The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Friday, April 23, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 4100 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. Bob Beers

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. David Parks

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Buckley noted the meeting would begin with a subcommittee as not all members had arrived. She opened the hearing on

S.B. 177.

Renee Diamond, Administrator, Department of Business and Industry, Manufactured Housing Division, read written testimony in favor of S.B. 177 (Exhibit C) and explained the bill was requested by the Division of Manufactured Housing to make changes to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 461, manufactured buildings. Section 1, (h) would add the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard number A117.1 to the current requirements in NRS 461.170, which was the listing of codes and standards for manufactured buildings. ANSI A117.1 were the standards of construction that were compatible with the Americans with Disabilities Act. She explained the reason for the repealed section (Exhibit C). She stated some local government representatives had expressed concern with the deletion on page 3, line 8, "as well as the review and regulation of architectural." She explained those who had concerns wanted those words left in the bill, as they felt they would not have control over certain manufactured buildings with the deletions. They were concerned there may be some confusion between the terms architectural and aesthetic. She noted the Manufactured Housing Division did not object.

Assemblywoman Evans asked Ms. Diamond about the standards relative to fire safety on manufactured houses. Several people had complained to her that when there was a fire in a manufactured home, it was rarely a fire that could be simply extinguished, they tended to engulf the entire unit. She had questions raised to her about the requirements in the manufacturing to make them as safe as possible, and asked Ms. Diamond to address that aspect.

Ms. Diamond stated S.B. 177referred to manufactured buildings which should not be confused with manufactured homes. Ms. Evans’ question referred manufactured housing, chapter 489 of NRS, which was not the subject of the bill. The codes and standards being put into S.B. 177 were Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards and ANSI standards, which were general building standards. Manufactured homes were built to a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standard, and in terms of the quality of the building materials, they had evolved the same way traditional homes had. For example, many manufactured homes were currently being produced with metal studs rather than wood studs. Manufactured homes had the same kinds a improvements in quality and building products as in traditional homes.

The HUD standard to which manufactured homes were built was a somewhat harder standard to change because of the process of going through federal regulations. However, Ms. Diamond noted HUD had contracted with the National Fire Safety Association to examine all the building codes having to do with manufactured homes. In a consensus building process, the industry, state administrative agencies, and citizen groups would work together to improve fire safety and many of the other technical aspects that went into manufactured homes.

She told the committee of two children who had had been playing with a lighter on a couch in a manufactured home, and had been killed when the home caught fire. She stated the home was new, and it had smoke alarms, but it did not have things she had in her stick-built house such as fire extinguishers. She did not think even the older manufactured homes were inherently unsafe. There was a process by which it was evolving.

Ms. Evans recognized the fact her question did not effect S.B. 177, but the subject of standards came up, and she thought it would be a good time to ask the question.

Chairman Buckley noted page 2, lines 14 through 16, and asked if a local government with a prejudice against manufactured houses could impose requirements contrary to HUD.

Ms. Diamond noted NRS 461 addressed UBC produced, not HUD produced manufactured homes, homes and buildings. So the Division of Manufactured Homes felt if a local enforcement agency wanted to make a change, they could apply to the division, and the division could give them written approval of the change. Therefore, notification to the division was required, because if the division was not notified, plans approved for a home could be changed on a local level, and the division would never hear of the changes.

Charlie Joerg, representing the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, testified in favor of the bill. He concurred with Ms. Diamond, including the amendment to leave the architectural review language in the bill. He also agreed that HUD had contracted another agency.

There had been a tragic event in Silver Springs before the session started, and that case was a very old home, perhaps even before the HUD code was in existence which occurred in 1976, and he believed home was even older than that. Homes from that era did have problems, but homes currently being manufactured, he thought equaled or exceeded the fire standards of the UBC.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on S.B. 177, and opened the hearing on S.B. 101.

Fred Hillerby, representing the State Board of Pharmacy, introduced Keith Macdonald, Executive Officer of the Board, who would present S.B. 101.

Mr. Macdonald stated S.B. 101 was basically a housekeeping bill. Page 2, line 1, was a requirement for the executive director, to have a bond of $2,000. At that point $2,000 was not worth much, and he wanted to strike the section, because it was becoming impossible to find a bond that small, in addition they handled much larger sums. He had been with the board for 10 years and auditors in the Legislative Council Bureau (LCB) had not seen fit that he needed to be bonded, hopefully it was gone and he would not need to be bonded.

Page 3, line 8, changed the requirements of the setting of 1,500 hours of internship or practical experience for a pharmacist. Previously, it was 1000 hours in one setting and 500 in another, and the change simply required 1,500 hours, which could be set by the board. Colleges of pharmacy all over the country provided those intern hours and previous language excluded the college programs. The rest of the information on page 3 was related to some "cleaning up" of language, and throughout the bill, wherever the word "certificate" was used the words "of registration" was added.

On page 5, there had been some deletions that were insignificant. On page 6, it required that pharmacists renew their license specifically by October 31^st of each odd year.

On page 7, the language changes were those of the LCB, doing some housekeeping. Also on page 8, they struck language that was insignificant. On page 9, line 6 was the addition of a line that allowed the board of pharmacy, under a program called the "controlled substance abuse task force" to release statistical data regarding controlled substances. The remaining language indicated it was not specific to a particular patient, and that prevented any destruction of confidentiality of patient information. The language was purely statistical relating to the use of controlled substances, narcotics, sedatives and other drugs and did not destroy patient confidentiality. The Federal Government and other agencies requested that data from the State Board of Pharmacy because that was the only place it was collected in the state.

Mr. Macdonald addressed page 10 line 22, and noted there was a practitioner registration number required on all controlled substance prescriptions. That number was often a key to individuals who used their own methods of obtaining drugs. Previously the registration number was required to be preprinted on a prescription form but many practitioners preferred it not be, so the language was re-written to use the word "may," which would allow the doctors to choose if they wanted their prescription forms preprinted.

Ms. Giunchigliani clarified the registration number was assigned to anyone who had authority to write prescriptions for controlled substances. She noted optometrists would have an assigned number as well. Mr. Macdonald agreed.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on S.B. 101.

Chairman Buckley asked if the committee would entertain a motion on S.B. 177.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked specifically what the amendment was, whereby Chairman Buckley said the amendment was to remove the proposed deletion of architectural standards by local government which appeared on page 3, line 8. She explained local government agencies had some concerns, so it was agreed it would revert to existing law.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on S.B. 199.

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on S.B. 92.

Assemblyman Hettrick, District 39, explained he had been asked to handle the worker’s compensation bills since he served as vice chairman of the worker’s compensation committee. S.B. 92 consisted of technical amendments from start to finish, and approximately 99 percent of what was changed in the bill was the addition of the words "or chapter 617" or "and chapter 617."

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Hettrick to clarify why that language needed to be added.

Mr. Hettrick deferred to Crystal Lesbo, Committee Policy Analyst, and she explained it was a recommendation to the committee from the Legal Division during the interim. In statute, wherever "pursuant to chapter 616a to 616d," which was the Industrial Insurance Act, applied, with the addition of the reference to chapter 617, which were the occupational disease provisions for worker’s compensation, it was included as well. It was primarily clean up.

Ms. Giunchigliani believed in a prior session, Mr. Bache had changed all the chapters as well, and asked if that went back to what they had done.

Vance Hughey, Senior Policy Analyst, stated Mr. Bache’s resolution from several sessions prior, split chapter 616 into 4 chapters, A through D, so it made more sense, but it did not effect chapter 617, the occupational disease chapter.

Chairman Buckley asked the pleasure of the committee.

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on S.B. 175.

Chairman Buckley noted the members had been provided a letter from the Office of the Attorney General (Exhibit D).

Ann Cathcart, Senior Attorney General, Attorney General’s office, introduced Gregory Zunino.

Gregory Zunino, representing the worker’s compensation fraud unit, presented S.B. 175. S.B. 175 would make an amendment to the existing statute 616 D.220. That law provided that it was a misdemeanor for an employer to fail to provide or maintain industrial insurance coverage for employees. Currently under the law a second offense was a category C felony. S.B. 175 would also make it a felony for an employer to fail to provide the insurance if there was a death of an employee or if an employee sustained substantial bodily harm. In the Las Vegas office, two different employers were prosecuted, and in each case there was a fatality. In one case, the individual sustained burns over 80 percent of his body, in the other case, a window washer fell from a ladder and suffered a fractured skull. In those cases, because the law was written as it was misdemeanor charges were pursued against those employers. In each case, the employers fled the state, and because they were charged with misdemeanors, it was not economically feasible to extradite them. If those individuals could be charged with felonies, it would be more feasible to extradite them. He noted if a second offense was a felony, then cases involving bodily harm or death should be as well. That particular amendment also had provisions that provided for restitution, in particular, to the uninsured employers fund. For example, when a person suffered an injury or a fatality, benefits were payable to the surviving family members. If the employer was not insured, those benefits came out of the uninsured employers fund, into which all employers paid. That would allow the court, upon convicting an employer, to order that employer to reimburse the fund for benefits paid out on behalf of the injured worker.

Ms. Giunchigliani requested clarification on the bill. Mr. Zunino explained, ordinarily the crime would be a misdemeanor however, if an employee sustained substantial bodily harm or was killed, the employer could be charged with a class C felony. Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the fiscal impact on prisons. Mr. Zunino anticipated in most of those cases, even though those people were convicted of felonies, they would probably be granted probation, which generally happened in white collar cases and in worker’s compensation cases in particular.

Vice Chairman Perkins closed the hearing S.B. 175, and awaited the return of Chairman Buckley.

Mr. Hettrick noted the wording "an employer within the provisions 616B.633," and asked who that affected.

Mr. Zunino responded that covered any employer who was required to provide worker’s compensation coverage for employees, and that would cover virtually every employer in the state, but it would exclude people who were using independent contractors.

Mr. Hettrick asked about the casual laborer. Mr. Zunino stated the casual laborer would be excluded, those persons employing them would not be considered employers for the purposes of statute.

Chairman Buckley asked the committee to entertain a motion.

Mr. Humke was concerned about placing S.B. 175 on the consent calendar, because of the change in the law to a felony.

Chairman Buckley mentioned she learned something by spending an extra day on a bill, she learned something from the floor statement.

Mr. Humke consented.

Chairman Buckley noted all absent committee members were excused, and adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Meg Colard,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: