ETI's Scanning Position: Support for OEM Mandates, Pushback on Tool Exclusivity

The Equipment and Tool Institute released a formal position statement on pre- and post-repair scanning that both endorsed what automakers have been saying about scanning requirements and challenged the portion of those requirements that effectively demanded shops use only manufacturer-supplied diagnostic tools. The statement represents a significant contribution to one of the most consequential technical debates in the modern collision repair industry.

What the ETI Agreed On

The ETI's opening position was unambiguous: pre- and post-repair scanning is necessary, and the organization fully supports the industry movement in that direction.

"The Equipment and Tool Institute fully agrees with the process of the pre- and post-systems scan position many in the industry are taking," the organization wrote. "The electronic safety systems on today's vehicles are very important for occupant safety and must be checked after a repair for proper functionality. The pre-scan is now necessary for the repair facility to be able to help scope and estimate the repair processes required for a safe and complete repair."

This alignment with OEM position statements from Honda, Toyota, Nissan, FCA, and others validated what body shops had been hearing from manufacturers: scanning isn't optional and isn't new. P&L Consultants co-owner Larry Montanez had previously noted in a trade publication column that European OEMs had been requiring diagnostic scanning for 20-25 years, and that the United States industry's treatment of the procedure as a 2016 revelation said more about how long it had been ignored than about when it began.

The Tool Exclusivity Argument

Where ETI diverged from some OEM communications was on the question of whether only factory scan tools could perform a scan adequately. The organization's position was economically and technically grounded.

"It is unlikely most shops will be able to justify the purchase cost of multiple OEM scan tools for this procedure since independent body shops work on a great variety of OEM's vehicles," ETI wrote. Industry estimates have placed the cost of acquiring and maintaining a full set of OEM scan tools at figures approaching or exceeding six figures — a burden that would fall entirely on independent operators who have no practical ability to specialize by manufacturer.

The ETI argued that many high-quality aftermarket scan tools can fully execute pre- and post-repair procedures across a wide range of vehicles, and that the availability of such tools is contingent on OEMs providing their diagnostic data to the aftermarket in an accurate, timely, and affordable manner.

The path the ETI endorsed was a data-licensing model: OEMs would provide the same raw diagnostic information they supply to their own scan tool manufacturers directly to aftermarket tool developers. The result would be an aftermarket device capable of emulating factory tool functions — verified, licensed, and based on identical underlying data rather than reverse-engineered approximations. This is the kind of capability a single device from a manufacturer like Bosch, AirPro, or Snap-On could theoretically encompass for dozens of vehicle brands, replacing the need to own and manage a separate OEM tool for every manufacturer.

"Data for the development of aftermarket scan tools is provided directly to scan tool manufacturers as agreed by previous contracts in the US so as to be able to fully emulate the factory tool," ETI wrote. "Many OEMs provide this information in an affordable, accurate and timely manner. Yet some OEMs are less forthcoming and either restrict access to important data or price it at unaffordable levels."

Where OEM Tools Are Still Required

ETI didn't dismiss OEM tools entirely. The organization acknowledged that situations exist where factory tools are appropriate — particularly for newer model years where aftermarket coverage hasn't yet caught up to available software releases.

"ETI has no concern with repairers utilizing OEM tools when they are available and endorses their use in situations where they may be needed e.g. vehicles in their early years of service, where coverage may not be implemented in the current aftermarket tool release," the organization wrote.

This nuanced position gives shops practical guidance: use the aftermarket tool when its coverage is verified and complete; use the OEM tool for new vehicles where aftermarket coverage is not yet available; and document both the tool used and the results of both the pre- and post-repair scan.

Regulatory Context: J2534 and Right-to-Repair

The ETI statement also pointed to two overlapping regulatory frameworks that support its licensing argument. Right-to-repair agreements negotiated between the aftermarket and automakers established obligations for OEMs to provide diagnostic data to the aftermarket by 2018. The J2534 standard, also effective by 2018, extends OEM reprogramming capabilities to the aftermarket beyond the basic emissions-related reprogramming already mandated by law.

Together, these frameworks were supposed to ensure that any scan tool manufacturer willing to pay a reasonable licensing fee could access the data necessary to build a device with OEM-equivalent capabilities. ETI's frustration was directed at manufacturers using pricing or access restrictions to circumvent what the regulatory framework was intended to accomplish.

For collision repairers navigating this environment, the ETI position provides useful cover: qualified aftermarket tools, sourced from manufacturers with proper OEM data licensing, are a legitimate option for pre- and post-repair scanning. The technical question is whether a specific tool's coverage for a specific vehicle is current and complete — and that determination needs to be made vehicle by vehicle.