Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/09/2003 03:40 PM House L&C
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 272 - MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS Number 2266 VICE CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 272, "An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers." Number 2274 LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Weyhrauch, sponsor, noted that Section 1 is the most controversial section, and that Section 2 amends statute created by the 22nd legislature's HB 182. She offered that Section 1 seeks to correct portions of current statute that are unenforceable. She added: "Currently it's not permitted to sell a ... current year/model vehicle, and that section needs to be changed." MS. SYLVESTER turned attention to Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, Line 7 INSERT: (3) Purchased directly from consumer for purposes for resale; or (4) Vehicle has been in service with a bona fide rental fleet for 6 months. MS. SYLVESTER opined that Amendment 1 would allow current year models to be sold by car rental agencies that have had those cars in their fleets for six months, and would allow dealers to sell cars that they've purchased from consumers specifically for the purpose of reselling them. TAPE 03-49, SIDE B Number 2370 MS. SYLVESTER asked that the committee take further testimony before considering whether to adopt Amendment 1. VICE CHAIR LYNN asked whether the paragraph (4) proposed by Amendment 1 refers to vehicles that have been in service for at least six months, exactly six months, or less than six months. The committee took an at-ease from 4:27 p.m. to 4:28 p.m. Number 2291 CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), suggested that that language in Amendment 1 should read "for at least six months." MR. SNIFFEN went on to say that the eight sections of the bill focus on two primary areas. He said that Sections 2-8 are clarifications to the existing law that was passed last year. He added that certain provisions of HB 272 remove portions of existing law that he felt were not necessary given what he called "Alaska's auto climate." Turning attention to Section 1 of HB 272, he said: There has been a primary misconception about what the current state of the law is in Alaska. As Ms. Sylvester pointed out, under current Alaska law, it is illegal for any auto dealer to sell a current model/year used vehicle. And let me repeat that: under current law, if you do not have a manufacturer's statement of origin for a vehicle, you cannot sell that vehicle; whether you're a new car dealer or a used car dealer, it makes no difference. ... What Section 1 does is carve out an exception to at least allow you to sell some current model used vehicles if you receive them in the ordinary course of business in the trade, and now, through this amendment, perhaps if it's a bona fide rental vehicle or if you purchased it from a consumer or some other means. So it just needs to be remembered that without this amendment, we go back to the existing law; the existing law says, if you're a car dealer [and] you've got a current model used vehicle on your lot, you can't sell it, and I can go out there tomorrow and take all those off your lot. So we do need to address that situation, we don't take a position on whether this language in Section 1 is the best way to address that, but it's an attempt to do that. Number 2152 MR. SNIFFEN continued: And I want to comment briefly on testimony received from the North American Automobile Trade Association [NAATA] on Monday, just so the committee is clear on some of the legal ramifications of Section 1. There was some suggestion that this section may violate provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. And we've looked through NAFTA; there are two chapters of NAFTA - chapter 3 and chapter 15 - that address themselves to trade, tariffs, and antitrust issues. Actually, there's an annex to NAFTA called Annex 300-A, that deals with auto transactions specifically. And our review of those NAFTA provisions do not suggest that anything in that would prohibit this kind of legislation. And if it does prohibit this kind of legislation, then we already have a problem because our current law already prohibits the sale of these kinds of vehicles. So that really is not a relevant issue. Another issue raised by the NAATA folks was a potential antitrust concern. Antitrust laws in Alaska are very complex, but there is something about the law that [is] universally agreed upon, and that is, our laws do not protect competitors; they are intended to protect competition. And it's only [reasonable] competition at that. It is unclear whether Section 1 of HB 272 would have any kind of an impact, or at least an unreasonable impact, on competition for this very small and narrow segment of automobiles. To find out if it did, it would require that we engage in a very lengthy investigation that would include identification of product markets, geographic markets, relevant market power held by the competitors in those markets, and we'd have to weigh those things against other market forces to determine whether or not unreasonable restraints on competition existed. I don't believe NAATA has done that - we haven't done that; it's just pure conjecture that anything in this bill would raise antitrust concerns. Number 2101 MR. SNIFFEN went on to say: There was another reference to some litigation in the Lower 48 that apparently addresses itself to some of these concerns; that is only one lawsuit, that we are aware of, that has been filed against auto manufactures for some antitrust behavior that has nothing to do with the issues in this bill. That lawsuit dealt with a potential conspiracy among auto dealers in the United States and Canada to prohibit the importation of Canadian automobiles. And that lawsuit does not address itself to legislation like this and is really irrelevant to the issues in this bill, although it does point out some of the issues that at least some consumers have a concern about. There was also some suggestion that the legislature could expose itself to liability for enacting this kind of law. That (indisc. - paper shuffling) ridiculous; the legislature enjoys complete immunity for its actions here. If you do pass [the] law that's contained in Section 1 ..., and it is found out to be either illegal under NAFTA or our antitrust laws, the result would be, the law becomes unenforceable and this legislature does not concern itself with liability. Now, if we get to the real root of what Section 1 tries to do, I'm going to have to let other auto dealers speak to how it has impacted their business to allow used auto dealers and brokers to import ... low mileage Canadian vehicles that are of a current model/year, and how they have a difficult time competing with those kinds of purchases. It's not the Department of Law's job to really regulate that kind of competition; we leave that up to the competitors in the market place. It's our job to look out for consumers, and it is unclear whether or not the disallowance of these kinds of transactions would be beneficial or harmful to consumers. Number 2027 We do understand that somewhere in the process, these low mileage, current model/year Canadian vehicles find their way to the U.S., probably in legal ways, but somewhere in the chain there's an illegitimate transaction. And I use that word instead of an illegal transaction because I don't doubt that perhaps, at every step in the process, something legal has occurred. But we have heard in our office - and we have not investigated this, so I don't have any hard facts - that exporters in Canada are hiring college kids, for example, to go to car dealers and buy vehicles, or they're setting up dummy companies to take vehicles so they can get them into the U.S. [And] somewhere along the chain, it appears that there is some kind of an illegitimate transaction that results in a lot of these vehicles ... coming into Alaska. MR. SNIFFEN concluded: Whether that's good for consumers or bad for consumers is a call the legislature will have to make, but I believe that the new auto dealers are trying to do something to address that situation. So the language in Section 1 is not language the Department of Law has proposed; we have consulted with the [Alaska Auto Dealers Association (AADA)] about the language, we don't oppose it, there might be some better language that we could come up with to deal with this issue, but we haven't been able to come up with that language in our department. ... I certainly understand the concern that they're trying to address, [but] we simply don't have a position on whether or not this is the best way to address that or not. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions the committee has. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that if he wanted to buy a new vehicle, he would want it to truly be a new vehicle. He asked, is it a new vehicle if it was made in Canada and brought in? Because it might have been made in Canada, in any event, and then sold by "the local distributor that's franchised." Is a distinction being made that one vehicle is new and another is not? MR. SNIFFEN replied: If your vehicle is manufactured in Canada for sale in the United States, and it comes to a dealer here from the manufacturer with the manufacturer's statement of origin, it is a new vehicle. If your vehicle is new [and] it's purchased from a consumer or an exporter in Canada from a Canadian dealer, because it was manufactured for a destination in Canada - it has 10 miles on it and then it's brought across the border and (Indisc. - coughing) used car dealer here in Alaska, and you go to that lot and it's a ... 2003 or 2004 ... Dodge 2500 (indisc. - coughing) 10 miles on it - it is now a used vehicle in the eyes of the law because it has been sold once and titled. Number 1867 And there are some serious implications to that fact; you might think you're buying the same product, ... but because it's a used vehicle, you do not have Alaska lemon law protection, for example, because our lemon law only applies to new vehicles. So your low mileage Canadian vehicle is now a used vehicle (indisc. - coughing) excluded from making claims under our lemon law. Somewhere in that process, too, the odometer on that vehicle has probably been changed; we have reports that a lot of those changes don't necessarily happen in conformance with federal law. So you don't know if the miles on that are really accurate or not, although I suspect a lot of them are documented fairly well. And there is another recent consumer issue that has come to the attention of our office, that your manufacturers warranty may not be valid in the United States. Vehicles manufactured for sale in Canada are subject to factory warranties so long as they remain registered in Canada; as soon as you register that vehicle in the United States, manufacturers aren't required to honor those warranties. In the past they have, [but] I understand that some of the manufacturers are now declining to do that. MR. SNIFFEN concluded: And that's information that (indisc. - coughing) consumer that the fix may not be to prevent these transactions, the fix may be just to provide better consumer awareness, so the consumer can evaluate those risks and then determine whether or not this is a transaction he'd like to make. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether total disclosure of the aforementioned issues would make those types of transactions acceptable. MR. SNIFFEN said not under current Alaska law, which says that as soon as that manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO) is lost, that sale is illegal. So, current law would have to be changed in order to make such transactions legal. VICE CHAIR LYNN asked: "How many cars are we talking about here? ... How big a problem is this?" MR. SNIFFEN offered an estimate of between 500 and 1,000 cars. VICE CHAIR LYNN asked whether all "Canadian cars" conform to "American specs". MR. SNIFFEN indicated that they did. Number 1678 VICE CHAIR LYNN returned the gavel to Chair Anderson. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether Section 1 of the bill is enforceable. MR. SNIFFEN offered that the controversy of Section 1 centers around whether or not used car dealers should be prohibited from selling current model Canadian vehicles. Current law prohibits it under all circumstances. Section 1 would modify current law to allow certain types of such transactions to occur. If Section 1 were to be deleted, the status quo would be maintained. He added that current law is problematic to enforce because he would have to go to every car lot and tell all dealers that they cannot sell any current model used vehicles that don't have an MSO. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned attention to page 6, line 20, and noted that 10 miles is being changed to 100 miles. He asked whether the 10-mile limit has been problematic and, if so, whether providing for more than a 100-mile limit would be better. MR. SNIFFEN indicated that the aforementioned change is one of the "cleanup provisions" of the bill. The change to 100 miles will allow dealers in Wasilla, for example, to send vehicles received as trade-ins to Anchorage for repairs or detailing. He opined that the 100-mile limit will be more than sufficient for that purpose and will still protect consumers. Number 1455 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to Amendment 1 [text provided previously], and indicated that he wished to amend it such that the last line would read, "(4) Vehicle has been in service with a bona fide rental fleet for at least 6 months." [The amendment to Amendment 1 was treated as adopted.] Number 1428 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [as amended]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 [as amended] was adopted. Number 1412 STEVE ALLWINE, Secretary, Alaska Auto Dealers Association (AADA), said that the AADA supports HB 272 as amended. He opined that the goal of the bill is to provide clear and concise corrections to previous legislation while trying to retain that legislation's intent. He went on to say: I and the dealers that I represent believe that HB 272 accurately provides these corrections. With respect to Section 1, ... it is not our intent, as automobile dealers, to preclude used car dealers from selling current model used cars. I have to echo Mr. Sniffen's comments ... that the statute as it currently exists precludes all dealers from selling a current model used vehicle. With the changes we've proposed, all dealers - not just new car dealers, but used car dealers as well - will be able to take and market current used [vehicles] when they're traded in, when they're purchased from an individual consumer, or when they come from a bona fide rental fleet - either through an auction or directly - when they've been in service for specified period of time. Starting at the beginning ..., the acquisition of these vehicles is legal, but essentially it amounts to the manufacturing of a used vehicle. I have given you some attachments, one of those is a good indicator of that - [it] is the advertisement that says the vehicle has 30 miles on it. That is not a bona fide used vehicle. The process ... can involve a college student, it can involve somebody ... handing somebody $100 so that the vehicle is titled in their name in Canada. These vehicles that come from Canada are built specifically for sale and use in their specific country. In your attachment you have a copy of a manufacturer's invoice to a dealer that says at the bottom, in our case, [that] the vehicle is built for the U.S. market and is supposed to be sold there. Number 1291 MR. ALLWINE continued: Problems when the vehicle enters this country: prerequisite is the speedometer must be changed from kilometers to miles. Two issues and concerns are raised when this is done. The first one: an error in the mileage of a vehicle will render it basically worthless on the retail market. The stigma of miles unknown on an odometer statement is significant, it's huge, and it basically will render the car worthless. These mistakes can happen, and frequently, when they do these type of conversions; however, one mistake is going to cost the consumer thousands of dollars. The second: temptation for speedometer fraud is strong - the difference in a popular model pickup truck at 3,000 miles versus 20,000 is in excess of $600. Oh, by the way, how do we change these speedometers? You can buy the equipment over the Internet - you have a copy of the article - [for] about $1,800 .... Title fraud: If you bring a vehicle in from Canada, because of how the title is transitioned, if the vehicle has been totaled, if it's been in a flood, you don't know. And ultimately the consumer has no recourse; there's no recourse with that Canadian importer. Ever try to sue a business in another country? Another problem is manufacturer's warranty: ... a number of the manufacturers have eliminated the manufacturer's warranty from their vehicles. What some of the used car dealers have taken to doing is they have said, "We're putting a service contract on your vehicle." However, they're not indicating it's a service contract; they're stating in this, in the ad that you have - [it's] a classic example - they're saying it's a warranty. There's a difference between a manufacturer's warranty and a service contract. It is misleading, it is not honest, and it does not provide the same coverage. Number 1193 MR. ALLWINE concluded: ... I sent you a letter; ... in my closing paragraph ... I said ...that ultimately, if the consumer has difficulty with a current model used car, there's only one place they go - they come to a new car dealer because a new car dealer has the investment in the equipment and in the tools and in the training and in the facilities. If you've got a car that's one or two years old, and you have a problem, your used car dealer ... is going to say, "Well, that's okay; it's got a warranty, it's got a service contract, take it to a new car dealer." It is not appropriate for a used car dealer to have the ability to sell a new vehicle without having any responsibility or obligation after the sale. This is a manufactured used car; it is not the same as what we're trying to correct here for bona fide used car commerce. MR. ALLWINE, in response to a question, said that used car dealers have some obligation by virtue of a service contract, if they have a facility, to fix the vehicles they sell. However, 99 out of 100 used car dealers do not have the special tools or the special training to fix current model vehicles. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether a new car dealer in Anchorage has the obligation to honor the factory warranty of a vehicle that was purchased new in Indiana, for example. MR. ALLWINE said yes. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether the same would be true for a vehicle purchased new in Canada. MR. ALLWINE said it would be true if the owner of the vehicle is a Canadian citizen. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether a U.S. citizen who went to Canada to purchase a new vehicle could expect a new car dealer in Anchorage to honor the manufacturer's warranty. Number 1088 MR. ALLWINE replied: The answer is that it would be difficult for you, as a consumer from this country, to go to Canada and make that purchase, and would be highly unlikely. In the event you did, because that vehicle was built and manufactured for sale and use in Canada, that vehicle, in many cases, would not have a manufacturer's warranty. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the aforementioned service contracts are insurance products or "underwritten separately." MR. ALLWINE replied: Service contracts, in a number of cases, are underwritten by some other company. But service contracts are not like warranties in as much as they're not all inclusive. They will cover specific things, but it is incumbent on the consumer to find somebody who is willing to make that repair and accept payment from that service contract company. In our instance, we do sell a service contract, and our service contract is backed by the manufacturer - Daimler Chrysler. Ford Motor Company offers the same thing as do most of the manufacturers. But there are offshore and there are independent companies that also offer service contracts. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether HB 272 prevents a used car dealer from selling a new car. MR. ALLWINE replied: The law prevents a used car dealer from selling a new car. A new car is an untitled vehicle that is purchased from the manufacturer and is sold by one of the manufacturer's agents. ... This bill, with the recommended amendment, does not preclude that used car dealer from selling a bona fide current model used vehicle. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether extended warranties are actually warranties or just service contracts. MR. ALLWINE said that those are just service contracts, and indicated that the practice of calling them "warranties" is misrepresentation. In response to another question, he said: At this point in time, you will see rental car companies starting to let loose of some of their rental fleets, which would be current model. And so those vehicles will start to show up. The current statute, as it exists, precludes anybody from selling a current model used vehicle. What we're proposing allows everybody to do it, but it doesn't permit the wholesale manufacture of a used vehicle from Canada. MR. ALLWINE reiterated that a used vehicle is one that has been titled. Number 0690 CHRIS HESTER, Lyberger's Car and Truck Sales, LLC ("Lyberger's"), said that he strongly believes that Section 1 of HB 272 needs to be deleted. He offered an example of how HB 272 would affect the consumer: About a year ago, a husband and a wife purchased a current model vehicle from Lyberger's, a Canadian vehicle that we got from an auction. The couple knew that it was Canadian because we do have disclosure forms that they signed. Two months later, the woman came in almost in tears and explained that her husband was the man who ran over an elderly lady walking home with her husband. This was a story that was in the newspapers, it was on the news. And she came in and she asked John if he would buy the car back because her husband was going to jail and she wouldn't be able to afford this car payment. Not only did John buy the car back, he refunded 100 percent of her money. Now, if Section 1 of HB 272 was in effect, she would only be able to purchase that vehicle at the franchise dealership and, with her unforeseen circumstances, would have no other alternative but to take it back to the franchise dealership to sell it back; the franchise dealer, knowing that it was the only place she could get rid of the vehicle and knowing how bad she needed to get rid of it, would have a monopoly advantage ... and would probably give her the lowest, rock-bottom price. This would not have helped this lady in her circumstances. Not only is this how Lyberger's treats their customers, but it shows you that we are there for the consumer. And this bill is definitely not there helping them in any way, shape, or form. Thank you. Number 0574 CARROL LYBERGER, Lyberger's Car and Truck Sales, LLC, remarked that the problematic word in HB 272 is the word "current". She went on to say: There is a difference between a new and used vehicle. [With] a new vehicle that is sold ... to a franchised dealer, from the manufacturer, the manufacturer got paid for that vehicle [and] it was sent to the franchised dealer. The franchised dealer, whether it's U.S. or Canadian, was paid for that vehicle the price they were asking. I know what a used vehicle is: as soon as it is sold, it is used - the value of that vehicle will never be the same. To Steve [Allwine], I am a member of the Alaska Auto Dealers Association [but] was never informed of this Section 1 in [HB 272]; I learned of it last week. As far as the warranty and service contract goes, a warranty is free. A service contract is what the consumer buys - the consumer pays for ... the service contract. That is the difference between a warranty and a service contract. ... As far as the independent [which some claim] that nobody can possibly find - a mechanic that would be able to work on the newer models - there are several independent mechanics that do have very expensive equipment in their shops, and they do warranty work. Even a lot of the new cars stores will sublet out to some of your independents on stuff. I believe it was about two years ago that the independent mechanics sued the manufacturers for the codes because they had the equipment but the codes could not go to the independents until about six months to a year after that vehicle came out. So now they're able to get the codes whenever the manufacturers give it to the franchised dealers and mechanics. ... MS. LYBERGER concluded: This bill, when they say current, there is definitely a difference between current, new, and used. The word "current" is ... a bad word; there is a new car and there is a used car. And I thank you for listening to me, and ... anybody that wishes to ask any questions, I'll be glad to answer. MS. LYBERGER, in response to questions, said that Lyberger's does offer an "after market" service contract. She added that when a customer buys a Canadian vehicle that has no manufacturer's warranty, Lyberger's gives the customer a "replacement" warranty for free. She noted that there are several shops in town that "do" the warranty work, and went on to list five such shops, adding that there are some franchised dealers that will also honor the after market warranty though one of those does not do so for 2003 models. Number 0283 TERI PETRAM, Lyberger's Car and Truck Sales, LLC, said that when Lyberger's sells a vehicle that's been imported from Canada, all of the documents are disclosed to the customer. Also, whenever Lyberger's sells any vehicle, the customer is also given a "Carfax" report, which provides details about the vehicle's history. She opined that it is ridiculous to think that Lyberger's would sell a vehicle with a "rolled back" odometer or a wrong odometer reading. And if such a vehicle did come to them, she added, Lyberger's wouldn't sell it; instead, Lyberger's would absorb the expense. MS. PETRAM noted that used car dealers have to purchase most of their inventory from auctions because there is no way they could keep enough cars on the lot, solely with trade-ins and purchases through individuals, to stay in business. To illustrate this point, she added that Lyberger's sells 100-some vehicles a month. Thus, Lyberger's must supplement its inventory by buying vehicles from auctions, most of which acquire the majority of their vehicles from Canada. She remarked: "We want to be competitive and offer something that the consumer wants, so we're going to find the lowest mileage vehicles that are available. We personally don't import these vehicles; we have nothing to do with the import process, we just buy them from the people that [import them]." MS. PETRAM relayed that according to the "General Motors Acceptance Corporation," a warranty is free and an extended service contract is something the consumer pays for. So on the back of the warranty that Lyberger's gives to the customer to replace the manufacturer's warranty, it specifically lists what is not covered on that warranty. In conclusion, she suggested that the way current statute and HB 272 have evolved, they appear to have the goal of eliminating any competition to franchised dealers. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what percentage of Lyberger's vehicles are Canadian. MS. PETRAM offered that approximately 50-60 percent of the vehicles that Lyberger's sells are Canadian. TAPE 03-50, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR ANDERSON determined that Lorri Urban from the North American Automobile Trade Association had provided testimony during the May 5 hearing on HB 272, and indicated that the committee would take testimony from those that did not testify at that prior meeting. Number 0045 BRUCE MUSICK, Affordable Used Cars, said that under HB 272, when a new car is released, there will be a period ranging between 17 and 24 months during which that car can not be sold as a used vehicle. He pointed out that the bill's restrictions will also apply to cars that aren't Canadian, but won't apply to used car dealers in the Lower 48. He mentioned that many used car dealers in Alaska acquire inventory in the lower 48. Number 0161 DIANA PFEIFFER, President, Alaska Automobile Dealers Association (AADA); President, Alaska Sales and Service, expressed her support of HB 272. On the issue of odometer readings, she added that franchised automobile dealers have a computer system connected to the manufacturer that allows dealers to verify mileage. She said she did not believe that independent used car dealers have access to that information. She listed the issues that others have already spoken to, and relayed that a lot of people who come into her dealerships don't know how to operate their vehicles. She said that as a franchised automobile dealer, her firm invests millions of dollars in facilities, training, special tools and equipment, and the proper delivery of automobiles to consumers. She noted that since franchise dealers have direct communication with manufacturers, if there are safety issues with [certain] vehicles, a "stop delivery" order or a recall can be issued. She offered an example of one such situation, and said that used car dealers in her area at that time were attempting to sell such cars as "newly used." She offered her belief that Canadian titles do not show liens. In conclusion, she requested the committee's support of HB 272. Number 0366 RICHARD HIATT, General Service Manager, Alaska Sales and Service, on the issue of how many vehicles are exported from Canada, suggested that in 1996 it was approximately 16,000 vehicles, 200,000 vehicles in 2002, and that the practice is still quite prevalent. He relayed that many people who buy "like new" cars from used car dealers in the area come to Alaska Sales and Service in an effort to get a better understanding of how to operate those vehicles. He opined that those who bring Canadian cars into Alaska for the purpose of reselling them are committing fraud. Number 0494 DARRELL FRIESS, Budget Car & Truck, said he questions Mr. Hiatt's assertion that 200,000 Canadian vehicles are exported yearly. He relayed that he opposes Section 1 of HB 272, and opined that there is a difference between a new and a used vehicle. He offered his belief that current law already stipulates that a used vehicle is one that has been titled. He also opined that there should not be any resale restrictions on any vehicle purchased at what he called a recognized auction, and suggested that HB 272 be amended to reflect that point. Number 0567 MARTEN MARTENSEN, Continental Honda, relayed that Honda took a very firm stance on imported Canadian vehicles, and that many other manufacturers have followed suit. He explained that although people who've bought used Canadian vehicles at local dealers have come to his firm for warranty work, Honda's stance is that it will not provide any kind of assistance for those Canadian vehicles. He opined that even if a person can get an independent shop to honor a warranty on those vehicles, he/she is not getting the same quality of work that can be provided by a franchised dealer. CHAIR ANDERSON closed public testimony on HB 272. Number 0686 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report HB 272, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. Number 0705 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. He relayed that when the original legislation passed, there was strong opposition to any consumer protection being built into it, and opined that HB 272 simply continues in that vein. Lacking consideration of the consumer in HB 272, he said he does not support any continuing restructuring of the relationship between auto dealers. Number 0760 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Dahlstrom, Gatto, Rokeberg, Crawford, and Anderson voted in favor of reporting HB 272, as amended, from committee. Representative Guttenberg voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 272(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.