The Honorable Michael G. Oxley
Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Hazardous Materials
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

At last week's hearing on H.R. 2900, Members received permission to submit written questions to the witnesses after the hearing. Accordingly, I would appreciate if you would submit the following questions to each of the witnesses who testified at the hearing.

Unfunded Mandates

1. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4) generally defines a mandate as any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty on state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector or that would reduce or eliminate the amount of authorization of appropriation for federal financial assistance to cover the costs of existing mandates. Does the August 29, 1996 Staff Discussion Draft of H.R. 2900 (hereinafter referred to as H.R. 2900) create: (a) a "Federal intergovernmental mandate", and/or (b) a "Federal private sector mandate", as such terms are defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act?

2. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act generally defines "direct costs" as amounts that state, local, or tribal governments and the private sector are required to spend to comply with an enforceable duty. If you believe H.R. 2900 creates a Federal intergovernmental or private sector mandate, do you have any estimate of the direct costs created by such mandate?

3. Do you have any estimate of costs that either governments or the private sector would incur, if H.R. 2900 were enacted?

Safety Inspections

1. The final report of the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration, and Salvage Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) recommends that: "All States institute a uniform safety inspection program for Rebuilt Salvage Vehicles." Similarly, the August 29, 1996 views letter from the Department of Transportation states that: "As a matter of policy, the Department believes that a safety inspection of [Rebuilt Salvage Vehicles] is as important as the anti-theft inspection." Do you support or oppose the Advisory Committee's recommendations relating to uniform safety inspections? Please explain your position.

2. To your knowledge, how many States currently have an effective safety inspection program in place for passenger vehicles? What are the major differences among State safety inspection programs?

3. What are the estimated costs of implementing a uniform safety inspection program and, absent Federal funding, would it create an unfunded Federal intergovernmental mandate?

4. From a consumer safety point of view, how important is creating a uniform safety inspection program to address situations where significantly damaged vehicles are repaired, rebuilt, and put back on the road?

Definition of Salvage and Nonrepairable Vehicle

1. Please state whether you agree with the definition of "salvage vehicle" in H.R. 2900, and be specific about any suggestions you have for amending the definition and reasons therefor.

2. The National Association of Attorneys General adopted a resolution in 1994 that recommends that "salvage vehicle" be defined "as a vehicle declared a total loss by an insurance company or where the retail cost to repair the vehicle exceeds 65% of its fair market value immediately prior to being damaged." Do you agree with this recommendation?

3. H.R. 2900 defines "nonrepairable vehicle" as one which "is incapable of safe operation for use on roads or highways and which has no resale value except as a source of parts or scrap only." Do you agree with this definition? Please be specific about any suggestions you have for amending the definition and the reasons therefor.

4. Under H.R. 2900's definition of "nonrepairable vehicle", who would make the determination of whether a vehicle is "incapable of safe operation for use on roads and highways"? What type of damage is required for a vehicle to be "incapable of safe operation for use on roads and highways"? Is it not possible to repair almost every vehicle, no matter the extent of the damage, and return it to road use?

5. To your knowledge, are there uniform guidelines that insurance companies follow in determining whether a vehicle is nonrepairable? If so, where can we find such guidelines?

Additional Consumer Protections

1. The Subcommittee received written testimony from William L. Brauch, Assistant Attorney General, Iowa Department of Justice, as part of the hearing. Mr. Brauch's statement indicates that: "Because most states do not require titles to be present at or before the time of sale, title-branding requirements, standing alone, will do nothing to prevent fraud against a consumer who possibly will not see the title for several years after the date of purchase." Mr. Brauch goes on to state that it "is much better to follow the approach taken by Iowa. . . and prevent consumer fraud before it occurs by requiring written disclosures of salvage, damage, and flood history at or before the time of sale. Although this approach will not immediately catch scam artists who issue false statements, such false statements will provide important evidence that will later haunt the seller. Written disclosure requirements under federal and state law have worked extremely well in addressing odometer fraud." Do you agree with Mr. Brauch's statements and recommendations? Please be specific.

2. Mr. Brauch also notes that, unlike the enforcement authority provided under the federal odometer law, H.R. 2900 does not provide for enforcement by states nor for federal administrative enforcement. Do you agree with Mr. Brauch's recommendations to provide specific enforcement authority to state attorneys general, the Department of Transportation, and to provide penalties for violations of DOT's rules?

3. Mr. Brauch states that "[t]he availability of private remedies is essential to the success of consumer protection legislation" and recommends providing consumers with civil remedies, including attorney fees. Do you agree with Mr. Brauch's recommendation in this area?

4. Consumer organizations and others have suggested that H.R. 2900's scope of preemption be limited so that, for example, State laws that are more protective of the consumer would not be preempted by the bill. Do you agree or disagree with this notion, and why?

I appreciate the opportunity to submit these questions and look forward to working with you next year to craft effective legislation to address the problems created by inconsistent and conflicting State motor vehicle titling practices.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER

cc: The Honorable Thomas J. Manton, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials

Back to the Public Record Home Page