BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 427|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                              UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 427
          Author:   Negrete McLeod (D)
          Amended:  8/20/10
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEVL. COMMITTEE  :  7-2, 4/20/09
          AYES:  Negrete McLeod, Corbett, Correa, Florez, Oropeza,  
            Romero, Yee
          NOES:  Aanestad, Walters
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Wyland

           SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEVEL.. COMMIT.  :  5-3 (Fail),  
            4/13/09
          AYES:  Negrete McLeod, Corbett, Oropeza, Romero, Yee
          NOES:  Wyland, Aanestad, Walters
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Correa, Florez

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8

           SENATE FLOOR  :  25-10, 6/3/09
          AYES:  Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier,  
            Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Liu,  
            Lowenthal, Maldonado, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Padilla,  
            Pavley, Romero, Simitian, Steinberg, Wiggins, Wolk,  
            Wright, Yee
          NOES:  Aanestad, Ashburn, Cogdill, Cox, Denham, Dutton,  
            Hollingsworth, Strickland, Walters, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Benoit, Correa, Harman, Runner, Vacancy

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  Not available


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 427
                                                                Page  
          2

           SUBJECT  :    Automotive repair:  crash parts

           SOURCE  :     Center for Auto Safety


           DIGEST  :    This bill increases the penalty form $1,000 to  
          $5,000 under the Automotive Repair Act for an automotive  
          repair dealer who prepares a written estimate for repairs  
          that includes replacement of a deployed airbag that is part  
          of an inflatable restraint system and who fails to repair  
          and fully restore the airbag  to original operating  
          conditions.  In addition, this bill redefines the term  
          "aftermarket crash part" and adds a definition for "crash  
          part."

           Assembly Amendments  delete the requirement for an  
          automotive repair dealer to provide on the first page of  
          the final invoice, a statement that installing parts other  
          than those described on the estimate without prior approval  
          from the customer is unlawful and informing the customer of  
          the Internet Web site and toll-free telephone number of the  
          Bureau of Automotive Repair for more information, and make  
          other technical changes.

           ANALYSIS  :    

          Existing law:

          1. Licenses and regulates more than 35,000 automotive  
             repair dealers (ARDs) under the Automotive Repair Act  
             (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 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,  







                                                                SB 427
                                                                Page  
          3

             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 the ARD to obtain authorization from the  
             customer before performing work and imposing charges.

          6. 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.

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

          8. Defines various terms for purposes of the motor vehicle  
             replacement parts provisions of the Business and  
             Professions Code.

           Existing law (Vehicle Code)  .  Establishes a misdemeanor  
          (crime) penalty of up to one year in jail or 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.

          This bill:

          1. Makes it a misdemeanor under the Act for an 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. References parts "supplied" and crash parts "installed."

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







                                                                SB 427
                                                                Page  
          4


          4. 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.

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

          6. 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.

          7. Clarifies that this bill shall not be construed to apply  
             to the installation of light bulbs in a motor vehicle.

          8. Defines "original equipment manufacturer crash part" to  
             mean a crash part made for or by the original vehicle  
             manufacturer that manufactured, fabricated, or supplied  
             a vehicle or a component part.

          9. Specifies that the misdemeanor and fine associated with  
             the failure to repair and fully restore an airbag only  
             applies in situations where the customer has paid for  
             the airbag repair as provided in the estimate.

          10.Clarifies that this bill shall not be construed to  
             require the replacement of the official automotive  
             repair dealer sign.

           Background
          
          "Crash parts," or "body parts," are parts generally made of  
          sheet metal, plastic, or glass that constitute the exterior  
          of a motor vehicle and tend to 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 (e.g., a hood made by Ford  
          for a Ford vehicle).  Non-OEM parts, on the other hand, are  
          imitation auto parts made by an independent manufacturer  







                                                                SB 427
                                                                Page  
          5

          that is 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  
          specifications for a given part (because this information  
          is proprietary).  Non-OEM crash parts typically cost 20  
          percent to 65 percent less than OEM crash parts.

           Related 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.  That bill was vetoed by the  
          Governor, citing that the bill as duplicative of existing  
          law and therefore unnecessary. 

          AB 1483 (Carter), of 2007 would have required an ARD, 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 automotive repair dealers.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/25/10)

          Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
          Center for Auto Safety (source)
          Consumers Union
          Personal Insurance Federation of California
          Public Citizen

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/25/10)







                                                                SB 427
                                                                Page  
          6


          California New Car Dealers Association
          Collision Repair Association of California

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS)  
          states:  "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."  CAS  
          indicates that each year auto crash repair fraud victimizes  
          hundreds of thousands of California motorists at a cost of  
          over $350 million.  Where the repairer fails to install a  
          replacement airbag, consumers can even be killed in a  
          crash.  This bill would strengthen current law by requiring  
          the parts invoice for any replacement airbag installed as  
          part of the vehicle repair to be attached to the final  
          repair invoice given to a consumer.  The US Department of  
          Transportation has found that 20 percent 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.

          CAS also argues that putting the toll free phone number of  
          BAR on both the repair estimate and invoice is essential,  
          since consumers normally have problems with vehicle repairs  
          after they leave the shop and the pamphlets and displays at  
          the repair shop do not inadequately inform consumers who to  
          call.

          CAS believes that repair fraud continues to be a problem  
          stating that thirty years ago the U.S. Department of  
          Transportation documented that 53 cents out of every dollar  
          consumers spend on auto repair in general was wasted, and  
          in 2003 the BAR's study of auto body collision repairs  
          showed that 42 percent of the vehicles inspected had parts  
          or labor listed on the invoice that were not actually  
          supplied or performed.

          CAS also asserts that this bill is completely different  
          from prior bills in that the bill deals with airbags which  
          were not replaced in crash repairs, and requires the BAR's  
          toll free number on the repair estimate and final invoice  
          which neither of the previous bills did.







                                                                SB 427
                                                                Page  
          7


           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    California New Car Dealers  
          Association (CNCDA) is opposed and contends that the bill  
          requires automotive repair dealers to duplicate work  
          already required by statute.  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.   
          CNCDA suggests instead that zealous prosecution of existing  
          law by the BAR would accomplish that objective without the  
          unnecessary paperwork this bill would require.

          The California Autobody Association (CAA) is also opposed  
          and believes the bill only creates another layer of  
          unnecessary administrative paper work for the automotive  
          repair dealer and frustration and confusion to the  
          consumer.  CAA argues the bill duplicates existing law  
          which requires written disclosures and certifications on  
          both the estimate and the final invoice for all parts,  
          including airbags; furthermore, repair shops must already  
          post signs listing consumer rights and the BAR's toll free  
          telephone number.  
           

          JJA:do  8/26/10   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****