BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 427
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   June 22, 2010

              ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER  
                                     PROTECTION
                                 Mary Hayashi, Chair
                 SB 427 (Negrete McLeod) - As Amended:  May 20, 2010

           SENATE VOTE  :   25-10
           
          SUBJECT  :   Automotive repair: crash parts.

           SUMMARY  :   Increases the penalty from $1,000 to $5,000 under the  
          Automotive Repair Act (Act) for failing to repair an air bag,  
          requires a consumer disclosure regarding auto repair fraud, and  
          makes minor technical amendments.  Specifically,  this bill  :   

          1)Makes it a misdemeanor under the Act for an automotive repair  
            dealer (ARD) who prepares a written estimate for repairs that  
            includes replacement of a deployed airbag and who fails to  
            repair and fully restore the airbag to original operating  
            condition.  This is punishable by a fine of $5,000,  
            imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by both  
            that fine and imprisonment.

          2)Replaces references to parts "supplied" with parts  
            "installed." 

          3)Specifies use of a "final repair invoice," rather than an  
            "invoice."

          4)Requires, beginning January 1, 2012, the signature page of the  
            final repair invoice to contain the following statement in at  
            least 12-point boldface type enclosed in a box:  "INSTALLING A  
            PART, OTHER THAN THE TYPE OF PART DESCRIBED ON THE WRITTEN  
            ESTIMATE, WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CUSTOMER, IS  
            UNLAWFUL. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT THE BUREAU OF  
            AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AT www.autorepair.ca.gov OR CALL (800)  
            952-5200."

          5)Clarifies that no service shall be done by anyone other than  
            the ARD or his or her employees without the consent of the  
            customer, unless the customer cannot reasonably be notified.

          6)Redefines "aftermarket crash part" to mean a replacement for  
            any crash part.








                                                                  SB 427
                                                                  Page  2


          7)Defines "crash part" as any of the nonmechanical sheet metal  
            or plastic parts which generally constitute the exterior of a  
            motor vehicle, including inner and outer panels and exterior  
            lighting, and shall also include the airbag in a motor  
            vehicle's inflatable restraint system. 

           EXISTING LAW  :
          
          1)Licenses and regulates more than 35,000 ARDs under the  
            Act by the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) within the  
            Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA).

          2)Requires an ARD to provide a customer with an itemized  
            written estimate for parts and labor, and to obtain  
            authorization from the customer before performing any  
            work on the customer's vehicle.

          3)Prohibits an ARD from charging a customer for work done  
            or parts supplied in excess of the written estimate  
            without first obtaining a customer's oral or written  
            authorization.

          4)Requires an ARD performing auto body or collision repair  
            work to identify whether each part is new, used, rebuilt,  
            or reconditioned on the written estimate.  The written  
            estimate must also identify whether a crash part is an  
            original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or non-original  
            equipment (non-OEM) manufacturer crash part.

          5)Requires all work done by an ARD to be recorded on an  
            itemized invoice that describes all service work done and  
            parts supplied, and requires the invoice to contain  
            specified information.

          6)Establishes a misdemeanor penalty of up to six months in  
            jail, a $1,000 fine, or both, for any person who fails to  
            comply with the provisions of the Act.

          7)Establishes, in the vehicle code, a misdemeanor penalty  
            of up to one year in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both, for  
            any person who installs or reinstalls for compensation,  
            distributes or sells a previously deployed air bag in a  
            vehicle, if the person knows that the air bag has been  
            previously deployed. 








                                                                  SB 427
                                                                  Page  3


           FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown

           COMMENTS  :   

           Purpose of this bill  .  According to the author's office, "While  
          the majority of autobody repair shops comply with the law, the  
          problem of  'parts switching' - or billing the consumer for a  
          more expensive OEM part, but installing a less-expensive  
          aftermarket part - remains a common area of fraud in the  
          autobody repair industry.

          "This bill ensures consumers are made aware of the prohibition  
          against parts switching, and provides consumers with the means  
          to protect themselves against this type of fraud by providing  
          them contact information for BAR if they suspect anything wrong  
          with the repair of their car.

          "Additionally, this bill clarifies that airbags are required to  
          be repaired to their 'original operating condition' to ensure  
          that those repair shops that intentionally skirt the law are  
          easily prosecuted for their crime."
           
          Background  .  "Crash parts," or "body parts," constitute the  
          exterior of a motor vehicle, and are generally made of sheet  
          metal, plastic, or glass and serve a cosmetic function.   
          Examples of crash parts include bumper reinforcements and  
          absorbers, hoods, fenders, door shells, rear outer panels, deck  
          and trunk lids, quarter panels, truck beds and box sides, body  
          side panels, tailgates, and lift gates.  

          OEM crash parts are made by the manufacturer of a given motor  
          vehicle for use on that vehicle.  Non-OEM parts are auto parts  
          made by an independent manufacturer, generally not affiliated  
          with the manufacturer of the motor vehicle for which the part is  
          intended. 

          Non-OEM manufacturers must reverse-engineer the replacement  
          parts because they do not have access to the OEM manufacturer's  
          proprietary engineering specifications.  Non-OEM crash parts  
          typically cost 20% to 65% less than OEM crash parts.

          BAR reestablished the Auto Body Inspection Program (program) in  
          January 2007, which allows qualified consumers to receive free  
          inspections to verify the collision repair work done on their  








                                                                  SB 427
                                                                  Page  4

          cars.  DCA's 2008-09 Annual Report states that the BAR conducted  
          209 inspections through the program that resulted in more than  
          61 consumer complaints for poor workmanship and/or billing for  
          parts and services not performed. 

           Previous legislation  .  AB 2825 (Carter) of 2008 would have  
          authorized a customer to receive copies of invoices from the  
          distributor, dealer or manufacturer for all crash parts  
          installed in excess of $50; required the written estimate and  
          the final invoice to include a notice stating that installing  
          parts other than those described on the estimate without the  
          customer's prior approval is unlawful; and required copies of  
          crash part invoices, if requested by the consumer, to be  
          attached to the final invoice.  AB 2825 was vetoed by the  
          Governor, citing that the bill was duplicative of existing law  
          and therefore unnecessary. 

          AB 1483 (Carter) of 2007 would have required an auto repair  
          dealer, once repairs are completed, to provide a written  
          affirmation to the customer on the first page of the final  
          invoice that the parts identified on the estimate are the parts  
          that were installed on the vehicle during repair.  That bill was  
          vetoed by the Governor, citing that it was duplicative of  
          existing law and therefore unnecessary, and that the provisions  
          may lead to increased expenses and decreased efficiency at ARDs.

           Arguments in support  .  The Center for Auto Safety writes, "[This  
          bill] would strengthen current law by requiring auto repairers  
          to repair and restore a deployed airbag to fully operational  
          condition where replacement is included in the repair estimate.   
          The United States Department of Transportation has found that  
          20% of all deaths in crashes caused by an airbag failing to  
          deploy are due to the airbag not having been installed in a  
          repair prior to the crash.  

          "[This bill] also requires printing on the signature page of the  
          final invoice that installing a part other than the one  
          specified on the estimate is unlawful and the toll free number  
          and Internet Website of BAR to contact for more information.   
          Having the phone number and Website on the final invoice is  
          essential.  Consumers have problems with vehicle repairs after  
          they leave the shop, so pamphlets and displays at the repair  
          dealer are inadequate to inform consumers who to call.   
          Including the consumer statement will impose no cost on  
          repairers, as the estimating companies provide free updates for  








                                                                  SB 427
                                                                  Page  5

          government requirements."

           Arguments in opposition  .  The California New Car Dealers  
          Association writes, "It is already fraud (intentional  
          misrepresentation) to disclose on an estimate that the repair  
          dealer will put OEM parts on a car, not do so, and then itemize  
          that he or she did so on the invoice.  If the proponents of this  
          bill are truly concerned with preventing fraud and curtailing  
          the practice of part switching, zealous prosecution of existing  
          law by BAR would accomplish that objective without the  
          unnecessary paperwork this bill would require.  The bill's flaws  
          are compounded by requiring a new notice on the signature page  
          of a final repair invoice.  

          Repair dealers already have signs posted in their facilities  
          listing the 800 number of BAR; repeating that fact in a special  
          notice on the invoice adds little but cost to the repair dealer.  
           Moreover, a statement "installing a part, other than the type  
          of part described on the written estimate, is unlawful" by its  
          very terms presupposes problems with the repair that could be  
          faced by the customer at this repair dealer.  The negative  
          inference diminishes the reputation of the vast majority of  
          law-abiding and honest repair facilities.  The disclosure in 12  
          point font surrounded by a box, even if improved in tone, will  
          do little to educate consumers about the practice of part  
          switching.  Working with BAR to spread the word about this  
          nefarious practice, including dissemination of more information  
          about the free Auto Body Inspection Program other than on the  
          repair invoice itself when it is potentially too late, would be  
          a much more effective strategy than adding duplicative and  
          unnecessary disclosures."

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
          Center for Auto Safety
          Consumers Union
          Personal Insurance Federation of California
          Public Citizen
           
            Opposition 
           
          California Autobody Association








                                                                  SB 427
                                                                  Page  6

          The California New Car Dealers Association

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Sarah Weaver / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)  
          319-3301