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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2003
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jim Holm, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Albert Kookesh
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 156
"An Act increasing the motor fuel tax and repealing the special
tax rates on blended fuels; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 156(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 173
"An Act relating to a fee on studded tires; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 173(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act relating to motor vehicle emissions; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED HB 81 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to boating safety; repealing secs. 3, 5, 7, 9,
11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 27, and 30, ch. 28, SLA 2000; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 156
SHORT TITLE:INCREASE MOTOR FUEL TAX
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0424 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0424 (H) TRA, FIN
03/05/03 0424 (H) FN1: ZERO(DEC)
03/05/03 0424 (H) FN2: (REV)
03/05/03 0424 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) TRA AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/11/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
03/18/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/18/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
03/25/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/25/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/27/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 173
SHORT TITLE:FEE FOR STUDDED TIRES
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0447 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0447 (H) TRA, FIN
03/05/03 0448 (H) FN1: (REV)
03/05/03 0448 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) TRA AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/11/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
03/18/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/18/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
03/25/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/25/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
03/27/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 81
SHORT TITLE:MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MEYER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/07/03 0148 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/07/03 0148 (H) TRA, STA
03/27/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
ERIC MUSSER, Staff
to Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Amendment 3 to HB 156.
JOHN MacKINNON, Deputy Commissioner
of Highways & Public Facilities
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information pertaining to HB 156.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement for HB 81.
CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director
Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81 and answered
questions.
CYNTHIA L.HEIL, Section Manager
Mobile Sources Section
Department of Environmental Conservation
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 81.
JAMES ARMSTRONG, Coordinator
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
RON G. KING, Program Manager
Air Non-Point & Mobile Sources Program
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81 and answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-13, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Holm, Kohring, Ogg, and Kapsner were present at the call to
order. Representative Fate arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Also present was Representative Weyhrauch.
HB 156-INCREASE MOTOR FUEL TAX
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 156, "An Act increasing the motor fuel tax and
repealing the special tax rates on blended fuels; and providing
for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR MASEK clarified that in a previous meeting, Amendment
1 had passed and Amendment 2 had been withdrawn. Therefore,
Amendment 3 [labeled 23-GH1118\A.2, Kurtz, 3/26/03] was before
the committee. Amendment 3 read:
Page 1, line 1, following "fuel tax":
Insert ", relating to the fund into which the
proceeds of the motor fuel tax is paid,"
Page 4, following line 13:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.40.010(g) is amended to read:
(g) The proceeds of the revenue from the tax on
all motor fuels, except as provided in (e), (f), and
(j) of this section, shall be paid into a state fund
entitled "highway maintenance revenue fund" and shall
be used [DEPOSITED IN A SPECIAL HIGHWAY FUEL TAX
ACCOUNT IN THE STATE GENERAL FUND. THE LEGISLATURE MAY
APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM IT] for expenditure by the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
directly or as matched with available federal-aid
highway money for maintenance of highways,
construction of highway projects and ferries included
in the program provided for in AS 19.10.150, including
approaches, appurtenances, and related facilities and
acquisition of rights-of-way or easements, and other
highway costs including surveys, administration, and
related matters. All departments of the state
government authorized to spend funds collected from
taxes imposed by this chapter shall perform, when
feasible, all construction or reconstruction projects
by contract after the projects have been advertised
for competitive bids, except that, when feasible,
arrangements shall be made with political subdivisions
to carry out the construction or reconstruction
projects. If it is not feasible for the work to be
performed by state engineering forces, the
commissioner of transportation and public facilities
may contract on a professional basis with private
engineering firms for road design, bridge design, and
services in connection with surveys. If more than one
private engineering firm is available for the work the
contracts shall be entered into on a negotiated basis.
* Sec. 4. AS 43.40.010(h) is amended to read:
(h) All motor fuel tax receipts shall be paid
into the highway maintenance revenue fund or into the
general fund, as appropriate. If paid into the
general fund, the receipts shall be [AND] distributed
to the proper accounts in the general fund. Valid
motor fuel tax refund claims shall be paid from the
highway maintenance revenue fund or from the related
[FUEL] tax account in the general fund, as
appropriate."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, following line 22:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 43.40.070 is amended to read:
Sec. 43.40.070. Refund warrants. Upon approval
of a refund claim by the department, a warrant shall
be drawn on the highway maintenance revenue fund or
from the related [FUEL] tax account in the general
fund, as appropriate, in favor of the applicant in the
amount of the claim.
* Sec. 7. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONTINGENT EFFECT. This Act takes effect only if
a constitutional amendment proposed by the Twenty-
Third Alaska State Legislature repealing sec. 7, art.
IX, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is adopted by
the voters under sec. 1, art. XIII, Constitution of
the State of Alaska."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 4, line 23:
Delete "July 1, 2003"
Insert "on the effective date of the
constitutional amendment specified in sec. 7 of this
Act."
Number 0203
ERIC MUSSER, Staff to Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State
Legislature, spoke to the effect of Amendment 3, saying that if
a highway maintenance revenue fund was established within the
general fund, it would dedicate all of the proceeds of the motor
fuel tax to a dedicated fund for the express use of highway road
maintenance.
Number 0240
MR. MUSSER continued that Section 6 sets up the refund mechanism
that pays a refund from the same revenue fund. The biggest
impact is in Section 7, in which the current effective date is
contingent upon voter approval of a constitutional amendment
that allows for dedicated funds. Currently, Article [IX],
Section 7, prohibits express dedicated revenue except for those
dedications that existed prior to statehood. He said that a
separate resolution would be introduced tomorrow and read across
[the House floor] that would put the question to the voters, if
passed.
Number 0392
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved to adopt Amendment 3 [text provided
previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 0420
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER offered Conceptual Amendment 4. She
referred to Sarah Gilbertson's previous testimony [meeting of
3/18/03] in which it was mentioned that 43 percent of the roads
in Alaska are maintained by municipalities. Representative
Kapsner said that out of the states that have a motor fuel tax,
four states do not share their portion of the tax with
municipalities. She said it could be argued that Alaska does
share because of municipal assistance and revenue sharing.
However, because a dedicated fund [would] exist, she asked if
the committee would be in favor of allocating 31 percent of what
is garnered in taxes to go back to the municipalities.
Number 0520
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked how Conceptual Amendment 4 would change the
dynamics of the bill, now that Amendment 3 had been adopted.
MR. MUSSER offered his understanding that the Conceptual
Amendment would ensure a fair distribution of those maintenance
funds to communities that do not have the base. He said he
believed that there was no preclusion that would prohibit any of
the revenues from being disbursed; there would still be regional
operations and management processes through the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF.) He said the
funding mechanism does not distinguish between local or
organized municipalities.
Number 0594
CO-CHAIR MASEK objected to Conceptual Amendment 4, saying that
HB 156 had already gone through considerable changes and that
the House Finance Committee would be dealing with the
administration of funding.
Number 0600
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER reiterated, for Representative Fate's
benefit, that the committee had passed Amendment 3, which sets
up a dedicated fund. She explained that [Conceptual Amendment
4] asks that consideration be given to allocating 31 percent of
the dedicated fund to the municipalities because municipalities
maintain 43 percent of the roads in the state.
CO-CHAIR MASEK reiterated that her objection to the amendment
was due to the bill having already been "gone over quite a bit"
and also because the issue could be dealt with in the House
Finance Committee.
Number 0663
CO-CHAIR HOLM said he was curious as to the suggested amount of
31 rather than 43, since 43 percent of the roads are in the
municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that the amount was derived from
the findings put forth by the Alaska Legislative Digest,
indicating that the average amount that was shared, from among
the 50 states, was an amount of 31 percent; she said she wanted
to go with the average. She added, "We could make an amendment
to the amendment to make it more, if you'd like."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if there was any present allocation to
the communities.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that there wasn't, and that
Alaska is one of only five states that does not allocate to
communities, based on motor fuel tax.
Number 0750
JOHN MacKINNON, Deputy Commissioner of Highways & Public
Facilities, Office of the Commissioner, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), said that he was
not speaking for the administration, from DOT&PF's perspective,
but wanted to add that Alaska operates differently from the
other states. He explained that in Alaska and in Puerto Rico,
federal highway funding from the federal motor vehicle fuel tax
does get used in communities. He said he believed that almost
43 percent of the total federal allotment is used for community
transportation and for Trails and Recreation Access for Alaska
(TRAAK) projects. He said the balance is used for Alaska
Highway System roads and National Highway System roads. He
pointed out that although the contributions don't go towards
maintenance on an annual basis for snow removal and road upkeep,
the state contributes to local roads in communities to rebuild
those roads as part of community construction projects. He said
that Alaska has the ability and does contribute a tremendous
amount of the share of federal highway funding, relative to
other states.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if 31 percent or any significant
percentage would have an impact on maintenance, which he assumed
was the intent.
MR. MacKINNON said that as long as the maintenance needs were
made up through the general fund rather than the dedicated fund,
there would be no impact on DOT&PF, and it might help the
municipalities. He said that the department has a need of about
$60 million a year just to take care of winter and summer
highway maintenance. He said that presently that amount is
derived from general fund sources, and as long as the amount was
"made up one way or another," the state highways would be
maintained.
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that there was $50 million in addition to
that amount.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said, regarding the amount required for
maintenance, if there were dedicated funds to be added or if
something happened so that there was a restriction in general
funds, then that dedicated fund could possibly make up part of
those maintenance dollars, thereby giving more flexibility to
how general fund monies could be spent.
Number 0997
CO-CHAIR HOLM offered that if the 31 percent requirement were
put in statute, there would be no flexibility. However, without
that language in statute, the legislature would have the
flexibility to allocate funds, in any combination, to DOT&PF or
to the municipalities.
CO-CHAIR HOLM asked what amount would be reasonable to consider,
given the differing needs and the diversity within the state.
He asked if it made sense to specify a given percentage of the
motor vehicle tax, and if so, what that number would be.
MR. MacKINNON replied that he had the same question,
specifically, how to dedicate a portion to the municipalities.
He commented that the largest percentage of revenue would be
generated from Central Alaska and asked if this meant that most
of [the revenue] would be returned to that area. He said that
without the dedication, the legislature would have the
flexibility of putting revenue where it was needed.
Number 1084
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER offered that her calculations indicated
that having a 20-cent motor fuel tax generates $69 million for
the state. From Mr. MacKinnon's comment that the state needs
$60 million for road upkeep, she suggested that perhaps 3.3
percent instead of 31 percent could be appropriated because that
percentage amount would account for the $9 million leftover.
She said that this could be an offering to the municipalities
and could be changed later.
CO-CHAIR HOLM respectfully suggested that this had no merit,
because of there being no justification for it.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded that she was trying to
accommodate the concerns of the municipalities, in light of the
43 percent upkeep of the roads, while also being respectful of
DOT&PF's need for $60 million for summer and winter maintenance.
She pointed out that the tax generates $69 million, leaving a
remainder of $9 million that could possibly go to the
municipalities. She explained that $9 million calculates out to
be 3.3 percent of what is generated from the tax.
MR. MacKINNON commented that as it is presently written, it
would be up to the discretion of the legislature to allocate any
leftover monies in that dedicated fund to the municipalities.
CO-CHAIR MASEK said that the [Matanuska-Susitna] Borough is
organized to use property taxes; the borough uses monies that
are paid into the road service areas to then maintain the
borough's roads. She added that she wasn't sure how this
information impacted Conceptual Amendment 4.
MR. MacKINNON stated that the allocation would be difficult
because there are municipalities and communities that have not
only property tax, but sales tax as well, while some areas have
neither. He said that those [taxes] go into, among other
things, the maintenance of roads.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said he thought the idea had merit. However,
in listening to the figures and percentages mentioned during the
discussion, he suggested that the issue be considered in the
House Finance Committee. He said that attempting to "try to
figure out a percentage right here and now, with what limited
time that we have, just seems hasty."
Number 1255
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kohring and Kapsner
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 4. Representatives Fate,
Ogg, Holm, and Masek voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-4.
Number 1299
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there was any further discussion of HB
156.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that he was opposed to HB 156,
although he thought that the amendment which dedicated monies
and set up the highway maintenance fund was a step in the right
direction. He said he thought emphasis should be placed on
reform within the bureaucracy, spending reduction, and
government efficiency. He said this bill was one of many tax
proposals put forth by the governor that should be put on the
back burner until effectiveness and efficiency within the
government was first evaluated. He suggested that consideration
be given to figuring out ways to contribute to offsetting the
deficit in terms of spending reductions, rather than raising
taxes. He said that he thought this effort to be premature and
therefore he would object to HB 156.
Number 1363
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said this bill would impact his district and
that he understands that fuel taxes are low, but he wanted it on
record that even though he wouldn't hold the legislation from
moving forward, he didn't particularly like the 20-cent increase
and thought it would be detrimental to people in his district.
He said this was an "awfully huge step right from the start,
although we do need some revenues," and he suggested that this
amount would be too severe for this type of a tax. He said that
there should be some kind of an increase, but questioned whether
it should be 20 cents.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said she was not in favor of HB 156, not
because additional revenue were not needed, but because it
puts an unfair burden on rural communities. She stated that
communities pay a very high cost; some are paying $4.00 or $4.50
per gallon. She pointed out that when the price of fuel goes
up, the communities feel the impact, but when the price goes
down, the pumps in the communities do not reflect that change.
Furthermore, she said that many of the communities in rural
Alaska don't have roads, don't benefit from road construction,
and yet will still be paying the tax. She assessed that most
people will not access the form [on line] or have it mailed to
them. She said she looked at the rebate form and it is fairly
complicated; she stated that she would oppose the bill.
Number 1459
CO-CHAIR HOLM moved to report HB 156, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
Number 1469
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, Ogg, Holm,
and Masek voted in favor of reporting HB 156, as amended, from
committee. Representatives Kohring and Kapsner voted against
it. Therefore, CSHB 156(TRA) was reported out of the House
Transportation Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
HB 173-FEE FOR STUDDED TIRES
Number 1518
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 173, "An Act relating to a fee on studded
tires; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR MASEK informed the committee that public testimony had
been closed on HB 173.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:05 to 2:10 p.m.
CO-CHAIR MASEK clarified that the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 173, Version D, had been adopted in the previous
meeting [3/18/03]. Therefore, Version D [work draft 23-
GH1127\D, Kurtz, 3/12/03] was before the committee.
Number 1600
CO-CHAIR HOLM offered Amendment 1, 23GH1127\D.2, Kurtz, 3/27/03,
which read as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "studded"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "Studded tire"
Insert "Tire"
Delete "$10"
Insert "$2.50"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "studded"
Page 1, lines 9 - 10:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "or service"
Page 1, lines 13 - 14:
Delete "or of the installation of studs"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "or installation"
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "or services"
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "(1)"
Page 2, lines 11 - 12:
Delete "studded tires or a person who installs studs
on motor vehicle tires for a fee;"
Insert "tires."
Page 2, lines 13 - 15:
Delete all material.
Number 1702
CO-CHAIR HOLM explained the changes addressed in Amendment 1 and
also told the committee that the amount of $2.50 was revised to
$2.00 [on page 1, line 7, of the bill]. He said that in
response to previous testimony indicating problems with the
bill's initial taxation efforts, and from hearing Representative
Fate's concerns with not wanting to encourage people to take
chances with their safety, the idea behind Amendment 1 was to
tax all of the tires to help to produce monies for the
maintenance of the highways. He referred to the "Annual Tire
Purchases in the State," included in the committee packet,
pointing out that there are annual purchases of $1,250,000 and
also that the governor's request is for several million dollars.
Number 1738
REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified that the $2.50 amount was a
suggestion, not from him, but from a witness who testified at a
previous meeting.
CO-CHAIR HOLM informed the committee that if this amendment was
adopted, about $2.5 million would be added to the general fund.
Number 1760
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if subsection (b) would be deleted
in its entirety.
CO-CHAIR MASEK confirmed that there would be a deletion of
subsection (b) [page 1, lines 9-10, of the bill] which reads: "A
fee of $10 a tire is imposed on the installation of studs for a
fee on a motor vehicle tire in the state."
Number 1813
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked [if there was any objection] to Amendment
1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1843
CO-CHAIR HOLM moved to report CSHB 173, Version 23-GH1127\D,
Kurtz, 3/12/03, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
Number 1854
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING objected. He said that this was an
example of putting the "cart before the horse" regarding a
revenue measure proposed by the governor. He told the committee
that before consideration of such measures, there should be a
careful evaluation of governmental expenditures and a review of
how those expenditures could be cut, so that those savings could
be used towards such things as road maintenance. He said that
in addition to having a philosophical concern with HB 173, he
was also concerned for his constituents because of their being
charged for studded tires as well as being charged additional
monies for motor fuel.
Number 1913
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, Ogg, Holm,
and Masek voted in favor of reporting CSHB 173, Version D, as
amended, from committee. Representatives Kapsner and Kohring
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 173(TRA) was reported out of
the House Transportation Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
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.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 2:56 to 2:57 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:58
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|