S-2238-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
What it does
The PART Act would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to create new rules mandating that catalytic converters on new vehicles be marked with unique identification numbers traceable to the vehicle's VIN. It would establish a $7 million federal grant program to fund voluntary stamping of catalytic converters on existing vehicles at no cost to owners. The bill would also create new federal crimes — with penalties up to 5 years in prison — for stealing, trafficking, or knowingly purchasing stolen catalytic converters, and would require sellers of catalytic converter parts to record buyer/seller identity information and accept only traceable (non-cash) forms of payment.
Who benefits
Vehicle owners, particularly those in high-theft areas, who would be less likely to have their catalytic converters stolen or more likely to recover them. Fleet operators (delivery companies, transit agencies, municipalities) whose vehicles are disproportionately targeted. Law enforcement agencies, which would gain better tools to trace stolen parts and prosecute trafficking networks. Legitimate auto recyclers and scrap dealers who would be better distinguished from criminal operations. Auto insurers, who may see reduced claims. Communities in high-theft areas that would receive grant priority.
Who is hurt
Scrap metal dealers and auto recyclers who would face new recordkeeping burdens and payment restrictions, including a ban on cash transactions. Small or informal recycling operations that rely on cash sales would face the greatest compliance costs. Automakers would need to integrate marking systems into manufacturing for new vehicles. Sellers of used catalytic converters — including ordinary vehicle owners selling parts — would be required to provide government-issued ID and vehicle history documentation. Digital asset holders would be prohibited from using cryptocurrency for these transactions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that catalytic converter theft has surged dramatically — the National Insurance Crime Bureau reported a roughly 1,200% increase in thefts between 2019 and 2022 — costing vehicle owners an average of $1,000–$3,000 per incident in parts and labor. They contend that VIN stamping creates a direct, low-cost deterrent because marked converters are harder to sell anonymously, and that the traceable payment requirement closes the cash-based black market that makes theft profitable. The bipartisan sponsorship reflects broad agreement that existing state-level patchwork laws have been insufficient to disrupt organized theft rings operating across state lines.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the cash payment ban is an unusually broad restriction on lawful commerce that would burden low-income sellers and small scrap dealers who operate legitimately in cash economies, without clear evidence that payment-tracing requirements meaningfully reduce theft rates. They contend that the $7 million grant program is too small to make a material dent in the existing stock of hundreds of millions of unmarked converters on the road, and that the new federal criminal penalties duplicate state laws already on the books in most jurisdictions, raising questions about whether federal resources are the most efficient tool for what is primarily a local property crime.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate catalytic converter theft rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as the bill explicitly ties criminal offenses to interstate or foreign commerce in stolen parts — consistent with the nexus requirement affirmed in United States v. Lopez (1995). The delegation of rulemaking to NHTSA and the Attorney General is standard, though post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently assess whether the statutory language grants sufficient authority for any resulting agency rules rather than deferring to agency interpretation.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (NHTSA and the Attorney General) gains new rulemaking and enforcement authority; Congress retains oversight through mandatory annual reporting requirements for 10 years, and courts retain authority to independently review agency rules under post-Loper Bright standards.
Historical precedent
The National Motor Vehicle Theft Act (1919) and the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (1984) established earlier federal frameworks for VIN-based vehicle part tracking; several states (including California and Texas) have enacted catalytic converter-specific marking and recordkeeping laws that served as models for this federal approach.