National Automotive Service Task Force Meeting

November 3, 2004

Draft Minutes On November 3, 2004, the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF) held its regular fall meeting in conjunction with the Congress of Automotive Repair and Service (CARS) in Las Vegas. The agenda and attendance list are appended. John Cabaniss, NASTF chairman, chaired the meeting. 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. It was noted that G Truglia, co-chairman, of the training committee could not attend due to a scheduling conflict; therefore, there would be no report from that committee. There were no additions for the old business category. Under the new business category, it was noted that Mr. Darrell Amberson and Mr. Lou DiLisio would make the presentation regarding collision repair. Also under new business Mr. Paul Foley and Mr. Mark Warren requested time to discuss the NASTF structure. Finally, Mr. John Cochrane requested time to discuss Canadian service information issues. Regulatory Update Holly Pugliese of EPA reported that EPA has retained Perrin Quarles Associates (PQA) to provide support to EPA in an audit of the automakers’ service websites. EPA and PQA have formed a stakeholder steering committee to assist them in developing an audit plan and overseeing the audit. EPA expects to have an audit plan finalized by February 2005. EPA plans to work with a group of technicians to serve as independent evaluators of websites during March through May 2005. During June through September, EPA will be developing the audit report, getting stakeholder review, etc., with the final report issued around October 1, 2005. The attached overview document provides more details. There was no one present from CARB for a California report. Committee Reports Service Information Committee - Bill Haas, co-chairman of this committee, presented the committee report. The Service Information Committee met on October 26, 2004 via conference call. The committee is responsible for compiling and coordinating review of NASTF complaints. Mr. Haas reported that thus far in 2004, 40 complaints have been received involving 15 auto manufacturers. Of these, 38 complaints have been resolved and 2 are pending. The committee has adopted a one-page document providing guidance on resolving NASTF complaints. It was decided that this document would be provided along with complaints to auto manufacturers. The objective of using this guidance document is to facilitate prompt and complete responses to NASTF complaints. Starting on January 1, 2005, NASTF complaints will be posted in the public section of the IATN website seven days after receipt. Responses from OEMs to the complaints will be posted at soon as received. The committee report, complaint

summary, guidance document, and the meeting report for the October 26 conference call are attached. A question was raised about the availability of service information related to collision repairs on OEM websites. The general answer was that this information is available on OEM websites for at least 1996 and newer vehicles. It was agreed that NASTF would survey OEMs on the availability of collision information on OEM service websites. Equipment and Tool Committee - Charlie Gorman, chairman of the committee, provided the report. See attached presentation. He reported that two OEMs have not provided tool information: Porsche and Saab. He also reported that several tool matrices need updating for the following manufacturers: BMW, Hyundai, Jaguar, Subaru, and Suzuki. Mr. Gorman reported that the reprogramming matrix has been completed by several manufacturers, including Chrysler, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, and Toyota. The following companies have not filled out the reprogramming matrix: BMW, Mercedes Benz, Ford, GM, Honda, Isuzu, Jaguar, Land Rover, Nissan, Porsche, Saab, Subaru, VW, and Volvo. Mr. Gorman also provided a detailed review (see attached presentation) on the status of the SAE J2534 pass through reprogramming tools. He noted that all OEMs make their dealer reprogramming tool and software available, according to the OEM websites. Mr. Gorman reported that the next steps for the committee are:

• Update tool matrices • Add TPMS to the required systems • Update the reprogramming matrix with the latest J2534 information • Set up system to track TPMS reprogramming requirements

Training Committee - As noted earlier, the Training Committee had no report for the meeting. Paul Foley of MEMA recommended that the NASTF task the training committee to develop a plan to identify and address any training issues. It was noted that the training committee is re-organizing under new leadership and is in the beginning stages of doing that. Mr. Cabaniss reported that there had been several new members added to the training committee recently. Bob Pattengale of PWR Training added that there is a need to identify and address gaps in the training area as in other areas. A question was raised about training standards and was referred to the committee. Bill Haas of ASA reported that ASA had a meeting recently with EPA with part of the discussion focusing on the possibility of a joint ASA/OEM/EPA train-the-trainer program. This idea was also referred to the Training Committee for further consideration. Vehicle Security Committee – Paul Kanitra of ALOA and Mark Saxonberg of Toyota co-chair this committee which was just formed a few months ago. Mr. Kanitra provided a report (attached). He reported that there has been considerable discussion between locksmiths and OEMs over the past year. The primary discussion items are the release of key codes, transponder information, and availability of tools. From the OEM standpoint, vehicle security is a major

concern, and it is clear that release of information cannot undermine the security it was meant to provide in the first place. Mr. Kanitra reported that the committee has been exploring an option with the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) whereby the NICB could assist by establishing a national locksmith registry database which could be used to verify that requests for secure data to OEMs are from bona fide locksmiths (via a username and PIN). Such a system could possibly also be used to further enhance vehicle security by incorporating features to compare vehicle information to the NICB stolen vehicle database, and such a system could provide further accountability for secure data transactions. Mr. Kanitra noted that progress is being made with NICB, and the committee is working with them to assist the scope of such an activity. Mr. Saxonberg noted that the committee had two face-to-face meetings (in May and July) and two conference call meetings (in June and September). Other committee accomplishments include: 1. the development by locksmith of a preliminary matrix of gaps that they believe exist between available and need support from automakers, and 2. the review of this preliminary matrix by OEMs and responses to many of the issues raised. From this process it has been determined that common interests exist between locksmiths and automakers in several areas, including the need to develop a mechanism to provide access to secure data. Mr. Saxonberg agreed that the current discussions with NICB hold promise. See attached report. 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 seven NASTF press releases have been issued in the past six months. All of these 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. In the next six months, the committee’s priorities are to expand NASTF to include the Mobile Air Conditioning Society and the CCAR-Greenlink program, as well as various training related organizations. He asked all NASTF participants to identify other targets for expanding participation in NASTF. Old Business No old business was brought up. New Business Collision Repair Issue – Mr. Lou DiLisio, chairman, Society of Collision Repair Specialists, and Mr. Darrell Amberson, Chairman, Collision Division, ASA, raised a new issue to the NASTF. They reported that because of new specialized product offerings which involve new vehicle manufacturing techniques and materials, some auto manufacturers have begun limiting the sale of collision related replacement parts for certain vehicles. The OEM’s rationale is that some of these new techniques/materials require different repair methods and tools, in some cases, in order to properly repair damaged vehicles. Since special training and tools are required, the OEM believes it is necessary to limit sale of replacement parts to qualified shops. Messrs. Dilisio and Amberson agreed with this basic presumption on the part of the manufacturer and the need to ensure that consumers are adequately protected. However, they believe that any qualified shop, whether dealer or independent, should be allowed access to the replacement parts. In addition, there should be no restriction on the numbers of shops in an area which may desire to be “qualified” or “certified” to handle these new types of repairs. They presented an open letter to NASTF addressed to the auto manufacturers asking for clarification on this issue (attached). NASTF will survey all OEMs 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. NASTF Structure – Paul Foley of the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association brought up some suggestions for consideration regarding the future of NASTF. Mr. Foley congratulated the NASTF on making a significant degree of progress based on the volunteer efforts of a number of individuals and organizations. But he noted that NASTF might be even more effective if a small (1-2 persons) full-time administrative staff was hired to support NASTF. Such staff would be able to spend full-time carrying out NASTF activities, gaining wider support, broadening participation, and enhancing its credibility and recognition in addition to handling the NASTF

meeting, minutes, website, and other administrative activities. Several other NASTF participants agreed that it would be worthwhile to consider this approach. Mr. Cabaniss asked Mr. Foley to head up a small work group to look at the options, a related budget, and other factors related to moving this idea ahead. Mr. Foley agreed to chair this work group, and Mr. Cabaniss asked for NASTF participants to contact Mr. Foley or himself to sign up for the work group. Mark Warren of PWR Training raised several questions on this same subject. He noted that NASTF has never established policies and procedures on matters, such as, who can be a member, and who can vote. Mr. Cabaniss pointed out that NASTF has always operated as a volunteer work group with an open policy of allowing anyone to participate who had an interest in automotive service. There has consistently been no official membership, per se, or dues, or by-laws (including voting procedures), because NASTF has never been established as an organization. NASTF itself does not make decisions, take positions, or publish reports. Any expenses associated with NASTF meetings or activities are funded through voluntary efforts of participants supporting NASTF. Deliberations of NASTF and its committees are all based on consensus. It was also noted that if we move ahead in formalizing NASTF as an organization with full-time staff, there will be a need for a budget to support these activities. This would mean having to identify funding sources, establish by-laws, etc. These types of things will need to be considered by Mr. Foley’s work group. Other – John Cochrane of Cochrane Auto in the Toronto, Canada area raised a concern about the availability of service information in Canada. He noted that while manufacturers are doing a good job of making service information and tools available in the U.S., the same manufacturers are not making service information and tools available to independent shops in Canada. This is despite the fact that many of the same models are sold on both sides of the border. He indicated that the independents in Canada would like to be involved in NASTF and get the same consideration in Canada as independents are getting in the U.S. He noted that the a major reason for the automakers’ involvement in NASTF is to ensure that their customers can get proper vehicle service whether they go to dealers or non-dealer shops, and the same rationale should apply in Canada. Mr. Cabaniss noted that even though many of the same vehicle models are sold in both Canada and the U.S., each country has separate sales and marketing companies and each has its own management. In addition, there are different laws in each country which govern business practices. As it currently exists, the NASTF only involves the U.S. arms of the automakers and is not set up to deal with international issues. The most logical approach may be to have NASTF participants contact their colleagues and counterparts in Canada and offer to assist them in setting up a Canadian arm of NASTF. He offered to speak to auto company and association contacts in Canada regarding this possibility. The next meeting of the NASTF will be held in conjunction with the SAE Congress in Detroit, Michigan during the week of April 11, 2005.

Action Items:

1. NASTF will survey all OEMs regarding availability of collision information on OEM websites.

2. Two OEMs need to submit tool information (Porsche and Saab). 3. Several OEMs need to update tool matrices (BMW. Hyundai, Jaguar, Subaru, and

Suzuki). 4. A number of OEMs need to complete the reprogramming matrix (BMW, Mercedes Benz,

Ford, GM, Honda, Isuzu, Jaguar, Land Rover, Nissan, Porsche, Saab, Subaru, VW-Audi, and Volvo).

5. The tool committee plans to add tire pressure monitoring systems to the tool matrix. 6. The training committee was asked to develop a plan to identify and address training

issues for discussion at the next NASTF meeting. Several related issues were forwarded to the training committee.

7. The vehicle security committee will continue to work with NICB to identify potential opportunities to develop a national vehicle security registry.

8. The communications committee will continue its ongoing efforts to distribute information about NASTF and solicit new participants.

9. All NASTF participants will continue to distribute NASTF information through personal contacts, newsletters, training classes, etc.

10. NASTF will survey all OEMs regarding the collision issue raised by CSRS and ASA Collision Division regarding new manufacturing techniques and materials.

11. A new work group was formed, chaired by Paul Foley of MEMA, to identify options for organizing NASTF with a small administrative staff.

12. Organizations participating in NASTF with organizational ties to Canadian organizations were requested to discuss the possibility of forming a Canadian branch of NASTF.

National Automotive Service Task Force Meeting

Flamingo Hotel & Casino Las Vegas, Nevada

November 3, 2004

1:30 pm

Draft Agenda

1. Introductions and Welcome 2. Review Agenda 3. Regulatory Update – EPA and CARB

4. Committee Reports –

a. Service Information Committee b. Equipment & Tool Committee c. Training Committee d. Vehicle Security Committee e. Communication Committee

5. Old Business 6. New Business

a. Collision repair issue b. NASTF structure c. Other

7. Next Meeting – April 11, 2005, SAE Congress, Detroit 8. Other

National Automotive Service Task Force Meeting November 3. 2004

Attendance List

Aaron Lowe, AAIA Allen Rennebaker, ASA, ASCCA Amy Antenora, Babcox Publications Bill Cannon, Motor Age Magazine Bill Craven, DaimlerChrysler Bill Haas, ASA Bill Sauer, IDENTIFIX Bill Todd, Todd’s Garage Bob Constant, ASA, ASCCA Bob Everett, AASP NJ Bob Redding, ASA Brad Tyler, Atlanta Lock Service Brent Hazelett, MEMA Brian D. Vesley, Valtek Brian Duggan, MEMA Bruce Radtke, Ken Cook Co. Bruno Vizzaccarro, AutoCare Charles A. Burke, Bentley Publications Charles Black, Honda Charlie Gorman, ETI Chris Chesney, CARQUEST Chuck Cogan, Collision Week Chuck Roberts, ASE Colin Proctor, Kia Curt Marsh, Marsh Garage D’Anne Johnson, ASA Dan Biggs, ASA, ASCCA Dante Williams, SPX Darrell Amberson, ASA Collision Division Dave Heinzen, Madison Area Technical College Dave Lanspeary, ASA Dave Scaler, MEA David Griffith, Mitsubishi Dennis Delaney, Mazda Denny Kahler, Kahler’s Dick Laimbeer, Motor Donald Vidoli, Fairfield County MSP Doug Garriott, Linder Technical Doug McGregor, BMW Duane Curto, ACDelco Eddie Ehlert, Mazdonly, Ltd.

Frank Boylan, Volvo Frank Krich, DaimlerChryler Fred Hines, ATech Training Fred Kosloske, STRATTEC Fred Loney, Washington DC DMV Garret Miller, SPX George Cusack, ALLDATA Giedrius Ambrozaitis, Mercedes Benz Glenn Young, Young’s Automotive Grant Goulet, Par-Tech Greg Potter, Chief Automotive Systems Holly Pugliese, USEPA Jerry Burns, Automotive Impressions Jim Hetchler, Texas Locksmith Assn. Jim Houser, Hawthorne Auto Clinic Jim Linder, Linder Technical Jim O’Neill, Chino Autotech John Ball, NASTF training John Cabaniss, AIAM John Cochrane, Cochrane Auto John Rugge, Subaru (phone) John Trajnowski, Ford Joshua Davidson, Robert Bentley, Inc. Judell Anderson, AASP-MN Ken Sasaki, Mitsubishi Ken Schoffstoll, Isuzu Ken Young, Mitchell One Kevin Brady, Ford Kim Goering, Ford Kurt Karata, Mitsubishi Larry Moore, ASA, ASCCA Lauren Kushner, Subaru Laurie Moore, ASA, ASCCA Lewis Thompson, Isuzu Lou DiLisio, CSRS Louis Collins, ASA Lucyna Rurek, Ford Luz Rubio, ASA-Phoenix Marc Jackson, BMW Mark E. Moore, SPX Mark Houkal, Kia Mark Saxonberg, Toyota Mark Warren, PWR Training Michael Anderson, Parts and People Mike McFarland, Hires Automotive Center

Monika Chandra, PQA Myron Hazen, Collision Repair Center Nick DiVerde, Mitchell One Pat Anderson, Anoka Auto Care Paul Foley, MEMA Paul Kanitra, ALOA Petar Vavan, Isuzu Pete Meier, Honda Peter Stuyck, VW-Audi Ray Solt, VW-Audi Raymond Walton, ASA Rich Burns, Nissan (phone) Rob Brown, GM Rob Morrell, World Pac Robbie Addison, ASA Robert Ayers, Ayers Automotive Robert Pattengale, PWR Training Robert Reynolds, SFA Rod Boyes, Melior Rolf Werner, Werner’s MasterTek Ron Garrett, SPX-Valley Forge Ron Pyle, ASA Ron Turner, AASP Russ Verona, East Rockford Collision Steve Louden, Louden Motorcar Service Steven Douglas, Alliance of Auto Mfrs. Sue Blackson, Ford Thessalonia Fields, Washington DC DMV Thomas Jroski, Hyundai Tom Layman, ASA Vincent D’Auria, Volvo William Baker, ASA Wilson Beach, TIA

October 7, 2004

Overview of OEM Web Site Audit Process I. Background EPA finalized regulations on June 27, 2003 (68 FR 38427) requiring auto manufacturers to launch full text Web sites containing all required service information for 1996 and later model years. In order to assess the effectiveness of the site regulations, EPA believes that input from independent technicians must be of primary consideration. As part of our broader efforts to evaluate the OEM web sites, EPA is initiating a process to gather feedback directly from the technician community on their experiences with the web sites and to communicate those findings directly to the OEMs and the service industry as a whole. To assist in these efforts, EPA has procured the services of Perrin Quarles Associates, Inc (PQA). PQA is an independent consulting firm who will oversee the entire process including facilitation and participation in meetings and conference calls, development of communication tools, creation of reports and documents, and performing other support work as needed. II. The Process A. Formation of an industry steering committee To maintain a neutral approach to the process, PQA will assist EPA in the development of a small steering committee to oversee the evaluation. The steering committee will be comprised of industry representatives such as OEMs, tool companies, independent technicians, and aftermarket associations. Participation of the committee is entirely voluntary and EPA has already received interest from 12 parties to participate (see attached). Other members may be added after EPA presents the audit plan at industry week in Las Vegas. An introductory conference call with the steering committee will then be conducted in mid-November to discuss the schedule, scope and limitations of the project and a strategy for communicating progress to the industry as a whole. B. Development of audit methodology The steering committee will develop a recommended overall methodology for conducting the audit including developing a plan for recruiting independent technicians/shops, providing access to the sites, and developing a feedback mechanism on the sites. As appropriate, the committee can consider other audits that may have been conducted by other parties. The committee will seek input on the audit plan from industry

stockholders and EPA. EPA will ensure that the plan remains within EPA’s authority and meets other legal obligations. C. Implementation of the audit methodology Technicians then will conduct the web site audits. PQA and the steering committee will provide a questionnaire or similar tool for the technicians to respond to and PQA will gather the feedback from the technician community. D. Deliver the final report on the findings of the audit Upon completion of technician feedback, PQA will draft a final report detailing all of the findings. PQA will make the draft report available for comment to the steering committee. OEMs will also be provided an opportunity to comment. Comments will be incorporated as appropriate and a final report is to be issued no later than September 30, 2005. III. Scope and Limitations of the Project While EPA has approximately one year to complete the audit, it is important to note that the scope of the project is somewhat limited. Given the time needed for developing the methodology and drafting the final report, EPA expects that the technicians who participate in the actual audit of the web sites will have a time period of approximately 3 months to use the sites and to provide their feedback to PQA. In addition, EPA expects that the number of technicians who participate will need to be limited in order to keep the process manageable in the given time frame. IV. Communicating Progress EPA believes that there may be significant industry interest in this audit. EPA is committed to keeping this a very open process and will work with the steering committee and PQA to develop a communications plan in order to keep the industry as a whole informed throughout the process. V. Regulatory and Compliance Implications EPA is fully aware that the audit may highlight potential issues with the service information regulations and manufacturer compliance with those regulations. Regardless of the findings of the audit, EPA retains its full authority over any regulatory changes or manufacturer guidance that we may deem necessary as a result of the findings. In addition, EPA retains full authority for any compliance and enforcement remedies that we may deem necessary as a result of the audit findings.

Potential Steering Committee Members

Ron Turner AASP Pennsylvania 215.646.2424 rjtridge123@cs.com Dave Scaler MEA 973.761.7420 davescaler@cs.com Bob Everett AASP New Jersey 732.330.5900 bobev@aol.com Ron Garrett SPX - Valley Forge Technical Information Services 714.434.2576 x227 Ron.Garrett@vftis.spx.com Bill Daley Mitchell One 858.391.5000 x 6288 john.daley@mitchell1.com Paul Foley MEMA/AASA 919.549.4800 pfoley@mema.org or at

Mark Warren PWR Training 877.797.8724 mwarren11@mindspring.com Charlie Gorman Equipment and Tool Institute 815.943.3810 cgorman@etools.org John Cabaniss AIAM 703.247.2107 jcabaniss@aiam.org Aaron Lowe AAIA 301.654.6664 aaron.lowe@aftermarket.org Bill Haas ASA 817-358-5222 billh@asashop.org Steve Douglas AAM 916.266.4531 sdouglas@autoalliance.org

NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE TASK FORCE

Service Information Committee Report November 03, 2004 The service information committee continues to record and monitor NASTF complaints received from automotive service professionals concerning the availability and accessibility of service information. 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. From January 1, 2004 to October 27, 2004 NASTF received 40 complaints and automobile manufacturers have responded to 38 of those complaints. A detailed report by automobile manufacturer is attached to this report. Regarding the recent concern expressed about the length of time it takes an automobile manufacturer to respond to a NASTF complaint. It should be noted that there are many variables that have to be considered. There have been occasions when the OEM needed information in addition to that provided on the complaint form. Experience has shown that gathering the additional information is often difficult and sometimes takes several days. Multiple departments within an OEM may need to communicate and coordinate the research and investigation before being able to respond to the complaint. The service information committee participants held a conference call on October 26, 2004. During the call a document was presented to the committee for consideration. The document outlines the guidelines for an OEM to respond to a complaint. The guidelines will give the process a structured and consistent method for responding to NASTF complaints. The discussion provided a few suggestions for changes or additions to the document. The committee approved the document and a copy will be provided with all future NASTF complaints when they are forwarded to the OEM. A copy of the complaint process guidelines is attached to this report. Also during the call participants were informed that iATN has responded to the committee’s request to make NASTF complaints viewable at the Web site. A system to allow this has been implemented and tested. Effective January 1, 2005, NASTF complaints will be posted in a public section of the iATN Web site seven days after they are received. Responses from the OEM to the complaint will be posted to the complaint as soon as they are received. The only concern expressed during the call was that an individual’s e-mail address not be exposed. This new system will allow the entire NASTF complaint process to be visible to anyone that is interested. This concludes the service information committee report. Submitted verbally by Bill Haas, committee co-chair at the NASTF meeting in Las Vegas, Nov. 03, 2004.

REPORT ON NASTF COMPLAINTS Prepared October 27, 2004 NASTF complaints 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. From January 1, 2004 to October 27, 2004 NASTF received 40 complaints and automobile manufacturers have responded to 38 of those complaints. REPORT BY MANUFACTURER Company 2003 2004 BMW 9 2 Daimler Chrysler 1 2 Ford 2 1 General Motors 3 1 Honda 1 0 Isuzu 1 0 Jaguar 2 0 Land Rover 1 2 Mazda 1 1 Mercedes Benz 1 1 Mitsubishi 0 1 Nissan 0 3 Porsche 3 2 Saab 0 1 Subaru 0 1 Suzuki 1 0 Toyota 1 2 Volkswagen/Audi 2 6 Volvo 59 14 11-01-04

GUIDANCE: RESPONSES TO NASTF COMPLAINTS The submission of NASTF complaints by automotive service professionals is the industry-accepted practice of identifying issues related to the availability and/or accessibility of service information, training or diagnostic tools. The purpose of this document is to facilitate consistent, timely, and complete responses to complaints by automobile manufacturers (OEMs).

o Complaints submitted to NASTF are received by Bill Haas at ASA and John Cabaniss of AIAM. John is responsible for directing the complaint to the appropriate department or individual at the OEM. Bill is responsible for recording, tracking and following up as necessary with the OEM or the complainant.

o Complaints are forwarded to the OEM electronically. o OEMs are encouraged to acknowledge receipt of the complaint to all parties as soon as

possible via return e-mail. OEMs are requested to give the highest priority to addressing complaints and responding to complaints in the shortest time possible. Bill Haas and John Cabaniss should be copied on all communication regarding a complaint to ensure proper record keeping.

o The OEM should contact and work directly with the individual who submitted the complaint. This may take place by phone or e-mail. Even when a complaint is resolved via phone conversation, there still needs to be an electronic message sent to the complainant, copied to Bill Haas and John Cabaniss that recounts the discussion for proper record keeping purposes.

Effective January 1, 2005

o Complaints submitted to NASTF will be viewable on the iATN Web site. o Three days after the complaint is received by NASTF the complaint will be posted for

viewing. o The OEM response to the complaint will be posted on the iATN Web site as soon as a

copy of the response is received by Bill Haas. CONTACTS: John Cabaniss jcabaniss@aiam.org Bill Haas billh@asashop.org

NASTF Service Information Committee Meeting

Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 Time: 8:00 a.m. (Pacific) / 11:00 p.m. (Eastern)

Summary

1. Complaint Resolution

a. Report on Complaint Submissions to date. Bill Haas summarized the complaints received this year as follows:

− 37 complaints − 34 resolved − 3 outstanding (all recent, i.e., within the past week)

b. Complaint submission process. Bill Haas reviewed the attached proposal. The group discussed access to the IATN website for complain submission. There are three levels of access to IATN’s website (which is required to submit a complaint online):

− Basic membership is available at no cost. − Technician sponsorship is available for $10/month. − Shop sponsorship (for all technicians in a specific shop) is available for $20/month. Both the technician and shop memberships provide many additional features that are not available under the Basic membership. For a description of these features see: http://www.iatn.net/overviews/sponsor_knowledgebase.asp?navBar=sponsor Only Basic membership is required to file a complaint online.

2. EPA Website Evaluation: Holly Pugliese provided a brief description of the website audit. She will provide a more detailed review the process at NASTF. In addition, PWR Training will provide an update on their website reviews and Mercedes-Benz will provide an overview of their website. This meeting will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. (local) in the Laughlin Room of the Flamingo Hotel immediately prior to the NASTF meeting.

3. NASTF Meeting: Bob Redding asked to add Collision Information to the NASTF agenda.

The meeting will take place at 1:30 – 4:00 pm (Local Time) on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, in the Laughlin Room at the Flamingo Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.

Introductions and Welcome Review Agenda Regulatory Update – EPA and CARB Committee Reports –

o Service Information Committee o Equipment & Tool Committee o Training Committee

o Communication Committee o Vehicle Security Committee

Collision Information Old Business New Business Next Meeting Other

NASTF Locksmith Subcommittee Report Paul Kanitra, ALOA November 3, 2004

For those of you who don’t know, I’m Paul Kanitra, the Government Relations Manager for the Associated Locksmiths of America. I serve as one of the two co-chairs for the new vehicle security committee.

The past year has seen much more communication between locksmiths and OEM’s. The release of key codes, transponder information and the availability of tools necessary to return a vehicle to driveability has been an issue of much discussion. The sheer logistics of the matter, if accomplished, will cause a mountain of work but will also inevitably end in the consumer being more satisfied with their automotive purchase.

Through various face to face meetings and teleconferences, the locksmiths and OEM’s have set about trying to resolve each other’s concerns. From the OEM standpoint, security appears to be the major sticking point. The release of the information obviously cannot undermine the security it was meant to provide in the first place.

Recently, it was suggested that the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) could be a possible, unbiased third party and could help in two different ways. First, they could help set up the security protocol and guidelines for the release and distribution of the information, tools, etc. And second, they could act as the clearinghouse that actually stores and distributes everything. At a locksmith committee meeting in Baltimore, during the Associated Locksmiths of America’s annual convention, Mike Buchanan from NICB joined in at the table. Two weeks ago, I flew to Palos Hills, Illinois to meet with Mike and one of NICB’s Vice Presidents, Dan Abbott. This continuation of the discussion yielded one very important result… NICB expressed a willingness to move the process along further, and said that they felt it might just be feasible. The matter will be brought up in a presentation to their board in the upcoming months and then voted on.

In the meantime, they have requested that we help them get a better, more specific idea of how big an undertaking this will be. A 1-800 number was discussed as the most practical way to start the process, but obviously, the finances involved need to be worked out. This consists of compiling some rough numbers on the amount of calls such a system would receive. Locksmith committee members Brad Tyler and Rob Reynolds have been working hard on getting some preliminary data.

After discussing the matter internally at great length. The locksmith committee feels it is best to focus most of our present efforts on the data NICB has requested. In Baltimore, the OEM’s agreed that any security protocol and guidelines set up by NICB, would be more than acceptable to them. This further shows the importance of securing NICB’s role in the situation. Until NICB is “on board”, we feel it would not be productive to continue teleconferences with the OEM/Locksmith full committee. We will however be keeping everyone posted via email. Also, Mark Saxonberg, of Toyota will be involved with the NICB discussions. This will help make various issues compatible.

In a few months, when we have finished this process, then we can continue moving forward with teleconferences and the specifics necessary to accomplish all our goals. The past year has been very encouraging, we hope things continue in this direction. Now, I’d like to introduce Mark Saxonberg of Toyota who is the co-chairman of the vehicle security committee. He’s going to give the OEM report.

NASTF Vehicle Security Committee Report Mark Saxonberg, Toyota

November 3, 2004

At last year’s NASTF meeting, representatives of the locksmith industry joined the NASTF process by raising issues about the impact that advances in immobilizer technology are having on automotive locksmiths’ and their customers. The root cause of these issues lies in the increasing pressure from consumers, government regulators and insurance companies, to provide safer, more secure vehicles. Over the past several years, this has been accomplished by adding more sophisticated security systems to many vehicles, making them harder to steal; at the same time however, these systems are making vehicles harder for locksmiths to support. Since last year’s meeting, locksmiths and automakers have met on four occasions, including two face to face meetings and two teleconferences (f2f on 5/ 4 & 8/ 23 and cc on 6/17 & 9/14). The result of these meetings has been a cooperative exchange of concerns and ideas, and since the dialogue began, good progress has been made in quantifying and qualifying gaps between needs of the automotive locksmith industry and the support provided by automakers. To address the issues that locksmiths face when trying to re-key or initialize these more sophisticated security systems, NASTF formed a new Vehicle Security Committee. The co-chairmen of the new committee are Paul Kanitra, Government Relations Manager of the Associated Locksmiths of America, and Mark Saxonberg, Service Technology Manager for Toyota Motor Sales USA. Following is a list of some of the accomplishments of this group since last year at this time. Locksmiths have drafted a matrix of gaps that they believe exist between available and needed

support from automakers. OEMs have reviewed this matrix and provided preliminary responses to many of the issues. As a result of this process, it has been determined that common ground exists in several areas

including the need to provide secure access to immobilizer system re-initialization information. It was further determined that the National Insurance Crime Bureau, a not for profit organization

representing property and casualty insurance companies, has a vested interest in seeing that automakers and locksmiths find secure methods to exchange this information.

Discussions are now under way between locksmiths, automakers and NICB to identify a Secure Data Release Model that can accomplish the mutual goals of automakers, locksmiths and the insurance industry.

Because automotive locksmiths cover a very specialized area of vehicle service, including opening locked cars and making replacement keys, the NASTF Security Committee is exploring methods to develop a secure information release model that will establish a national registry of automotive security professionals. We are also exploring ways to use the Internet and mobile telephone technologies to validate information requests involving security related data and provide 24x7 access to information necessary to support automotive consumers. Our current objective is to establish a model that can ultimately be developed in a cooperative effort among automotive security professionals, automakers, insurance companies, and law enforcement agencies.

NASTF Communications Committee Report November 3, 2004

Since the March 2004 NASTF meeting, the NASTF communications committee has continued 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 2004, we have issued seven NASTF

press releases.

April 8 – NASTF March 8, 2004 Meeting Held in Detroit April 12 – Matco Tools Offers NASTF Assistance April 19 – NASTF Updates OE Service Information Matrix July 15 – NASTF Updates OE Service Information Matrix September 16 – NASTF Establishes Vehicle Security Committee September 29 – NASTF Next Meeting November 3 in Las Vegas October 18 – NASTF Updates OE Service Information Matrix

3. Distribute NASTF Email Updates – Continue to try to do these each month. There have been at least four or five since March.

4. Work with state and local I/M agencies to distribute information, such as, OBD Clearinghouse at Weber State University and IM Solutions through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

5. Speakers at conferences 6. Work with trade press press – There have been many excellent stories in the major trade

publications over the past six months. 7. Adding new NASTF participants – Continue to get requests

In the next six months we plan to continue and hopefully expand all these efforts. In particular, we want to explore expanding the NASTF participants to include several major automotive service organizations which have not been involved so far, such as,

• Mobile Air Conditioning Society • CCAR-Greenlink • Various training related groups • Others – please forward suggestions

1

NASTF

Equip

men

tCom

mitte

e Rep

ort

Nove

mber

3,

2004

Las

Veg

as N

evad

aCom

mitte

e Chai

rman

–Char

lie G

orm

an

2

Sca

n T

ool M

atrix

No D

istinct

ion

bet

wee

n e

mis

sions

rela

ted a

nd n

on

emis

sions

rela

ted

dat

a. O

EM

s ar

e pro

vidin

g b

oth

Those

who h

ave

not

pro

vided

any

info

rmat

ion

Pors

che

Saa

b

Mat

rice

s th

at

require

updat

es.

(w

e co

uld

use

so

me

hel

p h

ere)

BM

WH

yundai

Jaguar

Pors

che

Saa

bSubar

uSuzu

ki

3

Rep

rogra

mm

ing M

atrix

New

Sum

mar

y docu

men

t co

lum

n h

eadin

gs

Last

Updat

ed

OEM

pro

pri

etar

y ap

plic

atio

n

avai

lable

Non -

J2534

1996-2

004

Rep

rogra

mm

able

sy

stem

in

form

ation

pro

vided

or

(How

to b

uild

af

term

arke

t re

pro

gra

mm

ing

tool)

J2534

soft

war

e an

d

calib

rations

avai

lable

Mat

rix

fille

d o

ut

by

OEM

Com

men

tsO

EM

4

Mat

rix

fille

d o

ut

by

OEM

Yes

DCX C

hry

sler

Hyu

ndai

Kia

Maz

da

Mitsu

bis

hi

Suzu

kiToyo

ta

No

BM

WD

CX M

erce

des

Ben

zFo

rdG

MH

onda

Isuzu

Jaguar

Land R

ove

rN

issa

nPo

rsch

eSaa

b

Subar

u (

fuji)

VW

Volv

o

5

J25

34

so

ftw

are

an

d c

alib

rati

on

s avail

ab

le

Yes

DCX C

hry

sler

DCX M

erce

des

Ford

Land R

ove

rM

azda

Mitsu

bis

hi

Not

repro

gra

mm

able

Subar

uSuzu

ki

6

J25

34

so

ftw

are

an

d c

alib

rati

on

s avail

ab

le

No t

hird p

arty

J2

534 “

how

to”

on

web

site

GM

Honda

Hyu

ndai

Isuzu

Jaguar

Kia

Nis

san

Saa

bToyo

taVW

Volv

o

7

No

n -

J25

34

’9

6 -

’04

rep

rog

ram

mab

le

syst

em

in

form

ati

on

pro

vid

ed

, o

r (H

ow

to

b

uild

aft

erm

ark

et

rep

rog

ram

min

g t

oo

l)

Most

are

mar

ked N

/A b

ecau

se a

ll but

very

few

OEM

s sa

id t

hat

J2534 w

ill

even

tual

ly w

ork

on a

ll m

odel

s bac

k to

1996.

Exc

eptions

incl

ude

Mitsu

bis

hi, B

MW

(m

atrix

accu

rate

ly d

epic

ts w

hat

must

be

done)

VW

and V

olv

o m

ight

fall

into

this

ca

tegory

(nee

d m

ore

info

rmat

ion)

8

OEM

pro

pri

eta

ry a

pp

lica

tio

n

avail

ab

le

Alm

ost

eve

ry O

EM

mak

es t

hei

r dea

ler

repro

gra

mm

ing t

ool an

d s

oft

war

e av

aila

ble

. (a

t le

ast

acco

rdin

g t

o t

hei

r w

ebsi

tes)

9

Proje

cts

for

this

com

mitte

e

Sca

n T

ool M

atrix

Updat

e old

mat

rice

sAdd T

PMS t

o t

he

required

sys

tem

s

Rep

rogra

mm

ing M

atrix

Now

that

J2534 is

final

ized

, get

mat

rix

updat

ed w

ith a

ccura

te d

ata.

Set

up s

yste

m t

o t

rack

TPM

S

repro

gra

mm

ing r

equirem

ents