The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 9, 1999. Chairman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and the meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas. 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 Chairman

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:

Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, Assembly District 14

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Chowning asked committee members to take action on the following Bill Draft Requests:

• BDR 43-1110 Revises provisions concerning salvage of vehicles and requires two-thirds majority vote (A.B. 452).

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-1110.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

• BDR 43-1306 (A.B. 453) Provides that operator’s policy of liability insurance does not satisfy the requirement for liability insurance for motor vehicle present or registered in the State of Nevada (A.B. 453).

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-1306.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairwoman Chowning opened the hearing on A.B. 157.

Assemblywoman Koivisto, Assembly District 14, Las Vegas, briefly explained A.B. 157 and commented the bill was directed toward child safety. She stated pickup trucks were a form of family transportation, and passenger protection inside the cab would be limited by the following factors:

• Space;
• Number of seatbelts; and
• Pickup trucks were not required to meet all passenger car safety standards.

She read from prepared text (Exhibit C) that outlined important facts regarding A.B. 157. Over 200 deaths a year had been the result of persons riding in the back of pickup trucks, and half of the deaths had been children and teenagers. She referred to Exhibit D which listed other states and their laws for passengers riding in pickup trucks.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if the 200 deaths had been nationwide. Assemblywoman Koivisto replied statistics had been supplied from the Safe Kids Coalition and believed they were nationwide.

Assemblyman Gustavson inquired about the number of deaths in Nevada and asked how many of them were offroad. Assemblywoman Koivisto stated she did not have that information but would supply it to the committee.

Sergeant Keith Carter, Las Vegas Metro Police, testified to their support of the bill. He stated the bill would deter people from riding in the bed of a pickup and would decrease injuries and deaths occurring from that practice.

Chairwoman Chowning asked Assemblywoman Koivisto to explain the bill in greater detail and asked to what ages and areas would the penalty apply. Assemblywoman Koivisto stated the bill would be directed to children 16 years of age and under in urban areas. Section 2, line 12, stated "a person may ride in the bed of a truck or within a camper shell or slide-in-camper if the person is 16 years of age or older." She explained the fine would be $25, and would not be a moving violation. She then referred to page 2, lines 8 through 10, and commented the language should be taken out and people needed to take responsibility for their own actions. The proposed language lessened the responsibility of a person riding in the back of a pickup.

Chairwoman Chowning reiterated page 2, lines 8 through 10 relating to negligence would not be considered negligence and asked Sergeant Carter about ramifications that applied to a driver. Sergeant Carter replied he knew specific laws of reckless driving existed and felt that wording would be appropriate, but he could not factually answer the question.

Chairwoman Chowning stated the research department would obtain the information from another source.

Assemblywoman McClain asked why the fine was $25. Assemblywoman Koivisto stated the fine had been a result of the drafting of the bill. Assemblywoman McClain asked if an increase in the fine for better enforcement would be considered. Assemblywoman Koivisto agreed to an increase.

Assemblyman Thomas asked for definition of an urban area. Assemblywoman Koivisto stated the bill would affect the urban areas of Northern Las Vegas Valley and Reno. Assemblyman Thomas stated an urban area would be a recognized township such as Paradise or Winchester in Clark County. Assemblywoman Koivisto stated those areas were included. Assemblyman Thomas asked if Elko and Ely would be considered urban areas. Assemblywoman Koivisto mentioned a bill in the 1997 session had a similar problem with defining certain areas and the bill included the rural areas of Elko and Ely. She stated the areas had been specifically requested in the bill and would affect only the bigger urban areas of Las Vegas Valley and Reno.

Assemblyman Thomas requested a more descriptive definition of an urban area be placed in the language for enforcement.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if there would be an age restriction for riding inside a camper or pickup shell. Assemblywoman Koivisto stated that line 12, subsection 2, referenced the restrictions. Assemblyman Gustavson suggested changing the language to indicate an adult be allowed to accompany a minor while riding in the back of a pickup. Assemblywoman Koivisto stated she would like the bill to state that no child with or without an adult be allowed to ride in the back of pickup.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked Sergeant Carter how would enforcement officers be able to distinguish a person in the back of a pickup was of the required age. Sergeant Carter replied it would be handled the same as the enforcement of the seatbelt law.

Chairwoman Chowning pointed out the statute defined an urban area as an area encompassed within city limits of a population of 10,000 or more.

Assemblyman Collins stated the penalty should be increased to encourage law enforcement to act on the violation. He inquired about law enforcement determining the age of occupants traveling in a camper. He asked why the bill pertained to pickup trucks and not flat beds, semi-trucks, or bobtails. Sergeant Carter responded it would be difficult to see inside campershells and the vehicle would need to be stopped for another traffic violation. Age determination would need to be addressed and there would be no problem including other types of utility vehicles in the language of the bill.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked Assemblyman Collins if he wanted add more descriptive language that would pertain to certain vehicles.

Assemblyman Collins stated the questions had been similar to the problems of a bill introduced in the 1997 session. The same issue had been presented to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and had no outcome. He reiterated the bill from 1997 had excluded flatbeds and closed-in-trailers. He then asked if it would be addressed and how would the bill focus on children riding in the back of pickup.

Assemblywoman Koivisto agreed with Assemblyman Collins and commented she would prefer to see no person allowed to ride in the back of a pickup in urban areas. Some people had to ride in the back of pickup trucks in order to get to their jobs and pointed out the bill addressed children.

Assemblyman Collins mentioned the statute prohibited employees from riding in the back of a vehicle and would be a state law employment violation.

Assemblywoman Koivisto responded the question had been addressed by Sergeant Carter indicating law enforcement would have reason to stop a vehicle that had made another violation.

Gina Polvina, president of Clark County Safe Kids Coalition (CCSKC), noted her support on A.B. 157 and explained the operation of the Safe Kids Coalition. The group provided safety education for children and consisted of members of private and public entities. The objective was to provide the Clark County community with the necessary tools to prevent unintentional injuries. She commented a child sitting in the back of a pickup truck without a seatbelt would circumvent the intent of the state’s existing seatbelt law. In the past 5 years approximately 2,500 people had been killed or suffered incapacitating injuries when thrown from the cargo area of a noncrashing truck, and injuries could have been avoided by the use of seatbelts. Automobile injuries were the leading cause of medical expenses, and the bill would help Nevada save money. The annual lifetime cost of injuries to children under the age of 15 had reached $165 billion dollars. She stressed an investment in childhood injury prevention would save the Nevada health care system millions of dollars by avoiding costly medical care for emergency room treatment and hospitalization.

Jeanie Cosgrove, executive director, Clark County Safe Kids Coalition, explained facts that involved traffic accidents and explained crash dynamics. She stated the force of a collision was the weight of a person times the miles per hour the vehicle had been traveling, and it would be impossible for any person to hold onto a child during a collision.

Dr. Michael Zbiegien, director, Sunrise Children’s Hospital, mentioned many injuries had resulted from children riding in the back of a pickup truck. The injuries could have been prevented by the use of safety belts and noted 80 percent of the injuries were head injuries. He noted serious injuries had occurred from riding in the back of a pickup. If a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed suddenly stopped, he explained a person would remain traveling at that same speed.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if any standards currently existed in retrofitting pickup trucks to provide a level of protection to occupants riding in the back.

Ms. Cosgrove stated standards could be added to a vehicle after it had been manufactured. It was a requirement that children riding in vehicles have a seatbelt, and a seatbelt that was installed in the back of a pickup truck would not pass a crash test.

Larry Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association, commented the bill would help to save lives.

Colonel Michael Hood, Chief of Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), expressed support for the bill and explained the bill would help save lives. He noted negligence would place punitive damages against a driver, and the bill stated it would not be considered. Negligence or reckless driving would prevent enforcement officers from stopping a person for any other reason than the committed violation. He stated the language had been placed in the bill for cautionary reasons.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if the language would make a primary cause for a citation or secondary citation. Colonel Hood stated it had been written as a secondary citation and referred to section 3, line 6, which stated it would not be considered a moving violation and no points could be added to a drivers license. It would be treated as a registration violation and misdemeanor.

Chairwoman Chowning pointed out the $25 fine was not consistent with the fine for a violation of seat belts. Colonel Hood stated that was correct.

Assemblywoman Cegavske referred to lines 14 and 15, referring to the allowed age of a person riding in the back of a pickup. She commented age 16 was too young and age 18 should be considered. Colonel Hood stated no person should be riding in the back of a pickup. Age 16 had been placed in the bill in order to get it passed.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked about insurance of a driver who had a person riding in the back of a pickup truck. Rich Shrader, representing AAA Nevada, replied the question was out of his jurisdiction and would research the information. He then stated that AAA supported the bill to prohibit riding in the back of a pickup. He referred to the slide-in camper and stated he did not think it would be as dangerous as riding in the open bed of a pickup. There was no information that suggested it was dangerous and the committee should consider eliminating that portion of the bill.

Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Shrader if he would follow up with facts and provide the information regarding the danger of riding in a camper.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if the information provided included a rollover report for camper shells. Colonel Hood stated the information could be provided and it would include unrestrained occupants in a vehicle or camper shell. Whether a person had been ejected or crushed it would have the same result, and he would provide the information when available.

Assemblywoman McClain asked to clarify an urban area. Chairwoman Chowning responded the area pertained to incorporated cities over 10,000. Assemblywoman McClain stated the language should be reevaluated due to urban areas not located in an incorporated city.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked Assemblywoman Koivisto about certain vehicles on the market that were sold with seats and seatbelts in the bed of a truck. He inquired if the vehicle had been crash tested and if the bill passed would the law affect those vehicles. Assemblywoman Koivisto responded the vehicles were built to carry passengers and would not be considered open truck bed. She suggested an amendment to address the covered and uncovered truck bed. The uncovered truck bed would be a primary offense.

Chairwoman Chowning replied the committee would consider that suggestion and asked Assemblywoman Koivisto to work with interested parties as to what amendments would need to be brought to the committee when A.B. 157 was in work session.

Assemblyman Collins asked if the information gathered from NHP and insurance companies provided statistics on accidents that involved a camper shell and full campers.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 157 and opened the hearing on A.B. 185.

Colonel Hood, stated A.B. 185 related to commercial vehicles with a gross weight rating of 26,000 pounds or greater and would require the vehicles to travel in the right lane and remain out of the left lane on the freeway system. The result of the bill would help to reduce accidents due to blind spots and would help with traffic flow.

Assemblyman Collins asked if the measure was similar to an ordinance or law that had been passed in North Las Vegas and was advised in the affirmative by Colonel Hood. He added the violation would be a safety violation, and the bill would reduce accidents due to lane changes.

Assemblyman Gustavson referred to signs located on highways indicating that through traffic would need to use the left two lanes and asked if signs were still posted. Colonel Hood responded affirmatively and stated different parts of the interstate system would place advisory signs to direct traffic under certain circumstances.

Assemblyman Gustavson referred to the three lanes mentioned in the bill and the exception for commercial vehicles to travel in the left lane under certain circumstances and asked if that would be allowed. Colonel Hood explained the exceptions were stated in the statute. He stated the law bill was designed for vehicles in excess of 26,000 gross weight traveling on interstate systems for extended distances.

Assemblyman Gustavson mentioned Interstate 80 and the ruts in the number two lane, and the trucks were left to travel in the left lane to avoid the ruts. He commented the bill stated if trucks had to pass another vehicle would it be a violation of the law. Colonel Hood replied there was an exception for that circumstance. Trucks could travel in the lane when directed by a Department of Transportation sign or police officer.

Chairwoman Chowning pointed to the exceptions on page 2, section 4, and asked Colonel Hood to read and explain them to the committee. Colonel Hood read section 4 and stated the exceptions would be "when directed do so by law enforcement officer, an employee of Department of Transportation or an employee of the county road supervisor or the board of road commissions of the county in which a highway is located; when highway conditions and safety indicate that travel in the extreme left lane is warranted; or in preparation of left or U-turn."

Chairwoman Chowning asked about section 5. Colonel Hood stated section 5 related to highways that had two marked lanes for travel and the subsection related to highways that had three lanes.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the bill pertained to trucks that used the left lane at great distances. Colonel Hood responded the bill would apply to interstate systems and allowed trucks that met the conditions to be required to remain out of the left lane for extreme distances unless one of the exceptions applied.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the exception would pertain to trucks directed to travel in the left lane for extended distance. Colonel Hood responded yes.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked for a comment regarding the reduction of the speed limit of 65 miles per hour that was required by trucks traveling on the interstate in Idaho. Colonel Hood stated speed had been the number one cause of accidents and explained commercial vehicles traveling with excess of 26,000 pounds at 75 to 85 miles an hour would create a severe impact to any vehicle involved in an accident.

Assemblyman Gustavson read subsection 4(a) and indicated there was no mention of signs.

Colonel Hood answered signs had been posted by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to advise commercial vehicles as to lane travel. He mentioned accidents could block a lane and a police officer would direct traffic into the left lane, and therefore, it would be legal for a truck to travel in the left lane.

Chairwoman Chowning referred to section 4, subsection (b), lines 20 and 21, and asked who would make the determination and decide when highway safety indicated travel in the extreme left lane would be warranted. Colonel Hood responded the determination would be made from weather conditions or accidents with NDOT, county officials, or police officers present to direct traffic. He also stated the signs posted would determine the exemption of trucks traveling in the left lane.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if there were ordinances from other counties and cities in the State of Nevada that related to truck travel in the left lane. Colonel Hood replied that information would be supplied to the committee.

Fred Droes, Chief Safety Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation, stated that the department would like to have clarification on the ability of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to post signs to inform vehicles that left-hand lane travel would be allowed due to right-hand lane road repair. He recommended the language "by traffic control devices" be added for clarification.

Chairwoman Chowning stated the bill would address trucks that drove in the left lane under certain circumstances. She inquired about the implementation of sign usage on the highways. Mr. Droes responded the department would like to allow trucks to travel in the left-hand lane due to pavement or other certain traffic conditions and would like the ability to inform the vehicles by traffic control devices and signage.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if they would like to see the language added to the bill for clarification. Mr. Droes answered, yes.

Assemblyman Gustavson commented that adding language which included signage would create a fiscal impact on the bill. Mr. Droes replied the signs currently posted were for day-to-day operations and there would be no financial impact on the bill.

Georgi Cody, representative, Nevada Motor Transport Association, stated concern that A.B. 185 placed a statute of limitations on the use of the left lane. At times trucks had been directed to use the left lane through signage, direction of law enforcement, safety matters, or configuration of the road. Her concern was with the language in subsection 4 (b): "when highway conditions and safety indicate that travel in the extreme left lane is warranted." The interpretation of the language could pose a problem. She noted the right lane was used for an exit lane and explained traveling in the left lane would be a safety issue due to the limitation of interaction with other vehicles entering and exiting the highway.

Cheryl Blomstrom, representative, Associated General Contractors, explained trucks that had to merge would negatively impact the flow of traffic. She also explained when trucks needed to turn left they would have to travel in the left lane for a distance to complete the turn.

Peter Krueger, representative, Nevada Petroleum Market & Convenient Store Association, explained trained truckdrivers were motivated by safety and would need the flexibility of lane travel due to certain road conditions. He commented that restricting travel to a particular lane would compromise road safety.

Assemblyman Carpenter expressed concern about trucks that traveled side by side and caused traffic backup and inquired about reporting the uncivil truck drivers. Ms. Cody stated it had been an educational effort for the American Trucking Association to place stickers on the back of trucks to report careless driving.

Assemblywoman Parnell asked if considering inside and outside city limits would help the issue of trucks traveling in the right lane when an exit existed. Ms. Cody stated the language "inside or outside city limits" would not resolve the issue of eliminating trucks traveling in the left lane. She noted that it would be a safety issue, and drivers should be allowed to determine lane travel on highways and roads.

Assemblyman Thomas commented about section 4 (c) "in preparation of a left turn or U-turn" and asked why that provision was not noted in section 5 and why section 5 (a) and (b) was not included in section 4. Ms. Cody requested that question be directed to the sponsor of the bill.

Chairwoman Chowning stated safety was the committee’s primary concern and truckdrivers who blocked lanes on highways were negligent and the bill would help to reduce negligent drivers.

Richard Shrader stated AAA had concurred with Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) that the bill would increase traffic flow and safety. He stated five states currently had the same restrictions.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 185 and opened the hearing on A.B. 186.

Dana Mathiesen, Management Analyst, Department of Motor Vehicles, read from prepared text (Exhibit E) which outlined proposed legislation that requested the criminal history repository run Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background checks on applicants.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if an FBI check would be necessary and what other states had the same requirement. She inquired about the bill requiring fingerprints due to the involvement with children. Ms. Mathiesen replied the information supplied on an applicant would qualify them to operate a school under current regulations and the statutes indicated information on fraud, sexual misconduct, and other offenses would be supplied through an FBI check. The FBI required DMV to submit fingerprints to produce a record check. She explained five requirements of other states:

• California and Utah required criminal history background checks before licensing a driver education instructor;
• Idaho had not required background checks and stated it would be implementing a law that would require them;
• Arizona required licensing through the Department of Education and the department would require a criminal background check before an instructor would be certified; and
• Washington had no requirement for driving schools but had required background checks for public school teachers.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if information gathered from fingerprint reports included information regarding sex offenders, fraud, and dishonesty. Ms. Mathiesen stated sex offender, fraud, and dishonesty was the information needed in order to determine if an applicant would be qualified.

Assemblyman Gustavson inquired about the required time of license renewal. Ms. Mathiesen responded licenses were renewed every 2 years.

Chairwoman Chowning inquired about the two-thirds majority vote. She noted no fiscal note had been attached and the bill would increase the cost to a person who had been interested in attending driving instructor school. Jeffrey Artz, record supervisor, Nevada Highway Patrol Criminal History Repository, pointed out the language in line 4, "be of good moral character" and noted a problem with a person who had been a licensed instructor and asked what would "good moral character" mean. He explained the language "good moral character" could leave conjecture open for an individual becoming an owner of a school and suggested the removal of "be of good moral character" and list out the convicted crimes that would prohibit a person from being an instructor or owner of a driving school.

Chairwoman Chowning commented the language to which Mr. Artz had referred was stated in the existing law. She asked if the proposal would be used to address another concern. Mr. Artz answered yes. He stated the repository would give DMV the criminal history records that were forwarded to them from the FBI. Lower misdemeanor crimes would result in problems in determining the qualifications of an applicant.

Chairwoman Chowning stated it would aid DMV in a decision and would strengthen and clarify the law. Mr. Artz agreed. Chairwoman Chowning asked for a list of crimes cited. Mr. Artz replied he would review other statutes that listed various crimes and work with DMV to produce a list of convictions that would disqualify a person from becoming an instructor. Chairwoman Chowning stated DMV would have to make a decision to determine if it had been a crime that would not allow a person to become an instructor. Mr. Artz replied that was the intent.

Assemblyman Nolan explained that past criteria established through FBI and the repository had developed an evaluation process of an individual’s background and determined if they were suitable to work with children. He asked if written criteria existed. Mr. Artz referred to a statute passed in the 1997 session that caregivers in assisted living homes had to have a background and fingerprint check performed. The bill included the crimes that would prohibit a person that had been convicted from working in the facilities.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if the repository and FBI used the same criteria to establish the appropriate criminal convictions for dealing with children. Mr. Artz replied the convictions would be felony and gross misdemeanor. He mentioned problems of good moral turpitude and misdemeanor convictions that were captured at the repository and noted most of the convictions received had been misdemeanors.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if the language would impair the repository and if decisions of moral character were made. Mr. Artz replied the repository was not making the decision. He stated the bill would become a problem for DMV when determining good moral character.

Assemblywoman Cegavske stated the language was in the statute and asked where the problem was. She asked if they were trying to assist DMV. Mr. Artz explained the repository would try to assist DMV when licensing an individual.

Assemblyman Collins asked if the Department of Education was removed, would the information have to be provided from DMV. He noted similar language regarding fingerprinting had been discussed in the committee on Judiciary and testimony had indicated background checks were decided by the repository based on guidelines of the repository. Mr. Artz replied the repository made the decisions only on individuals who would be employed by assisted care homes and explained the statute clearly stated "what is and what is not a disqualified offense." He explained determinations would be made in disqualifying individuals for sexual offenses who would be working with children. DMV would have problems with misdemeanor arrests and determining good moral turpitude.

Ms. Mathiesen explained the Department of Education had certified driving school instructors as a prerequisite for licensing and discontinued the practice 4 years ago, and the licenses were presently issued by the DMV. She explained the guideline of regulations that defined disqualified offenders were not defined in the statute.

Chairwoman Chowning requested a list of the guidelines be provided to the committee. Ms. Mathiesen noted she would provide them to the committee.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 186 and opened the hearing on A.B. 188.

Chairwoman Chowning mentioned the auto broker bill had been a well-known issue in the 1993 session, and until then auto brokers were not required to be licensed.

Russ Benzler, chief investigator, Department of Motor Vehicles stated A.B. 188 had been requested from the Department of Transportation (NDOT) to standardize the statutes that pertained to regulated businesses. He stated the bill would amend the provisions of NRS 482.333 relating to grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation of licenses to brokers. The bill would replace existing statutory language with provisions that would be consistent with grounds for denial or revocation of other businesses licensed under NRS 482.333.

Mr. Benzler referred to (Exhibit F) an outline of laws pertaining to licenses for dealers, lessors, manufacturers, distributors, and rebuilders. He pointed out if the statutes were consistent, it would allow the department to have a consistent approach to regulatory issues. When the bill was drafted there had been omissions, and he asked the committee to consider amendments to include those omissions. He noted section 2, lines 17 through 19, relating to financial disclosure of records and asked for that language to be replaced. He then referred to section 2, line 42, relating to fraud pertaining to the sale of a vehicle and requested the language be deleted and "brokering" be inserted.

Chairwoman Chowning reiterated the language "fraud committed in connection with brokering of a vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer" and asked Mr. Benzler to state the reason for the addition. She asked if there were problems within the broker industry. Mr. Benzler replied it was for consistency. The issues under existing law did not state anything that would allow the removal or suspension of a license for the willful failure to abide by the provisions of the motor vehicle laws. The existing statutes did not require or permit an action against a person who moved their business.

Chairwoman Chowning stated the existing language did not require an applicant to obtain an established place of business. Mr. Benzler replied the language required a broker have an existing place of business.

Wayne Frediani, executive director, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, stated grounds for denial, suspension, or revoking of a license for auto brokering should be similar to franchise dealers and used car dealers.

Assemblyman Thomas referred to section 2, lines 13 and 14, "conviction of gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor in connection with provision of a chapter" and asked the reason that had been stricken. Mr. Benzler responded businesses would be convicted of felony violations.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if a person employed by a car dealer had been convicted of a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor would their license be revoked. Mr. Benzler replied the amendment would pertain to businesses and serious offenses.

Assemblyman Thomas asked if a person willfully violated provisions of the newly proposed language would section (j) cover the violation. Mr. Benzler responded it could be and referred to conspiracy which was considered a gross misdemeanor and stated it would be covered as written in section (j).

Chairwoman Chowning closed the meeting A.B. 188 and adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Christine Cole,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: