Committee sends wildfire‑smoke worker protections to Nevada OSHA for rulemaking

The Assembly Ways and Means Committee voted to approve Senate Bill 260, sending the measure to Nevada OSHA to develop regulations requiring employers to reduce worker exposure to wildfire smoke when air quality is poor.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Edgar Flores, told the committee he and stakeholders spent months negotiating language that removes immediate statutory mandates and instead directs the Division of Industrial Relations to require OSHA to write industry‑specific rules. "We send this to OSHA for them to create regs," Flores said, describing the change as necessary to allow detailed stakeholder work on how rules would apply to different industries.

Supporters and labor groups told the committee the regulatory approach preserves worker protections while allowing employers and remote or seasonal operations to help shape implementation. Jackie Spicer of the Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition said the bill would require OSHA to create guidelines for monitoring the Air Quality Index and reducing exposure "at air quality indexes of 150 when it's unhealthy and 200 when it is hazardous for people to be breathing the air." Spicer said the rulemaking process would allow stakeholders to address issues such as communications with remote workers.

The hearing included multiple supporter statements from labor and public‑health groups. Susie Martinez of the Nevada State AFL‑CIO, Wendy Colborne of the Building & Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada, Cassie Charles of AFSCME, and others said they back the bill. Several business groups — including the Reno Sparks Chamber, Vegas Chamber and Associated General Contractors — reported they had moved from opposition to neutral during bargaining and favored returning the issue to regulations rather than a prescriptive statute.

Opponents were limited at the hearing, but a caller, Malcolm Greer, told the committee he feared recent amendments carve out protections for some workers and remove legal safeguards against retaliation. "Section 6 added ... commercial truck drivers," Greer said, and argued that corporate employers should not be exempt; his remarks were recorded on the public phone line and attributed to a caller on the record.

Fiscal questions were a recurring theme. Flores and proponents said two agencies — the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture — had submitted fiscal notes that the sponsor considers premature, because the cost depends on what OSHA eventually requires. Flores told members he did not believe the fiscal notes should be finalized until the rulemaking process produced specific regulatory obligations. Committee members pressed that the absent agencies had not been present to answer those questions.

Assembly members asked clarifying questions during the hearing. One member noted the bill should protect state employees and workers performing temporary outdoor tasks; Flores agreed the goal was to protect employees while preserving businesses’ ability to operate. Another member asked whether smoke from distant wildfires would be covered; Flores replied the measure targets air quality effects wherever the smoke originates.

In the committee’s later work session the panel approved SB 260 with a motion to "do pass." The motion was offered by Assemblymember Steve Bacchus and seconded by Assemblymember Hategui; the work session record shows the motion carried. The committee did not record a full roll‑call tally in the work session minutes provided.

What happens next: SB 260 will move from the committee to the next stage in the legislative process. If enacted, the bill will require Nevada OSHA to convene stakeholders and propose regulations setting when and how employers must act to reduce wildfire‑smoke exposure. Because the substance and cost of any obligations depend on future regulations, proponents and some agencies told the committee that fiscal impacts are unknown at this time.