Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/08/2003 08:02 AM House STA
| 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 Number 2677 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act relating to motor vehicle emissions; and providing for an effective date." Number 2690 REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HB 81 would improve enforcement of the I/M [Inspection & Maintenance] program, provide consistency between the various departments that oversee the I/M program, and provide some relief to the current extraneous testing requirements. He said it is a technical bill regarding a program that exists only in Anchorage and Fairbanks. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that one proposal is to change the fine from $200 to $500. He said the average repair cost to bring a car into compliance is approximately $250 to $2,000; hence there is currently an economic incentive not to take the I/M exam because the fine is less than the cost of the repairs. If federal standards for clean air aren't met in Anchorage and Fairbanks, however, it jeopardizes federal funds that both cities receive. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that in the past some alternative fuels were exempt. Although natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, he said it has been found that if a car is not maintained, even clean-burning fuels can also pollute the air. Therefore, those cars will also now be required to get I/M-tested. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said the legislation also addresses several loopholes in the current program. For example, before a vehicle's registration can be renewed, a car must have a current, valid inspection. He explained, "The problem arose when an inspection would expire, but the registration was still current." He noted that [HB 81] would provide that a motor vehicle registration cannot extend beyond the expiration of any emissions certificate. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER told the committee that the bill would also clarify what emission programs must be met when ownership is transferred. He stated, "It used to be [that] a car that was 1987 or older would have to be I/M-inspected every 12 months. Now, they're changing that to all cars ... every two years." He said [the legislation] also contains a consumer protection clause because someone who buys a car with no decal in the window will know that car hasn't been inspected. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that currently the Department of Administration (DOA) solely handles enforcement. The legislation would extend enforcement to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and to "the various municipalities such as Anchorage and Fairbanks." Number 2881 CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director, Director's Office, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, testified on behalf of the division in support of HB 81. He reiterated Representative Meyer's previous statement that the bill would provide consistency and would remove some of the confusing aspects of the program "for both ourselves and our customers." He opined that it would take out unnecessary inspections without impacting the air quality program. Number 2916 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the zero fiscal note, asked if there would be no cost in enforcing the program. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he'd thought there should actually be a positive fiscal note; there should be more money coming in to the state because of the increased fines. He added that he didn't think the difference would be that great. Number 2950 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it seems a person who operates a motor vehicle in violation of the emissions requirement and thus violates Section 5 would necessarily also violate Section 8, although the same isn't true in reverse. He also mentioned potential constitutional problems. TAPE 03-38, SIDE B Number 2989 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the sponsor to confirm that his intent is not for somebody to be "double punished" for violating both of these [sections]. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied, "That's correct." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he'd like that clear on the record. Second, he said there are many poor people in his district and many older cars, some of which probably violate [the proposed legislation]. He said he knows the fine is being raised for a purpose; however, it is a lot of money to a poor person who has an older car. He said he'd like the court to have some discretion in the matter. He suggested that both Sections 5 and 8 include the words "not to exceed" before "$500". REPRESENTATIVE MEYER deferred comment to his staff. Number 2920 SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska State Legislature, told Representative Gruenberg that she understands his concern. She noted that a question was raised during a House Transportation Standing Committee hearing regarding the collection of fines. She said she was able to speak with someone "through the Municipality of Anchorage vehicle Inspection & Maintenance program," regarding how issuing citations, violations, and the collection of fines are dealt with on the municipal level. She said she was told that the court actually does have some jurisdiction in determining the fine for each citation. She mentioned information that she'd distributed "to the individual offices" which indicated that in some cases, when the court sees that a person has brought a car into compliance with the program, it can either waive the fees or significantly reduce them. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "Then you would have no objection, I assume, to putting that language in so that even a judge would understand what you said." REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded, "No objection." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would offer that amendment at the appropriate time. In response to a request by Chair Weyhrauch, he reiterated that [the amendment would address a concern regarding] both Sections 8 and 5. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there is no mens rea required. He clarified, "You don't have ... to do this knowingly or anything. If you do it, regardless of your mental state, you're guilty. Is that correct?" [Representative Meyer nodded in agreement.] CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that's how it reads in Section 8. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added, "And also in Section 5. You don't have to know if you are in violation of the emission requirement. If you're behind the wheel and the thing is violating it, you're guilty." He said he doesn't think there is a constitutional problem with that, but wants it on the record that "it's strict liability in the criminal sense." He asked if that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said yes. He added that he thinks that's why there is some flexibility in the fine. Number 2775 TOM CHAPPLE, Acting Director, Division of Air & Water Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), testified in support of HB 81. He mentioned staff-level efforts over the years in the Municipality of Anchorage and in Fairbanks to look at how to improve the program "both from the consumer end [and] the vehicle-motor end," as well as how to make the program effective and efficient. Mr. Chapple concluded as follows: The vehicle Inspection & Maintenance is one of our key programs to try [to] achieve air quality in Anchorage, and it's been successful. In Anchorage, specifically, we have not violated the public health standard for six winters in a row, and that is in large part due to this program. It is time to make some improvements, and I think the things in this bill can help the owners of vehicles, as well as the staff at the local level. Number 2688 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Mr. Chapple shared his own understanding that enforcement would involve meter maids checking for the I/M decals. MR. CHAPPLE answered that he doesn't believe it would work that way. He deferred further response to his available staff. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he also thinks meter maids would do the enforcement. He explained that currently DOA is [in charge of enforcement]; however, [the legislation would also include] the involvement of DEC and the various municipalities. NUMBER 2620 MS. CUNNINGHAM commented as follows: I believe ... that, currently, the Division of Motor Vehicles has the authority to enforce registration, and, of course, you can't register your vehicle unless you have a current I/M. DEC can enforce the emissions program, but there seems to be a pretty vague area in between, as far as the registration and the emissions programs. MS. CUNNINGHAM said Cindy Heil could address the enforcement issue. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated his concern as follows: We've changed this from having to have a certificate, which is something that doesn't show up on the outside of the car, to it's now a $500 violation if you fail to display an emission decal in your window. And we are now giving the authority to the municipality, which I would presume -- just like the ... tickets that were given for registration, when that was given to the municipality. ... I would presume that that would be the structure, and I'm just wondering whether ... somebody's going to address whether that's the probable mechanism for enforcement of this. Number 2553 CYNTHIA L. HEIL, Section Manager, Mobile Sources Section, Division of Air & Water Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), noted that Sections 5, 7, and 8 in the bill deal with enforcement. She specified two types of enforcement: that which deals with the display of [the decal] on the windshield, and that which deals with falsification. In Anchorage, she said, a number of people register their vehicles in the Matanuska-Susitna area to avoid the I/M requirement. Ms. Heil said, "You can't go by just what's on the windshield." She continued as follows: That kind of enforcement you have to verify, and prove that those vehicles are falsely registered. What happens is, you find a vehicle that doesn't have an I/M, you start through your normal ... processes, and then you also find if they're falsely registered. Well, currently, in our notices of violation, we are not allowed, because we don't have statutory authority, to tell, as a remedy, for those people to not only get an I/M, but then to properly register their vehicle. That has to go through the Department of Administration, with the Division of Motor Vehicles. It would be much more efficient if the department and municipalities who do enforcement could "notice" people that not only do their cars do not have an I/M, but they also need to register their vehicles properly. That is one type of enforcement that we deal with. That other is the decals. But with Anchorage, especially, you can't just write tickets for not having a sticker on your windshield, because people come in here to shop. People come in here to visit. And we must be very careful about how we do enforcement, because those people are legal to be in Anchorage without an I/M. And so, the other point about why these fines are coming up is that we are overwhelmed right now with enforcement. I mean, we're not trying to go out and pad our budgets. Anybody who has the opportunity to comply, as well, with the municipality -- and these are just trying to help take away the numbers that we're having to deal with at this point in time. Number 2412 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 4, [beginning on] line 30, which read as follows: (f) A person who fails to display an emissions inspection decal as required by law REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "That's the $500." He added, "But it's not the 'fails to display', but the 'as required by law', is where this dual requirement comes into effect. Is that correct? Because you're not required to display ... the sticker unless you're an Anchorage resident?" MS. HEIL said that's correct. Regulations are very specific regarding who is and isn't required to have a decal. She said Section 8 was modified specifically to give the department the ability to either deal with violations regarding the sticker - for example, "people are taking them back off" - or to use other enforcement mechanisms for people who are egregious in their violations. Number 2341 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled from his previous time [in legislature] what a problem it is has been when people register their cars in the Matanuska-Susitna area to fraudulently evade this law. He asked Ms. Heil whether it is still a problem. MS. HEIL responded, "That's very much the case." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is a law which prohibits somebody from doing that. MS. HEIL answered as follows: The statutes and regulations, under the motor vehicle rules, under the Department of Administration, the Division of Motor Vehicles, [state] very clearly that ... you're supposed to register your vehicle and how you ... do it properly. But they don't have their own enforcement arm. They have to rely on ... the police or the troopers, or through ... the proper administrative procedures. We would overwhelm the Division of Motor Vehicles if we were to try to have them process all the revocations ... through their regulations and statutes. What we're attempting in Section 7 is to allow the department ... and the municipalities to at least notice, in our notices of the violations, that the remedy the people need to make is to properly register. At this point in time, we are not allowed, during the enforcement of false registration, to ask them, as a remedy, to get their vehicles properly registered. And so now what we're seeing is, people getting their I/Ms and then, in two years, we're having to go back out and do enforcement on them to get their I/Ms again, because they're not getting their vehicles properly registered where they [should]. Number 2240 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is a statute that makes it a crime or provides a penalty for people who knowingly and intentionally register their cars elsewhere to evade the local emission requirement law. MS. HEIL answered yes. She suggested that Mr. Hosack could provide more specific information. Number 2155 JAMES ARMSTRONG, Coordinator, Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Program, Municipality of Anchorage, referred to a letter from AMATS dated March 20, 2003, included in the committee packet, which he said is a policy letter of endorsement for HB 81. He commended Representative Meyer, his staff, and DEC for converting a very technical piece of legislation into a "user-friendly, readable sponsor statement and understandable bill." Number 2172 MR. HOSACK, regarding Representative Gruenberg's previous question, said the section of law is in Title 28. Referring to AS 28.10.491, he mentioned paragraph (9), which read as follows: (9) makes a false statement or otherwise conceals or withholds a material fact in an application for registration or certificate of title or falsely affirms with respect to a matter required to be sworn to, affirmed, or furnished under this chapter or regulations adopted under this chapter; except that a person who with criminal negligence as defined in AS 11.81.900, falsely certifies to the department the existence of a motor vehicle liability insurance policy under AS 28.10.021(a)(2), is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. MR. HOSACK said that violation could be "up to a felony" and would apply in this case. He clarified, "If you're making an application for registration and ... your primary residence is in Anchorage, say, and you list the Mat-Su Valley, it would come under this." Number 2113 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered [Amendment 1], a handwritten amendment that read as follows [original punctuation provided but some formatting changed]: p 4, line 6, after "fined" add "an amount not to exceed" p 5, line 2, after "fined" add "an amount not to exceed" REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said [Amendment 1] would be fine. Number 2064 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting Amendment 1. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 2034 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered [Amendment 2] to the title as follows: Page 1, line 1, after "emissions" Insert ", emission inspection decals, and fines" CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting Amendment 2. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 2005 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM referred to a letter from the Fairbanks North Star Borough I/M manager regarding page 3, line 11, which read: (ii) has a certificate of inspection, but the certificate shows that the vehicle is not in compliance with program requirements REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that the author of the letter had indicated that wasn't necessary because "we could transfer a noncomplying vehicle anyway." REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he hadn't read the letter and deferred to his staff. MS. CUNNINGHAM said she'd spoken with Ms. Heil regarding the previously stated language. She deferred to Ms. Heil. MS. HEIL said it's a clarification, but not necessarily needed. Number 1926 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said if [the language] makes the bill more understandable, then it's fine to keep it in. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded that the language could be left in for purposes of clarification, unless the committee considered that a problem. Number 1888 REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 81, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 81(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|