Modifies provisions relating to certain fees collected by the Missouri Emergency Response Commission
The changes introduced by HB70 mean that employers will be subject to a standardized annual fee of $100 for their Tier II reporting, with certain exemptions for local governments and family-owned farms. The bill also addresses fees associated with petroleum retail facilities, where the annual fee caps at $50 for each facility. Additionally, it contains provisions allowing for a potential deduction of federal fees for those entities already contributing to federal hazardous material transportation programs. This offers a nuanced approach by regulating financial obligations based on existing federal fees.
House Bill 70 (HB70) proposes modifications to the current fee structure collected by the Missouri Emergency Response Commission. The bill repeals an existing section (292.606, RSMo) and introduces a new section that outlines specific fees to be assessed on employers required to report hazardous materials and substances. The intent of this bill is to streamline the financial responsibilities of employers while ensuring that adequate resources remain available for emergency preparedness in handling hazardous chemicals across the state.
Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB70 is largely supportive among legislators focused on ensuring public safety and environmental preparedness. However, some concerns have been raised regarding the financial burden on smaller employers and local businesses. Proponents argue that the bill will facilitate better emergency planning by ensuring responsive funding for the local emergency planning committees, while critics express worries that fees could pose challenges to businesses already operating on thin margins.
Notable points of contention within discussions of HB70 center around the balance between adequate funding for emergency responses and the financial impact on employers, particularly those smaller or less financially equipped. The formula for calculating fees, and whether it may become a deterrent for compliance among smaller entities, remains a focal point of debate as stakeholders seek to protect their interests while also meeting regulatory requirements. Additionally, the ongoing evaluation of cap limits on collected fees is a point of discussion, which will influence future fiscal stability for emergency preparedness funds.