MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
April 12, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:20 p.m., on Monday, April 12, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dairl Bragg, Bragg & Bragg, Inc.
Paul McGrath, Sheriff, Carson City Sheriff's Department
Dennis G. Green, Asst. Sheriff, Carson City Sheriff's Department
Dan Lang, Self
Eric Nagy, Trimline of Reno
John Holmes, Self
Chairman Spitler opened the hearing with a request for approval of committee minutes up to March 31, 1993.
MR. GARNER MOVED TO APPROVE COMMITTEE MINUTES UP TO MARCH 31, 1993.
MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
(MRS. CHOWNING, MR. GREGORY AND MR. MCGAUGHEY WERE
ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 379: Revises provisions regarding windshields and front windows in motor vehicles.
Assemblyman Vonne Chowning, District 28, sponsor of A.B. 379, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C) in support of the bill.
Mrs. Chowning distributed a proposed amendment (Exhibit D). She stressed the language in the amendment was needed to add "more teeth" to the law as the darkness of window tints varied. Mrs. Chowning also distributed a letter received from Robert Hadfield, Director of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), supporting the establishment of statewide guidelines for window tinting (Exhibit E). Chairman Spitler clarified all member counties of NACO supported the bill. In addition, Mrs. Chowning further distributed copies of a letter received from Thomas J. Grady, Director of the Nevada League of Cities, who supported the bill (Exhibit F). Samples of various window tints were also distributed (Exhibit G) as well as a fiscal note (Exhibit H).
Mr. Collins sought clarification on the amendment proposing "minus 7" percentage points. He asked if the 35 percent was increased to 42 percent or reduced to 28 percent. Mrs. Chowning replied the "minus 7" would reduce the percentage to 28. Mr. Collins asked then, although the bill states 35 percent, if people could be cited for having 28 percent tinted windows. Mrs. Chowning stated the language was necessary for every single state which had a window tinting bill. Generally the minus is 3 percent.
Chairman Spitler asked the time frame allowed by other states for a transition period for people to meet compliance. He noted the bill, if approved as written, would become effective October 1 and compliance would have to be met at that date.
Mr. Anderson asked the national "norm" for tolerance given to enforcement officers in reducing or increasing percentage points. Mrs. Chowning stated the recent states have enacted the " -7 percentage points" as it was the most airtight language in terms of enforcement and gave the officers a greater amount of discretion.
Mr. McGaughey asked what exceptions would be given to tourists traveling the state. Mrs. Chowning stated the bill was slated for Nevada residents. Mr. McGaughey noted the bill did not state any exceptions and was concerned with how it might affect people who were legal in their home states, but did not comply with Nevada's law. Mrs. Chowning, deferring the question to the law enforcement officers, relayed an experience currently affecting Nevada residents. She stated California law did not allow any window tinting (except from the manufacturer). Presently, residents complained of an officer who waited on a hill on Highway 80 for Nevada residents to cross into California. He then cited them for having tinted windows. Mrs. Chowning stated a legal opinion she received stated Nevada residents cited for violation of California's law would have a legal leg to stand on if a window tinting law was passed.
Mr. McGaughey, referring to Mrs. Chowning's earlier testimony stating the estimated cost to residents in most cases would be seventy dollars, stated the lowest price he was quoted for a pickup truck was $115. He continued the quote was for application only and did not include removal of the window tint. He estimated the amount for a passenger car would be substantially higher. Mrs. Chowning stated the proposed bill only addressed front-side windows as was the direction the federal government was following, and this was why the cost was at a minimum.
Chairman Spitler asked the percentage which could affect car dealerships or the overall threshold of cars affected. Mrs. Chowning did not have a definite figure but estimated the numbers depended on locations. Higher crime areas had a higher number of tinted windows.
Dairl Bragg, President, Bragg and Bragg, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia, stated he represented International Window Film Association, an association which all manufacturers of window tints in the United States worked through. His position was to work with state governments specifically on the window tint issue. Mr. Bragg felt the bill was excellent as far as recommending the 35 percent light transmission. He stated twenty-eight states now had window tinting restrictions and summarized reasons for the federal direction. If the proposed bill was passed, Nevada would be ahead of the federal direction in arbitration of a regulation. Having a law enforcement background, Mr. Bragg related to law enforcement concerns with approaching a vehicle and having the ability to establish eye contact and the ability to identify the people inside. Mr. Bragg felt the bill's light transmission was the best balance between darker and lighter transmissions in addressing law enforcement and safety concerns, yet providing all the benefits of rejecting heat and ultra violet rays.
Addressing an earlier concern of committee members regarding visitors to the state, Mr. Bragg suggested inserting a sentence stating the bill would only be applicable to Nevada registered vehicles. Mr. Bragg embarked that the proposed amendment addressed the variants of quality control as it was difficult to make film to be within one or two percentage points of a 35 percent film. He also made reference to the various tints placed on vehicles from the manufacturer. Mr. Bragg, answering a question asked earlier by Chairman Spitler, stated the number of cars affected would not be as great as anticipated. Addressing the phase-in period for vehicles to comply, Mr. Bragg stated six months would be the low end and 18 months would be the high end. He felt anywhere in between seemed adequate for the transition to take place.
Chairman Spitler asked if any states applied the responsibility of tinted windows on installers. Mrs. Chowning stated Section 1, number 2, addressed people who "placed, installed, or affixed upon windshield."
Mr. Bragg, answering a question from Mr. Anderson, explained the computations for percentage points.
A discussion ensued on the various window tints and their percentages. Chairman Spitler announced a demonstration would be held in the parking lot on the various tints after the meeting.
Answering a question from Mr. Garner, Mrs. Chowning stated the bill would apply to taxicabs and rental cars only if they were registered in Nevada. Mrs. Chowning stated further exemptions would be addressed by Mr. Sparks of DMV. Examples of exemptions would be for medical or law enforcement purposes.
Mr. Garner said the bill stated "director" and clarified that "director" referred to the Director of Motor Vehicles.
A demonstration was then presented on actual automobile windows with various levels of tint applied. Mr. Bragg also used a light meter, and a dot matrix card to show how enforcement officers would be able to determine compliance of windows.
Mrs. Chowning stated there was an indication that grants would be available to purchase the tint reading devices. Chairman Spitler reported the fiscal note might be incomplete as it did not address the additional costs associated with purchases of the tint reading devices.
Mr. Hettrick asked how the devices would capture back windows and double-paned side windows currently being manufactured in some automobiles. Mr. Bragg stated two-piece light meters were available.
Eric Nagy, Trimline of Reno, testified in support of the bill. He stated customers were concerned with not only appearance but largely with safety factors. He stated a majority of people used lighter film tints with a very small minority using "limousine" film. He felt the volume of people affected by the legislation would be minimal. In working with the public, Mr. Nagy found most customers were interested in concerns of officers and did not want to create a problem for law enforcement. He mentioned the efficiency of film was not determined by darkness. As current law was vague and only addressed obstruction, Mr. Nagy expressed the need for legislation that clearly specified numbers. Mr. Nagy testified his company did not place "limousine" tints on side windows as a safety precaution. Most request for dark tints were for back windows for purposes of heat deflection and preventing exposure of personal items.
Paul McGrath, Sheriff, Carson City Sheriff's Department, and representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chief Association, testified in support of the bill. Mr. McGrath stated earlier testimony regarding exemptions to the bill derived from another bill draft request addressing the window tinting issue. Mr. McGrath stated inside reflection or reversed polarity occurred on darker windows. This created a hazard when driving at night because all the reflection was received inside the car. Another problem existed for pedestrians and other vehicles just as people could not see inside the vehicle, the driver was unable to see out. He urged passage of the bill.
Dennis G. Green, Assistant Sheriff/Coroner, Carson City Sheriff's Department, stated although most law enforcement officers would prefer to not have window tinting at all, he felt the bill offered the best available measure. He discussed enforcement of the law was possible and similar to the emission control law previously passed.
Colonel Bill Yukish, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol, DMV, testified, from a traffic safety standpoint, in support of the bill. Colonel Yukish addressed the need for awareness of surrounding environment when driving and the importance of eye contact needed with other drivers.
Mr. Toomin asked about proposed enforcement of the law. Colonel Yukish responded the dot matrix cards would be distributed to the officers. A small amount of light meters would also be purchased. He explained the process involved in citing the tickets.
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated at times, the registration division performed vehicle inspection pursuant to registration of the vehicle. Mr. Sparks stated an argument could be presented under existing statute, regardless of the tint percentage, that tinting was prohibited. Existing law stated something to the effect that a driver's vision through any required glass should be normal. He stated interpreting the intent of that particular statutory language was difficult. The bill would clearly provide a standard to be enforced. Addressing exemptions, Mr. Sparks stated they would provide exemptions by regulation. He said public hearings would be held to determine what types of situations would qualify for exemptions. He agreed medical situations would be a logical exemption and regulations would be promulgated.
John Holmes testified in opposition to the bill. He stated he was not against the concept, only the language contained in A.B. 379. He addressed areas of the bill that needed amending. He felt lines 17-18 of the first page would address which windows should comply with the bill. He stated items which the bill would not apply to should be lines 1-5 on the second page. He felt numbers 4, 5, and 6 of Section 1 which addressed the original equipment could be deleted. Mr. Holmes stated from a practicality aspect, the bill must address the federal regulations. The vehicles owned by Mr. Holmes came with optional window tints and standard window tints. As an example of situations law enforcement officers would face, he listed a list of dot specifications that came directly from the manufacturer. All windows had different specification numbers. Another reason vehicles came from the manufacturer with tinted windows was for the air conditioning equipment in the vehicle. Addressing an earlier question of Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Holmes stated cars without side mirrors were already in violation of the motor vehicle code. He reiterated the importance of the bill specifying it would only apply to vehicles registered in Nevada. Addressing concerns with officers' ability to see the entire inside of an automobile, he reminded members it was perfectly legal to operate a van that, other than front and front side windows, had absolutely no windows at all.
Chairman asked relative to federal standards, if car manufacturers coded differently or if a standard coding mechanism existed. Mr. Holmes saw a change in dot specifications over time. For example, recently a new number reflected transmission factors, however, in earlier years, that number did not exist. Mr. Holmes contended it would be difficult to keep abreast of the specifications in windows and felt loose language in the bill stating as long as windows were in compliance with federal standards would be advisable.
Dan Lang, window tinter, questioned if a police officer having the ability to pull over a car only for the purpose of checking the window tint constituted harassment. Chairman Spitler stated a violation of the bill was a primary offense and police officers would have the ability to pull a car over if they felt the vehicle was in violation of the window tint law.
Mr. Collins clarified the lower the percentage, the darker the tint. Mr. Lang agreed.
Chairman Spitler outlined items he felt might be considered for amendments. The first item addressed taxi cabs and rental cars. Mr. Sparks stated he would not propose exempting taxicabs or other types of vehicles. He felt the traffic safety argument applied to all types of vehicles. Chairman Spitler stated the second item he felt needed addressing was to tie the bill to federal level standards. Mrs. Chowning stated she believed Section 1, number 4, addressed the federal level statutes. She stated in her research, they found there were no factory tints in front side windows greater than 35 percent.
Mr. Garner was interested in the percentages of window tinting violations in those states who had window restriction laws. Colonel Yukish stated he would conduct a survey of the states to obtain citation statistics.
Mr. Bragg expressed his desire to assist Colonel Yukish in obtaining the information. Mr. Hettrick asked the information designate the breakdown of citations by states.
Chairman stated it was the intent of the Chairman to act on A.B. 379 as soon as the amendments arrived. Mrs. Chowning reminded members of the window tinting demonstration scheduled upon adjournment of the meeting.
With no further business, meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
April 12, 1993
Page 1