Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/27/2003 01:32 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 81-MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act relating to motor vehicle emissions; and providing for an effective date." Number 1962 REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of HB 81, said the bill has to do strictly with the "I/M program" [inspection and maintenance program for automobile emissions] and that it is only in the cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks. He said the need for streamlining the bill was brought to his attention due to input from Anchorage, Fairbanks, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the AMATS [Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions] program. He said the bill streamlines the motor vehicle emissions testing process, improves the enforcement process by the I/M programs, and enhances consistency among the various departments that oversee the program. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said the fine is being raised from $200 to $500. The average cost of an I/M inspection is $250. However, with more costly repairs running up to $2,000, the current fine of $200 is an economic incentive for not complying with the program. He explained that the reason that Anchorage and Fairbanks have this program is due to their being in violation of the Clean Air Act. This bill removes the requirement that alternative fuel vehicles don't need to have an I/M inspection. It was thought that those [alternative fuel vehicles] were using clean-burning fuels, like natural gas - and they are. However, if the vehicle is not maintained, it can still pollute the air. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated that there are several loopholes in the vehicle registration and I/M programs. For example, vehicle registration can be renewed but a car must have a current and valid emission inspection. This bill attempts to correlate the inspection and registration processes so that they happen at the same time. The current scenario causes enforcement problems; this bill attempts to achieve more fairness. Number 2126 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER testified that HB 81 clarifies which emission program requirements must be met when the ownership of a vehicle is transferred. For example, when the title is being transferred and the vehicle is a 1987 model or older - a car that was thought to pollute the most - the vehicle must have an existing emissions inspection that is not more than two years old, or have a certificate of inspection that shows that the vehicle is not in compliance. Under current statute, these vehicles have to maintain a certificate that is not more than 12 months old. This bill eliminates the extraneous testing requirements for those vehicles. It also offers a consumer protection clause because of the decal on the windshield; when buying a used car, someone will be able to tell more easily if the vehicle has been inspected. Representative Meyer said that the Department of Administration is the only department that enforces the emissions program; this bill also involves DEC and the municipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks in the enforcement process. Number 2156 CO-CHAIR MASEK said that there wasn't a fiscal note accompanying HB 81. [She received confirmation from the committee aide that a fiscal note had already been requested from the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).] REPRESENTATIVE MEYER commented that HB 81 does not have a House Finance Committee referral. He said he doesn't think there is any impact to the state because the program is paid for by the fees. Number 2213 CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, said the division does not administer the emission inspection program but is the enforcement arm of the program. He stated that when the program was first initiated, it was a fairly simple process; there had to be an emissions inspection or else DMV would not register the vehicle. Over the years, a number of provisions pertaining to ownership have created confusion, not only for DMV but also for customers. He acknowledged that it is almost impossible for a consumer to know if a car is in need of an emissions inspection or not. This bill takes a "major leap forward" for customers by removing confusion and unnecessary inspections; it simplifies the program because it is based on the registration. He explained that if a person owns a car in either Anchorage or Fairbanks and the car requires an inspection, that inspection must occur every two years before DMV will register the car. He said a fiscal note was prepared and there is no cost involved to DMV; it is a zero fiscal note. He stated that DMV supports this bill and believes it will benefit the state and will help DMV customers. Number 2285 REPRESENTATIVE FATE wondered what would happen if someone wanted to buy an automobile that had been sitting in a yard - a vehicle that worked but was past the designated two-year time period and therefore didn't have a [valid] emission sticker on the windshield. He inquired as to what would happen if the owner of the car was an out-of-state student or, for one reason or another, couldn't get the car to an emission station for re- certification; he asked how the penalty would be enforced. He noted that the penalty would now be $500 rather than $200, and asked if it would be the buyer or the seller who would be responsible for having the emissions inspection completed if the transaction [for buying the car] had been handled through the [U.S. Postal Service]. Number 2339 MR. HOSACK replied that the person who actually registers the car would be responsible for obtaining the emissions inspection. He said this law takes away the requirement of needing a separate emissions inspection at the time of a change in ownership. He stated that even if the car sits for one, two, or three years, when the time comes to register the car, the owner at that time is the person responsible for providing DMV with proof of a current emission inspection. CO-CHAIR HOLM asked how a seasonal waiver would be accommodated by the two-year requirement. TAPE 03-13, SIDE B MR. HOSACK said that a seasonal waiver would be in lieu of the emissions inspection and would be a method of compliance for those vehicles that are not driven during the cold-weather months. He said that the seasonal waivers are accepted but would need to be provided at each registration renewal. Number 2383 CO-CHAIR HOLM referred to a particular situation in which the seasonal waiver pertains to a vehicle registered in Fairbanks that has been taken out of state. He said this is a "Catch-22" situation because a tag cannot be obtained because the vehicle is registered in Fairbanks, yet a seasonal waiver cannot be obtained because it is not in Fairbanks, and an emissions inspection cannot be obtained because emissions aren't tested in Arizona. He asked what to do in this situation. Number 2365 MR. HOSACK said there is another process called the "outside use waiver" that is similar to the seasonal inspection. It is used by college students, the military, and people who own motor homes outside of the state. He said that these "waivered" certificates can be obtained through the mail, from either the Fairbanks borough or the Anchorage municipality, and are then submitted to DMV before the registration is processed. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked how many $200 violations have occurred annually over the past several years. Number 2329 CYNTHIA L. HEIL, Section Manager, Mobile Sources Section, Department of Environmental Conservation, said that currently the Municipality of Anchorage enforcement agency writes the $200 ticket. She said that in one year over $40,000 was collected in fines. REPRESENTATIVE FATE calculated that this amounted to approximately 200 violations. He wondered if the number of violations would remain the same, or if raising the dollar amount from $200 to $500 would serve as an incentive, resulting in an increase in the number of annual violations. He commented that there was no way to answer the question at this time. Number 2219 JAMES ARMSTRONG, Coordinator, Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions, said he could provide further technical information during the next week. He said that in the past, when he worked for then-Senator Donley, the penalty had been changed from $100 to $200, pointing out that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wanted to add more enforcement to the statute. Number 2192 RON G. KING, Program Manager, Air Non-Point & Mobile Sources Program, Department of Environmental Conservation, provided the following testimony: The department supports HB 81 as Representative Meyer's indicated in his testimony, and I must say he did a very good job. This bill allows the department and local communities to implement the motor vehicle emissions program more efficiently. Number 2161 A specific example that improves our operations and benefits the citizens is Section 3 of the bill. Section 3 removes the requirement for an additional test on older vehicles. Since Anchorage has not violated the air quality standard in six years and the number of older vehicles requiring repairs has diminished, it is possible to eliminate this requirement without impacting air quality. The rest of the suggested changes in HB 81 address limitations or [provide] additional tools to improve our efficiency, which in turn will ensure equal treatment and minimize program costs while maintaining program effectiveness. Number 2127 MR. KING continued: The vehicle inspection program has been the cornerstone of efforts to achieve the health-based standards for carbon monoxide in both Anchorage and Fairbanks. As Anchorage and Fairbanks move into what is called "maintenance status" - meaning they have achieved the health-based standards and now must ensure that communities do not exceed those standards in the future - it is important the vehicle inspection program is effective, easy to operate, and minimizes impact on the public, as much as any regulation can. This bill offers an opportunity to improve program efficiencies and eliminate unnecessary requirements such as the additional testing requirements for older vehicles, which is a statute that requires a statute change. I'd be willing to answer any questions more specific to the I/M program. Number 2099 CO-CHAIR HOLM commented that he had served on the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly for three years, and during that time there were no failures with emissions control violations. He pointed out that even with those results, there has not been consideration on the part of the testers regarding the location of the testing stations within the borough. He wondered who was responsible for doing the testing, monitoring the testing, and making sure that compliance standards were being met. He mentioned that there has not been a 50- to 60-degree-below [zero] winter for some time, and that air inversions, rather than emissions control, are the direct reason for the problem. He said that in Los Angeles, testing is done at a distance from the place where a lot of emissions exist, whereas in Fairbanks testing is done right in the worst possible place, and then extrapolated to the entire area. Number 2033 MR. KING responded that his group is not responsible for monitoring the ambient air, which he presumed was the testing to which Co-Chair Holm was referring. He said work has been done with the Fairbanks North Star Borough to establish additional monitors, located away from the downtown area. He reported that there used to be a monitor at the state office building, and one at the downtown post office. The state office building monitor has been discontinued, and he believes it has been relocated to the armory. Until construction started this year, another unit was located at Hunter School, which is situated farther away from the core downtown area. In addition, work has been done with the Fairbanks North Star Borough for a National Academy of Science review of the air quality conditions that cause violations of the standard in Fairbanks. He reported that the final report is being concluded and that the first phase requested that additional monitors be located in other areas of the community; thus the reason for the relocations. Number 1955 MR. KING continued that the monitoring locations downtown in the "hot spot" are part of the requirements established by the EPA and that its concurrence has been obtained in order to relocate those monitors away from the central, core area. He agreed that there have not been violations in Fairbanks for the past three years, or in Anchorage for the past six years. He stated that because of that, maintenance plans are being developed to ensure that the communities continue in the same way. All of the control measures available, such as the ethanol fuel program in Anchorage or the vehicle inspection program, are under consideration for how much flexibility the programs can incorporate while continuing to demonstrate maintenance. Number 1920 CO-CHAIR HOLM stated that he represents District 9, which encompasses downtown Fairbanks, and that "monitors 8, 9, 10, and 11" are all adjacent to Fairbanks. He said that all of the monitors are within his district and are within less than a two- square-mile area, while the City of Fairbanks is approximately a 50-square mile area. He said he suspects that given the location of the monitors, if there were "a bad year," Fairbanks would fail the tests no matter what was done, given the current location of the monitors. Number 1820 CO-CHAIR HOLM said he would like to encourage DEC to test more appropriately so that more areas would be represented than just the core downtown area of Fairbanks. He noted that the armory is situated only about 10 blocks from Aurora Energy; Hunter School is only about two miles from the armory or from the downtown area; and other areas around town, such as Hamilton Acres, are not being tested at all. He referred again to Los Angeles, pointing out that the city is monitored from Burbank, which is out of the downtown Los Angeles area. He indicated that a broader view would be more representative than just focusing on the worst-case scenario in Fairbanks. Number 1761 MR. KING said the initial monitoring that was done to establish the "non-attainment area" in Fairbanks was done as a result of what's called a "saturation monitor" a number of monitors were located throughout the area, including the North Pole. The concentrations found from that were used to draw the non- attainment area boundaries. From the time that those boundaries were drawn in the late 1970s or the early 1980s until about three years ago, saturation monitoring had not been able to be done. MR. KING told the committee that some additional saturation monitoring was done in Fairbanks, where about six to eight monitors were spread out in residential areas, off of Chena Pump, and in other portions of town. Once that monitoring was done, confirming that there were no violations in the downtown area, additional information was provided for DEC's maintenance efforts. He said that the requirement to focus within a community is not just on "hot spots" but also includes some of the residential areas. He said now that there have been three [good] years, efforts can be made towards reclassification, and if resources are available, the monitoring can be expanded to other areas of the community. Number 1664 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that some of his constituents indicated that the price for an inspection varied at different inspection stations, from being way overpriced to being normally priced. He asked if there had been any complaints of inspection stations' padding of the bill, pertaining to some of the escalated background pollutants that had been previously referred to. Number 1602 MR. KING said that the department is the enforcement arm for the Fairbanks North Star Borough and that actions would be taken on stations or individuals. He stated that if a facility is inappropriately inspecting the vehicle or inappropriately recommending repairs, one of the requirements of the Fairbanks North Star Borough is to do a referee action in order to verify that what has been claimed is, in fact, correct. Number 1569 MR. KING continued that if the facility is repeatedly incorrect or is especially onerous, the department will investigate and take appropriate action according to regulation. It is incumbent upon the department to ensure that citizens are not unduly affected by unscrupulous behavior, since the government is requiring that the vehicle be inspected and repaired. Mr. King said the department would take a very dim view of a facility that is intentionally padding a bill. MR. ARMSTRONG offered that the normal procedure in Anchorage regarding noncompliance is that a person is sent a letter indicating noncompliance. He referred to the $200 fine and the $250-to-$300 cost involved with fixing the difficulty, saying there is not much incentive to avoid the system. Mr. Armstrong mentioned AMAT's letter of endorsement in the committee packet in support of HB 81. Number 1487 CO-CHAIR HOLM said he wanted to register his distrust of the system, saying that he appreciates the efforts of DEC and the efforts of those who feel that too many hydrocarbons are being burned, and therefore affecting the quality of the air. However, he said he wanted to encourage people to take personal responsibility and for DEC and EPA to "pull in their horns." He said he has lived in Fairbanks for 57 years, and some days are a lot worse than other days. In the summertime there can be bad air because it is affected by forest fires and by [Russia] and other places in the world. Because the air is subject to the whims of nature, when the air inverts, there is nothing that can be done. He said the air alerts are helpful for people who have difficulty breathing. Co-Chair Holm stated that he objects to the idea that a person is bad because of not spending $2,500 to fix his/her car, and that at 50 degrees below [zero], discretion should be demonstrated when someone needs to get to work or go to the doctor. Number 1372 CO-CHAIR HOLM continued that he appreciates the efforts being made to have a better society, but he has a problem with the general attitude of EPA over the past four years - during his involvement with this issue - and with the threats and berating that have resulted in inappropriate federal requirements that are being imposed on the Fairbanks North Star Borough and the Municipality of Anchorage. He said these issues need to be looked at and care needs to be taken so that something is not put into place that will affect the economy of Alaska and the growth of the Fairbanks area, in particular. Number 1283 CO-CHAIR HOLM emphasized that Fairbanks suffers from this problem more than Anchorage or any other area in the state due to a higher concentration of vehicles, and due to it being an area that "inverts." He urged that DEC and EPA monitor the area appropriately. He recalled that a price had been paid for MTBE [methyl tertiary butyl ether], mentioning that the percentage that had been suggested to use in gas resulted in many people getting sick; it was an expensive "test." He said he did not want Fairbanks to be a "guinea pig" and that the state needs to be careful when implementing programs that might adversely affect specific municipalities or areas. Number 1215 CO-CHAIR HOLM moved to report HB 81 out of committee with individual recommendations and the [forthcoming zero] fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 81 was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|