Kansas House Bill HB2222

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/3/25
• Report Pass: 2/13/25
• Engrossed: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Report Pass: 3/6/25
• Enrolled: 3/25/25
• Passed: 4/10/25

Caption

Requiring ignition interlock device manufacturers to pay fees to the state for the administration of the ignition interlock program.

Summary

HB2222 revises Kansas law governing ignition interlock devices, which are installed in vehicles operated by drivers whose licenses have been restricted. The bill keeps in place the Highway Patrol’s authority to approve devices, set calibration and maintenance requirements, and oversee manufacturer reporting, but shifts administration of the program more directly to the Highway Patrol rather than the Department of Revenue. It also preserves existing rules on device approval, service-network requirements, and manufacturer responsibilities for calibration, maintenance, and reporting. The bill creates a new funding mechanism for the ignition interlock program by requiring manufacturers to pay fees to the Highway Patrol: a one-time $10 fee for each device installed in Kansas on or after July 1, 2025, and a $5 monthly fee for each device in use, with an exemption for devices used by people eligible for reduced-cost program assistance. Those revenues are deposited into the newly created IID fee program fund and may be used only for administration, oversight, and monitoring of the program. The bill also requires manufacturers to reimburse the Highway Patrol for costs incurred in approving or disapproving devices and carries forward liability protections for the state and its employees. HB2222 also adds a reduced-cost program for qualifying drivers. A person restricted to driving only with an ignition interlock device may request reduced program costs if their household income is at or below 150% of the federal poverty level, or if they participate in certain assistance programs such as food assistance, child care subsidy, cash assistance, or low-income energy assistance. Eligible participants would pay 50% of program costs, and manufacturers must adjust charges accordingly. The bill directs the secretary of revenue to adopt rules for this reduced-cost process, while the Highway Patrol administers the broader fee program fund and oversight functions. The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. It passed the House unanimously, 123-0, and the Senate by a wide margin, 38-2, suggesting broad bipartisan support for both the funding mechanism and the low-income relief provisions. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote totals indicate little organized opposition. Any likely points of contention center on the new fees imposed on ignition interlock manufacturers and the administrative shift in oversight responsibilities, as well as whether the reduced-cost eligibility criteria are sufficiently broad. The bill balances those concerns by exempting low-income users from the monthly manufacturer fee and by tying reduced costs to objective income and public-assistance benchmarks.

Impact

HB2222 amends K.S.A. 8-1016 and repeals the prior version of the statute, changing how Kansas funds and administers the ignition interlock program. It authorizes the Highway Patrol to collect manufacturer-paid fees, creates the IID fee program fund in the state treasury, and limits use of those moneys to program administration, oversight, and monitoring. It also preserves existing regulatory authority over device approval, calibration, maintenance, and reporting, while adding a statutory reduced-cost program for qualifying drivers and shifting references from the secretary of revenue to the superintendent of the highway patrol for certain functions.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been received positively and with little controversy. It passed both chambers by very large margins, including a unanimous House vote and only two no votes in the Senate. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement that the program should be funded by manufacturers and that low-income drivers should receive relief from full ignition interlock costs.

Contention

The main policy questions are who should bear the cost of administering the ignition interlock program and how much financial burden should fall on manufacturers versus drivers. Some may view the new per-device and monthly fees as a cost shift to industry that could be passed on to consumers, while others may support them as a way to fund oversight without relying on general tax revenue. A secondary point of discussion is the reduced-cost eligibility standard, which is limited to households at or below 150% of the federal poverty level or participants in specified assistance programs; that framework may be seen as either appropriately targeted or too narrow depending on perspective.