The Industry's Leading Source For F&I, Sales And Technology

Compliance

Congress Votes to End Dealer Paperwork Requirement

May 27, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On May 23, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass a bill that eliminates a provision in the Clean Air Act requiring dealers to provide consumers with a certificate confirming a vehicle’s compliance with the law. The bill is now headed to the president’s desk.

The National Automobile Dealers Association-backed measure eliminates a 1977 federal mandate requiring auto dealers to verify that new vehicles are compliant with the Clean Air Act.

“All new cars and light trucks delivered to dealerships from the factory already come with documentation that the vehicles conform to federal emission laws,” said Forrest McConnell, NADA chairman. “Requiring dealerships to fill out a form to recertify that a new vehicle complies with the Clean Air Act is redundant and unnecessary.” 

McConnell added that new-vehicle owners can find documentation of Clean Air Act compliance under the hood of the vehicle, on the Internet, or in the owner’s manual and supplements, making additional government paperwork provided by the dealer unnecessary.

The bill was first introduced by Reps. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 405 to 0 on Jan. 8. Sens. Debbie Stabenow, (D-Mich.), and Deb Fischer, (R-Neb.), helped guide passage of H.R. 724 through the senate.

“NADA commends Reps. Latta and Peters and Sens. Stabenow and Fischer for their leadership on behalf of small business auto dealers to cut red tape and reduce an unnecessary regulation,” McConnell added. “Because of their bipartisan efforts, auto dealers can focus on helping customers instead of pointless paperwork.”

Your Comment

Please note that comments may be moderated. 
Leave this field empty:
Your Name:  
Your Email:  

CLOSE [X]

READ NEXT

W. Va. Attorney General Files Suit Against Used-Car Dealer

The used-car dealer is accused of selling vehicles with mechanical defects, charging illegal fees and repossessing vehicles without the required legal notices. Twenty-two formal complaints were made against the dealer by the time the suit was filed.