The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:40 p.m., on Tuesday, February 16, 1999. Chairman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 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:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Kelly Thomas

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Bernard Anderson, District 31

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, District 36

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

• BDR 32-685 - Revises composition of regional transportation

Commission of Carson City (A.B. 270).

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BDR 32-685.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

• BDR 43-572 - Revises penalty for driving without required insurance

in effect (A.B. 272).

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-572.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARKS.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

• BDR 43-654 - Make various changes relating to consignment

of vehicles (A.B. 271).

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-654.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairwoman Chowning stated assembly bills would be heard out of order due to Assemblyman Anderson’s testimony on A.B. 31.

Assemblyman Anderson read from prepared text (Exhibit C) in favor of A.B. 31 and explained the importance of maintaining a two-man crew on operating trains. He commented on the problems of modern railroads and the question of safety for the well being of its citizens.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked Mr. Anderson to explain the provisions enacted in the State of Wisconsin and its impacted success. Assemblyman Anderson responded the Wisconsin Administrative Staff Memorandum stated that a brakeman had to have 3 years experience to become a conductor. He mentioned the Wisconsin statute had a higher standard for railroad employees to qualify for engineer, conductor, and other positions compared to the State of Nevada. He mentioned the current statute in the State of Wisconsin could be copied throughout the nation for the safety of train crewmembers.

Chairwoman Chowning referred to A.B. 31, section 1, and subsection 2 that stated the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) could grant an exception if the commission determined the exception would not endanger the life or property of any person. She asked what type of exception could be granted.

Assemblyman Anderson pointed to section 2, line 7 through 9 of A.B. 31 and stated it was the bill drafter’s prerogative not the actual request to make certain the PUC had the opportunity if needed to provide an exception to the rule. He also stated it was not the intent of the bill to interrupt the proper functioning of PUC.

Assemblywoman McClain asked for a specific description of a railroad train. Assemblyman Anderson remarked a qualified person should answer that question. Chairwoman Chowning requested to hold the question to be answered by a qualified person.

Assemblyman Anderson responded to Assemblywoman McClain it was his understanding the definition of a train was any type of locomotive that moved on mainline trackage and spurs that reached the mainline trackage from the feeder lines. Chairwoman Chowning asked if that statement was the intent to answer the definition of a railroad. Assemblyman Anderson responded affirmatively.

Assemblyman Carpenter referred to section 4, line 14, and stated it defined a certified engineer in accordance to the Code of Federal Regulations. He asked if a train service engineer, locomotive service engineer, or student engineer would qualify as a certified engineer. Assemblyman Anderson commented student engineers were trained in Los Angeles and placed in the field to make one or two trips with a certified individual. He stated it took years to become an engineer or a conductor and explained the apprenticeship did not apply in the current workforce. Safety equipment that was added to trains was no longer required and the modern system of railroads had eliminated jobs. He further stated a train operated best with three men, and two men did an adequate job. He expressed his concern about a one-man crew operating long distances through Nevada and how it would effect the safety of train operation.

Assemblywoman Cegavske inquired about a similar bill from last session related to train crews. Assemblyman Anderson explained the difference was the bill from last session related to rail safety operations. That bill related to crews of trains and A.B. 31 referred to the number of people operating a train.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if there was a contract that currently stated how many people were required to be on a train. She asked if there was a labor bill that indicated there must be a certain number of employees to operate a train. She referred to a bill repealed in 1985 stating a full crew of four people was required. Assemblyman Anderson stated at one time there were five, and in 1985 four employees were required. He stated currently the required amount was two or three.

Assemblywoman Cegavske again asked if there was a current contract that required two to three crewmembers and would it conflict with the bill. Assemblyman Anderson explained from the different geographical hubs, contracts could be different. He stated a national committee was researching a contract in southern California and the Federal Government would be considering the crew number. He stated the training standards of other states had a higher standard than the State of Nevada.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if there were enough qualified employees to meet the demand of A.B. 31. Jack Fetters, State Legislative Director, United Transportation Union replied there was no contract with Union Pacific Eastern District which placed a minimum number of crew members. He also stated some trains might have an extra brakeman who could be called to assist depending on the workload. He commented the current requirement for certified engineers was not as strict as it had been in the past.

Assemblyman Anderson stated the question asked by Assemblywoman Cegavske should be answered by a management person.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if the requested action on A.B. 31 would facilitate two qualified crewmembers.

Assemblyman Anderson explained the desire to guarantee that there are two people on the railroad that hold a level of experience and would guarantee to be a trained service engineer, locomotive engineer or a student engineer. He stated that they look to have at least two individuals on each locomotive operating in Nevada and that one be a locomotive engineer. He reiterated that the question would be about safety, not about the number of trained employees and the responsibility would be to the people of the State of Nevada to make certain the trains had qualified crews.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if there were statistics available for the number of rail accidents per miles operated over the last several years. He noted with the evolution of trains fewer operators and less qualified employees were operating trains and inquired about statistics on train accidents. Assemblyman Anderson responded he would supply that information. He mentioned several tragic railroad accidents in Wisconsin had spurred the state to take action. There were a few death related accidents in the Midwest and stated that past accidents would affect the statistics requested causing them to be inaccurate. He reiterated trains had been known to be the safest method of transporting goods and services.

Chairwoman Chowning stated the committee would take the request under advisement to provide research information.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked about the high-speed railroad train operation and if those trains required two-man crews. Assemblyman Anderson responded the projected high-speed trains had been mentioned and were years away from operation. He indicated sufficient time would allow proper trackage to be laid to provide high-speed transportation and the Nevada Legislature would have time to reconvene to modify legislation.

Assemblyman Claborn asked Mr. Fetters if railroad safety operations came under Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Mr. Fetters responded non-operating personnel fell under OSHA and operating personnel fell under the Federal Railroad Administration. Assemblyman Claborn asked if an accident occurred, would OSHA be involved. Mr. Fetters answered, yes. Assemblyman Claborn explained the smaller trains operated under federal ordinance. He stated trains could not be moved without a brakeman. He questioned if operating a train with less than one person was deemed to be safe.

Mr. Fetters read from the prepared text of Exhibit D which was an overview of the impact the bill would have on the requirement of a two-man crew.

Assemblywoman McClain asked Mr. Fetters to explain the definition of a railroad train. Mr. Fetters stated "a railroad train is anything that is a locomotive and a car on it."

Chairwoman Chowning asked the staff to research the definition.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if two qualified people precluded a train from operating with any number of people. He also asked if two were required to be qualified by the provisions in the section of statute. Mr. Fetters answered yes. He also explained while operating a train, a student engineer would be trained by a qualified engineer along with a conductor which would make a three-man crew.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if there were additional positions other than student positions who were on trains while in operation. Mr. Fetters replied a brakeman was present to assist when there was a large amount of work in route. He stated most trains in Nevada consisted of an engineer and a conductor. Assemblyman Nolan asked if there would be two to five people aboard. Mr. Fetters answered, yes.

Rod Nelms, Assistant Legislative Director, United Transportation Union, read from the prepared text of Exhibit E and was in favor of A.B. 31. He pointed out the bill was very positive and stressed the importance of the qualification of a two-man crew and the impact it would provide to safety on railroads.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked about the projected cost and where would the funding be directed.

Guy Zewadski, Legislative Representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, read from prepared text Exhibit F which stated the increase would not affect the number of crewmembers. He stated, currently under federal regulations addressed in A.B. 31 on line 14, paragraph 4, the Code of Regulations required certified engineers to operate the trains. He mentioned the language at the end of paragraph 4 was perplexing and student engineers were referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations that stated "a student engineer could only operate under the direct supervision of a certified engineer." He commented the bill was well drafted and referred back to the Nevada PUC regarding federal laws that could conflict.

Mr. Zewadski stated the two-man crews in operation required one certified engineer and conductor to be present. He explained a conductor might have different levels of experience due to the increased hiring of Union Pacific Railroad. He stated contract agreement required a two-man crew. The two separate unions, United Transportation Union, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers each possessed their own collective bargaining agreement. He made a statement that Nevada was integrating collective bargaining agreements and was negotiating for the labor organizations to merge. There was not one contract that required a two-man crew. There were separate contracts that required a conductor on a train. Mr. Zewadski responded Nevada PUC could explain the definition of a railroad train. High-speed passenger transportation was a separate railroad operation because the track infrastructure of freight trains did not accommodate high-speed passenger transportation. He commented there was no collective bargaining agreement or federal regulation which governed the minimum amount of on-the-job training required of an engineer. Currently the railroad administration was trying to impose that regulation. He mentioned the importance of having a second experienced person aboard a train.

Mr. Zewadski explained the railroad operation in the State of Nevada coordinated trains traveling in opposing directions on the same track. He explained the trains were not computerized and one train was detoured onto a to the side to allow a second train to pass. A signal directed the train onto the siding and a decrease of speed was required. He explained if one person was operating the train and became tired, the chances of an accident were increased. Trains did not have features to alert an engineer to stop the train. He stated from a safety point of view a second person would be necessary for public and crew safety.

Assemblyman Collins asked Mr. Zewadski to explain the certifications for operating a train and if there were requirements to obtain a license. Mr. Zewadski answered the Federal Railroad Administration regulated laws requiring a locomotive engineer be certified and properly trained.

Assemblyman Collins asked if there was a requirement that indicated the need for two people on a train. Mr. Zewadski answered it was required by the Federal Railroad Administration Regulation that a student engineer needed to be supervised by a certified engineer. A.B. 31 stated a second person was required and could consist of a conductor or a conductor training to be an engineer, but two people were required to be on the train.

Assemblyman Carpenter noted in northern Nevada there were two tracks for trains traveling in opposite directions. He asked about the hiring practice of the railroad. Mr. Nelms explained an individual who applied for employment would be screened and tested and then taken into the train service. He also stated after a 3-month training period, the new employee was placed into the system with limited experience. When there was a demand for engineers the newly hired conductors were placed in the ranks to fill the request. Currently the requirement to become a certified locomotive engineer was a 6-month process.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked how many employees were needed for switching in the railroad yards. Mr. Fetters stated an engineer, a conductor, and foreman was the standard requirement. He briefly described some of the duties required in the yards that necessitated a three-man crew. He indicated cars need to be switched out, traffic controlled, hand brakes needed to be tied, pins to be lifted and mentioned those all contributed to the need for three men. He noted that worked well and the railroad was pleased with the current situation.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the bill would allow the railroad leeway to place two people on the switching crew. Mr. Fetters stated that under contract the required amount had to be three men. He explained the amount of work and time involved in running a train was a labor-intensive task. He expressed downsizing the crew would lessen profitability and take more time to running a train.

Mr. Danny Thompson, Political Director, AFL-CIO, representing Nevada State American Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial Organizations, commented that in 1981 Nevada had a full-train crew law that required five people on a train and explained the modernization of trains had placed electronic devices on the back of trains that ran through Nevada. He stated Nevada was one of the last states that currently had a full-train crew law. He called attention to the safety record in Nevada and made note the railroad had kept safety a practice. The difficulty and danger involved in train operation due to the amount of weight used to push trains, and the hazardous materials transported created a dangerous situation to the public. He complimented the railroad on maintaining its safety record. The legislature had established public policy about trains and the number of crewmembers that worked the trains. He reiterated the fact there should not be less than two qualified people operating trains.

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall asked if crewmembers were medically screened prior to employment of the railroads. Mr. Fetters stated four types of drug testing had become a common practice due to the Ricky Gates incident that occurred back east which resulted in a fatal impact. He noted pre-employment drug testing, random drug testing, post-accident drug testing, and probable cause drug testing was commonly practiced.

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall restated her question asking if physical testing was required. Mr. Fetters responded physical testing had not been a required practice.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked Mr. Anderson to explain the difference between what the statute currently stated and what profitability the bill would offer the railroad. Assemblyman Anderson stated the purpose of the bill was to clarify the minimum standard in the State of Nevada for the operation of a train on a regular route. Statute required the minimum standard for a traditional railroad operation was that one of the crewmembers must be qualified. It did not specify the qualifications of the second crewmember. He referred to Exhibit C which indicated other states determined the length a brakeman was required to practice before he was allowed to become a conductor. He cited Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 705.210 that pertained to bridges and ferries used in connection with railroads and roads used by a common carrier operating on a railroad and under contract agreement. Mr. Anderson mentioned the difference between a monorail and a railroad, indicating a monorail was defined under NRS 705.650 which stated a monorail was a system that transported passengers and was installed on an exclusive fixed guideway. He stated the bill did not pertain to monorails.

Assemblyman Nolan commented NRS 705.210 defined a railroad and a monorail and observed the evolution of transportation had developed different types of systems that were being introduced in southern Nevada. He mentioned the proposed fixed rail being developed and that the system would fall under the definition of a railroad. He quoted "a railroad includes all railroads and street railways whether operated by steam, electricity, or any mode of power." He said at some point in time, a distinction would have to be made.

Assemblyman Anderson explained the language included in the bill would allow the opportunity for the Public Service Commission to provide statutory provisions to exempt certain types of operating systems. He stated the bill anticipated the unusual needs for another other type of trackage.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if one crewmember operating a train would create a future problem or was it fear about job safety.

Assemblyman Anderson stated it was not the practice of the railroad in Nevada to operate locomotives by the use of a transformer box. There had been attempts nationally to initiate that idea. The railroad had experienced the loss of a number of senior employees due to the hiring practice of the railroad and therefore the experience level in the state had declined. He acknowledged the past practice of the railroad clearly recognized the greatest expense was the employee and a reduction of employees to lessen the burden on the railroad would be a positive result. He stated Reno, Sparks, Battle Mountain, Winnemucca, and Elko all provided intersecting railroads which had become a problem in the communities. He stated the railroad had brought the people here and trains were the heart of the state and the means of transportation.

Assemblyman Collins clarified the monorail was an amusement ride that currently existed and there was no application made with PUC that application was made only with Clark County to continue the expansion of the monorail in southern Nevada.

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall called opposing witnesses on A.B. 31 to testify.

Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Union Pacific Railroad, explained there was no compelling need for the legislation based on the operation of Union Pacific Railroad and its contract with operating engineers. He referred to Exhibit G which explained the historical context of NRS 705.390 full-crew law and gave a brief history of the operation of trains. He then noted past agreements with the railroads and the unions had recognized the need to have a minimum-trained crew to operate locomotives. He stated in 1985 there was an operating agreement between the unions and railroads that specified certain situations which allowed two people to operate trains in the nation. The union and the management of the railroad recognized there would be a need for more than two people on a crew. In Nevada in 1985, the operating agreement that existed in the nation could not be implemented in Nevada because it had a full-crew law.

Assemblyman Collins asked if there was a problem with the request of having a certified engineer. Mr. Guild stated there was no problem with certification. He stated the employees of the railroad were constantly looking for better ways to make the railroads safer to operate. He remarked safety was an issue and railroads were a very safe transportation mode. There were no suggestions to indicate the citizens of Nevada should be at risk.

Ted Lewis, Director, Safety Rules & Testing Western Region stated Union Pacific Railroad supported the statement requiring a certified engineer to operate a train. The training processes and certification of engineers had become a rigid and structured foundation to provide qualified engineers.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked when a conductor was promoted to an engineer and was that process too lax. He also asked if there were certain criteria or time constraints required for promotion.

Mr. Lewis explained the past hiring process and stated an increase in employees had an impact on the hiring process and the seniority of qualified personnel. He stated the same hiring process occurred about every 20 years. He stated since his employment with the railroad he had noticed problems in the training process from the past 22 months and he commented that the impact of the training had resulted in personal injury and human failure of train accidents. Less than 20 percent of the injuries and occurrences involved a newly hired employee. The changes in training were currently in negotiation with the unions, and Union Pacific Railroad had made a commitment with United Transportation Union. A specific commitment had been made that 12 weeks of training for conductors would enable them to be a qualified conductor. He stated on local jobs a manager would determine if the individual was qualified and placed appropriately. For freight jobs the technical expertise would involve equipment, signaling systems, and knowledge of the area. He stated the training process was very thorough and extensive.

Mr. Wayne Horiuchi, Special Representative, Government Affairs and Community Relations of California and Nevada, Union Pacific Railroad, spoke against the bill stating the safety of Union Pacific Railroad was not related to the number of people on the train. He presented Exhibit H that displayed the number of train accidents per million train miles and showed a drop of 69 percent since 1980 and a 25 percent drop since 1990. The chart dated back to 1980 and indicated there were four to five crewmembers on the train. In 1996 there were two crewmembers on the train. He noted a decrease in the number of people operating the train, and safety had improved by 69 percent.

Mr. Guild gave a definition of a train. The source of the definition came from the operating agreements with the union and stated a train was any locomotive powered unit or combination of units on the railroad with signaling devices. A single locomotive with proper safety flashing devices being operated on a railroad was considered a train.

Mr. Horiuchi referred to Exhibit I that explained employee injuries. Railroads had reduced the employee injury rate by 70 percent since 1980, and 57 percent since 1990. In 1980 there had been five crewmembers on a train and in 1996 there had been two crewmembers on a train. Employee injury had been substantially reduced.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if the slides shown were national statistics and then asked if the numbers were different in Nevada.

Mr. Horiuchi responded the statistics were national and stated that he would provide the statistics from the PUC. He noted the report was similar to the rest of the country.

Mr. Horiuchi referred to Exhibit J that displayed employee injury rates in major industry groups and noted the decrease. He stated railroads were a safe industry and presented Exhibit K indicating a lower employee injury rate than other transportation modes. The number of people that used transportation was irrelevant to the safety record. He explained Exhibit L on the transportation of hazardous materials and noted the accident rates had declined. He talked about Exhibit M that compared transportation for trucks and railroads which transported hazardous materials, and mentioned the success of railroad transportation. Exhibit N displayed grade-crossing accidents and a 64 percent decline since 1980 and 32 percent since 1990. He noted that was a result of a very active lifesaver program Union Pacific Railroad initiated to educate the public about the consequences of trespassing and the danger at highway-grade crossings. He stated that 36 percent of the accidents in California were due to motor vehicles and stated an extra person on the train would not make a difference. He then displayed Exhibit O which explained the reasons for safety improvements. The result of a better safety record was due to technological advancements on equipment, tank cars, and training.

Mr. Horiuchi again remarked the number of people operating a train was irrelevant to the safety record and stated when all the pretenses were taken away, the bill was trying to mandate or require Union Pacific Railroad to manage and allocate human resources. The union was afraid in the future only one person would be required to operate a train and the bill would mandate and dictate collective bargaining agreements. He made comment to the importance that the requirement of one person operating a train would be a result of collective bargaining agreements which would be negotiated with the Unions that would require a two-man crew. Mr. Horiuchi pointed out the bill was taking flexibility away from the railroads to manage, supervise, and allocate human resources. A.B. 31 was a Nevada full-crew bill in disguise. It was trying to stabilize the amount of employment by keeping and mandating the caboose on the trains, and was trying to mandate the number of employees used, and that the Nevada PUC wanted to do away with the agents. It was a traditional fight between railroads and unions. He expressed concern with the hiring and Union Pacific Railroad had made a commitment that 5,000 people would be hired each of the next 12 years that would result in 50,000 or 60,000 new employees on the railroad. He reiterated the fear of a lowering of the employment levels should not be a concern.

Chairwoman Chowning stated there would be no vote on A.B. 31 that day.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked the reason the statistics from 1986 to 1999 had resulted in lower accidents.

Chairwoman Chowning asked Union Pacific Railroad representatives answer to the question in writing and a subcommittee would be assigned to the bill. No action taken.

Mr. Crowell submitted Exhibit P comments not heard.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 31 and asked to proceed with A.B. 30.

Assemblyman Neighbors read from prepared text marked as Exhibit Q and was in favor of A.B. 30 which outlined the need for a study to determine if the drivers’ license fee and the vehicle registration fees were covered in the full cost of administering programs to help fund highway funds.

Chairwoman Chowning asked what was the cost for Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) to conduct the study. Paul Mouritsen stated no fiscal note had been provided.

Assemblyman Bache asked for the chairman to accept a motion.

Chairman Chowning asked if there was anyone from DMV that would like to be heard.

Assemblywoman Cegavske stated the fiscal note had not been provided to the committee on A.B. 30. Chairwoman Chowning stated there was no fiscal note and the vote would be on the policy.

Owen Riche, Assistant Chief of Registration, Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety, stated there had not been a position taken on the bill, but there was a fiscal note submitted. The fiscal note requested one analyst position. He stated the position would start on July 1, 2000. He then commented the Project Genesis restructure had taken all of the personnel available and stated the position would be necessary to produce the study. The fiscal note submitted requested $55,926, which would be a management analyst position for 1 year and all necessary equipment.

Assemblyman Neighbors stated that the bill was supported by Thomas Stephens, Director of Nevada Department Transportation and at that time there was no fiscal note was attached.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if the only reason Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) was mentioned was due to the possible increase in funds to the highway fund and stated it was a DMV issue. Assemblyman Neighbors answered affirmatively.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if public safety had different funding in different areas. She asked if it was possible to ask for help to support it. She also stated currently it was with the governor’s budget and not allocated, and DMV or NDOT should be asked to help. Assemblyman Neighbors stated affirmatively.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented with all the money spent on Project Genesis the study should be a task that could be accomplished from that system. Assemblyman Neighbors agreed Project Genesis should be able to provide it and save $55,000.

Chairwoman Chowning asked committee members to vote on a motion because of the facts stated. The fiscal note could be decided in another committee.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS AND RE-REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblyman Bache stated he believed it could be done within the current budget with the current personnel and the possible fiscal note should be a decision for the Committee on Ways and Means.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Christine Cole,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: