MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
May 10, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, May 10, 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:
Senator Hal R. Smith, District 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Caroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Donna Varin, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Ray Sparks, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Stephanie Tyler, Regional Transportation Commission
Michelle Gordon-Torres, Regional Transportation Commission
Chad Dornsife, National Motorists Association
Jim Poston, Self
Ron Hill, Department of Transportation
Colonel Bill Yukish, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Senate Bill No. 93 - Allows department of motor vehicles and public safety to establish more flexible requirements for reinstatement of driver's licenses.
Senator Hal Smith, District 1, testified in support of S.B. 193. Senator Smith relayed instances where constituents were forced to pay higher fees for reinstatement of a driver's license. He stated many constituents voluntarily relinquished their driver's license for many reasons (including medical); however, when they sought reinstatement of the license, the individuals were forced to pay a higher fee than required for a first time driver's license.
Mr. Collins remarked he encountered similar problems with the registration of a vehicle and license plates.
Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, expressed appreciation in working with Senator Smith and the Senate Transportation Committee for providing language that allowed the department to add flexibility in statute to assist customers. Mrs. Varin explained S.B. 193 supported and contained identical language as A.B. 157 (of the 67th Session) previously passed by the Assembly Transportation Committee. A.B.157 (of the 67th Session) related to voluntary surrender of driver's licenses as well as a reduction and waiving of fees.
Mrs. Varin, in answering a question from Chairman Spitler, indicated the changes in the bill could not have been accomplished through administrative code. She explained, as a people's advocate, the department's role was to ensure only safe, knowledgable, legal driver's utilized roads. Existing statutory language prohibited or did not give authority to the department. Mrs. Varin explained Section 3 of S.B. 193 allowed the department, by regulation, to address specific requirements but allowed flexibility in determining needs of customers while still meeting role requirements of the department. Mrs. Varin expounded circumstances where flexibility of the reinstatement of a driver's license might be needed.
Chairman Spitler inquired if the bill was revenue neutral. Mrs. Varin stated the experience of the department had found there were not a lot of individuals who needed assistance with a voluntary surrendering of driver's licenses and added impact would be negligible.
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, in answering a question from Chairman Spitler, responded NRS 485.383 dealt with the insurance verification program. He continued the new subsection 7 provided rescinding of the suspended registration if the owner demonstrated justifiable cause for failing to maintain insurance. Although very limited circumstances qualified as justifiable causes for lack of insurance, Mr. Sparks stated they did encounter situations that would qualify for rescission. He expounded on qualifying situations.
Mr. McGaughey offered situations which might have arisen that prevented people from receiving insurance cancellation notices in a timely manner. Mr. Sparks replied existing law provided ability to rescind a suspension when the suspension was simply issued to people for failing to respond to DMV's request for insurance verification with justifiable cause. Mr. McGaughey relayed details concerning an incident in which a constituent became aware of her suspended registration only upon being stopped for a traffic citation. He detailed circumstances involved with the constituent's suspended registration and added the constituent did not have interruption with insurance coverage. Mr. Sparks explained a scenario involving a person who had moved and did not receive the notice of insurance status which was not considered justifiable cause as a statutory requirement existed where the individual must notify DMV of the new address within ten days. Mr. McGaughey felt latitude and compassion should be shown for people as it was difficult to know all statutory requirements.
Mrs. Varin, agreeing with Mr. McGaughey, replied numbers 3 and 4 in Section 6 of S.B. 193 were allowed for administration to make decisions based on the best needs for the state and customers. Mrs. Varin guaranteed the driver's license division would create regulations that were reasonable but compassionate.
Mr. Sparks indicated existing statute allowed the registration division to determine justifiable cause for people who failed to respond to insurance verification requests. The bill would provide ability to determine justifiable cause for someone to not have insurance. As a policy issue, Mr. Sparks stated the insurance verification program, to his understanding, had been drafted in a way to be intentionally strict. Mr. Sparks informed the committee legislation had been requested that would reduce registration reinstatement fees but maintained unless disincentives existed for individuals to not mail back insurance verification requests, the department would spend immense periods chasing people for vehicle insurance status.
Answering a question from Mrs. Chowning regarding Section 6-6(b), Mrs. Varin replied NRS 483.310 required a parent/guardian to sign for a minor to receive the minor's driver license. Mrs. Varin stated parents often cancelled minor driver's licenses due to increased insurance costs; in addition, a reinstatement fee would be expended if the family wished to reinstate the license. Mrs. Chowning clarified under the proposed bill, if the parent wished to surrender the minor's driver license for behavioral reinforcement, the parents would not be required to pay the reinstatement fee when they felt the minor was entitled to the privilege of having the driver's license again. Mrs. Varin concurred.
Mr. Anderson commented the bill provided DMV the opportunity to accomplish its work without legislature getting into the habit of micromanaging an organization. He felt the bill was meritorious.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 193.
MR. McGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill No. 550: Revises authority of regional transportation commissions to adopt regulations for operation of systems or services financed by commission.
Stephanie Tyler, representing the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, introduced Michelle Gordon-Torres to present the bill.
Michelle Gordon-Torres, Assistant to the Director, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, testified from prepared testimony (Exhibit C) in support of the bill.
Chairman Spitler inquired if the bill had an impact on people currently providing transportation to the elderly or people with disabilities. He also asked if the bill only affected counties with populations of 400,000 or less. Ms. Torres stated the bill did not impact current providers. In answering the second question, Ms. Torres stated parts of the bill also affected Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County; however, they were not opposed to the bill and in fact, endorsed the bill.
Mr. Collins stated previous testimony indicated the bill would not affect anybody in Washoe County but would affect Clark County. Ms. Torres replied Clark County did not have to approach county commissions for regulations as Washoe County was required.
In answering a question from Mr. Anderson, Ms. Torres stated the regional transportation commissions in Washoe and Clark County were the only two counties that provided public transportation. She also clarified the word "handicapped" was changed to read "person with disabilities."
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 550.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Collins expressed his concern with the possibility of the Citizen Area Transit Authority (CAT) suddenly overseeing the Economic Opportunity Board (EOB) who received funding from CAT for providing bus systems to the handicapped/elderly.
Ms. Torres replied the bill would not provide any more authority to the Citizen Area Transit Authority. Ms. Tyler stated she spoke with John Pappageorge, Clark county Representative specifically on the issue. He had stated the bill did not change current authority lines.
Upon request of Mr. Collins, Chairman Spitler asked to hold the bill until additional information was received.
MR. TOOMIN RESCINDED HIS SECONDING MOTION.
With no further testimony, Chairman Spitler closed the hearing on A.B. 550.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 551: Changes factors for determining when person who has exceeded national speed limit is guilty of unnecesssary waste of resource currenty in short supply.
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39, informed the committee he introduced the bill by request and urged serious consideration of the bill. He relayed an experience in which a member of his family was stopped in a zone marked 55 mph; however, a citation was not issued and instead, the highway patrolman informed the family member to not exceed 68 mph on that particular stretch of highway. Mr. Hettrick felt the statement was inappropriate. Clearly, Mr. Hettrick felt the issue of speeding was not one of being unsafe, but the leniency was being done with tacit approval of a higher authority.
Mr. McGaughey asked if a definition of the phrase "reasonable and proper..." was needed to provide guidelines. He also asked who would make the determination for "reasonable and proper...". Mr. Hettrick replied further testimony would clarify; however, the language in the bill was identical language used in the Nevada Statute before a speed limit was implemented.
Chad Dornsife, State Chapter Coordinator, National Motorists Association, stated he would review the entire statute and ramifications.
Jim Poston, a licensed professional engineer, indicated he had practiced in traffic engineering for fourteen years. Although employed by a governmental employer, he was testifying as a private citizen. Acknowledging recognition from Chairman Spitler, Mr. Poston stated he had headed the Clark County Traffic Light Board for four years. He was also the 1st Vice President of the Intermountain Section of Instituted Transportation Engineers, in addition, he was the immediate past chairman of the Nevada Traffic Control Committee.
Mr. Dornsife stated a main concern was how the bill affected federal funding/compliance. He informed the committee a deviation from federal standards already existed with current law reading anyone who exceeded 55 mph but not 70 mph wasted fuel; however, there were no penalties or problems with compliance due to that deviation.
Mr. Dornsife insisted the 55 mph compliance as far as numbers went was merely a statistical game. He stated in 1982, Nevada approached the threshold of non-compliance and opened up the number of monitoring sites. Mr. Dornsife acknowleded the cleverness of people in keeping Nevada in compliance regardless of speeds. He cited several methods used to develop records in keeping the state in compliance regarding the 55 mph. Mr. Dornsife stated the intermodel transportation act instituted a year ago essentially said states were required to monitor the 55 mph requirement; however, Mr. Dornsife reminded the committee Nevada was never close or accurate in compliance to the 55 mph requirement because of the way monitoring sites were situated. Regardless, the act required continuous monitoring but directed the federal highway administration to come up with a new method of including both 55 and 65 mph roads yet to be determined. Mr. Dornsife summarized there were no baseline measurements yet for monitoring and a request for comments on proposed rules for future compliance standards for monitoring 55 and 65 mph roads were in the federal register. Mr. Dornsife stated a lot of opposition was received to the 55 - 65 mph speed limit, including opposition from American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO, in a significant move, responded to the rule making by adopting a resolution (Exhibit D) opposing the 55-65 mph speed limit and requested speed limit rule making be returned to the state. Attached to the resolution was a "Compendium of Technical Papers" developed by the Federal Highway Administration (Exhibit E).
Providing history of the state, Mr. Dornsife stated when the speed limit increased from 55 to 65 mph, the average speed on the rural interstate changed less than 1.8 mph. He stated the proposed bill in following history of engineering and speed surveys would change speeds slightly. Mr. Dornsife stated if the bill was passed, in a year from now if federal standards required the state be judged on compliance standards, the baseline measurement for future compliance would be the speed taken a year from now. More importantly, Mr. Dornsife stated that baseline measurement would be judged as individual states on each states performance on safety and compliance and not compared to other states. Essentially, the AASHTO resolution wished to abolish the 55 -65 mph compliance and return state control on setting speed limits appropriate for particular sections of road.
Mr. Dornsife presented a packet of federal studies from the federal highway administration and statistics from Nevada relating to the studies.
Mr. Anderson asked if defining "reasonable and proper" would be at the discretion of the law enforcement officer in determining the condition of the vehicle, condition of tires on the motor vehicle, road conditions, etc. Mr. Dornsife stated he would address the issue in further testmony but stated definite guidelines, engineering standards, and charts existed which defined relatively safer conditions as opposed to unsafe.
Mr. Anderson inquired how the bill would affect posting of speed limit signs and how the general public would know which speeds were acceptably safe. Mr. Dornsife responded posting of the speed limits would remain the same and somebody who acted reasonably and prudent would not be subject to a speeding citation, only a "wasting fuel" citation.
Mr. Toomin asked if other states had waste of excess fuel bills in place. Mr. Dornsife stated about five or six western states had environmental bills the same or similar to Nevada's excess fuel waste.
Mr. Dornsife, using an overhead projector, presented various charts from a study by the Transportation Research Board entitled "55: A Decade of Experience" (Exhibit F). Mr. Dornsife explained the study was commissioned by Congress. Included in the study were reports on enforcement, relationships of speed versus accident rates, etc. Mr. Dornsife informed the committee supporting documents for each study were available.
Addressing a graph entitled "Rural Interstate Posted 65 mph" (Exhibit G), Mr. Dornsife explained the graph showed the average speed of all highways in Nevada combined. Mr. Dornsife stated the graph exhibited Nevada's compliance reports showing the speed of vehicles varied throughout the year as much as five mph. Mr. Dornsife testified the effect on increasing the speed limits from 55 mph to 65mph had a 1.8 overall mph increase; but if matched with the chart, the number was insignificant when the normal variance was considered.
Mr. Dornsife stated the vehicles least likely to be involved in an auto accident on a divided freeway were those vehicles traveling between 77 - 79 mph. A primary resource for collecting data on the highway currently targeted vehicles traveling at the safest speeds on the safest highways at the safest times of day. Mr. Dornsife stated a study showed the number of citations issued had no cause or effect on accidents because people drive at a speed they perceive to be safe regardless of posted limits or patrol.
Mr. Dornsife stated fatique was a major contribution to accidents in Nevada. Mr. Dornsife stated according to the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety, up to 75 percent of accidents on open roads involved single vehicles. Mr. Dornsife explained speeding in cities was indeed a safety factor; however, even with the combination of city and rural accident reports, according to the charts presented for last year, excessive speed was 2.07 percent of the cause of accidents in Nevada. Mr. Dornsife explained a guideline for "reasonable and prudent.." would be established by overlaying the chart against monitoring sites.
Mr. Dornsife stated another federal study concluded people driving slower were the primary cause of accidents.
Providing an example of how flow management versus speed enforcement as a safety tool, Mr. Dornsife explained the autobahn in Germany established no speed limits. The primary focus in the autobahn's safety system consisted of: lane discipline, slower traffic keep right, turn signal usage and seat belt use. Mr. Dornsife explained the death in the United States had been on a fifty year decline at 2 deaths for 100,000,000 vehicle miles. Nevada, because of the fatique factor, had a higher rate than the national average. Mr. Dornsife stated the autobahn using their safety system ingredients which did not include speed, had a death rate of less than one per 100,000,000 vehicle miles.
Mr. Dornsife presented a chart showing vehicles traveling at a faster than average rate had the lowest accident rates while vehicles traveling slower than the average rate were involved in the most collisions and created the greatest hazard.
Mr. Spitler clarified the premise of the bill, if enacted, would make the roads safer. Mr. Dornsife stated if the bill was enacted, only those people truly at risk would be cited and others driving in safer conditions would be cited for wasting fuel.
Mr. Toomin expressed his disagreement with an earlier statement stating people drove at a speed they felt safest with. He thought people had a tendency to drive at a speed they felt they could get away with without receiving a citation.
Jim Poston alluded, as a traffic engineer, he practiced conservative measures; however, federal studies showed drivers virtually disobeyed speed limits at will as they drove at speeds they were comfortable with. If speed limits were raised, people would adjust their own speed in accordance with the speed limit. Mr. Poston stated he was able to perform studies in Northern Nevada and findings showed by dropping the speed limit by 10 mph, speeds were reduced by only 1 mph; however, by increasing the speed limit by 5 mph, the speeds increased by only 1 mph which proved driver behavior to be fairly constant.
Answering a question from Mr. Collins, Mr. Dornsife informed the committee if the bill passed, Nevada would be using the same guidelines as the original statute; but if the highway patrol reviewed the charts on both rural and interstate highways, more reasonable guidelines could be developed.
Mr. Dornsife discussed statistics regarding rural interstate and arterials (Exhibit H).
Mr. Collins relayed concerns of people he had discussed the issue with and found people were not so concerned with the high speed used on an open highway as they were with temperature conditions or vehicle safety conditions. Mr. Dornsife responded speed capability of cars continually increased incrementally as tires were built better and overall quality of cars improved.
Mr. Anderson commented testimony showed raising or lowering speed limits would not change overall statistical curve in any format. He voiced concern that raising the speed would be detrimental to merging traffic gaining access onto a freeway. Mr. Dornsife stated a proven known shown by data in passing the bill would only change speeds on roads by 1 or 2 mph; but the bill, if passed, would change the way in which citations were issued. Currently, the heaviest citation areas were those areas where it was safest to drive fast. Mr. Dornsife had hoped the bill would shift the safety focus on all resources being placed on a small percentage of cars and instead shift the focus to the known causes of accidents.
Mr. Poston, from a driver's perspective, stated a conflict existed between those who wanted to drive legally and yet be safe as the chart showed the safest catergories were those driving at higher speeds. Mr. Poston, from an engineer's perspective, stated if all traffic moved within 10 mph of each other in a uniform speed, highways would be safer.
Mr. Dornsife concluded his presentation by summarizing the proposed bill would: 1)Not affect federal funding, but enhance ability to maintain compliance. He explained proposed federal standards have opposition from AAHSTO who was trying to change the proposed standards. If the bill increased base numbers by 1 or 2 mph, the state would be enabled to stay in compliance for a longer period of time rather than trying to keep numbers artificially low as currently done. 2) Essentially make those people driving in the safest conditions subject to wasting fuel rather than a violation of safety. Mr. Dornsife stated the highway patrol should be focused on safety rather than non-safety issues.
Ron Hill, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation (NDOT), testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Hill, addressing the AAHSTO policy, stated NDOT had never supported a national speed limit. Agreeing with the premise of the AASHTO resolution, Mr. Hill stated speed limits should exist, rather speed limits should be determined on the basis of engineering studies for each individual state rather than determined legislatively.
Addressing earlier testimony stating federal sanctions would not be violated, Mr. Hill replied a speed study placed NDOT in compliance by 1/10th of one percent. Mr. Hill stated the sanctions under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) for Nevada were approximately $750,000. If out of compliance, Mr. Hill stated that money would be taken away from highway construction and placed elsewhere.
Mr. Hill, in his experience, commented statistics could be used at any angle to prove the point of the person using the statistics. By raising the speed limit, slower drivers uncomfortable with speed, would be placed with a bunch of faster drivers on the freeway. He stated the premise of "the higher the speed, the safer the road" violated logic. Mr. Hill stated as pointed out in earlier testimony, the largest number of accidents occurred with single vehicles running off the road. Mr. Hill questioned the logic involved with thinking running off the road at 80 mph would be safer than running off the road at 50 mph.
Mr. Hill stated the department was aware of the decrease in fatality and accident rates. He felt part of the decrease was due to the national speed limit and did not wish to see the decrease reversed. Mr. Hill stated Nevada ranked among the worst in fatality rate statistics compared to other states and added Nevada was not a good state to experiment with speed limits.
Colonel Bill Yukish, Chief, Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety reinforced the belief relating to national policy. He felt earlier testimony stating national support existed for the elimination of speed limits was inappropriate. Mr. Yukish reiterated the resolution matched that of the National Governor's Association, the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, all of which lobbied for allowance of speed limits to be set by individual states based upon engineering studies. Colonel Yukish stated the proposed bill would remove the 70 mph cap on NRS 484.362 and would allow an energy waste citation for those vehicles traveling upwards to 100 mph.
Mr. Yukish voiced concern with enforcement. He felt laws should be standardized, enforceable, and understandable nationwide so the public would be aware when they conformed or violated the law. Availability of guidelines determining what was "safe and prudent" for each road would not be available for all the motoring public to be aware of. Mr. Hill voiced concern that educating the public by citing them when they were not driving "reasonably or prudent" was not a good educating measure.
Mr. Yukish concluded A.B. 551 did not send good legislative message to the public by telling them to drive any speed they desired. Addressing earlier testimony Mr. Yukish felt the improved quality of safety was attributed to departments such as NDOT, law enforcement, legislative bodies, etc. concerned with highway safety. In addition,
Mr. Yukish, responding to earlier testimony concerning the improved quality of braking equipment and automobile equipment in general, stated his family had seven vehicles and only one of the vehicles (the '93 model) contained the latest up-to-date safety equipment on the market today.
Mr. Collins relayed experiences traveling Nevada in the 70's and lenient attitudes of law enforcement officers regarding the speed limit. He suggested having counties address speed limit citations on how it pertained to their locations. Colonel Yukish responded Nevada was not the same state as it was in 1970 and statistics showed by increasing speed by miles, probability of more severe injuries also increased. From highway safety standpoint, Colonel Yukish informed the committee if they desired to adopt speed limits based on "reasonable and prudent," the manner to do that would be to send a message to Congress asking states be allowed to set speed limits based on engineering studies. Colonel Yukish requested assistance from the state in enforcing speed limits. He stated state troopers provided earnest efforts to keep the state from being sanctioned and in compliance with federal monitoring.
Mr. Collins felt the less time spent on freeways also indicated less exposure to danger. Mr. Yukish reiterated the departments support for interstate speed limits be determined by engineering studies.
Mr. Toomin acknowledging contradictory testimony given in reference to loss of federal funds, asked the figure involved. Mr. Hill responded under the proposed law, federal fund loss would be approximately $750,000.
Mr. Toomin asked if comparative statistics existed between the periods when Nevada did not have a speed limit to current. Mr. Hill replied the statistics could be provided.
Mr. Hettrick expressed his concern with leniency by officers in not enforcing posted speed limits. Colonel Yukish responded many sections of the interstate were designed for 70 mph and if allowed to set speed limits without federal intervention, he felt the speed limit would probably be 70 mph; however, if a 70 mph speed limit sign was posted, the sanction would be $110 million as federal government would immediately sanction the entire program.
Answering a question from Mr. Hettrick, Colonel Yukish stated Nevada has posted a 70 mph speed limit sign and received a letter threatening sanction unless the sign was removed.
Mr. Hill explained alternative reasons statistics might have appeared to show vehicles traveled at higher speeds.
Mr. Dornsife explained when the speed limit law was not in effect, the average speed of vehicles was 70 mph. Today with speed limits implemented, the average speed of vehicles was 68 mph. Mr. Dornsife refuted it had been proven people drove at speeds they felt safe. He stated there were no current sanctions or new standards to comply with. Mr. Dornsife stated it was impossible to be out of compliance as the new standards were yet to be determined. As distributed in the charts, a 70 mph curve had a minimum design speed of 118 mph when wet. He expanded on further design speed findings. Mr. Dornsife stated the average age of cars was seven years old and a natural cycle existed as every year cars became newer. He also stated speed limits had no cause and effect on traffic speeds. Mr. Dornsife repeated his attempt at bringing people driving prudently and safely within confines of an environmental infraction rather than reckless driving.
With no further testimony, Chairman Spitler closed the hearing on A.B. 551.
WORK SESSION
Chairman Spitler requested a committee introduction for 43-1940 which established fees for renewal of commerical driver licenses. A introduction was also requested for BDR S-2054 which provided for designation of Six Mile Canyon Road in Storey County as a state highway. Chairman Spitler noted a committee introduction was also needed for a resolution requested by the Public Service Commission to participate in a hazardous waste program.
MR. GARNER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTIONS OF BDR 43-1940 AND BDR S-2054 AND FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR THE PSC TO PARTICIPATE IN A HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 176: Requires governing body of political subdivision and attorney general, under certain circumstances, to bring action to allow access to public road.
Assemblyman Vonne Chowning, District 28, explained the proposed amendment had already been approved almost in entirety. Mrs. Chowning reiterated the importance of the bill and thanked committee members for efforts. She then reviewed provisions of the proposed amendment to A.B. 176 (Exhibit I).
Chairman commended the work of Mrs. Chowning and subcommittee members. In light of all the questions raised at the first hearing, he stated the subcommittee did a stellar job.
Mr. Anderson again complimented the subcomittee. He stated rather than merely changing one word from "may" to "shall," the subcommittee put into plain language a method by which everyone involved in trying to gain or close access in back country could follow.
Chairman stated he did state at the last meeting he would allow testimony to be taken before passing.
Darryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association voiced support for the bill.
Doug Busselman, Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, voiced support for the bill.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 176.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman requested Mr. Anderson and Mrs. Chowning to handle the bill when it reached the floor.
With no further business, meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
May 10, 1993
Page 1