Texas Vehicle Inspection

[dewilso]

"Can't be eliminated" ?? How many counties actually require emission testing ? Why "might as well include safety items and make them statewide"? What a crock !

[bushpilot]

Regardless of the year or texas county, there is no emission testing on Diesels.

 

Texas as a whole is changing the inspection (sticker issuance processes) --> http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2014/06/dmv-prepares-for-sticker-shock-of-losing-inspection-tag/#23504101=0

My suggestion, because of this change, is that you renew your tags for as long as you possibly can (up to 3 yrs).

Edited June 24, 2014 by BushPilot

[CookieMon]

"Can't be eliminated" ?? How many counties actually require emission testing ? Why "might as well include safety items and make them statewide"?

17 of 254 counties in Texas require emissions testing, with these all being in the large metropolitan areas:

• Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Program Area: Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and Montgomery Counties
• Dallas-Fort Worth Program Area: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties
• Austin Area: Travis and Williamson Counties
• El Paso Area: El Paso County
• Motorists must successfully pass both the emissions and safety portions of the inspection to obtain an inspection sticker'
• Gasoline vehicles model-year 2 through 24 years old are inspected annually beginning with the vehicle's second anniversary

The above extracted from TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) website.

Edited June 24, 2014 by CookieMon

[Guest Pensauncola]

You need to understand that one of the driving forces for vehicle inspections in Texas is that the major metro areas are all non-attainment areas under the Clean Air Act. So a lot of vehicles require annual vehicle emission testing, since you are going to be inspecting them anyway, might as well include safety items and make those items state wide. So the inspections can't be eliminated.

 

Barb

 

Texas vehicle safety inspections have been around since way before emission equipped vehicles even existed. Your post lacks historical support.

[skp51443]

I had a few pre-emissions Texas inspections done and they were fairly good, my vehicle flunked on headlight alignment and brakes. Cost a fair chunk of change to get it past the brake inspection but they did work better afterwards.

 

A good safety testing setup is worth the effort but a Mickey Mouse one is of little value to anyone.

[Barbaraok]

 

Texas vehicle safety inspections have been around since way before emission equipped vehicles even existed. Your post lacks historical support.

"Driving forces" as in why they are currently done. Since MOST people live in metro areas, the inspections aren't going away so the inspections stay everywhere.

 

Bush Pilot, I believe you will find that they have already done away with multi-year registrations.

 

Dave W., you might declare it a crock, but that is the way things are. Most state representatives are from the big metro areas (where all the people live) so they aren't going to vote for only THEIR constituents have to get inspections.

 

Barb

[bobsallyh]

Having been a 50 plus year resident of Pennsylvania that has a yearly state vehicle inspection, I have no studies but what I see while we have been touring the western states for eleven years the program has merit. Unfortunately a lot of the public will drive their vehicle and I'm only talking safety items here, until something happens. Seen quite frequently, especially in Arizona since we do six months there, are cars sitting along the road with a snapped ball joint. Or I'm sitting at a traffic light and a vehicle pulls up beside me with the that tell tale squeal of metal to metal brake pads or lining stopping the vehicle. Illegal equipment or lights out or completely missing. I don't really want to get into what is checked on PA. state inspection as it is fairly comprehensive and I hate typing. Now as far as Texas's inspection goes I think it is a laugher. When we were transferring our vehicles over to Texas in 2003, I asked a person at Rainbows End what the inspection covered. His answer was simple "all they want is that $14.50". After taking the truck and trailer thru, his words rang true. Now I will also say that in PA. there are some unscrupulous shops that will screw folks, but it is in the minority and if you think that was the case just call the PA. State Police Substation and talk to the inspection officer.

[Barbaraok]

Yes, there was one or more firm in Livingston that did nothing for inspections, I believe some state action was taken. We've had over the years to get horn fixed, get clearance lights fixed, new wiper blades, etc., nothing major (well the horn was expensive because of Smart Wheel involvement) but all needed to be done to pass inspection.

 

Barb

[mrschwarz]

First, with due respect to Barb, safety inspections have been around a lot longer than emissions inspections. Your statement is also illogical. As long as SOME counties require emissions inspections, it only makes sense that ALL counties require safety inspections? Really? I don't see the logic there.

 

According to this article (http://www.whec.com/article/stories/s3263610.shtml), there is no relationship between mandatory vehicle inspections, accidents and deaths. According to the article, of the five states with the lowest fatality rates, only one has mandatory inspections.

 

"I'd say it's money spent by the taxpayers including their time toward a program that is not statistically effective,", one expert says.

 

A review of 41 different studies was done for the NHTSA in 1985 (http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/158/71884.0001.001.pdf;jsessionid=031E97D5C21DD27DC6E2E2DB47B82487?sequence=2). They found that "not one of them was able to provide
definitive evidence on the question of PMVI (periodic motor vehicle inspection) cost-effectiveness."

 

So, I pose the question again. Only 13 states have mandatory inspections. There hasn't been any proven relationship between accidents and inspections. The Texas Legislature just created a mess by not thinking through the effect of their actions again. Now we have agencies jumping through hoops to compensate (at least I hope they are). Maybe the REAL solution is to just eliminate a waste of our time and money, which it appears the safety inspection is. Maybe we should join the other 37 states that have already figured it out.

[Barbaraok]

First, with due respect to Barb, safety inspections have been around a lot longer than emissions inspections. Your statement is also illogical. As long as SOME counties require emissions inspections, it only makes sense that ALL counties require safety inspections? Really? I don't see the logic there.

 

Safety inspections were first, then they added on emission inspections for those in non-attainment areas. Still the same with everyone getting a yearly inspection of some kind. If I'm a state representative from a district that requires emission testing do you think I'm going to vote for people in other counties not to have some sort of inspections when my constituents have to have their vehicles inspected? Really? Have you ever spent time watching the Texas legislative sessions?

 

As to the rest of your post, it really doesn't matter. We have to deal with what is currently in place. And don't think there isn't a lobby of inspection station owners who make a good share of their living doing inspections. I know the amount per vehicle seems small, but some of these places do 10+ inspections per hour with min. wage workers, so it helps with the cash flows for these small businesses.

 

Barb

[mrschwarz]

I

[pugsly]

I expect that TX will eventually let you get the inspection done in another state.

[Guest Pensauncola]

Well, tied to that inspection legislation was a requirement for diesel emission testing. Does anyone know that status of that? That would really pose a problem for "never show" Texans.

 

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/senate-bill-would-do-away-with-vehicle-inspection-/nXjG2/

[pugsly]

Well, tied to that inspection legislation was a requirement for diesel emission testing. Does anyone know that status of that? That would really pose a problem for "never show" Texans.

 

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/senate-bill-would-do-away-with-vehicle-inspection-/nXjG2/

 

I think a lot of people are placing too much faith in the ability of government to implement a new policy in a timely manner.

 

I remember when North Carolina switched (moved away from windshield stickers and tied it to registration) there was almost 2 years that you could renew without ANY inspection because they had abandoned the old system but not yet implemented the new. So DMV had no way of knowing whether the inspection had taken place.

[dewilso]

Kinda like when I lived in China, just inland from Hong Kong. The Brits (driving on the left side of the road)were turning HK back to China (driving on the right) the legislators decided things needed to change in HK so. The bill was put together to change all commercial vehicles one day, private vehicles one week later to avoid mass confusion....a prime example of government in action! How would you like to be a RV'er traveling thru....who wasn't privy to the "logic" involved ?

[bushpilot]

this might help - nothing to say they'll continue to do it this way, but WAY too many (military) claim residence in Texas, yet never live here.

Texas is one of the few states that permits you to hold a TxDL w/ an out of state address printed on it.

 

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/VI/texasRegVeh.htm

[AFchap]

WAY too many (military) claim residence in Texas, yet never live here.

...and there is ZERO difference between those military folks and many RVers.

[Blues]

Well, tied to that inspection legislation was a requirement for diesel emission testing. Does anyone know that status of that? That would really pose a problem for "never show" Texans.

 

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/senate-bill-would-do-away-with-vehicle-inspection-/nXjG2/

 

I can't read that article because it's subscription only.

 

However, I think I figured it out, and you're wrong that the requirement for diesel emissions testing was "tied to that inspection legislation." One clue is that the headline (which I could read) referred to a senate bill, but the law change that's causing all the trouble came from a house bill.

 

The senate bill that I suspect was discussed in the article you linked to didn't pass, and as far as I can tell, the bill that did pass doesn't say anything about diesel emissions testing.

[skp51443]

...and there is ZERO difference between those military folks and many RVers.

 

Neither the military or the RVers wrote the laws on where you can claim domicile so don't blame them for following the rules. If you are not going to live in your old state there is no legal reason to maintain your domicile there and it is just paying taxes you have no legal reason to pay. If you enlisted from a high tax state many military would request an assignment to a low tax state or move their family to one if they were posted overseas, that allowed them to legally change their military recognized domicile to the low tax state.

 

Now it has been a while but I was familiar with the military rules for a military type becoming a Texas resident back then which were far stricter than the civilian ones. You had to have a real off-post address and at least three months rent receipts or proof you bought a home. With that in hand you could request a change of domicile for your military records, once that was done you could update everything else much as an RVer does today.

 

I was a Washington resident so I never bothered to move to Texas although I was stationed there several times, I did help a lot of the folks working for and with me to do the move as it made for a nice take-home pay increase. I didn't recommend it to folks doing just one tour and intending to return to their old state though as that could mess up a lot of potential post-service benefits like tuition and unemployment.

[Guest Pensauncola]

I can't read that article because it's subscription only.

 

However, I think I figured it out, and you're wrong that the requirement for diesel emissions testing was "tied to that inspection legislation." One clue is that the headline (which I could read) referred to a senate bill, but the law change that's causing all the trouble came from a house bill.

 

The senate bill that I suspect was discussed in the article you linked to didn't pass, and as far as I can tell, the bill that did pass doesn't say anything about diesel emissions testing.

 

Blues, I'm pretty sure that a bill has to pass both the Senate and House to become law. The Senate bill did indeed pass with diesel emission inspections as part of the Senate bill. That's what the newspaper article was about. However, I'm thinking that indeed the diesel emission part did get dropped in the final law passed by both House and Senate and signed by the Governor. I haven't seen the final version, so I'll take your word for it.

[Blues]

I still can't read the article you linked to, but I'm assuming it's talking about SB 1305, which as originally introduced had the combined inspection-registration sticker scheme, as well as diesel emissions testing. This bill did not become law. It passed the Senate on 5-6-13 (which is the same date as the article you linked to), and it made it out of a House committee but went no further.

But in looking this up (which is not for those who lack fortitude), I found out that even the version passed by the Senate did not include the diesel emissions testing requirement. The law it was tinkering with is a provision of the Health and Safety Code Section 382.202 that says:

(i) The commission shall examine the efficacy of annually inspecting diesel vehicles for compliance with applicable federal emission standards, compliance with an opacity or other emissions-related standard established by commission rule, or both and shall implement that inspection program if the commission determines the program would minimize emissions.

That law has been in effect for years.

What the original version of Senate bill 1350 proposed, instead, was:

(i) The commission shall apply a vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program to diesel vehicles for compliance with applicable federal emission standards, compliance with an opacity or other emissions-related standard established by commission rule, or both. The commission shall require annual inspections under this subsection.

That language would require diesel emissions testing. However, from what I can tell, that section of the bill was dropped via floor amendment, before the Senate voted, and sure enough, the version passed by the Senate did not include diesel emissions testing. But you're saying the article specifically said the Senate voted to require diesel emissions testing?

Regardless, this is the danger of raising an alarm based on a story that was reported in the middle of a process--you probably don't have the whole story because things were still happening, and when the "event" is more than a year ago, prudence would dictate that some follow-up be done before scaring people into thinking that there's something else Escapees missed. That's a good way to start rumors that turn out to be false with just a little checking.

Anyway, as I said above, this bill did pass the Senate, without diesel emissions testing, but died in the house. You can see this here:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=SB1350

Note that the last action on this bill is "Committee report sent to Calendars." That is a dead bill.

Then the combined inspection-registration sticker scheme, which was still in this bill but died with the bill, got tacked onto HB 2305 during amendments on 5-21-13; that's the bill that got passed and became law. You can see what a bill that becomes law looks like here:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB2305

(HB 2305, as originally introduced, just amended the law regarding vehicle inspections to include the compressed natural gas container on a vehicle that has one.)

What still bothers me the most is that Escapees didn't catch this, especially if there were newspaper articles about it before it actually got passed. Fortunately for them, they're going to offer their mail service in Florida now, so this bill never was an existential threat to them. But I wonder whether, if they had all their eggs in the Texas basket, they might have been more proactive in making sure no laws were being proposed that might put them out of business.

And yes, I know the trucking industry is also affected and apparently also dropped the ball, but they have other options. It'll be a huge hassle for them to implement them, but no trucking company is going to go out of business because of this law. On the Escapees side, as it is now, the only real inconvenience is to all the mail service customers who will have to change their address with everyone who sends them anything (because they can't do a post office change of address) and get new driver's licenses, vehicles registrations, etc., in another state.

I assume Escapees would rather that not happen, but if it does, they have more wiggle room than their Texas-resident mail service customers do.

[TXiceman]

It is amazing at all of the manure bills that get added to a necessary piece of legislation. To many people make deals to vote for something, but you have to add on my pet project.

 

Best thing we could see done, the elected officials simply disappear and never heard from again.

 

Ken

 

 

[Barbaraok]

Blues,

 

You're assuming that everyone with a Livingston address would transfer to Florida and stay with Escapees. Not necessarily so.

[skp51443]

There is some contact info in this month's magazine on the new Florida mail service, check your mail.

[d&dvogel]

DH says to ask how to download the magazine online please. Or can someone just provide a downloadable link? Thanks.

 

Donna