►
From YouTube: 2/22/2021 - Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
I'd
like
to
call
this
meeting
at
the
assembly
committee
on
natural
resources
to
order
remembers
before
we
begin
a
quick
reminder
to
please
be
sure
to
mute
your
microphone
when
you
are
not
speaking
in
order
to
minimize
background
noise,
and
with
that,
madam
secretary,
will
you
please
call
the
role.
A
C
A
Here
you
have
a
quorum,
please
mark
assemblywoman,
black
absent
excused
with
that.
We
have
two
bill
hearings
on
our
agenda
for
today
before
we
start
a
couple
of
quick
housekeeping
announcements
for
everyone.
As
a
reminder,
members
of
the
public
can
provide
testimony
in
a
variety
of
ways
and
participate
in
our
meetings.
A
Written
comments
can
also
be
emailed
to
asmnr
at
asm.state.nv.us
before
during
or
up
to
48
hours
after
the
meeting
committee,
exhibits
or
amendments
must
be
submitted
electronically
in
pdf
to
our
committee
manager.
No
later
than
4
pm
on
the
business
day.
Prior
to
the
meeting,
amendments
must
include
the
bill
number,
a
statement
of
intent
and
contact
information.
A
We
ask
that
public
comments
be
kept
to
two
minutes
so
that
all
speakers
can
be
accommodated
and
we
can
get
through
the
agenda
in
a
timely
fashion
and,
lastly,
I'll
remind
members
to
please
provide
your
name
when
making
or
seconding
a
motion
which
brings
us
to
the
next
item.
Today.
A
Committee
members,
as
you
may
recall,
throughout
session,
we
are
asked
to
introduce
bill
draft
request
to
begin
the
process,
to
sign
a
bill
number
and
get
it
referred
back
to
our
committee.
As
a
reminder,
a
vote
to
introduce
a
bdr
is
not
any
indication
of
support
for
a
bill.
It
is
just
to
get
the
bill
printed
and
assigned
a
number,
so
it
can
go
through
committee.
A
E
F
A
A
A
B
F
A
A
A
I
Could
you
could
you
read
that
what
the
the
bill
again
or
the
pdr
again,
please
you're
you're
falling.
I
I
Okay
and
we
don't
have
a
which
lands.
Those
are
before
just
for
clarification.
It's
just
this
pop
could.
A
So
for
clarification,
this
was
brought
forth
by
the
interim
committee
on
public
lands
and
again
this
is
just
to
introduce
the
bill
so
that
we
can
get
the
text
out
and
to
the
public
any
interested
parties.
So
it
urges
congress
to
sell
or
transfer
certain
public
lands
to
local
governmental
agencies
and
non-profit
organizations.
A
Once
the
bill
is
introduced
during
our
next
floor
session,
that
the
exact
text
of
it
and
everything
included
will
be
available
to
every
member
as
well
as
all
members
of
the
public
all
right.
Thank
you,
sir.
A
D
J
F
A
And
I
believe
that
motion
carries
as
well.
Thank
you
all
members
for
that.
We
can
now
upon
the
rest
of
our
agenda.
First
up,
we
have
assembly
bill
34.
This
bill
revises
provisions
governing
the
control
of
pests,
noxious,
weeds
and
pesticides.
A
Sorry
sorry
miss
jepson
you're
coming
through
a
little
bit
quiet
right
now.
So,
let's
see
if
we
can
get
that
suggested.
H
Okay,
I
will
amplify,
I
can
be
a
little
soft-spoken,
sometimes
for
the
record
ashley
jepson,
with
the
nevada
department
of
agriculture.
I
am
the
plant
industry
administrator
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
this
bill.
This
bill.
Really
sorry,
chairman
watts,
would
you
prefer
me
primarily
answer
questions?
Are
you
okay?
If
I
give
a
brief
overview.
A
H
Section
five
pertains
just
adding
some
minor
language
to
our
nursery
program
so
that
there's
an
exemption
for
those
not
just
selling
through
catalog,
but
also
electron
or
through
online
sales.
So
some
clarification
with
modern
times
on
that
and
then
sections
six
through
26
pertain
to
updating
our
pesticide
control
compliance
program
to
reflect
federal
regulation
changes
and
also
we're
trying
to
clean
up
that
language.
So
it's
easier
to
understand
and
navigate
there's
a
lot
of
moving
pieces
to
our
pesticide
compliance
program.
H
So
with
that
I'll
jump
into
number
one,
so
sections
one
through
four.
It
provides
some
clarification
in
terms
of
propagative
materials,
so
we're
trying
to.
H
So
in
under
section
one
control,
meaning
to
cut,
destroy
or
eradicate
noxious
weed
populations,
we
felt
the
need
to
make
sure
that
that
was
clear
as
to
the
expectations
of
controlling
noxious
weeds,
which
are
obviously
pub
or
problematic
to
our
our
public
lands.
So
a
very
important
aspect
here
is
that
the
type
of
control
is
reflective
of
the
species
and
how
it
tends
to
reproduce.
H
I
want
to
I
want
to
stress
that
you
know
really
we're
continuing
to
work
with
with
folks
that
are
diligent
about
their
their
control
and
it's
a
significant
issue,
but
this
allows
us
to
lay
out
the
expectations
specific
to
the
species.
That's
of
concern.
H
Also,
here
I've
mentioned
we
define
propagated
material,
so
meaning
any
seed
or
cutting.
That
has
potential
for
reproducing
the
other
piece
within
our
noxious
weeds
program
that
we're
refining
is
we're,
including
guidelines
established
by
the
north
american
invasive
species
and
management
association,
and
that
is
specific
to
our
weed
free
certification
program.
It's
a
voluntary
program.
H
This
organization
sets
the
standards
and
we
work
under
a
memorandum
of
understanding
to
provide
this
great
service
for
minimizing
noxious
weed
populations.
So
we
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
That's
the
guidelines
that
we
operate
under,
which
is
the
addition
there,
as
well
moving
on
to
section
five,
where
we
have
one
revision
to
our
nursery
program
and
again
that
pertains
to
there
are
exemptions
for
folks
that
are
selling
or
distributing
nursery
products
through
catalog
if
it's
solely
through
catalog
sales
they're
exempt.
But,
as
we
know
today,
most
of
that
occurs
online.
H
So
we're
adding
that
provision
that,
if
it's
done
through
an
online
source
that
they
would
have,
they
would
comply
with
that
as
well.
Moving
on
to
the
the
bulk
of
our
changes
here
for
section
6
through
26
pertaining
to
our
pesticide
compliance
program,
so
I
want
to
just
give
a
little
bit
of
context
here.
H
The
intent
of
this
program
is
to
provide
so
first
of
all
test
our
pest
control
operators
and
companies
in
general
to
make
sure
that
they
have
knowledge
of
have
the
competency
standards
that
are
expected
by
federal
law
and
then
ultimately,
they're
applying
pesticides
in
a
way,
that's
safe
to
themselves
the
public
and,
of
course,
to
the
environment.
So
this
really
governs
that
piece
and
how
they're
they're
certified,
how
they're
licensed
and
to
make
sure
that
they're
meeting
those
expectations
we
work
under
a
cooperative
agreement
with
epa.
H
So
a
lot
of
these
changes
pertain
to
things
that
have
changed
on
the
federal
level
to
reflect
that.
So,
with
that
context
in
mind,
we've
referenced
cfr
in
here
in
terms
of
the
competency
standards
that
are
expected
to
be
met
and
again
those
are
really
specific
to
when
they're,
applying
it
environmental
conditions,
safety
standards,
those
areas,
but
we're
also
trying
to
clean
up
the
language,
streamline
processes
a
little
bit
and
that's
through
three
forms
of
criteria
being
our
private
applicators,
non-private
and
commercial.
H
In
the
past,
it's
been
a
little
bit
of
confusing
to
navigate
and
that's
how
we
felt
it
would
be
best
structured
to
make
it
a
little
bit
clearer
for
clarification.
Our
non-private
applicator
would
be
a
government
employee,
so
for
those
of
you
that
may
have
been
involved
in
2017
legislation,
ab-32
was
to
govern
government
applicators,
and
that
is
not
going
away.
We've
had
some
concern
on
that.
It's
actually
being
folded
under
non-private
applicator,
so
anybody
that's
doing
restricted,
use,
pesticides
or
general
use.
H
Pesticides
are
governed
in
some
capacity,
and
this
is
clarifying
that
so
so
here
we
have
it
clear
clarified
that
a
commercial
applicator
is
someone
that
of
course,
is
doing
it
for
hire
or
profit
versus
a
private
applicator.
Who
might
be
somebody
that
has
that's
the
land
owner
or
is
employing
somebody
on
their
land
for
ag
purposes,
to
do
pest
control,
there's
provisions
for
them
and
then
also,
of
course,
folks
that
are
doing
it
as
part
of
their
government
employment.
H
So
that's
how
we've
tried
to
separate
it,
and
then
we've
also
tried
to
to
fold
in
those
new
cfrs
that
we
have
to
demonstrate
compliance
to
as
part
of
our
cooperative
agreement.
H
H
A
All
right,
thank
you,
miss
jefferson
for
the
presentation,
sorry
for
the
delay
there.
G
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
the
quick
presentation.
I
greatly
it
was
nice
just
to
get
straight
to
the
point,
so
I
really
appreciated
that
my
question
actually
does
not
have
to
do
with
the
application
or
even
the
the
division
between
the
providers.
It
has
more
to
do
with
the
change
in
section
three
that
is
adding
in
the
electronic
mail,
which
I
greatly
appreciate
that
because
it's
time
for
us
to
start
moving
into
some
more
electronic
things,
but
with
that
electronic
mail,
how
do
we
verify
that?
G
Somebody
has
in
fact
received
that
that
information
and
then
also
who
makes
the
decision
as
to
whether
or
not
it
is
done
with
the
certified
mail
or
the
electronic
mail,
as
it
is
currently
defined
in
this
language?
H
For
the
record
ashley
jepson,
that's
it!
I
appreciate
the
question,
so
we
tend
to
try
to
communicate
as
many
ways
as
possible
in
our
industry
there's
varying
levels
of
needs,
so
oftentimes
we
will
send
out
certified
mail
on
top
of
electronic,
but
we
wanted
to
minimally
have
the
ability
that,
if
the
email
they're
providing
on
file
is
part
of
their
their
licensure,
the
expectation
is
that
they're
providing
accurate,
easy
means
of
communication.
H
So
our
our
program
managers
work
directly
with
with
our
dag
when,
when
certain
issues
are
being
issued,
if
there's
a
compliance
issue
and
they're
typically
sent
out
in
multiple
manners
to
make
sure
that
that's
communicated
licensing,
we
we
tend
to
issue
initially
through
mail
or
sorry.
Excuse
me,
through
email
and
if
we're
continuing
to
have
issues
we'll
try
some
of
those
other
means
of
communication
through
other
information,
that's
listed
through
their
licensure.
G
Thank
you
and
and
thank
you,
and
I
realized
that
this
is
all
brand
new
to
me.
So
it's
important.
You
know
that
too,
but
I
really
appreciate
the
fact
that
there's
multiple
items
I
just
was
a
little
bit
concerned
about
the
idea
of
it
being
being
able
to
uphold
in
the
law
and
so
finding
out
that
there
is
a
multiple
communication
definitely
answered
my
question.
So
thank
you.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
on
section.
I
have
a
question
specific
to
the
bill
on
section
11.,
I'm
sorry
in
section
12.
that
lists
the
purpose
that
what
the
nrs
says
and
I
and
it's
in
quotes-
restricted
use
pesticide
what
that
means.
I
So,
when
there's
a
restricted
use
pesticide
can
private
citizens
apply
a
restricted
use
if
they
apply
for
a
if
they
have
the
right
credentials
federally?
Are
we
expanding
what
somebody
has
to
do
now?
They
have
to
get
a
certification
from
the
state.
I
H
The
record,
actually,
I
appreciate
the
question
so
we
operate
so
that
there's
the
federal
standard
and
we
were
there
to
help
enforce
it
and
us
and
streamline
the
process
on
a
state
level.
So
in
in
the
past,
if
they've
ever
been
applying,
are
you
or
restricted
use?
H
Pesticides
they've
had
to
be
this
term
certified,
and
that
is
still
persisting
just
underneath
that
right,
what
we're
calling
a
private
applicator,
so
a
private
citizen,
if
they're
the
landowner
or
even
if
it's
say
it's
a
an
ag
producer
and
their
neighbor,
if
they're
working
together
as
long
as
it's
not
for
commercial
use,
they
can
apply
for
that
that
private
applicator
and
it
allows
them
to
use
those
restricted
use.
Pesticides
which
are
a
bigger
concern,
but
they
would
apply
just
through
through
us.
They
wouldn't
have
to
go
through
multiple
levels.
I
So
currently
they
can't
get
a
federal
certification
and
then
use
them,
so
this
would
broaden
who
can
have
access
to
these
restricted
pesticides.
Is
that
what
I'm
hearing.
H
I
They
currently
have
application
right
now,
a
private
citizen
can
get
certified,
take
a
test
or
help
whatever
the
certification
process
in
and
the
safety
of
these
things
they
have
access
to
this,
and
then
this
bill
is
I'm
not
I'm
not
really
clear,
then
what
the
additional
benefit
of
this
bill
is.
If
they
can
already
do
it
through
certification
process
of
you,
will
you
be
charged
an
additional
fee,
so
I
just
needed,
apparently
some
more
clarification.
I
If
they're
already
able
to
do
it
with
this
certification,
where's
the
benefit,
it
sounds
like
just
another
fee
that
they
have
to
get.
So
I'm
just
curious
here
sure.
H
For
the
record
ashley
jefferson,
so
it's
updating,
you'll,
see
listed
in
here
in
every
whether
they're,
private,
non-private
or
commercials
commercially
certified.
They
have
to
abide
by
these
new
code
of
federal
right
or
sorry.
Excuse
me,
updated
code
of
federal
regulations
so
what's
happening
here
is
it's
the
competency,
the
written
exam
and
the
competency
standards
that
they
comply
with?
H
That's
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
update
that
cfr,
but
as
we're
submitting
that
we're
also
trying
to
clean
up
the
language,
so
it's
easier
for
people
to
find
out
where
they
fall
in
the
past.
It
was
the
way
it
was
defined,
wasn't
really
clear,
for
you
know
anybody
to
just
look
at
and
figure
out,
okay,
I'm!
I
would
actually
fall
under
a
private.
H
It's
my
land,
it's
or
I'm
next
to
my
neighbor,
we're
trying
to
clean
up
that
piece,
while
also
adding
that
you
nee
as
you
are
tested
and
you
comply
and
you
register
you
have
to
meet
this
code
of
federal
regulations
from
that
exam.
So
it's
updating
that
piece,
but
then
trying
to
clean
up
the
language.
So
they
know
where
they
fall
in
terms
of
the
licensure
category.
I
Because
if
it
saves
ranchers
money,
I
mean
I'm
for
it
if
it's
less
fee
now,
I'm
just
need
some
clarification
on
the
fee
structures,
and-
and
so
if
they
know
if
they
need
to
know
where
they
fall,
is
there
some
advantage
to
being
a
private
landowner
doing
this
certification,
since
they
already
do
the
certification?
I
just
need
some
clarity.
Thank
you.
H
And
there's
no
fee
change
here,
but
brett
are
you
comfortable
answering
that.
K
Correct
for
the
record,
brett
allen,
department
of
agriculture
correct
this
is
the
fee
is
going
to
be
the
exact
same
where
it's
not
a
different
fee.
It's
not
one.
In
addition
to,
it
was
just
we
are
just
making
this
adjustment
to
meet
epa
standard,
their
new
competency
standard.
That's
it
there's
not
an
additional
test
or
an
additional
fee.
It's
just
to
meet
the
new
epa
standard,
which
is
it's
taking
a
long
time,
but
it's
finally
updated,
and
now
we
have
to
to
meet
that
standard.
D
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
miss
jefferson.
I
have
a
question
about
something
throughout
the
bill
and
I
just
want
some
general
information.
I
can
give
you
the
specific
sections.
If
you
need
me
to,
but
there's
a
lot
of
reference
to
powers
that
the
that
the
director
has
you
know
the
whether
a
person
has
demonstrated
something
to
the
director's
satisfaction.
D
You
know
the
director
having
the
ability
to
deny
or
suspend
different
inquiries.
Things
like
that
can.
Can
you
just
give
us
a
general
idea
about?
What's
it
what's
appealable
and
and
where
does
someone
go
if
they
don't
like
a
decision
that
the
director
made
do
they
have
do
they
appeal
to
the
district
court?
What
what
happens
after
that
and
again
I
can
be.
I
can
give
you
the
specific
sections.
If
you
do
want
to
do
that,.
H
Record
ashley
jefferson.
No,
that's
a
that's
a
great
question
and
and
I'll
preface
this
too,
with
we.
We
really
try
to
work
off
of
the
federal
and
just
meet
what
the
minimum
requirements
are.
Unless,
obviously,
we
would
see
something
that's
an
immediate
concern.
The
process
would
be
if
we
did
find
that
there's
a
violation
to
to
statute
or
to
to
code.
We
would
notify
them
of
the
specific
violation
and
they
would
be
notified
with
an
opportunity
for
what's
called
a
notice
of
hearing.
H
So
if,
if
they
wanted
to
contest
it
and
that's
their
opportunity
to
present
why
they
don't
feel
like
they're
in
violation
or
why
they
do
feel
their
meeting
requirements
and
that
they're
meeting
those
expectations,
it
goes
before
a
hearing
officer
and
they're
able
to
demonstrate
their
case
and
then
the
conclusion
is
made
based
on
that
process.
So
they
do
certainly
do
have
an
opportunity
to
to
state
their
case
and
then
to
even
appeal
it
after
that
phase
as
well.
C
A
Thank
you.
Vice,
chair
cohen,
we
have
a
question
from
assemblyman
wheeler.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
miss
justin.
F
So
what's
going
to
change
and
what
is
the
limit
on
the
fees
the
director
may
put
in
because
I
don't
see
anything
here
and
what
you
know
you
need
to
clarify
this
for
me
because
it
looks
to
me
like
you
could
just
raise
the
fees.
Any
time
now
say
well,
we
didn't
really
mean
to
during
the
hearing,
but
this
came
up
that
came
up
so
there's
there's
no
limit.
Can
you
just
explain
that
to
me?
Please.
H
The
record
ashley
jefferson
and
I
appreciate
you,
bringing
that
up
and
I
apologize-
I
meant
to
touch
on
this
during
my
presentation.
So
in
reference
to
section
two,
there
is
an
addition
here
that
says
the
director
may
establish
and
collect
reasonable
fees
for
such
a
program
that
is
pertaining.
First
of
all,
this
is
actually
pertaining
to
our
knock
or
our
weed
free
certification
program,
and
I
I
want
to
mention
that
this
is
actually
we
have
the
authority
currently
to
charge
a
fee
under
nrs
587.
H
However,
we
were
trying
to
fold
it
under
here,
because
this
is
where
we
regulate
that
weed
free
noxious
weeds
program
as
it
stands,
so
it's
just
cleaner
again
for
for
the
viewer
to
see
everything
in
one
spot,
rather
than
playing
the
guessing
game
where
it
might
be
in
statute
or
code.
So
it
was
a
cleanup
attempt,
but
it's
it's
not
a
new
fee.
It's
it's
in
current
regulation,
but
587.
H
excuse
me
yeah,
587
and
here
we're
just
trying
to
consolidate
it
and
put
it
where
everything
else
is
with
our
weed
free
noxious
needs
program.
So
again,
I
apologize
for
not
being
clear
on
that.
F
H
It
has
to
excuse
me
for,
for
the
record
ashley
jefferson.
It
has
to
be
established
in
regulation,
so
we
it
would
be
adopted
in
our
code
and
that's
how
we
would
be
able
to
charge.
It
would
have
to
go
through
the
public
process.
In
that
aspect,.
A
Jepson
all
right
hearing,
none!
Thank
you.
So
much
for
the
presentation
we'll
now
move
on
to
testimony
on
assembly,
bill,
34.,
we'll
start
off
with
testimony
and
support
as
a
reminder
to
provide
testimony,
you
must
register
online
at
the
legislative
website
where
you
will
receive
the
information
to
call
in
to
join
the
meeting.
A
With
that,
please
remember
to
clearly
state
and
spell
your
name
and
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes.
We'll
begin
support
testimony
so
broadcast
production
services.
Can
you
please
open
up
the
queue
and
add
the
first
caller
in
support.
A
Thank
you.
Let's
move
on
to
testimony
in
opposition
to
assembly,
bill
34.
K
K
E
Okay,
great
thanks,
mr
chairman,
this
is
jake,
tibbetts,
spelled
j,
a
k,
e
t
I
b
b.
I
t
t
s
and
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
for
eureka
county
and
then
did
sign
up
today
to
provide
neutral
testimony,
because
we
were
intending
to
listen
to
try
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
the
intent
of
the
bill
and
you
know
help
inform
our
opinion
on
it
moving
forward.
So
I
did
listen
to
the
presentation
and
some
of
the
justification
for
it
and
again
signing
up
neutral.
E
What
I
want
to
express
are
just
some
concerns
moving
forward.
We
understand
the
intent
of
aligning
with
the
cfrs
and
some
of
the
things
trying
to
do,
but
just
want
to
bring
a
few
things
to
the
committee's
attention
and
the
department
of
ag's
attention,
because
I
heard
in
the
presentation
very
little
described
about
some
of
the
changes
to
the
government
applicators
now
lumping
them
into
what's
called
non-private
applicators
I'd
point
out
to
the
committee
that
there's
a
if
you
look
at
the
very
end
of
the
bill.
E
E
I
was
part
of
that
process,
as
many
others
were
also
representing
the
eureka
conservation
district
as
the
county
appointed
supervisor,
and
there
were
a
lot
of
pre-built
discussions
before
that
language
ever
went
to
the
2017
session
and
we
just
hadn't
seen
that
with
this
current
effort,
you
know
we
run
a
very
organized
and
active
weed
control
effort.
Here
we
have
one
of
the
few
organized
weed
districts
in
the
state
of
nevada
in
this
area
that
I
also
manage
and
we
think
there's
some
potential
implications
on
those
government
applicators.
E
One
of
the
things
that's
a
bit
concerning.
Is
it
talks
about
in
section
15
the
licenses
that
would
be
required
now
that
would
seem
to
lump
in
the
government
entities
and
while
it
says,
there's
two
different
licenses
that
would
be
required,
but
one
of
them
is
actually
a
business
license
and
while
it
does
say
for
hire
or
for
profit,
you
know
without
a
definition
of
for
hire.
E
I
don't
know
if
that's
been
defined
legally
somewhere
else,
but
just
a
quick
search
of
of
even
a
legal
dictionary
online
will
show
that
for
hire
is
letting
out
of
goods
or
services
for
a
money.
Consideration
and
a
lot
of
counties.
Weed
districts,
conservation
districts
receive
grant
funding
to
do
weed
control,
and
sometimes
it
even
covers
some
of
the
overhead
for
staff
to
do
that,
and
I
think
it
could
be
lumped
in
here
that
that
is
for
higher,
even
though
it's
more
of
a
reimbursement,
but
would
it
require
a
business
license?
E
D
E
A
Thank
you,
mr
tibbetts,
for
your
testimony.
We'll
move
on
to
the
next
caller
in
neutral
on
assembly,
bill
34.
K
C
The
county
does
have
a
large
vector
control
division
that
is
housed
within
our
public
works
department
that
works
to
control
that
weed
population,
particularly
in
our
in
our
right
of
ways
here
in
in
urban
clark,
county
and,
more
so
in
the
the
land
in
the
rural
areas
of
the
county.
So
would
just
like
to
again
thank
ms
jefferson,
the
department
for
for
clarifying
those
questions
we
had
and
here
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
K
A
All
right,
thank
you
with
that.
We'll
end
testimony
miss
jefferson.
We
do
have
a
couple.
I
missed
a
question
and
then
a
couple
more
popped
up,
so
we're
gonna
do
a
couple
more
and
then
I'll
give
you
a
chance
to
make
any
closing
remarks.
So
we
did
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
carlton.
D
Yeah,
thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman,
so
I
heard
the
explanation
correctly.
The
language
that's
being
referred
to
as
the
reasonable
fee
language
on
page
4
line
11.
that
language
already
exists
in
another
area,
you're
just
trying
to
clean
it
up.
So
this
really
isn't
a
a
new
fee.
It's
just
going
to
have
a
different
place
to
live.
So
even
if
this
was
amended
out
of
this
bill,
this
fee
would
still
exist.
Correct.
H
For
the
record,
ashley
jefferson,
yes,
you,
you
are
correct.
We
currently
have
the
authority
to
charge
the
fee
and-
and
we
do
have
the
fee
in
nac,
so
we.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
carlton.
We
had
a
question,
I
believe,
for
legal
from
assemblywoman
titus.
I
And
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
this
opportunity,
and
I
think
I
was
I
need
some
clarification
I
think
for
and
maybe
legal
can
answer,
or
maybe
the
department
itself
can,
but
but
along
a
line
of
questioning
that
that
assembly
hanson,
I
think,
is
also
going
to
go.
I
was
concerned
about,
and
I
need
clarification
if
this
power
already
exists-
that
folks
have
to
get
a
business
license,
not
only
just
from.
I
I
assume
that
we
in
the
state
we
need
to
get
a
business
license
for
any
businesses,
but
does
this
now
require
an
additional
business
license
that
they
didn't
require
before
issued
by
the
director?
And
this
is
section
15
number
two
and
maybe
we
could
get
clarification?
Does
the
director
already
have
and
require
the
and
have
the
authority
to
issue
a
business
license
under
this
section?
Or
is
this
a
new
ability
of
the
director-
and
I
don't
know
who
can
answer
that.
H
For
the
record
ashley
jefferson,
yes,
currently
we
do
have
the
authority
to
require
the
the
for-profit
to
to
have
a
business
license
and
it
is
in
our
existing
or
for
profit
or
for
hire
is
defined
in
our
current
statute.
So
it's
just
reorganizing
and
brett,
mr
allen,
if
you
want
to
expand
on
that,
fine
too.
K
For
the
record,
brett
allen
department
of
agriculture,
correct
it's
not
an
additional
business
license.
We
do
currently
have
a
business
license
defined
in
our
nrs
and
that's
the
only
business
license
for
commercial
pest
control
industry
for
what
we
would
be
calling
the
commercial
applicators,
the
licensees,
the
the
license
operators
just
correct.
We
do
currently
have
the
authority
for
that
business
license
it's
defined
currently
and
that
there's
no
additional
one.
Just
a
same
business
license
and.
K
Brett
allen,
no
it's
just
not
for
the
not
for
the
private,
it's
just
a
competency,
exam
meeting,
those
federal
requirements
showing
that
they're
knowledgeable
in
the
in
the
standards
and
then
to
get
that
rup
certificate,
but
they're
not
going
out
doing
it
for
hire
they're
doing
it
on
their
own
property,
applying
those
restricted
use
chemicals,
the
difference
is
going
out
and
doing
contracted
work.
I
I
think
I
I
hate
to
belabor
this,
but
you
you
use
the
term
certificate
and
then
they
take
a
test
and
they're
certified,
but
then
you're
using
the
term
they
issue
a
business
license.
So
those
are
two
separate
things.
Are
they
not
so
they're
already
required
to
get
this
business
license
and
in
order
to
get
the
business
license,
they
have
to
be
certified.
H
For
the
record,
ashley
jefferson,
so
the
folks
that
are
doing
this-
am
I
coming
through.
Okay,
the
the
folks
that
are
doing
this
for
commercial
or
commercial
hire
for
profit
they're,
the
ones
that
need
as
part
of
their
provincial.
They
they
need
the
business
license,
not
a
private
applicator,
which
is
somebody
that
owns
the
property
or
has
their
own
staff
for
that
property.
They
do
not
need
it,
nor
would
a
government
or
the
non-private
government.
Folks,
just
somebody.
That's
advertising
going
out
and
doing
pest
control
services
and
they.
I
J
J
So
the
way
I
read
existing
statute
is
that
any
natural
person
who
wants
to
engage
in
any
of
those
activities
and
pest
control
or
service
and
any
of
those
activities
for
pest
control
have
to
be
licensed.
So
you
can
make
an
argument
that
a
private
applicator
currently
would
fall
under
that
by
adding
that
for
hire
for
profit.
We
are
limiting.
Who
now
has
to
get
a
license
to
these
commercial
applicators,
these
business
entities
and
then
in
subsection?
Two
we
are
explicitly
talking
about
okay,
so
who
should
go?
J
Get
a
business
license,
we're
talking
about
a
natural
person's
business
entity
who
seeks
to
operate
again
for
hire
or
for
profit
a
pest
control
business.
Now
this
is
talking
about
the
licensure
for
pest
control,
and
then
there
is
the
separate
issue
which
is
dealing
with
the
certification
for
the
restricted
use.
Pesticides,
so
that
certification
for
restricted
use.
Pesticides
is
where
we're
talking
about
these
private
applicators,
non-private,
applicators
and
commercial
applicators,
so
that's
where
they
have
to
and
the
adjustments
being
made
in
this
build
now
requires
them
to
comply
with
those
federal
regulations.
J
A
Thank
you,
mr
amber.
I
appreciate
the
clarification
assemblyman
wheeler
did
you
have
an
additional
clarification
clarifying
question
for
mr
amber
before
we
wrap
this
up.
F
I
did
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
indulging
me,
but
when
miss
jepson
spoke
a
few
minutes
ago
about
section
two
subsection,
two
that
really
confused
me,
because
if
we're
already
charging
this,
then
there's
no
revenue
enhancement,
so
I'm
wondering
from
legal.
Why
is
this
a
two-thirds
bill
if
there's
no
revenue
enhancement,
because
that's
the
only
thing
that
clicks
off
a
two-thirds
bill
or
is
this
a
new
fee?
Thank
you.
J
Alan
ambron
for
the
record,
and
so
in
regards
to
that
I
can
look
up
and
find
after
this
meeting
is
something
where
are
these
specific
regulations
and
statutes
dealing
with
the
specific
fee?
I
don't
know
that
up
to
my
head
in
regards
to
two
thirds
generally
when
we
are
drafting
bills
and
we
give
an
agency
or
an
officer
the
authority
to
establish
and
collect
fees
regardless,
if
that's
happening
or
not,
it's
just
like
we're
now
placing
this
in
statute.
J
That's
typically,
why
we
add
it
in
there
that
would
bring
it
to
the
awareness
of
the
body
that
way,
you
know
if
it
is
a
situation
where
new
fees
are
being
collected
in
the
body
as
a
whole.
The
legislature
as
a
whole
then
has
to
pass
it
by
two-thirds
majority
in
regards
to
whether
or
not
this
is
a
specific
fee,
that's
currently
existing.
I
will
defer
to
ms
jepsen
on
that,
but
I
can
also
look
up
after
this
meeting
and
confirm
that,
for
you,
sir.
A
Follow
up,
mr,
mr
with
mr
amber.
So
if,
in
consultation
with
the
agency,
it's
determined,
as
has
been
indicated,
that
it
is
revenue
neutral,
because
the
fee
is
already
authorized
within
nac
or
another
portion
of
statute,
then
the
two-thirds
requirement
could
be
removed.
Is
that
correct.
J
A
All
right,
I
think,
that's
all
the
questions
that
we
have
on
this
bill.
So
with
that,
thank
you,
miss
jepson.
Is
there
any
closing
remarks
that
you'd
like
to.
H
I
get
over
where.
D
A
That
came
in
a
little
bit
faint
at
the
end,
but
no
it's
no
problem.
I
please
follow
up
with
staff
to
provide
some
of
the
information
on
the
current
fee
structure
that
exists,
we'll
make
sure
that
gets
distributed
to
the
members
of
the
committee
for
their
information
and
again
appreciate
you
presenting
this
bill
with
that
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill,
34
and
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
74..
A
This
bill
revises
provisions
relating
to
pesticides
and
with
that
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
the
department.
You
may
proceed
whenever
you're
ready.
H
H
This
one
is
much
smaller,
thankfully,
so
this
just
a
little
background
as
to
this
program.
It
involves
the
registration
and
distribution
of
pesticides,
so
with
an
emphasis
on
restricted
use.
Pesticides,
as
we
mentioned
before
those
are
you
know,
a
bigger
concern
to
public
and
environment.
H
The
only
change
here
is
same
thing.
It's
updating
our
statute
to
reflect
changes
in
federal
requirements
and
that
pertains
to
record
keeping
for
those
that
are
selling
restricted,
use
pesticides,
so
here
it
specifies
that
each
sale
and
distribution
of
those
pesticides
or
restricted
use
pesticides
need
to
be
recorded.
H
One
thing
I
just
want
to
provide
for
clarification
in
in
that
40
cfr
the
requirements
there
it
the
intent,
is
just
to
the
the
user
so
selling
to
a
wholesaler
or
whatever
that
may
be,
or
to
a
retailer
they're
not
having
to
track
it's
once
it's
being
sold
to
a
potential
end
user
is
where
those
changes
are.
If
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
look
at
that
cfr
and
I'll
also
just
mention
the
areas
that
have
been
stricken
in
red.
The
reason
being
is
all
of
those
are
referenced
in
that
cfr.
A
A
A
All
right
hearing,
none
I'll,
ask
one
very
quick,
clarifying
question,
which
you
touched
on
at
the
end
of
your
presentation.
Just
to
be
clear,
the
requirements
that
are
being
stricken
from
statute
are
incorporated
within
40
cfr,
which
is
referenced
in
the
new
language,
and
do
you
know,
is
there
any?
Are
there
any
additional
requirements
within
the
cfr?
Currently,
that
are
that
would
be
added
by
adoption
of
this
language.
H
For
the
record
ashley
jefferson,
in
looking
at
it
fairly
quickly,
it's
it's
all
very
similar,
it's
place
of
business.
What
the
restricted
use
pesticide
is
the
person
the
applicator,
I'm
not
seeing
firsthand
anything
that
really
stands
out.
H
The
only
thing
I'll
note
is
it
does
require
that
the
product
name
and
the
epa
registration
number
be
included,
but
that's
the
only
thing.
I'm
seeing
that
really
really
sticks
out
and
I'm
happy
to
provide.
I
can
provide
some
more
bullets
that
might
emphasize
change,
but
I'm
not
seeing
anything
substantial
here.
A
Thank
you
miss
jefferson.
I
I
appreciate
your
your
quick
review
of
this
and
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
got
on
the
record.
There
are
no,
I
guess
major
changes.
Mr
amburn
was
there
anything
you
wanted
to
add
on
this.
J
I
do
just
want
to
point
out
so
currently
it
is
a
paragraph
b
of
subsection
five
that
is
being
deleted
where
we're
asking
for
the
name
and
address
of
the
person
to
whom
sold
or
delivered
federal
regulations
provide
that
it's
the
name
or
address
name
and
address
of
the
residents
of
each
certified
applicator
to
whom
the
restricted
use
pesticide
was
distributed
or
sold
or,
if
applicable,
the
name
and
address
of
the
residence
or
principal
place
of
business,
of
each
non-certified
person
to
whom
the
restrictions
pesticide
was
disputed
or
sold.
J
So
an
argument
could
be
made
that
existing
statute.
It's
essentially
that
you
have
to
provide
the
name
and
address
of
any
person,
and
then
federal
regulation
is
the
name
and
address
of
a
certified
applicator
and
then,
if
any
other
non-certified
person,
if
that
information
is
provided.
But
again,
this
is
just
deferring
to
federal
regulations.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
clarification,
mr
amber
all
right.
We
do
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
hanson.
D
Hi,
thank
you
chair.
It
actually
is
a
comment
and
sorry
I
had
so
much
going
on.
I
couldn't
type
my
question
fast
enough.
Actually,
as
my
former
life,
I
was
an
editor
so
when
I
see
eight
or
nine
lines
of
text
being
eliminated
for
two
lines
and
it
accomplishes
the
same
purpose
and
aligns
with
the
feds,
this
is
a
win
right.
H
Jefferson,
that's
ultimately
our
goal
and
just
to
keep
things
updated
since
we're
trying
to
to
work
in
in
cooperation
with
epa
that
we're
just
able
to
update
those
standards.
As
these
new
things
come
in
mind.
So.
D
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
hanson
and
yes,
a
recurring
theme
is
making
sure
that
our
statutes
can
adjust
as
other
elements
that
they
are
tied
to
grow
and
are
modified.
So
I
think
from
the
and
seeing
modifications
that
allow
for
that,
I
believe
a
similar
woman
vice
chair
cohen,
had
a
quick
question.
D
Oh,
thank
you
chair
again,
not
cha,
not
language,
that's
being
changed,
but
in
section
one
when
reference
is
made
to
the
person,
for
instance,
the
person
registering
section
one
sub
two
a
is:
is
this
one
of
those
situations
that
we're
using
person
and
we're
including
corporate
corporations
and
calling
them
person
as
well.
A
Yes,
mr
amber,
would
you
like
to
step
in
on
this.
J
Thank
you,
chair
watts.
I
would
alan
ambron
for
the
record,
yes
assemblywoman,
so
we
would
defer
in
this
situation
as
nrs,
zero
nrs0.039,
that's
the
preliminary
chapter
and
there
we
provide
that
person
means
any
natural
person,
any
form
of
business
or
social
organization
and
any
other
non-governmental
legal
entity,
and
that
includes
like
corporations,
partnerships,
associations
and
other
entities.
D
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Vice
chair
for
bringing
around
nrs
chapter
zero
to
the
natural
resources
committee.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
miss
jepson
on
assembly
bill
74.
A
K
A
A
K
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
I'll
close
testimony
on
this
bill
and
miss
jepson.
Are
there
any
closing
remarks
that
you
wish
to
make
on
this
bill.
H
A
Thank
you
for
that
statement
and
for
your
presentation
of
both
of
the
bills.
Today
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
74
and
that
moves
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment
once
again
a
reminder
that,
in
order
to
provide
public
comment,
you
must
register
online
in
order
to
get
the
call-in
information,
and
we
ask
that
anybody
wishing
to
provide
public
comment
limit
their
comments
to
two
minutes
and
with
that
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
broadcast
and
production
services
to
see.
A
Callers
all
right,
thank
you
again
to
broadcast
production
services
for
helping
us
ensure
that
the
public
can
participate
in
our
meetings.
The
next
meeting
of
our
committee
will
be
on
wednesday
february
24th
at
4
pm,
and
with
that
this
meeting
is
adjourned.
Thank
you.