MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      February 22, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:35 p.m., on Monday, February 22,  1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman

      Mr. Val Z. Garner, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Bernie Anderson

      Mrs. Vonne Chowning

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Ms. Lynn Hettrick

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Speaker Joseph E. Dini, Jr., District 38

      Assemblyman Christina R. Giunchigliani, District 9

      Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, District 33

      Assemblyman Pete Ernaut, District 37

      Assemblyman John W. Marvel, District 34

      Assemblyman Dean Heller, District 40

      Assemblyman Roy P.M. Neighbors, District 36

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst

      Legislative Counsel Bureau

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

     

      Bryan L. Jennison, Washoe County District Health

      Andrew Goodrich, Washoe County District Health

      Steve Yarborough, Nevada Gasoline Retailers

      Sonja Johnson, Self

      Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau

      Reno Quilici, Churchill Farm Bureau

      Bob Hadfield, Nevada Rural Counties Association

      Grant Mills, Self

      Les Dunn, Lyon County

      Darryl Capurro, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association and   Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.

      John W. Riggs, Sr, Fire Photo Service

      Mario Pucci, Citizens of Nevada

      See attached guest list (Exhibit B)

 

Chairman Spitler asked members to review the Nevada Department of Transportation's State Highway Preservation Report and the Report to the 1993 Legislature.  If desired, a presentation would be arranged for NDOT to discuss the studies.  Other critical documents which required review were the studies done on A.B. 812 of the Sixty-sixth Session.  Mr. Spitler emphasized review of the documents as they would basically shape the work of the committee for this session. 

 

Chairman Spitler requested committee introduction of a bill to assist motor carriers in identifying individuals to train people for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. 

 

      MR. TOOMIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED BILL DRAFT.

 

      MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 130:    Allows use of mobile units to inspect motor                         vehicles for compliance with standards for                            emissions.

 

Chairman Spitler explained the primary sponsor of A.B. 130 was unable to attend the hearing.  Those members of the audience who were present to testify on A.B. 130 chose to testify at the rescheduling.  Mr. Spitler stated the bill would be rescheduled and apologized for any inconvenience.  He was not notified until late morning that the sponsor could not be there.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO 151:    Requires state environmental commission to                           adopt program to control emissions from                              motor vehicles in all counties.

 

Ms. Christina Giunchigliani, Assemblyman District 9, explained the bill expanded emission control to all seventeen counties and also expanded within Washoe and Clark counties to outlying areas such as Lake Tahoe and Mt. Charleston. Understanding the cost concerns, she stated she attempted, with the bill, to deal with air as an issue because air quality did not stop at one border, county line, etc. She expressed the importance of thinking globally and not locally. 

 

Chairman Spitler asked if the issue reflected containment areas or areas not in compliance with EPA standards.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated there were many areas that did not meet compliance however it was hard to track what areas affected another area.  She understood, on the books, emission control numbers were not high enough to be met in the Lake Tahoe area that would justify  placement of EPA standards.  Regardless of the standards, there were cars commuting to the Lake Tahoe  and Mt. Charleston areas and they felt the areas should be protected.      

 

Brian L. Jennison Director, Air Quality, and Andrew Goodrich, Staff Specialist for Planning, Washoe County District Health were present to testify in support of the bill. Mr. Jennison read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C) voicing Washoe County's support of A.B. 151.

 

Chairman Spitler asked what prohibited Washoe County from expanding its control requirements into the Tahoe Basin portion that lies within Washoe County.  Mr. Jennison explained their division felt expanding was something they wanted and needed to do.  This could have been requested from the State Environmental Commission; however, their concern was the contributing mobile sources. He stated people from rural areas who operated cars without emission controls contributed greatly to the pollution of Washoe and Clark Counties when they entered those counties. 

 

Mr. Garner asked about the statistics available to show what portion of pollution was caused by cars from other states.  Mr. Goodrich stated the Nevada Department of Transportation's study did include numbers of cars, differentiated by states.  The percentages in Mr. Jennison's testimony (Exhibit C) referred to vehicles in Nevada only.

 

In answering a question from Mr. Collins, Mr. Jennison stated his percentages were fewer than 10,000 automobiles registered in Washoe, Lyon, or Carson Counties.  Mr. Collins felt in discussing the figures, they were greatly exaggerated and could affect tourism.  Mr. Jennison explained as a public health official, his interest in the bill was in terms of health matters as opposed to dollars.

 

Mr. Hettrick, in regard to the Tahoe area, questioned the possible dual regulations conflicting with the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority as they already regulated vehicle miles traveled, etc.   

 

Mr. Anderson inquired on the number and monitoring of residents living in Washoe County who register vehicles in adjacent counties to avoid the Washoe County's emission control standards.  Mr. Goodrich stated the Department of Motor Vehicles had a system in place.  In answering a question from Mr. Anderson,  Mr. Jennison explained the bill would basically affect passenger automobiles and not farming or mining vehicles/equipment,  many of which were already exempt. 

 

Steve Yarborough, Nevada Gasoline Retailers and Garage Owners Association, stated he remained neutral on the bill but felt points should be brought out as far as Clark and Washoe County were concerned. He stated sanctions against these counties for not meeting the mandated EPA standards would not only have affected Washoe or Clark counties, but the entire state.  EPA looked at the state as a region without any county distinction. Mr. Yarborough also stated smog checks did not clean the air, the did however identify the problems in those vehicles that were polluting.

 

Speaker Joseph Dini, Assembly District 38, testified in opposition to A.B. 151.  Representing several outlying counties adjacent to Storey, he voiced concern for the costs inflicted on the commuters.  Mr. Dini thought everyone felt the responsibility that they must do their part for better air quality and he cited a project in Yerington as an example.  Mr. Dini sympathized with Washoe and Clark Counties' air quality problems but felt there was no need to impose these restrictions on all counties as rural counties did not have air pollution problems.  Mr. Dini reminded the committee President Clinton already had added another energy cost. The rural residents did not need additional costs or regulations.

 

Mr. John C. Carpenter, Assembly District 33, testified in opposition to the bill.  Mr. Carpenter felt a national effort was being made to clean up the fuels, vehicles, etc.  He felt the bill would place a burden on the rural residents and the situation would still have not been helped.

 

Mrs. Chowning was concerned about the costs involved per vehicles.  Mrs. Chowning stated she represented a highly air polluted portion of Clark County which deeply concerned her; however, those that own  older vehicles contributing to the pollution were older, lower income people. She stated these were the people that could least afford those costs.

 

Mr. Collins felt placing restrictions on rural counties would lead to further restrictions such as wood burning bans, etc.  Mr. Carpenter agreed that restrictions led to further restrictions and Elko County could be counted on to address the problems when they arose.  Mr. Anderson felt assurance was needed  for vehicle emission control maintenance several years after vehicles came off the assembly line.  Mr. Anderson stated it was important to assure the pristinely conditions of counties such as Elko and questioned if Elko had the same standards as Washoe County which predominately followed the California emission control standards.

 

Mr. Pete Ernaut, Assembly District 37,  testified in opposition to the bill.  Mr. Ernaut voiced concern for financial constraints the bill  would place on constituents and for exaggerated commuting figures. 

 

Mr. John Marvel, Assembly District 34, voiced opposition to the bill.  He felt a fiscal note needed to accompany the bill and it was an area of governmental intervention that was not needed. 

 

Mr. Dean Heller, Assembly District 40, expressed disappointment that the author of the bill was not present but he felt it was important the numbers which reflected Carson City's residents were accurate.  He then introduced Marv Teixeira, Mayor of Carson City.  who  testified in opposition to the bill (Exhibit D).  Mr. Teixeira felt the bill would have a tremendous impact and it was important to put in prospective just what that impact would be.  Mr. Teixeira explained how he derived his figures (Exhibit D) and stated if the bill was passed, his modest bottom line cost to the residents of Carson City, would be $570,000 annually.  He felt if this amount in any way mitigated Washoe County's problem, they would appease them; however, the percentage of cars entering Washoe County from Carson City represented 3.5 tenths of one percent of the cars in Washoe County on any given day.  Mr. Teixeira stated the air, according to EPA figures, was better today than in 1984.  He suggested requiring commuters working in Washoe County go through emission control, but not punishing the residents of one entire county.

 

Assembly Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, on behalf of his constituents in Lincoln, Nye, Esmeralda, and Mineral Counties voiced opposition to A.B. 151.

 

Sonja Johnson, Self, testified in opposition to the bill (Exhibit E).  Mrs. Johnson stated she was a farmer from Fallon, Nevada.  She voiced concern of the discretionary privileges given to the environmental commissions and the impact the bill would place on the rural communities, particularly farmers.  She explained the cost impact the bill would have on her alone would be approximately $1,000 for the two pick-up trucks she used on her farm, not mentioning her farm equipment.  She recommended if the bill was necessary, it should be amended to include, for example, only cars from 1986 and up. 

 

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice-President, Nevada Farm Bureau, reading from prepared testimony (Exhibit F) voiced opposition to the bill. 

 

Mr. McGaughey asked the Chairman if he would recognize a motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 151.  Chairman Spitler explained it was not his intention to take action on the bill at this time.  He intended to have the research analyst study a few concerns. However, he did state the proponents of the bill had not proven to his satisfaction the merits of the bill.

 

Mr. Reno Quilici, Churchill Farm Bureau, expressed his concern with the cost impact the smog control requirement would entail, and the burden placed on residents.

 

Bob Hadfield, Nevada Rural Counties, Nevada Association of Counties, testifying on behalf of the counties, voiced opposition to the bill.  He explained the philosophy of their organizations was to address matters through cooperation of local governments. They felt regional strategies could be developed through negotiations of local governmental entities. The organizations could then approach the state in consensus to seek assistance for solutions. In answering a question from Mr. Collins, Mr. Hadfield explained there was 100,000 population cap that created a distinction between two counties and the rest of the state for emission controls.   Mr. Hadfield, in answering a question from Mr. Anderson explained all counties supported the philosophy in solving matters through local government rather than bringing them to the legislature; however, he would not testify that all counties were in opposition to the bill.  He stated all other alternatives should be addressed before coming to the legislature. He stressed cooperation was needed, however, in organizing such alternatives.

 

Grant Mills, a Fallon farmer, voiced opposition to the bill.  He felt they could respond directly to the air quality review by the Department of Transportation.  He explained to bring his vehicles for his small business into compliance would cost $20,000 with a net emissions reduction to the Truckee Meadows of zero. He felt farmers could make a greater contribution to the environment elsewhere.

     

Les Dunn, Road Superintendent, Lyon County, expressed his opposition to the bill.  He was concerned with the tremendous financial impact the bill would have on Lyon County.  He stated it seemed senseless to bring vehicles into compliance that would be out of the system in a couple of years. 

 

John W. Riggs, Sr. Firematic Collectors of Northern Nevada, stated as a collector of fire trucks and restorer of older vehicles, he was aware restoration could bring cars into compliance, often in better condition and with higher emission control standards than when originally sold.  He cited last year during the Hot August Nights celebration when there were hundreds of old cars in Reno, an alleged emission test was conducted and the findings of the emission releases were lower than on a normal day with  no such activity.

 

Chairman Spitler stated he would be working with Kerry Carroll, Senior Research Analyst to review: 1) the hearing conducted a few years ago by Environmental Protection, 2) the fiscal note involved in the bill, 3) Mayor Teixeira's notes and figures, and 4) county involvement.  With no further people to testify on A.B. 151, the hearing was closed.

 

Mario Pucci, Citizens of Nevada, stated he wished to address the committee regarding his concern there were no set regulatory rules for heavy commercial vehicles crossing state lines (Exhibit G).  Mr. Pucci stated he  distributes documents (Exhibit H) to the members documenting the need for regulatory rules for heavy commercial vehicles.      

 

Darryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association, addressed Mr. Pucci's concerns and explained A.B. 812 of the 66th Session provided the necessary language for the EPA to adopt a random on-road inspection program patterned after California. He explained certain requirements mandated under A.B. 812 of the 66th Session.  He said both regulatory and statutory, they have all necessary language to begin implementing the requirements of the bill.  In answering a question from Mr. Collins, he stated A.B. 812 (of the 66th Session) affected vehicles over 8,500 pounds. 

 

With no further business, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.

 

 

            RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                   

            Carolyn J. Harry

            Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Transportation

February 22, 1993

Page 1