MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
June 21, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 1:30 p.m., June 21, 1993, in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Chairman
Mr. John B. Regan, Vice Chairman
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Ms. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Peter G. Ernaut
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mr. Robert M. Sader
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ashley Hall, Jiffy Smog; Von Sorensen, Nevada Land Action Association; Loyd Sorensen; Norman Thompson; Joe Riordan; Richard Reavis, NDEP; Stan Draper; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Walt Monahan, The Car Doctor; John Hengen, Western Mining Council; Joe Johnson, Sierra Club; Joe Dahl, Elko County Commissioners; Brian Jennison, Washoe County District Health; David Horton, Committee to Restore The Constitution; Ed Presley, Home Rule Coalition; Dick Carver, Nye County Commission; Gene Gustin, Elko County Federal
Land Plan Commission; Steve Yarberough, Nevada Gasoline Retailers; Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Assoc.; Russ Fields, Nevada Department of Minerals; Lew Dodgion, NDEP. Others in attendance as listed on Exhibit B.
Chairman Freeman opened the hearing on S.B. 347.
SENATE BILL 347:
Makes various statutory changes in compliance with federal Clean Air Act.
Mr. Lew Dodgion, Administrator, Nevada Department Environmental Protection, introduced Mr. Dick Reavis who made the presentation on S.B. 347.
Mr. Dick Reavis, Deputy Administrator, Division Environmental Protection, gave a fact sheet which summarized the provisions of S.B. 347, to each member of the committee (Exhibit C). He said S.B. 347 had one purpose, to make state laws consistent with federal law dealing with clean air, specifically the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Mr. Reavis stated there were very formidable sanctions in the Clean Air Act in terms of states adopting the program. The State Environmental Commission was required to adopt regulations, because of the high emission, establishing an enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program in Clark County. Mr. Reavis noted before the Senate there were a number of concerns which involved the enhanced I/M program, and due to those concerns the bill was amended twice to satisfy the interests of those people, and was now in the third reprint. He gave a brief overview of each section of the bill. Mr. Reavis said the backbone of S.B. 347 was the operating permit program which established criminal penalties, civil penalties and the fund account for the fees, inspection and maintenance program. He said the reason S.B. 347 was not more specific rested with the fact the Federal EPA had not yet determined what the requirements would be for an inspection and maintenance program. If a bill would be presented today which would dot every "I" and cross every "T", by the time the Federal EPA decided what the program was to look like it would be less stringent then what the legislature might pass, and Nevada Department of Environmental Protection would be locked in, said Mr. Reavis. This would be the reason for enabling legislation rather than a complete stipulated program.
Mrs. Freeman asked about a fiscal note. Mr. Dodgion indicated any fiscal note was included in NDEP's budget request. The money would come from increased federal grant funds projected to implement the program for the next two years.
Mr. Carpenter questioned what the program would accomplish in Washoe and Clark that the counties were not doing now. Mr. Dodgion said in Clark County an I/M program would be changed to a more sophisticated program using a dynamonitor, a loaded test for the vehicle which would give a more accurate indication of the actual emissions. The testing would be done every two years instead of every year as was being done now. The test and repair stations would probably be separated. Washoe's I/M program would probably remain the same. Mr. Carpenter asked what percentage the air would improve in Clark County with the new regulations. Mr. Dodgion did not know what the projection would be; he had hoped people from the two counties would be here to discuss the projections. He said both Clark and Washoe would be able to bring the air attainment at least in theory within the time frames required under the 1990 amendments of the Clean Air Act. Mr. Carpenter asked about the cost to citizens of Clark County for the enhanced I/M program. Mr. Dodgion replied, having used EPA's projected numbers, the cost would double for each vehicle tested, but the test would only be required every other year. Mr. Carpenter could not understand how testing only every other year would help the air quality, and Mr. Dodgion said the program was the Federal EPA's mandated program, and their analysis indicated with the enhanced program cars would be cleaner using the biennial program rather than using an annual program.
Mrs. Freeman said as she understood the bill mirrored the federal requirements, and the concerns of the different parties in the Senate had been addressed with amendments. Mr. Reavis agreed with the analogy and said to the best of the departments knowledge and ability the concerns had been addressed.
Ms. Smith asked about independent stations which did testing for vehicle emission. She said there had been controversy regarding the independent stations losing their opportunity to test for vehicle emission because of having centralized stations. Ms. Smith said in reading the bill a decentralized station would be set up, if the standards were not met then a combined station would be adopted, and then a centralized station would be adopted as a last action. Mr. Dodgion agreed and said the wording was worked out with those who were concerned. The concern NDEP had in not going with a decentralized system was the cost of equipment for the enhanced program. New equipment such as dynamonitors would be used instead of the tailpipe probe. Mr. Dodgion said his concern would be the independent operators could not afford to invest in the equipment or would not want to. Ms. Smith asked if diesel fuel was ever going to be regulated. He said NDEP had a heavy duty diesel inspection program in the formative stages at this time. Pilot testing was being done to determine the standards for smoke emitted from a diesel engine and the inspection program should be in effect in about six months. Standards had been adopted and should be in place the first of July, 1993, for a light duty diesel vehicle inspection and maintenance program in the two nonattainment areas, reported Mr. Dodgion.
Mrs. Freeman said S.B. 347 had been introduced on March 31 and she asked how long the bill had been under discussion in the Senate. The bill was assigned to a subcommittee chaired by Senator Neal, and there were two meetings teleconferenced to Las Vegas with a great deal of testimony, then to the main committee, to the floor, and amended once on the floor, said Mr. Dodgion.
Mr. Neighbors asked about the amendment changing the administrative fine from $5,000 to $10,000 per day. Mr. Reavis said the $10,000 would be the minimum fine by the federal EPA for a Civil Penalty. Mr. Neighbors asked what happened to the person who was unaware of the new laws. Mr. Dodgion said everyone who was in business had an obligation to themselves and their creditors to be knowledgeable about the rules and laws which affected them. NDEP had worked diligently to inform the regulated community regarding new environmental regulations, new environmental statutes, and held workshops before new regulations were presented to the Environmental Commission for adoption. Mr. Dodgion said they did operate under the Administrative Procedures Act where the department was obligated to give public notice and maintain mailing lists. Mr. Neighbors felt $10,000 a day per offense each day of violation was very strong. Mr. Dodgion said the penalty of $10,000 was mild in environmental laws. In the Clean Water Act the civil penalties were $25,000 per day for each violation for each day and the same for the Hazardous Waste Statutes and the Federal Hazardous Waste Laws.
Mr. Carpenter asked what type of violation would create a $10,000 fine. Mr. Reavis said someone who was on their third offense and had decided they were not going to comply with state law. A study was done for the Senate on how many times the maximum penalty had been assessed over the last year. Mr. Reavis said they looked at the penalties for three years and six percent of the penalties assessed involved a maximum single day penalty. The six percent represented a violation which occurred over a long period of time and rather than multiply a daily penalty times a month, NDEP said a single day maximum would be issued. Mr. Reavis said the penalties allowed or required by federal law were seldom assessed as a matter of principle unless an aggrieves type of act. Mr. Carpenter asked about the ordinary driver and if penalties would be assessed. Mr. Dodgion replied no, the law talked of permit violations, etc.
Mr. Ashley Hall, represented Jiffy Smog, a Clark County Franchise which was a test only facility, no maintenance. Mr. Lew Gardella who owned the small franchise of six test only stations could not be at the meeting and asked Mr. Hall to represent him. He thanked Mr. Dodgion and his staff for the amendments which had been worked through. The nonattainment for Clark County came from not necessarily emissions, but from dust. Clark County was one of six areas in the Western United States which had been so designated. Mr. Hall's concern was with the centralized versus decentralized stations, and he asked the committee to consider in Section 31, page 10, line 37 of S.B. 347 striking the words "provide for" and replacing with "augment with." If stations were complying, rather than put them out of business completely by providing for a centralized system, NDEP could allow them to stay in business and augment with a centralized contract person or system.
Ms. Smith asked for the difference between line 33 and changing line 37 as they said the same thing twice. Mr. Hall said the people he represented were comfortable with a combined decentralized and centralized system, and were not as comfortable with line 37, "provide for a centralized system." Ms. Smith said in essence Mr. Hall wanted to strike the lines entirely because he would be duplicating them with different language. Mr. Hall stated what they would like changed as indicated previously.
Mr. Walter Monahan, The Car Doctor, a licensed inspection station, who had 30 hired technicians, testified in favor of S.B. 347 as written. Mr. Monahan said the improvement of the air quality program as it existed was a sham. The test for vehicles was done on an idle test, not under a load. What was be emitted from a vehicle did not show up in the tests required at this time. He said the Dynamonitor test was extremely accurate would take 10 percent of the vehicles which created 90 percent of the pollution off the highway. Mr. Monahan talked about the types of pollution the test would check for. Mr. Monahan said carbon monoxide was the big problem with pollution in Clark County. He gave examples of the lack of knowledge of inspectors. The trouble with the mixed system was the equipment cost which would be $140,000 per lane. The test would take approximately 15 minutes.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Monahan what would be the most common factor for failing the test. Mr. Monahan said changing the gas filters would be one item, but it was estimated a vehicle would cost approximately $100 per failure to pass the test.
Mr. Schneider asked about older vehicles, 20 or 30 years old. Mr. Monahan said EPA required 1984 vehicles on up to take the new test. 1968 to 1975 vehicles would take a similar type test except the evaporate emissions would be checked.
Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club supported S.B. 347 as written. He said it was important to process the bill and retain the program under state control.
Mr. Joe Dahl represented Elko County Board of Commissioners who had not taken a stand on S.B. 347. He said he understood the general feeling of the Commissioners on the concept and intent of the bill. These kinds of regulations had turned the voters off to government, said Mr. Dahl. Mr. Dodgion and his people had been very cooperative in softening S.B. 347, but the County Board of Commissioners in Elko opposed the concept and intent of the bill.
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Dahl if he was in favor of having the federal government regulate the Clean Air Act as this would be the only alternative. Mr. Dahl said no, and Ms. Smith said if he was opposed to the bill and did not want the state to regulate the Clean Air Act, then he must want the government to make those decisions. Ms. Smith made a strong point, said Mr. Dahl, and that was why the Elko County Board of Commissioners was on record opposing the content and intent of S.B. 347. Ms. Smith questioned Mr. Dahl about clean air. He said Las Vegas and Washoe County had their problems and have the wherewithal to correct the problem. The "Cow Counties" which did not have the problem with clean air felt they did not want to be involved in correcting a problem they did not have. Ms. Smith said most of S.B. 347 was based on county size. Mr. Dahl said the language existed for the smaller counties, but due to cost and need has not been implemented.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Dodgion what the bill would do for the common people on the street. He understood the alternatives and generally was supportive of cleaning up the air in Clark and Washoe Counties. How could Mr. Sader answer his constituents when they were faced with the additional provisions in S.B. 347. Mr. Dodgion felt the primary citizen complaint would come from the implementation of the enhanced program in Clark County. It would probably be less convenient with fewer test lanes available, longer waits, more one-time cost, and people would have to take the car somewhere else to be repaired and bring the car back to be retested. Mr. Sader said Washoe County had recently changed to computer program stations needed to test for emissions in 1987. Mr. Dodgion said there would probably be some changes to the program in Washoe. The waiver provisions under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were more expensive then the current waiver provisions. At this time if $200 of repairs were done on a vehicle and it could not be fixed for the emission standards, a waiver was available. The waiver provision was raised to $450 mandated by federal law. Mr. Sader said some vehicles would never pass the test and would be throwing away $450.
Mrs. Freeman questioned Mr. Dodgion regarding the amendment Mr. Hall had suggested. Mr. Dodgion said the provisions Mr. Hall had asked for were provided in line 33, page 10 of S.B. 347. Mr. Dodgion was opposed to Mr. Hall's amendment and would like the language to stay the same.
Mr. Schneider asked if the bill was killed what would happen to Nevada. Mr. Dodgion said the state of Nevada would receive a letter from the Administrator of the Federal EPA informing Nevada the Federal Government had moved to impose sanctions on the state of Nevada in the nature of transportation funding for highways. A threatening letter had already been received from the state of California. Mr. Schneider asked if the regulations could be changed so a car would be tested and fixed at the same location. Mr. Dodgion said the way S.B. 347 was written options were open, so if the federal law and regulations would allow test and repair, NDEP could do so.
Ms. Smith asked about the implementation time. Mr. Dodgion said the NDEP was to submit their plan by November 15 to the Federal EPA. The plan would be phased in, not just happen on July 1, said Mr. Dodgion.
A great deal of discussion took place regarding the standards and implementation of the Amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Regan asked about page 7, Section 26.5 of S.B. 347, and questioned line 14 and 15, ".........any person is engaged in or is about to engage in....," and asked if psychic worked for the state of Nevada. Mr. Regan asked if Mr. Dodgion would mind. If he amended the phrase. Mr. Dodgion said he would mind, if information was available in which someone was about to engage in a practice of operating a source of air pollution without the emission control device in place, the NDEP should be able to go to court and get a restraining order. It would be the opinion of the judge to get a restraining order and not left to the whim of the director or the whim of the administrator of the division. The pollution would be prevented from taking place instead of having to react in an enforcement mode after pollution had taken place. Mr. Regan asked if Mr. Dodgion did not have the power under NRS445.581, Section 28, which allowed citizens rights under Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution under search and seizure. Mr. Dodgion said they had the power to make an inspection. Mr. Regan said what he was concerned about was...."or engage in any act...." and felt the wording should be made stronger by "information, etc., etc.." Mr. Regan said, "This was like the carny on the old Carson Show, put the card in and give you an answer, and I am not being facetious, a little smart ass but not facetious." Mr. Dodgion said, "You have to have reason to believe, and you certainly have to have sufficient reason to believe to convince a judge, if you have sufficient reason to convince the judge, you should be able to get a restraining order to prevent the act of pollution from happening." Mr. Regan said it did not say anything about a restraining order it simply said NDEP "may do it."
Mr. Neighbors asked how many states had adopted the Clean Air Act. Mr. Reavis said a handful had adopted the entire program. A number of the states, Nevada among them, were waiting to see what would happen if states banded together and lobbied Congress and the Federal EPA to relax requirements.
Mr. Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, administered the motor vehicles emission control program under the parameters and structure established by the state of Nevada Environmental Commission. The concern with S.B. 347 applied to those portions of the bill which affected the motor vehicle emission control program and the department was in support of those provisions. Mr. Sparks suggested a minor amendment which he distributed to the members of the committee (Exhibit D). Mr. Dodgion said Mr. Sparks was right in amending the bill. There was a shifting of the adoption of the equipment specs from the DMV, where they had always been done, to the Environmental Commission. His only objection to the amendment would be delay of the bill, and passage of the bill was necessary.
Mr. Daryl Capurro, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, appeared in support of the amendments by Mr. Sparks. The Senate bill essentially took the part out which referred to diagnostic equipment designation by the DMV and put it into the Environmental Commission. The amendment would put it back to DMV. The passage of S.B. 347 would put in place the generic law necessary for the state to act in the area of mobile source emissions, whatever the enhanced program requirement might be. Mr. Capurro said the federal government had a one-size-fits-all solution, and he would not be willing to gamble millions of dollars in highway funds fighting the federal government over the issue. He said he was not happy, but he did not feel the state could play "Russian roulette."
Mr. Carpenter discussed with Mr. Capurro the problem of garages over charging when repairing to pass the emission tests. Mr. Capurro said the individual doing the testing would be doing the repair and would be able to tell on the diagnostic test what needed to be done. A centralized system or a test here, repair there, would require a vehicle be put on garage diagnostic equipment to point out the problem area. This would be an additional burden, not only to the consumer, but to the garage and emission testing stations which did the emission test.
Mr. Steve Yarberough represented the gasoline retailers and garage owners association, and said the federal EPA did not feel enough cars were failing on an annual basis, regardless of what was coming out of the tailpipe as a result of the test procedure. The bill appeared with amendments to go through a certain set of priorities to get to the requirements. If the garages did try to participate in the program and make the large investment, they would be able to go side by side with a centralized test in those shops which had made the large investment. Mr. Yarberough supported Mr. Hall's amendment in Section 31, Page 10, line 37, striking the words "provide for" and replacing with "augment with."
Mr. Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association, said S.B. 347 had two totally distinct sections, and strongly believed the bill needed to pass. Mr. Bacon proposed an amendment (Exhibit E), which would consolidate the fees collected with the Business License Tax.
Mr. Dodgion said in response to the concerns of the Nevada Manufacturers Association, NDEP had asked for an amendment which appeared on page 4, Section 20.5, lines 32-36, of S.B. 347. When NDEP knew under the Clean Air Act, what the toxic chemical accident prevention program would be, the program would be merged and integrated with the program of last session and the OSHA requirements. Mr. Dodgion said at this time he could not commit to anything more. Mr. Dodgion understood Mr. Bacon's request to put into the act the combination of fees with the business license tax. NDEP was moving toward trying to consolidate fees charged within the division which was a complicated matter to work out. Mr. Dodgion did not want Mr. Bacon's language in the bill at this time because he had not had time to think through the ramifications, but the fees charged for the permits under the Clean Air Act in S.B. 347 were mandated by federal law to be placed into a fund to be used only for certain things. He was concerned the amendment might be a problem with the federal mandates. Mr. Dodgion and the Commission were committed to work toward the consolidation of fees. Mr. Bacon said he knew what Mr. Dodgion's position was and would like to see consolidation of fees, but he was not adamant regarding the amendment.
Mr. Royce L. Hackworth, Hackworth Drilling, Elko, Nevada, said he had a problem with one station doing the emission check and one station doing the repair work. He gave an example of work done with an analysis machine and the problems concerned with it. Mr. Hackworth said a whole set of new problems would be forthcoming. He said he was not opposed to clean air in Nevada.
Chairman Freeman, said because of the number of amendments offered on S.B. 347, the committee would reconvene tomorrow morning, Thursday at 7:30 a.m. for a workshop.
ASSEMBLY BILL 733:
Provides additional means to enforce Nevada's claim to public lands.
Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, District 36, stated Mr. Dave Horton and Mr. Ed Presley who were students of the constitution would testify on A.B. 733. Mr. Neighbors said originally he had problems with the bill but felt they were resolved with the amendment (Exhibit F). Mr. Neighbors spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit G), pages 1 - 7.
Mr. David Horton, Legal Counsel, National Committee to Restore the Constitution, spoke from prepared testimony Exhibit G, pages 1 - 6, Part IV. Mr. Horton also passed out a publication "Nevada's Public Lands" (Exhibit H). He referred to the account of the Hage/Seaman case (Exhibit I), which pointed out violations on Nevada's public lands. A.B. 733 should be enacted, said Mr. Horton.
Mr. Ed Presley, Home Rule Coalition, wanted to bring to the committee's attention words which were in A.B. 733, "an officer, agent or employee of the Federal Government who performs any act outside the scope of his specific authority lawfully delegated." Mr. Presley spoke from prepared testimony inserted in Exhibit G, under Part VI, pages 1-4, as a letter to Chairman Freeman and the Committee. He also referred to Part VII of Exhibit G, pages 1-13 excerpts from cases dealing with necessity for delegated authority. There would be no fiscal note attached to the bill, said Mr. Presley. He stated there were many people in the audience who had traveled hundreds of miles to be in attendance today. Mr. Presley asked for a raise of hands from the audience who were in favor of A.B. 733. Mr. Presley asked the record reflect virtually no one in the room had raised their hand in opposition and the room had been at capacity. Part I and II of the Eisenhower Report (Exhibit J) would be made a part of the record.
Mr. Richard Carver, Nye County said the Commissioners submitted a resolution in support of A.B. 733.
Mr. Russ Fields, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Minerals, offered concurrence in support of A.B. 733 as amended.
Mr. Grant Gerber, Attorney, Elko County, had been hired by Elko County to handle various land matters. One specific instance where the act might affect Nevada was an issue in Elko, County. Last year the Forest Service established 600 acres around "goshawk" nests in Elko, County which prevented a lot of mining and began putting people out of work. It was researched and concluded the federal agents had overstepped their bounds in this area. Elko held hearings and as the process went on more and more people were put out of work. Congressman Vucanovich came in and held a hearing, Gray Reynolds, Regional Forester from Ogden, Utah came in and during the questioning admitted the Forest Service had no authority to put the 600 acre area around "Gosshawk" nests. Obviously the federal agents which put all of the people out of work should have had some action taken against them. A.B. 733 would give some opportunity to place responsibility on federal agents who violated the law. Mr. Gerber said Elko County supported the bill as amended.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Fields if A.B. 733 would have any effect on what had happened in White Pine County in the situation with Magma Copper. Mr. Fields said what Mr. Carpenter was referring to was a situation in White Pine County where Magma Copper, a subsidiary of Magma Nevada, had proposed to reopen the Robinson Mining District, the Copper Mines which dated back to 1907. The proposal would have involved the employment of approximately 500 miners, and a capital investment of $250 million. The initial proposal was made two years ago and the company undertook major studies to determine the feasibility of reopening the district, and part of the feasibility was the environmental studies which became part of an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Bureau of Land Management was the agency which determined an Environmental Assessment was the document required for the environmental studies. At the end of March a finding of no significant impact was issued by the Eagan Resource Area of the Ely BLM, and a thirty day period began where the public had an opportunity to appeal the decision. The decision was appealed by the Sierra Club and the Mineral Policy Center which was an Eastern Anti-Mining group. They used their rights under NEPA to appeal pointing out deficiencies in the study and an Environmental Impact Statement was required. Subsequently the BLM had withdrawn the finding of no significant impact, and all of the parties had begun the process which would lead to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The results caused at least a year's delay in the opening of the mine. Mr. Fields questioned if the study would justify the loss of the economic opportunity. Would the passage of A.B. 733 offer an opportunity to take people to task on this, he did not know. Mr. Fields said if under A.B.733 there was some malfeasant outside of the authorities specifically authorized or directed legally, surely Magma or the citizens of White Pine County could bring an action. In this case the BLM was more in line with looking at getting an operation going which would have provided an economic benefit and protected the environment.
Mr. Presley said yes, because if A.B. 733 was enacted it would cause those people involved in the endless paper trail to take another look, maybe the commerce would pick up and the tax base would be protected.
Mr. Horton said it was his view from experience in law enforcement A.B. 733 would tend to reduce litigation experienced with the "goshawk" issue.
Mr. Neighbors thanked the people who had driven in for the support of A.B. 733. He said he had received telephone calls and letters from Clark County and many of the areas of the state.
The secretary had informed Mrs. Freeman there were people in Las Vegas who thought the meeting would be teleconferenced to Las Vegas. The committee never intended to do so and were never asked to teleconference the meeting to Las Vegas. The chairman did not know where the rumor had started. If anyone mentioned it in Las Vegas it should be made clear there was no intention to teleconference the meeting and apologize they were inconvenienced.
Mrs. Freeman asked for anyone in opposition to A.B. 733.
Mr. Neighbors asked if the chair would accept a motion to Amend and Do Pass A.B. 733. Mrs. Freeman stated it was not her intent to accept a motion today.
The hearing was closed on A.B. 733.
Mr. Regan said there was a subcommittee meeting at 4:00 p.m. on A.B. 511.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. to reconvene at 7:30 a.m., June 22, 1993.
*******
The meeting was reconvened at 7:30 a.m., June 22, 1993 with all committee members in attendance.
Mrs. Freeman called the meeting to order on the issue of S.B. 347.
SENATE BILL 347:
Makes various statutory changes in compliance with federal Clean Air Act.
Mrs. Freeman said the amendments needed to be discussed.
The amendment from Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufactures Association, (EXHIBIT K) was discussed. Mr. Bacon said the regulation was not about Clean Air, the regulation was about complying with federal statutes and punitive measures and regulations and did not have much to do with clean air. Mr. Bacon said they did not like the measure and did not like the original federal act. He said as far as doing business in Nevada it would be necessary for S.B. 347 to pass. The proposed amendment (Exhibit K) would allow the action to be palatable. Mr. Bacon said the amendment should be part of a resolution, but at this late date an amendment would suffice. The alternative would be to have the federal government take control directly and place sanctions immediately on the state of Nevada. On the vehicle emission side the federal government would sign a contract for centralized testing, which would in effect put the small garage owners out of business. The second thing from a fixed site standpoint, would cost considerably more money for the federal requirement and federal testing for the manufacturing industry.
Mr. Dodgion agreed with what Mr. Bacon discussed regarding the passage of S.B. 347. The proposed amendment would be best in a resolution and not in statute. Mr. Dodgion would be opposed to putting the amendment in statute. He did not disagree with the intent or the tone of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Neighbors said on Line 37, page 10, Section 31, of S.B. 347 if deleting ".....provide for .....," and putting in ".....augment with....." those qualified could be dovetailed in with the centralized system. Mrs. Freeman did not believe Mr. Neighbors was discussing the same issue as Mr. Bacon.
Mr. Carpenter said in regard to the amendment offered by Mr. Bacon, he did not see anything wrong with the Nevada State Environmental Commission reducing Nevada's regulations to the minimum standards required by Federal Regulations.
Mr. Sader said Nevada had a federal court decision which prohibited the Legislature from reviewing regulations and disapproving them. The same kind of problem would be promulgating a statute which said any agency must propose regulations. Mr. Sader said the legislature would be restricted to what was put into law, not other avenues.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the legislature had any power over the Environmental Commission. Mr. Sader said if he wanted the Environmental Commission to reduce Nevada's regulations to the minimum standards, then the minimum standards needed to be set in statute. Mr. Sader explained other avenues the legislature could take for commissions, such as letters, reports, etc.
Mr. Ray Sparks, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, spoke on the amendment offered by DMV (Exhibit L). The amendment referred to Section 31, subsection 2, page 10, lines 9-17 of S.B. 347 and would remove the provision which currently required the State Environmental Commission to adopt regulations which specified the diagnostic equipment to be used with the motor vehicle emissions inspection program in counties over 400,000, and move the requirement to Section 32, which would be the section dealing with the existing statutory requirements on DMV and Public Safety. On the Senate side this language emerged when the second reprint was published. He did not believe anyone had intended to alleviate the existing system where DMV would be responsible for the regulations which specified how the testing was done, the type of diagnostic equipment required, and the Environmental Commission was responsible for the general parameters and standards which described the program.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Dodgion if the amendment was agreeable with him and he agreed.
Mr. Ernaut referred to Section 26.5, line 15, page 7 of S.B. 347, and subsection 2, line 24, page 7, the language ".... person has engaged in or is about to engage in....." The question would be if the wording was too vague. Mr. Sader said the wording was standard criteria for the consideration of a temporary injunction or restraining order, but several other things would have to be proven.
Mrs. Freeman asked what the pleasure of the committee was as the passing of this measure was extremely important.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
Ms. Smith's motion would include the amendment from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Mr. Sader asked if this would include the amendment Mr. Neighbors made with "augment." Mrs. Smith said it did not include Mr. Neighbors amendment. The motion died for the lack of a second.
Mr. Bacon had not withdrawn his amendment regarding the business license tax (Exhibit M).
Mr. Dodgion was asked to address Exhibit M. He said Mr. Bacon and others had talked about state and local fees being combined and paid in quarterly installments. Mr. Dodgion supported the concept and felt it would be a good goal to attain. He would hesitate to endorse the amendment with respect to S.B. 347 because the permit fees were mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act and mandated to be put into a fund and dedicated to purposes of the Clean Air Act.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 347.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader said assemblymen from Washoe and Clark Counties would be affected by S.B. 347 and he said as one who had worked for years at the local level in the clean air area on behalf of clients, voting against S.B. 347 would not be getting out of the Clean Air Act, it would simply be a matter of the state regulating the program or the federal government stepping in. Mr. Sader who had worked diligently for the master planning effort in Washoe County on the issues of growth and proper planning and good development practices, said the prospect of having the federal government in Washoe County administer the Clean Air Program in a growing area would be devastating for economic development. The federal government could do anything they wanted in the name of clean air and have no investment in the community to balance against the problems. Mr. Sader said his district was a lower income district and people drove clunkers in his district.
Mrs. Freeman said she also had a low income district in her area where there were many older cars driven.
Mr. Neighbors said the bill did not effect the rural counties but he disliked the idea of the federal government telling the states what to do.
Mr. Carpenter felt if the states kept bowing down to the federal government with all the programs which did not make sense, it would not be the federal government who would be blamed for taking cars away from kids and the only means of transportation to jobs for some people, it would be the state of Nevada who would be blamed. He said, S.B. 347 was not about Clean Air but about regulations, and stated he would vote against the bill.
Mr. Bache said he had some of the same concerns as Mr. Sader and Mr. Carpenter, but Mr. Cappuro said if the legislature did not pass the bill in some form it could cost the state $120 million in highway funds. To make some form of protest Mr. Bache wanted to amend the motion and send it out of committee without recommendation.
Mr. Sader said another motion could not be made while the current motion was on the floor.
Mr. Regan asked about page 8, subsection 28, subsection 2 of S.B. 347 and asked Mr. Sader about the fourth amendment regarding unreasonable search procedure. Mr. Regan would not like to give inspectors the right to search and cease. Mr. Sader said subsection 2 would give them the right to go in but if refused entry, they would have to obtain a search warrant. Mr. Regan asked about changing the wording from "may" to "shall." The term "may" said "if you want to go in, go get a search warrant." If "shall" was substituted it would require someone to get a search warrant when otherwise they might not force the issue. Mr. Sader said it would not be jeopardizing the fourth amendment of the constitution.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER AND GIBBONS VOTED NO.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
June 21, 1993
Page: 1