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

84–857 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–903

CUSTOMER CHOICE IN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR

SHOPS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN 

COMMERCE AND TOURISM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 30, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

ANN D. BEGEMAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN COMMERCE

AND TOURISM 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 30, 2002 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1

WITNESSES

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

International Automobile Manufacturers .......................................................... 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

Dana, Greg, Vice President, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers ...................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20

Feste, Dale, Dale Feste Automotive, Hopkins, Minnesota ................................... 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Haas, Bill, Vice President, Technical Division, Education and Training, Automotive Service Association .................................................................................. 7

Prepared statement with letter ....................................................................... 9

Nielsen, John, Director, Automotive Services and Repair Network, American 

Automobile Association (AAA) ............................................................................ 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Vallely, John, President, North McLean AutoCare Center .................................. 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28

Wellstone, Hon. Paul, U.S. Senator from Minnesota ............................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

APPENDIX

Prepared statement of Aaron Lowe, Vice President, Government Affairs, 

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association and the Automotive Warehouse Distributors Association ............................................................................ 41

(1)

CUSTOMER CHOICE IN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR 

SHOPS 

TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2002

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN COMMERCE

AND TOURISM

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Staff Members assigned to this hearing: David Strickland, Democratic Senior Counsel; Carlos Fierro, Republican Senior Counsel; 

and Ken Nahigian, Republican Counsel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. I’m going to call the Subcommittee hearing to 

order today. 

We welcome our colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone. 

The full committee just finished a rather lengthy hearing, less than 

an hour ago, so we’ve spent a fair amount of the time in this room, 

today. 

We are convening the Subcommittee this afternoon for a hearing 

at the request of our colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone. 

Senator Wellstone has brought to our attention a very interesting 

issue regarding whether independent automobile repair shops are 

being given the information they and their customers need to properly repair their cars. The question before us, is whether the ability 

of the consumer to choose where they want to get their cars fixed 

being constrained because the independent repair shops cannot get 

the information they need to repair their vehicles? 

Not surprisingly, depending on who you talk to, you get different 

answers to that question. Some say all the information is available, 

while others say they have to turn away business because some repairs can only be done by a dealer. 

Let me say that I understand there’s a natural tension between 

repair information and proprietary information, between making 

sure that anyone who is in the repair business today can read the 

fault codes and properly repair the vehicle and not releasing the internal computer codes that actually control how the computer chip 

runs the vehicle. So we’re having this hearing to try to get to the 

bottom of what is really happening. 

2

What I do know is that if there ever was something an American 

consumer cares about, it’s their cars. My first automobile was one I bought for $25. My dad pointed it out. My dad was a fellow who 

drove a farm gas truck, and he told me of an old car sitting in a 

granary on an abandoned farm. It was a 1924 Ford. The rats had 

eaten everything off that Ford—all the wiring, the seat covers. All that was left was rusted metal. I bought it for $25 from a fellow 

who had moved from the farm to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I hauled 

it into my dad’s service station and worked on it for about a year 

and a half restoring it. It wasn’t very complicated. The engine 

wasn’t very complicated. It was a labor of love. 

But then I was in high school and discovered girls and realized 

that I needed a car newer than a 1924 Ford. So now I no longer 

own the 1924 Ford, much to my regret, but I know a lot about cars 

because of that experience and the other cars I’ve owned. I do know 

that today’s cars have become significantly more complicated. With 

computer chips and onboard diagnostic equipment, they bear very 

little resemblance to that 1924 Ford. To fix a new model today, you 

almost have to be a computer wizard. And to say that they are 

more difficult to repair than my old car is really a large understatement. 

This is a very important issue, because we know how much people depend on their cars. We know that 70 to 80 percent of all cars 

that are no longer under warranty are repaired at independent repair facilities. We know also that there are a lot of people who care 

a great deal about the dealership from which they purchased that 

car, and they go back there routinely. We know there are many 

other Americans who care a great deal about their independent repair shop down the block or on the corner, and that’s where they 

trust getting their car repaired. This is true especially in rural 

states where the dealer’s shop can often be many miles away. 

Being able to take your car to the dealer is not always a matter 

of choice. Having a good independent mechanic nearby who has the 

information and tools that he or she needs to make the right repair 

is critically important. 

So I look forward to this hearing. I think it is a very important 

and an interesting topic, and I appreciate Senator Wellstone bringing it to the Subcommittee’s attention. 

The Senate has scheduled a vote for 2:45 today. My intention 

would be to take Senator Wellstone’s testimony. And, following 

that, I will ask the other witnesses to come forward and hear their 

testimony. We will then recess for perhaps 10 minutes while we 

cast our vote over in the Senate and then come back and finish the 

hearing. I regret that inconvenience, but that’s what we need to do 

in order to accommodate the vote that’s occurring on the Senate 

floor. 

Senator Wellstone, thank you very much for being here and raising this issue. And why don’t you proceed? Your entire statement 

will be part of the record, and you may summarize as you choose.

3

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL WELLSTONE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have to say at the beginning that, you know, when I first met 

with some of the independent mechanical repair facility people and 

was just listening to them, I couldn’t believe my ears, and I 

thought this is really an important issue. This is unfair, what’s 

going on to a lot of small business people, and unfair to consumers. 

And when I look at the number of people that have come here 

from, really, around the country, I just—I want to thank everyone 

for being here today, and I just want to say to each and every one 

of you that there was a full Committee this morning with everybody here, and I know I’ve talked to a number of different Senators 

who say they’re very interested, and I think there’s going to be a 

lot of support. 

Since I think this second committee is more important—the second panel is more important, I’ll just try to do this briefly. I want 

to, first of all, thank you, and I want to tell you that I think the 

real experts are going to be on the second panel. 

I want to say a word about Dale Feste, who is from Minnesota, 

our state, President and Owner of Dale Feste Automotive, which is 

a full-service independent mechanical repair facility in Hopkins. 

Dale founded his automotive repair business in 1980, and his 

business now services over 4,200 vehicles per year. You don’t get 

that kind of business unless you provide the customers with very, 

very good service. His shop is AAA approved and was awarded top 

shop awards in 2000 and 2001. And I would thank AAA for their 

strong support of this legislation. In addition, he’s a past president 

of the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Minnesota, and 

I want to thank Dale for coming all the way from Minnesota here 

to testify. 

As I said, I met with a group of auto repair shop owners back 

in April, and they were telling me about the Clean Air Act, and 

they were telling me that basically, you know, there was a requirement to monitor emissions, and they had access to that code, but 

that basically what was happening is that post–1996 you had this 

very sophisticated computerized system, but they were being denied access to the code, in which case they couldn’t do the diagnosis 

and the repair work. And I couldn’t believe it. I mean, what I heard 

from them was that they were unable to access the codes and the 

diagnostic tools necessary to repair newer-model cars. 

And, to me, it just sounded like almost a cartel, like a few companies were driving them out of business. And then I thought to 

myself, thinking back to the experience that we have had in 

Northfield or in St. Paul, now. I mean, you sort of build up a lot 

of trust with these independent mechanics. It’s where you want to 

take the car. 

And I was saying this morning to everybody, Mr. Chairman, 

that, look, if somebody wants to go to the dealership, they should 

be able to, of course; but the only thing that these small businessmen and women are asking for is a level playing field. And the only 

thing I’m saying is that us consumers should have a choice. We 

shouldn’t be robbed of that choice. 

4

So I introduced, on June 13th, the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right 

to Repair Act, which would protect the viability of the independent 

service station and repair shops and ensure that consumers have 

a choice. 

And basically I’ll summarize and finish. This legislation would 

simply require a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold in the 

United States to disclose to the vehicle owner, a repair facility, and 

the Federal Trade Commission the information necessary to do the 

diagnosis to service and repair the vehicle. And the bill bars the 

FTC from requiring disclosure of any information entitled to protection as to manufacturer’s trade secrets, so we deal with that concern. 

Mr. Chairman, fundamentally this legislation is just about a 

level playing field. Independent mechanics, all the independent mechanics you see back here, they don’t mind competition. In fact, I 

think they thrive on it. I think with fair competition, they can do 

great, and they know it, but they can’t stay in business if they 

don’t have access to the information to repair the new cars. 

And if the kind of anticompetitive practices that you will hear 

testimony on today continue to occur, we’re simply going to see a 

lot of these independent shops fail, through no fault of their own, 

because of anticompetitive practice. If this isn’t fixed, the result of 

the loss of a competitive-free market for auto repair will be higher 

prices, poor customer service, and lower quality, which all means 

less safe cars and trucks on America’s roads. I don’t think I’m 

stretching when I make that point. This legislation is also an example of what is good for small business is good for consumers. 

I’ll end my testimony on this note. I would guess that for as long 

as there have been automobiles, there have been independent mechanics to fix them, and I think both sides would agree they’ve 

worked pretty well together. I don’t think anybody wins if this 

problem isn’t fixed. I don’t think it’ll be good for the automotive industry if we lose all of our independent repair shops. I know it 

won’t be good for our consumers, and I know it won’t be good for 

our communities. 

I think this bill, Mr. Chairman, is a good way out of this mess, 

but what I’m here for, more than anything else, is results. I would 

be delighted if the manufacturers would sit down with the independent mechanics and work out a fair agreement in August. Otherwise, I’m committed to moving forward with this legislation, getting every single Senator, Democrat and Republican alike, behind 

these independent mechanics, behind these small businesses and 

passing this legislation. 

Once you meet with people and you hear about their businesses 

and you hear about how they’ve built their businesses, and then 

you see the threat that they’re going to be driven out of business 

because of an anticompetitive practice, it really puts the fire in 

your belly. I mean, I’m so determined to help, and I think we’ll get 

strong bipartisan support. 

I thank you so much for holding this hearing. It’s much appreciated. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Wellstone follows:]

5

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL WELLSTONE, U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee thank you for holding this hearing 

on the Motor Vehicle Right to Repair Act and for allowing me testify. I will be brief, 

because the real experts are in the second panel, but I do want to make some short 

remarks about how I came to this issue and why I think it is an important issue 

to be addressed by this Subcommittee and the Senate. 

Before I do that, I want to say a few words of introduction for one of the experts 

on the Second Panel, Dale Feste, President and owner of Dale Feste Automotive, 

a full service independent mechanical repair facility in Hopkins, MN. Dale founded 

his automotive repair business in 1980 and his business now services over 4200 vehicles per year. His shop is AAA approved and was awarded ‘‘Top Shop’’ awards in 

2000 and 2001. In addition he is a past President of the Alliance of Automotive 

Service Providers of Minnesota. Thank you, Dale, for agreeing to testify. 

In April of this year I met with a group of auto repair shop owners from Minnesota who told me that some auto manufacturers are effectively preventing them 

from working on newer cars. They explained that the 1990 Clean Air Act mandated 

that vehicle manufacturers install computer systems to monitor emissions in 1996 

model year cars and beyond. Today, many vehicle systems are integrated into the 

car’s computer system, making auto repair an increasingly ‘‘high tech’’ business and 

making access to the computer and the information it contains vital to the ability 

to perform repairs. 

The problem is that independent repair shops are increasingly unable to access 

the codes and diagnostic tools necessary to repair newer model cars. The effect is 

to reduce consumer choice for auto repair services, and to endanger the livelihood 

of thousands of small, family owned repair shops across the country. 

I know that this Committee will agree that the last thing America needs is another industry where all the little guys, the small, independent businesses, are driven out. It is terrible for our communities who lose businesses and jobs, and reduced 

competition means higher prices for consumers. 

On June 13th I introduced S. 2617, the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair 

Act of 2002 to address this problem. This legislation would protect the viability of 

independent service station and repair shops and ensure that consumers will continue to have a choice of automotive service providers. 

Specifically, the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act would simply require 

a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold in the United States to disclose to the vehicle 

owner, a repair facility, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the information 

necessary to diagnose, service, or repair the vehicle. The bill bars the FTC from requiring disclosure of any information entitled to protection as a manufacturer’s 

trade secret. 

Mr. Chairman, fundamentally this legislation is about a level playing field. Independent automotive repair shop owners have not come to Congress looking for a 

hand-out. They simply want to be able to compete for the driving public’s repair dollar on the basis of quality, service and price. Independent mechanics don’t mind 

competition, but they can’t stay in business if they don’t have access to the information to repair newer cars. And if the kind of anti-competitive practices that you will 

hear testimony on today continue to occur, we’re simply going to see these independent shops fail. 

If this isn’t fixed, the result of the loss of a competitive free market for auto repair 

will be higher prices, poorer customer service, and lower quality, which all mean 

less-safe cars and trucks on America’s roads. This legislation is also an example of 

what is good for small business is good for the consumer. 

I’ll end my testimony on this note: I would guess that for as long as there have 

been automobiles there have been independent mechanics to fix them. And I think 

both sides would agree they’ve worked pretty well together. I don’t think anybody 

wins if this problem isn’t fixed. I don’t think it will be good for the automobile industry if we lose all of our independent repair shops. I know it won’t be good for 

consumers or our communities. 

Mr. Chairman, I think my bill is a good way out of this mess. But I’m really here 

to ask for results—an end to this anti-competitive behavior. I am open to any solution that gets us there, and this hearing is a good first step in that direction.

Senator DORGAN. Senator Wellstone, thank you very much. 

Let me just ask a brief question, and then I would like to ask 

the other witnesses to come forward. We will hear testimony from 

Greg Dana, Vice President of Environmental Affairs, who represents the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. On page five of 

6

his testimony, he essentially says, ‘‘Look, there’s no problem here.’’

He’s essentially saying that if independent mechanics are not able 

to make the repairs, it’s not because they don’t have the information; it’s because they don’t know how to make the repairs. 

I mean, that’s essentially what the Alliance is saying, with respect to the coordination they have had with the repair shops, the 

pilot projects, the programs and so on. 

On the other hand, I, as a consumer, have driven around for 

some time with a car that says, ‘‘Check your engine,’’ so I went to 

an independent repair shop, and they fixed whatever was wrong, 

but they couldn’t get the little light off. And I said, ‘‘Well, why does 

it still say, ‘Check your engine?’ ’’ They said, ‘‘Well, we don’t have 

the capability of getting that light off for you.’’ So I drove for a long 

time with a ‘‘Check your engine’’ light. Is that part of what you’re 

talking about? 

Senator WELLSTONE. It is. And, you know, Mr. Chairman, I’ll tell 

you something. This second panel, they’re going to speak so loudly 

and clearly to this point that was made. I must say that if you’re 

in any coffee shop in North Dakota or Minnesota, and you ask people about, ‘‘Well, do you think these independent mechanics are—

do you think they do a good job, or do you think you really ought 

to be going to the dealerships all the time because they do much 

better work?’’ It’s not even a close call what you’re going to hear. 

And this basically—this is kind of like a little bit outrageous—

I’m not going to be shrill—that is to say you don’t give people access to the codes, you make sure that they’re not able to do some 

of the diagnosis and the work, and then you turn around and say, 

‘‘The problem is that they don’t have the ability to do mechanical 

work.’’ I think that’s an insulting claim to make, and I think we’re 

going to have people on the second panel that will speak to it directly. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, Senator Wellstone, thank you for your 

legislation and your leadership. 

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. I do not know what your time situation is, but 

if you have time, I would, by consent, invite you to join me at the 

podium. You’re not a Member of this Committee, but we would invite you, as a courtesy, to join me. And thank you for your testimony. 

Let me call to the witness table, Mr. Bill Haas, Vice President 

of Automobile Service Association; Mr. John Cabaniss, Jr., Association of International Auto Manufacturers; Mr. Dale Feste, who 

owns Dale Feste Automotive in Hopkins, Minnesota; Ms. Josephine 

Cooper, President of the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers; 

Mr. John Nielsen, Director of Automotive Services and Repair 

Shops for AAA; and Mr. John Vallely, President of McLean Marathon Service representing NAPA. 

I want to thank all of you for being with us today. And, as you 

note from my opening statement and from the statement of Senator 

Wellstone, we have a dispute about what the facts are here. My 

hope is that we can, through the process of this hearing, understand what factors we should base our decision on whether federal 

legislation is warranted to address an unfairness. 

7

Why don’t we begin the same way that I introduced the panel? 

Mr. Bill Haas, Vice President of the Automotive Service Association. Mr. Haas? 

And I would say to all of you, your entire statement will be made 

a part of the permanent record. You may summarize. Why don’t 

you proceed, Mr. Haas? 

STATEMENT OF BILL HAAS, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNICAL DIVISION, EDUCATION AND TRAINING, AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HAAS. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Bill Haas, and I appreciate the opportunity 

to discuss S. 2617, the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act, 

introduced by U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone. The legislation is the 

companion bill to H.R. 2735 introduced by U.S. Representatives Joe 

Barton of Texas and Edolphus Towns of New York. 

I serve as the Vice President of Technical Divisions, Education 

and Training for the Automotive Service Association. The ASA is 

the largest not-for-profit trade association of its kind, internationally serving more than 13,000 member businesses, representing 

over 65,000 professionals from all segments of the automotive service industry. 

I have an extensive background in automotive repair. I completed a two-year automotive mechanics cooperative education program while in high school. And since that time, I’ve been involved 

in the industry in various capacities. I’ve been an automotive technician, repair shop manager, parts counterman, shop owner, and 

automotive instructor. 

I’ve been ASE certified since 1976. ASE, the National Institute 

of Automotive Service Excellence, is the automotive industry’s testing and certification organization. They are supported by the automobile manufacturers, new car dealers, and the independent 

aftermarket. They test certifications for our members and new car 

dealers. 

Mr. Chairman, the independent aftermarket is in trouble. Since 

the beginning of the automobile, independent repairers have been 

at the front lines of automotive repair. The American motoring 

public clearly chooses the independent repairer 70 percent of the 

time after a vehicle is no longer under warranty. Our repairers 

build relationships with consumers and are a more economically 

viable alternative than the new car dealer in most cases. 

Prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, repairers were able 

to obtain service information, tools, and training sufficient to compete with the new car dealer. The Clean Air Act’s emissions requirements compelled the vehicle manufacturers to install much 

more sophisticated equipment on 1996 and newer vehicles. During 

the debate of the Clean Air Act amendments, Congress saw fit to 

provide language protecting the independent repairer. 

In addition, we believed that the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency would enforce the law as passed by Congress. This was affirmed in the 1995 EPA Service Information Regulation. The regulation assured independent repairers the same emissions service 

information as the new car dealers. It also discussed at length that 

8

the vehicle manufacturer should provide this information at a reasonable cost—not free, but at a reasonable cost. We have always 

paid for service information and believe that we should pay for it 

in the future but, I stress again, at a reasonable cost. 

How serious is our problem? There are approximately 209 million 

cars and light duty vehicles in the U.S. We estimate that there are 

178,000 independent repairers in the U.S. The aftermarket’s most 

recent analysis included 1,076,250,000 repair orders or incidents of 

service annually. This is the number of service opportunities when 

the consumer drives a vehicle to our business. This represented a 

total sales of $123 billion. 

ASA recently surveyed our national leaders from across the country and determined that today 15 percent of all incidents of service 

are rejected due to a lack of information. This amounts to 

161,437,500 rejected incidents of repair annually. The loss to our 

industry is $18,242,437,500. 

Independent repairers will see numbers of rejected repairs increase exponentially over the next few years. As 1996 and newer 

vehicles move into our shops, customers will have little patience 

with our sending them to the new car dealers. We lose our customers and eventually our businesses. There are two types of information independent repairers require to stay competitive: emissions information and non-emissions information. The dissemination of emissions information is required by law. This law has not 

been enforced. The EPA has contended that the 1995 regulation 

was insufficient to force the vehicle manufacturers to give us the 

emissions information required in the Clean Air Act amendments. 

EPA has proposed a new emissions service information regulation 

in 2001, but it has not been finalized. Clearly, emissions information has not been provided as required by the 1995 regulation, and 

yet it has not been enforced. 

There are many cases where independent repairers can purchase 

the same software as the new car dealer, but the independent’s 

software has specific repair items left blank when the tool attempts 

to read the vehicles’ computers. The new car dealer’s software contains these items. Some of these blank items are related to safety. 

Honda Motor Company currently restricts the release of pertinent 

service information related to safety. Franchised Honda dealers 

purchase a scan tool, which is manufactured for Honda by 

Vetronix. Honda prevents Vetronix from including information necessary to diagnosis anti-lock brake systems in the same tool when 

the tool is purchased by anyone other than the franchise dealer. 

With regard to reasonable cost, the law’s intent was to keep the 

independent repairer competitive. This part of the 1995 EPA regulation, reasonable cost, was exhausted in its discussion. Yet some 

manufacturers are using it as a mechanism to block service information distribution. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, emissions and non-emissions service 

information are being denied to the independent repairer at an increasing rate. Senator Wellstone’s legislation assures the 

aftermarket that both non-emissions and emissions service information will be provided to the independent repairer. This protects 

consumer choice and the continued safe operation of the consumer’s 

vehicle. 

9

The independent repairers’ technicians have the same certification process as those of the new car dealer. We have been trusted 

with over 70 percent of America’s vehicles for many years. We want 

to continue to be a competitive part of the U.S. economy. Senator 

Wellstone’s legislation assures us of that role. 

We are not an industry that comes regularly before the Congress 

or your Committee. We hope you will give serious consideration to 

Senator Wellstone’s legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I also have a letter from the Tire Industry Association that I would like to have included or submitted along with 

my testimony this afternoon. 

Mr. HAAS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haas, as well as a letter from 

the Tire Industry Association, follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL HAAS, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNICAL DIVISION, 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING, AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE ASSOCIATION

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Bill Haas and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Senate Bill 2617, the Motor 

Vehicle Owner’s Right to Repair Act, introduced by U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone. 

This legislation is the companion bill to H.R. 2735 introduced by U.S. Representatives Joe Barton of Texas and Edolphus Towns of New York. 

I serve as Vice President of Divisions, Education and Training for the Automotive 

Service Association. The ASA is the largest not-for-profit trade association of its 

kind, internationally serving more than 13,000 member businesses, representing 

over 65,000 professionals from all segments of the automotive service industry. We 

also have the largest collision trade show in the world attended by approximately 

40,000 professionals each year. 

I have an extensive background in automotive repair. I completed a two-year 

automotive mechanics cooperative education program while in high school. Since 

that time, I’ve been involved in this industry in various capacities. I have been an 

automotive technician, repair shop manager, parts counterman, shop owner and 

automotive instructor. I have also completed my Accredited Automotive Manager 

(AAM) designation from the Automotive Management Institute (AMI) and have been 

ASE certified since 1976. ASE, Automotive Service Excellence, is the automotive industry’s testing and certification organization. They are based in Herndon, Virginia 

and are supported by automotive manufacturers, new car dealers and the independent aftermarket. They test technicians for our members and new car dealers. 

I have served as Chairman of the Automotive Technology Advisory Committee at 

Fox Valley Technical College in Wisconsin, Chairman of the Fox Cities Alliance for 

Education Automotive Technology Youth Apprenticeship Program and participated 

in ASE test-writing workshops for manual transmissions and drive axles. 

The independent aftermarket is in trouble. Since the beginning of the automobile, 

independent repairers have been at the front lines of automotive repair. The American motoring public clearly chooses the independent repairer 70% of the time after 

a vehicle is no longer under warranty. Our repairers build relationships with consumers and are a more economically viable alternative than the new car dealer in 

most cases. 

Prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments repairers were able to obtain service 

information, tools and training sufficient to compete with the new car dealer. The 

Clean Air Act’s emissions requirements compelled the vehicle manufacturers to install much more sophisticated equipment on 1996 and newer vehicles. During the 

debate of the Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress saw fit to provide language protecting the independent repairer. At the time, the aftermarket did not foresee vehicle manufacturers tying many non-emissions functions of the vehicles into these new 

high technology computers. 

In addition, we believed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would enforce the law as passed by the Congress. This was affirmed in the 1995 EPA service 

information regulation. The regulation assured independent repairers the same 

emissions service information as the new car dealers. It also discussed at length 

that the vehicle manufacturers should provide this information at a reasonable cost, 

not free but at a reasonable cost. We have always paid for service information and 

believe that we should pay for it in the future but, I stress at a reasonable cost. 

10

How serious is our problem? There are approximately 209 million light duty 

trucks and cars in the United States. We estimate there are 178,000 independent 

repairers in the U.S. The aftermarket’s most recent analysis included 1,076,250,000 

repair orders or incidents of service. This is the number of service opportunities 

when the consumer drives a vehicle to our business. This represented total sales of 

$123 billion. 

ASA surveyed our national leaders from across the country and determined that 

today 15% of all incidents of service are rejected due to a lack of information. This 

amounts to 161,437,500 rejected incidents of repair annually. The loss to our industry is $18,242,437,500. This means significant technician job losses and local economic impact. 

Independent repairers will see numbers of rejected repairs increase exponentially 

over the next few years. As 1996 and newer vehicles move into our shops, customers 

will have little patience with our sending them to the new car dealers. We lose our 

customers and eventually our businesses. 

There are two types of information independent repairers require to stay competitive; emissions information and non-emissions information. The dissemination of 

emissions information is required by law. This law has not been enforced. EPA has 

contended that the 1995 regulation was insufficient to force the vehicle manufacturers to give us the emissions information required in the Clean Air Act Amendments. 

EPA proposed a new emissions service information regulation in 2001 but it has not 

been finalized. Clearly emissions information has not been provided as required by 

the 1995 regulation and yet it has not been enforced. Enforcing the emissions service information regulation is certainly a positive step for improving the plight of the 

independent repairer. 

Our information dilemma is two-fold: 1) Information is not being provided by the 

vehicle manufacturers; 2) the information is priced to place the aftermarket at a significant competitive disadvantage. 

There are many cases where independent repairers can purchase the same software as the new car dealer but the independent’s software has specific repair items 

left blank when the tool attempts to read the vehicle’s computer. The new car deal- er’s software contains these items. Some of these blank items are related to safety. 

Honda Motor Company currently restricts the release of pertinent service information related to safety. Franchised Honda dealers purchase a scan tool which is manufactured for Honda by Vetronix. Honda prevents Vetronix from including information necessary to diagnose anti-lock brake systems in the same tool when the tool 

is purchased by anyone other than the franchised Honda dealer. 

ASA’s collision repairers have also had a vested interest in this debate. Air bags 

have become a major cost item for a collision repair. As these systems are increasingly tied into the vehicle’s computers, more and more vehicles will have to be forwarded to the new car dealer after a collision repair is completed. This will cause 

more delays for the consumer and increased insurance costs through rental car 

usage, etc. Independent repairers have faithfully made collision repairs in the past 

and are competent to make them in the future in a safe, timely manner if they are 

provided sufficient service information. 

There are cases where we can’t purchase a specific tool. Chrysler, until recently, 

blocked the aftermarket from purchasing its DRB III tool. Since this legislation was 

introduced, the tool has been made available to us. 

With regard to reasonable cost, the law’s intent was to keep the independent repairer competitive. This part of the 1995 EPA regulation, reasonable cost, was exhausted in its discussion. Yet some manufacturers are using this as a mechanism 

to block service information distribution. Volvo will provide information to the 

aftermarket but at a cost of approximately $20,000. This does not include vehicle 

updates. When we raised this issue with the EPA, they informed us that this violated the spirit of reasonable cost and the intent of the law. But without enforcement, the law is meaningless. 

In closing Mr. Chairman, emissions and non-emissions service information are 

being denied the independent repairer at an increasing rate. EPA has not enforced 

the will of Congress as stated in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. We need 

this law enforced. Senator Wellstone’s legislation assures the aftermarket that both 

non-emissions and emissions service information will be provided the independent 

repairer. This protects consumer choice and the continued safe operation of the consumer’s vehicle. 

The independent repairer’s technicians have the same certification process as 

those of the new car dealer. Many of our employees have worked in new car dealerships. We have been trusted with over 70% of America’s vehicles for many years. 

We want to continue to be a competitive part of the U.S. economy. Senator Wellstone’s legislation assures us this role. 

11

We are not an industry that comes regularly before the U.S. Congress or your 

Committee. We have an open dialogue with the vehicle manufacturers through an 

industry group, the National Automotive Service Task Force. This task force has 

been very helpful but can not alone resolve the volume of rejected repairs due to 

the lack of service information. 

The majority of automobile manufacturers have sent letters in support of providing emissions and non-emissions information. This is certainly a step in the right 

direction but our problems still persist. We hope you will give serious consideration 

to Senator Wellstone’s legislation. 

TIRE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, 

July 26, 2002. 

BOB REDDING, 

Washington, DC Representative, 

Automotive Service Association, 

Washington, DC.

Dear Bob:

On behalf of the 4,000-plus members of the Tire Industry Association (TIA) I 

would like to express to ASA our full support of the Motor Vehicle Owners Right 

to Repair Act (H.R. 2735/S. 2617). This legislation is crucial to the thousands of 

independent tire dealers who perform tire and automotive services. 

TIA was formed July 1 of this year when the Tire Association of North America 

and the International Tire & Rubber Association merged into a single entity. Our 

membership is comprised of tire dealers, wholesalers and distributors, manufacturers and retreaders, businesses that sell, service and recycle tire and rubber products, as well as companies that provide equipment and services for the tire industry. 

The Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act would require original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) provide service information to independent auto repair facilities. This bill could not be more important to the tire industry at this time. 

The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation 

(TREAD) Act passed as a result of the Ford/Firestone crisis in 2000 includes a mandate that all new passenger vehicles (after 2005) be equipped with Tire Pressure 

Monitoring Systems (TPMSs). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) issued the final TPMS rule on July 5, 2002. One of TIA’s largest concerns 

with the published final rule is that the government is ignoring the need of independent tire dealers and automotive service providers to be given the OEM information necessary to install, service, maintain, recalibrate and fix these TPMSs. 

TIA will work closely with ASA in the effort to pass the Right to Repair Act, a 

bill that is critical to our members. 

Sincerely, 

BECKY MACDICKEN, 

Director of Government Affairs, 

Tire Industry Association.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Haas, on page five, you indicated the loss 

to your industry is $18,242,437,500. In Congress, we round that 

off——

[Laughter.] 

Senator DORGAN.—$18.2 billion. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HAAS. I think that proves my point that we don’t come before 

you regularly, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DORGAN. You’ve got an accountant, that gets down to the 

$500 in $18 billion. But anyway, I appreciate your testimony, Mr. 

Haas. 

Mr. HAAS. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Next, let’s hear from Mr. John Cabaniss, Jr., 

Association of International Auto Manufacturers. Mr. Cabaniss, 

why don’t you proceed? 

12

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. CABANISS, JR., DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL 

AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. CABANISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today before this Subcommittee regarding vehicle service information. 

My name is John Cabaniss. I am the Director for the Environment and Energy at the Association of International Automobile 

Manufacturers. And for the past two years, I’ve had the privilege 

of serving as the chairman of the National Automotive Service 

Task Force, a cooperative project involving the auto industry, the 

auto service industry, and the equipment and tool industry. 

Automakers consider the auto service industry our partner in 

providing vehicle service and repairs to the driving public. Auto 

manufacturers do not intentionally withhold service information 

from the service industry. To do so would be contrary to their best 

interests. Automakers want their customers to have a positive driving experience, including the ability to obtain effective service no 

matter where they take their vehicles. Automakers have every incentive to make sure that the industry has the information, training, and tools to maintain and repair vehicles. Historically, 70 to 

80 percent of the vehicle service information repairs are performed 

in non-dealer shops, and this level has been constant for many 

years. We do not expect it to change. 

During the past decade, the auto industry has had to address the 

challenge of managing the growing volume of information needed 

to maintain and repair modern vehicles. For the most part, however, questions involve where and how to access the information 

rather than its actual availability. 

Recognizing the need for a national forum for dialog on service 

issues, in November 2000 the auto industry and the service industry established the National Automotive Service Task Force. Its 

mission is to facilitate the identification and corrections of gaps and 

the availability and accessibility of service information, training, 

diagnostic tools and equipment, and communications to automotive 

service professionals. 

At the outset, the Task Force recognized three basic realities. 

First, despite the best efforts of everyone involved, some gaps in 

service information, training, and tools are inevitable. Second, the 

rapid pace of change in vehicle technology, which will clearly continue, exacerbates this problem. And, third, a continuing forum for 

open communication and cooperation is the best way to address 

issues. 

The Task Force has made significant and sustained progress. 

The first issue addressed was accessibility. In May 2001, an Internet site was opened on the International Automotive Technicians 

Network Web site to provide a ready reference for all technicians 

to obtain service information and tools from auto manufacturers. A 

special feature of this site is the inclusion of a complaint form for 

a technician’s use if information cannot be located. This reference 

Web site is widely publicized and is updated several times each 

year. The latest update was posted on July 1st of this year. 

In October 2001, another major step forward occurred when 20 

auto manufacturers announced a ‘‘Letter of Intent’’ to demonstrate 

13

1 AIAM members include American Honda Motor Co., American Suzuki Motor Corp., Aston 

Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, Isuzu Motors America, Inc., 

Kia Motors America, Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Nissan North America, Peugeot Motors 

of America, Saab Cars USA, Societe Anonyme Des Usines Renault, Subaru of America, and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. AIAM also represents original equipment suppliers and other automotive-related trade associations. AIAM members have invested over $20 billion in new production and distribution capacity in the U.S., creating tens of thousands of high-skill, high-wage 

jobs across the country in manufacturing, supplier industries, ports, distribution centers, headquarters, R&D centers, and automobile dealerships. 

their commitment to the Task Force cooperative process. This commitment, which formalizes what many automakers are already 

doing, is that by early 2003, manufacturers intend to make available to independent technicians the same diagnostic tools, service 

information, and training materials that they currently make available to their franchise dealers for all 1996 and newer cars and 

trucks. All manufacturers are moving ahead on this basis, and 

most are covering additional model years on their Web sites and 

including directories for information for earlier years. 

The success of the Task Force is due to the participation of a 

wide range of parties. Currently, there are 63 organizations in the 

Task Force, including the Automotive Service Association, the 

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, the Service Technicians Society, the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers, and the 

Equipment and Tool Institute, to name just a few. Participation 

continues to grow. Just in the past week, we’ve added a few new 

members, including CARQUEST and a number of other notables. 

There are a—these are just a few examples of the progress being 

made in the Task Force. 

In conclusion, the auto industry is committed to the National 

Automotive Service Task Force. We believe this Task Force is the 

proper venue for continuing to address service issues. And it is 

making significant and sustained progress. Therefore, we believe 

that legislation in this area is not needed. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabaniss follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN M. CABANISS, JR., DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT AND

ENERGY, ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee regarding vehicle service information related issues. My name is John Cabaniss. I am the Director 

for Environment & Energy at the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.1 For the past two years, I have had the privilege of serving as the chairman 

of the National Automotive Service Task Force, a cooperative project involving the 

auto industry, the automotive service industry, and the equipment and tool industry. 

In my presentation today, I will briefly describe who is involved in the National 

Automotive Service Task Force project, what activities are under way, and the 

progress that has been made and that is continuing. After hearing this update, I 

hope you will agree that the Task Force is the proper venue for addressing service 

issues, and that legislation in this area is not needed. 

To begin, I would point out that motor vehicle manufacturers consider the automotive service industry our partner in providing vehicle service and repairs to our 

mutual customers, the driving public. Moreover, auto manufacturers do not intentionally withhold service information from the auto service industry. To do so would 

be contrary to their best interests. Automakers want their customers to have a positive driving experience, including the ability to obtain effective service no matter 

where or when their vehicles need maintenance. Automakers have every incentive 

to make sure that the auto service industry has the information, training, and tools 

to maintain and repair vehicles. Historically, 70–80 percent of vehicle service and 

14

repairs are performed in non-dealer shops. This level has been constant for many 

years and is not expected to change. 

During the past decade, the auto industry has had to address the challenge of 

managing the growing volume of information needed to maintain and repair modern 

vehicles. This necessitated changes in communications channels and techniques. As 

these changes have been made, some service providers have experienced difficulty 

in obtaining the necessary information. For the most part, however, these difficulties have involved questions about where and how to access the information rather 

than its actual availability. 

The NASTF Project 

The origin of the National Automotive Service Task Force dates back to 1999 

when the Arizona legislature was considering a vehicle service information bill. During 1999 and 2000, the auto industry and the Arizona auto service industry worked 

together to investigate allegations of manufacturers’ withholding information. It 

soon became apparent that the real issue for shops and technicians was accessibility, that is, knowing where to get the information and tools they need. It was also 

clear that a continuing forum for dialogue between parties on these issues was needed at the national level. Therefore, in November 2000 the National Automotive 

Service Task Force was established jointly by the auto industry and the auto service 

industry. The mission of the Task Force is to facilitate the identification and correction of gaps in the availability and accessibility of automotive service information, 

training, diagnostic tools and equipment, and communications to automotive service 

professionals. 

At the outset, the Task Force recognized three basic realities. First, that despite 

the best efforts of everyone involved, some gaps in service information, training, and 

tools are inevitable. Second, that the rapid pace of changes in vehicle technology, 

which will clearly continue, exacerbates this problem. And, third, that a continuing 

forum for open communication and cooperation is the best way to address issues. 

The Task Force has made significant and sustained progress. The first issue the 

Task Force addressed was the issue of accessibility. In May 2001 an Internet site 

was opened on the International Automotive Technicians Network website to provide a ready reference for all service technicians requiring service information and 

tools from auto manufacturers. A special feature of this site is the inclusion of a 

complaint form for a technician to use if he/she cannot locate the information being 

sought. This reference information is updated several times each year. The latest 

update was posted on July 1, 2002. This reference is broadly publicized by Task 

Force participants. 

At the Task Force semi-annual meeting in October 2001, another major step forward occurred when twenty auto manufacturers announced that they had signed a 

‘‘Letter of Intent’’ to demonstrate their commitment to the Task Force cooperative 

process. This commitment, which formalizes what many automakers are already 

doing, is that:

By January, 2003, the manufacturers intend to make available to independent 

technicians the same diagnostic and repair capabilities by making available diagnostic tools (and tool information), service information, and training materials 

that they currently make available to their franchised dealers for all 1996 and 

newer cars and light trucks.

All manufacturers are moving ahead on this basis, and most are covering additional model years on their websites and including directories for information for 

earlier years.

The success of the Task Force over the past two years is due to the participation 

of a wide range of parties. We are fortunate to have a ‘‘Who’s Who’’ of auto service 

organizations participating, including the Automotive Service Association, the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, The Automotive Service Councils of California, the Service Technicians Society, the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers, the International Automotive Service Technicians Network, and the Equipment & Tool Institute, to name just a few. Altogether we have 78 individuals representing 63 organizations participating in the Task Force, and participation is 

growing. The complete list of participants and other information is available at the 

Task Force website (www.nastf.org). 

These are just a few examples of the progress that is being made in the Task 

Force. In addition to the Service Information Committee, the Task Force has a 

Training Committee, an Equipment and Tool Committee, and a Communications 

Committee. The Training Committee is focused on ensuring that all technicians 

have access to factory equivalent training. The Equipment and Tool Committee is 

focused on improving the availability of generic tools for both dealer and non-dealer 

15

shops. Finally, the Communications Committee is focused on getting information out 

to shops and technicians about the Task Force project, how to obtain the tools and 

service information they need, the progress the Task Force is making, how to get 

involved and provide input, and how they can otherwise help with the project. 

In conclusion, the auto industry is committed to the National Automotive Service 

Task Force. We believe that this Task Force is the proper venue for continuing to 

address service related issues, and it is making significant and sustained progress 

in improving the availability and accessibility of information, training, and tools to 

automotive service professionals. Therefore, we believe that legislation in this area 

is unnecessary. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Cabaniss, thank you very much. 

Next, we will hear from Dale Feste, Dale Feste Automotive, Hopkins, Minnesota. Mr. Feste, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DALE FESTE, DALE FESTE AUTOMOTIVE, 

HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 

Mr. FESTE. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I’ve 

looked forward for the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Dale Feste, and I am the Owner and President of 

Dale Feste Automotive in Hopkins, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis. I run a full-service mechanical independent repair facility. 

I founded my business in 1980. And at this point in time, I serve 

approximately 4,200 vehicles per year. Like Senator Wellstone referenced, I am a member of the Automotive Service Association, and 

I also serve on the executive board of the Automotive Management 

Institute. 

Automotive technology today is being used to successfully ‘‘lock 

out’’ motor vehicle owners from being able to repair their own vehicles. We are gradually losing the vehicle owners’ right to select 

where they have their vehicles repaired. The independent automotive aftermarket repairs over 70 percent of all the nation’s vehicles. When a vehicle’s warranty period is over, independent repairers get the majority of these vehicles. 

The Clean Air Act of 1990 required manufacturers to develop 

new technologies and computers in an effort to lower vehicle emissions. During that bill’s consideration, we believed we were protected by the following legislative language referencing emissions 

service information in the Clean Air Act amendments. And they 

read, ‘‘No such information may be withheld if that information is 

provided (directly or indirectly) by the manufacturer to franchise 

dealers.’’

EPA continued with a final regulation on August 9th of 1995 assuring independent repairers the same emissions service information as new car dealers at a ‘‘reasonable cost.’’ This has not occurred. We still have emissions information not available to the 

independent, and reasonable cost with regard to several manufacturers is not a consideration. 

If you buy a Volvo Vira tool—that’s the tool made available to 

the independent repairer—it will not allow us to make a complete 

emissions analysis of the vehicle. The Volvo dealer has the Vadis 

tool. The Vadis tool allows the dealer to make a complete analysis 

of the vehicle. This particular example should not require a new 

law. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and subsequent regulations should protect us and our customers from this scenario. 

16

We thought the legislative language in the 1995 regulation would 

suffice in protecting our industry. They have not. There are 

178,000 independent repairers nationwide. We are the small business persons in communities across the nation. Very clearly, without service information, we will ultimately be forced to close our 

doors. As the 1996 and newer vehicles come out of warranty, they 

roll into our facilities. If we cannot repair them, we have to send 

them back to the new car dealer. This is 70 percent of America’s 

fleet not under warranty. 

Unfortunately, this lack of information is not limited only to 

emissions. Many of the non-emission systems are now being tied 

into these vehicle computers. Some of these are safety items and 

are critical in the repair of our customers’ vehicles. 

Let me give you an example. In April of this year, a long-term 

customer of mine brought her 1996 Dodge Grand Caravan with an 

air bag dash light on. We were unable to access any trouble codes 

to diagnosis the system, and we had to send our customer to the 

new car dealer, explaining to her that the dealer was the only place 

that could access trouble codes for the air bag system. 

The air bag, along with other systems in the vehicle, should not 

be compromised in any way. Repair information should be open 

and available for all repairers to protect the consumer. Although 

the tool has been finally made available to the independent repairer by the manufacturer, the software does not include safety 

items. 

My friends in the collision repair industry face the air bag situation many times each week. It is now one of the more expensive 

systems in the vehicle to repair in a collision repair. The collision 

repair facilities will, in an increasing number of cases, have to 

delay their repair by sending what should be a fully repaired vehicle to the new car dealer to have the air bag system finished. This 

will not only cause a significant delay to the customer, but also an 

additional rental car cost for the consumer and for the insurer. 

These are just a few examples of what we face as independent 

repairers. I would like to make this perfectly clear. We don’t desire 

to steal sensitive information to manufacture parts of manufacture 

vehicles. Congress reviewed this issue at length during the 1990 

Clean Air debate and determined that we were an industry worth 

trusting and saving. That’s why the law mandated that we receive 

the same information as the new car dealer. 

Senator Wellstone’s bill, S. 2617, assures the repairer emissions 

and non-emissions information. It makes sure that we have the information to repair and maintain those vehicles in an effort for 

cleaner air. Senator Wellstone’s legislation promises the vehicle 

owner that the safety systems in that vehicle have been repaired 

with the utmost care and accuracy and timely information available in the marketplace. 

Independent repairers strongly support S. 2617. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feste follows:]

17

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE FESTE, DALE FESTE AUTOMOTIVE,

HOPKINS, MINNESOTA

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dale 

Feste. I am President and Owner of Dale Feste Automotive, a full-service independent mechanical repair facility in Hopkins, Minnesota. I am a graduate of the 

University of Wisconsin with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Industrial Education. 

I served as a vocational automotive instructor from 1970–1980 and founded my 

automotive repair business in 1980, servicing over 4200 vehicles per year. My facility was awarded the top shop award by AAA in 2000 and 2001. I am a member 

of the Automotive Service Association and serve on the Executive Board of the Automotive Management Institute, which provides business management education for 

the automotive service industry. 

Automotive technology is being used today to successfully ‘‘lock out’’ motor vehicle 

owners from being able to repair and maintain their vehicles. We are gradually losing the vehicle owner’s right to select where they have their vehicles repaired. The 

independent automotive aftermarket repairs over seventy percent of all vehicles. 

When a vehicle’s warranty period is over, independent repairers get the majority of 

these vehicles. Our labor rates are less, we have lower overhead and we want that 

customer to come back in our facility to have their vehicle repaired. We have one 

interest, automotive repair. We don’t sell cars! 

Prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, there were some import manufacturers that were difficult as far as providing some limited information but generally 

the aftermarket could resolve these information issues. The Clean Air Act Amendments required manufacturers to develop these new technologies and computers in 

an effort to lower vehicle emissions. During the Clean Air Act Amendments’ consideration, we believed we were protected by the following legislative language referencing emissions service information: no such information may be withheld 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. 

EPA continued with a final regulation on August 9, 1995 assuring repairers the 

same emissions service information as new car dealers at a ‘‘reasonable cost’’. This 

has not occurred. At this point in time we do not have all emissions information 

available to the independent for a reasonable cost, and for some manufacturers this 

is not a consideration. 

If you buy a Volvo Vira tool, the tool made available to the independent repairer, 

it will not allow us to make a complete emissions analysis of the vehicle. The Volvo 

dealer has the Vadis tool. The Vadis tool allows the dealer to make a complete analysis of the vehicle. This particular example should not require a new law. The 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments and subsequent regulations should protect us and our 

customer from this scenario. 

We thought the legislative language and the 1995 regulation would suffice in protecting our industry. They have not. There are 178,000 independent repairers nationwide. We are small business persons in communities across the nation. Without 

service information, we will have to close our doors. As the 1996 and newer vehicles 

come out of warranty, they roll into our facilities. If we can not repair them, we 

have to send them to the new car dealer. This is seventy percent of America’s fleet 

not under warranty. 

Unfortunately, this lack of information is not limited to emissions. Many of the 

non-emissions systems are now being tied into these vehicle computers. Some of 

these are safety items and are critical in the repair of our customer’s vehicle. 

In April of this year, my customer brought in a 1996 Dodge Grand Caravan with 

the air bag illuminator light on. We were unable to access any trouble codes to diagnose the system. We had to send our customer to the new car dealer explaining that 

the dealer was the only place that could access trouble codes for the air bag system. 

The air bag along with other systems in the vehicle should not be compromised in 

any way. Repair information should be open and available for all repairers to protect the consumer. Although the tool has been finally made available to the independent repairer by the manufacturer, the software does not include safety items. 

My friends in the collision repair industry face the air bag situation many times 

each week. It is now one of the more expensive systems in the vehicle to replace 

in a collision repair. These collision facilities will in an increasing number of cases 

have to delay their repair by sending what should be a fully repaired vehicle to the 

new car dealer to have the air bag system finished. This will not only cause a significant delay for the customer but also additional rental car costs to the consumer 

and the insurer. 

18

These are just a few examples of what we face as independent repairers. We do 

not desire to steal sensitive information to manufacture parts or vehicles. Congress 

reviewed this issue at length during the 1990 Clean Air debate and determined that 

we were an industry worth trusting and saving. That’s why the law mandated that 

we receive the same information as the new car dealer. 

Senator Wellstone’s bill, Senate Bill 2617, assures the repairer emissions and nonemissions information. It makes sure that as state governments, under federal direction, test these vehicles in critical non-attainment air quality states that we have 

the information to repair and maintain those vehicles in an effort for cleaner air. 

Senator Wellstone’s legislation promises the vehicle owner that the safety systems 

in that vehicle have been repaired with the most accurate and timely information 

available in the marketplace. 

Independent repairers support Senate Bill 2617. 

Thank you.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Feste, thank you very much. 

There are three minutes remaining in the vote on the Senate 

floor, Senator Wellstone and I will go cast our vote. We will stand 

in recess for 10 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Senator DORGAN. We will reconvene the hearing. Next we will 

hear from Ms. Josephine Cooper. 

Mr. DANA. She’s my boss, and she’s not here, Senator. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Well, I didn’t see a Ms. Cooper there. 

Mr. DANA. I’m here in her place. 

Senator DORGAN. Okay. Mr. Greg Dana, Vice President, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Why don’t you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF GREG DANA, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. DANA. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee regarding access to information, tools, and 

parts for vehicle repairs. I’d like to give you some background on 

this issue, explain what we’re doing with the independent repair 

technicians to improve their situation, and discuss the legislation 

introduced by Senator Wellstone. 

There is a lot of reference to the Clean Air Act requirement for 

computers to monitor vehicle emissions. This computer is now commonly referred to as the onboard diagnostics, or OBD, system and 

has been required on all new vehicles since 1996. The OBD system 

monitors the engine, transmission, fuel, and emission-control systems to ensure they operate properly. If a problem occurs, the OBD 

system alerts the driver by lighting the ‘‘Check Engine’’ light. To 

assist the repair technician, the OBD system also stores a fault 

code along with other information about what conditions existed at 

the time the problem occurred. 

OBD systems are required by the Federal Clean Air Act, and 

they’re also required by EPA regulations and California Air Resources Board regulations to reduce vehicle emissions by detecting 

problems that could cause emissions to increase, assisting in the diagnosis and repair of the vehicle, and ensuring repairs are done 

properly. Combined with today’s sophisticated emission control systems, the OBD system ensures clean vehicles remain clean. 

EPA and CARB regulations require the auto industry to make 

emissions-related repair information available. In addition, the inVerDate Apr 24 2002 13:25 Apr 16, 2003 Jkt 084857 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\84857.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
19

dustry makes available virtually all of the other non-emission related repair information voluntarily to ensure that the non-dealer 

repair shops can properly repair all manner of problems. Historically, about 70 to 80 percent of vehicle service and repairs are performed in non-dealer shops. For this reason, it is absolutely critical 

to automakers that non-dealer repair shops have the knowledge 

and the ability to repair the vehicles they work on. 

When Senator Wellstone introduced his parts and service information bill, he said, and I’m quoting: ‘‘I am saying to the industry, 

if you want to sit down and negotiate an agreement with the mechanics that is fair to these independent mechanics, go ahead. 

Then we won’t have to pass this legislation.’’ I’m happy to report 

that we are sitting down with these independent mechanics, we are 

negotiating agreements, and we have been doing this for over two 

years now. 

We recognize that in the past there have been gaps in service information and tools, but automakers are working with independent 

technicians, first in Arizona, and now nationally, through the National Automotive Service Task Force, to fix these gaps. And John 

Cabaniss, who is the chair of NASTF, testified before me to explain 

what NASTF does. 

Most of the problems that non-dealer repair shops have with 

availability of service information is where to get that information. 

For this reason, the trade associations of the auto industry and the 

aftermarket service industry have been working closely together to 

attempt to fix this problem. 

Most of the activity is detailed on the NASTF Web site. On this 

Web site is a matrix of available service and tool information and 

information of whom to contact to get this information. The NASTF 

was established not just to ensure disclosure, but to, more importantly, improve access to the information and tools. 

Some have portrayed this legislation as the little guy versus the 

big guy. Automakers are concerned that the purported inability to 

repair vehicles is a smokescreen being used by the aftermarket 

parts industry to gain access to the automaker’s proprietary design 

and software information. The aftermarket parts makers have been 

trying to gain access to the intellectual capital of the auto industry 

for 12 years—at EPA, in the courts, in the Arizona legislature. At 

every turn, they were denied. We tried to work with them in California in legislation. After the bill, the California legislation ensured each car owner has the right to choose where and when and 

by whom their car is serviced and repaired. 

This bill has nothing to do with the little guys. It has everything 

to do with big parts companies boosting profits by seizing the proprietary design and software details from the automakers. Independent repair shops have the same access to service information 

and tools as the dealerships do for emission-related diagnosis. 

Where repair information is not mandated by law—such things as 

climate control, door controllers, airbags, et cetera—automakers already either provide or are working to provide the independent repair shops this information and tools needed for them to have the 

same capabilities as franchise dealers. 

Key members of the independent repair community, aftermarket 

trade association leaders, and automakers agree that the remainVerDate Apr 24 2002 13:25 Apr 16, 2003 Jkt 084857 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\84857.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
20

ing gaps and issues can be resolved cooperatively without the need 

for legislation. Moreover, they agree that the cooperative solutions 

will yield better results in less time. The automobile industry 

stands ready to continue to work with all independent technicians 

to resolve remaining differences. We believe we are headed in the 

right direction and look forward to keeping the Subcommittee updated on our progress. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dana follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREG DANA, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Mr. Chairman, 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee regarding access 

to information, tooling and parts for vehicle repairs. My name is Greg Dana and 

I represent the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), a trade association 

of 12 car and light-truck manufacturers. Our member companies include BMW 

Group, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Fiat, Ford Motor Company, General Motors 

Corporation, Isuzu Motors of America, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan North America, 

Porsche, Toyota Motor North America and Volkswagen of America. 

Alliance member companies have more than 600,000 employees in the U.S., with 

more than 250 manufacturing facilities in 35 states. Overall, a recent 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. 

Why are we here? Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate 

with the stated objective of promoting the consumer’s right to choose where their 

vehicles can be serviced. The proponents of this legislation assert that automakers 

use special codes and other practices to make it difficult for vehicle owners and 

independent repair facilities to diagnose problems and get information on how to repair the vehicles. These claims misrepresent the actual availability of repair information, tooling and parts. They also disguise the real reason for the legislation—

to permit access of aftermarket parts manufacturers to proprietary information of 

the automakers that is NOT needed to repair the vehicle, but which would reduce 

their R&D costs and allow them to alter vehicle performance characteristics. These 

are not appropriate reasons to undermine the intellectual property rights of the auto 

manufacturers. 

Today, consumers have the freedom to choose where their vehicles are serviced. 

Historically, about 70–80 percent of vehicle service and repairs are performed in 

non-dealer shops. The auto industry views these non-dealer shops as their partners 

in providing service to their mutual customers, the driving public. Automakers are 

required by law to provide to non-dealer shops all information to diagnose and repair engine, transmission, fuel, and emission control systems. 

Specifically, section 202(m)(5) of the 1990 Clean Air Act requires auto manufacturers to provide independent repair operations all information needed to make 

emission-related diagnosis and repairs. The section is as follows: ‘‘The Administrator, by regulation, shall require (subject to the provisions of section 208c regarding the protection of methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets) 

manufacturers to provide promptly to any person engaged in the repairing or servicing of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines, and the Administrator for use by 

any such persons, with any and all information needed to make use of the emission 

control diagnostics system prescribed under this subsection and such other information including instructions for making emission related diagnosis and repairs. No 

such information may be withheld under section 208c 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. Such information shall also be available to the Administrator, subject to 

section 208c, in carrying out the Administrator’s responsibilities under this section.’’

As you can see, independent shops clearly have the same repair capabilities as 

dealerships. 

In light of the fact that service information and parts are available today to fix 

almost all vehicles, the Alliance views S. 2617, introduced by Senator Wellstone, as 

unnecessary and unwarranted. Instead of federal legislation, the Alliance and our 

member companies stand ready to work today with affected parties to resolve any 

21

remaining differences or communication issues surrounding the repair of cars and 

light trucks. In fact, automakers are already working with independents to improve 

the flow of information and tools between automakers and independents. Before discussing this, we should clear up some misrepresentations that have surrounded this 

legislation. 

What is OBD? The on-board diagnostic (OBD) system is an emissions monitoring 

system required in all new vehicles since 1996. OBD monitors the engine, transmission, fuel, the emission control systems, and any other area that may impact vehicle emissions to ensure they operate properly. If a problem occurs, the OBD system alerts the driver by lighting the ‘‘Check Engine’’ light on the dashboard of a 

vehicle. To assist the repair technician, the OBD system stores ‘‘fault codes,’’ along 

with other information about what conditions existed at the time the problem occurred (whether the vehicle was warm or cold, the load on the engine, etc.). 

As mentioned earlier, OBD systems are required by the federal Clean Air Act. Additionally, there are pending regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to ensure that the vehicle 

emission system is operating properly by 1) detecting problems that could cause 

emissions to increase, 2) assisting in the diagnosis and repair of the vehicle, and 

3) ensuring repairs are done properly. Combined with today’s sophisticated emission 

control systems, the OBD system ensures that clean vehicles remain clean. 

The claim that automakers use ‘‘access codes’’ to lock out independent repair 

shops is demonstrably untrue. ‘‘Access code’’ as used almost invariably refers to ‘‘fault codes’’ which automakers have always made available to anyone despite what 

the proponents of this legislation claim. 

Since there’s been some confusion and misrepresentation of the codes associated 

with the OBD system, let me take a moment to describe this issue for the Committee. There are two types of ‘‘codes’’ you should be aware of:

Fault codes (sometimes called ‘‘diagnostic trouble codes’’) store information that 

identify problems and where they occurred (e.g., misfire in #2 cylinder). Additionally, information is stored that describes how the vehicle was operating when it occurred. These codes are available to anyone with a scan tool and a shop manual. 

Scan tools can be purchased from scan tool manufacturers, tool dealers, aftermarket 

auto parts stores, or directly from the automakers. Shop manuals can be purchased 

from independent service information providers or from automakers. In addition, 

service information (including shop manuals) will be readily available on the Internet by early 2003. 

Calibration code (‘‘software code,’’ or just ‘‘calibration’’) is another ‘‘code’’ nor- mally discussed in conjunction with OBD systems. This is computer software that 

controls the functions of the engine, transmission, and fuel system and ensures the 

vehicle is operating properly. The software is similar to the software code used for 

word processing on a personal computer which is proprietary and not available to 

the public. The OBD calibration code is proprietary and is NOT provided to anyone 

outside of the company—including franchised dealers. Just as with personal 

computers, an individual does not need the proprietary software code to repair vehicles. In fact, access to the calibration would allow individuals to TAMPER with the 

engine control system to change the performance characteristics of the vehicle—typically at the expense of higher emissions. For this reason, the government initially 

REQUIRED manufacturers to encrypt their calibration codes and only dropped the 

encryption requirement when they were confident that manufacturers would continue to do so.

So if the aftermarket service providers have the information they need, 

what is the real intent of this legislation? Make no mistake: the aftermarket 

part manufacturers, rather than the repair shops, stand to benefit most from the 

bill. Meeting today’s very stringent emission and safety regulations requires more 

design, development, testing, and certification of parts. This is just as true for automakers as it is for aftermarket part manufacturers—automakers recognize it as the 

price of doing business. Part manufacturers see it differently. Rather than putting 

their money in R&D to develop quality competitive parts, they are putting their 

money on L&R (legislation and regulation) in the hopes that legislators or regulators will force automakers to turn over proprietary design specifications and software. Part makers would have a significant savings every year in R&D. However, 

the end result would be a devastating blow to the intellectual property rights governing computer software and irreparable harm to vehicle pollution control and 

safety systems and the computers that control them. 

What about vehicle reprogramming? Reprogramming refers to a procedure 

automakers use to replace the calibration code with a new one authorized by the 

manufacturer, and approved by EPA or CARB. Sometimes manufacturers discover 

22

minor problems with a new vehicle’s calibration that, when fixed, improve the vehicle’s performance. The changes are normally minor and reprogramming typically occurs when the vehicle is new and still under warranty. Because some vehicles are 

reprogrammed in the aftermarket, reprogramming tools have been available to independent repair technicians. 

To reduce the cost of reprogramming tools in the aftermarket and eliminate the 

need for a unique reprogramming tool for every car manufacturer, automakers and 

the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), with leadership from EPA, spearheaded 

an effort to create a single black box that can be connected between a technician’s 

personal computer and any manufacturer’s vehicle. This ‘‘black box’’ will eliminate 

the need to purchase multiple reprogramming tools, and make it easier for the 

aftermarket to provide this service as vehicles age. 

Why are some technicians unable to service the OBD system or access the 

fault codes? In most of the cases where technicians thought they did not have access to the necessary tools and information, they simply did not know how to find 

the information and tools they needed. Since May 2001, the Automotive Service Association (ASA), as part of the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF), 

has acted as a NASTF clearinghouse for shop owners across the nation to identify 

actual complaints about information accessibility. To date, about a dozen complaints 

have been received nationwide. All issues were usually resolved within a few days. 

The NASTF clearinghouse is widely publicized by the International Automotive 

Technicians Network, the Service Technicians Society and other NASTF participants. 

What are automakers doing to ensure that technicians and shops owners 

have access to information moving forward? To improve the flow of information, automakers teamed with independent repair professionals, first in Arizona 

through the Arizona Pilot Program and then nationally through the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF). These programs have dramatically improved 

the flow of information and led to a better understanding on all sides. NASTF continues to identify remaining gaps and develop a framework to cooperatively resolve 

them. Information (including 800 numbers and websites) to obtain tools and service 

information is available. 

What about non-emission related computer systems (climate control, antilock brakes, etc.)? In an October 2001 letter, 17 automakers representing about 

90% of all vehicles sold in the U.S. made a commitment that by early 2003 they 

would ‘‘make available to independent technicians the same diagnostic and repair 

capabilities by making available diagnostic tools (and tool information), service information and training materials that they currently make available to their franchised dealerships for all 1996 and newer cars and light trucks.’’ This commitment 

was made without exception—independent technicians will receive the same tools 

and information that the franchised dealers receive. Four additional automakers 

signed letters of intent agreeing to the same commitment, but with narrow exceptions for systems such as anti-theft. The vast majority of this service information 

is already available. 

What else are automakers doing to improve vehicle repairs? Through the 

NASTF and Arizona Pilot Program, automakers learned that while service information is available, it is not always readily accessible. To provide greater accessibility, 

automakers are working to make their shop manuals, technical bulletins, training 

materials, etc. available over the Internet. Ultimately, technicians can go to the web 

and immediately access information needed to service a vehicle in their shops. All 

service information will be accessible over the Internet by early 2003. In addition, 

as part of the NASTF activities, automakers are working with other interested parties to improve information for generic tools and training for non-dealer technicians. 

The Bottom Line:

Independent repair shops have the same repair capabilities as dealerships. Where 

repair information is not mandated by law (climate control, door controllers, air 

bags, etc.), automakers either already provide or intend to provide by January 2003, 

the information and tools needed for independent repair shops to have the same capabilities as franchised dealers. 

Key members of the independent repair community, aftermarket trade association 

leaders, and automakers agree that the remaining gaps and issues can be resolved 

cooperatively without the need for legislation. Moreover, they agree that cooperative 

solutions will yield better results in less time than legislation and regulation. 

The automobile industry stands ready to work with all affected parties in resolving remaining differences. We believe we are headed in the right direction and look 

forward to keeping the Committee updated on our progress. 

Thank you.

23

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Dana, thank you very much. 

Next, we will hear from John Nielsen, Director of the Automotive 

Services and Repair Network for the AAA. Mr. Nielsen, why don’t 

you proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN NIELSEN, DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE 

SERVICES AND REPAIR NETWORK, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE 

ASSOCIATION (AAA) 

Mr. NIELSEN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of AAA, 

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2617. As 

you may know, AAA has been an advocate for motorists for over 

a hundred years. We currently represent 45 million members, or 

one in four households. 

I am a Master level auto technician. I’ve been in the auto service 

industry for more than 20 years. Currently my primary role with 

AAA is to assure that AAA members have access to quality automotive repair at reasonable costs. I coordinate the objective inspection of more than 7,500 repair facilities that consist of both independent and franchise dealers. 

Mr. Chairman, you’ve been told of ownership of data, and heard 

a lot of talk about sophisticated codes. The message that AAA delivers to you today is that a problem exists for motorists. It directly 

impacts their choice, their safety, and the ownership of the data 

produced in their car. And we believe that this problem can be 

solved with S. 2617. 

Members look to AAA for assistance in all of their automotive experiences, from purchase to repair. We work to take some of the 

mystery and stress out of buying a car, maintaining a car, and operating a car. 

AAA strongly supports S. 2617 for three very important reasons, 

the first being consumer choice, the second being vehicle safety, 

and the third reason being the right of ownership of information 

generated by the vehicle. 

Study after study reveals that consumers find automotive repair 

and maintenance very stressful. Having confidence in a trusted repair facility is one way to alleviate that stress. A recent AAA study 

found that 80 percent of members wanted the opportunity to take 

their car to an independent repair facility at any time they chose 

necessary. They found it either important or very important. Further, the ability to choose a repair facility creates competition, 

which ultimately benefits the consumer. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that AAA is not saying 

that it’s bad to take your car to a dealership. Quite the contrary, 

many of our members have outstanding relationships and receive 

outstanding service from franchise auto dealers. We simply believe 

that motorists should have the choice. 

Technology has made the cars we drive today much smarter. 

More than 80 percent of the systems on some cars are controlled 

or monitored by computer systems. Computers in these cars can 

tell us if we need an oil change, or if we have a problem with our 

braking system. In fact, today they’re starting to tell us if we have 

low air pressure in our tires. They can tell us this before there’s 

truly a problem and before we need to call a tow truck to tow a 

stranded motorist. 

24

But what if you or your service technician didn’t have access to 

this information? Anti-lock brakes, air bags, electronic traction, and 

stability control systems are only a few safety items that can be 

faulty on today’s new cars. Yet it’s becoming increasingly difficult 

or impossible for independent technicians to diagnose and repair 

the data generated by the car. This means consumers driving 

faulty vehicles many miles from a new car dealership or at a time 

when the only authorized dealership is very busy or closed will be 

unreasonably inconvenienced and their safety placed at risk. Consumers that have previously had a negative experience at their 

local dealership—including overcharging, work not performed on 

time, unauthorized repairs, or repairs not properly performed—will 

not have the recourse of taking their vehicle to another facility the 

way the industry is heading in this case. 

Mr. Chairman, AAA believes that when you drive off the lot with 

your car, you, the consumer, own a lot more than just the pieces 

of your vehicle. You own the information necessary to have it repaired by a trusted service advisor, whether that be factory trained 

or independent. This information, whether it’s viewed as intellectual property or real property, is really the property of the car 

buyer. 

S. 2617 rightly states that ‘‘the ability to diagnose, service, and 

repair a motor vehicle in a timely, reliable, and affordable manner 

is essential to the safety and well-being of automotive consumers 

in the U.S.’’

In difficult economic times, repairs may be delayed as expenses 

are prioritized. This often exacerbates the mechanical problems. If 

motorists don’t have an adequate choice of repair facilities, they 

may face higher prices and unsatisfactory service. There are many 

people that must juggle expenses on a fixed income, and others 

who are faced with economic challenges that demand competitive 

prices. Competition is essential, but if the current trend continues, 

the customer will have fewer choices, not more. 

There are also areas of the country where motorists could be 

forced to drive long distances or pay unneeded long-distance towing 

fees if local providers do not have the equipment necessary to address this problem. 

Mr. Chairman, the new car you purchase is more than just the 

high-performance components that make up a car. It’s a major investment that our families count on to get around. We count on it 

to keep us safe. Let us allow consumers to protect that investment 

and maintain choice for safe, reliable, and enjoyable operation of 

their automobiles by supporting the right to repair. 

Thank you. I’ll take questions if you have any. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nielsen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN NIELSEN, DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES AND

REPAIR NETWORK, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (AAA) 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am very 

pleased to be here today on behalf of AAA to provide testimony in support of S. 

2617, the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act. As you may know, AAA has 

advocated the interests of car owners for over 100 years, and currently represents 

more than 45 million members comprising a quarter of all U.S. households. 

My name is John Nielsen. I am a Master level auto service technician with over 

twenty years of experience in the automobile service industry. My primary responsiVerDate Apr 24 2002 13:25 Apr 16, 2003 Jkt 084857 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\84857.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
25

bility is to make certain AAA members are able to locate quality facilities that can 

quickly and efficiently service their vehicles at a reasonable cost. In this position, 

I coordinate the objective inspection and approval of a network of more than 7,500 

AAA-approved repair facilities that are both franchised new car dealerships and 

independently-owned repair shops. 

Members look to AAA for advice and assistance in all of their automotive experiences, from purchase to repair. We assist them with information and advice regarding the proper maintenance and servicing of their vehicles, finding quality repair 

facilities, and with shopping for a new or used vehicle that best meets their needs. 

In short, we try to take some of the mystery out of finding, buying, operating and 

maintaining a vehicle. 

AAA strongly supports S. 2617, and the companion House bill, H.R. 2735, for 

three important reasons: consumer choice, vehicle safety, and the right of car owners to own the information generated by their automobiles. The measure before you 

today will ensure that motorists can have the kind of service that is best suited to 

their particular needs. 

Consumers are often uncertain about how to communicate with repair providers. 

Study after study reveals that consumers find automotive repair and maintenance 

stressful. Having confidence in a trusted service technician goes a long way towards 

alleviating that stress. Studies also find that consumers want to choose who repairs 

their vehicles. A recent AAA study found that as many as 80% of our members believe it is ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘very important’’ that consumers are able to choose a service provider other than a dealership. Furthermore, the ability to choose a repair facility creates competition which is beneficial to the consumer. Service shops must 

control costs and focus on providing quality repairs if they want to stay in business. 

Mr. Chairman, that is not to say that AAA believes motorists should not have 

their vehicle serviced at a dealership. Quite the contrary, many of our members 

enjoy the relationship and service that dealers provide. We simply believe that motorists should have the choice. 

Technology has made the cars we drive smarter. More than 80% of the systems 

on some cars are monitored or controlled by a computer. Computers in the car can 

tell us of the need for an oil change, trouble with an oxygen sensor, an impending 

problem with our brakes, and even if our tire pressure is too low—before there is 

a problem or critical safety breakdown. Before you have to call AAA from the side 

of the road. But what if you, or your trusted service technician, do not have access 

to this critical safety and diagnostic information? 

Imagine traveling on a Saturday afternoon, the dashboard light comes on warning 

of a malfunction with the anti lock brakes system. You stop at the first service station and ask the technician to fix the problem. The technician checks the vehicle 

and determines the problem is not mechanical but rather, in the electrical system 

on which only the dealer can work—not because dealer technicians are more skilled, 

but because the independent technician cannot acquire the appropriate repair information. The closest dealer for your make of car is 25 miles away and won’t open 

until Monday morning. Is it safe to keep driving the car on the trip? If not, is it 

safe to drive the car to the dealer and wait until Monday, or do you need a tow 

truck to pick up the car? Can the dealer service the car Monday or are they booked 

up? 

This situation could just as easily have involved the supplemental restraint system or the electronic traction and stability control system. Each has the potential 

to compromise the safety of the vehicle’s owner and passengers, but potentially 

other motorists as well. Problems repairing so-called comfort features in the vehicle 

such as the climate control may not compromise safety but would undoubtedly inconvenience the consumer. 

Mr. Chairman, AAA believes that when you drive off the lot with your car, you, 

the consumer, own more than just the vehicle; you own the information necessary 

to have it repaired by a trusted service advisor of your choosing—whether it be at 

an independent facility or a dealership. This information, whether it is viewed as 

intellectual property or real property, is really the property of the car-buyer. 

S. 2617 rightly states that ‘‘the ability to diagnose, service, and repair a motor 

vehicle in a timely, reliable, and affordable manner is essential to the safety and 

well-being of automotive consumers in the U.S.’’

The members of this panel are keenly aware of how a downturn in the economy 

directly impacts the wallets of your constituents. In difficult economic times, repairs 

may be delayed as expenses are prioritized, often exacerbating the mechanical problem. If motorists do not have an adequate choice of repair facilities, they may face 

higher prices and unsatisfactory service. Some people just cannot afford to go to the 

dealership for every repair. There are many people that must juggle expenses on 

a fixed income, and others who are faced with economic challenges that demand 

26

competitive prices for repairs. Competition is essential, but if the current trend continues, the consumer will have fewer choices—not more. 

There are also areas of the country where motorists could be forced to drive long 

distances or pay unneeded long-distance towing fees if local providers do not have 

the equipment necessary to address a repair problem. 

It’s very important to note that lower cost doesn’t mean lower quality repairs, as 

long as all service technicians have the information necessary to diagnose and repair problems. Consumers have a right to high quality repairs and should not be 

compelled to use service facilities that may have previously delivered poor service, 

or denied the opportunity to get a second opinion. If consumers are limited to only 

one service option, they do not have that opportunity. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the new car you’ve bought is more 

than just the high-performance components that make up your vehicle. It’s a major 

investment for consumers and for families. It’s what keeps us mobile and what we 

rely on to keep us safe. Let’s allow consumers to protect that investment and maintain choice for safe, reliable, and enjoyable operation of their automobiles by supporting Right to Repair. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy 

to answer any questions that the Committee might have at this time.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Nielsen, thank you very much. 

And, finally, Mr. Vallely. Mr. Vallely is the president of McLean 

Marathon Service representing NAPA. Mr. Vallely, why don’t you 

proceed? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN VALLELY, PRESIDENT,

NORTH MCLEAN AUTOCARE CENTER 

Mr. VALLELY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

McLean AutoCare Center is a family owned business employing 

approximately 10 people with three service bays and gasoline islands, kind of your old-time thing. We are located in Elgin, Illinois, 

and founded in 1970, so we’ve been around awhile. 

My independent repair facility is one of only 10,000 nationally 

recognized network of NAPA AutoCare Centers across the nation. 

Being an autocare center has allowed me to be independent and 

maintain a competitive edge. My employees and their families are 

part of the reputation of being a respected and trusted repair facility within our community. 

NAPA and the other aftermarket trainers provide technical 

training in specific automotive systems, introducing the latest in 

diagnostic and repair techniques for both domestic and import vehicles. Their extensive management training teaches the shop owners 

how to manage cash flow, set goals for the business, manage employees and best serve the community through technician training. 

NAPA, as well as other aftermarket companies, requires highly 

trained technicians who must be certified through the Automotive 

Service Excellence Program. We also have a code of ethics that 

each AutoCare dealer has agreed upon prior to being an AutoCare 

Center. These skilled technicians have worked on a large range of 

models and systems and should not be deprived from working on 

that path. 

My son, Christopher, is currently enrolled in an automotive 

training program at Elgin Community College. He has worked at 

the shop for three years and intends to take over the business as 

his chosen career. Frankly, I’m greatly concerned about the future 

and longevity of the independent automotive maintenance and repair business if the current trends are not curtailed. 

27

Many of my colleagues have also voiced similar concerns. Today’s 

automobiles are increasingly more sophisticated due to advancements and computer-controlled technology that can be found in 

most major systems of the automobile today. Information on service 

procedures, as well as accessibility to diagnostic code and procedures, is crucial to their proper maintenance and repair. 

In many instances, these codes and procedures and affordable 

scan tools themselves are not made available to the independent 

repair technicians. Many of the diagnostic procedures that are 

made available are written only for use with specific OE scan tools. 

These procedures are not applicable to the more commonly sold 

scanners that are used and updated annually from aftermarket 

source scan tools such as Snap-on diagnostics. 

Purchasing multiple scan tools would be—that would communicate with the most common vehicle models would be cost-prohibitive to the independent repair shop. Scan tools cost an average of 

$5,000, or even more, per tool. Multiply that by the number of car 

manufacturers and a general repair shop would need to invest well 

over $100,000 for average coverage to perform these repairs, with 

no guarantees that it would work on next year’s models or even be 

updatable. 

Put the initial purchase price aside for just a moment, and the 

initial—the annual update cost alone for those scanners would put 

most independents out of business, as computer controls are found 

in most of the vehicles’ major systems. Scan tools that are able to 

communicate with each model type are necessary to perform even 

the most routine and minor repairs. 

BMW vehicles, for example, require the use of a scan tool to reset 

the service reminder light after a routine oil and filter change. We 

purchased a $400 tool, not a scan tool, that has one function only, 

and that’s to reset that reminder light. We felt, though it may not 

seem as a lot, however, even if we were able to purchase special 

tools for every minor repair, it would still add up to a significant 

investment. 

Recently, my shop had to send a customer to a Jeep dealership 

to program his replacement ignition keys and remote transmitters. 

Now, the procedure required the Chrysler DRBIII scan tool. My domestic car scanner, with a fully updated Snap-on, was unable to 

perform that procedure. With additional programmable control 

modules being added to vehicles each year, I have to wonder what 

will be my small business’s ability to perform these repairs, or are 

we slowly being phased out due to economic restraints? 

Having the ability to economically access, accurately diagnose, 

and properly repair the automotive computer-controlled systems is 

crucial to any auto repair shop’s future, whether it be an OE dealership or an independent repair facility. Without the access to the 

diagnostic procedures from the manufacturers, we, the aftermarket, 

would be prohibited from repairing many current and future automobiles and light trucks. If this were to happen, the number of vehicles that we would be able to repair would diminish and eventually force us out of business. This would reduce the number of bays 

in our community, leave skilled workers without jobs, and eventually, unfairly, cause the automobile owners only one choice due to 

a lack of competition. 

28

A blackout of information and affordable diagnostic equipment 

could blatantly create a monopoly for the OE dealerships. The results may create safety concerns and clean air problems, as well. 

Motorists who are driving vehicles that are in immediate need of 

a repair on a safety- or emissions-related system such as brakes, 

air bags, steering, and engine performance issues, but live in towns 

where car dealerships are not present—or if the motorists are on 

vacation with their families in areas without car dealers—could 

compromise their safety and that of others by attempting to drive 

an unsafe vehicle. 

Additionally, if the independent repair industry were locked out 

and denied access to codes and repair information on computer-controlled systems, these motorists would be left without a choice and 

be forced to return to the OE dealership. Considering the number 

of vehicles in service today, with new cars and light trucks being 

delivered daily, the OE dealerships would be overloaded and unable to perform the service in a reasonable, cost-efficient, or even 

timely manner. 

Repair choice must remain with the vehicle owner and requires 

a variety of competitive automotive service centers to reserve that 

right. Competition always benefits the consumer. 

In order to accomplish this, the information must be available. 

With the European manufacturers already denying the aftermarket 

access to information to properly repair their vehicles, what is to 

stop other manufacturers from following their lead? There will be 

no uniformity for motorists to place their trust. As American workers are forced from their automotive aftermarket related jobs, the 

economic domino effect will cause the American economy to suffer 

instead. Unemployed people simply do not spend money that they 

do not have. But, by then, it will be too late. 

Legislation, and not negotiation, is the appropriate way to stop 

the potential strong arm collapse of the automotive aftermarket 

that is so vital to America’s transportation and solve the fair repair 

problem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this consumer and 

small business problem. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vallely follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN VALLELY, PRESIDENT,

NORTH MCLEAN AUTOCARE CENTER

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is John 

Vallely. I am the President of North McLean AutoCare Center, a family business 

employing approximately 10 people, with 3 service bays and gasoline islands. We 

are located in Elgin, Illinois and were founded in 1970. 

I currently serve as the Chairman of the School District U–46 Automotive Advisory, and the Elgin Community College Automotive Advisory Committees. I am also 

a part-time Automotive Instructor at the College. 

I have served on the NAPA National AutoCare Advisory Council for two years. 

Participation demands input on issues such as technician and management training 

requirements and recommendations, discussion of industry trends and issues particular to the automotive industry, AutoCare membership standards, imaging and 

promotions, business aids and programs which promote automotive professionalism. 

These issues and other programs allow us, the independent repair shops, to be competitive in today’s market environment. Currently I serve as a member of the local 

NAPA Chicago AutoCare Advertising Committee. 

My independent repair facility is only one of the over 10,000 nationally recognized 

network of quality NAPA AutoCare Centers. Being a NAPA AutoCare Center has 

29

allowed me to remain independent and maintain a competitive edge. My employees 

and their families are proud of our reputation of being a respected and trusted repair facility within our community. 

NAPA and other aftermarket trainers provide technical training in specific automotive systems, introducing the latest in diagnostic and repair techniques for both 

the domestic and import vehicles. Their extensive management training teaches the 

shop owners how to manage cash flow, set goals for the business, manage employees 

and best serve the community through technician training. 

NAPA, as well as other aftermarket companies, requires highly trained technicians who must be certified through the Automotive Service Excellence or ASE program. This is a written requirement in the ‘‘Code of Ethics’’ that each AutoCare 

dealer agreed to prior to being accepted as a NAPA AutoCare Center. These skilled 

technicians have worked on a large range of models and systems and should not 

be deprived from continuing on that path. 

My son, Christopher, is currently enrolled in the automotive training program at 

Elgin Community College. He has worked at the shop for three years and intends 

to take over the business as his chosen career. Frankly, I am gravely concerned with 

the future and longevity of the independent automotive maintenance and repair 

business if the current trends are not curtailed. Many of my colleagues have voiced 

similar concerns. Today’s automobiles are increasingly more sophisticated due to advancements in computer-controlled technology that can be found in most major systems of the automobile today. Information on service procedures as well as accessibility to diagnostic codes and procedures is crucial to their proper maintenance and 

repair. 

In many instances, these diagnostic codes, procedures and affordable scan tools 

themselves are not made available to the independent repair technicians. Many of 

the diagnostic procedures that are made available, are written only for use with specific OE scan tools. These procedures are not applicable to the more common scanners that are used and updated annually from the aftermarket scan tool manufacturers such as Snap-on Diagnostics. Purchasing multiple scan tools that would communicate with the most common vehicle models would be cost prohibitive to the 

independent repair shop. Scan tools cost an average of $5000.00 (five thousand dollars) or more per tool. Multiply this by the number of car manufacturers and the 

general repair shop would need to invest well over $100,000.00 for average coverage 

with no guarantee that it would work on next year’s models or even be updateable. 

Put the initial purchase price aside for a moment. The annual update cost alone 

would put most independents out of business as computer controls are used in most 

of the vehicles’ major systems. 

Scan tools that are able to communicate with each model type are necessary to 

perform even the most routine and minor repairs. BMW vehicles require the use of 

a scan tool to reset the service reminder light after routine engine oil and filter 

change. We purchased a special $400.00 tool that has one function, to reset the reminder light. That may not seem like a lot, however, even if we were able to purchase special equipment for each minor repair, it would still add up to a significant 

investment. Recently, my shop had to send a customer to the Jeep dealership to program his replacement ignition keys and remote transmitters, the procedure required 

the Chrysler DRB III scan tool. My domestic car scanner, the fully updated Snapon, was unable to perform this procedure. With additional programmable control 

modules being added to the vehicles each year, I have to wonder what will my small 

business’ ability to perform these repairs be or are we slowly being phased out due 

to economic restraints? 

Having the ability to economically access, accurately diagnose, and properly repair 

the automotive computer controlled systems is crucial to any automotive repair 

shop’s future whether it be an OE dealership or an independent repair facility. 

Without the access to diagnostic procedures from the manufacturers, we, the 

aftermarket, would be prohibited from repairing many current and future automobiles and light trucks. If this were allowed to happen, the number of vehicles that 

we would be able to repair would diminish, and eventually force us out of business. 

This would reduce the available number of bays in our community, leave skilled employees without jobs and, eventually, unfairly cause the automobile owners only one 

choice for repair due to the lack of competition. 

A black out of information and affordable diagnostic equipment would blatantly 

create a monopoly for the OE dealerships. Results may create safety concerns and 

clean air problems as well. Motorists who are driving vehicles that are in immediate 

need of a repair on safety or emissions related systems such as brakes, air bags, 

steering, and engine performance issues but live in towns where car dealerships are 

not present, or motorists on vacation with their families in areas without car dealerVerDate Apr 24 2002 13:25 Apr 16, 2003 Jkt 084857 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\84857.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
30

ships, could compromise their safety and that of others by attempting to drive an 

unsafe vehicle. 

Additionally, if the independent repair industry were locked out of and denied access to codes and repair information on computer controlled systems, those motorists 

would be left without choice and be forced to return to the OE dealership. Considering the number of vehicles in service today with new cars and light trucks being 

delivered daily, the OE dealerships would be overloaded and unable to perform service in a reasonable, cost efficient or timely manner. The repair facility choice must 

remain with the vehicle owner and requires a variety of competitive automotive 

service centers to reserve that right. Competition always benefits the consumer. In 

order to accomplish this, the information must be available. 

With the European manufacturers already denying the aftermarket access to information to properly repair their vehicles, what is to stop other manufacturers from 

following their lead? Heck, manufacturers such as Volkswagen have already stated 

that they will not share their information. There will be no uniformity for motorists 

to place their trust. As the American workers are forced from their automotive 

aftermarket related jobs, the economic domino effect will cause the American economy to suffer instead. Unemployed people simply do not spend money that they do 

not have. But, by then it will be too late. 

Legislation and not negotiation is the appropriate way to stop the potential 

strong-armed collapse of the automotive aftermarket that is so vital to America’s 

transportation and resolve the ‘‘fair repair’’ problem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this consumer and small business 

problem. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Vallely, thank you very much. 

Now, I notice that there are a number of people in this room 

wearing the same shirt. And usually that means something. Today 

I suspect it means that we have folks here from independent dealerships or other organizations that represent either automotive 

dealerships or independent repair shops, I’m not sure which. 

But let me ask a question of those of the audience and ask for 

a show of hands, if I might. How many of you in this room are engaged in the business of repairing or fixing automobiles in one way 

or another? 

[A show of hands.] 

Senator DORGAN. All right. And of those of you who are involved 

in the repair of automobiles, how many of you have experienced 

having an automobile brought to you for repair that you could not 

repair because you don’t have access to codes and scanners and so 

on? 

[A show of hands.] 

Senator DORGAN. All right. The testimony by all six was interesting testimony, and I agree with something Mr. Nielsen said. It’s 

not the province of this Committee or this Congress to encourage 

or discourage people to go to wonderful dealerships with great repair shops or independent repair shops on the corner someplace. 

That’s a decision for consumers to make. I think there are some 

outstanding mechanics and repair technicians who work in both 

venues. So this is not about trying to force choices, one versus another. It is about making sure Americans have the choice. We have 

had conflicting testimony with six witnesses today, so let me try to 

understand where the facts are, if I might. 

Mr. Dana and Mr. Cabaniss, both of you have essentially said, 

on behalf of manufacturers, ‘‘There’s really no problem here. Look, 

it’s in our interest to allow independent repair shops to have these 

codes and access to it and so on, and there’s really not much of a 

problem.’’ In fact—let me get a couple of quotes—I believe it was 

Mr. Dana said, ‘‘As you can see, independent shops clearly have the 

31

same repair capabilities as dealerships. In light of the fact that 

service information and parts are available today to fix almost all 

vehicles, the legislation introduced by Senator Wellstone is unnecessary and unwarranted.’’ Mr. Dana, you heard the testimony of Mr. Vallely, Mr. Haas, Mr. 

Feste, and Mr. Nielsen, who really aren’t involved in the repair 

business; he’s involved in AAA, which is a different circumstance 

altogether. They all disagree with your assertion that there’s no 

problem here. Respond to their disagreement, if you will. 

Mr. DANA. I think there are a couple of issues, Senator. One is 

that you have to look back on the recent past to see how far we’ve 

come in making sure this information is available to aftermarket 

service technicians. Clearly, there were gaps in the past, and we 

recognize that, but the problem is really one of being aware of 

where to get the information. 

That’s the reason we created this organization called NASTF 

where we, in the auto industry, work with the aftermarket service 

association people and try to make them aware of where to get the 

information. Many times the information is not available directly 

from our manufacturer, but from a third party provider that the 

manufacturer hires to distribute their service information. 

I can give you an anecdote of a meeting we had in—— Senator DORGAN. Well, let’s stop at that moment just for a second. I’m sorry to interrupt you, but the testimony by Mr. Feste, if 

you buy a Volvo, V-i-r-a, Vira tool, is it? 

Mr. FESTE. Yes. 

Senator DORGAN.—the tool made available to the independent repairer, quote: ‘‘it will not allow us to make complete emissions 

analysis of the vehicle. The Volvo dealer has the Vadis tool.’’ It ‘‘allows the dealer to make a complete analysis of the vehicle.’’ So are 

you accurate in what you just represented to me? What about the 

Volvo situation Mr. Feste inquired about? 

Mr. DANA. I’m not entirely familiar with the Volvo system, but 

it is required by law that every vehicle can be diagnosed in the 

OBD system for emission-related repairs. 

Senator DORGAN. But you indicated in your testimony that the 

information and parts are available to fix almost all vehicles, so 

you’re not—— Mr. DANA. That’s correct, for non emission-related repairs. 

Senator DORGAN.—You’re not necessarily sure of that? 

Mr. DANA. No, we know that there are certain gaps that still remain to be filled. 

Senator DORGAN. But you didn’t put that in your testimony. 

Mr. DANA. Yes, I did, sir. I said——

Senator DORGAN. Well——

Mr. DANA.—I said most vehicles can be repaired. I said virtually 

all of them. 

Senator DORGAN. Let’s talk——

Mr. DANA. We know that there are gaps, Senator. 

Senator DORGAN. OK.—— Mr. DANA. We are working as hard as we can to make sure that 

the aftermarket independent repair shops know how to access and 

get the right information—— Senator DORGAN. Let me talk——

32

Mr. DANA.—because it’s critical. 

Senator DORGAN.—about those gaps, then, if I might, because, 

Mr. Vallely, you run a shop in Illinois. Is the problem here just 

some gaps? Your testimony suggested the problem is much more 

systemic than that; it’s a broad problem of the automobile manufacturers not wanting you to have access to that information. So 

Mr. Dana says it’s gaps. What’s your impression of that? 

Mr. VALLELY. Well, I’m kind of, so to speak, at the bottom of the 

food chain, so for me to find information, I have to depend on other 

companies to get the information to me, which is—you know, scanner manufacturers, all that, and provide information systems. 

Senator DORGAN. But Mr. Dana also just said that it might be 

the case you just don’t know where to get the information. Wasn’t 

that your testimony, Mr. Dana? So is this a problem, Mr. Feste, 

that you don’t know where to get the information? 

Mr. FESTE. No, that’s not the problem. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, tell Mr. Dana——

Mr. FESTE. The problem is——

Senator DORGAN.—why that’s not the problem? 

Mr. FESTE.—some of the information is not available. 

Senator DORGAN. You say it’s not available. 

Mr. FESTE. That’s correct, not available to the independent. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Dana, tell me about that. I mean, we have 

independents who say this is not available, you say it is. How do 

we demonstrate where the facts are? 

Mr. DANA. What I can tell you is that the manufacturers are 

committed to getting this information to the independents. Yes, 

there are some manufacturers on certain systems in the cars where 

information is not yet available. We’re working on getting that 

available to all the independents. 

By and large, if you go across many of the larger companies, 

you’ll find every single bit of information is available that they give 

their dealerships to repair cars. There is nothing withheld whatsoever. 

Senator DORGAN. Do you repair cars, Mr. Dana? 

Mr. DANA. Not for a long time, sir. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Nielsen, you wanted to comment. 

Mr. NIELSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This morning, I was reviewing the information that’s available on data availability, and I 

asked my staff to visit the NASTF site and pull down the list that 

Mr. Dana has spoke of where it actually lists what data is available and where you can purchase it. My staff called those locations 

up, and many of them are factory, many of them are aftermarket 

or third-party manufacturers. 

The first thing that we found is to purchase the various equipment for each year is roughly $107,000, very much consistent with 

the testimony we heard earlier. What was not available, what we 

were told by many manufacturers who represent a large part of 

cars sold in the U.S., is that one of two things: either the equipment could not be sold to the aftermarket or that they would sell 

them the equipment but not the information necessary to diagnose 

the cars. 

33

So absolutely, there is clearly a lack of information, a lack of 

ability to get the information, and apparently a disconnect between 

manufacturers and the information that’s being disseminated. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Haas, you see the dispute that exists here. 

I want to ask Mr. Cabaniss in a moment, as well, because, Mr. 

Cabaniss, you, in your testimony, seemed to say that either there 

isn’t a problem, or if there is a problem it’s very quickly being remedied—Mr. Haas, how do we get at the facts here? 

Mr. HAAS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the facts are very evident. The number one fact is, the only thing that the auto manufacturers are required to provide to the independent repairers are 

information for the diagnosis and repair of emissions-related systems on the automobile. 

The other piece of evidence that we have is that the manufacturers association, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, last October, provided a letter that they refer to as the OEM letter of intent. I think that’s the best piece of evidence that you have, because in the letter of intent, the Alliance has gone so far as to say 

that they will provide to the independent repairers the information, 

training, and diagnostic scan tool capabilities, the same as they 

provide to their dealerships’ technicians, by January 1 of 2003. 

Now, here’s the real, hard evidence: 20 manufacturers have supported the Alliance’s letter. There are 22 manufacturers that we 

have to be concerned with in this country that sell automobiles. So 

two of them are missing. They’re not even supporting the Alliance’s 

letter of intent. 

Senator DORGAN. Which are the two manufacturers? 

Mr. HAAS. Honda and Porsche. So we have 20 manufacturers 

that are supporting the letter of intent. And, in the letter of intent, 

four of those 20 manufacturers have already said, ‘‘We will not provide, to the independents, certain information. We will limit or restrict certain safety or security information in our automobiles.’’ So as Mr. Dana professes that the manufacturers are working 

hard to provide this, it’s absolutely untrue. They’re not. They’ve already stated that they have no intention to. Those four manufacturers are BMW, Saab, Volkswagen of American, and Daimler–

Chrysler. 

It’s also interesting that, of those 20 manufacturers that have 

supported the letter of intent, as we sit on the verge of August 1 

of 2002 looking forward to the date that they set forth of making 

this information available for January 1, 2003, to date we have 

only three automobile manufacturers that have demonstrated their 

ability to successfully provide affordable access and the availability 

of service information to the independents. 

That’s the hard facts. That’s the evidence. 

Senator DORGAN. Which are the three manufacturers? 

Mr. HAAS. The three manufacturers that have done that are 

General Motors, Hyundai, and Mazda. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Cabaniss, you’ve just heard Mr. Haas and 

other witnesses. It’s quite clear that, from an operational standpoint, those who are in the independent shops trying to make repairs are facing a pretty significant problem, and yet you and Mr. 

Dana say there’s really not a problem here. Reconcile that, if you 

would. 

34

Mr. CABANISS. Mr. Chairman, I’m not suggesting there have not 

been problems in the past. And, as Mr. Dana said, we recognize 

that there have been gaps in the past, and there are gaps today. 

And the purpose of the Task Force, the National Automotive Service Task Force, is exactly about closing those gaps as soon as we 

possibly can. 

And with respect to the letter of intent that Mr. Haas just mentioned, yes, 20 manufacturers signed on to that letter, and in a few 

cases with some limited exceptions. That, however, does not mean 

that the manufacturers that did not sign are not moving ahead. 

They simply didn’t sign the letter. 

All the manufacturers are moving ahead on the same basis, to 

provide the information and to correcting the gaps that are there. 

And by early next year, the goal is to have that done. That doesn’t 

mean, however, that the job will be complete. 

My expectation is that we’ll continue to find situations, hopefully 

only in a few instances, where we continue to need to address problems. But the point that I’m trying to bring to your attention is 

simply that we have a process in place to do this. We’re all working 

together. In fact, Mr. Feste and Mr. Haas are both part of the Task 

Force effort, and we appreciate their participation. 

We are working hard to address the issues. And the fact of the 

matter is we have a process in place to do that now, and we’re moving ahead diligently to address that problem. If you look at the 

number of issues, the gaps, so to speak, that we had, say, two years 

ago when we started, they were much greater than they are today. 

In another year—in fact, in a few months, six months, we’ll make 

even more progress. Six months further after that, I believe we’ll 

make even further progress. As long as we continue to stay the 

course and work together, that’s what it takes to address this problem. 

Senator DORGAN. Tell me why it’s not in the interests of the 

manufacturers to withhold the information from the independents 

and force repairs to be made in the dealerships, the franchise dealerships? 

Mr. CABANISS. Well, first of all, Senator, it’s—it would—as, actually, I think Mr. Feste himself—or Mr. Vallely—excuse me if I got 

that wrong—mentioned, it’s—there was no way—we don’t have 

the—in the dealerships don’t have the capability of providing service to—if, for some reason, the customers decided to bring their 

cars all of a sudden to the dealership, there’s just not the capability 

to do it. We need the aftermarket industry, the independents, to be 

able to service our customers, our mutual customers. 

And we—believe me, we need to keep our customers happy. We 

want to see them back in the showroom again to buy another car 

from us, and so we need to keep our customers happy, and that 

means being able to get their cars fixed conveniently if something 

breaks. We hope they don’t break very often. But if they do, the 

last thing we want is a dissatisfied customer. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Cabaniss, this Subcommittee is going to inquire of the EPA with respect to enforcement issues, and also of 

the Federal Trade Commission on these issues. My fervent hope 

would be you would find it in your interests and in the interest of 

the manufacturers to provide all of that information and the ability 

35

at a reasonable price to access the equipment so that the independent dealerships in this country can provide the necessary repairs. 

I’m still trying to understand this circumstance. I always worry 

about bigger interests and smaller interests and making sure the 

rules are fair. There’s an old Bob Wills and Texas Playboys song 

with a verse, ‘‘The little bee sucks the blossom, but the big bee gets 

the honey. The little guy picks the cotton, and the big guy gets the 

money.’’ There’s a lot of that in life with respect to big versus 

smaller interests. 

And what I hear today from folks who run independent repair 

shops, I assume folks that, in many cases across the country, don’t 

have large shops but have some awfully good mechanics, is that 

they feel that there’s information withheld from them that prevents 

them from being able to provide the service to their customers that 

they want to provide in repairing a vehicle. 

So let me call on Senator Wellstone for inquiry. 

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr. Chairman, I can be relatively brief 

here. 

I was a college teacher; you just had a great seminar class. I like 

the way you do that. You had everybody speaking, and you covered 

a lot of the ground I wanted to cover. I think I can get to the point 

that I want to get to with two questions. 

And I guess, for Mr. Cabaniss and Mr. Dana, this—it would be 

helpful for me to sort of get your perspective on record on this. 

Leaving aside the specifics of the legislation, could you tell the 

Chairman, the Committee, whether or not the auto manufacturers 

agree with the principle that the independent repair shops—because I think that’s what this is about—should have the same access to information needed to repair vehicles as the franchise auto 

dealers? Would you agree with that principle? 

Mr. CABANISS. Yes, sir, I would. 

Mr. DANA. A hundred percent, sir. 

Senator WELLSTONE. OK. Well, that’s very important to know. 

Then I guess the second question, which maybe we’d go to you, Mr. 

Haas, is what assurances—you know, we—you just heard industry 

say we agree with that principle, and we’ve heard about the Task 

Force and that there’s progress being made. What assurances 

would you want to have with—from the point of view of the AAA 

or the consumers, the owners of cars, or, for that matter, the independent mechanics—what assurances do you need to make sure 

that, in your own words, the shops are going to get access to the 

information at a reasonable cost, to get the diagnostic—to be able 

to do the diagnostic—I mean, what do you—what’s the missing 

piece here? 

I mean, we’ve got legislation. We can move that. I think there 

would be a lot—I was talking to Senator McCain on the floor. I 

know he was very busy today. He might have been here. Others I 

think are interested. I can’t commit anyone. The Chair has got a 

strong reputation as being pro consumer. We can move this and 

continue to go forward, but it also would be nice if there would be 

just some agreement where everybody could end up winning. 

What do you need, in terms of assurances? 

36

Mr. HAAS. We’d need to know, first of all, what is available to 

the franchise dealer technician in order to know comparatively that 

we’re receiving the same information. 

What I don’t understand—and I think Volvo is a perfect example 

of this—is even though they’re required by law to provide emissions information to technicians today, they’ve decided to provide 

it to the independents in an absolutely different tool than the tool 

that they use to provide it to their dealership technicians. 

Now, you know, a minute ago, we just heard Mr. Cabaniss and 

Mr. Dana say that, well, we’ll provide to the independents exactly 

what we provide to the franchise dealers. And Volvo, in this for instance, has already demonstrated that, no, they’re not willing to do 

that. If that were the case, if these manufacturers truly believed 

that they were willing to provide the same information to independent technicians that they provide to dealership technicians, 

this example with Volvo would not exist today. 

Let me share with you this. This is a quote from another manufacturer represented by the associations represented here today, 

BMW. And this is a quote from BMW. ‘‘In general, BMW is not in 

a position to provide BMW service processes, equipment, and features which have no bearing on emissions regulations and which 

are specifically developed to enhance the customer-service experience at BMW authorized dealers to anyone but BMW dealers.’’ I 

think that’s the story. 

So I have to disagree with what Mr. Dana and Mr. Cabaniss are 

suggesting here this afternoon. They’re saying all the manufacturers they represent are willing to come to the table voluntarily and 

provide this? I think that they’d better go back and check with 

BMW. 

Senator WELLSTONE. Well, I would say this, Mr. Chairman, and 

I’d finish this way, and you may, as the Chair, have—may want 

to have the final word—this is what occurs to me. 

I mean, just sort of building on what Mr. Haas said, it would 

seem to me that we’ve had two individuals, Mr. Cabaniss and Mr. 

Dana, who have done an excellent job of, you know, representing 

the manufacturers—I’m not here to bash anyone—who have said 

that, you know, this is moving along, and we want to cooperate. 

And then I think you talked about six months, and than in another 

six months—that was someone’s language. 

And I think what I’m hearing from a lot of the independent dealers is, ‘‘Time is not neutral for us.’’ In other words, you know, you 

can keep talking six months and six months and six months, and 

then pretty soon there won’t be that many of us left. And so that 

doesn’t do it for us. And so I—— Mr. HAAS. Mr. Wellstone? 

Senator WELLSTONE. Yeah? 

Mr. HAAS. Every day that passes without resolution to this compromises the position of the consumer. Every day. 

Senator WELLSTONE. Well, I would suggest to the industry—and 

I’d be anxious to hear from the Chair—I would suggest that the industry, as one Senator from the State of Minnesota, that there be 

some slightly—let me just take everything you’ve said in good 

faith, and if that’s the case, then I would say the negotiations need 

to move forward expeditiously, and they need to be concrete, and 

37

there needs to be some assurances, and that you all need to come 

to terms with one another as soon as possible. 

I mean, I think, right now, the present course isn’t working. Otherwise, I think we move forward on the legislative front. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask——

Mr. DANA. Senator, if I could comment on that? 

Senator DORGAN. Yes, please. 

Mr. DANA. We are working closely with them. And Bill Haas is 

the contact point at ASA for this complaint form which is on the 

NASTF Web site. If any independent service provider cannot get 

service information from a manufacturer, is told he cannot have it, 

they fill out this form, get it to Bill Haas, Bill will send it to either 

myself or John, and we’ll get it to the manufacturer, and we will 

do everything in our power to correct that situation as soon as possible. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Dana——

Mr. DANA. We’ve set this up to try and make that happen. 

Senator DORGAN. Yeah, let me ask about the BMW issue, specifically. I know nothing about this except what Mr. Haas just represented, but it is exactly what we don’t want to happen in this 

country. 

We don’t want someone producing an automobile and saying, 

‘‘Oh, by the way, we have included in this automobile certain repair 

components the keys to which we will give only the franchise dealerships to the exclusion of all the independent repair shops around 

the country.’’

I don’t think anybody wants that to be the case. Consumers in 

this country want the choice. They want to be able to take their 

car back to a wonderful dealer, get it repaired there, or they want 

to take it to their corner trusted independent repair shop, have it 

repaired there. 

In either case, you’ve got the American people who want to make 

the choice that they choose to make. Often they’ll choose the dealership. Just as often, they’ll choose the independent repair shop. 

But if a company decides it wants to predetermine what that choice 

must be by withholding key information from independent repair 

shops, it seems to me that is anticonsumer, anticompetitive. So 

that’s exactly what we want to avoid having happen in this country. 

Now, respond, if you will, to Mr. Haas’ assertion with respect to 

one company, BMW. 

Mr. DANA. I’d like to, Mr. Haas, know when that quote was 

from—what date that quote was from. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Mr. Haas, when was that quote——

Mr. HAAS. That quote was from——

Senator DORGAN. Don’t tell me 1942. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HAAS. No, no. No, Mr. Chairman, it was not. It was from this 

year, and I believe—I can’t give you the exact date, unfortunately, 

this afternoon, but I believe it was from May or June of this year. 

Mr. DANA. Well, then we need to get a complaint form filled out, 

Bill, because in BMW’s letter of intent, it said they were going to 

make information available to the dealerships. They have some exVerDate Apr 24 2002 13:25 Apr 16, 2003 Jkt 084857 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\84857.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
38

ceptions, and we’re working on that, having to do with anti-theft 

systems and security. 

So, again, as I’ve tried to explain to you, Senator, there is a problem with people either in a third-party provider or even some people who are in a manufacturer saying the wrong thing, because 

even in our own companies it hasn’t been filtered down in some 

cases. 

Senator DORGAN. What—let me—— Mr. HAAS. This was a quote from a representative of BMW. This 

wasn’t a third-party provider. This was from a gentleman employed 

by BMW. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m going to ask, in fairness to BMW, if they 

would like to submit a statement for the record. 

Mr. DANA. We’ll be happy to have them do that. 

Senator DORGAN. The hearing record, of course, will remain 

open. 

But let’s assume, for the moment—and I don’t know this to be 

the case; I don’t even know who the BMW representative was. Assume that you have a manufacturer that says, ‘‘Look, it’s in our interest not to provide this information. We fully intend to try to 

steer all of the business back to our franchise dealerships. That’s 

what our company wants to do.’’ Let’s assume, Mr. Dana, that one 

of your companies takes that position. What can you do to remedy 

that? Is there anything you can do? 

Mr. DANA. First of all, none of the members have taken that position. And even BMW has made the point that they are willing to 

make it available for the aftermarket—in their letter of intent, 

right here. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m just asking you what if—what if some company says, ‘‘Go fly a kite. We intend to try to steer everybody back 

to our franchise dealerships.’’ What’s the remedy for that? 

Mr. DANA. I think the competitiveness of this industry would fix 

that problem quickly, sir. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. 

Senator WELLSTONE. I don’t agree with that statement. 

Senator DORGAN. Yes. There can’t be competition for the repair 

of an automobile for which you’re not able to make the repairs. 

That’s the whole point of the hearing, of course. 

Let me ask one other question. We’re talking about concerns. I 

assume there are some good actors out there. Can you tell me, Mr. 

Feste, which of the automobile manufacturers seems to be most responsive in providing information to independent repair shops? 

Mr. FESTE. Yes. From an independent repair standpoint, General 

Motors has been most accommodating and extremely helpful in 

service information and helping us to access codes and so on. They 

are a major player, and we would certainly hope that the other 

manufacturers would look to General Motors and take a cue from 

them. 

Senator DORGAN. I want to thank Senator Wellstone. He has to 

run to another engagement, but I want to thank him for bringing 

this to the attention of the Committee. 

Mr. HAAS. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to—— Senator DORGAN. Yes? 

Mr. HAAS.—add to Mr. Feste’s——

39

Senator DORGAN. Of course. 

Mr. HAAS.—comments that not only has General Motors done an 

outstanding job of making the information available, they’ve done 

it in a manner that is accessible and affordable, and those are key 

issues. Those are very important. It’s not just simply is the information available. It must be accessible, it must be affordable. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Well, let’s have this hearing stand as 

an expression of concern that this problem be resolved. It can be 

resolved legislatively by passing legislation here in Congress, or it 

can be resolved through the negotiations and determination that 

Mr. Dana and Mr. Cabaniss have described. I don’t think independent repair shops and consumers would care how it’s resolved 

as long as it’s resolved fairly and fully. 

But I think it’s important for us to understand that it would not 

be appropriate in our country for automobile manufacturers to say, 

‘‘We’re going to produce a product that can only be repaired in our 

franchise dealerships.’’ That’s not in the interest of the consumer, 

and it’s not what we want to have happen with respect to the fostering of competition in our country. 

I’m going to send a letter to the EPA and ask about enforcement 

issues, generally, because that’s been raised here and I think it’s 

important to inquire about that. Second, I’m going to ask the Federal Trade Commission to monitor this issue with you all so that 

we can evaluate what kind of progress is made. 

I would agree with Senator Wellstone that if progress is not 

made or if we face a circumstance where we’re discovering independent repair shops are being frozen out of the information systematically, I think that Congress will take a hard look at passing 

the type of legislation Senator Wellstone has introduced. 

I think this hearing is informative and instructive, even though 

we’ve had very different opinions. From the exchange, I get a sense 

of what the circumstances are, and I think you should get a sense 

that there’s an expression of concern here in Congress about what 

has happened in the past and what we think should happen in the 

future in order to foster competition. 

It is true that the automobile is vastly different than it was 50 

years ago. Fifty years ago, you could take it almost anyplace, put 

it up on a hoist and take a few bolts out and take a look at what 

was inside the engine. Boy, it’s a radically different circumstance 

in trying to deal with vehicles these days. 

I think it’s especially important at the end of this hearing to say 

that there are a lot of so-called ‘‘good guys’’ in the automobile repair business, both at franchise dealerships and independent repair 

shops. I don’t want anybody to get the notion that there are bad 

actors all over the lot here. There are ‘‘good guys’’ with respect to 

manufacturers. There are ‘‘good guys’’ with respect to doing automotive repair and people that the American consumer can inherently trust in having their automobile repaired. 

This is not just a matter of convenience. In many cases it’s a 

matter of safety for drivers and their families and other people on 

the road. 

So I want to thank all of you for preparing testimony and submitting it today and thank others of you who’ve come. This record 

will remain open for two weeks from the date of this hearing. If 

40

you wish to submit comments for the record, we will include them 

as a formal part of the hearing. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(41)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AARON LOWE, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AUTOMOTIVE AFTERMARKET INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION AND THE AUTOMOTIVE WARE- HOUSE DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION

On behalf of the 2,500 members of the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) and the 300 member Automotive Warehouse Distributors Association 

(AWDA), I respectively submit the following testimony regarding The Motor Vehicle 

Owners Right To Repair Act (S. 2617). 

AAIA and AWDA represent manufacturers, manufacturers’ representatives, distributors, retailers, and installers of aftermarket parts and accessories. These companies sell primarily into the automotive aftermarket, which is everything that happens to a car once it leaves the dealership. It is estimated that 70 to 80 percent 

of car owners patronize the independent aftermarket, those not affiliated with the 

motor vehicle manufacturers, once their vehicles are out of warranty based on the 

factors of convenience, price and trust. In fact, U.S. car owners enjoy the most affordable repair aftermarket in the world due to the fact that there is significant 

competition in this country both for the repair and the supply of replacement parts. 

The affordability of repairs for the average motorist helps ensure that they can continue to maintain critical safety and emissions related systems. However, our industry is concerned that competition, the very thing that holds so many benefits for the 

car owners and the environment, may disappear as a result of government regulation and desires by some manufacturers to use technology advances for monopoly 

gains. 

Legislation and regulations enacted in the late eighties and nineties, both federally and in California, required that car companies equip vehicles with on-board diagnostic systems capable of monitoring the major emissions control systems and 

alerting the car owner of a malfunction. The system also would provide technicians 

with the ability to better locate and correct emissions related problems. As Congress 

moved to enact these requirements, they also were extremely concerned that the increased use of computers could provide new car dealers and the car companies with 

a monopoly in the service of these vehicles. Therefore, provisions were added in both 

House and Senate versions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that required 

standardized access to the OBD II system, as well as a mandate that all information 

necessary to use the OBD II system and to make emissions related repairs be provided to anyone who repaired vehicles. On August 9, 1995, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency issued regulations (60 FR 40474) implementing the ‘‘information 

availability requirements’’. 

Since the 1990 Act and the subsequent regulations, the use of computers on vehicles has increased whereby virtually every system on the vehicle is tied into the vehicle’s central computer. Further, while some vehicle manufacturers have become 

more conscious of the importance of the aftermarket to ensuring consumer satisfaction with their vehicles, other car companies have not been as cooperative. The 

problems that have been plaguing the aftermarket since the promulgation of the 

EPA information availability regulations can be summarized in the following three 

scenarios:

• The information is available, but difficult to locate; 

• The information is available, but priced too high for most aftermarket shops to 

afford it, or; 

• The information is not available at all, at any price.

AAIA and AWDA further have been concerned about how the on-board computer 

will impact parts manufacturers. Essentially, while independent producers could 

build a part that performed equally with the OE part it was intended to replace, 

the part might not interface properly with computer and thus set off the malfunction indicator light unnecessarily. Thus, the aftermarket manufacturers need information regarding the operation of the system such that they could build parts to 

work properly with the system. In response to our concerns, EPA determined that 

42

Congress did not intend for the information availability provision to cover replacement parts and therefore the Agency did not include any requirements in its 1995 

rulemaking. 

Following promulgation of the final service information rule, the aftermarket sued 

claiming that the agency should have considered replacement parts related issues 

in their OBD II and information availability rulemaking due to their impact on the 

availability of competitive repairs. While the US Court of Appeals acknowledged 

there might be competitive concerns regarding replacement parts as a result of the 

OBD II standards, the court ruled that EPA was within its statutory discretion 

when it determined that parts issues should not be considered. 

Frustrated by EPA’s lack of enforcement of the current service information rules 

and the absence of consideration of the parts compatibility issue, the aftermarket 

in the late nineties turned to California in order to resolve its issues. California was 

selected since it had taken the lead in the development of OBD II and the fact that 

most car companies were building their systems to meet the California standards. 

Further, EPA had determined that OBD II systems that were California compliant 

would also be considered compliant with Federal OBD II standards. Thus the 

aftermarket felt that legislation enacted in California would have national implications. 

Legislation (SB 1146) introduced by Senator John Burton in February of 1999 attempted to correct many of the problems being experienced by independents in obtaining emissions related service information and tools. A provision requiring information necessary to ensure that aftermarket manufacturers had access to information necessary to ensure that their parts were compatible with the OBD II system 

was included in the bill. 

While there was general agreement regarding many of the service information 

provisions, the parts provisions became extremely contentious with the vehicle manufacturers. Specifically, the manufacturers publicly charged that aftermarket companies were looking for free access to the blueprints for replacement parts and the 

internal calibrations of their on-board computers, similar to the arguments that they 

are espousing with this legislation. Through several negotiating sessions between 

parts manufacturers and car companies, a compromise was reached whereby only 

general and generic operating parameters would be shared. We felt that this agreement would not only provide the necessary information for aftermarket parts manufacturers, but as it turned out, this same information would be invaluable to technicians in properly understanding how the OBD system works and therefore assist 

them in repairing the vehicle. It also would ensure that car companies would not 

be required to release proprietary software codes unless a court determined that the 

information was necessary to preserve competition in the aftermarket. Subsequent 

to that agreement, all of the major vehicle manufacturers, except one, decided to no 

longer oppose the bill. 

The agreement in California came about because the aftermarket and car companies got together and determined what information about the OBD II system was 

really necessary for developing replacement parts. While the legislation has yet to 

be fully implemented, we believe that it will go a long way toward ensuring competition in both the repair and parts area without jeopardizing proprietary information. 

Based on the events in California, AAIA and AWDA take exception to contentions 

made by the car companies in their testimony at the July 30 hearing that there is 

a sinister plot by the part manufacturers to use this legislation to obtain the internal calibrations. In truth, the reason that parts manufacturers are supporting the 

Motor Vehicle Owners Right To Repair Act is really very simple. The independent 

service providers are our number one customers. If they disappear, our independent 

manufacturers disappear as well. In essence, their survival is our survival. In addition, if an independent supply of replacement parts evaporates, service providers are 

harmed since they depend on us to keep parts prices down and therefore help them 

stay competitive. However, we are not asking for any more information than is 

needed to properly repair and maintain today’s highly sophisticated emissions and 

safety systems. 

The actions in California, EPA and Arizona, also have brought about another important benefit, the establishment of the National Automotive Service Information 

Task Force (NATF). The task force is comprised of both aftermarket and car companies groups committed to resolving problems in the availability of service information and tools. The discussions by this group are important to developing open communications necessary to correct our concerns. Further, the legislative and regulatory activities have brought about written commitments from many of the vehicle 

manufacturers to make available all service information, both emissions and nonemissions related to the aftermarket by January 1, 2003. AAIA and AWDA applaud 

these developments. If the car companies honor their commitments, car owner satisVerDate Apr 24 2002 13:25 Apr 16, 2003 Jkt 084857 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\84857.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
43

faction with car company products should improve and competition will be preserved. Definitely a win-win for everyone involved. 

However, before everyone declares victory and goes home, it should be noted that 

there are at least two car companies that have not signed on to the letter of intent 

and there are others that have conditioned their commitments to this effort. Further, should the car companies not comply; there is nothing in the letter that would 

be enforceable by our members or consumers. Finally, the letter of commitment does 

not cover the price of this information to independents or how they will make this 

information available. Both are critical issues to the actual availability to our industry. 

Therefore, AAIA and AWDA believe that it is essential that Congress pass S. 2617 

in order to ensure that the commitments made by the car companies continue to 

be viable. In fact, if all information will be available in 2003 as promised by the 

manufacturers, there is little that the companies will need to fear from the enactment of S. 2617. However, should they determine not to comply, then the bill will 

provide the aftermarket, FTC and the car owners a legal avenue to mandate compliance. 

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will not provide our industry with any advantage 

in competing with the dealerships or the car companies. What it will do is level the 

playing field for independents in competing with the dealerships, thus ensuring 

competition. The car companies can continue to have the ability to develop vehicle 

systems that are better than their competition. Their patents will be safe and will 

not suddenly become vulnerable to being stolen by the aftermarket as they have 

suggested. However, what this bill will do is ensure that once that vehicle is in the 

hands of consumers, he or she can obtain repairs at the facility of their choosing 

whether independent or dealer. We believe that absent an unfair advantage, the car 

owners will continue to return to the independent based on service value and convenience. However, we look forward to that fight in the marketplace and not in the 

halls of Congress or the federal agencies. We therefore strongly urge the committee 

to move forward with consideration of this legislation as soon as possible. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify and we welcome any questions that the 

Committee might have.

Æ