MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session January 24, 1995 The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:35 p.m., on Tuesday, January 24, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobson Senator Jon C. Porter Senator Bob Coffin Senator Raymond C. Shaffer Senator Joseph Neal, Jr. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst Diane Rea, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce Glover, Chief, Drivers' License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) Elizabeth King, Assistant Chief, Drivers' License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) Judy Jacoboni, Victim Advocate, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) Senator O'Donnell informed the committee that the bills which were scheduled to be heard were in conflict with those being heard by the Assembly Committee on Transportation. The people who are sponsors of these bills are making testimony in the Assembly room. He recessed the hearing and asked that the committee go to the Assembly room to hear the Department of Transportation (DOT) briefing. The committee recessed at 1:43 p.m. The Senate Committee on Transportation meeting was called back to order at 2:40 p.m. Senator O'Donnell introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) 43-378: BDR 43-378: Revises provisions governing reports of missing persons (Exhibit C). Senator O'Donnell asked for a motion to introduce the BDR. SENATOR JACOBSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 43-478. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1277: Makes appropriation to legislative fund for additional equipment and software for information systems for legislative counsel bureau (Exhibit D). * * * * * SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1277. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1279: Makes appropriation to legislative fund for computer equipment and software to allow interaction with legislature through INTERNET (Exhibit E). SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1279. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * BILL DRAFT REQUEST 1381: Revises provisions governing rate of speed for operation of motor vehicle (Exhibit F). SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 1381. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 64. SENATE BILL 64: Revises provisions relating to reinstatement of certain drivers' licenses which have been revoked or suspended (Exhibit G). Bruce Glover, Chief, Drivers' License Division, Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety (DMV) was present to testify on this bill. Mr. Glover stated that DMV's goal is to providing quality customer service. They submitted legislation attempting to change insurance requirements of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 483.525. The law currently requires any person whose license is revoked for any reason, to submit proof of insurance for 3 years after the license is reinstated. The most common way to do this is with the use of an Insurance Industry Form SR-22. The bill would remove the requirement on revocations, but would require SR-22s of most people who have violated the no insurance laws of the state. Driving Under the Influence (DUI) related offenses comprised more than 95 percent of all the revocations and requires the SR-22s. It was believed the people who violated the DUI laws were probably driving without insurance. Records of the division indicate that over the last 10 years 87,717 drivers lost their license for DUI related offenses. Of that 87,000 people, 7,092, or only 8 percent of these drivers did not have insurance when they were arrested. Mr. Glover has been with the Drivers' License Division 24 years and from 1977 through 1991, he was responsible for issuing all restricted (work) licenses to people to go to and from work to maintain a livelihood. They lost their license for 45 days; had to attend a victim panel that costs them $25, DUI school is $150, their fine is between $200 and $1,000 and payment of their reinstatement is $65. That is all in addition to any attorney fees. Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Glover to digress and explain to the committee what an SR-22 form is, including the information on it, how much weight it carries. Mr. Glover stated an SR-22 is a standard insurance industry form. It is required to be filed by the person's insurance company with the DMV. That form insures that if that person cancels that particular policy, the insurance company will notify the DMV of the cancellation. The difference being the regular policy, under the old terms, did not have to do that. Senator O'Donnell asked if that was not being done? Does not the Insurance Verification Program already require that anytime an insurance is dropped, DMV is notified? Mr. Glover responded that it was his understanding of the laws. He stated that one of the reasons he was here is the Verification of Insurance Program. To register a vehicle or to get a driver's license, under the old law, a person did not have to prove insurance. Now, they take the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), the policy number and title and if that policy is canceled the registration is suspended. That is doubling the work with the SR-22. Senator Porter stated that his insurance office generated 6,000 or 7,000 SR-22s in the past 8 years. He stated, "I am opposed to mandatory insurance." The SR- 22 does not guarantee the person will maintain their insurance. Mr. Glover replied that if they do not pay, the insurance office sends DMV a SR-26 and DMV has to re-revoke their license. While DMV is re-revoking their license they go in and pay the insurance and DMV gets another SR-22. The records indicate that they get three and four submittals on a revocation on one license every year; that is about 6,000 to 7,000 pieces of paper and it is no guarantee. There is a misunderstanding that DMV receives the premiums for these policies. Senator Porter responded that it is a regular insurance policy and they normally pay enough to get the certificate and they more than likely are not going to renew it. He stated the law has doubled and tripled DMV's work, but there is not a guarantee. Mr. Glover stated that it is a 3 years proof of payment, if the state wanted to guarantee the license. It is going to make them pay their premiums for 3 years. If they do not, they will lose their driver's license. Senator Porter stated that with the cost of insurance in Nevada, they cannot afford the cost of the premium. They pay enough to get the pink SR-22. Senator O'Donnell stated that in 1989 the law was changed so to only sample those who dropped their insurance, which turned out to be only about 5 percent of the people who would dropping their insurance. In 1993, they changed the law and said all the insurance companies will give the data to the DMV. If they do not give information, they will not get the information from the DMV as far as the ticket history or the driver's record. All the insurance companies are now reporting by computer to the DMV. Mr. Glover replied that in registration it makes it almost a dual filing. When DMV gets the paper form, registration does not have a computer system to have this sent to them by tape. They have to hand search these records and take them up to registration, where people complain because registration has suspended their driver's license. Senator O'Donnell stated that he thought before action was taken on this bill they would require the insurance verification chief to come in and tell them exactly what happens. He stated he had a bill in to do away with the SR-22 form because he does not think it is necessary. Mr. Glover replied that he thinks DMV will be better off to have people legally licensed with proper insurance than try to put more and more burden on them and then they will not get licensed. He still says "your best drivers out there are those who have been revoked because they drive so carefully. Verification of insurance is the answer." Senator O'Donnell asked for any other questions. Senator O'Donnell asked for opposition testimony. Senator Porter commented that while the SR-22 form is required on the car and also on the driver individually, or collectively; what some people will do is sell the car because the SR-22 is requiring DMV to put them in a "high-risk" company because they would have a violation. When they sell the vehicle and it is gone. Senator O'Donnell replied: I think the point we are trying to make here is that everyone should be insured and if that is the will of the people of the state of Nevada, then I think that this Insurance Verification Program is the very thing to make sure everyone is insured and to exacerbate the paperwork. Judy Jacaboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), Lyon County Chapter, stated that they would urge a NO vote on S.B. 64 because of the repealed section at the end of the bill - Proof required upon certain convictions. The reason is that the SR-22 is one of the only ways that uninsured motorists can be brought back into compliance. It is a guaranty that the offender will have to be financially responsible for 36 months, sooner or later. If he cancels, he will lose his drivers license. He will have to reinstate another SR-22 and he has to keep that going for 36 months consecutively. This is on the driver. It is the only way these people can continue to be compliant with the insurance laws. Senator Washington asked: Is a DUI a violation? Have they been cited for the violation? Their insurance company finds out about it. Does not the insurance company then raise the premium or drop the individual? Therefore, he has no insurance. In order for him to drive a vehicle it is mandatory that he does get some kind of insurance. So, it seems to me that we are duplicating the work again. Senator Porter stated that something has to happen to keep policies in force for those people that are violating, because that is the law. They are still required to have insurance. He stated he really thinks the SR-22 is a duplication, because they have to have insurance to license. Ms. Jacoboni replied that even if a person does not own a vehicle, he is still required to carry the SR-22 for 36 consecutive months in order to retain his driving privilege. So, it is virtually the only way that these DUI offenders can be brought into compliance and be forced to be covered. In order to get the license back they have to reinstate it. Certainly DMV has to work a little harder, but at least the drivers are going to be insured the next time they get in a crash. Senator Neal stated that DUI along with other circumstances can cause an individual to lose his or her driving privileges. The SR-22 was placed into law in the early 1960s. The DMV, in the 1960s and 1970s, worked hand-in-hand with the insurance companies to enforce these provisions. Now, it is time that the legislature should take another look at that and remove it because it is a duplication. Ms. Jacoboni replied that she just wanted to make a point that the SR-22 is a mechanism that follows the individual's driving record and stays with his driving license record. When he drops that SR-22 he loses his license. It is the only way to track them for 36 months. Senator Neal replied that under the system now in existence anybody can be tracked. A ticket in New Mexico or California, is going to show up in Nevada. The state does not need the SR-22 form to track it. Senator O'Donnell said: I think there is a misconception, Judy [Ms. Jacoboni], that the SR-22 is this magic piece of paper that is going to make the DUI driver do what you think he wants to do. It is junk. The only thing it does is makes Mr. Glover work 10 times as hard. It does not really do what you think it does. It is a piece of paper that somebody has typed and that is it. If it goes with the license and they do not have a car, they will borrow their neighbor's car. What happens to the SR-22 ... I do not have a car? They cannot buy insurance for something they do not have. What happens if they sell their car and borrow their neighbors, or their moms? Ms. Jacoboni replied that they still have to carry the SR-22 and with a car they have the driver's insurance. Senator O'Donnell asked what happens in a situation where the individual just sells their car? How do you get them a SR-22 form? Senator Porter responded that there are policies available called "non-owner" policies that can be purchased for people who do not own vehicles. Laurel Stadler, Legislative Liaison, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, stated that they have identified that it is the high risk driver that they want to have some sort of a tail on. They are concerned about those people that do not own a vehicle. If they do drive a friend's car that friend's insurance cannot just say "Oh, they should not have been driving that car, we have no liability." Then the victim of a potential crash has no recourse at all. That is why MADD is in support of keeping something, whether it be the SR-22 piece of paper, or something to insure that this irresponsible person has some sort of insurance policy. Senator Porter replied that the automobile is the primary insurance. If he loans his car to Maurice (Senator Washington) and he is in a wreck in that car, Senator Porter's insurance is primary as far as paying the claim, up to the minimum limits set by the state, which is $5,000/30,000. The driver's insurance is then secondary. Senator O'Donnell asked if the committee understood? The owner of the vehicle's company pays first. Senator Washington asked if an individual has a certain amount of clearance on his driving record and he exceeds the limit does not licensing tag their license? Mr. Glover replied that in Nevada the state has what is called the demerit point system. Certain demerits are assessed for different types of citations and a person can reach up to 12 citations in a 12 month period. Their license is suspended for a given period of time based on first offense, second offense, for no less than 6 months. Once a person serves that period of time, their license is reinstated. It is not tagged or starred in any way. The record will show that they had been suspended, but the drivers license itself does not note that. A person can go through a 3 year period, accumulate 10 or 15 tickets, and get their license suspended once. When they get it back they do not file a SR-22. Only those people whose licenses are revoked have to file a SR-22. If people are not going to carry insurance, the state has them suspended for not carrying insurance. If they get cited for DUI and do not have insurance they are going to have to file the SR- 22 because they do not have insurance. The state will get the people who do not have insurance one way or the other. Senator O'Donnell stated that he was going to close the hearing on this and move on to the hearing on S.B. 65. SENATE BILL 65: Revises provisions governing of applicant for driver's license. (BDR 43-585) (Exhibit H). Bruce Glover, Chief, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, gave his briefing on Senate Bill 65 (Exhibit I). Senator O'Donnell stated he thought the backlog now is between 5 and 6 weeks advanced notice to get a driver to get a driver's license. Mr. Glover stated that was in Reno. Down in Clark County it is upwards of 7 and 8 weeks to get a driving test. They are hoping for some computer enhancements that will eliminate this. In Nevada a person is allowed to drive up to 1 year on an expired license before they are required to test again. Senator O'Donnell replied that he would like to see the DMV streamlined. One of the problems that was heard in the briefing that Mr. Weller and Mr. Sparks had given upstairs is the fact that they had a lot of individuals who go to the super market, or your next door neighbor moved in 8 months ago and they still have New Jersey plates on their car. He stated you know for a fact that they are working at the MGM. He said if that person had registered their car there would not be the pressure to increase fees to support the state services that have to be provided by law. If the state is going to do this and issue a Nevada driver's license with an Nevada address, is there anyway that the state can tie in the registration for the vehicle they are driving, to a Nevada registration? Mr. Glover replied that there has to be some way the state could query as to whether they have vehicles registered in the state. They will come get a driver's license before they register their vehicle because of $150 vs $450 fees for registration. Elizabeth King, Assistant Chief, Drivers' License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) stated that one of the projects that she had gotten to work on recently is called "Project Cattle." It produced that Blue Book - Business Process Reengineering (BPR) (Exhibit J). The study found that DMV needs an integrated data base, so that the two systems can talk to each other. The drivers licensing programs are absolutely separate from the vehicle registration programs. At this time there is no way to tie those two together. Mr. Glover added that it is a frustrating problem for DMV, and the public complains. He said people will walk into the Sierra office, see the lines and they do not have the time to stand there in those lines. He has submitted legislation to help eliminate those lines. The DMV is in the process of cross training all their employees between registration and drivers license. But, until they get the computer enhancements, there is no answer. Senator Shaffer asked, "How many states are linked with the state of Nevada?" Mr. Glover responded that all states are linked with us. Senator O'Donnell asked how many other states were linked in terms of accepting their drivers' licenses without going through the evaluation. Mr. Glover stated that he did not have that information currently, but could get it for the committee. That report should be out soon. Senator Washington asked if the fees are the same? Mr Glover replied they have not downgraded the fees to do this. The DMV will have to pay for the state's system somewhere along the line. The fee is $20.50 for a driver's license. There are a lot of states that charge exceedingly more than Nevada does. Senator Washington asked if this network system would be able to not only internet between the license and the registration offices, but also be able to link up between metropolitan and rural areas? Ms. King responded that the current system already does. Once a person is entered into the drivers' license system in the state, they are entered wherever they are. Updates can be done from any location that has computer service. Senator Washington asked if they get the funds and the financing that is needed so that the licensing and registration will be able to talk to one another; if a person relocates, would DMV still be able to do this? Ms. King replied that it was possible. Senator Neal stated that as he understood the bill, DMV would still have to give the eye test and the demonstration driver's test. Is that correct? Mr. Glover stated that if a person has a good driving record from another state, they would give them the eye test. Their proposal is not to give them the skill test. The traffic laws from state to state are pretty much the same. Senator Neal stated that the old law states that "the department may require an applicant for a drivers license to submit to the examination... must include a test of the applicants ability ... subsection 2 and subsection 3... ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable control of such a vehicle." Senator Neal stated this means the state can require the demonstrative driving test ... not the written test, but a test to demonstrate a vehicle. Mr. Glover replied that it is permissive on line 2 "may require" and then come down to lines 3 and 4 "the examination may include" and it talks about the eye test. That way it is permissive for DMV to do that. Senator O'Donnell stated that subsection 3 says they do not have to require the test. They may waive the test if for instance the vehicle happens to be some kind of crane or nine wheel vehicle. Mr. Glover responded that actually that was before the commercial drivers' license law was enacted. It allowed the unions to certify their Class 1 and 2 drivers, rather then bring these rigs in off the road, the companies certified their own drivers. That is actually an obsolete section with the Commercial Drivers' License Act enforced. Senator Neal said that when he had renewed his license several years ago they gave him a number and now that turns out to be his Social Security Number (SSN). Mr. Glover replied that law says that a persons driver's license number shall be derived from his SSN. He is in support of the bill that is being introduced that will allow DMV to have a unique drivers license that is not hooked up to the SSN. DMV still needs the SSN in order to work with Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS) (Exhibit K) and to make it work throughout the United States (US), but the SSN will not be made available to those people that are not entitled to it. Under this bill the state will disconnect the SSN from the drivers' license. Senator O'Donnell responded that he has some interest in doing away with the number altogether and just putting it on a magnetic strip. If a person wants to give somebody his driver's license number they can go through the magnetic strip. Senator O'Donnell stated there is a review that has been done and there is a case study from Business Process Reengineering for each member to read. It is a very important document. He said the problem is that they need a brand new approach to DMV; a business approach and a customer relationship approach like never before. Senator O'Donnell said that if the senator is suggesting amending this bill to make it upon passage and approval, he would certainly entertain an amendment. Mr. Glover continued with his brief on Senate Bill 65 stating that he had asked for a bill that will allow for drivers' license renewal by mail, based on criteria of good driving records; once a person became of age as a driver, showed maturity as a driver and did not fall under the definition of a "bad driver." Mr. Glover asked for a bill that will allow for reinstatement by mail of certain suspensions. If a person's license is suspended for failure to appear, for not paying a ticket; they have to go down to the court, clear the ticket, clearance comes to DMV, they have to come back to DMV, be tested and issued a license. He does not believe that proves a person is a bad driver ... just because they did not pay a ticket. He proposes that when a person clears the ticket with the court, they send DMV the clearance and the reinstatement fee so they can activate this license. Senator O'Donnell said that Senate Bill 66 (Exhibit K) looks like it is a duplication of Senate Bill 65 with motorcycles. SENATE BILL 66: Revises provisions relating to issuance of license to operate certain motor vehicles (BDR 43-586). Senator Neal asked what method was intended to put in place to check those fraudulent type licenses that make the pass through the state. Mr. Glover replied that in Clark County, the DMV has developed a really good fraudulent training program that they are giving to all our people on an ongoing basis, showing them good documents and bad documents. In Clark County, a person will come to the counter with a friend standing in the rear, get the driver's license printout and as they are walking to the camera they will hand the card to a friend. They keep walking to the camera, get their picture on another person's license. At the West Flamingo offices the printers are going to print right where the cameras are so that there is no exchange. Law enforcement has worked with them on the training to spot bad documents. He stated the ultimate answer to the thing is the digitized license. Or the file photo off the driver's license where the DMV workers can file that and when the applicant comes in DMV can look on its computer and there is a picture of the individual. He said that is where DMV puts mag stripping and all the other bells and whistles that go with the driver's license. Senator Porter asked if the Governor was planning to integrate any of this into his reorganization? Ms. King replied that she understood that at least partial funding for this project has been approved through the budget. Senator Porter asked if the DMV has looked at their customer service aspect? Ms. King replied that the Business Process Reengineering looks at everything. It looks at the organization, work flow, how positions are organized within the structure and at the technology. It is a cross discipline process. Senator Porter replied that in looking at the appendix of those who were involved, it appears that they were 99 percent in-house and then the state hired DMR Group, Inc. as a consultant. Who is DMR? Ms. King replied that DMR Group Inc. is a group of consultants who have been very successful in working with reengineering other state's DMVs (Exhibit L). The initial phase, which would be a 6 month study, is about $600,000. They did a very intense 10 week study to develop this business case; interviewing staff from offices in Las Vegas, Reno, and Carson City. They looked at the data processing systems, worked with the Department of Information Services and DMVs in-house data processing. What they discovered is that the DMV needs a new way of doing business. DMV is 20 or 25 years behind the curve. Senator Porter asked if they had addressed alternative ways of handling customers, or is it considering the things are done now and improving on them. Ms. King replied that the study would be looking at new ways of doing things, not just saying those ways of improvement are what is known as "total quality management" (TQM) stuff. TQM can work within this environment, but it is not what DMV needs to do now. What DMV needs is to radically change the ways the agency does business. Senator O'Donnell replied that he thinks customers are going to have the ability to renew their driver's license with their phone ... dial a 1-900 number; the ability to go to the grocery store and reregister their car using an ATM type facility and then 4 or 5 days later they get their registration in the mail. Senator Shaffer said that during the Sixty-sixth Session he had introduced legislation that would allow a person to renew their registration when they had their car smog checked in the counties that require smog tests. It took a real difficult effort. They could have had this 4 years ago. Senator O'Donnell replied that he thinks they have a real frustration at DMV in terms of their technology and their data processing capabilities. They want to go ahead and do something like mail-in registration or ATM type transactions. Their computer system will not do it. Mr. Glover said that the "good old boy" day syndrome of DMV throughout the US is seriously changing. They have established a new committee on public relations on how to handle customers. They are working on all kinds of different ways to meet the needs of the public. Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Glover, "is Senate Bill 66 a duplicate of Senate bill 65 only with motorcycles, or what is the difference?" Mr. Glover replied that Senate Bill 66 simply allows a person, who has completed a motorcycle rider's safety course, that is conducted by an organization called Motorcycle Safety Foundation in Carson City or Clark County, offered through the Community College will not have to come in and be retested by DMV. Senator O'Donnell replied: I am trying to accommodate some other committee hearings that are starting this hour. I need to know from the committee standpoint do you have any questions on the motorcycle thing? Can we trash Senate Bill 65 and just go with Senate Bill 66? We have to go with both of them. Senator Jacobson states that he feels certain that there is out-of-state travel for DMV directors to attend seminars. This is not an isolated problem. It is universal and he feels it would be beneficial to get some input from the federal government. Maybe our staff should review what has been done on study committees in these areas. Mr. Glover replied that DMV's ideas come through going to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) meetings where a lot of legislative ideas are talked about. DMV does have out-of-state travel in its budget to attend two of the conferences. A list was provided to the assembly transportation committee on PDPS and he will also provide that to us, that is Problem Driver Point System (PDPS). Senator O'Donnell stated that on line 5 on Senate Bill 65 DMV deleted the words "read and." "A tested applicant's ability to understand ..." Is this that new wave stuff? Mr. Glover replied that "read and understand," is changed to just "understand" because DMV does oral testing for those who cannot read. Persons who cannot read have to be able to explain and tell what the function of that sign is. They have to understand all signs and traffic control devices. They do not read, but they understand it. Senator Washington asked if DMV has little cassette tapes that they play and is it not bilingual for those who do not speak English? Mr. Glover replied that DMV offers tests in Spanish. Senator Porter asked to introduce something on Senate Bill 64. Senator O'Donnell responded that he felt the committee should hold Senate Bill 64 until they got some more information. Senator Porter asked is a SR-22 required for a DUI individual to get his license, or is it only on the vehicle? Mr. Glover replied that for those individuals who do not own or operate a vehicle, there is a "non-owners" policy that is required. The number of those persons in this category is minimal. Senator O'Donnell stated he would go ahead and take a motion on Senate Bill 66 and Senate Bill 65, because he feels the urgency of these two bills to be passed. Is there any opposition? Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, stated that she had not seen any statistical support of Senate Bill 65 to indicate drivers are becoming more responsible. She said there are a lot of Nevada laws that people coming from out- of-state would not be familiar with. The DUI laws are different from state-to- state. She asked what history would be on the computer system when it comes on-line in April of 1995. Is it going to start collecting data? Senator O'Donnell replied that there are some bits of misinformation that Ms. Stadler had gotten about the computer system. There is a national computer system, a format which DMV must comply with and that will not happen until April of 1995. There is also a query system of other states using the National Driver Record (NDR). DMV can still query that information today on any state. If they were to give DMV a California drivers license and say "please give me a drivers license because I am a good driver," then DMV would query California. If Minnesota, DMV would query Minnesota. DMV would not query all states. Ms. King answered that the pointer system will create a pointer file for all states, on any driver who is suspended, canceled or denied licensing in any other state. It will also hold major traffic offenses. It starts with a 2 year clean file, that is mandated by the federal government, but Nevada is going with a 3 year clean file ... and most states are. First time licensing, will be required to be checked through PDPS. Moving from state to state a person will have to be checked. DMV will then find anyone who is currently under suspension, revocation, cancellation, that sort of thing in any other state. She continued, some other things are being built into it. If DMV has a question about a driver's record in another state, they are going through the commercial driver's license information and it can do state-to-state checks. DMV can determine if they have the right driver history. She said the third system that is coming is part of the net services. When a driver moves from one state to the next state, their full history will come with them. Senator O'Donnell asked if Ms. King felt comfortable that DMV would be able to issue licenses? Ms. King replied that National Driver Record (NDR) is the foundation of PDSP. It holds substantial data on those drivers whose records are impaired or who have problems driving. The current NDR hits are extremely inaccurate. They do not ask for specific enough unique data for a driver for the system to be sure that it has that specific driver. PDSP is due to come up April 30th. Senator O'Donnell asked if there is some time frame that DMV is going to have for developing some regulations? Ms. King replied that with PDSP, the only regulations DMV needed to develop are some corrections on the demerit violations and how those codes were set up. She said DMV has already been out to hearing and those regulations are in effect. Senator O'Donnell asked if DMV would not effect this bill change until those capabilities are in place? Ms. King replied yes on two bills. That is part of what was behind this. Senator O'Donnell stated he would not want DMV to bring up a computer system until they have the PDSP. Ms. Stadler stated that she thinks giving new Nevada drivers a handbook and asking them to sign for it, does not necessarily mean that they are going to read that handbook. She feels they need to read the handbook and be tested on it; to make sure the drivers are knowledgeable and safe. Until driving tests across the country are standardized, and laws are standardized; DMV should not assume that a person coming from another state is familiar with Nevada laws. Senator Neal stated that there is an interstate highway system in this country. Because of that most all of the signs, have been standardized throughout the country. He stated that what she was actually speaking to is the penalty phase which the states now control. Violations are just about the same, but the penalties are different in each state. Those penalties will still be in place and a person can get this information from every state with just the touch of a button on a computer. That is where DMV is going with this system. Ms. Stadler remarked that MADDs only interest was not the DUI problem. Last session the state put the swing arms on the school bus to make it safer for our children. When the driver waves them across the street, it is assumed that the driver coming knows that he has to stop. If they are not given that information and are not tested on it to try to insure that every driver in the state knows, for that reason alone it would be worth having that testing in place. She stated that she believes the test is very important. Senator Porter asked if DMV was sacrificing some safety for speeding up the processing? If DMV did not have a 2 hour wait would they consider reducing or would they strengthen their current testing? Senator O'Donnell replied that he was personally of the opinion that what is needed here is to balance the need for good safe driving records with efficiency in government. No one here wants careless, reckless drivers on the road. Anybody on the committee knows that they could pass law after law and go home and find people breaking those laws all day long. Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing on Senate Bill 65 and Senate Bill 66. He asked for a motion on Senate Bill 65. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 65. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SHAFFER AND PORTER VOTED NO.) * * * * * SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO PASS SENATE BILL 65 AS AMENDED OUT OF THE COMMITTEE. S E N A T O R W A S H I N G T O N S E C O N D E D T H E M O T I O N THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS SHAFFER AND PORTER VOTED NO) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell stated that he was going to close the hearing and would hold Senate Bill 64. There being no further business, Chairman O'Donnell closed the meeting at 4:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Diane C. Rea, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Transportation January 24, 1995 Page