AED opposes 'right to repair' language in federal bill

Associated Equipment Distributors (AED), a Schaumburg, Illinois-based trade group whose members distribute and service construction, material handling and other industrial equipment, has characterized “right-to-repair” provisions in a pending piece of federal legislation as a threat to equipment dealers.

In a late July emailed alert to members, AED acknowledges it normally would not focus much attention on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). A version of that piece of legislation is authored, and usually passed, every year to allocate spending priorities for the U.S. Department of Defense.

According to AED and Daniel B. Fisher, senior vice president of government and external affairs, the trade group started paying attention last year when committee members attempted to include right-to-repair mandates, citing military preparedness aspects.

While those mandates did not make it into the previous NDAA “due in part to the efforts of AED,” according to the trade group, right-to-repair amendments again have been attached to both the House and Senate versions of the NDAA currently before Congress.

Fisher says AED’s objections focus in part on use of the phrase “fair and reasonable” to describe repair options to be provided by manufacturers and equipment dealers.

The bill reads: “The contractor agrees in writing to provide fair and reasonable access to all the repair materials, including parts, tools, and information, used by the manufacturer or provider or their authorized repair providers to diagnose, analyze, maintain, or repair the good or service.”

“The ‘fair and reasonable’ language will be familiar to anyone encountering right to repair legislation at the state level," Fisher says. "In fact, the amendment’s definition of ‘fair and reasonable access’ imitates the awful language attempting to impose right-to-repair mandates on agriculture equipment and other machinery.”

Farm machinery owners have been engaged in legal battles for several years with equipment makers, and Illinois-based John Deere Co. in particular, regarding right-to-repair issues.

A Missouri farmer who is a plaintiff in one such lawsuit says he had a John Deere fertilizer spreader that once spent 28 days at a dealer location.

“Time absolutely means money in this business; when you have machines that are failing at those critical times of the year—when you have that one shot to get things right—it can severely impact your bottom line,” he told NBC News earlier this year.

In a testimonial YouTube video and advertisement for material handling equipment maker Sennebogen, a metals recycling CEO praised that firm for its “transparency and access to repair, service and parts.”

"Sennebogen from the beginning has been very open, where we can contact them directly and get all of the files needed to actually get into the equipment and work on it ourselves," San Antonio-based Monterrey Recycling Solutions CEO Jordan Vexler says.

Echoing the farmer’s comments, she adds, “That openness can be a crucial operational advantage. These days, there are just not enough technicians to go around. Being able to use technicians that are either trained by Sennebogen or our own in-house technicians guarantees us much more uptime. When our material handlers are down, we are not able to run our stationary equipment.”

A 20-year Air Force veteran who prepared an op-ed for the Military Times expresses the same sentiments when it comes to armed services members being able to repair equipment on-site themselves.

“I’ve lived what it means when a piece of equipment fails at a critical time,” Lt. Col. Cindy Serrano Roberts says in the July article. “I know how far away contractors can be when you need them most, and I know what our service members are capable of—if we trust them with the tools and training to do the job.

“Right now, private companies can put restrictions on military equipment that block troops from making even basic repairs,” she continues. “That slows everything down, costs taxpayers more, and in the worst cases, puts lives at risk. This year, Congress has a chance to change that.”

Serrano lists Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Tim Sheehy (R-Montana) as backers of the provisions, and invites Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers, a House Armed Services Committee leader, to include military right-to-repair provisions in this year’s NDAA by supporting the bipartisan Warrior Right to Repair Act.

Fisher of AED, however, sees red flags.

“While the amendment doesn’t explicitly apply to off-road equipment, it would set a terrible precedent. Once the arbitrary ‘fair and reasonable access’ standard for parts, tools and repair information becomes a key element of the procurement policy for one federal agency (in this case the largest in the world), it’s only a matter of time before others, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the various states, have similar requirements.”

Elucidating a “slippery slope” argument, Fisher adds, “Major weapons systems today can easily become agriculture and construction equipment tomorrow, and stopping this misguided provision should be a principal objective for anyone opposing the proliferation of right-to-repair mandates.”