vehicles in this city fall in the low group, about 65 percent in the middle group, and only 10 percent in the high-value group. 22

Evaluation: An evaluation of the relative merits of the broad vs. the strict definition of abandoned vehicles cannot be made directly from the answers to the questionnaire used in the survey, since information on this matter was not specifically solicited or volunteered. The following discussion is based on a limited sampling of respondents, by telephone, and on conversations with other individuals concerned with the problem. A further investigation, possibly through a field investigation, would be required for a more definitive evaluation.

The greater use of the broad definition suggests that there may be much merit in its use. The chief merit claimed for it is that it gives police officers sufficient authority to remove all the cars they think are probably abandoned, whereas under the strict definition they would be more hesitant and less effective, since they would have to be sure that each car removed "reasonably appeared to be abandoned, etc." The strict definition thus would result in fewer removals, but would also result in fewer mistaken removals of vehicles which were not abandoned, and were subsequently reclaimed.

The broad definition is open to the objection that there is a danger in making a law literally prohibit more than is meant to be prohibited, and that this may encourage inadequately briefed or overzealous police officers to enforce the law as it is written rather than as it is meant to be applied. Such occurrences can undoubtedly be minimized by good police administration, but elimination of them may be impossible. Furthermore, there may be a danger that a broad definition will lead to some future police administration forgetting about the original intention, and enforcing the law as written as its standard procedure.

In any event, the need of the moment is to provide authorization to the police to remove abandoned vehicles, whichever definition is used, from both public and private property. Authorization to remove from public property seems fairly prevalent; minor imperfections should, however, be corrected. The serious lack which needs to be remedied is to provide authorization for removal from private property in the over 40 percent of the cities now apparently completely lacking such power."

23 These new provisions have enabled 1 large city, within less than 1 year, to markedly reduce its very large backlog of abandoned automobiles, for which it lacked impounding space.

"And outside of cities, too, as needed. But this report covers urban areas only.

Furthermore, some of the cities now removing from private property by using nuisance or health laws, would benefit by the adoption of direct motor vehicle abandonment laws.

The breadth of the coverage desired for laws prohibiting the storage of abandoned or junk vehicles on private property may vary with differences in opinion as to the extent to which restrictions of property rights are needed, or should be tolerated. Although there would probably be little difference of opinion on the desirability of forbidding the accumulation of abandoned vehicles on private property without the property owner's consent-and this should certainly be provided by law-some would object to requiring removal of abandoned vehicles which are there with the consent of the property owner. And still more would object to prohibiting a property owner from storing one or two junk vehicles owned by him on his own property. As indicated earlier, some jurisdictions have gone all the way on this issue, but most have not done soat least, not as yet.

The idea of setting up value classes of vehicles seems a desirable one in order to simplify procedures and reduce costs in handling what is a difficult problem to many cities. The property rights residing in low value abandoned motor vehicles are of such nominal significance and value as not to warrant the effort and costs involved in the fuller protection of the law usually accorded to rights of more substantial value.

Nevertheless, there are certain more protective options in the treatment of the low value cars which are compatible with speedy, low cost treatment, that should be used where feasible. For instance, it seems desirable to define an abandoned car fit for scrap or dismantling not only as a vehicle worth less than a given price, but also as one with certain characteristics such as lack of current license plates, inoperability, lack of certain vital parts, etc. Furthermore, rather than completely eliminating notification, it would be desirable, for instance, to leave a notice on each such vehicle for at least 5 days be fore removal, warning the owner of the removal and disposal actions proposed.

Notification of owners and lienholders

Notification of owners and lienholders of vehicles which have been removed from the site of abandonment is generally required. The purpose is to protect individuals from deprivation of property without due process of law. Notification is by mail generally by registered or certified mail, and advertisements in newspapers of general circulation may also be required, or may be substituted for mail

notification when the owner or lienholder cannot be identified and reached. Identification is often made with the help of the State motor vehicle agency.24 Disposal by the city must be delayed until the owner has had reasonable opportunity to pick up the vehicle.

The identification and contacting of the ownerabandoner resulting from the notification requirement is utilized by some cities to attempt to make the abandoner dispose of his own car, or pay the costs of disposal, in accordance with the law. The considerable cost and small success of these efforts have prompted many cities to discontinue this approach. Some cities, however, appear to succeed in locating some abandoners, collecting costs from them and sometimes levying fines on them as well. Some of the few laws which provide for dividing abandoned vehicles into two or three categories on the basis of their appraised value provide a simpler notification procedure for the low value group. For instance, the low value vehicles might have a warning tag placed on them for a period of time, after which, if there was no response, the vehicle might be carted away for scrap. One city notifies the owner of private property on which “junk vehicles" are located to dispose of them within 30 days, else the city will do so and bill him for the costs. If not paid, the costs plus 10 percent are added to his tax bill.

Evaluation: Notification of owners and lienholders is a desirable and necessary provision where vehicles of substantial value are involved. However, it would seem reasonable to simplify this requirement for abandoned vehicles appraised at a value of less than $25, perhaps even less than $50. This would permit the speeding up of the disposal of old, disabled, junk vehicles, saving in costs of notification, and time and costs involved in waiting and impounding.

Use of the notification procedures to locate the owner-abandoner and to get him to dispose of, or pay for the disposal of, his vehicle appears to be increasingly regarded as a frustrating, largely unsuccessful operation, which is likely to cost much more than is returned. Some respondents, however, suggested providing stronger punishment. Strengthening the laws in this respect may be needed if the avenue of tracing and punishing abandoners is considered the desirable one. But the majority opinion seems to be to the contrary. However, it must be

"State records of the current owner may be faulty where there is no requirement that the seller of a vehicle inform the State agency of the name of the new owner. Also, State title records are sometimes kept for too short a time to permit identification of owners of older cars.

admitted that a few cities appear to be fairly successful in following the policy of locating the abandoner and making him dispose of his own vehicle or pay the costs.

Impounding requirements

Minimum periods of time (impounding periods) that abandoned vehicles must be held in order to give the owner or lienholder adequate opportunity to reclaim them are generally required by law. As in the case of notification, the reason for this provision is to guard against deprivation of property without due process of law.

The few laws providing for dividing abandoned vehicles into two or three categories based on their appraised value tend to provide shorter or no impounding periods for the lower or lowest value groups and longer periods for the higher value groups.

Evaluation: Impounding periods are required for cars of substantial value to give the owner a reasonable opportunity to reclaim his vehicle. They could probably be dispensed with entirely for vehicles of obviously low value. This is one of the advantages of classifying abandoned vehicles by their appraised value. Since so many cities manage well with impounding periods of 30 days or less, it would appear desirable at least to reduce the many requirements of longer, often much longer, periods to no more than 30 days. Since, for example, a 30day impounding period involves the need for onethird as much impounding space as a 90-day period, the saving in required impounding space-often very expensive in many large cities-would be significant.

Titling requirements

Motor vehicle title registration laws are provided in most but not all States. Although these laws are not directed at the motor vehicle abandonment problem, they are significantly related to it, and often complicate the disposal of abandoned vehicles. The purpose of titling requirements is to protect the owner's interest in a substantial property, and to aid the State in essential control and regulation of motor vehicles.

The basic titling provision is that every vehicle must have a certificate of title, that no vehicle can be sold or otherwise transferred without such a certificate, and that each sale requires the return of the old certificate and the making out of a new one. This provision is highly desirable for operable motor vehicles, but complicates the disposal of junk vehicles. In a few places, simpler procedures have been provided for such vehicles.

Evaluation: Motor vehicle titling laws, desirable though they are for operable motor vehicles, should permit the issuance of special certificates permitting transfer for junking purposes, or even more simplified documents. 25 Those abandoned vehicles sold for further operation as motor vehicles should, of course, be required to have the usual title certificate, but the city should be allowed to convey the title to the new owner by a simple document, such as a bill of sale. In the absence of such special provisions, application must typically be made to the State motor vehicle agency and a new certificate of title be issued, even when the vehicle is to be sold for scrap or dismantling. There does not appear to be any compelling reason that junking certificates need to be issued by the State motor vehicle agency. It would seem simpler to allow the city to issue them. Method of sale requirements

Most laws stipulate the method of sale or disposal to be used for abandoned vehicles which have not been claimed by their owners within the legally required impounding period. Usually, the method of public auction is specified, presumably because it assures fair market prices, and, therefore, best protects the interests of all to whom the revenues are to be distributed. Although this method is undoubtedly the best for substantial pieces of property, it has proved to be a costly method of disposing of low value junk vehicles.

Evaluation: The typical requirement that abandoned motor vehicles be sold at public auction is a reasonable requirement for the few relatively high value vehicles which can be sold for further use as a motor vehicle. It is, however, far too costly and time consuming a method to be required for the bulk of abandoned vehicles, which are disposed of for scrap or dismantling. For these vehicles, it is more reasonable to sell them in large numbers by prearranged contracts with scrap processors or auto wreckers, and this should be permitted by law. Presumably, the city will try to work out the most advantageous deals it can.

Distribution of the proceeds from vehicle sales

The method of distributing the proceeds from the sale of abandoned vehicles is usually stipulated in the laws. Typically, the order of distribution is as follows:

(1) To defray the costs of removal, impounding, and disposal (whether done by the municipality or a private firm, acting as its agent);

"The bill of sale given by the city to scrap processors or auto wreckers purchasing these vehicles might be considered to be acceptable for this purpose.

(2) to pay the lienholder's interest, if lienholder has been located;

(3) balance to be paid owner, if he has been located;

(4) if no owner has been identified, any balance to be transferred into designated State or city funds. One city, which handles abandonments on private property by finding these vehicles to be a nuisance subject to a fine of up to $50 per day," brings together the property owners and auto wreckers. The latter remove the vehicles for no charge, and are allowed to retain the full proceeds from their ultimate sale. In this case there is no other distribution of the sales revenues.

Evaluation: The typical requirement of law for distributing the proceeds from the sale of abandoned vehicles--which provides that, once the costs of disposal have been met, the balance is returned to the lienholder and owner-is desirable with respect to the few relatively high value vehicles, but is an unnecessarily costly, time consuming requirement when applied to the preponderant majority of low value junk vehicles. It would seem preferable to allow any possible balances left after covering costs of handling low value vehicles to be transferred into city or State funds, to be available for handling abandoned vehicles for which expenses exceeded revenues, and for other city or State purposes when and if the balances transferred exceed the needs of the abandoned vehicle program. When provisions for classifying abandoned vehicles by appraised value classes are desired, the class or classes of abandoned vehicles for which the full proceeds are taken by the municipal and/or State governments can be designated by law in terms of the appraised value of the vehicles.

Suggested State legislation

The BDSA report of March 1966, Iron and Steel Scrap Consumption Problems, included a recommendation to the effect that laws be enacted by State and local governments, where and as needed, to facilitate the prompt disposal of abandoned vehicles.

In order to put this recommendation into a more usable form for possible action by the States, detailed suggested State legislation on abandoned motor vehicles was prepared in the fall of 1966 by U.S. Budget Bureau officials who had served on intergovernmental committees studying the automotive scrap problem. This suggested legislation was submitted to the Council of State Governments, who, after some minor changes had been made, ac

"After 5-day notice.

cepted it for inclusion in their Suggested State Legislation-1967. It was also reprinted as a separate item by the Council and copies are available from them at $1 for one copy, or twenty cents each for 11 or more copies. This suggested State legislation on abandoned vehicles is reproduced in appendix B of this report.

The suggested legislation is well conceived and, if adopted, will provide needed powers to handle abandoned motor vehicles. However, several variant provisions, which have emerged from the present study and have been discussed in the earlier part of this section, may be preferred by some jurisdictions.

Suggested Legislation (in section 1) defines abandoned vehicles on private property as vehicles left there for more than a stipulated period of time without the consent of the property owner. Some cities, however, are unwilling to tolerate the accumulation of junk vehicles in vacant lots and other unlicensed locations even with the consent of the property owner, and have required the removal of these vehicles too in their laws.

Section 4 of Suggested Legislation provides that all abandoned vehicles should be sold by public auction. This is a safeguard for assuring sales at fair market value. However, the experience of many cities indicates that it may be desirable to limit the requirement of selling by public auction to abandoned vehicles of substantial value (these are also usually vehicles that can be sold for further use as a motor vehicle). These cities have found that the majority of abandoned vehicles, which are of low value and of use only for scrap or dismantling, are usually much more expeditiously and economically disposed of by direct contracts on a volume basis with scrap processors and/or auto wreckers.

The experience of some jurisdictions has led to the setting up of two or three categories of abandoned vehicles, based on appraised value, or a combination of appraised value and other characteristics. The purpose is to separate out lower value or junk vehicles, which will be given quicker, less expensive, and less protective treatment, along lines described earlier. Many jurisdictions may prefer to continue to give the customary full protection of property rights even to such vehicles. On the other hand, many jurisdictions may not. Suggested Legislation includes no provision along these lines.

One aspect of the definition of abandoned vehicles provided in Suggested Legislation (section 1) may require still further legislation to implement it in some jurisdictions. It is provided that, among other things, an abandoned motor vehicle is a motor vehicle which has remained illegally on pub

lic property [presumably at one location] for more than a specified period. To be effective, this would require that a city already have a parking ordinance making it illegal to leave a vehicle more than a specified period at one location on public property. If it does not have such a provision, it will need to enact one if it desires to make this part of the definition effective.

Attention is called to a minor omission in Suggested Legislation which probably should be corrected. Suggested Legislation wisely provides that abandoned vehicles for which certificates of title are not available may be sold for “demolition, wrecking, or dismantling" by substituting for the title certificate the sales receipt from the police department (section 4) or a "certificate of authority to sell the motor vehicle to any demolisher or demolition, wrecking, or dismantling" issued to an applicant under certain prescribed conditions (section 6). However, the listing of the documents which a demolisher is required to obtain " for purposes of wrecking, dismantling, or demolishing inadvertently fails to include this "certificate of authority" in the relevant provisions of Section 7. Ideally, this certificate of authority should also be included in this listing of documents.

The general effect of adopting the provisions of Suggested Legislation-1967, as possibly amended by some of the variants discussed in the present report, should facilitate municipal handling of abandoned motor vehicles, and improve the cycling of these vehicles into use as a secondary raw material for steel mills and foundries.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ON THE JUNK VEHICLE PROBLEM

The relative ease with which abandoned vehicles are disposed of to scrap processors and auto wreckers underlies the considerable past successes that municipalities have had in handling their abandoned vehicle problems. The greater successes in prospect if present inadequacies of law and administration are remedied will continue to depend on the ability and willingness of scrap processors and auto wreckers to accept these vehicles.

However, the increasing, much needed, governmental action in the field of air pollution control threatens to affect adversely this ability and willingness to accept vehicles because such control prohibits or restricts the open burning of motor vehicles. Although the large scrap shredding equip

"And subsequently surrender for cancellation of title if the motor vehicle agency so prescribes.

ment-the use of which is being widely expandedcan process automotive scrap without the necessity of preburning, 28 large proportions of junk vehicles will probably be processed by other types of equipment, requiring preburning, for some time to come. Some vehicles may always be processed by nonshredding techniques.

The only way that vehicles can be burned with acceptable amounts of air pollution is in incinerators designed to achieve this. It is doubtful that commercially available incinerators have yet been sufficiently perfected to meet the increasingly high standards which are being set in air pollution control laws. Many companies and some governmental agencies are doing research on the technical problems involved, and it is hoped that they will solve the problems soon. A few scrap processors have incinerators which, although superior to open burning, still probably fall considerably short of the goal. Because of the uncertainties and the large investment involved, most scrap processors may prefer to accept fewer junk vehicles rather than install incinerators, at least for a considerable time.

Even vehicles prepared for shipment to large shredders may present some air pollution problems because these vehicles, when not preburned," must be stripped of their seats, cushions, tires, fuel tanks, engines and transmissions before flattening and shipment to shredding plants. The engines and transmissions pose no problem at all, since they are a form of iron and steel scrap in relatively high demand. The fuel tanks may present some disposal problems, since thay are dangerous to handle and only a few scrap processors are now willing to process them.30 This leaves the seats, cushions, and tires, which under present practice, are frequently burned in the open. Where pollution control laws are in effect, these materials need to be carted off to the municipal dumping ground or incinerator. If municipal incineration, where used, is not adequate in the light of the required standards, pollution will, of course, be increased by the burning of these materials.

There are indications that some small shredders are being developed which will not require preburning. This is of great importance.

Preburning is not required by large shredders, but is often one anyway.

"The danger stems from the likelihood of explosion if ignited. Putting several holes in them with a pick axe to permit free air flow is a commonly used technique for reducing the explosion hazard. Some processors bale them without any pretreatment, feeling their balers can withstand the occasional explosion. Better techniques could undoubtedly be developed. Running over and flattening them with a large bulldozer has been suggested.

The scrapping of junk vehicles has already been impeded somewhat by laws prohibiting and restricting open burning, and several of the cities surveyed in the present report indicated that they were anticipating substantial problems in the future because of the increased enactment and enforcement of pollution control laws. But thus far the flow of junk vehicles has continued because of such practices as evasion or nonenforcement of the law; or the making of exceptions by the municipality to avoid the alternate evil of accumulating junk vehicles; or the shifting of the burning to outlying areas not yet covered by pollution control laws (a shrinking option).

The potential seriousness of the situation is not limited to the movement of under 1 million abandoned vehicles per year into scrap processing and auto wrecking yards, but embraces most of the 7 million junk vehicles retired from use annually (all figures at 1965 rates). If the ability and willingness of scrap processors and auto wreckers to accept junk vehicles were significantly reduced because of the prohibition and/or restriction of open burning, many vehicle owners who customarily sell their own retired vehicles to scrap processors or auto wreckers would undoubtedly be reduced to abandoning them, and thus add considerably to the current volume of abandoned vehicles to be handled by governmental units, in a situation of reduced marketability of the vehicles.

The ultimate answers to the threats posed by air pollution control rests in:

(1) the development of small and medium sized shredders which do not require preburning of junk vehicles;

(2) the expansion and wider geographic disper sion of shredding plants of all sizes;

(3) the development, for scrap processors and for municipalities, of incinerators adequate in the like of the strict standards now regarded as neces sary; and

(4) a willingness of scrap processors and munici palities to install such incinerators.

The first two are in process, and the third is being studied and probably is susceptible of solution in the not too distant future. As to the last, however, the installation of incinerators may not always be con sidered economic by scrap processors and it is pos sible that governmental encouragement or assistance may be needed to get enough incinerators installed.

In the short run, local and State governments may find it advisable to go easy on the enforcement of a prohibition of open burning of junk vehicles, unless