Raleigh, N.C. — The North Carolina General Assembly should re-evaluate the need for an automobile safety inspection program in light of a report showing no evidence exists that the program is effective, the lawmakers' Program Evaluation Division recommended Tuesday.
Annually, North Carolinians spend $141 million on inspections. The Division of Motor Vehicles and the Division of Air Quality spend $40.8 million administering safety and emissions inspections.
The Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee directed the Program Evaluation Division to determine if the programs were effective.
In findings released Tuesday, auditors said it is impossible “to determine how much vehicle emissions inspections contribute to the improvement of overall air quality.” Also, the DMV’s program oversight was found to be inadequate.
Greater emphasis should be placed on older vehicles, as they are more likely to fail inspection tests, auditors recommend. The report cited that other states that exempt newer vehicles from inspections.
Auditors suggest the DMV start analyzing information it collects and use it to improve the inspection program. These would include annual reports from the Division of Air Quality, which is part of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
DMV Commissioner William C. Gore said his department had been unable to review DAQ’s reports from 2002 to 2006 because they were suspended during the expansion of the emissions program. In 2007, reportable program evaluations resumed, Gore said.
The Legislature's Fiscal Research Division also should review both inspection programs to ensure an efficient and appropriate allocation of resources, auditors recommended.
The vehicle safety inspection program has been in existence for 42 years and the emission program for 28 years. The efficiency of the programs had not been independently reviewed since the mid-1990s.
In response to the report, B. Keith Overcash, director of the s Division of Air Quality, said the state’s air quality is “improving,” but it is difficult to determine the contribution of the emissions-inspection program.
The DAQ disagrees with the recommendation to exempt the most recent model years from emissions inspections, Overcash said. New cars have the potential to be a larger contributor of air pollutants than older vehicles, DAQ said.
The reasoning was that there are likely to be more newer cars and they are likely to be driven more frequently and driven farther, even though each car may generate less pollution than an older vehicle.



![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/politics/2007/02/06/1195254/1296152831-_NCCapitol_800x600-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/movies/2007/12/29/2229920/2229920-1208172047-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/2008/06/05/3000786/swimming_pool-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/goaskmom/2011/04/28/9516059/9516069-1304016629-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/house_and_home/2008/07/27/3287725/Blueberries-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/traffic/2009/07/23/5645694/beltline-100x75.jpg)


WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
---
That begs the question...isn't being a licenced inspector voluntary? If it's such an onerous process, one might think you'd want to concentrate on higher revenue procedures.
I think the answer is obvious...the inspection certification brings in business that can (and often will!) be upsold on the more expensive "repairs" where the repair shop makes a killing on profit.
You might well be on the up-and-up in your shop but how many of us have found themselves in the repair bay where the inspector is essentially trying to extort ridiculous prices to "repair" the "problems" found during the inspection.
It's especially egregious when you put your vehicle through the exact same paces using the DMV playbook just before pulling in...and yet miraculously there are some "repairs" to be made.
It's the same principle used by the gas station owners...they make nothing on the gas but make a killing in the c-store.
December 17, 2008 4:11 p.m.
----
Given the choice of doing a re-inspection on their own dime or coming to a reasonable price (if any) for the light bulb or wipers, every inspector except one has chosen to play ball.
The one who didn't...I went down the street, bought two brand new wipers for less than what he wanted to charge for one, put them on, and then he had to do the $30 inspection over.
Sometimes people just won't allow you to give them an easy out...
December 17, 2008 4:02 p.m.
December 17, 2008 11:14 a.m.
December 17, 2008 10:22 a.m.
Emissions are an issue, but one can usually see the issue with rolling black smoke coming out of the tail pipe. Officers have the authority to stop a vehicle for broken lights and I would assume they have the same authority to stop a car with black smoke pouring out. If not, they should. In such instances, the person should be required to address the malfunction and then provide that documentation to the court, just as it is done for broken lights today.
It would not be unreasonable to require car dealers to also perform these emission tests. The vast majority of cars on the road are sold by dealers, so such a requirement would mean that the vast majority of cars would be inspected at least once each time the car changes hands.
December 16, 2008 9:18 p.m.