California BAR revises, adds to proposed storage regulations in response to OAL concerns

The California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR)’s second modified regulatory proposal on storage fees charged by automotive repair dealers is again open for public comment.

The passage of AB1263 in 2024 gave BAR authority to address storage fees. It also allows BAR to codify its guidance and unify existing laws on the subject. The changes also include teardown disclosures.

Repairers have previously voiced concerns about language in the proposed regulations that would cap storage fees and cause shops to lose storage revenue.

BAR’s Advisory Group shared on July 30 that the final package of proposed regulations was sent to the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on May 19 and on June 26, BAR withdrew it “to address OAL concerns regarding clarity of several provisions.”

Repairer Driven News asked BAR and OAL for details regarding the concerns. Earlier this month, Ebenezer Arreola, California Department of Consumer Affairs public information officer, said that OAL identified several provisions where wording needed greater clarity to ensure consistent interpretation and application.

“Their feedback focused on refining language, not on issues of legality or authority,” he wrote in an Aug. 4 email. “The Bureau is modifying the specific sections identified by OAL. Once revisions are complete, the Bureau will resubmit the modified text to OAL.”

Email correspondence from June between BAR and OAL, and provided to RDN on Aug. 14 by OAL, mentions a phone call between the departments. During the call, OAL staff raised several issues with the proposal as written at the time.

“Unfortunately, we concluded that a lot of the issues we discussed yesterday necessitate substantive changes to the proposed regulations, which would of course need to be noticed to the public for at least 15 days pursuant to Gov. Code § 11346.8(c) and 1 CCR § 44,” wrote Steven Escobar, OAL senior attorney, in a June 25 email. “OAL staff also raised additional concerns with the proposed regulations that I would like to discuss with you.”

RDN hasn’t received the specifics of those concerns from either OAL or BAR.

The regulatory proposal was originally noticed on Nov. 14, 2025, followed by an initial modified text that was noticed for a 15-day comment period on March 27.

BAR says the actions affected that called for the new comment period include:

• • Amend sections 3303 and 3351 of Title 16, California Code of Regulations
  • Adopt sections 3351.8.1, 3351.8.2, and 3351.8.3 of Title 16, California Code of Regulations

Most changes to section 3303 reword sentences without revising their meaning and purpose. However, the opposite is true in the other sections.

The deadline to provide written comments to BAR on the above revisions is Aug. 28.

The regulations, as discussed on July 30, would:

• • Establish that fees charged for the storage of a motor vehicle must be reasonable.
  • Determine when storage fees may be charged.
  • Require that an ARD store a vehicle at its primary business address as registered with the Bureau. The ARD must notify the customer of the storage location prior to moving the vehicle, and not charge to move the vehicle without customer authorization.
  • Require that an ARD provide an itemized invoice for storage fees when charged.
  • Require an ARD that provides storage services to post their current daily storage fee rate(s) in an area frequented by customers.
  • Require an ARD to report to the Bureau their maximum daily storage rate when renewing their registration. An ARD may make a change to their reported maximum daily storage rate once per registration cycle.
  • Require an ARD that maintains a motor carrier permit to display the Towing and Storage Fees Access Notice in an area of the business facility that is in plain view of the public and have copies of the notice available to the public.
  • Require BAR to create a search tool on its website showing average and median daily storage rates for a given locale based on the maximum daily storage rates reported by ARDs.
  • Define a “locale” as one of four geographic radii around each reporting ARD that is sufficient to identify average and median storage rates for that locale.

The second modified text up for comment revises Section 3351 of Title 16 by proposing to require ARDs to keep records for how daily rates are calculated.

“The records relied upon to calculate the daily storage rate(s) shall be retained and available for inspection by the Bureau or other law enforcement in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 9884.11,” the revision states.

Under Section 3351.8.1, “General Requirements for Vehicle Storage,” the modified text adds that consistent with the Fair Claims Settlement Practice Regulations as adopted by the California Department of Insurance, “an insurer shall not use average and median maximum daily vehicle storage rates, as published by the Bureau according to section 3351.8(f) of this Article, to establish, limit, suppress, or otherwise influence an automotive repair dealer’s vehicle storage rate(s).”

Revisions to the section also propose adding the following associated with vehicle storage:

• • “Property costs, including rent, mortgage, market value of the property, and value of the service department area where vehicle storage will occur;
  • “Utility costs;
  • “Labor costs directly related to vehicle storage; and
  • “Liability insurance.”

In addition to requiring customer notification when a vehicle is moved to a different location for storage, the second modified text would require written notification and authorization from the customer to move a vehicle more than 20 miles away from the primary ARD business location for storage.

Revisions to Section 3351.8.2 would make some rates or fees listed in California’s Vehicle Code that are itemized on final repair transaction invoices “presumptively unreasonable” in certain cases.

“When an automotive repair dealer obtains authorization to perform repairs, as defined in Business and Professions Code section 9880.1(k), including a tear down as defined in section 3352 of this Chapter, as a result of an accident or recovery of a stolen vehicle, any rates or fees listed in Vehicle Code section 22524.5(c)(3) and itemized on the final invoice shall be deemed presumptively unreasonable,” the second modified text states.

To read the modified text and other proposal materials and comment, visit bar.ca.gov/regulatory-actions.

In a comment period notice, BAR stated, “Important: The proposed regulations are still pending and have not been adopted or taken effect. The proposed regulations are not current BAR requirements and should not be represented or relied upon as requirements currently in effect.”

An economic impact statement attached to one of the emails by BAR states that 100% of the 6,193 ARDs affected by the storage fee regulations are small businesses.

It also states the regulations are “intended to help consumers by requiring ARDs to inform the public of storage fees and to charge reasonable fees,” adding later that “the benefits are difficult to quantify.”

When asked on the form to list alternatives considered, or explain why alternatives weren’t considered, BAR wrote: “No reasonable alternative to the regulatory proposal would be either more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed or would be as effective or less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation.”

Images

Featured image credit: NickyLloyd/iStock