MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session April 26, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:00 p.m., on Wednesday, April 26, 1995, Chairman John C. Carpenter presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. David E. Humke GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Lew Dodgion, Nevada Division Environmental Protection; Ray Sparks, Department of Motor Vehicles; Sage Hiibel, Carson City Junior High School. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Carpenter and roll call was taken. Assemblyman Humke was excused from the meeting. Mr. Carpenter explained a change on the Standing Rules to conform with leadership's policy regarding attendance. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS THE REVISED STANDING RULES FOR THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (MR. HUMKE WAS EXCUSED AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Mr. Carpenter noted there were two bills on the agenda dealing with emission standards. SENATE BILL 172 - Provides statutory authority for department of motor vehicles and public safety to deny, suspend or revoke license of fleet station. Mr. Larry Stout, Assistant Chief for the Registration Division, stated S.B. 172 was essentially a clean up bill for the emission control program. The current statute established three categories of emission stations, the authorized maintenance station, the authorized station and the fleet station, which was established in the first part of the bill. The authorized station and the authorized maintenance station would be subject to the regulations and licensing provisions. The department would like to have the words fleet station, which were addressed in the first of the bill, added throughout the bill to make the bill consistent. Mr. Bennett asked what a fleet station was. Mr. Stout said it concerned a large business like Sierra Pacific Power who maintained a fleet of vehicles, did their own repairs and had been authorized to emission test their fleet of vehicles only. Mr. Carpenter asked for any further questions from the committee for Mr. Stout. Mr. Dodgion and Mr. Sparks came forward to give a short history of the program and bring the committee up to date. Mr. Ray Sparks, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, suggested Mr. Dodgion could explain the responsibilities of the Division of Environmental Protection and the Nevada Environmental Commission, and he would follow up with the department's responsibilities in terms of administering the Emission Control Program by DMV. Mr. Lew Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, stated the I & M program had been controversial, not only in the state of Nevada but in many other states. He noted the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act required EPA to establish an enhanced maintenance and inspection program for certain ozone non-attainment areas and for carbon monoxide non- attainment areas which exceeded the design value of 12.7 parts per million and had a population of greater than 200,000 persons during the testing period of 1989 and 1990. Las Vegas fit the category of exceeding the CO standard and having the population so they were subject to the EPA enhanced I & M program. Features of the program required it to be centralized, required it to be a test only and have a separation of test and repair. It also required a very sophisticated, very expensive piece of test equipment known as the I/M 240. The waiver fee was increased from $200 to $450. The waiver fee being if a car failed the test, you had it repaired and spent a minimum amount of money on it and if it still failed, you were given a waiver until the next period. This created a controversy in many states. The program in Las Vegas was a decentralized test and repair, tailpipe probe two speed idle test, with a waiver of $200. The IM 240 equipment was very sophisticated and very expensive, the estimates range from $150 thousand to high of $300 thousand to establish a single test lane. This would put most of the small operators doing the I & M smog test out of the business and limit the business to a few larger establishments. The fear was there would be long lines and a lot of waiting time to get the vehicles tested and then since it was a test only shop the vehicle would have to be taken from the test facility to somewhere else to be repaired, back to the test facility to see if it worked. The EPA threatened a number of states with sanctions, California, Virginia, Pennsylvania and others, and then backed off on the sanction threat and then decided to be more flexible. The Federal government was talking about giving more flexibility to the states and being more reasonable, and Mr. Dodgion thought they had done so. In December of 1994, administrator Browner of the Federal EPA, wrote letters to the Governors indicating they would provide more flexibility in the enhanced I & M program and establish a second performance standard, if states could show using the lower performance standard, they could bring the state in to attainment, then they could be in the lower performance standard using less expensive equipment. The schedule for proposing the lower performance standard was supposed to be March of 1995, but had not been published yet in the Federal Register. On April 19th, Administrator Browner wrote to the Governors indicating she had initiated a rule to do so and followed up on her December promise. The Nevada EPA had obtained a copy of the preliminary draft of the regulations establishing the new standard and it appeared she had indeed followed through on her commitment. A lower performance standard was established and a standard Clark County or the Las Vegas valley could use to demonstrate they can achieve containment. The EPA at the state level and DMV could meet the lower performance standard and still retain the existing network of test and repair stations, decentralized, based on an annual test. There will be some upgrading of the testing equipment required but it would be only to the same level which was not required in Washoe County and the cost would be from $12,000 to $15,000. I/M 240 or any dynamometer testing would not be required. He suggested mechanic training and certification program would have to be established and a remote sensing, roadside testing program. The other thing on the waiver which was controversial, the EPA would withhold the implementation of the $450 waiver until January of 1998. NDEP would propose to retain the existing waiver, which was $200 if the vehicle was taken to a repair shop, or $100 in parts if you do the job yourself. Clark County has to submit their attainment demonstration to EPA in June of this year. In order for them to have a complete package they have to have the environmental commission regulations and the DMV regulations in draft form. Mr. Dodgion said they were working on drafting the regulations and have established a couple of workshops for effective parties and interested people to participate. He noted the first one was May 16th in Las Vegas and one later on in the month in Washoe County. The relationship with DMV would be the Environmental Commission has the authority and responsibility for establishing the tailpipe standards, for establishing through regulation the type of program which was mandated for inspection and maintenance. DMV has the bigger job of the nuts and bolts of the equipment and how the inspections would be performed and how the enforcement of the licensing of the stations would take place. Mr. Carpenter asked for any questions of Mr. Dodgion. Mrs. Segerblom asked if this would concern only Vegas Valley or would outlying communities have to come into Vegas to get their cars checked. Mr. Dodgion said it only applied to cars registered within a designated area. The zip codes in the Las Vegas Valley and the hydrologic basin of the Las Vegas Valley would be required to have an inspection and maintenance program as well as Washoe County, but they were not subject to the enhanced requirement. Mr. Neighbors asked if under the law would the rural counties under the law have to comply with the inspection stations, a few years down the road. Mr. Dodgion stated there had been a bill or two in the past which would require the I & M program to be extended to every county in the state. Fortunately they had not passed. The NDEP was not advocating extending the program to every county in the state. He noted as communities grow one might expect something to happen, Carson City would probably be the next largest growth center which might be subjected to the rules but the carbon monoxide levels in Carson City were still around say 60% of the standard and were not in danger of exceeding the standard. Mr. Ray Sparks said the responsibility of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety in administering the Emission Control Program in Nevada was two fold. Number one the emission inspection requirements were in force through the registration process. If your vehicle was based in an area which required an emission inspection, you cannot register the vehicle unless you can produce evidence of the emission compliance. In the vehicle registration process DMV was involved in insuring the emission inspection had been done properly. Mr. Sparks said as Mr. Dodgion explained, DMV was involved in administering the emission inspection program. There was a special budget account in the registration division which was funded by fees charged to emission stations or the certificates of compliance they issue to motorists who have their cars tested. The budget account funds several DMV technicians who work at the registration counters, but primarily funds some inspectors and investigators in the Bureau of Enforcement. Within the program they license the stations who perform the emission inspections, and license the inspectors who actually do the testing of the vehicles. DMV provides enforcement, and investigates complaints against licensees. If a customer complains there had been fraud or improper conduct on the part of an emission station or an emission inspector, the DMV has peace officer authority for sanctions against businesses or individuals who were guilty of misconduct. Typically the sanctions required an administrative fine. In severe cases DMV would put them out of business or pursue a criminal case if warranted. The state environmental commission establishes the parameters of the emission control program in the state and designates those sections of the state which require the emission inspections for vehicles. The environmental commission sets what the standards shall be and the general constraints under which DMV would administer the program. The DMV operates two inspection facilities of their own, one in Las Vegas and one in Reno. Primarily they were operated as referee facilities, if a customer takes their car to an emission station and believes the test was done improperly, they have the ability to replicate the test in their own lab. They do not do testing for registration purposes for motorists. The facility was also used to set up undercover cars. They will take one of their own vehicles and either set it to pass or to fail the emission test. Then with an undercover employee send the car into an emission test station to see if they do the test properly. In addition to the general administration and oversight of the emission testing program, a number of grants were funded out of the special budget account that go back primarily to the local governments who were involved in air pollution control activities. In Clark County it would be the health department and the department of comprehensive planning and in Washoe County it would be the Washoe County Health District. He noted it was essentially the role of the DMV in terms of the emission inspection program. Mr. Sandoval asked about the undercover operation and the person who was out there with the vehicle determined there was a violation. Is the inspector as well as the owner of the facility both subject to fines. Mr. Sparks said they were both subject to fines, however, the policy was if it was a violation that the owner was aware of or should have been aware of then he should be cited along with the inspector. If it was something which was not reasonable for the owner to have knowledge of or condoned, or should have known, the inspector would be cited and not the owner. Mr. Bennett asked to pursue the remote sensor further. Mr. Sparks said the use of remote sensing was through the use of technology of a device which could be set up beside a roadway and operates with an infrared beam. He noted as vehicles pass through the beam it can make a reading of the exhaust of that particular vehicle and help identify those vehicles who were exceeding the emission limits. Primarily the intent would be to identify those vehicles who were gross polluters. Mr. Bennett asked about emission polluters a highway patrolman has spotted and did he have the authority to stop him and cite him to have his vehicle checked. Mr. Sparks said any law enforcement officer right now has the ability to stop a vehicle for visible smoke. Generally it would not be the carbon monoxide problem but there was a statute on the books which prohibits vehicles from emitting excessive exhaust. The department had requested a bill this session which would give DMV the authority to require an emission inspection for a vehicle at times other than the registration renewal. Mr. Neighbors asked on the inspection policy, has DMV tried to make the public aware if they were not satisfied with the inspection they can come to you for a check. Mr. Sparks said they require the emission stations to post certain signs and said that was the only way they publicized the fact a consumer can complain to the department. There were pamphlets they distributed at events such as county fairs, etc. Mr. Neighbors asked if the policy to send people down to check on stations, does it not border on entrapment. Mr. Sparks said they were not encouraging them to break the law, they were checking to see if they were doing the testing properly. He said entrapment would entail the government influencing someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise be inclined to commit. Mr. Carpenter closed the hearing on S.B. 172. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 172. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE WAS EXCUSED AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) The bill was assigned to Mrs. Ohrenschall to give the floor statement. SENATE BILL 173 - Revises provisions governing evidence of compliance with emission control programs. Mr. Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Registration Division, noted S.B. 173 was essentially a clean up bill for Nevada Revised Statutes 445.635. The bill had some implementation dates which have gone past. With the changes in the emission control program, the new flexibility by EPA, the state EPA was required to implement new regulations. Within those regulations will be new implementation dates. Rather than asking for a date which was uncertain at this time to be in the statute DMV was simply asking these provisions be enacted upon by publication and enactment of the regulations by the Environmental Commission. When the environmental commission regulations become effective and establish an implementation date, those would be the dates relative to this statute. On the second page lines 35-36 it simply deletes the category of experimental vehicles from being exempt. In the previous session experimental vehicles were designated as the type of vehicle needing registration. He said DMV was removing these lines to clean up Chapter 445 as well. Those were the two provisions of this bill. Mr. Carpenter asked for any questions from the committee and asked for anyone else who wished to testify on S.B. 173. The hearing was closed on S.B. 173. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 173. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE WAS EXCUSED AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) The work session was opened on A.B. 409. ASSEMBLY BILL 409 - Revises provisions governing state grazing boards. Mr. Carpenter said A.B. 409 was heard Monday regarding grazing boards. The chair would take a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 409. DELETING ALL SUGGESTED CHANGED LANGUAGE IN THE BILL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REFERENCE TO THE OPEN MEETING LAW AND THE CLEAN UP LANGUAGE. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE WAS EXCUSED AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Chairman Carpenter asked for any other business to come before the committee. Seeing none the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _____________________________ Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: _________________________________________ Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman _________________________________________ Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining April 26, 1995 Page