The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 2:18 p.m., on Thursday, April 1, 1999. Chairwoman 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 Lynn Hettrick, District 39

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Robert Feldman, President and Chief Executive Officer,

Nevada General Insurance Company, and Representing

Automobile Agents Alliance of Nevada

Gemma Greene, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division,

Washoe County District Attorney, and Representing,

Nevada District Attorney’s Association

Pete English, Chief, Registration Division,

Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Ray Sparks, Deputy Director,

Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Peter Krueger, Representing,

Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association,

Warren Hardy, Representing, Nevada Investigators Association

Charles McChesney, President, Nevada Investigators Association

Martin Stivers, Owner, Stivers Investigations

Carole Hanna, Director, Private Investigators Licensing Board

Lucille Lusk, Representing, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Cecilia Hackman, mother of teenage driver accident victim, Erin Hackman

Richard Shrader, Jr., Legislative Representative, Governmental Affairs, AAA Nevada

Colonel Michael Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol

Dana Mathiesen, Management Analyst III,

Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Government Liaison, Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Representing Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

Captain Jim Nadeau, Legislative Liaison, Patrol Division,

Washoe County Sheriff

Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Lyon County Chapter,

Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Martha Tittle, Representing, Clark County School District

Steve Hanrahan, Representing,

Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services

Shelly Cochran, Traffic Safety Specialist, Sierra Safe Communities

Bill Gregory, Representing, Nevada Car Rental Association

Bob Ostrovsky, Representing, Hertz Rental Car Corporation

Barry Parea, Representing, Nevada Coaches

Garland Knopp, Representing, Action Moving and Storage

Mrs. Chowning informed the committee the meeting was being teleconferenced to Las Vegas. She then opened the hearing on A.B. 453.

Mrs. Chowning explained she had agreed to submit the bill due to the increasing problem associated with operator-only policies. Nevada law stated people must purchase liability insurance for their vehicles and operator-only policies were an inexpensive insurance option. The problem was the inexpensive policy was not generally suited for their needs since it did not insure other drivers in the household, only the holder of the policy. Therefore there were three types of victims. The person who purchased the policy was victimized if they did not fully understand what they were getting, the driver who did not realize they were not insured, and the individual in the other vehicle if there was an accident since they would have been hit by an uninsured driver.

Andrew Thomas, representing Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, testified A.B. 453 would eliminate the existing statute which authorized operator-only policies. As Chairwoman Chowning mentioned the policies were being sold to families which were not suited for the policy. The operator-only policies were different than standard automobile insurance policies. Standard automobile liability insurance policies covered the car and almost all who drove it, but operator-only policies only covered the policy holder. So if a father purchased the policy he would be the only person covered under the policy. If his wife or children were to get into an accident while driving none of them would be covered.

Mr. Thomas informed the committee most of the companies which sold the policies were responsible and would make sure the customer knew what they were buying; however, there was at least one company which sold the operator-only policies to families which was not appropriate. Those families were typically immigrants who did not read or speak English very well and did not understand what they were purchasing. The result was an accident with an uninsured driver who thought they were insured since there was an insurance policy purchased. The statute did require language in the policy which stated the purchaser understood the coverage of the policy was only for themselves and no one else driving the car would be covered.

Mr. Thomas indicated there might be some opposition to the bill who would say the responsibility should be on the person who purchased the policy, but if the individual did not fully understand what they were buying because they did not read or speak English well they should not be held responsible. That argument was also irrelevant to the victim who was just hit by the uninsured motorist and who must now pay their own repair and medical bills. Other opposition might come from professional drivers such as taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or truck drivers who did not drive their own vehicle but a company vehicle. Their arguments were irrelevant since they would be covered under the company’s insurance while driving company vehicles. The only professional drivers who might need the policy were those who were required to maintain a financial responsibility filing with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) due to a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction.

Mr. Thomas concluded the bottom line was the operator-only policies were bad for the people who bought the insurance without understanding the coverage. They were bad for victims who were hit by motorists who thought they were covered by the policies. Finally the policies were bad for all insurance customers who had to pay higher premiums to cover the costs of being hit by an uninsured motorist. For those reasons he encouraged the committee to pass A.B. 453.

Assemblyman Gustavson stated as an individual who lived alone with three vehicles the operator-only policies were ideal for him. He contemplated if there was any way to improve the policy instead of getting rid of them. Mr. Thomas responded the operator-only policies were originally intended as a less expensive policy for collectors of antique or classic automobiles who generally had more than three vehicles. Most older cars were not driven very often and owners did not wish to pay for full policies on all their cars. The alternative for collectors was special insurance for classic automobiles which were driven under 3,000 miles a year. The policies were cheaper than regular insurance policies and a better alternative to the operator-only policies. The problem was the operator-only policies were being sold to people for whom they were not appropriate, such as someone who did not understand what the coverage was and those with multiple drivers in the family.

Robert Feldman, president and chief executive officer, Nevada General Insurance Company and representing Automobile Agents Alliance of Nevada, claimed his company and the organization he represented sold the majority of the operator-only policies in the state. He testified the 1985 legislature began working on implementing operator-only policies. A subcommittee was established and held hearings during the subsequent interim (Exhibit C) to discuss the feasibility of creating such a policy and develop language for the policies. The Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) chapter 485 required the state to develop the operator-only policies due to the financial responsibility laws which required nonowners to show proof of financial responsibility if they drove company vehicles. Prior to the operator-only policies insurance companies would issue nonowners policies but due to all the restrictions on those policies the state was having even greater problems with uninsured accidents. A nonowners policy allowed the individual with the suspended license to obtain insurance to get their license back but would not cover the person if they purchased a vehicle without notifying the insurance company since they now owned the vehicle. The operator-only policies insured the individual no matter if they owned a vehicle or not.

Mr. Feldman remarked the same concerns expressed in the current hearing were discussed during the 1986 subcommittee meetings. His company, like most in southern Nevada, hired bilingual agents to explain the policies to those who did not speak or read English. NRS 485.186(c) required insurance companies which sold the policies to have an endorsement stating the person understood what they were signing, and the policy restrictions were made clear to them. The problem that arose was people would forget the instructions and allow someone else to drive the car. While there were some problems with the operator-only policies they were not as great as the problems with the nonowner policies prior to 1987 when operator-only policies began. He indicated his company did not sell many of the operator-only policies, but they did have a few hundred. Most people who purchased the insurance understood the limitations of the policy and were able to use the policy as an excuse for not allowing anyone else to drive their vehicles. If the committee passed A.B. 453 there would be no way for those with suspended licenses to get their license back unless they purchased a vehicle. Those who currently held such policies would also be upset since they would then have to purchase insurance on all vehicles they owned.

Mrs. Chowning asked if he was willing to work with committee members on amending the current bill. She felt the situations he addressed, such as truck drivers or those with suspended licenses, could be handled by amending the bill to allow for specific exceptions. Mr. Feldman felt the problems with the current policy was more of an education issue. Those who purchased the policy must be made aware of the restrictions and reminded of them. He reiterated his company did hire bilingual agents to work with those who did not speak or read English. There were also some companies which had the endorsement in Spanish to allow Hispanics to understand what they were signing.

Mrs. Chowning interjected the law did not require companies to use bilingual agents or have the endorsement in another language. The practice of an individual company could allow those instances, but the problem was not only with those who did not speak English. The problem was the operator-only policies were different than regular insurance policies which insured the car and some consumers did not fully understand what they were purchasing. A start could be to place the endorsement in statute so the state could regulate the wording, print size, and location of the endorsement. Mr. Feldman responded the industry was always willing to work on disclosure and education. As long as the operator-only policies were available the state would have problems with uninsured motorists, so the issue was if the committee wanted to make the policy available or completely do away with it.

Mrs. Chowning inquired how much of his business was operator-only policies. Mr. Feldman claimed about 5 percent of his business were operator-only policies. Not all insurance companies wrote those policies. Most large companies did not write the policies, so there were only four to five small companies in the state which made them available.

Assemblyman Claborn wondered if the operator-only policies were sold in monthly increments, 6 month increments, or yearly. Mr. Feldman explained the company had a variety of payment options available like any other company.

Mr. Claborn commented he did not find a problem with the specific policy but with people purchasing insurance to register their vehicle then dropping their coverage. People would purchase insurance then drive for 11 months without any coverage. Mr. Feldman stated every insurance company was required to notify the DMV & PS monthly of every insurance policy terminated. DMV & PS had the notification of termination and would suspend the car’s license plates. He mentioned the industry and the state had been working on all insurance problems for a number of years, and Nevada had one of the highest insured driver percentages in the western United States.

Mr. Claborn observed the individuals still drove without insurance until they were pulled over by the police for some other violation, that was the only way those people were caught. Mr. Feldman noted if the insurance companies reported to the DMV & PS a policy had expired or been dropped, DMV & PS would suspend the car’s license plates. The plates would have to be reinstated which cost $250 in addition to any other penalties if they were pulled over.

Mr. Claborn suggested the problem was the people did not care if they were driving on suspended plates and would continue to drive until they were caught. Mr. Feldman mentioned every state had a problem with those people.

Gemma Greene, deputy district attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, and representing Nevada District Attorney’s Association, testified they were neutral on the legislation but would like to inform the committee another use for the operator-only policies was in the court system. For example if someone was pulled over driving someone else’s vehicle and there was no insurance on the vehicle the only way for the recipient of the ticket to avoid a $700 fine for no insurance was to purchase an operator-only policy within 30 days and pay a $150 ticket for no insurance.

Mrs. Chowning noted that could possibly be remedied with an amendment. Ms. Greene suggested it could.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 453 and opened the hearing on A.B. 678.

Pete English, chief, Registration Division, DMV & PS, testified the legislation was requested to amend NRS 483 to allow for the use of digital images on driver’s licenses and identification cards. The language in the bill would redefine photograph to include digital images created by a computer or a digital camera. Nevada was one of the last states to make the move to digital images on driver’s licenses. The advanced technology would bring Nevada up to date with other states and provide greater security for renewal and duplicate licenses minimizing identification fraud. The process would also eliminate staff time on running signature checks, providing for more efficient customer service. Transactions, such as renewals, would be able to be completed through the mail since the photo would remain on file, customers would not have to go to the DMV & PS. The costs associated with the bill were included in Governor Guinn’s recommended executive budget.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall inquired how DMV & PS would be able to complete transactions through the mail. Mr. English explained after the first digitized image was acquired the image would remain in the computer. Staff would simply have to pull the image back up from the computer to reissue the license and mail it back to the customer. The individual would have to come to the office for the first image to be taken.

Mrs. Chowning indicted there was one concern about the selling of the images, which was occurring in other parts of the country. She inquired if that only occurred in states which allowed the practice in statute, since it was not the intent of the committee to allow that to occur in Nevada. Mr. English revealed photographs were considered personal information and could be released under provisions set forth under NRS 481.063.

Mrs. Chowning inquired how the photographs could be accessed and by whom.

Ray Sparks, deputy director, DMV & PS, responded legislation was passed during the 1995 session to comply with the Federal Driver Privacy Protection Act of 1994 the United States Congress enacted, which changed DMV & PS information from public to private information. The resulting statute protected most personal information in DMV & PS records while providing certain exceptions for dissemination which were itemized in statute. Some examples the department was able to provide personal information for were safety of drivers, emissions, advisory notices relating to recalls, insurance claims, impoundment, or employers screening commercial driver’s licenses. To disseminate the proposed photographs the requirements would be the same as for any other piece of personal information.

Mr. Sparks mentioned there had been some concern in previous sessions about the department selling files. The only way DMV & PS would be able to do that was if they established and implemented an "opt out" provision. The department was currently working on such a system which would allow an individual to tell the department they did not want their information disclosed. Currently there was no such provision so no information was sold for the purposes of marketing or solicitation. Once the program was in place the digital photographs would be included in the information released.

Peter Krueger, representing Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, testified in support of the legislation and indicated the Nevada Retailers Association was also in support of A.B. 678. The digitized images along with the bar coding and magnetic striping on which the department was working would assist retailers who sold age restricted products. The digital photos were the first step in the process and they were looking forward to seeing all steps completed.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 678.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 678 and opened the hearing on A.B. 503.

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District 39, testified he had been having discussions with private investigators regarding access to DMV & PS records since the law was changed in 1995 limiting access to personal records. Private investigators felt they needed certain access to the records for insurance investigations. They had worked during the interim to try to write legislation granting private investigators access to certain information. The bill before the committee was not what had been intended. Amended language would be presented which would only allow private investigators under certain circumstances and definitions to obtain information from DMV & PS for insurance investigations only. Information would not be used for any political purposes, labor related activities, or bulk use, and a penalty section would be added if there was any misuse of information. The bill in front of the committee contained two changes to present statute, on page 2 and page 5, which would both be stricken with the proposed amendment.

Mrs. Chowning commented "without limitation" on page 5 would be amended. Mr. Hettrick noted page 2 line 8 would also be amended.

Mrs. Chowning suggested he get the language to the committee as soon as possible. Mr. Hettrick indicated he would get the language to committee shortly. He announced the issue had been bitterly fought in 1995 and did not want to reopen that argument. The private investigators with whom he had been in contact agreed with the intent to only open the records for insurance claims.

Mrs. Chowning expressed appreciation for adding penalties for the misuse of any information garnered. It had been a concern in the past among many people and she was glad the industry agreed with it. Mr. Hettrick declared they wanted it done correctly so there would be no misunderstandings.

Warren Hardy, representing Nevada Investigators Association, presented the committee with the conceptual language for the proposed amendment (Exhibit D). He indicated they would be willing to have an attorney draft the legal language for the committee but wanted to give them the conceptual language so they would know how the amendment would read. There was a misprint in item 1, NRS 461 should actually be 481.061, section 3. That was where language would be inserted to allow private investigators to acquire information with a license plate number. The other two changes specifically listed how the information could not be used and the penalties for any misuse.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the ability to access information would apply only to licensed private investigators in Nevada. Mr. Hardy announced they would have to be licensed under NRS 648.

Mr. Claborn wondered why private investigators needed to acquire the information.

Charles McChesney, president, Nevada Investigators Association, explained the types of claims they usually investigated were worker’s compensation cases. If there was a dispute on a claim and a private investigator was obtained to investigate they would have to follow the person to discover if they were truly injured. The investigator might know the type of car they drove, but only have general information such as a 1999 Ford 2-door and no license plate. If the individual lived in a secured housing complex the investigator would be unable to go in to determine which vehicle belonged to the individual and would be required to sit outside the gate watching for the vehicle, which could be four different models of Ford. With the license plate number the investigator would only have to look for the plate. They still ran the risk of following the wrong individual if the windows were tinted, but it did save time for the investigators. Access to the records requested was important for private investigators and their clients since it did save time and money for both parties.

Mr. Claborn thought the bill infringed on a person’s privacy rights. He felt if there was a claim filed all the information should be on the form and wondered why they needed information on only the vehicle. Mr. McChesney remarked it was simply for identification purposes only. Currently investigators were allowed to pull vehicle registration information which included someone’s address. With an address the investigator could conduct surveillance, but that took a lot of time which would not be wasted if they were able to obtain the license plate number. Another use for the privilege was if someone was hit in a parking lot, and a witness left a note on their car with the license plate number of the car that hit them.

Mr. Claborn announced private investigators were in the business of gathering information and did not feel the state should have to provide the information for them. He disagreed with the entire bill. Mr. McChesney remarked the industry currently used other methods to garner the information. The problem was they were spending a lot of unnecessary time getting the information which a simple search at the DMV & PS would produce. If someone was involved in a hit-and-run accident in a private parking lot, filed a claim, and only had the license plate number for identifying information, the private investigator could obtain the information for the insurance company processing the claim, who would be able to go after the individual through litigation.

Mr. Claborn stated that would be a police matter. Mr. McChesney noted only if the accident occurred on public property. Currently if the accident was on private property the person who was hit would have to file a report with the police as opposed to simply contacting their insurance company.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the intent of the legislation was to only allow access for insurance claims why did the proposed amendment give a list of activities the information could not be used for. Mr. Hardy stated the industry wanted to ease public concern by having misuses of information statutorily regulated. The items had nothing to do with insurance claims but there might be an unscrupulous investigator who might try to use the information for other means. They wanted the issue addressed severely which was the reasoning behind the addition of penalties to the amendment.

Mrs. Chowning claimed the committee agreed with what they were trying to do but felt an itemized list was the wrong way to go about it. If a list was created there would be people who would abuse the system. Mr. Hardy indicated she was correct and was willing to work with the committee on alternative language which would assure the access of information for insurance investigations only. Mr. Hettrick interjected the list dealt with specific prohibitions, but the committee could change that to say "including without limitation" instead. The wording should cover all concerns the committee members may have. They only wanted assurance the information could not be used for those specific purposes; however, "including without limitation" would assure the information could not be used for anything except insurance claims.

Mrs. Chowning indicated the language would ease her concerns even though the investigators were required to be licensed through the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Nevada. She just did not want to set up the entire statute for scrutinization by placing specific prohibitions. Mr. Hettrick communicated they would work on that portion of the amendment along with the rest.

Martin Stivers, owner, Stivers Investigations, informed the committee he supported the original bill but could not comment on the proposed amended bill since he had not seen any of the language. If he went by what he had heard he would not be able to support any aspect of the bill. There was other information private investigators would be able to use if they had access to personal DMV & PS records and without allowing everyone in the industry the access to the information, he could not support the bill.

Mrs. Chowning wondered if he would be willing to work with the other parties involved on the amendment. Mr. Stivers stated he would.

Mr. Sparks expressed the department had expressed concerns during the 1997 session when similar legislation was proposed. He had spoken with Assemblyman Hettrick and Mr. Hardy and felt most of the DMV & PS concerns were alleviated with the safeguards they were proposing. The main concern the department had was an individual would be able to see someone driving, write down their license plate, and call an investigator to find out any information on the other person. By limiting the information for insurance purposes only and the creation of specific penalties the department was comfortable with the legislation.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the amendment was still fairly wide open and the types of penalties had not been addressed. Mr. Sparks remarked it was his understanding the language would be refined in the amendment to be very specific.

Carole Hanna, director, Private Investigators Licensing Board, testified penalties and disciplinary actions were addressed under NRS 648 which regulated private investigators. Specifically NRS 648.150 dealt with disciplinary proceedings and grounds for disciplinary actions. Licenses had been suspended and revoked in the past for violations of the statute. Nevada had very strict laws concerning private investigators including their licensure.

Mrs. Chowning requested the specific language regarding penalties be brought for the committee along with a list of how many licenses had been suspended or revoked in the past 2 years, and why they were suspended or revoked. The committee was concerned with the specific crime of stalking and did not want to open any doors to allow the crime to occur. Ms. Hanna replied she would be happy to compile a list for the committee. She disclosed she had been with the board for almost 18 years and had never received any complaints about stalking from citizens or law enforcement.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, announced she had intended to oppose the bill but would withdraw her concerns based on the proposed amendments. There were two items she would like to address. The first was instead of creating an entire list of prohibitions, make a simple statement the information could be used for no other purpose but insurance investigations. The second item was private investigators appeared to need no other information than the license plate number, so she would request that be the only information they be given instead of the entire personal file.

Mr. Claborn divulged his biggest concern with the legislation was the state was creating licensed stalkers. Ms. Lusk mentioned that was the reason she had signed in opposition to the original bill. She felt with all the restrictions in the proposed amendment the risk was significantly minimized, but it was not completely without risk.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 503 and opened the hearing on A.B. 552.

Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, District 5, testified A.B. 552 enhanced and strengthened Nevada’s driver’s education requirements. It was an extension of legislation passed in 1997 under the bill A.B. 404 which embraced the national trend toward requiring driver’s education and behind the wheel experience before anyone under 18 received a driver's license. A.B. 552 refined the present statute by creating a graduated license system which was endorsed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Mrs. Cegavske pointed out important sections to the bill. Section 2 of the bill created provisional licenses for anyone between the ages of 16 and 18. A provisional license may be granted to someone who had completed the existing requirements with the addition of 10 hours driving at night. Additional restrictions on receiving a provisional license included: if the person was responsible for an automobile accident, had been convicted of a moving traffic violation, or convicted of a crime involving drugs or alcohol in 6 months prior to applying for a license. Also they would be required to have held the instruction permit for at least 6 months before applying for a provisional license.

Mrs. Cegavske continued section 3 stipulated the provisional license holder shall not transport a passenger under the age of 21 for the first 6 months after receiving the license. Driving between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. would be restricted unless accompanied by a licensed driver who was at least 21 years old and had at least 3 years of driving experience. The section also contained a number of exemptions to the restrictions including the transportation of family members under 21 years of age, driving during restricted hours for medical or family reasons, and driving to and from school activities. Section 4 provided the penalties for violations of section 3 by establishing fines and community service. It also established the violation was a secondary offense so a teenage driver could not be cited for violating the statute unless they were pulled over for a primary offense such as speeding.

Mrs. Cegavske commented section 5 offered instructions for the DMV & PS on the establishment of waiting periods and creation of unique provisional licenses. Section 8 allowed the department to adopt regulations regarding private driving schools. Section 10 increased the time instruction permits were valid from 8 months to 1 year and allowed DMV & PS to set waiting periods for retaking the examination for the instruction permit. Section 12 would allow anyone who had reached the age of 15 to enroll in driver’s education courses in public schools which had been discussed during the 1997 legislative session. The final sections of the bill established the effective date of July 1, 2000, and provided that certain sections of the bill would not apply to those who were issued instruction permits prior to the effective date.

Mrs. Cegavske informed the committee auto accidents were the number one killer of teenagers in Nevada. They were 2½ times more likely to die in an auto crash than any other age group and many of those deaths could have been avoided if the state required a program which slowly introduced young drivers to traffic situations. Great progress was made during the 1997 session with the passage of A.B. 404 but more still needed to be done. A graduated license program would not place any additional burden on school districts but would give young drivers more opportunity to gain valuable driving experience. She had spoken with insurance companies and law enforcement, and both agreed more experience would help with the problem of teen accidents. Some members of the committee might remember the testimony of Jamie Herman from the 1997 session. She was involved in an accident which killed her best friend, Erin Hackman. Jamie attributed the crash to her inexperience behind the wheel since she had received her license just days prior to the accident. Mrs. Cegavske urged the committee to support the legislation to help save the lives of Nevada youth.

Cecilia Hackman, mother of teenage driver accident victim, Erin Hackman, disclosed Erin was a high school senior with a promising future when the accident occurred. She was very involved in the community and wanted to do great things for Nevada. She was also a wonderful daughter. She was out with friends the night of the accident. Jamie had just received her driver’s license after having her instruction permit for 2 weeks. The accident occurred while two cars where chasing each other down a country road at 90 miles an hour, playing a game of cat and mouse. Jamie was unable to control the vehicle as they approached United States Highway 395, a 4-lane road, and the wheels locked and skidded across the highway. Luckily there were no other fatalities.

Mrs. Hackman informed the committee two thirds of all teenagers killed or injured in cars were driven by other teenagers. Teenagers went out in large groups and without proper supervision accidents were likely to occur. All adults should assist in teaching responsible driving methods to the young people who were on the roads. The graduated license program would help keep Nevada roads safer for all who used them. Canada had a graduated license program in effect for a number of years and had found there was a 55 percent reduction in teen fatalities (Exhibit E). Even if Nevada could receive a 10 percent decrease the program would be a success since no other parent would have to go through what she went through.

Mrs. Chowning thanked Mrs. Hackman for returning and having the courage to speak about her daughter before the committee.

Mr. Collins recalled the original legislation did not deal with the age of people taking driver’s education but with the school level. He mentioned ninth grade was not added to the list because some of the school districts had a problem with the language. He wondered if there had been some changes in attitudes since there were some 15-year-olds who were freshmen in high school. Mrs. Cegavske responded the ninth grade issue was a problem in Clark County because they had 13 and 14-year-olds taking the class who would forget what they had learned by the time they began driving. Excluding 15-year-old freshmen was a mistake in bill drafting and the legislation before the committee would change that. She mentioned the fiscal note attached to the bill was zero. She had talked with the Fiscal Division who were planning on sending a letter to the committee explaining why one was attached to the bill.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the committee would speak with DMV & PS regarding the fiscal note.

Richard Shrader, Jr., legislative representative, Governmental Affairs, AAA Nevada, testified they were the primary proponents of A.B. 552 since it encouraged safer driving and protected motorists. Teenagers were one of the greatest resources since they were the future and the legislation would allow teens to learn responsible driving. The fact auto accidents were the number one killer of teens in Nevada should compel the state to act. Teenagers represented 6 percent of licensed drivers in the state but represented 12 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes and 13 percent of drivers involved in injury crashes, which was double their numbers. Over the next 6 years the teen population in Nevada was projected to increase 40 percent which would equate to one Nevada teen driver dying each week if the current trend held.

Mr. Shrader called attention to the 27 other states with graduated driver’s license systems. For example, Florida had recently completed their first year with the program and had a reduction in their fatal crashes by 9 percent. Kentucky showed a 28.3 percent reduction in crashes involving 16-year-olds during their first year of a graduated driving program. Lack of behind the wheel experience was the reason teens were more likely to be involved in an accident not recklessness. Driving was a complicated task requiring 200 observations and 20 decisions per mile. Crash rates for teens decreased as they get older. A.B. 552 was intended to prevent the consequences of poor judgement and lack of experience and was designed to teach teens how to drive incrementally by controlling their progression to unrestricted driving. There might be some concern over the provision restricting other teens as passengers for the first 6 months; however, research showed removing all teen passengers from the vehicle reduced the overall crash risk by 50 percent. Night driving also required special skills which teens must develop through the experience the program allowed. A recent AAA survey showed 82 percent of Nevadans favored a graduated driving program for teenagers. Public awareness had increased on the issue over the past few years creating overwhelming support for the program. They would urge the committee to pass the legislation.

Mrs. Chowning wondered how many states had a graduated driver’s licensure program in the same form that was before the committee. Mr. Shrader explained there were 27 states with graduated driver’s license programs which were similar to the legislation before the committee. There were also a number of western states with pending legislation on the program.

Mr. Nolan claimed there were many families who only had one vehicle and wanted to allow the teen to drive with supervision as much as possible to gain the valuable experience; however, if there were siblings the bill would make it difficult for parents to try to find someone to watch the sibling while they were with the teen. He inquired if an adult was present would there be able to be siblings or even other teens in the vehicle. Mr. Shrader remarked there was a provision which dealt with such a situation already in the bill, section 3, subsection (d).

Mr. Carpenter communicated he did not believe not restricting 19 or 20-year-olds or restricting night driving would achieve the results for which the proponents were striving. Mr. Shrader responded results from other states with similar programs were very encouraging in reducing the crash risk among teen drivers. The bill would only limit new teen drivers for 6 months on having other teen passengers in the car. The new driver needed to gain valuable experience before adding other distractions to their driving.

Mr. Carpenter felt the creation of a statute would not necessarily keep other kids out of the vehicle. He inquired if there were any statistics on crash rates when other teens were removed from the vehicle. Mr. Shrader indicated the statistics for Nevada were worse than the national average. Nationally two thirds of teen passengers killed were in vehicles driven by other teens and Nevada was around 80 percent. That meant 4 out of 5 teen passengers killed in Nevada were in vehicles driven by other teens.

Ms. Parnell inquired if the references to teens involved in accidents meant the teen driver was at fault or that there was a teen driver in one of the cars involved. Mr. Shrader remarked it meant the teen driver was in one of the cars involved; however, 70 percent of the time the teen was found at fault.

Colonel Michael Hood, chief, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), testified in support if A.B. 552 and informed the committee the National Transportation Safety Board and the Reno Police Department also supported the legislation.

Dana Mathiesen, management analyst III, DMV & PS, testified in support of the bill but wished to offer a friendly amendment (Exhibit F). The reason behind the amendment was digital imagery was scheduled to be implemented in July 2001. The amendment would allow the department to look at alternative methods to date of issuance as the distinctive characteristic.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if there was a fiscal note from DMV & PS on the bill. Ms. Mathiesen stated the department did submit a fiscal note of $4,078 for review of regulations which would require amending and for notification of law enforcement and courts in Nevada.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the department had information on the amount of time teenagers had their licenses compared to when they got into accidents. Colonel Hood responded there were federal statistics but was unsure if the State of Nevada retained such information. He would check with the Office of Traffic Safety and get back to Assemblyman Carpenter. Personal experience showed teenagers tended to be involved in accidents within the first 12 to 18 months after obtaining a license.

Mrs. Chowning announced the committee would not take any action on the bill during the present hearing since they had requested specific information which would be made available at a later date. She congratulated the NHP on their 50^th anniversary and expressed appreciation for all their dedicated service. Colonel Hood thanked the Chair and the entire committee for their assistance in the accomplishments made throughout the past 50 years.

Lieutenant Stan Olsen, government liaison, Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and representing Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, testified in support of the legislation since it would reduce accidents and save lives.

Captain Jim Nadeau, legislative liaison, Patrol Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified in support of A.B. 552. He felt the bill would allow teens to develop their skills without risking the lives of others.

Laurel Stadler, chapter director, Lyon County Chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), indicated they supported the legislation. The youth of the state was over-represented in fatal crashes compared to any other age group (Exhibit G). The statistics presented showed per mile driven 16-year-olds had the highest rate of fatal crash involvement. The projections showed the number of teens was going to increase in the upcoming years and the problems would get worse if there was nothing done to assist teens receive the training they needed to drive on the streets and highways in Nevada. Tough decisions were required to reduce the number of teen fatalities on the roadways as shown by the number of teenagers killed. The final page of the handout showed the rate of youth alcohol related fatalities increased from 1995 to 1996, the first time in the 1990’s the rate had gone up. A.B. 552 would help to save the lives of the youth of Nevada.

Mrs. Chowning noted it appeared the number of youth alcohol related fatalities decreased drastically since 1982 when it was 63 percent to 1996 when it was 36 percent. The decrease should be attributed to tougher laws and greater awareness to which MADD had contributed. Ms. Stadler declared there had been a decrease; however, the numbers appeared to be on the rise which was the cause of some concern.

Mrs. Chowning expressed appreciation for the statistics and mentioned the numbers did not reflect specific age groups accurately since they tended to include ages 15 to 20 together.

Marchon Miller, representing Truckee Meadows Safe Community Partnership, testified in support of the legislation.

Martha Tittle, representing Clark County School District, testified the district was very concerned about the safety and welfare of all students. They were offering afterschool driver’s education courses at designated high schools. They did have one specific concern regarding the language in section 3, subsection 2. The section, as currently written, would require school personnel to provide signed statements regarding school activities. The requirement would divert school staff from their primary duties and require them to judge what reasonable alternative transportation would be. Strict enforcement of the statute could require the authorization by school staff for every student driving to every school activity. That could also place the district in conflict with the parents. There was also a question of the liability for the schools who authorized student driving.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the district would be willing to work with the sponsor of the bill on the language. Ms. Tittle indicated she would.

Steve Hanrahan, representing Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services, testified from Las Vegas that they supported the legislation since it would limit teen driving.

Shelly Cochran, traffic safety specialist, Sierra Safe Communities, testified from Las Vegas on behalf of herself, Erin Breen from University of Las Vegas Safe Communities Partnership, and Cheryl Kallas from University Medical Center Trama Center. All three supported A.B. 552 since it eased teenagers into the driving process and would save lives.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 552 and opened the hearing on A.B. 677.

Bill Gregory, representing Nevada Car Rental Association, testified there was a problem in the rental car industry with individuals renting vehicles, signing a contract stating they would not use the vehicle for hire, then using it for that purpose. A vehicle for hire was considered a taxicab or limousine or any other vehicle used for paid transportation services. If the individual was caught the vehicle was impounded and the rental agency was required to post a bond of $20,000 and then pay a fine which was generally between $2,500 and $5,000. The industry was requesting an innocent owners type of provision since they did not have control over the situation, much like the provisions in place if a renter was caught with drugs in the vehicle or arrested for driving under the influence. The industry had no way of preventing what happened to the vehicles after the contracts were signed and the vehicle left the lot. The individual should be held accountable for violating the law; however, the industry should not since they had no control over what occurred.

Mrs. Chowning inquired about the consequences for companies.

Bob Ostrovsky, representing Hertz Corporation, explained Hertz had been required to retrieve vehicles which had been impounded by posting a bond then paying a fine. The company would pay the fine since they needed to get their vehicle back. They were requesting the same innocent owner provision be enacted for the statute before the committee as was in effect for DUI violations. For those violations the agency was able to retrieve the vehicle before it was impounded. There were occasions where the agency did not retrieve the vehicle soon enough and it was towed, but the impound fees were much more reasonable than the current fines to get the vehicle back. The wording might not be accurate to allow for an innocent owners provision but they were willing to work with the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) to solve that problem.

Mrs. Chowning observed the current bill removed "or other passenger vehicle" from the statute and left in limousine. Mr. Ostrovsky replied the intent was to leave in taxicabs and limousines. A possible problem which had been expressed was there might be some people who would use their own personal vehicles for hire and the bill might restrict the TSA to get those vehicles. The industry would simply request the innocent owners provision be allowed for short-term leased vehicles.

Mr. Claborn asked what a $20,000 bond cost an agency. Mr. Ostrovsky indicated he did not know the exact price but thought it was in the 5 to 10 percent range.

Barry Parea, representing Nevada Coaches, testified from Las Vegas that he had lobbied very hard to get the current language put into statute. Prior to the current law there was a penalty of $50 to $100 for creating illegal transportation certificates. People violated the measure since it was a cheap way for them to operate illegally in the state. For example if someone had a $500 vehicle and it cost them $50 if they were caught there was not much of a penalty. The current statute had worked effectively to limit that activity. He understood the concerns of the rental car industry but felt they needed to be more diligent in their rental policies. They should realize when someone rented a vehicle for 2 to 3 days a week, week after week that there was something going on. However, most agencies would view that individual as a good customer and begin offering them discounts. He would be willing to work with the industry to solve their problem but did not feel excluding all passenger vehicles was the proper way to go about it.

Mr. Collins suggested Mr. Parea needed to get together with the rental car industry to work on the language of the bill since the industry agreed the language was not correct. He felt the bill did need to be amended to address rental car agencies since currently the only way they were trying to solve the problem was to not rent to locals. Mr. Parea mentioned he would be happy to work with the industry.

Garland Knopp, representing Action Moving and Storage, testified from Las Vegas as a mover of household goods, he would request the addition of trucks or other vehicles used in the illegal transport of household goods be included in the legislation.

Mrs. Chowning suggested his request might not work in the bill before the committee but they would review the statute numbers to see.

John Mendoza, representing TSA, testified in opposition to the bill from Las Vegas. The bill was overly broad and would not allow the TSA to impound uncertified vehicles including buses which were engaged in airport transport service, scenic tours, charter service, regular routes, and special services. The current law had been very effective in getting the illegal services off the road and A.B. 677 would negate that. However, they would like to see the amendments before making a final determination on the legislation. The language would have to be crafted very carefully as to not affect ability of the TSA to maintain the level of authority they currently had.

Charlotte Matanane, representing Attorney General’s Office, testified from Las Vegas, concurring with the previous comments. The TSA had begun to see more and more rental vehicles used as cars for hire. The amendment language would have to be crafted very carefully and place some of the responsibility on the industry to be more aware to whom they were renting, especially if the individual rented for consecutive weeks.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 677 and opened the work session on A.B. 157.

Elana Marton, committee policy analyst, explained attachment A of the work session document (Exhibit H) contained the proposed amendments for the legislation. There were four amendments to the bill responding to concerns of committee members. The first amendment was in regards to Assemblywoman Cegavske’s concerns about raising the age requirement to 18 years of age. The second amendment would more clearly define the roads on which the legislation would apply, defining freeway as two or more lanes of traffic moving in one direction. The third amendment would create exemptions for farming or ranching activities as well as parades. The final amendment would create separate offenses for riding in the back of a pickup or flatbed truck versus riding in the back of a truck with a camper. The former would be considered a primary offense while the latter would be considered a secondary offence.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 157 WITH THE FOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MENTIONED BY MS. MARTON.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN GUSTAVSON, COLLINS, AND NOLAN VOTING NO AND ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER ABSTAINING. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 157 and opened the work session on A.B. 393.

Mrs. McClain explained there were three proposed amendments to the bill. The first would change the length of the sound wall to three tenths of a mile. The change would create a new cost to the bill of approximately $500,000 which was the second amendment. The third amendment would suggest the county would be willing to match funds and allow NDOT to use the $2 million sound wall budget they had in place; however, if those funds were not available the money could be taken from the state’s general fund.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 393 WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS MENTIONED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, GUSTAVSON, AND NOLAN ABSTAINING. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning explained prior sessions had dealt with sound wall bills in the same manner, with dual appropriation requests to both the highway fund and the state general fund.

Mrs. McClain mentioned she had discussed the problem with Tom Stephens from NDOT, who had explained the rationale of requesting general fund money was construction could begin sooner than if the money had to come from the $2 million sound wall budget. If the money were to come from the sound wall appropriation the request would be placed on a waiting list.

Ed Wilson, representing NDOT, observed Mrs. McClain was correct. There was a priority scheme for sound walls based on severity and the availability of funds. If the county was willing do match on a 50-50 basis the project would be placed higher on the list.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 393 and opened the work session on A.B. 367.

Ms. Marton explained the bill was a sound wall bill from Assemblyman Manendo. There was a proposed amendment in attachment B of the work session document (Exhibit H). The two amendments were to mention there was the possibility for matching funds from the county, thus reducing the fiscal note to $748,500 and a technical amendment correcting the highway number from 115 to 515.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 367 WITH THE STATED AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE AND GUSTAVSON VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION AND ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN ABSTAINING.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 367 and opened the work session on A.B. 247.

Ms. Marton informed the committee there was an amendment to the bill presented by Bob Ostrovsky located in attachment C of the work session document (Exhibit H). There were two provisions to the amendment. The first would amend section 1, subsection 2 to create a $20 cap on the collision damage waiver fees and the second amendment would remove the request for the $5 cap for additional drivers. Current law allowed for a $10 collision damage waiver and did not allow a charge for additional drivers.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 247 WITH THE STATED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED BY THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, GUSTAVSON, AND THOMAS VOTING NO.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 247 and opened the work session on A.B. 329.

Ms. Marton indicated there were two proposed amendments in attachment D of the work session document (Exhibit H). The two amendments would remove counties, cities, and towns from the provision for loaner plates and restrict the plates to 501(c)3 organizations and not the broader 501(c) organizations.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 329 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Carpenter commented he would like to see the counties, cities, and towns remain in the language of the bill so they would be allowed to use the loaner plates. He felt they would have a greater need than coaches or other higher paid state employees.

Mr. Collins indicated when the bill was originally heard by the committee there was an indication dealers would begin loaning vehicles to more charity organizations than state employees. He felt that was the intent of the bill and would begin looking for the plates on charity vehicles.

Mrs. Chowning requested Mr. Sande come forward to explain why they had removed counties, cities, and towns from the bill.

John Sande, representing, Nevada Federated Automobile Dealers Association, noted they had not requested that particular language be removed from the bill. His understanding from the bill drafter was the committee had requested the language be removed. Their main concern was to limit the policy to 501(c)3 organizations.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE COUNTIES, CITIES, AND TOWNS AND CHANGE 501(c) ORGANIZATIONS TO 501(c)3 ORGANIZATIONS.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS AGREED AND SECONDED THE NEW MOTION.

Mr. Carpenter felt the local entities could use the loaned vehicles and wanted them to have that ability.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned she did not recall the committee wanting to exclude counties, cities, or towns and was grateful it was made clear. She explained the motion before the committee was to restrict tax exempt organizations to those with a 501(c)3 status and not a 501(c) status.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 329 and opened the work session on A.B. 627.

Ms. Marton indicated there was a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit I) submitted by NDOT in conjunction with all entities involved including Clark County, Circus Circus, and Mirage Resorts. The bill would do two things. The first would be to allow NDOT to add a new classification of highway signs for resort attractions and allow them to generate revenue with reasonable fees. The second aspect of the bill would be to allow for other signage to be placed over highways.

Mrs. Chowning wondered if anyone had heard from Clark County yet since that was a main concern from the previous hearing date. Ms. Marton answered she had been told by NDOT that Clark County was in agreement to the bill with the proposed amendments.

Mrs. Chowning stated she did not want to vote on the bill until the committee had heard from Clark County Public Works, but they would review the proposed amendments.

Mrs. McClain noted the committee was once again dealing with the definition of urban. The current definition, in statute, would remove the ability to place signs along the strip. Mr. Wilson explained NDOT would redefine urban or urbaneness for the purpose of the bill as it pertained to signage. The intent of the first proposed amendment was to address Assemblyman Gustavson’s concerns regarding the protection of small businesses which currently had logo signs in suburban and rural areas of the state. The bill would only affect the new attraction logo signs.

Mrs. Chowning noted Assemblywoman McClain was referring to the statutory definition of urban which was 10,000. The figure might not be in the same section of statute but felt the language did need to be tightened. Mr. Wilson observed it did need to be clarified since NDOT operated under a different definition of urban. The amendment was drafted with all entities which would be affected and did meet the satisfaction of everyone.

Mrs. Chowning remarked the section of NRS with which the bill dealt did not define urban; however, the amendment stated, "the director shall adopt regulations fixing reasonable fees in an urban area." She indicated the committee might want to further state the definition of urban could be adopted by NDOT through regulation. She wondered why the definition needed to be included in the first place. Mr. Wilson commented the definition was to be added to address Assemblyman Gustavson’s concern about the department generating any revenue from the existing gas, food, lodging, and camping signs. Currently there were no such signs in urban areas because the distances between interchanges were tighter than rural and suburban areas. NDOT would still be required to comply with the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises for signage purposes.

Mr. Carpenter expressed some concern that unless the population cap was set fairly high communities such as Elko would be considered urban and the department would be able to charge for the signs located there. He felt the language before the committee did not do what the department was attempting. Mr. Wilson relayed he was correct. The issue with which the department was trying to deal was the only places in the state where there were no logo signs were in Las Vegas and Reno/ Sparks. NDOT wanted to define urban in such a way as to only affect those two communities. The intent of the legislation was to allow for attraction signs for the Las Vegas strip area and generate some revenue from only those signs.

Mrs. McClain announced she did not have a problem with the intent behind the legislation. The problem she and Assemblyman Carpenter had was with the definition of urban. The problem was going to continue to arise if people wanted to pass legislation which only affected Clark County.

Mr. Bache revealed a population cap could be used in the bill since it was not dealing with a criminal statute. If the bill was to only affect Clark and Washoe Counties, a population cap of 100,000 or higher could be added to the language.

Brian Hutchins, chief deputy attorney general, counsel to Department of Transportation and Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Office of the Attorney General, explained the amendment to section 1 was to allow the director to adopt regulations defining urban which was the reason a definition was not placed in the bill.

Mrs. Chowning suggested the committee was not comfortable with that clause and appeared to want the term tightly defined in statute. Mr. Hutchins responded language could be added to define urban. He explained the other amendment affected sections 2 and 4. The language was the same but applied to different NRS chapters. The first part dealt with the situation in Reno with the pad over the interstate on which a Walgreens wanted to build. The second section dealt with the situation on Frank Sinatra Boulevard in Clark County. He had worked with the county on the language and they agreed with it.

Rene Ashleman, representing Clark County, indicated the county had reviewed the language and was in support of the bill with the proposed amendments.

Mrs. Chowning adjourned the meeting at 5:23 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: