MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
June 23, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, June 23, 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:
Assemblyman John Carpenter, District No. 33
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Stephanie Tyler, Regional Transportation Commission
Michelle Gordon-Torres, Regional Transportation Commission
Garth Dull, Department of Transportation
Fred Harrell, Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclist
Bill Guisti, Newmont Gold Company
Ron Powell, Newmont Gold Company
Diane Yoder, Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc.
John Fowler, Nevada Mining Association
Bob Barker, Continental Time
John Dobra, Professor, Department of Economics/Nevada Mining Association
Ray Williams, Jr., Lander County Commission
Michael Pitlock, Public Service Commission
Jeff Frehner, Frehner Trucking Service
Mike Soumbeniotis, AMII
Merle Swanson, Self
Sam Routson, Winnemucca Farms
Danny Thompson, AFL/CIO
Jim Wells, Wells-Cargo
Leroy Armrach, J & M Trucking/Halstead Trucking
Dan Halstead, Halstead Trucking
Sally Etcheberry, W.E.S. Trucking
Pete Fundis, Fundis Trucking
Robyn Exchunik, Nevada Transprotation Co.
Joanna Davis, John Davis Trucking, Co.
Ray Bacon, NMA
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 766: Revises provisions governing regional transportation commissions.
Stephanie Tyler, representing Regional Transportation Commission, introduced Michelle Gordon-Torres.
Michelle Gordon-Torres, Regional Transportation Commission, from prepared testimony (Exhibit C), testified in support of the bill.
Answering a question from Chairman Spitler, Ms. Gordon-Torres indicated the Clark County RTC Board did not take specific action on the proposed bill; however, she stated the policy board was comprised of elected officials and would not require any change of the Clark County RTC Board.
MR. TOOMIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 766.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman asked Mr. Anderson to handle the bill when it reached the floor. Mr. Anderson concurred.
SENATE BILL NO. 190: Revises penalty for certain violations related to operation of motor vehicle without insurance.
As no one was present to testify on the bill, Chairman Spitler indicated his intent to hold the bill.
SENATE BILL NO. 435: Increases maximum length allowed for certain buses.
Garth Dull, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, stated S.B. 435 resulted from the Intermobile Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) which mandated 45 foot buses be allowed in all states. He stated NDOT was in support of the bill; however, he indicated he was not aware of what the sanctions would be if the state did not comply, other than it appeared the state would be in violation of the size and weight certification issued every year.
Answering a question from Mr. Toomin, Mr. Dull indicated articulate buses were covered in another section of statute.
MR. GARNER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 435.
MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Spitler requested Mr. Collins handled the bill on the floor. Mr. Collins agreed.
SENATE BILL NO. 456: Prohibits person from operating motorcycle or moped equipped with handlebars which extend above driver's shoulders.
Frederick W. Harrell, representing Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclist, Motorcycle Dealer's Association, and ABATE of Nevada, stated the bill corrected an area of law passed in 1971 which resulted from "bad movies." He stated the bill removed ambiguity in law regarding handlebar heights as it was difficult for police officers at a glance, to tell the difference between 14" or 15" handlebars. He stated certain areas of the state used the law as an opportunity to harass motorcyclist. He stated the bill provide officers an easily visible opportunity to tell if the handlebars were illegal. In addition, Mr. Harrell stated the requirement fell into the uniform movement nationwide regarding handlebar height.
MR. GREGORY MOVED TO DO PASS THE BILL.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Spitler requested Mr. Toomin handled the bill when it reached the floor. Mr. Toomin agreed.
SENATE BILL NO. 473: Revises penalties for failing to stop, give certain information or render aid in event of certain motor vehicle accidents.
With no one present to testify on the bill, Chairman Spitler indicated his intent to hold the bill.
SENATE BILL NO. 491: Exempts certain motor carriers from rate regulation by public service commission of Nevada when carrying certain agricultural or mining products.
Bill Giusti, Traffic Manager, Newmont Gold Company, Carlin, Nevada, from prepared testimony and utilizing a slideshow as a visual aide (Exhibit D), testified in support of the bill. He summed the intent of S.B. 491 was to ease port of entry into a narrow portion of the transportation industry for dry, bulk products which ultimately would contribute at least $.5 million into the state's net proceeds.
He introduced Ron Powell, Director of Administration, Newmont Gold Company and Diane Yoder, Director, Materials Management, Barrick Goldstrike Mines.
Chairman Spitler acknowledged his employment with a telephone company which was under auspices of the Public Service Commission; however, he stated the bill did not impact him differently than anyone else and he would participate in the hearing.
Chairman Spitler asked what problems were being experienced by dry, bulk carriers. Mr. Giusti explained concerning volumes used, a trucking company with whom an agreement existed might have had 12 - 20 pneumatic trucks in the state. Because of the mining companies needs at any particular time, Mr. Giusti explained the contracted company at times did not have enough equipment to meet the needs. His concern was with increasing production levels which needed contracted companies to double fleet size although people were available to do the transporting in the state if they only had a broader authority on the required certificate of convenience and necessity.
Chairman Spitler asked what additional carriers would be allowed to carry products if the bill was passed that were not eligible under current regulatory requirements. Mr. Giusti named several companies which hauled cement, ammonium nitrate, lime, etc. but were not allowed to haul other dry bulk powders. Chairman Spitler asked what currently precluded the companies from hauling dry bulk. Mr. Giusti stated many certificates of public convenience and necessity were limited. Although some of the trucking companies had requested full service trucking privileges from the Public Service Commission (PSC), Mr. Giusti stated many of the requests were not approved. Chairman Spitler asked reasons given for not expanding applications submitted. Mr. Giusti indicated many protests were filed against the applications. He stated burden of proof was on the applicant to prove a need for increasing fleet size.
Mr. Giusti indicated S.B. 491 was the proper method to alleviate problems in the narrow area of transporting dry, bulk products. Chairman Spitler asked if the PSC allowed volume pricing. Mr. Giusti explained opportunities existed to raise or lower tariffs once it had been filed for a one year period.
Ron Powell, Director of Administration, Newmont Gold Company, in answering a question from Chairman Spitler stated S.B. 491 was limited in scope in attempting to change existing regulation. He stated the bill only affected the certificate of convenience as criteria for maintenance, inspection, and safety remained unchanged and was regulated by the PSC. He pointed out 40 percent of bulk commodities addressed by the S.B. 491 were projected to cross scales in the next five years. He reiterated the mining companies were not attempting to deregulate the trucking industry as it related to the mining business.
Chairman Spitler asked how the bill affected agriculture. Mr. Powell indicated the bill implied "raw agriculture products" to address concerns of hay and potato transportation.
Answering a question from Mr. McGaughey, Mr. Giusti indicated he was involved with contract negotiations for transporting products and dealt with Nevada truckers.
Diane Yoder, Director, Materials Management, Barrick Goldstrike Mines stated Barrick did not independently contract for specific purposes and suppliers often handled transportation of their products. She stated it was their specific effort to buy and use Nevada suppliers.
Mr. Powell indicated Goldstrike Mines used trucking firms that had Nevada intrastate authority even though they had the ability to use out-of-state interstate truckers at a cheaper rate.
Mr. Giusti, responding to a question from Mr. McGaughey stated the payment for dry bulk transportation was based on tonnage over a distance of miles hauled. He explained further his company's practice in contracting trucks.
Mr. McGaughey pointed out many dry bulk mining products were also used in other industries such as construction. He wondered if the bill confined the change in authoritative transportation to only mining. He felt deregulating of hauling might open up hauling the material throughout the United States.
Mr. Anderson noted an earlier comment perceived lives of mines would be extended with enactment of the proposed bill. Mr. Giusti offered mine's lives were extended as drilling discovered large varieties of ore reserves, some of which were not cost effective to produce for certain levels. Mr. Anderson asked if companies made any determinations to carriers relative to fitness and abilities with placement of contracts. Mr. Giusti explained he had safety regulations that needed to be maintained such as NDEP requirements. He stated vehicles were inspected as they were checked in, including an additional inspection by the recipients who received the loads.
Mr. Toomin asked if some of the products intended to be carried were acid or cyanide. Mr. Giusti repeated the bill addressed a narrow range of products that were low-risk commodity dry products. He stated the bill did not address liquid products. Mr. Toomin pointed out acid and cyanide were both available in dry, bulk product as well as liquid. Mr. Giusti agreed; however, he stated his contracts with acid were all liquid.
Mr. McGaughey questioned the truck safety monitoring and asked if this was addressed in contracts with the carriers. Mr. McGaughey asked for a copy of the contract form used. He also asked for elaboration on safety check procedures. Mr. Powell explained scale sites were monitored by video cameras. Mr. McGaughey pointed out the most serious consequences of trucks were failed brakes, and asked how video cameras monitored brakes. Mr. Powell explained problems of trucks would be found out while the trucks were on their property. After an explanation was given by Mr. Powell on inspection procedures, Mr. McGaughey felt costs would be saved by deferring trucker's wages and maintenance expenses.
Mr. Giusti stated the goal was to not reduce any regulatory power of the PSC related to safety, maintenance, or insurance issues. He again reiterated the narrowness of the bill.
John Fowler, Vargas and Bartlett representing Nevada Mining Association, testified in support of the bill. He explained the bill only exempted portions of statute that dealt with rates and services, certificates of public convenience and necessity, and permits for contract carriers. He stated this left in force statutes that dealt with safety and liability insurance. Mr. Fowler mentioned the bill also exempted carriers from the time consuming, expensive process of obtaining certificates of public convenience and necessity which enabled the mines to receive their hauled goods.
Bob Barker, Continental Line, Wendover, Nevada, voiced support for S.B. 491.
John Dobra, Professor of Economics, University of Nevada, stated his area of expertise dealt with mining industry, taxation and finance. He stated he was asked to testify by the Nevada Mining Association to expand further on benefits of the bill. He explained the positive economic ramifications the bill provided.
Mr. Toomin asked if mining companies had discussed the bill with the Public Service Commission. It was indicated some of the mining company members did discuss the issue.
Mr. McGaughey noted Mr. Dobra indicated strongly in his testimony that cost savings would occur with enactment of the bill and asked where the savings would be made while not damaging the trucking industry. He commented the bill's intent was to remove the mining industry from PSC regulation on how much to charge for a load. Mr. Dobra agreed.
Ray Williams, Jr., District Attorney, Lander County, and representing the Chairman, Lander County Commission, indicated his concern for safety factors involved in the bill. He noted ammonium nitrate was an explosive substance and indicated risk was involved in transporting the material. He noted the danger was lessened when transportation was allowed by a permitted carrier whose equipment was subject to PSC inspection and who was concerned with protecting his certificate and equipment. He further addressed safety issues. Mr. Williams presented a resolution adopted by the Lander County Board of Commissioners in their opposition to the bill (Exhibit E). He noted the commission approved an emergency measure which allowed transportation of unprocessed agricultural products for not more than 120 days a year by an unregulated carrier, if a regulated carrier was not available. He indicated the letter had been misrepresented as Lander County supported complete deregulation for agriculture and mining. He distributed a letter clarifying the situation (Exhibit F).
Assemblyman John Carpenter, District No. 33, voiced opposition to S.B. 491. He was concerned that a request had been presented which would deregulate a portion of the trucking industry for a specific industries. Mr. Carpenter indicated deregulation also meant review of all ramifications involved. He understood PSC was able to address safety concerns by being able to conduct safety inspections and knowing who was certified. Mr. Carpenter noted prior to the hearing, he mediated a meeting between the miners, truckers, and PSC which was very non-communicative. He believed the situation was workable within realms of the PSC. Mr. Carpenter indicated a breakdown in communications where mines had not fully addressed concerns to the PSC or trucking industry and vice'versa. Referencing economic savings, Mr. Carpenter took exception that the bill would provide $500,000 to Nevada. Utilizing the $500,000 figure, Mr. Carpenter exemplified mathematical equations which showed $340 needed to be saved from each load when in reality, the carriers only received $280. Embarking on various sources and methods of transporting loads, Mr. Carpenter alluded savings would only be attained by reducing a driver's wage or by reducing maintenance on the truck. Mr. Carpenter commented applications for certificates were protested simply for the point of being protested. He indicated the need for PSC to be more responsive. Although testimony indicated the bill only referred to a narrow scope, Mr. Carpenter pointed out next year a little broader bill might be introduced and requests would be received from every other trucking industry for deregulation as it was hard to justify deregulation in one bill but not another.
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, stated he had been working on the particular piece of legislation since 1985 and wished to introduce two points: 1) Surrounding states were deregulated on agricultural and raw products. 2) He had experienced personal problems as the drought forced him to purchase hay from out of state because Nevada's trucking rates, to abide by PSC regulations, were too extreme for him to pay.
Michael Pitlock, Commissioner, Public Service Commission, summed support for the bill indicated the system did not seem to work. He stated the mining industry believed the regulatory process, as governed by PSC, was responsive to their needs. Mr. Pitlock stated a concern of mining companies was the lack of adequate pneumatic trailers; however, he presented a list (Exhibit G) of 22 carriers with Nevada authority with a total of 1,053 pneumatic trailers available. He stated another concern dealt with ease of entry as it was indicated to be virtually impossible for a new authority to be issued, transferred, or amended. Mr. Pitlock noted statistics revealed 321 applications had been presented with only 16 being denied by the commission and 77 percent being approved (Exhibit H). He noted the system worked and would continue to work if used properly. Agreeing with Mr. Carpenter's testimony, he agreed a breakdown in communication had occurred. Mr. Pitlock pointed out lists of certificated carriers were available at the transportation division of the PSC. He noted rules were in place dealing with rates and issuance of certificates and mining companies needed to come forward to support a particular carrier's effort to obtain the required certificate. Mr. Pitlock acknowledged improvement could be made to the system and welcomed guidance from the legislature on how the process could be improved.
Mr. Pitlock pointed out the commission balanced in law interest of parties; in fact, he stated if a balance was not provided, they would hear from the courts as decisions of the PSC were subject to appeal from the courts.
Referencing safety, Mr. Pitlock agreed specific sections of the bill exempting the mining industry did not include safety, and carriers would be subjected to safety and insurance requirements. He did state however, the bill eliminated the need for truckers to come before the commission to obtain a certificate which the commission relied heavily on for enforcement of the safety, insurance, and economic regulations. Mr. Pitlock stated by not being aware of a carrier's existence, they had no way to enforce regulations. Mr. Pitlock indicated carriers were required to receive certificates from the ICC.
Although the bill was narrowly written, Mr. Pitlock agreed with an earlier remark by Mr. Carpenter that nothing special existed about the mining industry and arguments presented by the mining industry for deregulation could be applied to any shippers in the state. Regarding agriculture, Mr. Pitlock understood the problem was fixed in the 66th session, and he was not aware it was not working properly. He stated the commission did not have a real problem with the agricultural aspect of the bill.
Mr. Anderson asked about determinability and fitness of carriers. Mr. Pitlock indicated financial and operational fitness was determined statewide by PSC. He stated shared responsibility areas with Nevada Highway Patrol were in areas of safety enforcement. Mr. Pitlock indicated the two largest carriers listed (Exhibit G) had authority to operate in Nevada with base operations located in Arizona and Utah; however, they indicated their availability to Nevada at all times. Mr. Pitlock stated the two largest firms listed were the types of firms the mining industry was looking for. Mr. Pitlock noted all carriers listed on the list had authority that allowed them to haul either part or all items contained in the bill. Again, he repeated many of the trucking companies listed had terminals located in Nevada.
Answering a question from Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Pitlock acknowledged carriers who contracted to provide service to a number of shippers had other responsibilities ; however, his contact indicated the carriers were willing to come to Nevada to work but they had not been contacted by the entities. He reiterated these were the type of carriers desired by the mining industry. Mr. Pitlock noted an occurrence within the state was several old statewide carriers which might have been major players in the transportation game provided less service over the years. He stated new entities came and revitalized the old certificates. Mr. Pitlock explained a supreme court decision offered guidance to the PSC regarding dormant authority transfers.
Answering a question from Mrs. Chowning, Mr. Pitlock stated applications had been pending in excess of a year, where other authorities were transferred less than three months. He noted a typical application's time delay was lack of information and, in fact accounted for a number of applications being withdrawn. Mr. Pitlock indicated another factor with time was other carriers protested the application filed.
Mr. Pitlock, responding to a question from Mr. McGaughey, noted amended authority referred to an existing carrier seeking to increase geographic scope of authority or increasing the types of commodities carriers could transport. He explained processes involved with granting interventions.
Mr. Pitlock, answering a question from Mr. Toomin, indicated a meeting held the previous day was the only discussion held on concerns of the mining representatives. He stated upon learning of the concerns, he informed the mining industry that the system was in place to accommodate their needs if they only came forward. In light of the mining industry motives, Mr. Pitlock indicated the mining industry was doing all it could to lower rates paid for transportation.
Chairman Spitler, due to the lateness of the meeting, indicated the hearing would continue as a subcommittee as several committee members were scheduled to attend other hearings.
Jeff Frehner, Vice President, Frehner Trucking Service, from prepared testimony (Exhibit I), voiced opposition to the bill.
Mike Soumbeniotis, from prepared testimony (Exhibit J), voiced opposition to the bill.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, from prepared testimony (Exhibit K), testified in support of the bill.
Chairman requested information from Kerry Carroll-Davis, regarding legislative history on when the 120 day exemption was granted.
Merle Swanson, Carrier, Mina, Nevada, indicated his opposition to the bill. He relayed years of experience had indicated a number of carriers were available to meet the need.
Sam Routson, Chief Administrative Officer, Winnemucca Farms, Inc., from prepared testimony (Exhibit L), testified in support of the bill. He called the committees attention to the Business Week article contained in his prepared testimony (Exhibit L) regarding intrastate shipping.
Danny Thompson, AFL-CIO, stated after serving in the House for 10 years learned if something "walked, looked, and quacked like a duck, it was probably a duck." He implied the bill in fact was a "duck" no matter how proponents painted the bill to be a special need and, in fact, was trucking deregulation. He stated as representative of the teamsters, he was very concerned. Mr. Thompson noted PSC only learned yesterday transporting dry bulk materials was such a grave problem.
Jim Wells, Vice President, Wells Cargo, testified in opposition to the bill.
Leroy Armrach, representing Halstead Trucking, J&M Trucking, stated he represented the only two certificated carriers in Ely, Nevada for products of the proposed legislation. He presented written statements from Dan Halstead, Owner/Operator, Halstead and Son Trucking (Exhibit M) and Madison Locke, J&M Trucking (Exhibit N), voicing opposition to the bill. He stated the proposed legislation was purely for financial gain and urged the committee to not destroy the segment of transportation affected by the bill.
Dan Halstead, Sr., Halstead Trucking, in answering a question from Mrs. Chowning stated he owned five pneumatic trailers. Regarding the 30 day requirement, he indicated they would approve the 30 day clause at the established tariff currently being regulated. Mr. Halstead voiced concern of the lack of care mining companies had in regard to truckers as they only cared about transportation of their product and the lowest price they could attain trucking. He did have authority to gain additional trucks/trailers.
Mr. Halstead, answering a question from Mr. McGaughey, stated pneumatic trailers purchased new were $25,000 or used at $10,000 and up. He stated trailer leasing opportunities were available.
* * *
As witnesses were preparing to testify, Chairman Spitler entertained a motion to waive Rule 92.
MR. GREGORY MOVED TO WAIVE RULE 92.
MR. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (MR. GARNER, MR. TOOMIN, AND MR. MCGAUGHEY WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
* * *
Sally Etcheberry, President, W.E.S. Trucking, Reno, Nevada, indicated she had little to add to her letter as entered into record (Exhibit O) other than she concurred with earlier statements given by Assemblyman Carpenter.
Pete Fundis, Secretary/Treasurer, Fundis Company, Lovelock, commended Mr. McGaughey's earlier question of dry, bulk material necessarily going only to mines. He indicated his belief upon passage of the bill, carriers would haul lime or cement to a construction site and upon getting stopped, the carrier would indicate he was on his way to a mine. He indicated the bill did specifically state the materials needed to go to a mine. Mr. Fundis voiced concern of one-truck operators who did not come under federal regulations regarding insurance or PSC rules transporting intra-state. He noted, contrary to earlier testimony, new pneumatic trailers ran approximately $60,000.
Robyn Exchinek, Co-Owner, Nevada Transportation Company, Battle Mountain, voiced opposition to the bill and agreed with earlier testimony given by Assemblyman John Carpenter.
Johanna Davis, John Davis Trucking, Battle Mountain, voiced opposition to the bill.
John Davis, Jr., testified in opposition to the bill. He indicated he dedicated his life to John Davis Trucking and submitted passage of the bill would put his family out of business.
Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, representing trucking industries within the state, testified in opposition of the bill. Regarding intrastate purposes, Mr. Capurro stated declaration purposes were stated in NRS 706.151. He read portions of the chapter. He indicated NRS 706.156 and other provisions of law further went into responsibilities of both the PSC and industry subjected to regulations. He stated negotiations for settlement assistance relative to agriculture took place in 1989. He stated his client played a major role in negotiatory process involving Winnemucca Farms who indicated they had a problem with having a seasonal hauling business and there was not equipment available to meet the volumes necessary from certificated carriers.
Regarding the addition of further deregulatory processes, Mr Capurro stated the bill dealt with deregulation of products and not carriers. Addressing earlier comments that the bill provided a savings of $10 million, Mr. Capurro challenged where the $10 million would be saved in trucking costs that would not place a high number of carriers out of business. He stated the industry operated at an average of 98 percent ratio. Mr. Capurro noted the remaining 2 percent represented gross profits before interest payments and taxes. He questioned where revenues would be cut that did not address expenses. He stated expenses cut would be driver's wages, driver's benefits, and maintenance as they were the biggest expenditures paid. Mr. Capurro relayed incidents with unmaintenanced trucks. Mr. Capurro commented the bill was introduced for mining companies to increase profits. Mr. Capurro indicated he was offended by the bill's implication that the industry was not "smart" enough to increase equipment and go after increased authority to add equipment that business common sense slated.
Mr. Capurro further expanded on the products that composed "dry, bulk products." Reading excerpts of a letter from Lew Dodgion, Director, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, Mr. Capurro indicated ammonium nitrate was regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation as a hazardous material with the substance being a strong oxidizer that could explode under confinement and high temperatures. He further explained make-up and risks of other dry bulk products. Mr. Capurro relayed a freeway accident that involved a spill of sodium cyanide. He stated the bill was asking deregulation of the substances he had described.
Chairman Spitler entered into the record a number of letters received in opposition to the bill (Exhibits O, P,Q,R,S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC ,DD ,EE,FF, GG, HH, II, JJ, KK, LL, MM, OO, PP, QQ, RR, SS, TT, UU, VV, WW, XX, YY, ZZ, AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG). (On file in LCB Research Library.)
Chairman Spitler entered into the record two additional letters voicing support for the bill (Exhibits HHH, and III). (On file in LCB Research Library.)
With no further business, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 4:13 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
June 23, 1993
Page 1
Assembly Committee on Transportation
June 23,, 1993
Page 11
Assembly Committee on Transportation
June 23,, 1993
Page 12