National uniform titling, which began as part of the debate of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, is now nearing some reality within the Congress and the Clinton administration. Although there are still critical differences between various industry, law enforcement and consumer organizations, the national uniform titling legislation is moving to the front of Washington's legislative agenda.

After the signing of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, the Clinton administration moved on appointments to the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee. The Automotive Service Association (ASA) represented the collision repair industry. Auction companies, new and used car dealers, law enforcement, insurers and consumer groups rounded out the committee's membership. Legislation was introduced several years ago by former U.S. Rep. Rick White of Washington State and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, after submitting recommendations to the president. Proponents of the legislation attempted to attach it to the omnibus appropriations initiative at the close of the Congress last fall. This was not successful.

This brings national uniform titling to the 106th Congress. Both Lott and California Sen. Diane Feinstein introduced legislation earlier this year. Lott's National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act of 1999, S. 655, contained the following:

• A 75 percent salvage vehicle definition. Applicable to a vehicle class defined as having a retail value of more than $7,500 or has a manufacturer's model year designation of or later than the year in which the vehicle was wrecked, destroyed, or damaged, or any of the six preceding years.
• Defines a nonrepairable vehicle as any vehicle, other than a flood vehicle, 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 or which the owner irreversibly designates as a source of parts or scrap.
• No post-repair inspection provision.
• A state's adherence to the bill's provisions is voluntary but required to obtain implementation funding.

Feinstein followed with S. 678, the Salvaged and Damaged Motor Vehicle Information Disclosure Act. The bill mirrors many of the positions advocated by the attorneys general, recyclers and consumer groups. Important provisions include:

• A 65 percent salvage vehicle definition applicable to all vehicles
• A 90 percent nonrepairable definition
• A post-repair inspection program
• The establishment of a federal minimum standard for salvage vehicles while allowing states to offer stronger protections.

The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee marked up and approved Lott's legislation. Senate sources indicate that Lott and Feinstein are attempting to come to some resolution of key differences. Unfortunately, several of these provisions may have to be resolved during Senate floor debate.

For the first time in the ongoing salvage deliberations, the Clinton administration has submitted comments to the Congress. In a letter to U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, the Department of Transportation's General Counsel commented on various provisions of the Lott bill. It is important to note that the White House had reviewed the letter prior to its distribution.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) General Counsel Nancy E. McFadden outlined concerns with the Lott legislation. These included important areas of the titling debate. One prominent issue has to do with the lack of federal enforcement authority. McFadden noted, "In the absence of authority for the federal government to take direct and independent action against violators, as recommended by the [DOT] Task Force, and without specific guidance to the states about the adoption of enforcement measures, uniformity of enforcement is in doubt."

Supporting the lack of federal influence, McFadden targeted what has been a compromise from the original legislation in that the current bill is not a mandatory program. McFadden stated, "The program envisioned by S. 655 will depend on the success of incentives to the states. A state that conforms to the requirements of S. 655 would continue to encounter problems with individuals bringing vehicles into the state from nonconforming states. Unless an individual has a disclosure obligation under the law that is independent of whether the state in which the transaction occurs has adopted a salvage title law, the system will be too easily evaded."

Contrary to the Lott legislation and to ASA's position, DOT would target older vehicles. Although McFadden offered a compromise of sorts by suggesting disclosure for vehicles older than six years or of less than $7,500 in value, this would not be a salvage branded title program for these vehicles but some type of consumer information disclosure process.

Finally, the administration would prefer that states be allowed to enforce more "stringent requirements" than the Lott legislation provides.

Most notable in the administration's comments is that there is no indication that the president would veto the Lott bill as is. Although suggested reforms are clearly spelled out, there is no direct threat of the administration opposing the overall Lott initiative. They encourage continued negotiations with Feinstein but emphasize that they believe a bill is necessary.

ASA has been involved since the early stages of the salvage debate. ASA's position has been straightforward:

• ASA supports national uniform titling.
• ASA prefers a non-percentage approach to titling definitions. (ASA believes that enforcement and practical application will be virtually impossible in a percentage based titling program.)
• ASA supports limits on those vehicles potentially classified as salvage vehicles (those limits should include both age and value variables).
• ASA opposes a percentage definition for a non-repairable vehicle.
• ASA supports a national debate on post-repair inspection.
• ASA believes Lott's legislation, as passed by the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, provides the best opportunity for national uniform titling legislation. There are many vested interests in this legislation. Compromise dictates that no one group is made entirely whole. Lott's efforts are to be commended and his willingness to compromise to this point recognized. ASA supports the Lott bill.

Bob Redding is the Automotive Service Association's Washington, D.C., representative. He is a member of several federal and state advisory committees involved in the automotive industry. For more information about the legislative activities of ASA, visit www.TakingTheHill.com.

RATE THIS ARTICLE What do you think of this article? Your input will help AutoInc. develop additional articles on this subject. Share your thoughts! Your name Your e-mail address

MOST ACCESSED ARTICLES Fuel Injection Service, Not Just Cleaning The Art of Extraction EGR Systems: Operation and Diagnosis Proactive Target Marketing:_Rethinking Your Business Strategy Engine Performance: HO2S Diagnostics MOST E-MAILED ARTICLES Developing Employee Potential How Critical Thinking Can Help Your Business How to Diagnose the Ford Glow Plug What to Look for When Shopping for the Right Shop Management Software Putting a Price Tag on Complaints

AutoInc. Web Site | ASA Web Site | Clinton Administration Responds to National Uniform Titling | The Road Ahead | Turning Up the Heat | Are Your Employees Comfortable? | Guest Editorial | Tech to Tech | Tech Tips | Shop Profile | Net Worth | Stat Corner | Chairman's Message