The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 4:00 p.m., on Monday, March 15, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, District 12

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, District 6

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Barbara Buckley took a poll to see how many speakers were present to testify on the bills to be presented. There were three to speak on A.B. 319, many on A.B. 359; and two on A.B. 420. She announced there would be a recess during which committee members would participate in a floor session. Then the committee would reconvene to complete hearing the bills before beginning a work session.

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, representing District 12, introduced herself and discussed her bill, A.B. 420. It was a limited bill designed to amend Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 597.940 that placed restrictions on the recording of a credit card number as a condition to accepting a personal check or draft. The bill added one additional restriction. A business could not require a customer to provide a secondary identification as a condition to accepting a credit card tendered by the customer if the contract between the business and the issuer of the credit card provided that presentation of the credit card was sufficient and the secondary identification was not required. The bill had been requested by various seniors who lived in a mobile home park in Ms. Ohrenschall's district. The card in question was the VISA card. VISA had issued a letter to businesses stating their contract did not require secondary identification and they did not want it requested. The seniors preferred the VISA credit card because many of them did not drive and it was difficult for them to obtain a Nevada ID card. The bill had been narrowly drawn to meet a specific request.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the seniors had any comment regarding businesses that established a minimum purchase amount or required a customer's telephone number. Ms. Ohrenschall said she would check into that.

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick asked about the need to establish proof of identity to be certain the person tendering the card was the person to whom it was issued. Ms. Ohrenschall said she did not understand why a credit card company would have a contract with a business that prevented the business from requiring secondary identification; however, VISA had such a contract with its vendors. VISA had issued letters to that effect which Ms. Ohrenschall had submitted to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB).

Speaker Dini stated that contract might be contrary to the Gaming Control Act which stated two forms of identification were required to be given when using a credit card. Ms. Ohrenschall acknowledged that might be correct; however, the individuals who had approached her to sponsor the bill had been speaking of simple retail purchases. Speaker Dini countered from a business owner's standpoint it would take away one of his tools to protect himself from fraudulent transactions.

Mary Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada, identified herself and expressed opposition to A.B. 420. Credit card fraud was a major industry in the United States and businesses were its victims. In 1991 A.B. 365 had been passed into law and included what could and could not be accepted by merchants from customers with credit cards or checks. Ms. Lau provided a brochure (Exhibit C) prepared by the Nevada Retail Association that detailed the check and credit sales law. She explained the law was a consumer protection especially at the senior citizen's level.

Peter Kruger, representing the Nevada Rental Association, identified himself and said his organization was also opposed to A.B. 420 for the reasons already expressed. Members of the association rented equipment valued at thousands of dollars and required in their contracts with renters multiple forms of identification.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 420 and opened the hearing on A.B. 319.

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, representing District 6, identified himself and discussed his bill, A.B. 319. The bill should not be misread as prohibiting surcharges for automated teller machines (ATMs), it was intended simply to provide the customer clear disclosure of those surcharges. People were often surprised upon reading their bank statements to find surcharges for ATM withdrawals. The intent of his bill was to require clear, concise, and easily visible disclosure that a surcharge for the transaction would be added and what the amount was before they entered into the transaction. It would then be up to the individual whether to proceed with the transaction and incur the surcharge.

Assemblyman Hettrick asked about the bill's provision that read "on a sign posted or in clear view of the automated teller and electronically during the course of the transaction" and wondered if there might be a problem with that electronic signage on older machines. He suggested changing the wording to and/or. Mr. Williams agreed.

Chairman Buckley invited opponents of the bill to come forward.

John Sande, representing the Nevada Bankers Association, identified himself and introduced Ted Wehking, also from Nevada Bankers Association. Mr. Sande said they were not opposed to the concept of the bill. In 1989 he had appeared on behalf of the banking community before the committee and proposed what they thought was sufficient to handle the problem. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 660.052 addressed a financial institution operating an electronic terminal charging transaction fees. He believed that NRS chapter accomplished the same thing as the proposed legislation. Mr. Sande provided a copy of "Operating Instructions for ATM Licensees" (Exhibit D) prepared by the two largest electronic exchange companies in the world, the Plus System and Cirrus. Both companies provided the same thing as the statute, namely disclosure must be made to customers by signage and specified the minimum size.

Mr. Sande said perhaps the question was, what was the difference between "transaction fee," which had been set forth in statute since 1989, and "surcharge." He believed a surcharge was already included in existing law. Therefore, to avoid confusion, if the bill was passed he recommended amending existing statute to make sure it included a surcharge which was a separate charge by the nonfinancial institution.

Assemblyman Dennis Nolan said there were two charges associated with most of those transactions. If one used a Plus Card at a non-network teller, an electronic message disclosed the fee amount. However, there was an additional charge for using a non-network bank of which most people were unaware until they received their bank statement. Mr. Nolan said his bank had charged him as much as $3. He agreed with the provisions of A.B. 319 that required disclosure to a user of both the surcharge and the transaction fee amounts at the time they made a withdrawal.

Mr. Sande stated if that was the intent of the legislation then it had not been covered under the NRS statute cited earlier.

Ted Wehking, also representing the Nevada Bankers Association, stated the charge made by one's own bank for using a "foreign" ATM was disclosed to the customer at the time they received the ATM card. The legislation being proposed addressed only the surcharge. Mr. Wehking had discussed with the financial institution's commissioner that existing statute could be interpreted to mean the surcharge was covered.

Peter Kruger, representing the Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association, said their members were not financial institutions but had ATMs in their businesses both small and large, rural and urban. They had made the investment in the equipment and placed it in their business as a service to the public because, particularly in some rural communities there would not be an ATM if not for those businesses. In polling association members he learned they were already disclosing the transaction fee, and in fact the electronic message had to be acknowledged by a keystroke before the transaction could be continued.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 319 and opened the hearing on A.B. 359.

Chairman Buckley asked Speaker Dini to make introductory remarks.

Speaker Dini, Assembly District 38, introduced A.B. 319 for the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal's Office had never been properly funded. This bill provided a method of guaranteeing money would be there to get the necessary help to do a good job throughout the state.

Chief Marvin Carr, State Fire Marshal, introduced Roy Slade, Chairman of the State Fire Marshal's Advisory Board. Mr. Carr provided some background on events that led up to the drafting of the bill. In October 1980 S.C.R 23 required the statewide study of the requirements and needs of the fire service training, then known as the Statewide Master Plan for Fire Protection. During the 1997 session the Standard Fire Service Training Board and the State Fire Marshal's Advisory Board were asked to review S.C.R. 23 rather than to introduce new legislation. Several meetings were held as described in the information packet "Response and Recommendations Joint Committee Board of Fire Services and Fire Service Standards and Training Committee" (Exhibit E). Those two committees met with representatives from the fire service statewide and the results were set forth in Exhibit E. The recommendations of both committees suggested requesting 1 percent of the fire insurance premium tax already collected by the State of Nevada be utilized for funding in the Fire Marshal's Office, particularly for training. The intent was to establish two rural training offices with a trainer-coordinator and to hire qualified contract instructors for the rural areas. The outline of that program as it related to training only was on page 3 of Exhibit E.

Mr. Carr pointed out the recommendations on pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit E were based on the committee's work on SCR 23 presented at the 1981 session but never went further. The material presented had been a rewrite of those recommendations and initiatives. Included in the packet was a list of attendees at the joint meeting of July 10, 1998, which represented the fire service in the entire state. A survey of 18 states had been made and recapped in the packet; 14 of those states funded the Fire Marshal's Office either wholly or in part from the fire insurance premium tax. He cited one, Oregon, which had raised $5.6 million dollars. The Clark Commission report also recommended a percentage of the fire insurance premium tax be utilized to fund the Fire Marshal's Office. "Program Description" (Exhibit E) indicated 243 volunteers had been trained plus an additional number of volunteers had received training as a result of grants from the State Emergency Response Commission and some terrorism grant funds. There were approximately 2,000 volunteers in 160 volunteer fire departments in the State of Nevada and the problem was the rural areas were not being reached for training. Each year there were more volunteer fire departments and more volunteer-members who dedicated their time to their respective communities. For their safety and the safety of the people of the State of Nevada it was vital to address the problem and properly train the volunteers.

The Fire Marshal's Office also tested the Firefighter I and Firefighter II programs for the larger paid departments and trained throughout the state, but the primary concern was to train the rural fire departments.

Chairman Buckley commented the Committee on Commerce and Labor was a policy committee and she believed no one opposed ensuring the Fire Marshal's Office received the funding it needed to train the rural fire departments. The question she felt would be perplexing for the Committee on Ways and Means was how to fill the budget gap. A.B. 359 would go to the Committee on Ways and Means if the Committee on Commerce and Labor approved the policy. There was not a fiscal note in the fiscal note book; however, Ms. Buckley was prepared to hear further testimony and then accept a do pass and rerefer. She felt there was agreement there should be adequate funding, but the question remained, was there money in the budget to accommodate that funding.

Mr. Carr stated there were letters of support from communities throughout the State of Nevada that had been included in the packet (Exhibit E).

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani stated the Fire Marshal's Office was traditionally underfunded, and that should be part of the argument for funds. She asked Mr. Carr if he had considered in his budget the amount charged for fire equipment use, which had not been increased in 15 years, and was something that could go into the budget. Mr. Carr said he had not, that the intent of the two fire boards was to wait until the bill had been presented.

Roy Slade, Chairman of the State Board of Fire Services, the advisory committee to the State Fire Marshal's Office, expressed the importance of A.B. 359 to the state's fire service. The primary beneficiaries would be the volunteer and rural fire service. Regarding policy and the committee's emphasis on the bill, it was difficult to get some of the training necessary for the volunteer fire service. Fire fighting was becoming more complicated as years passed, and training had become much more important. When a volunteer had to leave his community for training he had to take vacation time and pay for his own lodging and travel. The approval of the bill would allow those volunteers to receive a better level of training in their own communities by qualified instructors drawn from a pool of metropolitan fire departments. Mr. Slade spoke on behalf of fire services in the State of Nevada and asked for support for A.B. 359.

Dino Di Cianno, Deputy Executive Director, Department of Taxation, identified himself and stated the department had no position regarding A.B. 359, only that the bill would require the department to transfer 1 percent of the fire insurance premium tax to the State Fire Marshal's Office. The department was working on information to determine what the fiscal impact would be, and if it was rereferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Di Cianno would provide testimony at that time.

Jeremiah Parks, Fire Chief, East Fork Fire and Paramedic District, identified himself and said his district was made up of 270 volunteers who relied on the State Fire Marshal's Office for training. He took his first training in 1969 as a member of Washoe Valley Volunteer Fire Department. Over the past 30 years fire service training had bounced between the University System and the State Fire Marshal's Office. Mr. Parks said he applauded Speaker Dini, the members of the committee, and the legislature for finally considering providing a stable funding source for fire service training for rural fire departments, both paid and volunteer. It was time the citizens of the Nevada supported the men and women who dedicated their time to providing a service to their communities.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani asked about paid firefighters. Mr. Parks responded there were annual training requirements and recertifications for paid firefighters. The State Fire Marshal's Office provided that certification. As paid firefighters gained more knowledge and took additional classes the State Fire Marshal's Office would certify those classes. Support was needed for both the volunteers and the paid firefighters in the smaller departments that did not have a dedicated training officer or training facility like the larger metropolitan departments.

Chairman Buckley acknowledged those individuals who had come in support of A.B. 359 and would note their presence in the official record.

The Chairman and Speaker Dini discussed the importance of supporting the rural fire departments and dedicating funds for that purpose.

With no additional testimony on the bill, Ms. Buckley asked for a motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS AND REREFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

SPEAKER DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Buckley had several committee introductions:

• BDR 54-404 – Makes various changes to provisions governing architects, registered interior designers, and residential designers (A.B. 632).

• BDR 57-1485 – Makes various changes to managed care (A.B. 585).

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 57-1485.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

• BDR – 54-761 – Makes various changes to provisions concerning contractors. (A.B. 633)

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 54-761.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

• BDR 54-762 – Makes various changes to provisions governing contractors. (A.B. 634)

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 54-761.

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

• BDR 57-1329 – Provides for regulation of captive insurers. (A.B. 635)

ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION

OF BDR 57-1329.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

• BDR 54-1404 – Establishes residential contractors' recovery fund.(A.B. 636)

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BDR 54-1404.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

Chairman Buckley announced 18 referrals had been received in the previous week. If the committee proceeded at the pace of three bills per meeting plus work sessions those bills could be processed in 2 weeks, not including the bills from the present meeting or the committee introductions. Ms. Buckley said she did not want to rush any bills and if it was felt a bill was rushed the committee would not process it. However, the pace would be picking up and if additional committee hearing times were needed those meeting dates would be set. She would also be speaking to bill sponsors to make sure they desired to move forward on those bills.

Chairman Buckley referred to the work session document (Exhibit F) and opened the work session on A.B. 54.

Vance Hughey, principal research analyst, explained A.B. 54 was the bill that required licensure of speech pathologist's assistants and established qualifications for such licensure. The bill also revised provisions concerning qualifications for a license to engage in the practice of audiology or speech pathology and increased the maximum fines that might be collected by the Board of Examiners for audiology and speech pathology. There were several amendments to the bill which were included in Exhibit F.

The first proposed amendment was in section 16, page 6, lines 34 and 35. The intention was to leave the maximum fees as they currently existed in statute. The second proposed amendment, in section 16, page 6, line 37, would change the fee for an application for a license as a speech pathologist's assistant from $100, as currently specified to, $50. The third proposed amendment was in section 16, page 6, and would add a new provision that required application fees and license renewal fees be prorated based on the number of months until the license expired. Finally, the fourth proposed amendment would add a provision stating the proposed licensure of speech pathologist's assistants only applied to professionals working in a nonpublic school setting.

Assemblyman Goldwater felt after researching the issue he could not find a compelling reason the increased regulation was needed nor had he found a compelling reason for changing the fees that actually would result in hurting some small businesses.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE

A.B. 54.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Buckley opened discussion on the motion.

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick noted the offered amendments took out the fee increases and therefore would not be an issue. Also the second proposed amendment reduced the fee from $100 to $50. The proposed new provision that required fees be prorated based on the number of months until the license expired was his suggestion, and he still felt it would be worthwhile. The proposed amendments had been an effort to make the bill meet the required need, and he would like to see if it could be processed.

Chairman Buckley said she would hold the bill if more discussion was needed. Based on the hearing, Mr. Figurski was concerned about protection of the public and she too, was concerned about regulating assistants. There were a few new "assistant" job creations. Chairman Buckley cited her own experience as a legal assistant that had given her the opportunity to see if she liked legal work prior to spending a lot of money to become a lawyer. If the job category were over-regulated it might eliminate a legitimate avenue for people to explore whether they were suited to a particular profession. It had been that reasoning that led to her voting against the landscape architect bill in the 1997 session.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani shared Ms. Buckley's concern and echoed her feeling that the bill might be an attempt to over-regulate those individuals. She also expressed a concern that in "times of shortage" districts might hire assistants who were not qualified.

Ms. Buckley said she would hold A.B. 54 until the next work session so committee members felt there had been ample opportunity to debate the measure.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER WITHDREW HIS MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 54.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WITHDREW HER SECOND.

The Chair announced the committee's attendance was required for a floor session and the committee would reconvene thereafter. The committee recessed at 5:00 p.m.

Chairman Buckley called the meeting back to order at 6:35 p.m. and opened the work session on A.B. 39.

Vance Hughey provided an overview of A.B. 39 in the work session document (Exhibit F). Assemblyman Manendo proposed amendments to the bill. On page 1, section 1, an amendment provided "a landlord or an agent of a landlord shall not prohibit a tenant from exhibiting a political sign anywhere within the boundary of the lot of the tenant as long as the sign was no larger than 24 inches by 36 inches." The second amendment required a political sign exhibited within the boundary of the lot of the tenant be removed within 1 week after an election.

Chairman Buckley informed she had worked with Assemblyman Manendo and lobbyist Joe Guild, Manufactured Home Community Owners, on behalf of the park owners. The park owners association had approved the amendments. They also considered broadening the bill to include condos and others as was originally suggested. The problem encountered in trying to draft amendments was upon further research it had been found that often condos had no common areas. In mobile home parks, governed by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 118B, individuals typically rented a lot on which to place the mobile home they owned. The lot was a defined area with a yard where a sign could be posted. By contrast, condos, townhomes, and similar residential communities often lacked such an area. That type of signage did have the park owners consent, most of their members were already allowing political signs, and with the restrictions on size and when it had to be taken down they were agreeable.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether condo and townhome owners were restricted from putting up political signs. Ms. Buckley recalled a U.S. Supreme Court decision that an individual had a First Amendment right to put a sign in the window. That had been a condo case. Assemblyman Manendo had wanted the sign in the front yard of the mobile homeowner's lot.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 39.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Regarding A.B. 54, Chairman Buckley advised Assemblywoman Von Tobel had asked for the opportunity for Mr. Figurski to provide additional testimony. Ms. Buckley told Ms. Von Tobel additional testimony would not be accepted in work session; however, she would hold the bill to allow him, or Ms. Von Tobel, to e- mail further thoughts before definite action was taken at the next work session.

Ms. Buckley opened the work session on A.B. 156.

Vance Hughey explained A.B. 156 had been scheduled for hearing on February 22, 1999, but the bill had not been heard and was withdrawn by the sponsor.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE

A.B. 156.

SPEAKER DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Buckley opened the work session on A.B. 203.

Vance Hughey explained testimony on A.B. 203 had been heard at the hearing on March 4, 1999, that there had been a bill in the 1993 session that reorganized state government and as part of that reorganization deleted the administrator's duties. The duties had now been restored back in to align Nevada's law with federal law and to help correct compliance issues raised in a June 1997 federal site monitoring of Nevada's Vocational Rehabilitation program.

Chairman Buckley stated after hearing the bill, Assemblyman Humke had a particular problem with it. Following that hearing Ms. Buckley had received numerous phone calls and letters on the issues. The clarification was originally there had been a job description and it had been removed during reorganization. The Federal Government as well as the former administrator of that department felt that independent decision making under the cabinet level was being impaired. Ms. Giunchigliani commented she had received a copy in the mail as had others and although somewhat unusual they had presented the documentation.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she had checked her old notes from the subcommittee on Ways and Means which she chaired. They had the language of the job description and they merged it with the employment training and business director's job. Rose McKinney James, as the director, argued to keep the language in the bill at that time but the decision was made to take it out. As the situation now stood, the state was in jeopardy of losing $9.8 million if it did not comply with the Region 9 recommendation.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 203.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Buckley opened the work session on A.B. 214.

Vance Hughey explained A.B. 214 required private employers with at least 300 employees to grant to each employee 2 hours of leave with pay each year for each child of that employee who attended kindergarten or grades 1 through 12. The purpose of the leave was to meet with the teacher or counselor of the child or the principal or any other administrator of the school the child attended for meetings with educational personnel. No amendments had been proposed.

Chairman Buckley reported since hearing the bill she had heard a suggestion from a committee member who felt uncomfortable about some of the issues. For instance, multiple children, multiple hours being missed from work and the bill being open ended. That member suggested something along the lines of

excusing people who wanted to vote which did not necessarily have to be done at the expense of the employer and would only have to be done at certain hours. The member had also suggested the alternative of leave without pay. She voiced that to Assemblyman Williams for consideration and not having heard back from him yet wanted to hold the bill to see if there would be any amendments.

Assemblyman Hettrick expressed several concerns. One that the 2 hours per year total would need to be clarified. Also written proof of attendance should be required otherwise a person could say they were going to a meeting and simply leave. He suggested an amendment that stated the employer had to be informed before the employee attended the meeting to give the employer the opportunity to indicate a preferred time for the employee being away. Finally, the language should indicate "employment at a site" not "in the state" because people had multiple sites. Mr. Hettrick concluded that the bill needed significant amendment before being passed.

Speaker Dini commented he felt the pay had not been the issue particularly but the disruption of the business scheduling. In a manufacturing plant that could disrupt the procedure. He would not vote in favor of the bill in its current form.

Ms. Buckley said she preferred to return the bill to the sponsor rather than put it in subcommittee.

Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated Mr. Hettrick's suggestions and added a qualification had been made that one could not be disciplined. Also there should have been a 3-day notification. From a school perspective, she said the parent's schedule was taken into consideration and accommodations were made.

Assemblyman Goldwater asked how the bill paralleled with family medical leave and if there would be federal legislation that allowed 6 weeks of family and medical leave. Ms. Buckley said Mr. Hughey could research that question, but it had been her understanding it only applied in medical situations.

Mr. Hettrick expressed another concern that if it were truly that important it needed to apply to government as well and if that were included it would add a huge fiscal note.

Ms. Buckley said she would include that concern on the list of suggestions to Mr. Williams.

Chairman Buckley closed the work session on A.B. 214 and opened the work session on A.B. 112.

Crystal Lesbo, senior research analyst, explained A.B. 112 had come out of the Clark Commission which had been appointed in response to the Sierra Chemical explosion which occurred in January 1998. Several amendments had been proposed as follows:

• Certain exemptions be applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms definition of explosives which currently appeared in the bill. Those exemptions were outlined in tab B of Exhibit F. Specifically the amendment proposed exemptions (4) concerning small arms ammunition; (5) concerning ammunition, fuses, etc., for sporting, recreational, and antique firearms, and (6) the manufacture of explosives under certain guidelines. The same amendment had also been adopted at the March 8, 1999, work session for A.B. 110 and A.B. 111;

• The second amendment proposed for A.B. 112 provided clarification that those bills were not intended to apply to the mining industry. That same amendment had been adopted for A.B. 110 and A.B. 111;

• The third amendment proposed by Chief Marvin Carr deleted certain provisions in the bill at page 6, lines 15 and 16, and page 8, lines 16 and 17. By reinstating the deleted provisions the State Fire Marshal would retain jurisdiction over the storage and use of explosives and any commercial construction but not in mining or the control of avalanches;

• The fourth amendment, included in the work session document (Exhibit F) as attachment C, limited the scope of the bill to manufacturing; and

• The fifth amendment proposed by Ray Bacon was included in Exhibit F as attachment D and comprised several amendments:

1. Limited the scope of the bill to the production management, production supervisors, and production training personnel of facilities engaged in the production of explosives.
2. Added a provision to require the Division of Industrial Relations establish a certification fee for the annual certification of employees.

 

3. Similar to amendment 4 proposed by Verne Rosse, deputy administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, amended subsection 1 of section 2, section 4, and subsections 1 and 2 of section 5 by deleting the phrase "used, stored or handled," and also limited the scope of the bill to manufacturing only.
4. Deleted sections 13 through 23 of the bill. Those sections amended the charters of several cities in Nevada by requiring that the ordinances adopted by the city council of each respective city regarding places of employment where explosives were stored must be at least as stringent as the standards adopted by the Division of Industrial Relations.

• Finally, the sixth amendment, included as attachment E of Exhibit F removed from the bill the requirement that all employees who were involved in the manufacture of explosives be certified annually. Also, all employees would be trained annually. In addition, only employer trainers, production managers, and supervisors would be subject to the provision of subsection 3 of section 2 that required applicants submit a statement regarding child support arrearages.

Ms. Lesbo, at the request of the Chair, brought that amendment to the attention of Major General Tony Clark, Nevada Office of the Military, who stated it was the intent of the commission that all employees be trained annually. In conversations between Vern Rosse, Deputy Administrator, Alan Biaggi, Administrator, of the Division of Environmental Protection, and Adjutant General Lieutenant Colonel David Pennington, it was agreed the amendment was a workable solution to Mr. Bacon's concern regarding annual certification.

Two additional amendments were brought to Ms. Lesbo's attention before the meeting by David Going, Deputy Chief, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, on behalf of the Division of Industrial Relations. The first amendment provided penalties for employers who failed to provide training to employees involved in the manufacture of explosives. The fine would be not more than $20,000 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months. The second proposed amendment provided the legal counsel of the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) would have the authority to prosecute for certain criminal violations (Exhibit G).

Finally, attachment F of Exhibit F was the fiscal note. During the hearing on the bill the fiscal note was incomplete. There had been a portion that said "see attached" and that was also included in the document.

Chairman Buckley said Speaker Dini had inquired where else in statute the word "explosives" had been used, and whether by arriving at a particular definition for the series of bills how the rest of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) would be affected.

Ms. Lesbo explained two other definitions for "explosives" existed in NRS: Under Chapter 202 for Crimes Against Public Health, which related specifically to bomb threats, and in Chapter 484 for Traffic Laws (Exhibit H). Both definitions appeared substantially similar; however, a legal opinion would be required to determine if the same definition used in the bill could be applied throughout.

In the Chair's opinion, they were targeting different evils; not explosive manufacturing plants but public safety concerns and criminalizing possession of explosives. All were different issues than addressed in the bill. She felt satisfied what had been drafted for the bill series would not create conflicts within the NRS.

Ms. Buckley stated A.B. 111 recently passed, generally related to workplace safety by amending current law to clarify more stringent requirements for explosive manufacturing plants. The difference between that bill and A.B. 112 was that A.B. 112 appeared to be more specific. In addition to making A.B. 111 have specific application to explosive manufacturing plants, A.B. 112 more specifically created a plan and a new section of Chapter 618. She asked Ms. Lesbo to comment on any other differences.

Ms. Lesbo agreed with the Chair's assessment that A.B. 111 dealt more with employees in terms of making sure certain training was in a language they understood, whereas A.B. 112 was more specific to manufacturing in that it established standards and procedures for places of employment where explosives were produced.

Ms. Buckley stated the first two amendments were previously addressed. If the bill were processed it would be done consistently and that would be to limit it to the manufacturing of explosives in plants only, and not mining. Regarding the third suggestion, it was appropriate and was not the intention to limit jurisdiction. The choices, then, were to discuss whether the certification would be limited to upper echelon people or across the board. Also, what was meant by "certification." The question at the last work session had been about "training," but there really was not any "certification" per se, so that would have to be clarified.

Ms. Buckley stated amendment 6 (page 3 of Exhibit F) addressed that by removing certification and stating instead an annual "training requirement" approved by DIR, might resolve the problems in amendment 5.

Regarding the two additional new amendments, Ms. Buckley provided an overview stating the first one appeared to be the agency looking for a vehicle, and although she understood the reasoning was reluctant to "crowd up" those bills. The second proposed amendment added a penalty that appeared to have been missing from the original draft and was in accord with prior conversations.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani wanted clarification on the certification aspect. Ms. Lesbo said the amendment proposed by Ray Bacon was essentially a "train the trainer" type of language. It provided that a training program be set up and approved by the DIR. The plant managers or supervisors would be trained and would then train their subordinates.

Danny Evans, Chief Administrative Officer, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Enforcement Program, identified himself and said the addition of the words "testing annually" in section 2 (1) (d) would accomplish the intent. Also, the addition of "testing" to (e) in that same section.

Ray Bacon, representing Nevada Manufacturers Association, identified himself and stated said his group had no problem with changing the legal prosecution from the district attorney to the DIR, and added there might be a fiscal note. He was not sure the second amendment would be needed, commenting the authority already existed. There were two provisions in the statute: (1) the provision of failure to post notices and due records of $7,000 per day and (2) the $20,000 and imprisonment for anything that involved death.

Danny Evans said NRS 618.685, the attachment to the amendment, pertained primarily to a fatality. Because OSHA felt so strongly about proper training they wanted it added.

Ms. Buckley asked Ms. Lesbo to check the penalty sections and see if they were covered by anything else.

Assemblyman Hettrick believed it incongruous the same penalty would attach for a death as for not following a training requirement; one or the other should be changed.

Chairman Buckley asked to go through the remaining amendments and come back to the penalty. She agreed the fine was high because it applied to a fatality but wanted to make sure that it was not a law without a penalty.

Mr. Bacon stated because they had put in the requirement for the training program, NRS 618.685, which was the $7,000 per day fine, would apply.

Mr. Evans restated the problem OSHA had and the reason they had proposed the amendment regarding the prosecution by their attorneys was because the district attorneys usually had other criminal cases to prosecute. In the past, even when the OSHA case had been strong, the district attorneys said they did not have the time or manpower to prosecute. Chairman Buckley asked about the fiscal note. Mr. Evans was not sure there would be a fiscal note. OSHA presently had three attorneys and could probably handle any prosecutions. The cases had not come up often, but when they did, OSHA wanted to go forward.

Ms. Buckley asked why their legal counsel did not now handle those cases, and

Mr. Evans replied that under the law that was disallowed.

Regarding penalties, Ms. Lesbo reported the proposed amendment was specific with respect to an employer that did not provide training. There were penalties provided in NRS 618, but none with respect to not providing training.

Ms. Buckley asked to confirm if NRS 618.655 applied only if the employer failed to correct a violation but not if they failed to provide training. If they were issued a citation for not giving the training then it would become applicable. Ms. Lesbo confirmed it sounded reasonable but may require further research.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked to have clarified the process of citation and penalty.

Danny Evans stated the failure to correct had to occur after OSHA cited the employer and that was when the $7,000 penalty per day came in. Initially, if the classification of the citation was serious it would be a $5,000 penalty, but OSHA felt that had not been enough for failure to train explosives workers, and that was the reason for proposing the $20,000 penalty. The applicable NRS statute was 618.645. Ms. Lesbo read the statute, after which Ms. Buckley asked why the $7,000 penalty for failure to abide by the training program had not been enough. Mr. Evans said the consequences in those types of cases were such that one did not get a second chance. There had to be a big deterrent. He believed the $20,000 penalty for causing a death should have been raised years ago when other penalties had been raised.

Ms. Buckley then went through each amendment to ensure the committee members were in agreement.

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested at NRS 618.645 to state that failure to provide training automatically would be considered a serious enough violation to warrant a citation and fine as outlined in that statute.

The next amendment under discussion was the appointment of OSHA counsel to prosecute the cases that had resulted from violations. Assemblywoman Segerblom felt it was a good amendment. Assemblyman Nolan agreed with the concept and asked Mr. Evans whose decision it would be to move on a criminal prosecution. Mr. Evans stated the discretion and the responsibility would be theirs.

Chairman Buckley asked for a motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

A.B. 112.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Ms. Lesbo asked to clarify the intent in the amendments of A.B. 112 would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 including adding the change that provided for satisfactory completion of testing. The amendments proposed by DIR that added the penalties so that failure to provide training for employees involved in the manufacturer of explosives within 618.645 was then deemed a serious offense.

And finally, the amendment regarding the legal counsel. Ms. Buckley reminded that amendments 1, 2, and 4 were made consistent with the other bill to clarify scope of coverage.

Chairman Buckley continued by opening the work session on A. B. 253.

Ms. Lesbo advised no amendments to the bill had been proposed.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 253.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

There being no further business, Chairman Buckley adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Darlene Rubin,

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: