The new U.S. Senate version of the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act and the REPAIR Act reintroduced February in the House have stark differences and show misalignment between the houses on the “right to repair” debate.

S.1379 is more specific in its definitions and requirements of barriers to information and data as well as parts.

For example, “barrier” is defined as “a technological or contractual restriction that prohibits or materially interferes with the ability of a motor vehicle repair facility or a service provider to return a vehicle to operational specifications, including any action that prohibits or materially interferes with the process of pairing aftermarket parts or alternative parts with the vehicle.”

The Senate bill would prohibit the use of “any barrier” to prevent access to vehicle-generated data, critical repair information, tools, and parts.

In comparison, the House bill defines “barrier” as “a restriction that prohibits, makes more difficult, or tends to make more difficult the ability of a person to exercise rights.” The House bill bars “any technological barrier or specified legal barrier.”

Both bills prohibit manufacturers from preventing the production or sale of compatible aftermarket parts by aftermarket parts manufacturers, motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and motor vehicle repair facilities. The Senate version adds salvage yards and junk yards to the list.

While the House bill doesn’t address the installation and use of compatible parts, the Senate bill prohibits a manufacturer from preventing vehicle owners from installing compatible alternative parts in or on vehicles to repair or maintain them.

The House version also doesn’t address who has access to tools and repair information. However, the Senate bill would require manufacturers to make “any critical repair information, tools, and parts related to the motor vehicles it manufacturers at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory cost” available to owners (and their designees), aftermarket parts manufacturers, remanufacturers, diagnostic tool manufacturers, and vehicle repair facilities (including their distributors and service providers).

“Critical repair information, tools, and parts” is defined in the Senate bill as “all necessary technical and compatibility information, tools, and motor vehicle equipment made available by a motor vehicle manufacturer to a motor vehicle dealer or a motor vehicle repair facility, or used by the motor vehicle manufacturer, for the purpose of maintaining or repairing a motor vehicle, wiring diagrams, parts nomenclature and descriptions, parts catalogs, repair procedures, training materials, software, and technology, including information related to diagnostics, repair, service, calibration, or recalibration of parts and systems to return a vehicle to operational specifications.”

Both bills prohibit manufacturers from mandating or implying that any particular brand or manufacturer-specific parts, tools, or vehicle equipment be used in repairs. The Senate version also bars manufacturers from prohibiting the use of alternative parts to repair or maintain a vehicle.

Concerning driver and operational safety, the Senate bill would also prohibit automakers from intentionally implementing “any software update to a motor vehicle with the specific intent of rendering any compatible alternative part or aftermarket part inoperable, in whole or in part, except as required by an order issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”

The House bill doesn’t address software updates.

Both bills would require OEMs to give vehicle owners and their designees access to their vehicle-generated data. However, the Senate version is more specific to all data provided to the manufacturer, motor vehicle dealer, authorized motor vehicle service provider, or any other third party in or at the same manner, time, method, cost, data content set, and subject to the same cryptographic or technological protections.

The Senate bill clarifies that nothing requires a vehicle dealer to use a non-proprietary vehicle interface or prohibit a manufacturer from developing a proprietary vehicle diagnostic and reprogramming device as long as the OEM otherwise complies with the requirements of the REPAIR Act and makes proprietary devices fairly and reasonably available to all vehicle repair facilities and parts and tool manufacturers.

The House version doesn’t address proprietary interfaces. It does, however, address preemption.

It would preempt state law concerning REPAIR Act provisions, as would the Senate version. However, the Senate bill would also preempt any state law that mandates any particular brand or manufacturer-specific tools, parts, or other vehicle equipment or prohibits any aftermarket, recycled, or remanufactured parts to maintain, diagnose, or repair vehicles.

The House bill is mostly similar to the version filed during the last legislative session except it eliminates any mention of vehicle-generated data access through a standardized access platform and an independent entity that would establish and administer access to vehicle-generated data.

Instead, vehicle owners, or their designees, would have access to vehicle-generated data through vehicle OBD ports and J1939 network, and wirelessly via any telematics system on vehicles equipped with wireless data transmission capability.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators), which represents most automakers, the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS), and the Automotive Service Association (ASA) believe that their federal framework, the Safety as First Emphasis (SAFE) Repair Act, would be a better alternative to both of the current versions of the REPAIR Act.

The SAFE Repair Act was written in response to consumer safety provisions that the groups say are missing from the REPAIR Act. They and others have argued that repair information and tool access are already available to owners and repairers for safe and proper repairs.