Replacement parts – true to type?

What would be the outcome if a wider array of replacement parts were subject to Type Approval?

By Neil Pattermore | Published:  28 December, 2017

The aftermarket has developed for well over a century to provide choices to the vehicle owner concerning how their vehicle is repaired, with an increasing choice of replacement parts and emanating from all of this, ‘affordable mobility’ for vehicle owners and drivers.

However, this may now be under threat, and with it, the very basis of your business as a part of the  aftermarket value chain. In the past, replacement parts have principally been in one of three categories. First, lower cost items without any specific requirements – other than they fit and work. Second, parts which are specifically designed to be of matching quality that directly emulate the original part. Thirdly, original (OEM) replacement parts that formed part of the original vehicle design when it was type approved.

This choice and availability of spare parts is provided by both local and national distributors who provide a wide range of replacement parts that allow vehicles to be serviced and maintained throughout their life, with the lower priced parts becoming more popular as the vehicle gets older. The UK Consumer Rights legislation imposes that any part, which now also includes any digital content, must be ‘fit for purpose’ and cascades into a ‘duty of care’ and ‘liability’ between the parts distributor, the garage and the vehicle owner.

Under review
Unfortunately, there is a cloud on the horizon. The existing vehicle Type Approval legislation is currently under review in Brussels and although the existing version contains requirements for some replacement parts to be type approved, it is being proposed to implement an extension of these Type Approval requirements to cover more replacement parts. The Type Approval of these replacement parts is deemed necessary to ensure that vehicles continue to comply with their original ‘whole vehicle Type Approval’ requirements throughout their service life and is seen as an increasing issue with automated systems and autonomous vehicles.

Existing type approved replacement parts include windscreens, tyres, headlamps, catalysts, exhaust systems, DPFs and brake disks, drums, shoes and pads. These all show an ‘E’ mark that confirms where they were tested to meet type approved requirements, e.g. E1 is Germany. System and component Type Approval requires that a ‘sample of the Type to be Approved’ is tested by the ‘Technical Service’ (i.e. a test centre) to the requirements of the relevant European Directive, which is increasingly now based on the UNECE Regulations agreed in Geneva. Its technical specification is documented and that specification forms part of the approval. Both the parts distributor and the workshop need to be confident that an audit trail back to the original replacement parts manufacturer’s certificate exists to prove that the part is legitimately type approved to protect their own liability, should they be challenged to prove that the part’s Type Approval marking is legitimate.

This proposed widening of the replacement parts Type Approval is not a simple problem. Apart from braking components being covered under UNECE Regulation 90, there are no dedicated test methods for these replacement parts. This creates two significant issues. Firstly, when a vehicle is type approved, it is the system that is tested (i.e. engine emissions, steering, braking etc.) but for replacement parts, it is not clear what specific replacement item should be type approved. For example, should it only be the principle components such as an electric motor, or would it be just a bolt or washer that helps secure a steering rack? Secondly, as there are no test methods established, would this mean that a component could only be tested on a complete vehicle and if so, unless it is a new vehicle, how do you know if other components on that vehicle are working correctly?

Clearly, it is not clear.

Burdens and costs
This proposal also means significant additional burdens and costs to complete these new obligations which ultimately will have to be paid for by the consumer. This is likely to lead to increased cost of servicing and replacement spare parts, but without any direct benefit to the consumer over what is happening in the market today. It would also mean that specific design and functional specifications would need to be provided by the vehicle or system manufacturers, which is likely to raise intellectual property and design rights issues.

Enforcement will be a market surveillance issue, but there are limited resources available from the Governmental agencies, so all workshops would now need to be confident of the legitimacy of the Type Approval marking of components before installation. This has already led to dawn raids on parts distributors in some European countries. Ultimately, this proposal is likely to impose less choice for consumers, as fewer parts manufacturers would risk the cost/volume investment, with higher prices for those parts that remain available.

From the vehicle manufacturers‘ perspective, they conduct whole vehicle Type Approval which includes all systems and their inherent parts and components. For the vehicle manufacturer’s replacement parts, they are deemed to be Type Approved if they are identical to those fitted to the original type approved vehicle. For aftermarket replacement parts,  each replacement part would have to be tested for each of its applications, meaning not only finding examples of the actual vehicles, but also the test centres that can conduct the Type Approval testing. There is a real proportionality’ issue here, especially with no dedicated test methods for the Type Approval of these replacement parts.

Reduced choice
Behind this issue, some vehicle manufacturers and also some Member States consider that although vehicles are subject to Type Approval, aftermarket replacement parts are not and this is deemed as being both unfair and un-regulated. It is claimed that by Type Approving aftermarket replacement parts, that it will create a level playing field for all replacement parts, but I don’t agree –  it seems to me that the vehicle manufacturers have the most to gain and that it will ultimately be the consumer who suffers through having a reduced choice of replacement parts, which will also be more expensive.

Today, for just about every other part or component of the vehicle there is no current requirement for ‘E’ marking or any form of direct testing to pre-determined standards. If a part is replaced and the vehicle remains safe, secure and roadworthy, it is perfectly acceptable – if aftermarket parts did not fit and work correctly, then they would not be fitted or they may flag a fault code or fail an MOT.

FIGIEFA (the European association of spare parts distributors) have robustly challenged these proposals as both unwarranted and disproportionate. Additionally, they consider that it would distort competition, rather than improve it and would raise costs with very limited benefits. Repair workshops would increasingly buy original parts from their local dealer to minimise any risk of using non-Type Approved parts – undermining the competitive choice of the Aftermarket and increasing consumer costs.

Sorry, but did I miss who would be the major beneficiary from all of this?

Related Articles

  • Malvern garage becomes 100th new Servicesure site for 2018 

    Malvern-based Daniels Vehicle Services has become the 100th garage to join the Servicesure garage network in 2018.

  • Staying ahead in the aftermarket 

    The automotive aftermarket is facing a period of great opportunity and change. With sales of new cars in decline, third-party parts providers are recognising the increasing importance of aftersales service. Faced with increasing competition and evolving customer expectations, garages must adapt their processes and adopt new technologies to succeed.

  • Vehicle Type Approval revisions: Threat or opportunity? 

    Following last month’s article concerning the evolution of the whole aftermarket value chain, based on remote access to a vehicle, the importance of the recently revised Vehicle Type Approval legislation should not be underestimated – and nor should the efforts involved in achieving some of these changes be taken for granted.  

    This is important on several levels – firstly on the technical requirements that this new legislation contains, secondly on what this means for both today’s and tomorrow’s aftermarket and thirdly why the UK government needs to be committed to continuing that these new legislative requirements are in place after Brexit.

    Vibrant, innovative and competitive
    The aftermarket represents over two thirds of the vehicle repair and maintenance sector in the UK and the UK government must ensure that this vibrant, innovative and competitive sector can not only continue how it operates today. The sector must also be able to develop future business models as evolving vehicle technology impacts the different ways of accessing the vehicle, its data and the customer.

    The existing (Euro 5) legislation contains important rights of access to repair and maintenance information (RMI). These rights have been (mainly) transferred over into the new EU whole vehicle Type Approval that will come into force in Sept 2020 for new models entering the market. This revised Type Approval legislation (it has not yet been allocated a document number) is based on the existing Type Approval requirements, but also introduces some important new requirements that help the aftermarket. This new legislation will considerably improve the system of access to repair and maintenance information (RMI), for example:

    The continued possibility to communicate with the vehicle’s technical information/data via the standardised on-board diagnostic connector, which is now better clarified and which makes clear that third party service providers should not be barred from accessing vitally important vehicle data when the vehicle is in motion (for read-only functions). This is a good first-step towards the adaptation of our sector with the digital economy and the connected vehicle: “For the purpose of vehicle OBD, diagnostics, repair and maintenance, the direct vehicle data stream shall be made available through the serial data port on the standardised data link connector... When the vehicle is in motion, the data shall only be made available for read-only functions.”

    The information needed for preparation or repair of vehicles for roadworthiness testing has been included into the RMI definition, as this information was not available via the Roadworthiness Directive 2014/45/EU and new test methods that will use the ‘electronic vehicle interface’ will require more technical information;

    An adaptation of the format of the RMI to the state-of-the-art, which means the technical repair information can also be obtained in an electronically processable form – especially useful for technical data publishers and replacement parts catalogue producers;

    A new paragraph that recognises the fast-pace of change of vehicle technologies: Technical progress introducing new methods or echniques for vehicle diagnostics and repair, such as remote access to vehicle information and software, should not weaken the objective of this Regulation with respect to access to vehicle repair and maintenance information for independent operators.

    A new definition of ‘non-discrimination’ that not only includes authorised repairers, but also now the vehicle manufacturers themselves if they also provide repair and maintenance services, “ as to ensure that the independent vehicle repair and maintenance market as a whole can compete with authorised dealers, regardless of whether the vehicle manufacturer gives such information to authorised dealers and repairers or uses such information for the repair and maintenance purposes itself, it is necessary to set out the details of the information to be provided for the purposes of access to vehicle repair and maintenance information.”

    The revised Type Approval legislation will also introduce increased market surveillance requirements that is aimed at not only checking vehicle emissions compliance following the Dieselgate scandal, but also for the Type Approval of replacement components related to both emission and safety related systems.
    The European Commission will also be empowered to consider the remote connection to a vehicle; “ take account of technical and regulatory developments or prevent misuse by updating the requirements concerning the access to vehicle OBD information and vehicle repair and maintenance information, including the repair and maintenance activities supported by wireless wide area networks,” (this is using the mobile ‘phone operator networks, as already used for today’s ‘connected car’).
    So, the EU aftermarket associations – ably assisted by their UK members, have fought to get some important elements in the new legislation. This is good but – and there is always a ‘but’ – this legislative text provides a good basis to address some of the key issues facing the aftermarket today, but there is still work to be done – both in Brussels and here in the UK concerning the government’s position to ensure that the requirements of this European legislation remain applicable in the UK after Brexit.
    As is often the case, the ‘devil is in the detail’ and in the case of the new Type Approval legislation, this will become part of the ‘technical requirements’ that will be developed and defined in the ‘Delegated Acts and Technical Annexes’ which will be discussed as part of the implementation of this new legislation. This will include important topics, such as using security certificates to access data via the OBD port, which must also include a legislative process to avoid vehicle manufacturers implementing difficult, restrictive, anti-competitive or costly schemes, or simply mandating that you register your customers with your competitor (the VM) before you can offer your services.

    There will also be other legislation which may impact the technical requirements of this Type Approval revision, such as GDPR (much vehicle generated data is considered personal data), the digital single market, B2B platforms – all of which will also become familiar aspects of your new business models in the future. [ends]

    Clearly, much new EU legislation is on the way and it is vital that the UK Government ensures that these important RMI provisions are ‘carried over’ in the vehicle Type Approval, as well as in other related legislative requirements, after Brexit.

    The future of the aftermarket is rapidly moving into being part of the wider digital economy – and the aftermarket cannot survive in this ‘shark infested’ sector without legislative support – so support the aftermarket associations – they have done good work so far, but there is still much work yet to be done.

  • SO FAR... so good 

    You may have read about some of the challenges that the aftermarket has faced over the last year or two as part of the vehicle Type Approval revisions – with their inherent ‘rights of access to repair and maintenance information’ and the associated fight to maintain access to the vehicle data via the ever-so-not-so-humble 16 pin OBD connector.

    The draft vehicle Type Approval document has been agreed by the European Commission and the Council (Member States), but has now to be approved by the European Parliament before becoming the final version which in turn, will become new legislation. However, as many of the key aftermarket amendments were tabled by the Parliament, it seems unlikely that these will be changed, but there is always an uncertainty until the final plenary vote is done.
    So once agreed, that will be that, as they say. Unfortunately not, as the devil is in the detail.

    Legal reference
    Firstly, there is the additional problem of existing Block Exemption and Euro 5 Regulations which do not provide the critical legal reference to enable access to in-vehicle data beyond just emissions. The standardisation requirements are included, but not the data and information for the wider diagnostic, repair and maintenance data. This means that vehicle manufacturers can claim that access to the vehicle and the corresponding ‘wider data’ does not have to be provided. This is currently being challenged by the Aftermarket Associations in Brussels, but no solution has yet been agreed for those contentious claims and there will be many vehicles on the roads with restricted access before a workable solution can be agreed and implemented.

    As vehicle manufacturers are likely to be in contradiction with these existing Type Approval requirements, it is also likely that they will have to provide access, but this may well be through the use of electronic certificates. As each vehicle manufacturer has their own certificate strategy (process, access criteria, data available etc.), this is still a significant problem and in some cases could mean multiple certificates are needed to work on the different vehicle systems on specific models. It is also important that certificates can be used without the necessity of having to use the vehicle manufacturer’s dedicated diagnostic tool and an online connection to their server to generate the required certificate when using the 16 pin connector.

    However, the new vehicle Type Approval legislation should now provide the legal reference for the physical connector and critically, also contain a reference to the data needed for diagnostics, OBD, repair and maintenance, but beyond these important requirements there are still other elements which have yet to be discussed or agreed.

    Logical cascade     
    These other issues revolve around the secure access for independent operators, together with the exact data that will be made available once access has been granted. This may sound strange, but the 16 pin OBD port is increasingly seen as a high security risk access point into the in-vehicle networks. Consequently, some form of controlled access is highly likely to be implemented, even for such seemingly mundane tasks as checking safety system trouble codes when conducting an MOT test. This is also likely to be a ‘certificate based’ system and this introduces a whole range of new challenges!

    To understand these various issues more clearly, there is a logical cascade which starts with the legal requirement for a connector to be fitted to a vehicle. This is covered as part of vehicle Type Approval legislation, and this legislation also includes the need for the connector to be standardised from both the aspect of the physical shape and connector pin layout, but also what data or information is needed for emission systems, as well as the communication protocols that must be used. All these legislative elements have been in place for more than two decades, but the wider use of the 16 pin connector for diagnostic, repair and maintenance requirements had until the current revision of the vehicle Type Approval legislation, not been legally referenced. Now that this has (hopefully) been addressed, the next key discussions will be about who can access the vehicle via this connector, how this can be authenticated and once access is provided, what data, information and functions will be supported.

    As mentioned earlier, this is likely to require electronic certificates, but to avoid the ‘wild west’ of different processes, access conditions and data availability, a standardised process should be considered by the legislator which also uses a single and independent point of access for certificates from all vehicle manufacturers. It should also be possible to access in-vehicle data without a certificate when the vehicle is in the workshop, although software updates may require certificates. When the vehicle is being driven, ‘read-only’ data should still be available and a certificate should only be needed if some form of ‘functional’ testing is required, but this should be considered as the exception. As there is an increasing use of ‘plug-in’ devices being used to allow remote communication with the vehicle when it is being driven for services such as insurance, or remote monitoring for prognostics and predictive maintenance, arguably, the importance of the OBD connector is increasing for these telematics services – even if the data it can provide is restricted in relation to what is available via the vehicle manufacturers’ embedded
    telematics systems.

    Further requirements
    Once data is accessed, the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force in May this year, will impose further requirements for the use and handling of personal data.  A fundamental issue will be that much of the data contained in the vehicle can also be considered personal data and is subject to data protection legislation. Critically, the customer must give their consent to the use of this data by a positive action or statement – it cannot be assumed.    

    As you can see, it may be ‘so far, so good’, but the simple task of continuing to plug into the 16 pin connector and diagnosing or repairing the vehicle is going to be far from simple, with many hurdles and challenges yet to be addressed, but the aftermarket associations, both in the UK and with their pan-European partners, are continuing to fight for the ability to do so.

  • OBD provision and data access included in provisional Type-Approval legislation  

    The IAAF and FIGIEFA have welcomed news that crucial provisions on the OBD connector and access to RMI have been included in the proposed EU legislation on Vehicle Type-Approval regulation.

Most read content


Sign Up

For the latest news and updates from Aftermarket Magazine.


Where should the next Automechanika show be held?


©DFA Media 1999-2018