BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 1460 (Yee)
As Amended April 17, 2012
Hearing Date: April 24, 2012
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TW
SUBJECT
Automotive Repair: Replacement Parts
DESCRIPTION
This bill would repeal and recast statutory provisions for an
automobile insurer's authorization of nonoriginal equipment
manufacturer (non-OEM) aftermarket crash parts used to repair an
insured's vehicle. This bill would authorize, in an automotive
insurance policy, the inclusion of terms specifying that the
insurer may use non-OEM aftermarket crash parts to repair the
insured's vehicle. This bill would provide a presumption that
certified new non-OEM parts used to repair the insured's damaged
vehicle are sufficient to return the vehicle to its preloss
condition. This bill would require the supplier of a certified
new non-OEM crash part to provide a written consumer warranty
and a 60-day service guarantee to the auto body repair shop.
BACKGROUND
In 1971, the Automotive Repair Act was enacted, which provided
various requirements applicable to automotive repair dealers,
including the requirement that a customer be given a written
estimated price for labor and parts and that the consumer
authorize the repair before the work can be done and charges can
accrue. (See Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 9880 et seq.) Although the
Automotive Repair Act provided consumers with labor and parts
pricing information, it did not require that consumers be
advised of the kinds of crash parts used to repair their
vehicles. In many cases, consumers were not receiving quality
products because imported, imitation crash parts (i.e.
nonoriginal equipment manufacturer (non-OEM) aftermarket crash
(more)
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 2 of ?
parts) were being used to repair their vehicles. As a result of
the use of non-OEM crash parts, consumers experienced problems
involving the fit, finish, or corrosion protection of the
non-OEM parts, and the use of the non-OEM parts potentially
invalidated the vehicle manufacturer's warranty on the use of
any non-OEM part.
To provide consumer protections for the use of non-OEM parts, AB
1120 (Areias, Ch. 817, Stats. 1989) was enacted and required
disclosures to a consumer regarding the use of aftermarket crash
parts to repair the vehicle in order to give the consumer a
choice in selecting either OEM parts or non-OEM parts. AB 1120
was opposed by the American Insurance Association (AIA), which
argued that non-OEM crash parts are as safe as OEM crash parts
and OEM crash parts are considerably more expensive than non-OEM
crash parts. AIA also argued that requiring the vehicle owner's
consent to the use of non-OEM crash parts would only serve to
delay the repair process.
Since 1989, various attempts have been made to expand an
insurer's ability to authorize the use of non-OEM crash parts,
change the certification procedure of such crash parts, and
alter the warranty provisions of such parts. Recent attempts
include AB 1163 (Yee, 2005), which would have provided that the
categories of "aftermarket crash parts" could be expanded as new
certification standards were developed by "independent
third-party certifiers" and would have provided that certified
aftermarket crash parts were of like kind and quality to
manufacturer parts. AB 1163 died in the Assembly Business and
Professions Committee.
AB 1852 (Yee, 2006) also would have altered certification of
aftermarket crash parts. AB 1852 was referred to the Assembly
Business and Professions Committee but was gutted and amended in
that committee to pertain to a different subject matter. SB 350
(Yee, 2010) would have repealed the consumer protections enacted
under AB 1120 and replaced those provisions with, among other
things, similar provisions as in SB 1460. SB 350 was withdrawn
from hearing by the author and died in the Assembly Business,
Professions and Consumer Protection Committee.
This bill, sponsored by the Personal Insurance Federation of
California, would repeal and recast the consumer protection
provisions established under AB 1120 and modify the provisions
of the Automotive Repair Act. This bill was heard by the Senate
Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 3 of ?
April 16, 2012 and passed out on a vote of 5-1.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law provides the following definitions relating to
vehicle replacement parts:
"aftermarket crash part" means a replacement for any of
the nonmechanical sheet metal or plastic parts which
generally constitute the exterior of a motor vehicle,
including inner and outer panels; and
"nonoriginal equipment manufacturer (Non-OEM)
aftermarket crash part" means aftermarket crash parts not
made for or by the manufacturer of the automobile. (Bus. &
Prof. Code Sec. 9875.)
This bill would repeal and recast this statute and provide,
among others, new definitions for the following:
"original equipment manufacturer (OEM) crash part" would
mean a replacement crash part manufactured or commissioned
by a car company, under its own name, for vehicles that the
car company manufactures or distributes under its own name;
"certified new non-OEM crash part" would mean a new
non-OEM replacement crash part that: (1) has been certified
by an American National Standards Institute accredited
standards developer that develops and maintains a consensus
of quality standards for competitive crash repair parts;
(2) is identified by a unique serial number or production
lot number to enable full traceability; and (3) has a
manufacturer's warranty that meets or exceeds the original
equipment manufacturer's warranty for the applicable
original equipment manufacturer crash part;
"new non-OEM crash part" would mean a replacement crash
part manufactured or sold by an entity other than the OEM;
"recycled crash part" would mean a crash part removed
from a vehicle; and
"remanufactured or reconditioned crash part" would mean
a recycled crash part that has been refurbished or restored
to its original condition or appearance for use on another
vehicle.
2. Existing law provides that no insurer shall require the
use of non-OEM aftermarket crash parts in the repair of an
insured's vehicle, unless the insured is advised in a written
estimate of the use of non-OEM aftermarket crash parts, listed
with the name of the manufacturer or distributor, before
repairs are made, and a disclosure, attached to the written
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 4 of ?
estimate, is provided as follows: "This estimate has been
prepared based on the use of crash parts supplied by a source
other than the manufacturer of your motor vehicle. Any
warranties applicable to these replacement parts are provided
by the manufacturer or distributor of the parts, rather than
by the original manufacturer of your vehicle." (Bus. & Prof.
Code Sec. 9875.1.)
This bill would repeal this statute and instead authorize an
insurer to require the use of recycled, remanufactured, or
reconditioned OEM, or certified new non-OEM crash parts if:
the insurer discloses in writing, in either the
insurance policy or in a separate notification, that the
insurer may use parts other than OEM parts to determine the
amount to be paid to repair the insured's vehicle in a
manner sufficient to restore the vehicle to its preloss
condition; and
the auto body repair shop discloses in writing what type
of crash part will be used to repair the vehicle.
This bill would provide a presumption that the use of a
certified new non-OEM crash part, if installed and a
reasonable fit, shall be presumed sufficient to return the
vehicle to its preloss condition, unless:
the certified new non-OEM crash part is installed on a
vehicle that is subject to a lease with the OEM in which
the lease contract requires only OEM crash parts to be used
to repair the vehicle;
the installation of the crash part would permit the OEM
to void its warranty; or
the vehicle is less than one year old.
3. Existing law , the Automotive Repair Act (ARA), provides that
an "automotive repair dealer" means a person who, for
compensation, engages in the business of repairing or
diagnosing malfunctions of vehicles. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.
9880.1(a).)
This bill would include auto body repair shops in this
definition.
4. This bill would add to the ARA that a supplier of certified
new non-OEM crash parts shall do all of the following:
provide a written consumer warranty that equals or
exceeds the warranty provided by the car company for the
type of OEM crash part;
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 5 of ?
utilize an electronic tracking system that tracks the
manufacturer part number, lot number, and repair shop
license number for recall purposes;
analyze any crash part returned as defective and report
the defective part number, lot number, and nature of the
defect to the manufacturer and to the certifying entity;
annually report to the Bureau of Automotive Repair
defect rates greater than five percent for certified new
non-OEM crash parts installed in 1,000 or more vehicles;
and
provide the auto body repair shop with a 60-day service
guarantee on any defective certified new non-OEM crash
part.
5. Existing law requires an automotive repair dealer to record
on an invoice all work, including warranty work, done by the
automotive repair dealer and parts used in the repair to be
separately listed, including the type of crash part used, with
subtotal prices for the work and parts. (Bus. & Prof. Code
Sec. 9884.8.)
Existing law requires an automotive repair dealer to give the
customer a written estimate for the price of labor and parts,
which must be listed separately and indicate whether any crash
parts used are OEM or non-OEM aftermarket crash parts. (Bus.
& Prof. Code Sec. 9884.9.)
This bill would require the automotive repair dealer to list
this information in a final invoice and include the following
additional information:
whether a replacement crash part is an OEM, new non-OEM,
certified new non-OEM, recycled, remanufactured, or
reconditioned;
the supplier providing the warranty for each certified
new non-OEM crash part, and the tracking information with
one copy of the final invoice to be provided to the
customer and one copy retained by the automotive repair
dealer;
disclosure of an estimated price for labor and parts;
and
the unique identification information of any installed
certified new non-OEM crash part.
This bill would require a replacement crash part supplier to
provide to the automotive repair dealer a form to be filled
out and returned by the automotive repair dealer reporting the
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 6 of ?
installation of a certified new non-OEM crash part and the
tracking information to enable traceability.
This bill would require a written estimate to include the
following information:
an identification of each part and whether the part is
new, used, rebuilt, or reconditioned, OEM, certified new
non-OEM, new non-OEM, recycled, or remanufactured; and
a disclosure of the replacement crash part warranty
provided by the supplier.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
This bill adds consumer protections to existing law by
requiring the use of only certified parts if aftermarket parts
are specified by insurers. It strengthens the disclosure
requirements by requiring disclosure on the estimate as well
as the final bill of itemized aftermarket parts. It further
imposes warranty obligations on suppliers of these parts that
must equal or exceed the manufacturer's warranty.
The Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC), the
sponsor of this bill, writes:
SB 1460 contains three provisions designed to benefit
insurance customers. First, the measure would provide an
important incentive for auto insurance companies to pay for
higher-quality replacement car parts than current law
requires. Second, the measure encourages auto insurance
companies to pay for replacement car parts that are easier to
track and recall, which would improve the accountability of
replacement part makers. Third, the measure would require
suppliers of replacement parts that are not made by the
original car makers to provide new consumer warranties, in
addition to existing consumer protections.
2. This bill's new contractual terms would remove the insured's
ability to reject the use of aftermarket crash parts
This bill would authorize an automobile insurer to include in an
insurance policy, as part of the terms of the contract, that the
automobile insurer may use non-OEM parts to repair the insured's
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 7 of ?
vehicle in the event of an accident. Existing law requires that
before an automobile insurer can require the use of non-original
equipment manufacturer (non-OEM) aftermarket crash parts to
repair an insured's vehicle, the insurer must disclose to the
insured in a written estimate, as specified, that the insurer
will require the use of such aftermarket parts before the
repairs are made. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 9875.1.)
As discussed above, AB 1120 (Areias, Ch. 817, Stats. 1989) was
enacted to address consumer problems involving the fit, finish,
or corrosion protection of non-OEM parts. Since the use of
non-OEM parts also potentially invalidated the vehicle
manufacturer's warranty on the use of any non-OEM part, AB 1120
required disclosures to a consumer regarding the use of
aftermarket crash parts to repair the vehicle in order to give
the consumer a choice in selecting either OEM parts or non-OEM
parts.
This bill would repeal these provisions of AB 1120 and instead
authorize the insurer to disclose to the insured, potentially
hidden in the initial policy, that the insurer may use
aftermarket crash parts that are non-OEM crash parts to repair
the insured's vehicle. The author states that "�t]his bill adds
consumer protections to existing law by requiring the use of
only certified parts if aftermarket parts are specified by
insurers," and that this bill would strengthen disclosure
requirements by requiring disclosure on estimates as well as in
the final bill of itemized aftermarket parts.
However, staff notes that the new insurer disclosure
requirements in this bill would change the contractual
relationship between insurance companies and policyholders with
respect to the quality of repair the insurance company would
provide. By agreeing to the terms in the policy which, under
the provisions of this bill, could include the insurer's use of
non-OEM parts, the policyholder will no longer have a choice
about the kind of part used to repair their car if they expect
their insurer to cover the costs of repair, regardless of
whether the consumer later receives a written estimate or
invoice disclosing the use of non-OEM parts.
Existing statutory law prohibits an insurer from requiring the
use of non-OEM parts unless certain conditions are met. (Bus. &
Prof. Code Sec. 9875.1.) This bill would repeal this
prohibition. Existing regulatory law also prohibits an insurer
from requiring the use of non-OEM parts unless certain condition
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 8 of ?
are met (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, ch. 5, subch. 7.5, sec.
2695.8(g).), but because the statutory prohibition would be
removed under this bill and instead allow the insurer to include
use of non-OEM parts as a term within the insurance policy, the
new ambiguous statutory authorization to use non-OEM parts could
be argued as superseding the regulatory prohibition.
State Farm, a supporter of this bill, states that this bill
would "help keep insurers costs down, which will allow lower
premiums for their customers in the future." The California New
Car Dealers Association (CNCDA), on the other hand, notes that
this bill would not provide any assurance that the insurer's
savings from using cheaper non-OEM parts will in fact be passed
on to the consumer. Instead, the insurer could continue to
charge policyholders existing rates for expensive OEM
replacement part and keep the money saved by using only non-OEM
parts.
The author argues that "�c]onsumers will also have peace of mind
that certified, quality replacement crash parts are used when
available . . . ." PIFC states that "�i]nsurers' contracts set
the terms of their promises to customers. A typical insurance
contract promises to restore a customer's vehicle to 'pre-loss'
condition, which courts have defined as 'substantially the same
condition it was before the accident.' Ray v. Farmers Insurance
Exchange, 200 Cal.App.3d 1411, 1416 (1988). Insurance contracts
do not require the use of a replacement part that is in all
manners 'equivalent.' Insurance contracts just require
restoration to substantially the same condition as before the
crash." Global Automakers, however, argues that insurers only
promise to restore a customer's vehicle to pre-loss, but not
equivalent, condition, and this bill would provide that the
insurer could further only agree in the insurance policy to use
non-OEM parts. As such, the consumer would not have any
assurance that their vehicle would be repaired properly. As
seen in 1989, consumers experience numerous problems with
non-OEM parts. This bill would repeal and arguably inhibit the
consumer protections intended by the Legislature when it enacted
AB 1120.
3. This bill's new warranty provisions would shift warranty
obligations and dilute consumer protections
Existing law provides that if an insurer requires the use of
non-OEM replacement crash parts to repair a vehicle, the parts
must be at least equal to the OEM in terms of kind, quality,
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 9 of ?
safety, fit, and performance and insurers specifying the use of
non-OEM replacement crash parts must provide a warranty to the
policyholder that the parts meet these terms. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 10, ch. 5, subch. 7.5, sec. 2695.8(g).) This bill would
require the supplier of certified new non-OEM crash parts to
provide a written consumer warranty that equals or exceeds the
warranty provided by the car company for the type of OEM crash
part.
This bill would impose warranty obligations on suppliers of
these parts that must equal or exceed the manufacturer's
warranty. CNCDA argues that the language in this bill does not
specify that the supplier's warranty must equal or exceed the
manufacturer's warranty. Rather, the bill provides that the
supplier's warranty must equal or exceed the warranty provided
by the "car company for the type of OEM crash part." As used in
this context, the term "car company" is ambiguous since the
non-OEM part supplier, the car manufacturer, the car dealer,
even the automobile insurer, all of which are companies doing
business related to cars, could be considered the "car company."
The California Department of Insurance (CDI), an opponent of
this bill, also notes that the term "supplier" is not defined in
this bill "and could be interpreted to mean aftermarket parts
distributors, foreign aftermarket parts manufacturers, or auto
body shops unaffiliated with insurance companies. This leaves
consumers with a difficult, unknown path in seeking
reimbursement for defective aftermarket parts - a path that
should not be borne by the consumer; instead, by continuing to
have insurers stand by the parts they require and warrant these
parts - an obligation that is expected of insurers today - it
provides the highest level of consumer protection."
PIFC argues that this bill improves consumer protections by
requiring "suppliers of new non-OEM crash parts to provide a
warranty for the parts at least equivalent to Original Equipment
Manufacturer warranty." CDI points out, however, that this
warranty provision "significantly shifts the duty of an existing
insurer, which is to fully warrant an aftermarket part, to an
unspecified "supplier" to fulfill these insurer obligations
without any of the protections that a state insurance regulator,
or any regulator for that matter, can provide to California."
4. This bill would provide a legal presumption that certain
crash parts return the insured's vehicle to preloss condition
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 10 of ?
This bill would provide that the use of a certified new non-OEM
crash part, if installed and a reasonable fit, shall be presumed
sufficient to return the vehicle to its preloss condition. This
bill would provide exemptions from this presumption for the
following:
certified new non-OEM crash parts installed on a vehicle
leased from an OEM and the lease contract requires damage to
be repaired only using OEM crash parts; or
if use of a certified new non-OEM crash part would permit the
OEM to void its manufacturer's vehicle warranty under
permission of a Federal Trade Commission waiver of the
"tie-in" sales prohibition under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act of 1975.
PIFC argues in favor of this legal presumption provision because
they "strongly believe this presumption is justified and will
encourage insurers to use certified crash parts in the absence
of a group agreement to do so. CDI argues, on the other hand,
that "�t]his presumption would allow insurers to rely on the
certifiers to show that the part complied with the requirements
under current law, thereby absolving the insurer of any
obligated responsibility for an aftermarket crash part. This
provision could even result in many, if not all, insurers
choosing to proscribe certified aftermarket parts, rather than
OEM parts, merely to achieve the benefit of this presumption's
protection of insurers. It is important to note that such a
broad presumption does not even exist for OEM parts today."
CNCDA notes that CDI regulations "prohibit manufacturers from
requiring the use of imitation crash parts if not of like kind,
quality, safety, fit and performance as automaker crash parts.
SB 1460 would create a statutory presumption that certified
imitation parts are sufficient to render a vehicle to pre-loss
condition. Since regulations are 'trumped' by inconsistent
statutes, the statutory presumption proposed by SB 1460 may have
the legal effect of eliminating the existing regulatory
requirement - a consumer protection nightmare." Although
providing a statutory presumption may encourage insurers to use
certified new non-OEM parts, it will effectively prohibit a
policyholder from seeking any remedy from the insurer, who would
authorize the use of the crash part in compliance with the
contractual obligations to repair the policyholder's vehicle, if
the certified new non-OEM part is defective and does not provide
effective repair of the policyholder's vehicle.
5. This bill's certification provisions do not appear to provide
additional consumer protections
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 11 of ?
This bill would provide that a certification standard for new
non-OEM crash parts that would require that the part:
be certified by an American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) accredited standards developer that develops and
maintains a consensus of quality standards for competitive
crash repair parts;
be identified by a unique serial number or production lot
number that enables full traceability; and
have a manufacturer's warranty that meets or exceeds the
original equipment manufacturer's warranty for the applicable
OEM crash part.
Although this bill would provide a certification standard for
new non-OEM crash parts, Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC)
argues in opposition that the certification standard "is
pointless because ANSI does not provide any comprehensive
protocols for identifying the functions for, designing,
manufacturing or even shipping copies of automobile parts. . . .
�A]n ANSI accredited part certifier could still certify crash
parts made out of paper mache, as long as they 'reasonably fit'
the vehicle."
CNCDA notes that the 2003 Crash Part Certification Study
prepared by the Bureau of Automotive Repair demonstrated that
"certification has no value to the customer; if there are
problems with the certified product the certifying entity does
not stand behind their own certification process." (Bureau of
Automotive Repair, Crash Part Certification Study Conducted
Pursuant to Senate Bill 1178, Jan. 1, 2003, at p. 25.) This
Study concluded that "�c]onsumers are afforded adequate
protection with the disclosure on the written estimate and final
invoice as to whether the crash parts are OEM or non-OEM, and
the requirement that the repair dealer receive their customer's
authorization prior to any work being started. Furthermore,
consumer protection should be enhanced with the warranty
provided by the insurance company when they require the use of
non-OEM crash parts, provided that the auto insurers stand
behind these warranties. (Id. at pp. 29-30.) Contrary to the
expected consumer protection contemplated in this Study, this
bill would provide an insurer a contractual right to use
aftermarket crash parts to repair the consumer's vehicle, which
would substantially decrease the disclosure protection in
existing law.
Further, this bill would authorize the insurer to notify the
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 12 of ?
policyholder that it may use "parts other than OEM crash parts,"
which would not require the insurer to explicitly state whether
the insured will authorize the use of certified new non-OEM
crash parts or any crash part with any kind of quality standard.
Rather, the insured may mistakenly assume that their vehicle
would be repaired properly and returned to the "preloss
condition" mentioned in this bill, even though the actual terms
of their insurance policy state that the insured can use any
kind of part, certified or not.
6. This bill would preempt the regulatory process currently
being undertaken by the California Department of Insurance
This bill would establish statutory provisions for the use of
new types of aftermarket crash parts not provided for under
existing law. PIFC argues that these provisions will encourage
insurers to pay for certified new non-OEM crash parts instead of
non-certified parts.
On October 20, 2011, CDI submitted proposed regulations of
aftermarket crash parts for public review and comment. CDI
argues that this bill "at best, obfuscates a rulemaking process
already underway on this matter at CDI to update and improve
existing law and, at worst, appears to reverse a long-standing
law �the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations] that has
served to protect consumers from defective or inferior
aftermarket parts for almost 20 years." The public review
process of these proposed regulations has not yet been
completed. These proposed regulations would:
require an insurer to pay for any additional costs associated
with inspecting and testing the aftermarket part, as well as
requiring the insurer to pay for the costs associated with
returning a defective part and the cost to remove and replace
the defective part with an OEM part;
require the current insurer's warranty be expressly stated in
the estimate of repair generated by the insurer;
require the insurer to cease requiring the use of the
defective part and notify the collision repair estimating
software provider, the part's distributer, and the part's
certifying entity of the defect; and
require the insurer to pay for costs associated with loss of
use or rental car expenses caused by the use or replacement of
the defective part.
These proposed regulations were promulgated after CDI received
numerous consumer auto body repair shop complaints that insurers
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 13 of ?
are not abiding by existing aftermarket crash part regulations.
Importantly, the CDI regulations appear to make consumer
warranties stronger, whereas this bill potentially weakens
consumer protections.
7. Author's proposed amendments
The author has submitted amendments well past the committee's
amendment deadline that, the author argues, would address the
concerns raised by CAOC. According to PIFC, these amendments
would do the following:
ensure the bill does not diminish existing insurer repair
obligations by providing a rebuttable presumption for not only
certified new non-OEM crash parts, but also for OEM, recycled,
remanufactured, or reconditioned crash parts that are
installed in a manner accepted by automobile repair shops and
insurers;
Ensure a meaningful certification standard by adding to the
ANSI certification provision that the ANSI accredited
standards developer that develops and maintains a consensus of
quality standards for competitive crash repair parts of like,
kind and quality to an OEM crash part; and
Alleviate concern about any problematic warranty language by
revising the definition of "certified new non-OEM crash part"
by requiring the crash part to have a warranty from the
supplier of the certified new non-OEM crash part that meets or
exceeds the warranty that would otherwise have been in force
if the vehicle was repaired with an OEM crash part.
Due to the late submission of these proposed amendments,
opponents of this bill are currently reviewing the amendments
but have informed committee staff that these amendments do not
resolve their concerns. Rather, they say these amendments
further compound issues regarding the warranty, certification,
and presumption provisions of this bill.
Support : Allstate Insurance Company; Association of California
Insurance Companies; DirectRepair Shop Network; NSF
International; State Farm
Opposition : A&B Collision; Alliance of Automotive
Manufacturers; Association of Global Automakers, Inc.; B&J Body
Shop and Towing; California Autobody Association; California
Department of Insurance; California New Car Dealers Association;
Consumer Attorneys of California; Consumer Federation of
SB 1460 (Yee)
Page 14 of ?
California; Walker's Auto Body & Fleet Repair
HISTORY
Source : Personal Insurance Federation of California
Related Pending Legislation :
AB 2505 (Ma, 2012) would require an automotive repair dealer to
include on a written estimate for repair services and on an
invoice whether the vehicle was supplied with nonoriginal
equipment manufacturer certified aftermarket crash parts and the
name of the certifying entity. This bill has been referred to
the Assembly Business, Professions & Consumer Protection
Committee.
AB 2065 (Galgiani, 2012) would amend the definitions of "repair
of motor vehicles" and "automotive technician" under to provide
for motor club or tow truck tire services and gasoline service
station repairs. This bill passed out the Assembly Business,
Professions & Consumer Protection Committee on a vote of 8-0 and
has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Prior Legislation :
SB 350 (Yee, 2010) See Background.
AB 1852 (Yee, 2006) See Background.
AB 1163 (Yee, 2005) See Background.
AB 1120 (Areias, Ch. 817, Stats. 1989) See Background, Comment
2.
Prior Vote : Senate Committee on Business, Professions and
Economic Development (Ayes 5, Noes 1)
**************