot with a new car—access 

to the data necessary to get that vehicle repaired. 

So AAA supports the Right to Repair bill for three important reasons: consumer choice, vehicle safety, and the right of car owners 

to access the data generated by their vehicle. 

Despite some positive steps towards making the information 

available to independent repair facilities, it is AAA’s understanding 

that much of what is provided is incomplete, it is difficult to find, 

or it is prohibitively expensive. So instead of fixing the problems 

themselves, repair technicians are forced to put customers back out 

on the road searching for a dealer shop that may not have an available appointment, it may not be nearby, and it may not even be 

open. 

Many of our AAA members prefer dealer shops, but many also 

choose to use the services of independents, and AAA believes that 

our members deserve and need choice to ensure good quality service, and competitive prices in auto repair. This can only occur if all 

facilities have access to the same information and tools. 

Technology has made the vehicles that we drive smarter. More 

than 80 percent of the systems on some cars are monitored or controlled by a computer. They tell us about the need for an oil 

change, trouble with an oxygen sensor, problems with the brakes, 

and even if our tire pressure is too low before there is a problem 

or a critical safety breakdown. 

It makes sense that information necessary to diagnose and repair 

any of these problems should be available to all repair technicians. 

But these days it is hard to mention this issue without someone 

telling you of their own experience with a repair problem. Depending on the problem, whether it involves a critical safety feature like 

brakes, or the supplemental restraint system, or a comfort features 

like climate control, at best these problems amount to an inconvenience, and at worst, there are a serious safety issue. Regardless, 

they should not happen. 

The AAA believes that when you drive off the lot with your car 

you own more than just the vehicle. You own the information necessary to have it repaired by a trusted service advisor of your 

choice, whether that is an independent or a dealer. 

23

Opponents of this legislation claim that an information not released to the independent repair shops is withheld to protect intellectual property or design secrets. AAA members do not want access to any of that. They want their car fixed. 

Simply put, this legislation is about putting common sense into 

the repair process, ensuring that customers get a choice in auto repair, whether they choose a dealership or an independent. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share AAA’s views on this subject. 

[Ms. Marvaso’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Shuster, do you have any questions for our witnesses? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, I do. 

First, I want to start off again, I have spent probably the better 

part of 30 years of my life involved with auto repair, and in an auto 

dealership selling cars, around cars. I also want full disclosure. I 

could not fix a car if my life depended on it. But I have been 

around and I have been managing businesses that have done that 

some time. 

I also want to say that Mr. Houska and Mr. Bordoff, I have the 

greatest respect for what you do. I know how difficult it is. You 

know, I have been there when a trained mechanic or we thought 

it was a trained mechanic, we thought the part was there, and the 

car did not get fixed, and I have got a customer yelling at me why 

is my car not fixed. You guy do not know what you are doing. 

I mean, I have been there, and I feel your pain, and I have felt 

it. 

I do have a concern, though, about this legislation. I think it is 

the wrong way to go. I think it—as independent business people, 

as you are, as I was, small business people, we do not want the 

federal government sticking their nose into our business, because 

this just leads from one thing to the next. 

I mean, what is to stop us from the next thing saying, okay, if 

you want to do these repairs, you have got to buy every Chrysler, 

every General Motors, every Ford tool and diagnostic piece of 

equipment out there. 

I mean, it is a huge expense, and I do not think either of you 

want that to happen. You probably do not have all of those tools, 

because I had quite a few of those tools, and lots of times we did 

not use those tools, but we still had to buy them. 

So I am concerned about this for that reason. What is the next 

steps? 

Also, when we look at the market, 75 percent of the repairs are 

being done today by independent repair shops. It does not seem to 

me that the auto dealers have a monopoly on that business. 

Also, I saw where—I know that there is claims that there is a 

lot of people complaining about the dealership not giving up the information, they cannot get their cars fixed at your place or the information is not fast enough. But I know the task force, the numbers I have, there is only about one percent complaints coming in 

from repair shops that say they cannot get the information. 

So to get to my question, who makes up CARE? I think know. 

I think is it NAPA and Auto Zone and big parts manufacturers and 

24

distributors like that. Is that correct or is that not correct? Who 

makes up CARE? I know there is a lot of small, independent dealers. 

Mr. Lowe, maybe you can. I know AAIA, that is who you folks 

are, is that correct? 

Mr. LOWE. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And are you part of CARE? 

Mr. LOWE. We work with CARE on the legislation. We all support the bill. We have some of the same members. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Okay. 

Mr. LOWE. CARE is one group who is supporting the bill. They 

are made up of—you know, as you said, NAPA, and Auto Zone, and 

companies like that. We are also comprised of some of the same 

companies. We also have other service facility members of AAIA. 

We have parts manufacturers, distributors. 

So, I mean, CARE is just one group that represents this bill, and 

is working on it along with a lot of other groups that are supporting this legislation. 

If you look at the range of support for the bill, it covers a wide 

range of the aftermarket. 

And to address your other issue about your concern about the 

federal bureaucracy, none of my members want to see federal bureaucracy more than we have to. Our members are staunchly antiregulatory in nature. But we have had regulations in place by the 

Environmental Protection Agency for years on service information, 

so we have already developed an infrastructure for making that information available and for how the regulation works. 

There has never been any challenges on intellectual property as 

part of the implementation of that legislation. So we already have 

that in place. And I think it is important to remember that we did 

not get as far as we have with information because of the market 

forces. It is because of the information regulations in the Clean Air 

Act, and then the threat of this legislation coming into place that 

really moved us as far as we have come on service information. 

So we would love to be able to not have to deal with legislation. 

We are hoping that when the legislation passes we will never have 

to have regulatory enforcement action; that the car companies will 

come and work with us to get the information out there. But we 

do not feel comfortable without having some kind of hammer to 

make sure that they stay at the table, and work toward getting information to the industry.

Mr. SHUSTER. But again, the information I have is that they are 

working with you. It is not perfect. It is never going to be perfect 

because of the nature of what we do is fix cars and it is a very difficult thing to do at times, but it is not out there. 

But I still see things that raise a red flag to me when you are 

out there touting to Wall Street that this legislation may pass. 

That sounds to me like you are looking for the investors to invest 

in your stock because of government action. I do not have the actual clipping of the Wall Street report saying you are touting this 

act coming forward. That is going to be of great benefit to the 

NAPA, the NAPA franchisees, the Auto Zones and those big companies. 

25

I look at the market and I see you have got 75 percent of the 

businesses coming your way now. Again, I do not think this is the 

right way to go. I think that go back and work, get in there with 

the auto manufacturers, and sit down with them, and let us see it 

work in the private sector. Let us not see the government pass a 

legislation that I think in the end is going to come back to haunt 

all of us. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. The time has expired. 

Mr. Lipinski, do you have questions? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Yes, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. You are welcome. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, and thank all of you for your testimony 

here today. 

It seems like there are three major issues of contention. One is 

how well would the voluntary system—how well is the voluntary 

system working. The second one is will there be intellectual property concerns, should there be intellectual property concerns with 

a mandatory system, such as the one in this bill. And the third one 

is will we have problems in the interim? If we pass this, and make 

it mandatory, what would happen to the voluntary system? 

So let me just start with the first one, that is maybe all that I 

really get to here, but it is probably the most important one because we heard Mr. Ehlert state that there are 48 complaints to 

NASTF last year. All of them were resolved. Only 48 complaints, 

and NASTF reports more than a 99 percent rate of accessed information. 

So I would ask whoever wants to respond to this, Mr. Bordoff, 

Mr. Houska Mr. Lowe, is there a problem? What is wrong with that 

data? That data seems to say that there is not a problem with the 

voluntary system. What is wrong with that data? 

Mr. BORDOFF. Well, one of the problems is that when you are 

stating the number of complaints, most of these automobile repair 

shops are small, three, four, five employees on a street corner. They 

do not either to complaint or they do not even know how or who 

to complaint to. So the problem is a lot larger than the number of 

complaints. 

You mention is it really necessary since it is being done voluntarily. Some car manufacturers are doing it better than others, so 

what we are having, and Chairman Barton said it, we are having 

a bigger problem with the foreign companies than the domestic 

companies, so that we can take care of some cars, but not others. 

Congressman Shuster said 75 percent of the repairs are done 

outside. That is true, but 75 percent of the repairs are done low 

tech, and 75 percent are done on older cars. And as the cars are 

becoming more complex, more computerized and the newer cars are 

coming in, that 75 percent number unless we get help is going to 

drop to 60, 50 and even less than that in the future. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Houska or Mr. Lowe, is there anything? You 

do not have to add anything. 

Mr. HOUSKA. Also, a lot of repair shops do not even know there 

is the system to report. ASA knows about it, but a lot of shops are 

not ASA members. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. What about the 99 percent success rate that is reported? 

26

Mr. HOUSKA. Well, you have to wonder why there is only 48 complaints in the whole country. There is something wrong with that 

system of reporting if that is the only number of complaints you 

get. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, let me ask Mr. Ehlert to respond to that. 

Mr. EHLERT. Repeat the part you want me to respond to. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I just want you to respond to their arguments, Mr. Bordoff and Houska, about that there are problems, 

and one of the problems—we have this low number of complaints 

as you stated, but they do not know how to complain or who to 

complain to, or it is difficult to complain. 

Mr. EHLERT. Well, the system has been as heavily publicized as 

it could possibly be over the last two plus years since it has been 

in place. It functions very well at my shop. I do not have these 

problems, and I primarily work on foreign-manufactured vehicles, 

and I have full access to the stuff I need. 

On the other hand, I do not need the entire bid stream of an engine control unit in order to repair that vehicle. I do not need to 

know every bit of software that was programmed into it. And I 

have access to the information that I do need to make that repair, 

so I am not running into these brick walls that I am hearing about. 

I do not know what preparation steps the shops that are having 

the complaints have not taken, but the information for me is completely available. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Let me ask—change very quickly. Mr. Cabaniss, 

you had mentioned Chairman Barton here said they have changed 

the bill to protect intellectual property. What concerns—you raised 

concerns though in your testimony. Why do you think this bill does 

not protect the intellectual property rights? 

Mr. CABANISS. Well, the problem with the bill as it is currently 

written is that there is still some ambiguities there, so we are not 

sure which part to read one way and which part to read another 

way. 

For instance, there is some language that says that trade secrets 

are protected, but there is also language in the bill that is somewhat vague. It says ‘‘No information necessary to repair vehicles 

shall be withheld by a manufacturer if such information is provided 

directly or indirectly to franchised dealerships or other facilities.’’ 

The problem there, the word ‘‘indirectly’’. Manufacturing, design 

and repair processes are all integrated, so where do you draw the 

line on what is protected and what is not protected? 

These kind of ambiguities that are in the law give us concern because we do not want to have to go and fight plaintiffs in courthouses all across the country where they are challenging trade secret issues. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. The time has expired. 

We are advocates of small business, and one thing that we always have before us though is what is best for the consumer, and 

I would like a proponent of the bill to say why passage of the bill 

is the best thing for consumers, and an opponent to give their case 

as to why it would not be good for consumers if the bill passed. 

Would a proponent go first? 

Mr. BORDOFF. Without going into a long thing here, again, we 

need rapid repair for the consumer, and when he has to wait, espeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:26 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\23178.TXT MIKE
27

cially now with the warranties of these new cars are getting longer 

and longer, some are up to 10 years and 100,000 miles, four years, 

50,000 mile warranties are becoming very common. Chrysler has 

gone to seven years, 70,000 miles. The dealership are getting 

busier doing warranty work, which they have to do. Warranty work 

is not allowed to be done on the outside. 

So as they are getting busier, it is getting harder and harder for 

the consumer to get his car in for a repair that is not under warranty. So again, it is the time it is going to take the consumer if 

he cannot bring it to his local shop to get repaired. And we are trying to cut this off before the problem really becomes bad. 

As the cars, again, become more complex, this problem is going 

to get worse. Right now most of the repairs are low tech repairs, 

brake repairs, and that is why you are not seeing the complaints, 

and most repairs are successful. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you. Now an opponent of the 

bill, please? 

Mr. CABANISS. The auto industry is all for consumer choice. We 

support wholeheartedly the consumer having the choice of getting 

their vehicle fixed anyplace that they choose, and that is why we 

support working with the aftermarket for solutions. 

Given the volume of information that is involved in covering 600 

models or so that are sold each year there is an extensive amount 

of effort and resources on the part of manufacturers needing to 

make this information available. If we introduce bureaucratic processes into this, the outcome will simply slow down the process by 

diverting manufacturers’ attention and resources away from solving service problems and instead dealing with regulatory matters. 

Our experience also indicates that regulatory processes tend to 

create adversarial relationships among the parties rather than supporting and working cooperatively together, which is what we need 

to reach—to identify any problems and work toward resolution. We 

need a voluntary cooperative process, which we have in place today 

with the NASTF. 

We do need the support of other organizations. Right now we 

have over 100 organizations involved in that process, but many of 

those choose not to participate fully for one reason or another. 

What we need to keep consumers happy, and believe me, the 

auto manufacturers are all for having happy consumers, making 

sure that they have good driving experiences, and come back to the 

showroom the next time around to buy the next car. So you know, 

that is what we need to keep consumers happy is a good system 

that works. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Udall? 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

When the Clean Air Act amendment was passed in 1990, it took 

five years before any regulations were promulgated, and then it 

took 13 years before they were finalized. As you heard Chairman 

Barton testify before you, he said that if his bill was enacted, it 

would take away the voluntary system that is in place, and he was 

urging that the voluntary system come in place, but he said if the 

law is passed, then the voluntary system goes away. 

28

My question to any of you that are willing to answer it here is 

if this bill were to pass the current voluntary system under the National Automotive Service Task Force goes away, how would independent repair shops get any service information? 

I mean, we are going to have a long period of time to get this 

up and running. Please, anybody. 

Mr. LOWE. May I comment on that? 

Mr. UDALL. Yes, please. 

Mr. LOWE. I think it is important to remember that the legislation really mirrors the promise that the vehicle manufacturers 

made to make all their service information available. So if the bill 

passes, they do not have to necessarily just stop making information available. That information as they promised should still be 

enough to comply with the legislation. 

So in reality, when the bill passes nothing really changes if they 

do what they say they are doing. 

The issue really gets to the car companies that are not complying 

with the promise or who are not putting their effort into making 

information available. They are the ones that would have something to worry about. 

So those that are now doing their best to get information out 

there, and some are doing a much better job than others, they will 

be able to continue to do that. 

One other issue I just want to address is the issue of the testing 

of the lawsuits that NASTF representative brought up. Since the 

Clean Air Act has passed and the information availability regulations were enacted, which were actually in 1995, and they were revised recently, there has never been any challenges, legal challenges by the car manufacturers to some of the requirements. 

There have not been court battles. 

This has gone through—this information is out there, and it has 

worked. It is not perfect. There are problems, but it has worked. 

So I really take issue with that statement that there are going 

to be problems with this bill passing. I simply think it will make 

sure that everybody does—lives up to their promise. 

Mr. UDALL. Any—yes, please. 

Mr. EHLERT. Currently, the system we have in place is here because of voluntary business agreements. If the legislation were to 

pass, there is no reason, there is no mechanism within the voluntary agreement for it to continue. 

If I were to lose information access today, it would be disastrous. 

Previous to 2003, I had a large room in my shop dedicated to original equipment manufacturers’ manuals. I do not have to keep those 

anymore. Any questions that come up are readily available on each 

of my technician screens as they are needed. That has been a substantial improvement in the efficiency of the operation of my business. 

Without that information, I could go out of business. 

Mr. UDALL. Do any of the other panelists have comment on those 

issues? 

Mr. CABANISS. I would add that with regard to EPA’s regulations 

being in place for the past period of time the regulations came from 

the Clean Air Act, as was explained at the outset of the hearing. 

The Clean Air Act has just a couple of sentences in it about service 

29

information. It does not have the pages and pages of language that 

is in the H.R. 2048. And when you have pages and pages of a language it causes a number of issues when you have the vague 

pieces, an example of which I provided earlier. 

The interesting thing is is that today the automakers are all, everyone of them, there are no exceptions, are providing information 

for non-emission systems on the same basis as EPA’s regulations 

require it for emissions-related information. Therefore, we do not 

understand how there is—why there are these complaints about 

the lack of information being available. 

It is available bumper to bumper for the car on the service 

websites of the auto manufacturers. So we do not understand what 

there is to be gained by this legislation other than to establish a 

bureaucratic process that will simply cause delay after delay. It 

took EPA 13 years to get that second rule through after the Clean 

Air Act. So it just makes no sense to us to have that kind of situation repeat itself. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MUSGRAVE. The time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Udall. 

Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony today. We appreciate 

it very much, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

30


23178.001
31


23178.002
32


23178.003
33


23178.036
34


23178.037
35


23178.038
36


23178.039
37


23178.004
38


23178.005
39


23178.006
40


23178.007
41


23178.008
42


23178.009
43


23178.010
44


23178.011
45


23178.012
46


23178.013
47


23178.014
48


23178.015
49


23178.016
50


23178.017
51


23178.018
52


23178.019
53


23178.020
54


23178.021
55


23178.022
56


23178.023
57


23178.024
58


23178.025
59


23178.026
60


23178.027
61


23178.028
62


23178.029
63


23178.030
64


23178.031
65


23178.032
66


23178.033
67


23178.034
68

Æ


23178.035