MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
June 2, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, June 2, 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:
Rose McKinney-James, Public Service Commission
Dan Bayer, Public Service Commission
Jay Kayne, National Governor's Association
William Goddard, Nevada Highway Patrol
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motorist Association
Ron Hill, Department of Transportation
Sherry Blackwell, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Dave Hefner, Registratio Division, Department of Motor
Vehicles and Public Safety
Tom Bordigioni, Director, Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association
Bob Livingston, Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association
Al Lockett, Reno Boat, Sport, & R.V. Show
Allan Bloomberg, Automobile Recyclers and Dismantlers of Nevada
Ashley Hall, Automobile Recyclers and Dismantlers of Nevada
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 59: Urges Public Service Commission of Nevada to lead participation in pilot program for Alliance for Uniform HazMat Transportation Procedures.
Chairman Spitler declared he was an employee of an agency regulated by the Public Service Commission; however, ACR 59 did not relate to telecommunications and he would participate in the hearing.
Rose McKinney-James, Commissioner, Nevada Public Service Commission, was present in a dual capacity as she had also served as Chairman for the Alliance for Uniform HazMat Transportation Procedures. She explained the alliance was a working group specifically outlined in Section 22 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA). She presented information on the alliance (Exhibit C). Ms. James indicated she had worked with state and local officials for two years in developing a policy which served as the underlying basis for ACR 59.
Ms. James introduced fellow alliance member, Don Bayer, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, and Jay Kayne, Director of Policy Studies for the National Governor's Association. She stated Mr. Kayne had served as the project manager for the alliance. Ms. James indicated one of the main responsibilities of the alliance was to develop recommendations for the Secretary of Transportation that provided for uniform transportation of hazardous materials nationwide. She stressed uniformity importance and stated the regulations would ultimately be promulgated and regulated by the Secretary.
Ms. James indicated the alliance had developed a policy statement and uniform paper forms to be used by participating states in the registration or permitting of motor carriers who transported hazardous materials. She stated the alliance had determined establishing a pilot program which tested field operations of the paper process developed by the alliance was needed in order for the process to work. She urged support of ACR 59 and stated the bill provided ability for Nevada to participate with three other states in a two year pilot program to test recommendations of the alliance. Ms. James added the alliance recommendations were to be submitted to the Secretary of Transportation within 60 days.
Don Bayer, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, declared as a staff member he was unable to recommend any specific opinion on the issue; however, he stated he did participate in the process and was prepared to answer committee questions specifically relative to ACR 59.
Jay Kayne, Director of Policy Issues, National Governor's Association (NGA), expressed his joy in working with Ms. James and Mr. Bayer. Mr. Kayne stated NGA and the National Conference of State Legislatures had served as staff to the 30 member working group on hazmat transportation. He indicated the task of the group was not to create a program from scratch but to bring uniformity to the 39 states which already administered some form of hazardous materials transportation. Mr. Kayne explained the two year process included five meetings of the full working group and numerous meetings of sub-groups and task force. A copy of the model program as recommended was distributed (Exhibit D). Mr. Kayne stated the program basically resulted from pressure exerted from the motorcarrier industry to bring uniformity to state regulations for hazardous material transportation. He indicated prior to the alliance, the 39 participating states each had a different procedure with different forms.
Mr. Kayne informed the committee congressional debate on the issue allowed for two options: 1) total preemption of states from the process or 2) bringing uniformity to the process.
Mr. Kayne stated the alliance had opted to review a reciprocal system in which a state permitted a carrier under the proposed model program and the permit would be recognized by all other states. He stated the reciprocal option had strong support from the industry and further explained how authorization would be recognized by all 39 participating states. Mr. Kayne stated the biggest concern voiced by states regarding reciprocity was how rights retained by the state would be affected when a carrier crossed a stateline with a permit issued by another state. Mr. Kayne stated the alliance signed off on the issue by recommending enforcement within states remain the purview of the state in which the carrier operated. Mr. Kayne exemplified had a serious incident occurred in Nevada, Nevada would be able to restrict the carrier from operating on Nevada's highways while enforcing Nevada's fines and penalties even though the carrier had a permit issued by another state.
Mr. Kayne relayed significant savings would be made as administrative costs alone incurred by the trucking industry to comply with the 39 states' different programs was close to $1.5 billion a year. In addition, Mr. Kayne believed the program would delete cumbersome duties and improve safety while focusing on domicile needs. Mr. Kayne concluded by indicating he was pleased with Nevada's interest in being a pilot state and urged support of the resolution. He indicated the time table required the Secretary of Transportation in promulgation of the rule was September 30, 1996, becoming effective September 30, 1997. Mr. Kayne pointed out by being a pilot state, Nevada would have an advantage by being able to raise questions and influence the Secretary's final rule.
Mr. Anderson acknowledged a hazardous material study held in the past legislative interim period with participation from the PSC. He asked if enacted legislation curtailed ability to complete the proposed model. Ms. McKinney-James indicated it would not and explained the state currently had a program where motorcarriers were registered and permitted through the motorcarrier division of DMV. She clarified retainment of motorcarrier suitability for intra-state carriage was maintained by PSC.
Mr. Anderson asked if the study intended suitability of carriers to be determined on a state-by-state basis. Mr. Kayne explained initial permitting would be done by a base state; however, when a carrier crossed the state border, programs which currently existed (i.e. on-road inspection programs, etc.) in the state in which the carrier was traveling would still be in place. He stated this allowed carriers/drivers to be pulled out of service and assessed state penalties for carriers who acted irresponsibly. Addressing a concern of Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kayne stated the act required the Secretary of Transportation to determine what constituted hazardous material. He stated only the Secretary was able to change the definition. Under the proposed program, Mr. Kayne explained states would be able to designate state waste materials. Mr. Kayne informed the committee national carriers were concerned about how they would be aware of each state's different waste materials. He stated the concern was addressed by having the proposed program develop a national repository where states reported their different waste.
Mr. Anderson asked if the proposed model only affected highway traffic, or if it also include rail lines, etc. Mr. Kayne replied Section 22 related only to motor carriers.
Ms. James reported on the resolution's fiscal impact. She indicated a review revealed it might be appropriate to look for an appropriation from the highway fund for support of the resolution. Ms. James indicated Captain William Goddard assisted in developing a proposed budget which was reviewed by the state budget officer. Ms. James stated they did have figures for both years of the pilot; in addition, the federal highway administration indicated an appropriation of $50,000 would be made to assist each pilot state.
Captain Bill Goddard, Nevada Highway Patrol, indicated his budget was based on the seven major objectives and time frame of the pilot project. Based on the two year compressed project, Mr. Goddard stated the figure for the first year was set at $124,800 and $119,517 for the second year. Mr. Goddard indicated the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) strongly supported the resolution. He explained a lot of interest in hazardous material existed within the state and a hazardous material program was in place. He emphasized the pilot project would allow Nevada the chance to participate in the decision-making process which would affect the entire nation.
Chairman Spitler informed the committee when ACR 59 was submitted, it was assumed the state would be eligible for the $50,000 federal appropriation; however, it was learned state financial participation was also required. He stated state financial participation would be supported by the highway fund with approval by the budget department. Chairman Spitler explained if the bill was acted upon favorably, the resolution content would remain the same but would be assigned a bill number and rereferred to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Toomin voiced some concern with permissiveness of language in the preliminary model program, for example, the option to register shippers. Mr. Kayne replied the hazmat transportation program was not federally mandated but allowed any state that wished to regulate hazardous material to do so by uniform procedures. He stated although forms and procedures were uniform, the alliance did want to allow as much state flexibility as possible within the federal framework. Referencing the act's option to register shippers, Mr. Kayne replied many states already registered shippers in another capacity but were allowed also to register under the act. Mr. Toomin commented participation by each state with the same rules would ensure efficiency of the program. Ms. James agreed and stated uniformity was the intent of the program. She explained the point of the program required states who wished to engage in either registering or issuing permits to any motorcarrier who transported hazardous materials had to do so by uniform rules; however, states would be allowed flexibility registering or only permitting, or electing to not have a program at all. She stated the alliance understood some states might not be able to participate because of fiscal constraints, lack of traffic of the issue nature, etc.
Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, expressed appreciation for Rose McKinney-James' participation as a member of the Public Service Commission and her involvement with the Hazmat Alliance working group. Mr. Capurro stated the purpose behind ACR 59 was extremely important to both the industry and state. Mr. Capurro stated the resolution was similar to other compacts of which Nevada belonged, including the "The International Registration Plan (IRP)" and the "International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA)." He felt the program made sense for "command and control" in working with other states for envisionment of a program that allowed a state to collect fees and issue permits that allowed for movement of hazardous materials. Mr. Capurro stated the resolution had full-hearted support of the industry and urged the committee to adopt the resolution.
Ron Hill, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), testified in support of the bill. Mr. Hill stated NDOT felt the program was needed and an appropriate use of highway trust fund dollars.
Because of the fiscal impact, Chairman Spitler informed the committee by adopting the resolution, the resolution would become a bill and receive a bill number and then referred to the Ways and Means Committee.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS, AND REREFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Anderson commended the work of Ms. McKinney-James and echoed an earlier statement that Nevada was fortunate to have her participation on the alliance working group. He hoped ACR 59 moved into a national framework so Nevada would gain momentum on the issue.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 645: Makes various changes in regulation of dealers and other enterprises related to motor vehicles. (BDR 43-672)
Sherry Blackwell, Assistant Chief, Motor Carrier Bureau, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated AB 645 had been requested by DMV for "clean-up" purposes relating to DMV's enforcement of licensing, regulation of dealers, manufacturers, rebuilders, etc. Ms. Blackwell introduced Dave Hefner, Senior Investigator, Bureau of Enforcement, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety.
Ms. Blackwell reviewed the bill section by section with the committee.
Chairman Spitler asked if and how the proposed bill changed current DMV procedures. Ms. Blackwell stated the bill authorized the director to make determinations on bonds; whereas current determinations were only based on people bringing suit against a bonding company. She stated the bill made it easier for a consumer who had been wronged by a licensee covered by a bond, to obtain their money. Ms. Blackwell indicated the wronged consumer, under the proposed bill would be able to file his claim with the department. Ms. Blackwell explained the investigative process involved in the filed claims.
Mr. Toomin conveyed he was disturbed by individuals in Clark County who sold more than three vehicles but were not authorized dealers. He asked about enforcement procedures for those individuals.
Dave Hefner, Senior Investigator, Bureau of Enforcement, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, explained the department had a "curbing" program in effect where investigators were assigned to record vehicles displayed on streets for sale. He stated back-up research was conducted on the title/registration of displayed vehicles with attempts made to contact the owners. Mr. Hefner stated appropriate enforcement action was taken on individuals who, for example, had the same phone number listed on several different cars. Mr. Hefner explained part of the investigative work included review of the classified ad publications.
Tom Bordigioni, State Director, Recreational Vehicles Association of America, Owner, Mountain Family R.V., expressed concern with certain sections of the bill. He stated he agreed with Section 7 of A.B. 645 but was concerned on whether regulations not defined in the bill would allow his industry to participate in off-site shows. Mr. Bordigioni understood most of the problems the bill addressed occurred in Southern Nevada; however, he did state legitimate R.V. shows were held in Northern Nevada. Mr. Bordigioni indicated his understanding all R.V. shows had been banned, and he asked for clarification on what shows were considered legitimate. He stated he was concerned with the language "The Department may, by regulation, provide for the issuance of a temporary license...." , most especially the word "may" as the department may provide for some dealers but not for others. Mr. Bordigioni said he also had concern with the text of the repealed section.
Mr. Hefner informed the committee placing the proposed bill in statute would clarify current practices of DMV, including consideration of variables of when a license could be issued. For example, Mr. Hefner stated they did not want to infringe on franchise criteria for a ten mile radius to avoid a dealership setting up a tent show across from another. Mr. Hefner stated the bill also proposed for Southern Nevada, that R.V. shows obtain a Clark County business license as sometimes shows were not permitted by county regulations.
Chairman Spitler asked if the regulations for R.V. shows were done by public forums that provided opportunity for public input. Mr. Hefner stated it was the intent of the department to have industry participation in the regulations. Chairman Spitler noted the importance of noticing the public hearings so dealers, etc. would have the opportunity for direct input on regulations. Ms. Blackwell agreed.
Mr. Bordigioni welcomed written regulation that would be enforced, fairly distributed to avoid hurting existing dealers or consumers. He indicated the bill was written very vaguely. Chairman Spitler understood from Mr. Hefner's earlier answer that regulations would be determined in a regulatory process by DMV through public hearings.
As indicated earlier, Mr. Hefner stated DMV currently stopped issuing temporary site location permits to allow for input from the industry before they begin to issue anymore.
Addressing Mr. Bordigioni's concern of the repealed text of A.B. 645, Ms. Blackwell stated Section 7 of the proposed bill replaced the repealed section. She stated Section 7 would address the rules needed to administer. Ms. Blackwell stated confusion existed on how the repealed text came to be in statute in the first place as subsection (b) required landlords of the spaces to also be a manufacturer, distributor, rebuilder, lessor or dealer. She stated enforcement of that definition would not allow sites such as Thomas & Mack Center in Las Vegas, or the Reno Convention Center to hold R.V. shows in the first place as they were not manufacturers, rebuilders, etc.
Mr. Bordigioni pointed out monetary deposits had already been made by R.V. dealers for upcoming shows; however, he understood they would not be able to participate in the shows. Mr. Hefner repeated permits were currently not being issued and they were waiting to see support of A.B. 645. He stated they intended to continue the process, but they wished to clarify the process with rules and regulations before further continuance of current practices. Mr. Hefner indicated implementing the bill with public hearings would be a top priority.
Mr. Toomin indicated regulations should be developed before approaching the legislature with a bill. Chairman Spitler replied often statutes were enabling legislation.
Mrs. Chowning pointed out a criminal portion was contained in text of the repealed section; however, the proposed bill did not include the misdemeanor provision. She asked penalties involved for someone selling vehicles without any authority. Mr. Hefner responded statutes of penalty nature were covered at the end of NRS 482. He informed the committee some sales of cars could be as much as a felony crime or as little as a misdemeanor dependent upon how the illegal sale took place.
Mr. Hettrick asked the time frame involved with holding public hearings and if the time frame would affect R.V. shows currently scheduled. Mr. Hefner indicated the department was aware of the industry's concern on scheduled shows and repeated willingness to work with the R.V. dealers in making the public hearings a top priority. Mr. Hefner was unable to specifically indicate a period of time but again repeated the department's willingness to implement the program as quickly as possible.
Answering a question from Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Bordigioni stated a show was scheduled by the Association for early October; however, an individual dealer had reserved and paid for space at the convention center for shows in Reno in June and July. Mr. Bordigioni relayed he had spoken with Mr. Bob Anselmo of the DMV-Las Vegas who indicated in extreme circumstances, DMV might be able to issue emergency type permits to hold the R.V. shows. Mr. Bordigioni briefly explained purposes served and processes involved with holding R.V. shows.
Chairman Spitler noted the proposed bill would not hinder current law or current administrative practices. Mr. Hefner replied clarification for the proposed bill was needed as current language actually prevented a majority of R.V. off-site shows from occurring. Chairman inquired on the intent of the department to not cease off-site R.V. shows currently scheduled while regulations were being put into place. Mr. Hefner indicated DMV Director Bob Anselmo had stated his willingness to provide provisions as needed for the industry while resolving implementation of the proper policies and procedures.
Answering a question from Mr. Collins, Mr. Hefner stated current law did not distinguish retail dealers from wholesale dealers, only dealers from salesmen. Mr. Collins pointed out retail dealers expended funds as they also needed to obtain lots, bonds, rent, etc. where a wholesale dealer would temporarily set up a show without the added costs of being permanently placed. Mr. Hefner stated current regulations under law required the same criteria for any dealer regardless of high or low volume. Mr. Hefner did indicate a review was being conducted on retailers and wholesalers.
Mr. Hettrick asked if "year" as written in the bill referred to either a calendar year or a twelve month period. Mr. Hefner indicated clarification might be needed in the bill on the definition of "year." He stated the intent of the language was to align the section in question with other existing statutes, in particularly taxation.
Mr. Collins understood "year" was defined as a calendar year. Mr. Hefner agreed.
Bob Livingston, Vice President, Northern Nevada R.V. Dealer's Association, Owner, R.V. Dealership in Reno, stated many of his concerns were voiced by Mr. Bordigioni in earlier testimony regarding Section 7 of the proposed bill. Mr. Livingston explained off-site dealer promotions was a legitimate part of the R.V. industry with dealerships using the shows to promote the R.V. lifestyle, presence in the market, and revenue. Mr. Livingston offered language be inserted into the bill that specified licensed dealers be issued a permit for show participation upon paying a fee. He felt this would help the industry by removing the large deposits currently being paid. While regulations were being developed, Mr. Livingston sought issuance of temporary permits to assure scheduled shows would not be hampered.
Chairman Spitler asked if the R.V. industry was aware the repealed section of the proposed bill needed clarification. Mr. Livingston was not aware but agreed the language needed to be corrected and in essence, supported the bill; however, they were concerned with the vagueness of language in Section 7 and asked why the issue could not be addressed in greater detail in the bill, rather than by regulation.
Mr. Anderson voiced concern the proposed bill might open situations where an initially small operator, upon receiving his license, suddenly began to continually move his business from one off-site location to another within the same city during business peak seasons. Mr. Hefner conceived franchise agreements might preclude the mentioned situation from ever happening.
Chairman Spitler pointed out the concern of the R.V. dealers dealt with changing the word "may" to "shall" in Section 7.
Al Lockett, Producer, Reno Boat, Sport, and R.V. Show, explained his position with the bill paralleled with earlier testimony but from a different angle. For 25 years, Mr. Lockett stated he had successfully developed an R.V. off-site show with local participation; however, he was concerned good cooperation with his local dealer companions might not always exist due to budgets, timing, or various market elements which might prevent the local dealers from participating. Mr. Lockett stated the ability to stay in business without local participation was predicated on outside or other R.V. dealers. Mr. Lockett stated with only eight R.V dealers existing in Reno, he wished to propose allowance of out-of-state legitimate dealers who did not conflict with local dealers to participate in off-site shows. Mr. Lockett pointed out outside dealers were not restricted from advertising in local newspapers or on television and he felt his business simply provided advertising media for moving the product from a manufacturer to the consumer.
Chairman Spitler, in addition to the two amendments discussed, asked what changes could be made to the bill that would accommodate Mr. Lockett's request. Mr. Lockett stated the bill would not preclude him from producing shows with boats or sporting equipment, but it would preclude him from doing R.V. shows which made up 35 percent of his show.
Mr. Hefner indicated the department was concerned with out-of-state dealers coming in as the state would not be able to provide consumer protection. Mr. Hefner stated current practice allowed out-of-state dealers ability to consign their products to local licensed dealers for selling. He stated this afforded public protection through the local dealership.
Mr. Collins understood current law required businesses to be licensed in Nevada before selling anything. Mr. Hefner agreed current law did require a Nevada business license, but he repeated consignments were able to be made.
Mr. Lockett clarified with current law, he would be able to bring out-of-state dealers in to his shows if he became a licensed dealer with the out-of-state business consigned to his dealership. Mr. Hefner agreed.
Daryl Capurro, Executive Director, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, testified in support of the bill. In reference to Section 1, #2(a), Mr. Capurro felt "year" should be defined as a twelve month period rather than a calendar year as individuals might sell three cars in December and three cars in January which would be difficult to enforce. He understood current law also interpreted a year as twelve month period. Mr. Capurro noted a memo was sent by Deputy Director Anselmo of DMV stating they would no longer approve issuance of off-site sale permits. He stated this memo effectively halted any type of auto, R.V. or boat shows. He emphasized the importance of the shows for public interest. Mr. Capurro indicated the repealed section of the bill definitely needed clarification and supported off-site shows, under certain circumstances. He also requested changing the word "may" to "shall" on page 4, line 17. He felt this showed intent of the legislature to DMV that they wanted issuance of temporary permits.
Addressing an earlier concern of Mr. Toomin regarding establishing of proposed regulations before proposing a bill, Mr. Capurro stated enabling legislation was needed for DMV to address the issue before regulations could be adopted. Mr. Toomin understood agencies had the ability to hold public meetings at any time as long as the meeting notice was properly posted.
Chairman Spitler stated agencies could not have public hearings repealing a section of existing statute without legislative authority.
Mr. Capurro further clarified provisions protecting the public or industry in respect to changes in rules and regulations. Mr. Capurro relayed micromanagement of the industry might not be desired, however he was concerned with protection of franchise territory. Mr. Capurro, in reviewing the regulatory process, indicated the fastest time frame he had observed regulation adoption was at least three months. He suggested by placing as part of the record, the legislature direct the department, by passage of the bill, to withdraw the memo and allow issuance of emergency permits for allowance of already established shows, or shows which would be performed under the type of regulations that were going to be adopted.
Regarding out-of-state sellers, Mr. Capurro stated a statutory scheme required a Nevada license be obtained when offering a sale, displaying a sale, or making a sale. He emphasized the importance of the repealed section. He suggested an emergency clause for Section 7 and the repealed section of the proposed bill become effective upon approval of the proposed bill.
Allan Bloomberg, President, Automotive Recyclers and Dismantlers Association of Nevada, indicated his concern with Page 6, Section 10, lines 31-33 of the proposed bill as it provided consumer protection by eliminating due process for the business owner. He indicated they would be supportive of the bill if a specified due process was implemented. Chairman Spitler asked Mr. Bloomberg's recommendation. Mr. Bloomberg suggested deletion of Section 6, lines 31-33. Mr. Bloomberg did indicate the wording he wanted deleted in Section 6 was also contained in other sections of the bill; however, as representative of auto wreckers, he only referred to Section 6 as it pertained to auto wreckers.
Mr. Hefner understood the portion of Section 6 in question was contained in the bill as a last resort measure after all other avenues had been exhausted in releasing funds from bonds. He stated release of funds was a prerogative of the bonding company; however, if they did not release, the director would be able to order a release.
Chairman Spitler asked Mr. Hefner to review the due process within current statute. Mr. Hefner stated Mr. Bloomberg was correct in pointing out the proposed bill did not state any process other than verbiage written in the bill. Chairman Spitler requested Mr. Hefner draft an amendment which addressed the due process concern.
Another concern of Mr. Bloomberg dealt with changing the "may" to "shall" on page 1 of the proposed bill. Mr. Bloomberg felt DMV was reluctant to pass regulations and felt DMV needed more legislative guidance in dealing with interpretation of vague statutes.
Mr. Hefner, in reference to a discussion on implementing due process procedures, stated a reason for recommendation of the change in Section 6 was a due process currently available to the consumer was virtually non-existent. Mr. Anderson clarified hearings were currently not available where consumers had an opportunity to appear before a bonding agent for impartial determinations unless a private suit was brought forth. Mr. Hefner agreed. Mr. Anderson asked, by the proposed bill, if DMV would begin to hold hearings for consumers and bondholders appearing before DMV. Mr. Hefner replied Mr. Anderson's perception was the direction DMV intended to go. He did inform the committee Section 3 of the bill addressed injuries; therefore, he explained the director would address release of bonds only after a violation had occurred.
Mr. Toomin inquired what current civil suit remedies were available to the public. Mr. Hefner stated consumers did have a due process available under civil regulation; however, it was very costly.
Mr. Collins, referring to current statutes, understood due process was not being taken away. Mr. Bloomberg replied he felt due process was being taken away as the statutes Mr. Collins referred to were eliminated by the proposed bill stating "the director shall determine." Chairman Spitler clarified the statutes were not removed. Mr. Bloomberg stated language was not written where the director needed to hold a hearing.
Mr. McGaughey agreed a due process procedure was in place with current statute and language in the proposed bill.
Ashley Hall, Automobile Recyclers and Dismantlers of Nevada, indicated desire for fairness on both sides for the consumer and business.
Chairman Spitler requested DMV review the language in the proposed bill, specifically Page 1, line 26, and consideration on Page 3 for changing "may" to "shall", and corrective language on areas discussed on Page 6 of the proposed bill. He also requested language which stated Sections 7 and 14 would be effective upon passage and approval.
Chairman Spitler requested a letter from Director Anselmo, DMV - Las Vegas, specifying how the department intended to handle issuance of temporary permits for R.V. off site shows currently scheduled or planned and avoidance of penalties for those scheduled shows.
WORK SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 500: Allows issuance of fictitious driver's license to federal agent for undercover investigation.
Chairman Spitler reviewed action and discussion previously heard on the bill.
MR. TOOMIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 500.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Hettrick addressed an earlier concern regarding a citation received on a fictitious driver's license. Chairman Spitler indicated testimony had indicated approximately 1,000 licenses had been issued with little detectability the license was fictitious when it entered the system. Chairman Spitler stated the department was in the process of pulling fictitious licenses as they came up for renewals and re-doing them.
Mr. McGaughey commented federal agents often operated in multi-states and Nevada would not have control over use of the licenses outside the state. Understanding the importance and good intention of the fictitious driver's license, Mr. McGaughey was concerned a balance was not written into the proposed bill that assured proper review of the ficticious drivers licenses on a periodic basis. He stated the state would ultimately pay the price for the fictitious driver's licenses lost in the system. Mr. McGaughey indicated he would support the bill if a mandatory review had been written into the bill.
Chairman Spitler stated earlier testimony from the department indicated the need for clean, almost untraceable fictitious driver's licenses to protect the agents while on undercover investigations. Mr. McGaughey felt a co-op agreement could be addressed between the federal government and DMV in reviewing licenses in a confidential manner that did not compromise protection of the agents.
Mr. Hettrick indicated an amendment had been offered to include agents from the attorney general's office.
MR. TOOMIN AND MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO WITHDRAW THEIR MOTION TO DO PASS.
Chairman clarified the amendment was requested from the attorney general's office to specifically allow their agents fictitious driver's licenses, in addition to federal agents.
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO ADOPT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED BILL TO INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE. (MR. ANDERSON, MR. GREGORY, AND MR. MCGAUGHEY VOTED NO.)
* * * *
MR. TOOMIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 500.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE. (MR. MCGAUGHEY VOTED NO.)
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 550: Revises authority of regional transportation commissions to adopt regulations for operation of systems or services financed by commission.
MR. COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 550.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
Chairman Spitler indicated his intent to not accept further committee introductions after the next week. He did advise individuals who requested introduction of bills the difficulty in assuring bills would be heard as the session began to come to a close.
Chairman Spitler stated a request had been submitted by Assemblyman Scherer for a bill introduction which would require bicycle riders under age 18 to wear a helmet.
MR. GREGORY MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
Chairman Spitler requested a committee introduction for BDR 58-1784 which required motorcarriers to designate a person to train employees and ensure compliance with the Federal Disabilities Act.
MR. HETTRICK MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 58-1784.
MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
Chairman Spitler requested a committee introduction of BDR 43-1771 which prohibited driving or moving of a vehicle with an uncovered load.
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43- 1771.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
With no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
June 2, 1993
Page 1