This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0518 - Motor vehicle safety inspections are reduced to one every three years
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. NO. 2546-08
BILL NO. HCS for SS for SB 518
SUBJECT: Motor Vehicles; Highway Patrol; Licenses - Motor Vehicle
TYPE: Original
DATE: April 20, 1998
FISCAL SUMMARY
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| None | |||
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All State Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| None | |||
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| Local Government | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses
This fiscal note contains 6 pages.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the Department of Revenue (DOR) - Motor Vehicle Bureau assumed in response to a previous version of this proposal that they would incur expenses in FY99 in the amount of $8,183 for postage, forms and policy revisions.
Officials of the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) stated that this proposal would require that motor vehicle safety inspections be performed every two years, instead of annually as is current law. It would double the state's portion of the inspection sticker fee which would in effect make the safety inspection portion of this proposal revenue neutral.
MoDOT officials stated that this proposal would also pertain to the reduction of air pollutants in the St. Louis region in order to meet the national air quality standard for ozone. This proposal would still prohibit the use of reformulated fuel. It would also mandate the use of a new technology called remote sensing to measure tailpipe emissions as vehicles travel down the highway.
MoDOT officials assume there could be long-range implications as a result of this proposal. MoDOT officials stated that failure to take immediate steps to reduce air pollutants would increase the potential that St. Louis would be redesignated as a serious nonattainment area. Redisignation to serious would freeze transportation plans and constrain transportation options for the St. Louis region.
MoDOT officials assume the proposed use of remote sensing to measure some vehicle emissions would reduce the state's ability to carry out the state implementation plan to achieve the needed amount of pollution reductions because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would grant fewer emission credits for remote sensing. This, in turn, forces the state to revise the state implementation plan and place additional controls on other pollution sources, such as various small businesses and industries, to make up the deficit in pollution-reduction credits.
MoDOT officials noted that delays or failure to carry out the state implementation plan and accomplish the necessary pollution reduction in a timely manner may cause the EPA to sanction Missouri, which would lead to the withholding of as much as $461 million of federal highway funds.
Officials of the Department of Public Safety - Division of Highway Safety and Department of Economic Development assume this proposal would have no fiscal impact to their division/department.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials of the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol's (MSHP) Motor Vehicle Inspection Division (MVID) would anticipate minimal change in fiscal impact as a result of this proposal. The number of inspections being cut in half, biennial rather than annual as current law required, while at the same time doubling the fee collected per inspection sticker. Therefore, the net effect on revenue collected would be zero. Additionally, the number of inspection sites and other duties performed by the MVID would remain constant. Therefore, there would be no reduction in staff.
A comparison of the annual inspections vs. the biennial inspections would be as follows:
Annual Safety Inspections
4.3 million safety inspections X $.75 = $3,225,000
1.2 million emission inspections x $.75 = 900,000
Total = $4,125,000
Biennial Safety Inspections
2.15 million safety inspections X $1.50 = $3,225,000
1.2 million emission inspections x $.75 = 900,000
Total $4,125,000
MSHP's MVID would anticipate no additional fiscal impact as a result of the remote sensing clean screening program created in Section 643.310 of this proposal.
Officials of the Office of Administration (COA) assume that this proposal would not result in additional costs or savings to the Division of Budget and Planning. COA's role in licensing one or more persons meeting the requirements of a remote sensing clean screening program could have minimal unknown impact on the Division of Purchasing depending on the number of licensees.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) officials assume this proposal would allow for the use of an emerging technology called remote sensing to exempt vehicles from the existing emissions testing requirements which require the owner to take the vehicle to an emissions testing facility on a biennial basis.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
DNR officials assume that remote sensing is a nonintrusive, on-road method of detecting air pollutant emissions from moving vehicles. Currently, remote sensing is used in one state, Arizona, to identify gross polluting vehicles between cycles of stationary emissions tests. Remote sensing has been proposed for use in this fashion by several other states. No other state uses remote sensing for clean screening, or exempts non-polluting vehicles from the stationary emissions test, so we have no examples to use for cost comparison.
The DNR currently has core appropriations for 22 FTE for Enhanced I/M work. At this time, the EPA has no guidance for the reduction in emissions credits when remote sensing is used to exempt vehicles from enhanced I/M testing. Therefore, DNR assumes estimates for the costs to initiate controls to make up that deficit in tons per day reductions for compliance with the CAAA are unknown. The alternate control options may require more staff for regulation since smaller pollution sources would have to be targeted.
The proposed legislation allows for a clean screening fee of up to $24. The DNR assumes that the state costs associated with this part of the program would be covered in this fee.
The effectiveness of the enhanced I/M program might be reduced if staff is insufficient to run both enhanced I/M and clean screening. Since no other state uses remote sensing for clean screening, or exempts non-polluting vehicles from the stationary emissions test, we have no examples to use for cost comparison. The department may need additional resources for these activities.
The DNR assumes not meeting the emission reductions could result in federal sanctions which could include a loss of federal highway funds and more stringent permit offset requirements for new or expanding industry. The industrial sanctions commence 18 months after SIP disapproval and federal highway funding sanctions are applied six months after that, if no progress is made. It is likely a change or removal of the enhanced I/M program will trigger the sanction "clocks".
If, due to the proposal, the state would need to make up for lost emission reduction credits, the alternate control options that would need to be implemented may require more staff for regulation since smaller pollution sources would have to be targeted.
Oversight assumes, the clean screening program is an alternative to the enhanced vehicle emission inspection. The fees for the clean screening program and the enhanced vehicle inspection are the same; and, in total, the same number of vehicles will be tested. Oversight, assumes the DNR has sufficient resources in their core budget to implement the clean screening program. Therefore, there would be no additional costs or revenues as a result of this proposal.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business | |||
This proposal could affect stations that perform vehicle safety inspections.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would change the requirement for motor vehicle safety inspections from an annual inspection to a biennial safety inspection and a safety inspection by the seller upon sale of a vehicle. Any vehicle manufactured as an even-numbered model year would be inspected in each even-numbered calendar year and any vehicle manufactured as an odd-numbered model year would be inspected in each odd-numbered calendar year.
This proposal would add a voluntary remote sensing clean screen testing program to the BAR-90 and enhanced vehicle emissions testing programs in the St. Louis metropolitan area if remote sensing were allowed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency with no more than a 5% decrease in air pollution reduction credits.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Revenue
Missouri Department of Transportation
Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol
Department of Public Safety - Division of Highway Safety
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Economic Development
Office of Administration
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
April 20, 1998