MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-First Session
March 21, 2001
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 21, 2001. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman
Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman
Mr. Douglas Bache
Mr. David Brown
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. David Humke
Mr. John J. Lee
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
June Rigsby, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Phil Rosenquist, Assistant Planning Director, Clark County
Clete Kus, Manager, Air Quality Management, Clark County
Jim Parsons, Nevada Division of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Dan Musgrove, Legislative Advocate, Las Vegas
Jolaine Johnson, Deputy Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Helen Foley, Clark County District Health Department
Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers’ Association
Dr. Jason Geddes, Petroleum Chemist, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Peter Krueger, State Executive, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association
Russ Benzler, Nevada Division of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation
Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Steve Hill, President, Silver State Materials
Steve Holloway, Associated General Contractors
Mr. Berlon Miller, Nevada Contractors’ Association
After roll was called, Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.B. 198.
Assembly Bill 198: Revises provisions relating to expenditures for air quality. (BDR 40-176)
Phil Rosenquist, Assistant Planning Director for Clark County, distributed a handout (Exhibit C) and commenced testimony in support of A. B. 198. The purpose of the bill was to insert Clark County into the priority order for money from the pollution control account. A $5 fee from smog inspections was deposited into that account. From that fee, $1 was retained by Clark County, and of that 60 percent was diverted to the Clark County District Health Department and 40 percent retained by Clark County. The remainder of the funds was used by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to administer the smog inspection program.
Mr. Rosenquist explained while they had worked on A.B. 198, there had been concurrent work done on S.B. 432 of the Seventieth Session and, as a result, an amendment had been drafted and attached to the handout (Exhibit C). Specifically, the amendment inserted local government agencies as third in the priority list rather than second. It would drop Clark County below the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Mr. Rosenquist explained it was justified based on the joint commitment between NDEP and southern Nevada entities to work together on air quality programs.
Mr. Rosenquist commented on grant eligibility that had been solely based on noncompliance with carbon monoxide (CO) levels. It was expected southern Nevada would eventually achieve nonattainment status for other classes of pollutants (e.g., ozone). As such, grant eligibility would have to be extended to include those newly designated pollutants.
Assemblyman Marvel asked for the balance in the reserve account. Clete Kus, Air Quality Manager for Clark County, explained the state’s excess reserve account had just over $1 million.
Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the amendment and the nature of other pollutants. Mr. Rosenquist explained the proposal would move Clark County down one notch on the priority list below DMV and NDEP. In regard to other pollutants, Mr. Rosenquist clarified it was part of the bill as written and not part of the amendment.
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Department of Motor Vehicles, interjected a point of clarification. Projections for the emission control reserve account were $1.3 million for fiscal year 2002.
Assemblyman Brown asked if the bottom agency on the list of priorities would be guaranteed receipt of funds. Mr. Rosenquist explained the bottom agency, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), had received $3.2 million from the excess reserve account. In Clark County it was believed money generated from smog inspections should stay in southern Nevada; however, all statewide entities on the priority list were entitled to apply for a portion of the excess reserve account.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if any amount from the fund would be diverted to the Tahoe Basin in the next biennium. Mr. Rosenquist stated the TRPA was slotted for $72,000 for air quality monitoring.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked for clarification of the smog inspection fee and the $5 that was diverted to government. Mr. Parsons explained the $5 was deposited into the emission control account in the general fund. It was then distributed to various state and county agencies. The remainder of the inspection fee was retained by the station owner to cover their costs.
Dan Musgrove, a lobbyist for the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) and an employee of the city of Las Vegas, resumed testimony in support of A.B. 198. He explained the additional funds would enable southern Nevada to better handle the ever-increasing challenges of air quality. Assemblyman Marvel asked if he had involvement in the Grand Canyon pollution work. Mr. Musgrove replied the SNRPC did not.
Jolaine Johnson, Deputy Administrator for the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, distributed a prepared statement (Exhibit D) and commenced testimony on A.B. 198. She expressed her appreciation to the counties for proposing NDEP be inserted above them in the priority list; however, there were concerns. As proposed, the local agencies would still receive the $1 of the $5 collected, would still be allocated funds based on their priority, and finally would still be able to apply for grants from the excess reserve funds. Ms. Johnson emphasized the NDEP also had great reliance on the pollution control funds for a multitude of their own programs, and she requested the committee be aware of that reliance by NDEP.
In regard to S.B. 432 of the Seventieth Session, Ms. Johnson added the need was recognized for additional funding of air quality management programs. It had been recommended by the legislative subcommittee that NDEP be charged with identifying funding sources and setting priorities for spending. Ms. Johnson stated it was her understanding the recommendations of the 432 interim committee would be presented in draft legislation shortly. Ms. Johnson concluded testimony with the recommendation the committee consider assigning a subcommittee to address funding priorities for air quality programs throughout the state.
Chairman de Braga requested clarification on how A.B. 198 specifically impacted NDEP. Ms. Johnson reiterated NDEP was concerned the funds currently used might not be available. The funds were not entirely used in the area of origin, and that was part of the problem.
In response to Assemblyman Marvel and to Assemblyman Carpenter, Ms. Johnson stated NDEP had funded 30 percent of their air pollution control programs from that fund. She acknowledged the proposed amendment helped to restore some of their position in the priority list. If more entities were added to the list, however, a loss of funding would result.
Chairman de Braga thanked the witness for her testimony and welcomed, via video-conferencing, a Las Vegas guest, Marcia Forkos. The witness stated she did not wish to testify.
Helen Foley, representing the Clark County Health District, testified in support of the amended version of A.B. 198. She stated emphatically that placing NDEP higher on the list was important. Ms. Foley explained the funds originated in only two counties, Washoe and Clark. More than $4 million (74 percent) had been generated by Clark County. The severe air quality problems dictated adequate funding, and she urged the committee to support the legislation.
Ray Bacon, representing the Nevada Manufacturing Association, echoed the supporting testimony of Ms. Foley. He recommended the committee attempt to synchronize A.B. 198 with S.B. 432 of the Seventieth Session for purposes of streamlining air pollution legislation.
Dr. Jason Geddes, Chemist with the Nevada Department of Agriculture, distributed a handout (Exhibit E) and stated his official position was neutral. He voiced a concern about being fourth on the priority list and being able to continue to fund their fuels and gasoline product-testing program. The entire 100 percent of their air quality work was funded from the smog inspection account. If Washoe and Clark Counties were inserted above the Department of Agriculture on the priority list, the fuel-testing program would be jeopardized. He described their budget needs at $544,000 for 2002.
Dr. Geddes was of the opinion that gasoline and diesel fuels were major contributors to air pollution in the state of Nevada. In reference to the 432 committee findings, many of those recommendations to Clark County were fuel-specific parameters that would require testing by the Department of Agriculture prior to enforcement. The funding would be critical.
Chairman de Braga asked if a percentage was allocated to the Department of Agriculture. Dr. Geddes stated it was not a percentage. The Department of Agriculture submitted a budget for the cost of its program, and, in the past, 100 percent of the request was approved.
Assemblyman Mortenson requested clarification on the source of the fuel samples for testing. Dr. Geddes explained the samples were picked up by the state’s weights and measures inspectors at the pump. He clarified the funds for the metering and inspection work were derived from a tax on the fuel and not from the smog inspection fund.
Assemblyman Carpenter recommended all parties should get together to discuss budget needs.
Assemblyman Claborn asked for clarification about smog inspection plans for heavy construction equipment. Dr. Geddes replied it was not his jurisdiction and deferred to the Department of Motor Vehicles. His agency tested the fuels going into vehicles based on what was expected to be exhausted out of vehicles.
Peter Krueger, representing the Nevada Petroleum Marketers Association, aired concerns about A.B. 198 and the impact to the Department of Agriculture. He echoed the testimony of Dr. Geddes and added consumers had to be assured of quality gasoline products. Being placed in the fourth position of the priority list could impede the Agriculture Department’s ability to protect the public. Clark County had introduced S.B. 357 that asked for an additional $3 on the smog inspection.
Senate Bill 357: Revises provisions governing disbursement of money form pollution control account.
Mr. Krueger urged the passage of state level policy to address air pollution.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if the Department of Agriculture already had guaranteed funds in their budget. Mr. Krueger replied the funds were allocated for the next two years; however, after that, future funding could be threatened.
Chairman de Braga requested clarification from Mr. Rosenquist on the types of pollution covered by those funds. Mr. Rosenquist stated local governments had not been involved in the initial disbursement of monies. They had applied for grants from the excess reserves, and the money awarded to them had been dedicated to research. In the future, Mr. Rosenquist expected new requirements for ozone and PM 2.5 particulates as well as urban haze in the Las Vegas valley.
Assemblyman Brown referred back to testimony in which the figure of $1 million was used to describe the excess reserve funds. Clete Kus confirmed the balance was projected at $1.2 million for each of the next two years. That represented a decrease from a previous high of $3 million. It operated in the black.
In response to Assemblyman Brown, Mr. Kus explained the increase of $3 in the smog fee was intended to enhance existing programs (e.g., the PM 10 plan) and to hire an additional 15 staff to perform inspections in the field. Those were both recommendations of the 432 study committee. The $3 fee, according to Mr. Kus, would be earmarked exclusively for the county of origin. The county commissioners would oversee that portion of the fees.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if the bill coming out of the 432 study committee would cover everything and would, therefore, eliminate the need for A.B. 198. Because the bill enhanced the role of the state, Mr. Rosenquist requested the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) respond.
In response to Assemblyman Marvel, Helen Foley, representing NDOT, clarified the Governor’s mandate not to raise taxes had been considered. The Governor committed his support to NDOT. In order to be in compliance with EPA, Ms. Foley estimated the costs at $12 million. The smog fee bill would contribute $8 million. The remaining $4 million would, in part, be funded through the passage of A.B. 198. Ms. Foley stated the two bills would complement each other, and both were needed.
Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 198. She added there were equity issues to handle from the standpoint of Clark County. Because there were two other bills dealing with the subject of air quality, Chairman de Braga designated a subcommittee to review the other bills. Assemblyman Carpenter and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall were assigned to the subcommittee, with Chairman de Braga serving as the chair.
Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.B. 284.
Assembly Bill 284: Revises provisions governing emissions from certain heavy-duty motor vehicles and construction equipment. (BDR 40-390)
Phil Rosenquist, Assistant Planning Director for Clark County, distributed a handout (Exhibit F) and commenced testimony in support of A.B. 284. In his judgment, the bill under discussion was more complicated and echoed the intent of S.B. 432 of the Seventieth Session. The latter had been amended and evolved during an interim study. Mr. Rosenquist stated the only difference between the two bills was the distribution of penalty monies.
Mr. Rosenquist reviewed the three principal points of A.B. 284. The first component was to direct the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to establish an annual diesel smog check. Further, it enabled the local jurisdictions in southern Nevada to establish an off-road diesel smog check program. It would enable the establishment of urban haze standards and would authorize the retention of penalties by the Clark County District Health Department.
Mr. Rosenquist added Clark County had submitted a resolution and requested Nevada implement an annual diesel on-road inspection program. If the DMV was unwilling to do so, southern Nevada government entities would implement the program. Mr. Rosenquist emphasized the expected addition of non-attainment status for several new pollutants was the motivating factor to be proactive.
Significant progress was reported by Mr. Rosenquist, especially in the area of carbon monoxide and PM 10 compliance. Despite those accomplishments, the brown cloud in the Las Vegas valley continued to worsen. It was their belief diesel exhaust contributed significantly to air pollution in the valley. Mr. Rosenquist referred the committee to a map of states in Exhibit F. The EPA had already declared an intent to implement diesel regulations in the year 2006.
Finally, Mr. Rosenquist stated A.B. 284 addressed the fines and penalties assessed by Clark County Health District. Approximately $17,000 were retained by the Health District, with the remainder going to the Clark County School District. He concluded testimony with the mention of an amendment that would reinstate the words ”diesel fuel or” into A.B. 284.
Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the reference to the change in the allocation of funds. Mr. Rosenquist replied it was on page 2 of the bill. Lines 2‑33 to 2-44 contained the language covering the penalties, whereas the amendment was on page 4-30. He urged the language regarding diesel fuel be retained. There would be no change in allocation of funds.
Assemblyman Collins asked if farm equipment would be included under the definition of heavy-duty motor vehicles. Mr. Kus replied he believed the answer to be “no.” In regard to the impact of the proposed regulations on agricultural operations, Mr. Kus stated the impact had not been determined, and in response to Assemblyman Collins, said the impact could be assessed if necessary.
In terms of the specific geographic areas that would be impacted in southern Nevada, Mr. Kus stated it was his understanding the focus was the Las Vegas valley. Mr. Rosenquist added it was their intent to limit it to the non-attainment area of the Las Vegas valley.
Assemblyman Collins asked for clarification on the standards for implementation and methods of enforcement of diesel regulations. Mr. Kus replied, for the implementation of the on-road component, their recommendation would be the Society of Engineers (SAE) 1667 test. In regard to off-road vehicles, the regulations were judged to be more complicated, and additional tests and standards would have to be adopted.
In response to Assemblyman Collins’ suggestion to copy other states’ regulations, Mr. Kus stated the on-road vehicle could be handled with the SAE 1667 test, however the off-road vehicle was a bigger challenge for testing due to the lack of standards. Assemblyman Collins gave the example of construction equipment sitting in a field and asked if that was an off-road vehicle. Mr. Kus clarified it was his understanding the intent of the bill was to focus on off-road construction vehicles. He was of the opinion that emissions from agricultural equipment in Clark County would be negligible and not worth regulating. The bill would allow local governments to regulate off-road construction vehicles.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the bill provided for designating air quality as red days or green days. Mr. Kus explained it did not contain a provision to shut down construction vehicles on a red day. They would, however, be cited.
Assemblyman Lee requested clarification on using vehicles both on-road and off‑road at a job site. He voiced concern the regulations would impact that situation. Mr. Rosenquist stated Assemblyman Lee’s question echoed the concerns voiced in the last session and reflected a measure of distrust. Mr. Rosenquist acknowledged the issue would require additional scrutiny before standards could be adopted. Off-road issues were described as new ground, and research was needed.
Assemblyman Lee made reference to a recent conversation with Commissioner Woodbury in which the question arose of why smog inspection money was being diverted to the school district. The answer was inserting a third party into the distribution of fines and penalties served to distance the enforcement agency from being funded by the penalties. Compliance was of higher importance than enforcement.
Mr. Rosenquist acknowledged he had heard that argument. He remarked other bills were proposed during the current session that allowed the enforcing agency to retain the penalty monies. He stated the goal was to create a nexus between the money generated from air pollutants and the money to fix the problem. As such, the school district could be required, for example, to use the funds to operate cleaner school buses.
Assemblyman Marvel asked about the impact to road construction in the high growth areas of Las Vegas. Mr. Kus agreed a diesel vehicle that was observed exhausting visible emissions could be stopped and cited. The construction company would be ordered to fix the vehicle or remove it from service. In regard to mining equipment, Mr. Kus was uncertain of the extent of mining operations in Clark County. Several committee members, in unison, reminded him of gravel pits. Mr. Kus stated gravel-moving equipment would be regulated under the bill.
Assemblyman Neighbors asked for clarification if the definition of off-road was “unlicensed.” Mr. Kus replied in the affirmative. If a big rig that was licensed went off-road in the performance of work, it would fall under the regulations for on-road vehicle testing.
In response to Assemblyman Neighbors, the weight limit of 8,500 pounds existed in other sections of NRS. In terms of the penalty money being diverted to the school district, Mr. Rosenquist stated the amount of money was only $200,000 and, as such, was a small amount of the larger school budget. The effort to enforce would be the same regardless of where the money was diverted.
Assemblyman Brown disclosed he represented leasing equipment companies in his law practice. He added the bill would apparently have no impact on those clients. Clarification was requested on whether heavy-duty vehicles would include motor homes that operated on diesel fuel. Mr. Kus replied it was his understanding the heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles registered in Nevada were the only class currently not required to undergo smog emission testing.
Assemblyman Brown reported several instances of trying to locate the vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned by DMV. He discovered certain equipment only had serial numbers and no VIN. Mr. Kus stated on-road vehicles would have a VIN. Tractor-trailers would be impacted, according to the witness.
Assemblyman Brown next gave the example of small construction equipment powered by diesel (e.g., campers) and asked if those would be impacted. Mr. Kus replied in the affirmative and stated smaller vehicles such as backhoes would be covered as well as dump trucks. Those were usually fueled by diesel.
Assemblyman Brown made reference to page 4, line 31 in which it described the program to be substantially similar to that of California. In defense of the clause, Mr. Kus commented that, historically, the wording had been included in the NRS as it related to air quality. It was judged to be the most cost-effective means to look at what had worked in neighboring states.
Assemblyman Brown asked who would develop the standards for vehicles used for off-road construction. Mr. Kus explained they would work with their legal counsel as well as involve as many stakeholders as possible early in that process. Public hearings would be held.
Assemblyman Claborn asked if the bill pertained to only off-road equipment. The committee voiced “no,” and Mr. Kus clarified the bill had two components. One was on-road and the other was off-road construction equipment. In response to Assemblyman Claborn’s comment on county vehicles, Mr. Kus added all government vehicles were required to be smog tested. Assemblyman Claborn expressed his fear A.B. 284 had the potential to interfere with growth in Las Vegas. Mr. Kus did not share that concern.
Chairman de Braga asked Mr. Rosenquist if he had participated in the 432 interim studies on air quality. She recalled the report had indicated DMV random checking would suffice, and the imposition of an amendment was not warranted. Mr. Rosenquist agreed DMV had made that recommendation. The visual inspection of on-road big rigs, followed by random testing, revealed a low rate of failure. Based on that experience, DMV was reluctant to support widespread testing of heavy-duty diesel vehicles.
Russ Benzler, Administrator for Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, offered to respond. Mr. Benzler defended the recommendation and stated it was based on a 2.4 failure rate. He added the 432 interim-study committee had adopted that recommendation unanimously.
Assemblyman Lee asked if diesel engine testing followed an eight second waiting period after ignition. Mr. Kus stated it was described as a snap and idle test and agreed it was a relatively quick test. Assemblyman Lee posed a question about who would be fined in the case of rented equipment. Mr. Kus acknowledged it was a valid concern, and he speculated the burden would be on the rental agency.
Assemblyman Neighbors asked why diesel pickup trucks had been exempt from the bill. Mr. Kus stated the lighter duty trucks were required under existing statutes in Las Vegas to be tested. The larger vehicles, four tons or more, were currently not required to undergo any testing. The budget to administer that program would be similar to the one for the gasoline powered vehicles and would be supported directly by the testing fees.
Assemblyman Mortenson requested clarification if the bill changed the penalty fees diverted to the school district. Mr. Rosenquist called the committee’s attention to lines 2-33 to 2-44 which stated if the county had rules in effect, the health district would retain all of the money. Assemblyman Mortenson disagreed and stated an agency should distance itself from the penalty money. He encouraged it be amended.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if the National Guard would be under their jurisdiction. Mr. Kus replied military vehicles were exempt and not required to undergo any on-road emission testing.
Assemblyman Collins reported he had attended a meeting of the Grand Canyon Tourism Commission in 1994. He was alarmed at the direction of the commission toward severe restrictions on air pollution. Mr. Rosenquist replied their intentions were dissimilar, and the focus was to address the brown cloud in the Las Vegas valley. The cloud was described as a complex mixture of pollutants that would require significant research before it could be remedied.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau, commenced testimony in opposition of A.B. 284. The impacts to the agriculture industry were, according to Mr. Busselman, understated and inaccurate. Ranchers used backhoes as farm vehicles, and Mr. Busselman was concerned the farm equipment would not be exempt. He suggested the proponents of the bill should design the specifics of the plan first and then revisit A.B. 284 to determine the impacts to agriculture.
Assemblyman Carpenter added his concerns, specifically about the age of so much farm equipment. Many farmers would be unable to meet the requirements for emissions. Mr. Busselman agreed and stated it would be too risky for the agriculture interests to agree to regulations without knowing about the emission tests or the grading system.
Assemblyman Claborn advocated all stakeholders should participate in the process. It would not be fair to target just the construction industry without consideration of the impact of agricultural vehicles. Air pollution was everybody’s problem, and A.B. 284 did not do enough to target a wider variety of industries.
Chairman de Braga clarified the distinction between construction and agriculture was the latter was principally off-road. Mr. Busselman referred the committee to page 2, line 20 that referenced diesel powered construction equipment used primarily off-road. He restated his concern the proposed law could eventually be applied to farm vehicles in the future.
Daryl Capurro, Managing Director of the Nevada Transport Association, resumed testimony in opposition of A.B. 284. He cited several issues that were in direct contradiction to the findings of the S.B. 432 interim study committee. One of those issues concerned the coordinating role of the state. Because most air problems were regional in nature, the state should be assigned to enforce regional haze standards set by the U.S. EPA.
Mr. Capurro called attention to the lack of manufacturing standards for construction equipment as well as to the fuzzy definition of construction equipment in the bill. The variety of equipment (e.g., all-terrain vehicles) that could be utilized on a construction site was described as extensive. Mr. Capurro, in arguing for state oversight and authority, stated all mobile vehicles and equipment were already the purview of the state and not the counties.
Mr. Benzler stated emphatically Clark County did not have the financial resources or the ability to operate a program as proposed in A.B. 284. He added the wording regarding diesel powered heavy equipment was totally open-ended and invited unfair, inconsistent application. In his judgment, on-road big-rig diesel vehicles were not the principal source of opacity problems.
In conclusion, Mr. Capurro summarized by saying the program would likely cost millions and would accomplish very little. Transportation companies would begin to register their fleets in other counties in order to sidestep the regulations of Clark County. Interstate vehicles would also be exempt from Clark County scrutiny.
Steve Hill, President of Silver State Materials in Las Vegas, resumed testimony in opposition to A. B. 284. He acknowledged air quality issues were everybody’s problem, however the proposed methods for dealing with air pollution caused him great concern. The opacity test was described as a methods-oriented test rather than a result-oriented test. A diesel engine could be tuned so it did not emit visible smoke. As such, the ozone precursors increased in volume, and it was the invisible pollutant that did more harm to health, in Mr. Hill’s judgment. In conclusion, Mr. Hill stated growth in Las Vegas would be impacted, and new industry would be denied if the bill were passed.
Steve Holloway, Executive Vice President of the Associated General Contractors, spoke in opposition to A.B. 284. He expressed greatest concern on the requirement to test off-road vehicles. The costs would be very high for government, construction, mining, and agriculture. Mr. Holloway opined diesel engines were more environmentally friendly than gasoline-powered engines. Diesel engines were more fuel efficient and, therefore, spewed 30 percent fewer carbon emissions.
Mr. Holloway concluded his testimony by stating there were no emission standards set by the EPA for off-road diesel emissions. Standards were expected in 2005, and, at that point, the standards would not be made retroactive. In summary, he concluded A.B. 284 was poorly conceived and badly written.
Berlon Miller, representing the Nevada Contractors Association, concurred with the testimony given in opposition to A.B. 284. The bill was too vague and would require everyone to sign a blank contract. The rules of the game had not yet been established.
Chairman de Braga announced there was no remaining time, and the discussion on A.B. 284 would resume on Monday, March 28.
Chairman de Braga called for a committee introduction of BDR 40-1191 (A.B. 546).
· BDR 40-1191 – Revise the distribution of administrative fines levied for air pollution regulations.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-1191.
ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:37 p.m.
June Rigsby
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman
DATE: