Upload
dokhanh
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
National Automotive Service Task Force Meeting
November 2, 2005
Draft Minutes On November 2, 2005, the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF) held its regular semi-annual meeting in conjunction with the ASA’s Congress of Automotive Service and Repair in Las Vegas. The agenda and attendance list are appended. John Cabaniss, NASTF chairman, chaired the meeting. He noted that this meeting marked the five-year anniversary of NASTF and thanked everyone for their support of NASTF. After briefly providing an anti-trust reminder, the first order of business was to review the agenda for the meeting. After reviewing the advance agenda, Mr. Cabaniss requested additions or corrections from the floor. No changes in the agenda were requested from the floor, but Mr. Cabaniss noted that any additional matters could be brought up during the “Other” section at the end of the agenda. Review of Last Meeting and Action Items Mr. Cabaniss provided a quick summary of the April 2005 NASTF by reviewing the action items listed in the minutes of that meeting. These actions items were:
Service Information Committee:
1. Summarize legacy complaints on IATN – Service Information Committee 2. Review complaint process – Service Information Committee
Training Committee:
3. Review/revise training matrix format – Training Committee 4. Once revised, complete/update new training matrix – OEMs 5. Once updated, validate training matrix – Training Committee 6. Identify training outreach targets – Training Committee
Tool & Equipment Committee:
7. Two OEMs need to submit tool information -Porsche and Saab 8. Eight OEMs need to update their tool matrices - BMW, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan,
Porsche, Saab, Subaru, and Suzuki 9. Seven OEMs need to submit reprogramming matrices - BMW, GM, Honda/Acura,
Mercedes Benz, Porsche, Volvo, and VW/Audi
10. Add tire pressure monitoring system to the tool matrix – Equipment & Tool Committee
Vehicle Security Committee:
11. Work with OEMs, locksmith professionals, and NICB to review concept for Secure Data Release Model – Vehicle Security Committee
All NASTF Participants:
12. Continue to distribute NASTF information through personal contacts, newsletters, training classes, etc. – All NASTF Participants
13. Identify prospective NASTF participants – All NASTF Participants Chairman/Co-Chairmen:
14. More volunteers needed for work group on future structure of NASTF – contact John Cabaniss
15. Responses to the OEM survey on collision policies will be assembled and forwarded to SCRS and ASA Collision Division – Cabaniss
16. AIA letter on Canadian information access will be forwarded to CVMA and AIAMC – Cabaniss
17. Responses to Mr. Zacheis’s questions – Cabaniss and committee co-chairs Regulatory Update Holly Pugliese of EPA reported on the status of
• EPA’s assessment of OEM service websites • EPA’s upcoming audit of websites • J2534 and reprogramming • EPA’s heavy-duty service information rule
See attached presentation. Ms. Pugliese reported that EPA has done some in-house review of OEM service websites. In general, no significant issues have been noted in these reviews, although she noted that searchability has posed some challenges. The EPA regulations require annual OEM website performance reports, but EPA has found that these reports provide limited insight. Therefore, EPA has been working for the past year to set up an independent review and audit of the OEM service websites with the assistance of a group of technicians to evaluate them. Several months ago EPA ran into a procedural issue which required getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget which caused some delay in the audit. Now that those hurdles have been cleared, EPA expects the audit to be under way by mid-December 2005. EPA has approximately 300 technicians who have volunteered to assist EPA with the audit. These technician auditors will be provided free access to those OEM websites they are evaluating. A small group of technicians will be assigned to review each OEM website during the first quarter of 2006. EPA plans to communicate progress through its audit website (www.oemaudit.com) and
reports on IATN and industry associations. A final report will be issued after the audit is concluded. In preparing for the full audit, EPA worked with several automakers to conduct pilot audits with a very small group of technicians. The purpose of the pilot audit was primarily to test out the audit questionnaire. Ms. Pugliese emphasized that the scope of the audit is limited to emissions related information and the requirements of EPA’s regulations. Non-emissions related information, assessment of the voluntary agreement, or other information issues are outside of EPA’s regulatory authority and will not be addressed in the audit. Additionally, she noted that EPA will not make compliance determinations solely based on the audit results; although, EPA retains its authority to follow up based on audit findings to determine compliance or enforcement remedies as well as other remedies, as deemed appropriate. Ms. Pugliese summarized the J2534 and reprogramming requirements in EPA’s regulations. She noted that the regulations require J2534 for 2004 and newer model year vehicles and also require a reprogramming solution for 1996-2003 MY vehicles equipped with reprogrammable features. She noted that the J2534 process is continuing to evolve. Two areas need further investigation: 1. the extent to which OEM reprogramming information is available, and 2. the extent to which J2534 devices currently on the market actually work as intended. The NASTF equipment and tool committee is assessing the first issue, but the second needs investigation, too. Finally, Ms. Pugliese reported that EPA is drafting OBD requirements for the heavy-duty sector and that service information availability will be addressed in these rules. She expects a proposal to be issued in the spring of 2006. EPA is working closely with CARB on similar regulations being developed in California to allow harmonization as much as possible. Committee Reports Service Information Committee - Steve Douglas, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, co-chairs this committee and made the committee report. He noted that Bill Haas, ASA, has recently stepped down as co-chair of the committee and recognized Mr. Haas for his service over the past five years. Mr. Douglas reported that the new co-chair is Dave Zwalina, a repair shop owner in Florida. The committee met on August 1, 2005 and on October 10, 2005. At the August meeting the committee revised the Service Information Feedback/Request form, which was posted later that month on IATN. Mr. Douglas thanked Brent Black and IATN for the continued support provided to the committee. At both the August and October meetings the issue of how to determine when a request is resolved was discussed without any resolution. A small work group is continuing to focus on this question.
Mr. Douglas summarized the feedback/request processing as follows. During 2004, NASTF received 48 inquiries and manufacturers responded to all of them. Through November 1, 2005, 44 inquiries involving 15 manufacturers have been received in 2005, and the manufacturers have responded to all except one that is in process. The committee report is attached. Bob Pattengale of PWR Training provided an update on his work on assembling the information on legacy complaints and getting that information posted on the IATN network. He reported that all the legacy complaint information has been received, reviewed, and scanned. The primary remaining task is to work with IATN to get the information posted. Equipment and Tool Committee - Charlie Gorman of the Equipment & Tool Institute, chairman of the committee, provided the report. See attached presentation. He reported that six OEMs have updated their tool matrices since the April 2005 meeting, current through the 2005 MY. In addition, five other OEMs already have their tool matrices complete through the 2005 MY. He identified ten manufacturers (BMW, DCX Mercedes Group, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Porsche, Saab, Suzuki, VW, and Volvo) that need to update their tool matrices, since the current information is current only through the 2001 MY (one case), 2002 MY (four cases), 2003 MY (two cases), or 2004 MY (three cases). He reported that no manufacturer has refused to provide tool information. Gaps in information still exist, but the process for addressing gaps is working. Mr. Gorman noted that a number of scan tool companies are just catching up with the significant volume of information that has been made available. In some cases, there are licensing issues that need to be worked out. These issues do no always involve fees. For instance, in one case the auto manufacturer has a licensing provision which limits sales to the U.S. market, while most tool companies have franchises throughout North America and therefore cannot limit sales in Canada or Mexico. Auto manufacturers appear to be working in good faith to address gaps and other issues. Mr. Gorman reported that seven automakers have updated their reprogramming matrices since the April 2005 meeting, and five manufacturers already had up-to-date reprogramming matrices. He reported that six manufacturers (BMW, DCX Mercedes Group, GM, Porsche, Saab, and VW/Audi) have not provided reprogramming matrices. One manufacturer (Subaru) has no reprogrammable vehicles but that will change soon. Regarding reprogramming information availability, the committee has agreed that:
1. OEMs need to explain the status of J2534 implementation.
- Is J2534 application software available? - If so, how are calibration purchased? - Does the application apply to the April 2004 version of J2534 or only the
older February 2002 version?
2. Information pertaining to J2534 availability should be made available on the free
side of each OEM service website. 3. The reprogramming summary document will be changed to add columns to track
the above items. The committee will be visiting the OEM websites to determine whether J2534 information is available as noted above and work with manufacturers to address any gaps. A new OEM J2534 Information Availability Chart has been posted to address three questions:
Q1. Have you made J2534 application software available to the aftermarket and can J2534 reprogramming be performed using a non-OEM J2534 device? Y or N
Q2. Is J2534 reprogramming capability information available on the free part of your
website? Y or N Q3. Does the free part of your website contain information regarding whether or not a
particular vehicle requires reprogramming? Y or N
It was noted that these questions only address information availability, not whether the reprogramming software or devices work in practice. The link for this chart is http://www.etools.org/org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=2529 Training Committee – G Truglia of Automotive Technician Training Services is currently the chairman of this committee. See attached report. He reported that the training committee has met several times since the April 2005 meeting to address the action items from the meeting. The committee has undertaken the following steps:
1. Revising the training matrix to include all relevant information and adding a contact column.
2. Identifying a contact person for seeking permission to use copyrighted information in a training context.
3. Ensuring materials are available via toll free numbers or websites. The committee also has plans for
4. Expanding outreach to reach as many trainers as possible 5. Validating the training matrices, primarily for OBD II, electrical, and computer
control functions. Mr. Truglia displayed the revised training matrix and the new collision matrix. Vehicle Security Committee – Dave Lanspeary, Dave’s Auto in Arizona, co-chairs this committee (along with Mark Saxonberg of Toyota) and made the committee report. See attached report. The committee met three times since the April 2005 meeting on July 27
(face-to-face), September 15 (conference call), and November 2 (face-to-face). Mr. Lanspeary reported the following accomplishments since April:
• Fully engaged most of the key stakeholders, including AAA, ALOA, and NICB. • Solidified the commitment of all participants to the committee and the proposed
SDRM or something similar. • Identified gaps in existing support systems and initiated actions to address them. • Identified the most difficult challenges to move ahead the SDRM concept,
including consumer privacy, domestic and international insurability, insurance company buy-in, law enforcement buy-in, liability issues for both OEMs and locksmiths, and accountability.
He also noted that the vehicle security committee process has been instrumental in better understanding of all parties of the gaps and issues involved. The committee is bringing everyone’s attention and focus to bear on developing a workable way to address most issues while protecting privacy, security, system integrity, insurability, and law enforcement interests. The next steps for the committee are:
• NICB: determine scale of SDRM system needs; estimate costs for SDRM databases and support systems; vet issues with NICB members; and investigate partners for and estimated costs of security clearance process.
• Security professionals: work with NICB to develop security screening requirements; assist in estimating scale, costs, and funding mechanisms.
• OEMs: work through legal and liability issues with legal/management; assist NICB in vetting issues with insurance and law enforcement interests.
Communications Committee – Mr. Cabaniss reported that the Communications Committee continues to pursue various approaches to distribute information about NASTF and its activities. The primary method to get out information is for NASTF participants to pass along information to constituents, clients, colleagues, and members, as may be relevant to each organization involved. Many NASTF participants have regular newsletters or other publications. He requested that everyone use these venues to remind readers about NASTF, why it’s important, and how to get involved. He acknowledged a number of NASTF participants for their efforts in this area, including ASE, ASA, IATN, CARQUEST, and noted that many others are doing similar things. He also noted that many of the training companies are distributing information about NASTF and OEM websites to their students. This is another great way to get out information. Mr. Cabaniss reported that NASTF continues to issue press releases to announce meetings and updates to various website files. All press releases are sent out to all NASTF participants with a request for distribution assistance. Mr. Cabaniss is continuing to do periodic NASTF updates via email about every six weeks. These updates go to the full NASTF participant email list.
He is also working with state and local I/M agencies to distribute information. Over 30 states currently have I/M programs, and many states have a regular dialogue with shops. NASTF information is distributed through the OBD Clearinghouse at Weber State University and through the IM Solutions program through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Other activities include providing speakers at conferences, working with the trade press, and adding new NASTF participants. He noted that anyone needing a speaker for an upcoming conference or workshop should contact him. He also noted that there have been a number of excellent stories on NASTF, OEM service websites, and other service topics in recent issues of the major trade publications. The committee is continuing efforts to expand NASTF participants. Mr. Cabaniss asked all NASTF participants to identify other targets for expanding participation in NASTF. The committee report is attached. Old Business Collision Repair – At the November 2004 meeting, representatives of the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) and the ASA Collision Division raised an issue related OEM practices of limiting collision replacement parts for new specialized product offerings which involve new vehicle manufacturing techniques and materials to “certified” or “approved” shops. ASA and SCRS were concerned that such practices could preclude the ability of some shops to compete for repairs. At the April 2005 meeting Mr. Cabaniss reported that all OEMs were surveyed to determine which manufacturers and models fall into this special vehicle category and the OEMs’ policies for providing access to training, tools, and replacement parts to independent shops. He reported further that only four manufacturers indicated that they have any models with special body/platform construction techniques or materials that require special training or tools. These four manufacturers are BMW, Jaguar, Porsche (one model), and VW/Audi. All of these four companies have indicated that they have programs in place to allow independent collision shops to receive the necessary training and tools in order to repair their vehicles. He was asked to forward copies of the companies’ responses to ASA and SCRS and agreed to do so. These documents have now been transmitted electronically to ASA and SCRS. Canadian Repair Access – At the November 2004 meeting, John Cochrane of Cochrane Auto in the Toronto, Canada area raised a concern about the availability of service information in Canada. At the April 2005 meeting Mr. Cabaniss reported that OEMs had been surveyed about Canadian access to OEM information websites with mixed results. Some allowed access to U.S. websites which others did not. At that time, he emphasized that the OEMs participating in NASTF are the U.S. corporations for the various automakers. Auto manufacturers do business in many different countries, but under different corporations and management. In Canada specifically, the corporate entities and management for automakers is different from that in the U.S. Mr. Cabaniss also reported
that he had notified the two automotive OEM trade associations in Canada of AIA Canada’s concerns. At the November 2nd meeting Mr. Cabaniss reported that AIA Canada had convened a meeting in August 2005 to discuss the possibility of creating a NASTF-like group in Canada. Mr. Cochrane reported that these efforts are continuing and that AIA Canada is also meeting with interested members of Parliament about their concerns. NASTF Structure –At the November 2004 meeting, Paul Foley of the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association brought up some suggestions for consideration regarding the future of NASTF, including the possibility of a small permanent staff to handle many of the NASTF administrative duties. At that time small work group was formed to consider at the options, a related budget, and other factors. At the April 2005 meeting MR. Cabaniss provided an update noting that limited progress had been made and invited others to join the work group to stimulate discussions. ETI asked to join the work group. At the November 2nd meeting Mr. Cabaniss reported that further discussions had been held during the summer of 2005 and that ETI had submitted a proposal for an interim three-year transition period. Mr. Gorman was asked to summarize the ETI proposal. Mr. Gorman emphasized that the ETI proposal is a “straw man” to solicit further discussion. He noted that ETI has benefited substantially from the NASTF process and that ETI is fully committed to its continuation and to making it more effective. The ETI proposal is for a three-year transition whereby ETI would oversee the administrative and support functions of NASTF with the addition of a full-time staff person specifically for NASTF. The NASTF technical committees would remain the same as they are currently, both in terms of makeup and direction. The ETI proposal envisions a three-year transition phase after which a decision would be made as to the future direction of NASTF. This suggested time frame does not preclude other NASTF organizational changes in the interim as may be decided later. ETI envisions this process as costing about $150,000 per year which would be spread over the associations that elect to support the NASTF plan. The ETI proposal envisions a steering committee being comprised of the representatives of each financial supporter and the technical committees. Mr. Gorman concluded by recognizing that details need to be worked out but also emphasizing that the ETI proposal would provide a first step in creating NASTF as an organization and provide some structure and a governing body which are missing in today’s volunteer structure of NASTF. Mr. Gorman reported that a meeting had been held on October 19, 2005 with about 20-25 representatives attending. The purpose was to discuss the ETI proposal and determine next steps. Follow up actions are planned. The minutes of the October 19th meeting are on the NASTF website. There was considerable discussion from the floor about the ETI proposal and the general concept of moving NASTF to the next level. There were some questions about the make-
up of the NASTF steering committee envisioned under the ETI proposal and whether it would be better to have an independent steering committee rather than just those represented by financial contributors. Mr. Gorman reiterated that these types of details would all need to be worked out by the planning group. The general consensus among the parties present at the meeting appeared to support moving ahead with a formalized NASTF as soon as possible to bring some resources to bear on the NASTF activities by having a small permanent staff. A motion was made by Dave Lanspeary and seconded by Howard Pitkow to indicate for the record that the parties presented supported moving ahead with formalizing NASTF. After some further discussion, the motion was passed without dissent. Afterwards, it was requested that the record be made clear that the vote did not include adopting the ETI or any other specific proposal, and it is so noted herein. List of Issues – At the April 2005 meeting, John Zacheis of Clarke Automotive handed out a list of seven questions and asked for responses as a follow up. At the November 2nd meeting Mr. Cabaniss reported responses to Mr. Zacheis’s questions had been drafted and a preliminarily sent to Mr. Zacheis. These responses will be finalized as soon as possible and posted on the NASTF website. New Business Collision Repair Issues – Jerry Burns of Automotive Impressions reported that there were several issues which need to be addressed regarding collision repairs. He noted that he understands that Mercedes Benz plans to announce a new policy concerning new restrictions on collision repair training and parts. He also reported that collision repairers need information on the usage of special materials, such as aluminum, magnesium, specials steels, etc. which is not currently available from some manufacturers. He also noted some specific manufacturer issues, such as the unavailability of a local dealer in New Mexico in order to completer E-commerce transactions, and a VIN labeling issue with Kia vehicles. Mr. Cabaniss asked Mr. Burns to submit these items for follow up. Other The next meeting of the NASTF will be held in conjunction with the SAE Congress in Detroit during the week of April 3, 2006. Action Items: Service Information Committee:
1. Summarize legacy complaints on IATN – in process 2. Review collision issues presented by Mr. Burns
Training Committee:
3. Circulate revised training matrix for completion by OEMs 4. Once updated, validate training matrix
5. Identify training outreach targets Tool & Equipment Committee:
6. Ten OEMs need to update their tool matrices – BMW, DCX Mercedes Group, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Porsche, Saab, Suzuki, VW, and Volvo
7. Six OEMs need to submit reprogramming matrices - BMW, DCX Mercedes Group, GM, Porsche, Saab, and VW/Audi
8. Review the OEM websites to determine availability of J2534 reprogramming information
Vehicle Security Committee:
9. Work with OEMs, locksmith professionals, and NICB to review concept for Secure Data Release Model (including insurance interests and law enforcement agencies)
All NASTF Participants:
10. Continue to distribute NASTF information through personal contacts, newsletters, training classes, etc.
11. Identify prospective NASTF participants Chair/Committee Co-Chairs:
12. Determine planning group for NASTF formalization 13. Conduct follow up meetings on NASTF formalization 14. Finalize and post responses to Mr. Zacheis’s questions
National Automotive Service Task Force Meeting
Mirage Hotel & Casino Las Vegas, Nevada
November 2, 2005
1:30 pm
Draft Agenda
1. Introductions and Welcome; Anti-Trust Reminder 2. Review Agenda 3. Review Last Meeting and Action Items
4. Regulatory Update – EPA and CARB
5. Committee Reports –
a. Service Information Committee b. Equipment & Tool Committee c. Training Committee d. Vehicle Security Committee e. Communication Committee
6. Old Business
a. Collision repair issue b. Canadian issue c. NASTF structure d. Other
7. New Business
8. Next Meeting – April, 2006, SAE Congress, Detroit 9. Other
National Automotive Task Force Meeting November 2, 2005 Attendance List
Louis Collins Aaction Automotive Aaron Lowe AAIA Stephanie Salmon AAIA Paul Foley AASA/MEMA Bob Everett AASP NJ Judell Anderson AASP NM Pat Anderson AASP NM Jerry Schantz AASP PA Craig VonBatenburg ACDC Bill Moss Advantage Certified Tim Hogan AH&H Automotive Scott Smith AIA Canada John Cabaniss AIAM George Cusack ALLDATA Mark Gunnerson ALLDATA Steve Gilles ALLDATA Steve Douglas Alliance Bill Young ALOA Ken Kupferman ALOA Charles Black American Honda Lance Taeubel American Honda Linda Greene American Honda Pete Meier American Honda Valerie Sullivan American Honda Angie Wilson ASA Bill Haas ASA Bob Redding ASA Robbie Addison ASA Ron Pyle ASA Ron Meyer ASA - Michigan Luz Rubio ASA of Arizona Chuck Roberts ASE Fred Hines Atech Training Brad Tyler Atlanta Lock SVC
G Truglia ATTS Katherine Horne Auto Alliance Malcolm Rixon Autodata Vince Mow Automotive Consultant Jerry Burns Automotive Impressions Dave Zwalina AutomotiveONE Inc. Steve Handschuh AutoZone/ALLDATA Robert Ayers Ayers Automotive Jim Bastone Bastone Auto Service Charles Burke Bentley Publishers John Cabral Blue Streak Electronics Marc Jackson BMW NA Bob Schlanger British Car Service Skip Potter CABA Russ Schinzing Cardone Industries Loretto Thompson CARQUEST Chris Chesney CARQUEST Technical Institute Bob Stewart CCAR Greg Potter Chief Automotive Tech Jim O'Neill Chino Autotech Bob Clarke Clarke Automotive John Zacheis Clarke Automotive John Cochrane Cochrane Automotive Danny Sublett DaimlerChrysler Frank Krich DaimlerChrysler Tom McRae DaimlerChrysler William Cravin DaimlerChrysler Dan Dryke Dryke & Associates Holly Pugliese EPA Brian Irish ETI Charlie Gorman ETI Don Vidoli Fairfield Country Motorsport Dave Benbow Flourtown Service Center John Trajnowski Ford Motor Kevin Brady Ford Motor Sue Blackson Lepidi Ford Motor Mike Brewster Gil's Garage John Mark Hall Hall's Automotive, Inc. Jim Houser Hawthorne Auto Clinic Mike McFarland Hires Automotive
Marty Simons Hyundai Motor America Brent Black iATN Scott Brown iATN Bill Sauer IDENTIFIX Mike Stevenson Import Automotive Alex Morales Isuzu Motors America Lewis Thompson Isuzu Motors America Michael Brus Isuzu Motors America Robert Kilcullen Isuzu Motors America Gary Bankos Jims Auto Repair Denny Kahler Kahlers Dave Walter Kehoe Automotive Robert J. Kasai Kia Motors America Darrell Amberson Lehman's Garage/ASA Doug Garriott Linder Tech Jim Linder Linder Tech Michele Winn Linder Tech Randy Dillman Linder Tech Kerry Freeman LKF Associates LLC Dave Heinzen Madison Area Technical College Eddie Ehlert Mazda Only Dave Scaler MEA Ann Wilson MEMA Brian Duggin MEMA Jim Hawes Mitchell1 Ken Young Mitchell1 Nick DiVerde Mitchell1 David Griffith Mitsubishi Motors Kensuke Sasaki Mitsubishi Motors Kurt Kurata Mitsubishi Motors Bill Cannon Motor Age Bob Chabot Motor Age Karl Seyfert MOTOR Magazine Tom Nash MOTOR Magazine Rob Braziel NADA Mike Hyde National Auto Lock Hal Greene Nevada DMV David P. Shaw Nissan Rich Burns Nissan Kathleen Poirier Nissan/Tweddle
Kristopher Lewis Onsite Auto Grant Goulet Par-Tech Gary Goms Parts & People Lance Buchner Parts & People Bob Pattengale PWR Training Mark Warren PWR Training Charlie Elder Ray Gordon Brake Service Rick Baker Rick Baker’s Auto Service Ron Turner Ridge Auto Bill Eernisse Rotary Lift Co. Donny Seyfer Seyfer Automotive Michael J West Southtowne Auto Rebuild/ASA Danté Williams SPX Service Solutions Garrett Miller SPX Service Solutions Jeffrey Masterman Standard Motor Products Fred Kosloske Strattec Security Corp Steve Gilles Strattec Security Corp Terry Steenholdt TDS Auto Repair Gary Molin The Greensheet Becky MacDicken Tire Industry Association Dan Torbeck Torbeck's Auto Repair Mark Saxonberg Toyota Tom Trisdale Toyota Bruce Amacker Turbo Training Kenneth Poirier Tweddle Litho RJ Kring Tweddle Litho Bernard Carr Vetronix Corp Bob Augustine Vetronix Corp Kirt Immekus Volkswagen of America Gerry Merritts Volvo Cars of NA Howard Pitkow Wagenwerx, Inc. Mark Hicks Wells MFG Rolf Werner Werner Mastertek Robert Wills Wills Auto Service Allen Osborne (Oz) Worldpac Rob Morrell Worldpac Glenn Young Young's Auto Jeff Walter Zimmerman's Automotive
1
NASTF
Equip
men
tCom
mitte
e Rep
ort
Nove
mber
3,
2005
Las
Veg
as,
NV
Com
mitte
e Chai
rman
–Char
lie G
orm
an
2
Sca
n T
ool M
atrix
Acc
ura
cy
The
mat
rix
has
chan
ged
sin
ce t
he
last
m
eeting.
We
hav
e re
ceiv
ed u
pdat
es f
rom
th
e fo
llow
ing c
om
pan
ies:
(G
ood t
hro
ugh
2005 M
odel
yea
r)Fo
rdG
MJa
guar
Kia
Land R
ove
rSubar
u
3
Sca
n T
ool M
atrix
Acc
ura
cy
Updat
es n
ot
nee
ded
-good t
hro
ugh
2005 m
odel
yea
r.D
CX –
Chry
sler
Gro
up
Isuzu
Maz
da
Mitsu
bis
hi
Toyo
ta
4
Sca
n T
ool M
atrix
Acc
ura
cyU
pdat
es n
eeded
(M
atrice
s no longer
ref
lect
w
hat
has
bee
n p
rovi
ded
)BM
W -
’02 m
odel
yea
rD
CX M
erce
des
Gro
up ’03 M
odel
Yea
rH
onda
’04 M
odel
Yea
rH
yundai
–’0
2 M
odel
Yea
rN
issa
n –
’03 M
odel
Yea
rPo
rsch
e –
’01 M
odel
Yea
rSaa
b –
’02 M
odel
Yea
rSuzu
ki –
’02 M
odel
Yea
rVW
-’0
4 M
odel
Yea
rVolv
o –
’04 M
odel
Yea
r
5
Sca
n T
ool In
form
atio
n G
aps
At
this
tim
e no c
om
pan
y has
ref
use
d t
o
pro
vide
info
rmat
ion
Gap
s st
ill e
xist
and in s
om
e ca
ses
they
are
si
gnific
ant.
H
ow
ever
, th
e pro
cess
is
work
ing.
Ther
e ar
e lic
ensi
ng iss
ues
to w
ork
out.
In
so
me
case
s sc
an t
ool co
mpan
ies
are
still
findin
g it
difficu
lt t
o s
ign s
om
e of th
e m
ore
difficu
lt lic
ense
agre
emen
ts.
The
issu
e is
not
alw
ays
the
fee.
6
Acc
ura
cy o
f th
e Rep
rogra
mm
ing
Mat
rix
Updat
ed s
ince
the
last
NASTF
Mee
ting
Ford
Honda
Jaguar
Land R
ove
rM
azda
Nis
san
Volv
o
7
Acc
ura
cy o
f th
e Rep
rogra
mm
ing
Mat
rix
Updat
ed b
efore
the
last
mee
ting,
but
still
acc
ura
teD
C-C
hry
sler
Isuzu
8
Acc
ura
cy o
f th
e Rep
rogra
mm
ing
Mat
rix
Nee
ds
updat
ing
Hyu
ndai
’04 M
odel
Yea
rKia
’04 M
odel
Yea
rM
itsu
bis
hi ’0
4 M
odel
Yea
rSuzu
ki ’04 M
odel
Yea
rToyo
ta ’04 M
odel
Yea
r (w
ill b
e updat
ed
at E
TI
Tec
h W
eek)
12/2
005
9
Acc
ura
cy o
f th
e Rep
rogra
mm
ing
Mat
rix
No R
esponse
(M
atrix
is b
lank)
BM
WG
MD
C-M
erce
des
Pors
che
Saa
bVW
/Audi
10
Acc
ura
cy o
f th
e Rep
rogra
mm
ing
Mat
rix
Not
Rep
rogra
mm
able
Subar
u –
this
will
soon c
han
ge
11
Act
ual
rep
rogra
mm
ing info
rmat
ion
avai
labili
ty
OEM
s nee
d t
o e
xpla
in w
her
e th
ey a
re
conce
rnin
g J
2534 im
ple
men
tation.
Is J
2534 a
pplic
atio
n s
oft
war
e av
aila
ble
?If
so,
how
are
cal
ibra
tions
purc
has
ed?
Does
the
applic
atio
n a
pply
to t
he
April 2004
vers
ion o
f th
e J2
534 o
r only
the
old
er F
ebru
ary
2002 v
ersi
on?
It w
as a
gre
ed t
hat
info
rmat
ion p
erta
inin
g t
o
J2534 a
vaila
bili
ty s
hould
be
mad
e av
aila
ble
on f
ree
side
of
each
OEM
s w
ebsi
te.
12
Act
ual
rep
rogra
mm
ing info
rmat
ion
avai
labili
tyIt
was
als
o a
gre
ed t
hat
the
repro
gra
mm
ing s
um
mar
y docu
men
t w
ill b
e ch
anged
to a
dd c
olu
mns
to t
rack
w
het
her
or
not
this
is
true
for
each
OEM
.Som
eone
from
the
Com
mitte
e w
ill t
ake
anoth
er p
ass
at t
he
OEM
web
site
s to
see
if,
how
to r
epro
gra
m u
sing
J2534,
info
rmat
ion is
avai
lable
In e
ach c
ase
wher
e in
form
atio
n is
difficu
lt t
o loca
te,
the
OEM
will
be
conta
cted
bef
ore
chan
gin
g t
he
sum
mar
y docu
men
t.The
Sum
mar
y docu
men
t w
ill b
e updat
ed t
o r
efle
ct
curr
ent
stat
us.
13
New
OEM
J2534 I
nfo
Ava
ilabili
ty C
har
t
Thre
e ques
tions
Qu
est
ion
1-
Hav
e yo
u m
ade
J2534 a
pplic
atio
n
soft
war
e av
aila
ble
to t
he
afte
rmar
ket
and c
an J
2534
repro
gra
mm
ing b
e per
form
ed u
sing a
non-O
EM
J2
534 d
evic
e, y
es o
r no?
Qu
est
ion
2-
Is J
2534 r
epro
gra
mm
ing c
apab
ility
in
form
atio
n a
vaila
ble
on t
he
free
par
t of
your
web
site
, ye
s or
no?
Qu
est
ion
3-
Does
the
free
par
t of yo
ur
web
site
co
nta
in info
rmat
ion r
egar
din
g w
het
her
or
not
a par
ticu
lar
vehic
le r
equires
rep
rogra
mm
ing,
yes
or
no?
None
of th
ese
ques
tions
atte
mpt
to e
valu
ate
whet
her
th
e O
EM
soft
war
e an
d a
fter
mar
ket
dev
ices
work
. T
his
has
only
to d
o w
ith info
rmat
ion.
14
Char
t Lo
cation
htt
p:/
/ww
w.e
tools
.org
/i4a/
pag
es/I
ndex
.cfm
?pag
eID
=2529
NASTF Communications Committee Report
November 2, 2005
The NASTF communications committee continues to pursue various approaches to distribute information about NASTF and its activities.
1. Distribute information through NASTF participants – At the top of our list is to work with NASTF participants to pass along information to your constituents and colleagues. Many of you have newsletters or other publications which you distribute throughout the year. Please be sure to consistently remind your readers about NASTF. In the past we have gotten tremendous help through ASE, ASA, IATN, CARQUEST, and many other NASTF participants. Please keep up these efforts and expand them even more if possible.
2. Distribute NASTF press releases – Since March 2005, we have issued four
NASTF press releases.
July 18 – NASTF Updates OE Service Information Matrix October 11 – NASTF Updates OE Service Information Matrix October 20 – NASTF Next Meeting November 2 in Las Vegas October 31 - NASTF Updates Summary of OEM Service Website Access
Charges
3. Distribute NASTF Email Updates – Issued every 6-8 weeks to provide update on events and activities.
4. Work with state and local I/M agencies to distribute information.
OBD Clearinghouse at Weber State University IM Solutions through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
5. Speakers at conferences
6. Work with trade press – There continue to excellent stories in the major trade publications.
7. Adding new NASTF participants – Continue to get requests; please advise of
anyone we should contact.
In the next six months we plan to continue and hopefully expand all these efforts.
NASTF Vehicle Security Committee NASTF General Meeting
November 2, 2005 – Las Vegas Nevada
1) The Vehicle Security Committee met three times since April ’05
General meeting in Detroit
a) 7/27/05 face to face in Chicago
b) 9/15/05 conference call
c) 11/2/05 face to face
2) Accomplishments since April 2005
a) We have fully engaged most of the important stakeholders
i) AAA, ALOA, NICB and all automakers
b) We have solidified the commitment of all participants to the
security committee process and the SDRM model or a similar
model
c) We have identified gaps in existing support systems and have
initiated action items to close these gaps
d) We have fleshed out the most difficult challenges that have to
be overcome to move the SDRM forward and have established
action items to mitigate them. Among the issues:
i) Consumer privacy
ii) Domestic and international insurability, insurance company
buy in
iii) Law enforcement buy in
iv) Liability and the impact that the integrity of the SDRM might
have on OEM and/or locksmith liability
3) How far we’ve come since inception of this committee
a) We have much better understanding of the gaps that exist in
automaker support to security professionals
b) We have unity within the security professional community and a
commitment to work through the NASTF security committee
c) We have developed a SDRM that provides a flexible means to
disseminate security information into the aftermarket without
compromising vehicle security
d) We have successfully engaged NICB who represents the law
enforcement and insurance communities and who will likely
help us with security of the service support systems that
emerge
e) We have generated interest among automakers in use of a
SDRM as a viable means to bring immobilizer reset events into
the aftermarket and commitments to resolve the challenges
mentioned above so that SDRM can move forward
4) Actions moving forward
a) NICB:
i) estimate costs to build and support the secure locksmith and
stolen vehicle databases
ii) investigate outsource partners and estimate costs to perform
the locksmith security clearance process
iii) vetting the issues with NICB members
iv) work with locksmiths to estimate scale of the system and
costs to use/support it
b) Automotive security professionals:
i) work with NICB to vet their proposed security screening
requirements
ii) help NICB estimate system scale, costs to use system and
funding model
c) Automakers:
i) begin working through the details of legal and liability issues
mentioned
ii) work through NICB to engage insurance and law
enforcement communities to address the aforementioned
issues so that next steps can be taken
SERVICE INFORMATION COMMITTEE REPORT November 2, 2005 in Las Vegas, NV Steve Douglas, Co-Chair David Zwalina, Co-Chair
1) Conference calls: Since the last NASTF meeting in April, the Service Information Committee held two conference calls on August 1 and October 10. On the August 1, conference call we:
a) New Co-Chair: Dave Zwalina was nominated for and has agreed to co-chair this committee.
b) Service Information Feedback/Request form: We revised this form to get additional information from the technician (i.e., whether they visited an OEM website, their work phone number, etc.). The new form was posted on IATN in August.
i) IATN: I would like to thank Brent Black and the others at IATN. They do a terrific job and they’re very responsive to our requests for changes. They do this at no cost to the NASTF or any of us.
c) When is an issue resolved: We again discussed when to call an issue resolved. There was some discussion of a small group finding the answer to this and we scheduled the October call to review their suggestions.
d) Promotion of NASTF Service Information Feedback: We discussed increasing the awareness of the NASTF process but did not come up with any new ideas.
2) NASTF Service Information Feedback/Requests are received and monitored by the NASTF Service Information committee. Complaints are sent directly to the automobile manufacturer for their investigation and response. Manufacturers communicate directly with the company or individual that initiated the complaint. As part of the process complainants are notified that the complaint has been received and they can expect a reply direct from the manufacturer.
3) From January 1 to December 31, 2004 NASTF received 48 complaints and automobile manufacturers have investigated and responded to all of those complaints.
4) From Jan 1 to November 1, 2005, NASTF received 44 complaints and automobile manufacturers have investigated and responded to all of those complaints, with the exception of one that remains outstanding. In that case, Chrysler has contacted the technician and they are trying to work through the problem. The following is a breakdown on the complaints received to date:
Manufacturer Number of complaints BMW 3 Chrysler 6 Ford 7 General Motors 3 Honda 2 Hyundai 2 Jaguar 2 Kia 2 Mitsubishi 1 Nissan 2 Porsche 1 Subaru 1 Suzuki 1 Volkswagen 3 Volvo 8 TOTAL 44
Trai
ning
Com
mitt
ee R
epor
t
Trai
ning
Com
mitt
ee A
ctio
n Ite
ms
from
our
Det
roit
Mee
ting:
1.U
pdat
e tr
aini
ng m
atrix
and
add
a co
ntac
t col
umn
2. C
onta
ct p
erso
n/ n
umbe
r for
cop
yrig
ht p
erm
issi
on
3. M
ake
trai
ning
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e by
800
num
ber o
r web
4. R
evie
w /
revi
se tr
aini
ng m
atrix
form
at
5. O
nce
revi
sed,
com
plet
e / u
pdat
e ne
w tr
aini
ng m
atrix
6. O
nce
upda
ted,
val
idat
e tr
aini
ng m
atrix
7. Id
entif
y tr
aini
ng o
utre
ach
targ
ets
(CA
AT,
NC
AT
etc.
)
8. R
evie
w 3
sub
ject
s (E
lect
rical
, OB
D II
& C
ompu
ters
)
Old
Mec
hani
cal T
rain
ing
Mat
rix
D=
avai
labl
e to
dea
ler t
echn
icia
ns
I= a
vaila
ble
to in
depe
nden
t tec
hnic
ians
S=
avai
labl
e to
cor
pora
te s
pons
ored
pro
gram
s
(com
mun
ity c
olle
ges,
etc
) ,M
= av
aila
ble
to m
fg c
hann
els
(mfg
. reg
iona
l tra
inin
g ce
nter
s, fl
eets
)
P=
avai
labl
e to
third
par
ty tr
aini
ng d
evel
oper
s
N/A
= no
t app
licab
le to
par
ticul
ar m
anuf
actu
rer
New
Mec
hani
cal T
rain
ing
Mat
rix
A=
Affi
liate
d C
C
C=
Any
CC
D=
Dea
ler T
echs
F=
Flee
t Tec
hs
I= In
depe
nden
t Tec
hs
T=
Third
Par
ty T
rain
ers
Col
lisio
n M
atrix
Than
k yo
u