2024-02-06. This written testimony was submitted to the New Hampshire House in support of HB1637 (2024), a bill “relative to reducing requirements for vehicle inspections.”
Greetings, members of the Transportation Committee.
Thank you for allowing me to testify at the hearing on HB1637 (“Relative to reducing requirements for vehicle inspections”) today. I testified in support of the bill. I additionally presented the idea that an appeals process for inspection failures be implemented, within the DMV, and that notice requirements be put upon licensed inspection stations, such that motorists are made well-aware of their appeal rights. The current system essentially has no due process, leaving people at the mercy of whichever mechanic they choose to take their car to, and leaving them hoping for the best.
I noted that the State Police officer who testified supported the idea of a DMV appeals process.
I would equate the system I propose with the similar quasi-judicial processes that already exist within the DMV. For example, if you have or are about to have your license suspended, you can petition the DMV for a hearing and a formal decision. This process should use a similar format.
Currently, there is a “hardship waiver” process for OBD II failures under 266:59-b, V. However, the hardship waiver process is insufficient as it does not apply to safety inspection failures.
There is apparently a complaint process for people to report problems with inspection stations. This was mentioned during the hearing. However, I reviewed the entirety of RSA 266, Saf-C 3200, and the DMV website’s page about inspections, and I cannot find anything about this process. RSA 266:1, XI and Saf-C 3248 regulate an appeals process for mechanics facing accusations of violating inspection rules. This is all I could find. And this is not for complaints about mechanics being overly strict and illegitimately failing cars. It is about mechanics who are ignoring inspection rules and illegitimately passing cars that should have failed. So, this appears to leave people with the belief that there is no appeals process, or that “call the police” or “call your representative” is the only option. This is not due process.
It was in the context of receiving and investigating complaints from motorists that the State Police officer said he would prefer to see something like the DMV appeals process I proposed, rather than his officers investigating and adjudicating these matters.
Additionally, from the testimony we heard, people frequently contact their representatives about these complaints. Reps. Sellers and Coker in particular pointed this out. Creating a one-stop appeals process within the DMV, to which you could refer your constituents, would certainly make your jobs easier.
A DMV appeals process should look something like this—
Expertise. A board of DMV employees who are experts in the laws, rules, and have the mechanical knowledge to re-inspect the issue reported with a failed car.
Efficient. There should be quick turnaround on getting an appeal heard and adjudicated, something along the lines of 2 weeks to 30 days.
Temporary waiver. While the appeal is being heard, the requirement for an inspection sticker on the car should be waived or suspended. Some kind of paperwork should be issued to the motorist to keep in their car, in case they get pulled over for no or an invalid sticker.
Fee. Upon completion of the appeal, if the ruling is in favor of the motorist, either the DMV should issue the new sticker immediately, or they order the mechanic to issue the sticker at no additional charge.
Transparency. Records should be kept of appeals documenting the nature of the invalid failure and which inspection station it happened at, in order to identify recurrent problems with specific mechanics.
Additionally, licensed inspection stations should be required to post a notice to customers about their appeals rights. Mechanics are already required under RSA 358-D:11 to post a notice advising customers of their rights regarding work estimates. Requiring a mandatory notice for state-licensed inspection stations should not place any additional burden on inspection stations.
If they do object, something that may make these new mandates more palatable would be to provide them more clear guidance on what is and is not a valid reason for failure. They could then rely on that advice if they are called into an appeal before the DMV. I am not familiar with how this side of the inspection system works, as I only approach this from a motorists’ perspective. However, perhaps the creation of a hotline where they can get answers to things like, “How big does a hairline crack need to be to fail this car?” would be useful in allaying any concerns they have about these new mandates.
The posted notice should inform customers of—
How the DMV appeals process works, how to contact them, that the customer has the right to the temporary waiver, and how long they should expect the appeal to take.
The existing Saf-C 3200 complaint process, its purpose, and what a complainant can expect from utilizing it.
Perhaps the Consumer Action Program (“AutoCAP”) that the N.H. Automobile Dealers Association runs.
The notice should be posted in the stations similar to the RSA 358-D notice, and be included on the vehicle inspection report provided under Saf-C 3207.06.
Finally, I would also like to point out a few rebuttals to the testimony that was given in opposition to the bill.
One of the employees from DES stated that this bill’s reduction in OBD II testing to cars 15 years or newer, coupled with HB1391 (“Allowing new vehicles purchased in the model year or before to be inspected in the second year after purchase”), is contradictory. However, what DES ignores is that the older the cars, the fewer people have them. Having a policy of emissions-testing cars 3–15 years old begins to catch aging cars which are the likeliest to develop emissions issues, but exempts cars that are so old that the number of them on the road is an insignificant contribution to overall pollution. As we all know, older cars in poor shape are most likely to be owned by low-income individuals. The point here is to both avoid wasting inspection time on new cars that surely will not fail and avoid wasting the money of owners of old cars who cannot afford it.
I would also advise that the committee ignore DES’s claim that the Federal Government will penalize the State of New Hampshire for making such minor changes to our own laws because we fall out of compliance with EPA regulations. One, we have heard this kind of testimony before. It was used to attempt to to intimidate New Hampshire into passing a seatbelt mandate. We refused to do so—twice in the past 15 years—and we have not suffered as a result of it. Secondly, regulations created by an unelected Federal agency should not cow our elected representatives out of doing what’s right for New Hampshire citizens.
When this bill is sent to a subcommittee or interim study, I would be more than happy to participate in those meetings to help flesh out this idea and move it forward.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. ▰
Jeremy J. Olson
Manchester Ward 11