Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/5024

Bill Overview

Title: PART Act

Description: PART Act This bill establishes requirements for motor vehicles related to catalytic converters and other motor vehicle parts that contain precious metals. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must revise the motor vehicle theft prevention standard for new motor vehicles to include catalytic converters among the parts that require an inscribed or affixed identifying number. Additionally, the Department of Transportation must establish a grant program through which law enforcement agencies and other entities can stamp vehicle identification numbers onto catalytic converters of existing vehicles. The bill establishes retention requirements for the purchase of motor vehicle parts that contain precious metals. It also sets forth criminal penalties for the theft of catalytic converters or any precious metals removed from a vehicle.

Sponsors: Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]

Target Audience

Population: People who own vehicles with catalytic converters

Estimated Size: 290000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Auto Mechanic (Houston, TX)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a good idea because it will reduce thefts and hassles for car owners.
  • However, it will add some initial cost and paperwork burden to my shop to comply with any new tracking or retention requirements.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm supportive of measures that can secure vehicle parts, especially since I've heard of a few thefts around my neighborhood.
  • It's also nice to know there may be decreased chances of theft with VIN stamping.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 6

Auto Parts Supplier (Detroit, MI)

Age: 43 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I understand the reasoning behind this, the policy adds financial burden and operational changes to my business.
  • It might mean more security if fewer parts are stolen, but implementing inventory tracking and metal retention will be costly.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Retired (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 58 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful that this policy will cut down on thefts, which could lower my insurance premiums.
  • However, I'm retired and worried about potential costs to update my vehicles.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Law Student (New York, NY)

Age: 24 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Friends and family who own cars will likely feel more secure, but I don't see an immediate impact on my daily life.
  • It's an interesting legal change, though.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Law Enforcement Officer (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy will help reduce thefts and make it easier to trace stolen property.
  • It will also increase cooperation between agencies, which is beneficial for public safety.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Public School Teacher (Miami, FL)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope the policy leads to fewer thefts, which can increase neighborhood safety and decrease costs associated with theft-related damages.
  • I do worry about potential costs to inscribe my vehicle.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Startup Entrepreneur (Austin, TX)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • As someone planning to purchase a vehicle, I like knowing that such initiatives could protect my investment in the future.
  • It shows that these matters are being taken seriously.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Metal Recyclist (Chicago, IL)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will likely affect my business, as we need to verify the sources of the metals more rigorously.
  • There will be additional compliance burdens and possibly increased costs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Car Enthusiast and Blogger (Denver, CO)

Age: 46 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I appreciate efforts to protect catalytic converters from being stolen, as they’re a huge cost in classic cars.
  • It's a step forward, providing peace of mind amongst enthusiasts and daily drivers alike.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $130000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)

Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)

Year 3: $170000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $200000000)

Year 5: $190000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $220000000)

Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $230000000)

Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $340000000)

Key Considerations