The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 3:33 p.m., on Tuesday, April 6, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Chowning began the meeting by opening the hearing on A.B. 201.

Assemblyman Don Gustavson, District 32, testified A.B. 201 would amend the mandatory helmet requirement for motorcycle riders. He stated it was time to allow riders to once again have the freedom of choice not to wear a helmet if they desired. The issue was about freedom of choice. The government had taken many freedoms away from citizens, and it was time to start amending those laws allowing people to decide what was best for them in their private lives. Of all motorcycle accidents and fatalities in the United States, one third occurred in four states with mandatory helmet laws: California, Florida, Texas, and New York. The six safest states in which to ride based upon the number of fatalities per 10,000 registrations did not have adult helmet laws and were: Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Over 45 percent of motorcyclists involved in accidents did not have a motorcycle license, 92 percent had no formal training on a motorcycle, and more than 50 percent had less than 6 months experience riding. Also 62 percent of accidents and 50 percent of fatalities involved riders between the ages of 17 and 26.

Mr. Gustavson explained the opposition would tell the committee there would be a great burden on the state concerning health care if there was no mandatory helmet law; however, only 5 percent or less of licensed riders in Nevada were uninsured so any socioeconomic burden to the state would be minimal. Motorcycle accidents represented only one-tenth of 1 percent of total United States health care costs. Many states had begun repealing mandatory helmet laws, such as Arkansas in 1997 and Pennsylvania was currently considering a repeal. Nevadans were very concerned with freedom, and he was not attempting to discourage the use of helmets, only to allow the riders the freedom to choose to wear a helmet or not.

Mrs. Chowning allowed Dr. Hill to testify since he had to return to Reno.

Dr. Harry Haydon Hill, representing Nevada State Medical Association, president, Washoe County Medical Society, member, Governor’s Task Force for Brain Injuries, and medical director of rehabilitation services, Washoe Medical Center, testified the issue was one of choice, but it was also an issue of responsibility. The medical issue was one of traumatic head injuries which would be the result of not wearing a helmet. Most motorcyclists did have some insurance, generally in the range of $30,000 to $50,000, which did not cover the costs of traumatic injuries. The hospital costs alone for a major head injury ran in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars of which society, specifically local governments, was forced to pay for. Rural hospitals could be devastated because one individual could run costs into the millions of dollars for direct or indirect care. Usually, the lives of young people were saved, and they continued to require medical care for decades. If the individual was released from continuous medical care, their rate of violence and substance abuse increased, and they were generally sent to prison. Thus, society would continue to pay for the individuals.

Dr. Hill noted the states which maintained helmets laws averaged a 30 percent decrease in fatalities. As a physician, he was more concerned with the survivors since they were the ones who required the most intense care. Helmets saved lives. He recalled one patient who came to the hospital with a significant head injury but went home to resume his life since he had been wearing a helmet. The helmet had been rubbed down in excess of 1/3 of an inch. The patient would have died or had a catastrophic injury if he had not been protected. Scientific evidence proved helmets protected the head. Helmets were tested on monkeys. Tests included hitting the animals on the head harder and harder with and without helmets. The tests were terrible but did prove those with helmets were more protected from serious injury than those without the helmets. However the bill was not concerned with monkeys but with people, people who had survived accidents but received terrible injuries. He asked the committee to consider the victims, their families, and the cost to society if the legislation was passed and urged to committee to make the responsible choice.

Assemblyman Nolan indicated when similar bills were heard in previous sessions, one of the reasons stated against helmets was that the weight of the helmet acted like a pendulum on the head and could contribute to a more serious cervical injury. He asked if that was a myth or reality. Dr. Hill commented that was simply not true. The reason was with a high-energy impact the rider would fall forward. It was not like a whiplash injury which caused the head to move back and forth, where additional weight might make a difference. Science did not support the statement.

Assemblywoman Cegavske inquired how many patients Dr. Hill saw per year as a result of motorcycle injuries and the severity of the accidents. Dr. Hill remarked he did not have any specific numbers, but he was not the kind of doctor accident victims wanted to see since he dealt with major trauma cases. The trauma registry would have the information. The average was 10 to 12 percent of automobile accidents. There were more automobile accidents since there were more automobiles on the road.

Mr. Gustavson noted the figure of a 30 percent drop in fatalities was given for states with helmet laws, but generally there was a 30 to 40 percent drop in registration when such laws were enacted. Therefore, the drop appeared to be due to the decreased number of people riding and not helmet usage. Dr. Hill explained the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration stated the 30 percent figure was consistent across all states. The drop in registration was not consistent with the percentage of fatalities prior to laws being enacted, which was 50 to 200 percent in some states.

Danielle Kohler, secretary, A Brotherhood Aimed Toward Education (ABATE), presented the committee with statistical information on motorcycles (Exhibit C) to which she would be referring. Most of the data presented was taken from 1994 figures. She noted motorcycles represented 2 percent of all vehicles in the United States but less than 1 percent of total vehicle accidents. Motorcycles did account for approximately 6 percent of total vehicle fatalities, but they were more vulnerable to damage.

Ms. Kohler continued there had been several studies over the years on motorcycle injuries with the most famous one being conducted by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center from which most of the data presented was taken. The study included: 1,380 motorcycle riders, 102 passengers, 15,375 other transport trauma cases, and 26,442 non-transport trauma cases. The study showed overall hospital charges were lower for motorcyclists, and they were more likely to have private insurance than other road trauma cases. Motorcyclists were less likely to depend on Medicare or Medicaid for services even though they had an uninsured rate comparable to other road trauma victims. They were also more likely to be discharged to their homes rather than a rehabilitation facility or other medical facility. Both helmeted and nonhelmeted riders experienced serious injury in just over 1/3 of crashes. Education was the key to preventing accidents as shown by the effectiveness of the California Motorcycle Safety Program. Since the program was implemented 9 years ago, fatalities in California had decreased 59 percent. The overall average of fatalities was higher in helmet law states than in nonhelmet law states, 2.98 percent compared to 2.9 percent.

Ms. Kohler concluded motorcyclists held jobs and paid taxes. They believed education made roads safer since it created better riders as well as better drivers. Nevada did have a very good program in place which was heavily promoted by ABATE. Letters from ABATE and the American Motorcyclist Association in support of A.B. 201 were presented to the committee (Exhibit D).

Assemblyman Claborn indicated his primary purpose in the Nevada Legislature was to protect children. He wondered why there was no mention of children in the materials presented. Ms. Kohler answered the North Carolina study did not focus on children.

Mr. Claborn inquired if the bill in front of the committee included all persons who wore helmets, including children. Ms. Kohler remarked the bill did not specifically distinguish children from other motorcycle operators.

Mr. Claborn commented if the current law was repealed and with the legislation in front of the committee, then children would be allowed to ride without helmets. Ms. Kohler revealed the language of the bill did repeal the mandatory helmet law for all persons.

Mr. Claborn asserted he would never allow any of his children to ride without a helmet.

Mr. Nolan called attention to the statistics showing most individuals were covered by private insurance. He asked what the typical insurance policy covered and if most insurance companies offered a catastrophic injury plan which would take care of the motorcyclist in the event of a traumatic accident. Ms. Kohler suggested all policies were different. Her personal policy would cover any and all injuries and was for $1 million. Federal law prevented employer insurance from not covering motorcyclists so that would cover a certain amount, but she did not have specific numbers.

Gary Horrocks, executive director, Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists (NACM), testified NACM was against mandatory helmet laws, but did encourage the use of properly-fitted safety equipment. He presented the committee with information on the history of mandatory helmet laws and the efficiency of helmet testing (Exhibit E). The Federal Government mandated all states pass mandatory helmet laws or lose Federal Highway Funds in 1966. Nevada introduced legislation in 1971 to comply with the mandate. Congress stopped the Department of Transportation from using such blackmail techniques in 1977 and 26 states either repealed or modified their helmet laws to exclude adults. During the 1995 session, the committee conducted hearings on S.B. 133. They heard testimony from medical personnel, law enforcement, and safety experts that, if passed, S.B. 133 would cost the State of Nevada $128 million in Federal Highway Funds. The Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) argued it would cost them $3.5 million in revenue, and safety and medical experts argued there would be an increase in the fatality and injury rates. S.B. 133 allowed the state to increase posted speed limits from 55 miles per hour to 70 miles per hour.

Mr. Horrocks continued the design of a helmet was 30 years old and was a 1-inch styrofoam plastic liner covered by a polymer resin skin. The thickness only allowed for a small amount of absorption and the energy not dissipated was transferred to the wearer’s neck, shoulders, and spine. Currently no manufacturer or governmental agency tested the amount of force transferred through helmets to the neck and spine. Motorcycle helmets were designed around the tests and not the survivability of the wearer. If tests were modified, they would find the chinstraps tightened around the wearer during impact causing more energy to be transferred to the wearer’s neck. Helmets provided a very small window of benefits to motorcycle riders. Their design was questionable and could increase the risk of cervical injuries. That alone should invalidate the mandatory helmet requirements. He urged the committee to follow the examples of other states and pass A.B. 201, giving Nevada riders the freedom of choice.

Mr. Gustavson wondered what the difference in medical costs was between motorcycles and automobiles. Ms. Kohler responded the figures from the North Carolina study showed hospital charges were lower for motorcyclists than other trauma victims (Exhibit C). The average hospital charges for motorcyclists were $14,993, other road trauma was $16,396, and nonroad trauma was $9,559.

Mr. Nolan asked if North Carolina had a helmet law in place during the time the study was conducted. Ms. Kohler noted they did have a law in place.

Dr. David Manning, regional administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), presented testimony for the NHTSA (Exhibit F). He expressed surprise upon hearing Wisconsin was one of the safer states in which to ride since he had worked for the executive department in the state and knew approximately 60 motorcyclists were killed there annually. He testified the issue before the committee was not one of freedom of choice, economics, governmental authority, or even politics. The issue before the committee was one of saving lives and preventing injuries. Proponents of the bill stated motorcyclists accounted for less than 2 percent of registered vehicles, yet they accounted for greater than 7 percent of fatalities. Studies had shown motorcyclists were 15 times more likely to be involved in crashes than automobile drivers. If they were involved in an accident and did not wear a helmet, the motorcyclist was 60 percent more likely to have a fatal injury and 15 percent more likely of having a severe brain injury if they survived. The bottom line was helmets saved lives and prevented serious injury.

Dr. Manning continued Nevada should be commended for its comprehensive motorcycle safety program which was nationally recognized. Protective gear, including helmets, was part of the educational program and should not be discarded. Helmet usage in states with mandatory helmet laws was between 99 to 100 percent; however, usage dropped to 34 to 54 percent in nonhelmet law states. The current law in Nevada was effective for those 50 percent who did not get the message that helmets saved lives. He strongly urged the committee to reject the legislation before them since it was a step backwards. Nevada was definitely one of the more progressive states in the nation, but gambling with the lives of its citizens was not the way to continue that stance.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Manning where he was from. Dr. Manning relayed he had come from San Francisco to testify before the committee. He felt the issue was too important for him not to come, although the committee did not need him to present scientific studies which showed if someone hit their head on highway pavement, the head was going to lose if it was not protected.

Dr. Mary Guinan, Nevada State Health Officer, Nevada Health Division, Department of Human Resources, testified 20 percent of automobile crashes resulted in injury or death whereas 80 percent of motorcycle crashes resulted in injury or death. When federal incentives for helmet laws were withdrawn in the late 1970’s, 26 states repealed their laws and motorcycle fatalities increased significantly. She had reviewed scientific evidence on four questions she felt pertained directly to the issue before the committee.

Dr. Guinan indicated the first question was if motorcycle helmets prevented injuries. Evidence from 26 studies showed motorcycle helmets reduced fatalities and the severity of brain injuries. Data varied from state to state but showed 29 to 30 percent of fatalities were preventable as well as 67 percent of severe brain injuries. The second question was if helmets increased cervical injuries, addressing Assemblyman Nolan’s previous question. "Motorcycle Helmets and Spinal Injuries: Dispelling the Myth" was a study which specifically addressed the concern. It discovered helmets did not increase the risks to the neck and spine. The third question was if mandatory helmet laws were effective. As Dr. Manning had stated the compliance rate in states with helmet laws was 99 to 100 percent so the laws were extremely effective.

Dr. Guinan continued with the fourth and most important question which was did helmet laws save public funds. Illinois, Connecticut, California, Wisconsin, Washington, and Maryland had all conducted studies concerning that specific issue. The Washington study was conducted in 1996 and discovered the average hospital stay for the nonhelmeted rider was longer and cost more per case than the helmeted rider. Maryland found acute care costs for nonhelmeted riders were three times greater than for helmeted riders. The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study which answered the question of who paid for care of motorcycle crash victims and how much was subsidized by public funds. The results showed the majority of care was paid by public funds, with greater than 50 percent paid by Medicaid. The final study was from NHTSA and analyzed the 26 states without helmet laws for 13 years to see how many deaths could have been prevented, and how much in public funds could have been saved. From that study, Idaho could have saved 57 lives and $79 million, and Utah could have saved 76 lives and $106 million. Public funds were used to assist with the care of motorcycle crash victims. Since there was such a high rate of injury per motorcycle crash it was in the state’s best interest to review all the data and realize public funds were used, and repealing the helmet law would cost the state.

Judith Hollett, R.N., unit manager, Trauma Center, Intensive Care Unit, University Medical Center, Las Vegas, presented the committee with figures from the university trauma registry which was a part of the national trauma registry for the American College of Surgeons (Exhibit G). The figures were their number of actual patients who had been involved in motorcycle crashes and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with head injuries for the past 18 months. Of the 101 patients: 77 were helmeted, 18 were nonhelmeted, and 6 were unknown. The average length of stay in the ICU, which was the major expense, was 2.96 days for the helmeted rider and 5.83 days for the nonhelmeted rider. From the ICU, 71 percent of the helmeted patients were able to return home compared to 66.6 percent of nonhelmeted patients.

Ms. Hollett shared the stories of four patients from ICU. The first was of a 27-year-old who was not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash. The patient was in ICU for 14 days and in the hospital for 106 days before being released to a nursing home. Upon the standard 6 month review, the patient remained in a deep coma in the nursing home. The second was a 24-year-old father with one child and another on the way, who was also not wearing a helmet. He spent 19 days in ICU, 55 days in the hospital, and was still in a nursing home. The youngest patient admitted to the ICU was 8 years old. The helmet worn by the patient cracked down the middle after the patient hit a tree on a mini-bike. If the 8-year-old had not been wearing a helmet, the child would not have gone home after 4 days in the hospital. The forth and oldest patient was 63 years old and not wearing a helmet. The patient was still in an ICU unit in another city.

Mrs. Chowning confirmed the numbers of accident victims were from southern Nevada. Ms. Hollett stated the figures were from the University Medical Center, which was a level 1 trauma unit.

Assemblyman Collins asked if they were talking about motorcycle head injuries or other injuries. Ms. Hollett responded the figures were only head injuries. The ICU did receive other injuries, but she had only informed the committee about head injuries.

Mr. Gustavson inquired about statistics for highway crashes versus off-road crashes. Ms. Hollett stated she did not have that information with her.

Mr. Gustavson suggested someone riding off-road, who got into an accident was more likely to end up in the hospital. He felt the committee needed to know the difference between crash rates since people were more likely to ride more safely on the highway than off-road. Ms. Hollett replied she did not have any exact numbers with her but knew most of the victims from the ICU were involved in accidents on the highway.

Chad Dornsite, representing National Motorists Association, testified most claims of trauma injuries and fatalities were due to reduced registration and miles driven by motorcyclists. If there was a claim of a 29 percent reduction in injuries and fatalities, there was also a 30 percent reduction in overall motorcycle riders. The only data the National Motorists Association considered valid was helmet law states had higher injury and fatality rates than nonhelmet law states. That may be due to the fact those without helmets drove slower, but whatever the reason, per mile driven, injury and fatality rates were lower in nonhelmet law states.

Monty Hansen, Fernley resident, testified he was present at the hearing for A.B. 201 because he cared about freedom. The issue was about the freedom to choose. A helmet would not save someone’s life, only postpone the inevitable. He chooses to live free and wanted to die free. He felt as long as he did not infringe upon the rights of others he should be able to lead his life the way he wanted. The mandatory helmet law infringed upon his right and he wanted to see the law repealed.

Debra Fanning, Fernley resident, testified the legislation before the committee was for freedom of choice. America was about freedom and because they lived in America they should have that freedom restored to them.

Mr. Claborn expressed freedom of choice was a vague term which encompassed many aspects of life. He embraced the concept of freedom of choice, but felt it must be strictly applied to children. When his son was younger, he bought him a motorcycle and a helmet to go with it. His son was never allowed to ride without wearing the helmet. It was the duty of all adults to protect children until they became of age to make educated choices. He agreed in principle with what Mr. Hansen and Ms. Fanning were saying, but children required protection. Mr. Hansen indicated he was referring to adults. Adults had certain freedoms which children did not, such as gambling and drinking. He explained he also had a son he wanted to protect and keep safe. He was not against helmets just intrusive laws.

Paul Darra, Reno resident, testified he was an active motorcycle rider who felt the mandatory helmet law should be repealed because it was a matter of choice for the individual rider.

Richard J. "Doc" Dolan, owner, RD Press, testified he agreed with everyone’s statistics since statistics could prove anything. There were accidents where helmets would help, but there were also accidents where helmets would harm someone. He stated Assemblyman Claborn raised a valid point, that the children must be protected. A.B. 201 allowed him the choice to protect the children and not require the state to. He felt the legislation would, "Let those who ride, decide."

Chris Chimits, Nevada resident, testified the decision to ride a motorcycle was a choice made by those who rode them. The choice to wear a helmet should also be a choice for those same people. Riding a motorcycle was inherently more dangerous than driving a car, but people were willing to endure the risks for their personal enjoyment. He felt the rider should be the one to make the decision if they wanted to wear a helmet, not the government.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of A.B. 201. They felt the public policy issue before the committee was to what extent should the State of Nevada preserve for the individual the right to determine for themselves the risks they were willing to take.

Erin Hogan, Davis, California resident, and high school senior, explained she wanted to come before the committee because she felt they needed to hear from the younger population. The youth of America was notorious for not liking the rules they were required to follow, but most of them did realize the laws were in place to protect them. Young people did not appreciate having limited choices in certain areas just like some people who had previously testified did not appreciate being required to wear a helmet. She mentioned both her parents worked with brain injury patients, so she had been around them all her life. She knew the consequences of not wearing a helmet and knew in her heart repealing the current law was a mistake. Young people would never admit they looked to adults for approval of certain actions, but they did. If they saw adults riding motorcycles without helmets, they would want to as well and there would be even more terrible accidents. The decision before the committee was an important one, and she did not want them to make that decision without first hearing that the young people were watching.

Danny Lee, representing Nevada General Insurance Agency, informed the committee he owned a motorcycle and had been riding for 50 years, but was against the repeal of the helmet law. He was involved in an accident a few years back and walked away with minor injuries to his hand because he was wearing a helmet. He testified most motorcycle insurance policies did not include any medical coverage, and in those policies which did include it, the coverage was extremely minimal. A company for which he had worked in the past had a cap of $2,000 on medical coverage.

Richard Shrader, Jr., legislative representative, Governmental Affairs, AAA Nevada, testified in opposition to A.B. 201.

Bob Hogan, member, Board of Directors, Brain Injury Association of Nevada, and director, Brain Injury Program, Las Vegas, presented the committee with a letter from former Lieutenant Governor Lonnie Hammargren (Exhibit H). Dr. Hammargren wrote he had held discussions with various professional motorcycle riders who felt it was stupid to ride without a helmet. He pleaded with the committee to retain the mandatory helmet law in Nevada to protect Nevadans.

Dr. Hogan read from prepared testimony (Exhibit I). He testified he had worked with brain injuries for more than 20 years. More than statistics he could present the committee with 20 years of experience, stories, survivors, and families as evidence that the state needed to do whatever they could to reduce the number of injuries which resulted from motorcycle accidents. He supported individual rights but not at extreme costs to society. The issue before the committee was not about individual rights, but about society’s rights.

Dr. Hogan relayed he had rode motorcycles for years and had been involved in an accident where he was forced off the road and into oncoming traffic. He continued to ride after the accident, but stopped riding after encountering his first brain injury patient, Walter. Walter was also forced off the road and off his bike and stopped when his head hit a curb. He had not been wearing a helmet. Walter could not walk, talk, or eat on his own. He was paralyzed on the left side of his face and had to relearn most basic life skills. The original trauma doctor who treated him said, "If he had only been wearing a helmet." Walter was the first in a long line of people he had treated who had been severely impacted by motorcycles.

Dr. Hogan continued by disputing some arguments he had heard for repealing mandatory helmet laws. The argument about being an individual’s right to choose would only be true if all consequences were borne by the individual. That could not be further from the truth. Families and society were forced to pay the price when an individual suffered a severe injury. Injuries to the brain were directly proportionate to the level of shock sustained and the subsequent swelling which occurred. Helmets absorbed shock. A question raised in the past was if helmets were safer, then why were they not also worn by drivers of automobiles. Automobiles were equipped with various safety features, which were designed to absorb shock, such as seatbelts, airbags, energy absorbing zones, collapsing steering wheels, steel cages, and padded interiors. On a motorcycle, there was only one piece of energy absorbing equipment: a helmet. Motorcyclists generally paid more for insurance, but those who drove automobiles were also forced to pay for the added safety features inherent in an automobile.

Dr. Hogan called attention to an issue he had heard of a few weeks prior to the meeting, which was most studies concerning motorcycle accidents were conducted in states with worse weather than Nevada. The vast majority of accidents occurred during the summer months when most motorcyclists were on the roads. Finally, helmets did reduce brain injury. Brain injuries had increased in every state which had repealed mandatory helmet laws. The committee had previously heard when the laws were repealed, the use of helmets plummeted from around 100 percent to lower than 50 percent. The current law must remain.

Dr. Hogan concluded the issue was not about individual rights but about common sense. Common sense said helmets worked, and if the laws were repealed, there would be an increase in injuries and costs to society. He urged the committee to reject A.B. 201 on behalf of the Brain Injury Association of Nevada, the survivors and their families in the state.

Donny Loux, chief, Office of Community Based Services, Rehabilitation Division, Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation, presented the committee with a publication from the National Conference of State Legislators called What Legislators Need to Know About Traumatic Brain Injury which dealt with 10 common questions about brain injuries (Exhibit J). She explained the Office of Community Based Services was the Nevada agency which was responsible for the care and treatment of brain injury survivors not eligible for Medicaid. The survivors were generally working at the time of their accident or younger accident victim’s families made too much money to be placed on Medicaid. Most did not have insurance at the time of their accident. Survivors of traumatic brain injuries and their families required services for the rest of their lives and would not have the money to pay for them.

Ms. Loux explained insurance did not pay for most of the services needed for people with brain injuries such as post-acute treatment, independent living services, and personal assistance services. Her office provided such services, but the State of Nevada’s current economy did not have the funds to assist any more patients. Currently, people were placed on a waiting list for at least a year and a half for services. The services offered were nothing more than the basic services of getting people in and out of bed or the house and teaching them basic life skills such as walking and talking. The agency simply could not afford to take on the number of estimated patients associated with passage of A.B. 201. She presented the committee with a proposed fiscal note from her agency which was for post-acute care and personal assistance services that would be required for the rest of the survivors’ lives (Exhibit K).

Ms. Loux concluded the mother of one of the agency’s patients told her that riders were the last people anyone should listen to on the importance of wearing helmets. Most of them involved in accidents would lose all cognitive functioning and would not know what was happening to them, but their families would know since they were the ones who had to pay both financially and emotionally. Ms. Loux did not want to argue numbers with the committee but simply state the agency could not handle any more patients whether the number was 2 or 200.

Mrs. Chowning observed the fiscal note for the first year was $3.6 million and $5 million for the second year. Ms. Loux responded the fees were for residential post-acute care, after the patient came home from the hospital. They were indigent clients not eligible for Medicaid.

Mrs. Chowning expressed appreciation to all those who testified for their patience in dealing with an extremely difficult issue. She closed the hearing on A.B. 201 and opened the hearing on A.B. 553.

Assemblyman David Parks, District 41, explained A.B. 553 did not express the intent he had desired. He requested the committee disregard the current bill, and look at the amended language he presented to the committee which represented his original intent (Exhibit L). The legislation was needed because there had been problems in the past with multi-entity regional transportation commissions (RTC) getting certain agreements signed. Specifically, Clark County had six member entities which served on the RTC advisory board. Certain project agreements required all entities’ approval and signatures prior to their implementation. The entities’ representatives had approved the projects in an executive advisory committee, which then put forth the recommendation of the projects to the RTC. If approved by the RTC, an interlocal agreement would be drawn up for funding and sent back to the entities for signature. If the project was for a specific area, such as North Las Vegas, all other entities were required to sign the agreement before the project could begin. The agreements would be placed on a lower priority list if the project did not focus on the other entity’s area. What had occurred in the past was some agreements had been lost or not placed on agendas. The bill before the committee would eliminate the need for the interlocal agreements to be signed by all entities, and would require only those who were affected by the agreement or who were funding or performing the project to sign the agreement. It would allow a notice of procedure to be issued so the entity could begin the project and be reimbursed for their funds.

Mrs. Chowning wondered which counties the bill would affect. Mr. Parks remarked the legislation would apply to any county with an RTC but allowed for a certain amount of leeway for counties with populations less than 100,000. An example would be Carson City which did not have the same problems the bill addressed since there was only one entity to whom to report, whereas Clark County had the greatest number of incorporated cities. If one of those entities did not return the agreement in a timely manner, all projects would be stalled.

Mrs. Chowning asked who the bill would benefit, and who would not like the legislation. Mr. Parks indicated the issue brought before him during hearings of the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority was that projects did not move along in an expeditious manner. All projects presented to the RTC had been approved by all entities’ representatives on the executive board so the problem was not with the approval of the projects. The problem was the agreements were not being signed when they were received which created a backlog of up to 6 months. He was unaware of anyone opposing the bill since it would speed up the process for everyone.

Mrs. Chowning inquired the amount of time that could be saved. Mr. Parks responded a minimum of 2 months on every project would be saved.

Mr. Nolan wondered if the bill dealt specifically with highway construction. Mr. Parks stated he was correct. The RTC had two separate accounts for funds. One was the motor vehicle fuel tax which was used for the construction and maintenance of roads; the other was the quarter cent sales tax which was used for public mass transit. A.B. 553 only dealt with the construction and maintenance of roads.

Mr. Nolan disclosed he worked for American Transit Corporation which was a provider of municipal transit services. They had contracts with the regional transportation commissions in both Clark and Washoe Counties. The bill would not affect the company or himself any differently than any other citizen so he would vote on the bill.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 553 and opened the work session on A.B. 627.

Elana Marton, committee policy analyst, explained there was an amendment to the bill which dealt with the committee’s concerns regarding the definition of urban in attachment D of the work session document (Exhibit M). Brian Hutchins, chief deputy attorney general, with the Attorney General’s Office submitted the definition which defined urban as an area with more than 100,000 people so it would only affect Clark and Washoe Counties. The amended language would be placed in section 1, subsection (d).

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the amendment would remove the concerns about fees being charged on logo signs for the small businesses such as campgrounds.

Ed Wilson, representing Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), responded the logo sign program was managed by a private contractor which did impose a minimal monthly fee for their services. Nevada used the same company 21 other states used, Interstate Logos, which was a less expensive alternative to the state running the program. The bill would create the additional category of logo signs of various attractions for the contractor to maintain. Currently, NDOT did not receive any revenue from the logo sign program, and the bill would only allow revenue to be generated from the new attraction category and not those who already had signs.

Mrs. Chowning wondered what type of business would be charged the new fees and what type of information the signs would provide. Mr. Wilson informed the committee legislation was passed during the 1980’s by the legislature which instructed NDOT to work with the Commission on Tourism and local tourism authorities to develop means to improve information to tourists. The bill authorized a toll-free hotline be implemented, but the program did not work out. The intent of the original bill was to charge reasonable fees to those businesses who took part in the hotline program. A.B. 627 resulted from conversations with the tourism authorities, but NDOT required certain statutes be changed before the logo sign program could be implemented.

Mrs. Chowning asked about the second amendment to the bill located in section 3.

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 3 was the same as the amendment to section 4. They simply affected 2 different sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). NRS chapters 405.110 and 484.287 contained prohibitions regarding where advertising could take place in relation to highways, highway right-of-ways, bridges, and other structures. Subsection 5(a) in both sections would allow advertising for a commercial establishment located within highway airspace. The purpose of the advertising would only be to identify the establishment and the services rendered for goods sold or produced on the premises. There were only two or three places in the state which would be affected by the bill so it was very limited. Subsection 5(b) would address Las Vegas along Frank Sinatra Boulevard. It would give businesses, which had dedicated easements to the public authority, the ability to advertise for on-premise services or to identify the establishment.

Mrs. Chowning asked what the difference between the NRS chapters was. Mr. Hutchins explained NRS chapter 405 was related to public roadways and chapter 484 was related to traffic control for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS). The amendments also mentioned chapter 408 which was related to NDOT regulations.

Mrs. McClain commented the trademarks were symbols for specific businesses, such as arches for McDonald’s. She wondered if NDOT was going to regulate the kinds of businesses which could participate in the programs or if there would be problems to be addressed in future sessions with other types of businesses located in Nevada. Mr. Hutchins stated the department would regulate the types of businesses which the bill would affect.

Mr. Nolan stated Assemblywoman McClain raised a valid point. The Assembly Committee on Judiciary had been dealing with similar issues concerning First Amendment rights. He hoped the committee was not opening a Pandora’s Box and requested the Attorney General’s Office craft the language to prevent that from occurring.

Mrs. Chowning remarked there would be an interim study committee dealing with regulations and the issue could also be raised in that setting.

Mr. Parks mentioned there was some wording in the amendments with which he was having problems, specifically subsection 5(a) which discussed a commercial establishment located on or within an airspace. He wondered how an establishment would be located on or within an airspace, or if it should state adjacent to an airspace. Mr. Hutchins relayed the situation with which the section dealt concerned a commercial establishment which would be located completely within highway airspace and not adjacent to the highway.

Mrs. Chowning thought the section dealt with the location of the Walgreens in Reno which would be above Interstate 80.

Alfredo Alonso, representing A & B Development, indicated Walgreens was used as an example because it would be built above the highway and there was no room for advertisement.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 627 WITH THE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE VOTING NO. (ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, CARPENTER, CLABORN, AND COLLINS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.)

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 627 and opened the work session on A.B. 628.

Ms. Marton explained the amendment to the bill was located in attachment E of the work session document (Exhibit M). The intention of the amendment was to enable cost effective and more flexible service to the transit dependent in both urban and rural areas. The amendment would specifically grant regional transportation commissions and counties with populations less than 100,000 the authority to operate nonfixed route transit services. It also would enable transit systems in rural and urban areas to serve the general public, not just elderly and disabled persons. Additionally it would allow for the formation of interlocal contracts to provide for additional transit services.

Ms. Parnell wondered if the group from Carson City assisted with the language in the amendment. Ms. Marton explained they did not.

Ms. Parnell asked if their concerns were addressed in the amendment. Ms. Marton indicated their concerns were addressed.

Mrs. Chowning commented the bill would allow organizations which served the elderly and the functionally disabled, the ability to provide certain public transportation and allow them to establish fixed routes. She inquired if the bill would negatively affect any federal money those groups currently received. Ms. Marton mentioned it was her understanding the amendment would allow the groups to receive additional federal funding.

Mark Reynolds, representing Paratransit Services, explained the bill, as amended, would allow private organizations to establish public routes which would resolve Federal Transportation Administration guidelines which as a condition of receiving funds, required groups to offer public transportation to the general public. The current statute did not allow them to establish fixed routes for the public so there was a conflict.

Mrs. Chowning suggested nothing in the bill was mandatory. It would allow areas to make the necessary agreements to provide transportation only if they were able. Mr. Reynolds remarked she was correct. The language also separated urban and rural areas with a population cap of 100,000.

Mr. Nolan disclosed the bill would potentially affect both his employer and himself so he would abstain from voting.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 628 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. (ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, CLABORN, AND COLLINS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.)

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 628 and opened the work session on A.B. 272.

Ms. Marton indicated there was an amendment submitted by Robert Crowell on behalf of the Nevada Judges Association located in attachment A of the work session document (Exhibit M). The amendment addressed Assemblywoman McClain’s concern about first-time offenders and repeat offenders. The amendment would retain the language requiring the judge to reduce the fine to $100.

Mrs. Chowning noted the remainder of the bill which created a misdemeanor for driving without insurance remained the same. The amendment simply stated the first-time offender’s fine must be reduced to $100. Ms. Marton commented current law allowed for payment of the fine no later than 30 days after the fine was imposed, but the language in the bill would change that to "by the time of sentencing."

Mrs. Cegavske mentioned that in testimony given when the bill was first heard, the judges wanted to change the "must" to a "may." They felt the "may" allowed them discretion to decide what the fine should be. She felt the language should remain "may." Ms. Marton relayed the concern expressed by the opposition was there should be lighter sentencing for the first-time offender.

Robert Crowell, representing Nevada Judges Association, commented it was his understanding the concern with the "may" was judges would have the ability to fine up to $1,000 on a first-time offense which was not appropriate. The bill would still create a misdemeanor for driving without insurance even for a first-time offense.

Mrs. Cegavske stated the judges should be the ones to decide what the fine should be depending on the case. Mr. Crowell observed from a judicial standpoint the Judges Association would agree; however, the intent behind the legislation was to create a misdemeanor for the offense, and they were willing to make certain concessions to see the original intent placed into statute.

Mrs. Cegavske felt it should remain at the discretion of the judge.

Mrs. McClain revealed the discussion was centered around those people who allowed their insurance to lapse but did not realize it occurred until they attempted to renew their registration. It made more sense to only have them pay a flat fee instead of face a $600 to $1,000 fine for a bookkeeping error.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 272 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE VOTING NO. (ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, CLABORN, AND COLLINS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.)

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 272 and opened the work session on A.B. 503.

Ms. Marton announced there was an amendment presented by Assemblyman Hettrick in attachment B of the work session document (Exhibit M). The amendment would limit access to DMV & PS records to insurance investigations only and provide disciplinary actions for those who violated the provision.

Mrs. Chowning asked to which board the bill referred in the amended language. Ms. Marton indicated the Private Investigators Licensing Board.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 503 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Bache indicated the wording of the bill would no longer allow a private investigator to use DMV & PS records to investigate criminal activities. He felt the amendment limited the ability of defense attorneys to properly defend certain clients.

Warren Hardy, representing Nevada Investigators Association, responded the concern had been considered, but many felt the bill was too broad with the original language. Currently, private investigators did not have the ability to research any DMV & PS records. The amended bill was a step in the right direction and would allow the Nevada Investigators Association membership to conduct their insurance investigations expeditiously. The amendment addressed 85 percent of their concerns with the current statute.

Mr. Nolan commented he had similar concerns with the bill; however, it would bring some access to DMV & PS records back to private investigators.

Mrs. Chowning called attention to existing law which allowed DMV & PS the authority to release information to any person or governmental entity in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitration proceeding before any court. DMV & PS had the ability to make the determination regarding the concerns addressed with existing statute.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE AND PARNELL VOTING NO. (ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, CLABORN, COLLINS, AND MCCLAIN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.)

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

Ms. Marton explained there were multiple amendments located in attachment C of the work session document (Exhibit M) which addressed concerns raised by Assemblyman Carpenter, DMV & PS, and the Clark County School District. The first amendment provided an exemption for transporting family members with a provisional license. The second amendment deleted the "reasonable alternative" language throughout section 3. The third amendment addressed the school district’s concerns and allowed for a statement of the school activity but required the parent or legal guardian to sign off on driving during restricted times and changed school to school activity throughout the bill. The final amendment was requested by DMV & PS and would bring them into compliance with existing law for suspending or revoking licenses along with other technical amendments.

Mr. Nolan inquired if Assemblywoman Cegavske had reviewed the proposed amendments and if she approved of them. Mrs. Cegavske announced she had worked with everyone’s concerns and felt they were all addressed in the amendments. There was one change Assemblyman Carpenter had requested to which she did not agree, and that was to change the restrictions to 3 months. She had consented to 6 months and would not lower the time period.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired how law enforcement was supposed to know the signed statement the driver carried was actually signed by the parent or legal guardian. Mrs. Cegavske suggested the officer would be able to contact the parent to verify the signature. The driver would have to be pulled over for a first offense before an officer would be able to check on their provisional license.

Captain Jim Nadeau, legislative liaison, Washoe County Sheriff, remarked the officers would check with the parent if there was any question regarding the authenticity of the document. He did not foresee there being any problems.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked what if the teenager was picking up medication for another family member, and the parent was not home to verify and the medication did not get back soon enough. Captain Nadeau informed the committee the length of traffic stops were limited by statute. If a teen was in violation of a traffic offense then they would be stopped and a check would be run on their provisional license. If they were able to produce a note at the time of the stop, there probably would not be any problems. Officers currently called parents if they pulled over kids who were just driving around so the process with the note would probably occur in the same fashion as the current stops. Traffic stops were temporary and not designed for long periods of time.

Mr. Bache indicated he had problems with creating a new category of adults at 20-years-old. If the age remained at 18, a new definition of adult was created for those who were not yet 21 but were over 18 years of age. Mr. Shrader remarked the goal was to remove the teenage passengers from the newly licensed driver provisions. Studies had shown if those teenage passengers were removed from the vehicle, the crash risk dropped by 50 percent. What they had hoped would occur was if there was an 18-year-old in the vehicle, the 18-year-old would drive and not the new driver. If they wanted to reduce the crash risk by 50 percent then they had to eliminate all teenage passengers including, those who were 19-years-old.

Mr. Nolan announced his concern with the bill was the new driver should be able to drive with other teenagers in the vehicle if they were supervised by an adult. Mr. Shrader mentioned the intent was to allow for exceptions if the new driver was supervised by someone over 21-years-old and had their license for a minimum of 3 years.

Mrs. Chowning stated since the committee did not feel comfortable with the bill, they would vote on it during the next meeting. She adjourned the committee at 7:50 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: