The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:37 p.m., on Tuesday, April 20, 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

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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Carpenter (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Maurice Washington, Senate District 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Chowning opened the hearing on S.B. 153.

Daryl Capurro, representing Nevada Motor Transport Association, testified legislation known as the "lemon car bill" was passed during the 1997 session which created an undesired impact on the sale of commercial vehicles. The prime sponsor of that bill, Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, stated it was not her intent to impact commercial vehicles so the industry requested S.B. 153. The bill would exempt vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or more since commercial vehicles were sold in a different manner. Companies and their mechanics inspected commercial vehicles, but provisions set forth in current law did not allow for that process so the industry would like to change that. The bill would redefine used car in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 482.366 to 482.3667 to include the manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. They had met with Assemblywoman Buckley to discuss the proposed changes in the statute, and she indicated she did not have a problem with them.

Mrs. Chowning inquired about the mileage requirement of 75,000 miles from the 1997 legislation and if it would be applicable to commercial vehicles. Mr. Capurro remarked commercial vehicles would be exempt from the 75,000 miles requirement. Larger diesel vehicles would put on as many as 1 million miles with overhauls before retiring so the vehicles were still considered fairly new at 75,000 miles.

Pete English, chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) testified the department was in support of the proposed legislation since it would aid DMV & PS in terms of enforcement.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 153.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER ABSENT (EXCUSED).

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO PLACE S.B. 153 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER ABSENT (EXCUSED).

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 153 and opened the hearing on S.B. 154.

Joanne Keller, highway safety coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, DMV & PS, testified the original bill was requested by the department to strengthen the child safety restraint requirements. Current statute required child safety restraints for children less than 5 years of age and weighing less than 40 pounds. DMV & PS wanted to make four changes to the statute. The first was to change the wording to "under 5 years of age or weighing less than 40 pounds," to ease the burden on law enforcement to have to decide both age and weight. The second change was to add the reference to the Code of Federal Regulations for safety restraints into statute. Currently, child safety restraints had to comply with United States Department of Transportation guidelines, adding the exact language to Nevada statute would make it more specific. The third change was requested to close a loophole, which allowed someone who received a citation to avoid a fine if they showed a proof of purchase of an appropriate child safety seat at the time of sentencing. The final request was the addition of demerit points against a person’s driver’s license if they received a citation for violating the child restraint law. The bill before the committee was amended in the Senate and only contained two word changes. The first was changing the "and" to "or" in subsection 1, and the second way the addition of the words "or causation" in subsection 5(a).

Mrs. Chowning asked what "or causation" meant. Ms. Keller understood the term would further limit the liability of not having a child properly restrained if subsequent civil actions were taken.

Assemblyman Bache mentioned there were some children who did not properly fit into the child safety restraints, for example, a child under 5 years but weighing 80 pounds. The proposed changes would make it illegal for the parents to restrain those children with seatbelts. Ms. Keller indicated the family would be required to find alternative safety restraints since the child would be subject to the under 5 years section of statute.

Mr. Bache expressed there was no physical way for the child to safely fit into the seats so there would be no way for the family to comply with the law. Ms. Keller commented the child would potentially be less restrained if they only had a seatbelt on since they could unbuckle it. The department was not trying to target those people, but those families who allowed their children to crawl around the car while the parents were driving. There were many parents who were trying to comply with the law as best they could, but there were others who were not.

Mrs. Chowning wondered what the family was supposed to do if it was impossible to fit the child into a restraining device. Ms. Keller explained there was a gap in the law covering children between 5 and 16 years of age. If a child was under 5 years of age, they were covered under the current provision, and once they received their driver’s license, they were covered under the adult seatbelt provision. Between those ages, there were booster seats available and standard seatbelts but not required by law.

Mrs. Chowning observed child safety restraints did not necessarily mean a particular car seat, and there were other options for children who met one requirement but not the other. Ms. Keller indicated there was no progression in the law which stated if the child no longer fit in one car seat to move on to the next size, but there were other restraint options.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if a seatbelt would be considered one of the other restraint options. Ms. Keller stated it would.

Mrs. Chowning noted the bill stated "5 years or less than 40 pounds," so if a child was older than 5 but still weighed less than 40 pounds they would still have to be restrained. Ms. Keller stated that was correct.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified the issue between the "and" and the "or" created a considerable amount of confusion when the bill was first heard in the Senate and apparently was still creating confusion. During the Senate hearing it was indicated a device for restraining a child was specific to car seats, but now they were hearing other devices including seat belts could be used. Even if car seats were the acceptable means there would still be confusion among parents regarding the weight issue since most did not carry scales in their vehicles to constantly weigh their children. The way they understood the bill before the hearing began was a 6-year-old weighing less than 40 pounds would be required to be restrained in a car seat. She would request the "or" be changed back to "and" to alleviate the confusion.

Mrs. Chowning indicated an older child who was small in stature should be restrained in some form although not required by law.

Assemblyman Claborn wondered if language could be added which would indicate the child would have to be restrained in a booster or some other device other than a car seat. He felt if the child did not fit into a car seat then a seat belt should be required. Ms. Keller responded the original intent in changing the "and" to "or" was to rectify the problem the committee was currently having. Typically the driver of the vehicle would be able to tell law enforcement how old a child was but not their weight so law enforcement would have to guess. By changing the "and" to "or," the department was attempting to allow law enforcement to use either age or weight as the qualifier. The basic intent was to protect the children.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the original draft deleted the weight qualification altogether, allowing only for an age determination. Ms. Keller stated that was correct.

Mrs. Chowning ascertained one of the amendments from the Senate was to include the weight determination with "or." She asked which the department felt was the more important qualifier, "and" or "or." Ms. Keller suggested originally DMV & PS had wanted to delete the weight determination but after conversations with law enforcement would request the requirement of weight and age remain.

Assemblywoman McClain asked what restraining devices were approved by the United States Department of Transportation and if they included seatbelts. Ms. Keller commented the Code of Federal Regulations specified different types of car and booster seats which they had approved. It did not include seatbelts until a specific age, but she did not recall the age. Nevada did not create any transitions between the ages of 5 and 16 years as she had stated previously.

Mrs. McClain wondered if the committee should amend the bill further so Nevada law would be in compliance with the Federal Regulations which would also close the loophole on the 5 to 16 age bracket. Ms. Keller indicated the original bill included certain federal guidelines; however, they were removed by the Senate. The Federal Code was rather lengthy to place in the NRS.

Mrs. McClain thought they did not have to include the entire Federal Code only reference it in the language of the bill.

Mrs. Chowning remarked the bill could potentially be strengthened if language was added covering all ages from birth to adult, then there would not be a problem with the age or weight determinates. She inquired if there was a simple way to reference the federal language. Ms. Keller said she would work on that for the committee.

Mrs. Chowning asked Senator Washington to come forward and inform the committee why the Senate Committee on Transportation changed the "and" to "or." Senator Washington revealed they had a similar problem with the language the Assembly committee was having. They felt the "or" would suffice, but there was a desire to change it back to "and"; however, with the deadlines for the 120-day session, there was not time to reconsider the bill.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 154 and opened the hearing on S.B. 203.

Senator Maurice Washington, Senate District 2, testified it was brought to his attention by employees of DMV & PS certain credentials used to acquire a driver’s license in Nevada were easily obtained and not always valid. The bill before the committee would exclude passports of those who were born outside of the United States as identification for receiving a driver’s license. The reason for the change was a driver’s license could be used as identification for notaries, opening a checking or saving account, and other services. United States passports were recognized as viable documents proving a person was a legal resident of the United States; however, requirements for foreign passports were not always as stringent and could be obtained easily. Aliens could receive a passport from a country other than their birth place, thus having multiple passports, return to the United States, receive a driver’s license, and conduct business in the United States without receiving the proper documentation defining them as legally residing in the country. He informed the committee he was able to pull information off the Internet regarding obtaining passports from various countries of which he had never heard.

Ms. Ohrenschall wondered why all passports should be excluded from the list. She felt if United States passports were reliable they should remain on the list of accepted forms of identification, but exclude foreign passports since passports were easier to replace than some of the other identifications such as certificates of citizenship. Senator Washington explained basically the bill stated if someone wanted to receive a driver’s license in Nevada they would have to produce some form of identification other than a foreign passport.

Ms. Ohrenschall clarified the question as being specific to United States passports. Mrs. Chowning noted subsection 2(b) referred to excluding passports as a form of identification to those people born outside the United States. Senator Washington remarked the section also included a listing of accepted documentation for purposes of identification for receiving a driver’s license.

Ms. Ohrenschall commented a naturalized United States citizen would have a United States’ passport and inquired why those persons should be eliminated from the ability of using their United States passport while those born in the United States were not. Senator Washington remarked someone born outside the United States but legally residing in the country would have at least one of the other accepted forms of identification on them. They were attempting to target those who were residing in the country illegally.

Mrs. Chowning requested someone from DMV & PS come forward to clear up some of the confusion which was occurring. She thought the identification was needed only to verify the applicant’s age.

Dana Mathiesen, management analyst III, DMV & PS, indicated the department required a form of legal identification of an applicant to verify their name and age. Additionally, if the applicant was issued a social security number DMV & PS required verification of that number.

Mrs. Chowning commented an applicant would be required to present the second form of identification if they used a social security card as their primary form of identification and S.B. 203 would eliminate passports from the list of identification forms if the applicant was born outside of the United States. Ms. Mathiesen indicated the statement was correct.

Mrs. Chowning remarked the question by Ms. Ohrenschall was valid in that if the concern was with foreign passports, then United States’ passports should remain an acceptable form of identification since it was recognized as a credible document throughout the world. She asked if it would be acceptable to amend the bill to state "other than a United States passport." Senator Washington communicated to receive a United States passport a person must either be born in the United States or have received naturalization documentation from the Immigration Department. The bill was intended to address those who did not fall into either category.

Ms. Ohrenschall requested clarification on the statement. She understood the Senator’s statement to be he would allow a United States passport to be used for identification purposes to receive a driver’s license for those born in the United States but not allow a United States passport to be used by those who had become United States citizens. She felt that created differential treatment of United States citizens. Ms. Mathiesen expressed the department did not desire to exclude the use of any United States passport, only foreign passports. She thought Senator Washington was trying to say if someone had become a citizen, they would have one of the other accepted forms of identification. To alleviate the confusion the bill could be amended to read, "other than a foreign passport" where it currently read, "other than a passport." Senator Washington agreed to the change if it was the desire of the committee.

Mrs. McClain inquired if an alien was required to present the other listed forms of identification in order to obtain a United States passport. Senator Washington stated a legal alien could not receive a United States passport without presenting the other documents showing proof of residency.

Mrs. Chowning indicated if one of the other forms was lost it would be almost impossible to replace.

Assemblyman Gustavson observed S.B. 203 specifically addressed the section of NRS that dealt with applicants born outside the United States who desired a driver’s license. It did not specify United States citizens. He felt the proposed language would only confuse the issue more.

Senator Washington announced the intent of the legislation was to assure whomever applied for a driver’s license in Nevada was a legal resident of the United States, since driver’s licenses opened various avenues for use in business. There were people who would take advantage of the ability to obtain a driver’s license with a foreign passport which might not be valid. Some foreign passports were easily obtained in other countries or through the Internet. He was trying to protect the validity of Nevada driver’s licenses by not allowing the use of foreign passports as an accepted form of identification.

Mrs. Chowning confirmed whether he would have a problem amending the language to clarify they were referring to foreign passports. Senator Washington responded if it was the desire of the committee, he would not have a problem with the amendment, although he thought it was repetitious.

Mrs. Chowning asserted it might appear to be a technicality but they did not want to exclude those who were born outside the United States and had become citizens from being able to use their United States passports to receive a driver’s license. Senator Washington reiterated if they were legal residents, they would carry one of the other forms of identification with them at all times. He did not want to preclude the use of United States passports from being used as valid forms of identification, only foreign passports.

Mrs. Chowning observed, if the bill was to be passed in the current form, it would not state a United States passport could be used even by naturalized citizens. Ms. Mathiesen suggested the bill would require an amendment stating, "other than a foreign passport" to alleviate the concerns they were addressing.

Mrs. McClain commented current statute did not indicate a United States passport could be used by anyone and wondered if the department allowed the use of the passports through regulation or policy. Ms. Mathiesen informed the committee the forms of identification for those born in the United States were broader stating, "including but not limited to." DMV & PS had addressed that through procedures and did accept United States passports.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the committee should amend the bill to include the same language of "including but not limited to" for the section dealing with those born outside the United States. Ms. Mathiesen indicated they did want to specifically exclude foreign passports from the list because of their availability, since DMV & PS had a difficult time confirming the validity of foreign passports.

Mrs. Chowning indicated the committee would hold the bill until the correct language could be brought forth to exclude foreign passports while allowing United States passports to be used. She noted a driver’s license was not meant to be an all-inclusive accepted form of identification but since it had become one it was the duty of the state to assure its validity.

Senator Washington thanked the committee for their desire to work on the legislation.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 203 and opened the hearing on S.B. 268.

Mr. English testified S.B. 268 was requested by DMV & PS to amend NRS 487.240 which dealt with the appraisal of removed abandoned vehicles. Current statute required the department to appraise an abandoned vehicle within 10 days of a request. The amended language would change the timeframe to 10 working days. Statewide, the department received approximately 1,850 requests monthly which were handled by only three appraisers in Las Vegas, one in Reno, and one in Elko.

Mr. English informed the committee the appraisals were important for the towing company which picked up the vehicle so they would know how to deal with the vehicle. For example, if the vehicle was appraised at less than $500 a junk certificate would be issued and the vehicle could be destroyed; however, if the vehicle was valued at more than $500, the company would be required to go through the lien sale process. Once the department received the request, the 10-day period started. Thus, if the request was received on a Friday afternoon or on a weekend the appraisers would lose days since they did not work on weekends. The bill would allow for 10 working days to give the appraisers more time to complete all the requests without hiring additional staff.

Mrs. Chowning inquired how the requests were made. Mr. English explained the department required the company, which received the vehicle, to fill out a transmittal to document the request then return it to DMV & PS by either fax or in person.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the bill would make the method of doing business more difficult for the companies. Mr. English responded it would not change the method of doing business. It would allow the department 10 working days to complete the request instead of 10 consecutive days.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR S.B. 268.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER ABSENT (EXCUSED).

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 268 since there was no further testimony and opened the hearing on S.B. 300.

Mr. Daryl Capurro, representing Nevada Motor Transport Association, testified the bill before the committee also dealt with the removal of abandoned vehicles. Currently, tow companies were requested by law enforcement to remove abandoned vehicles and to hold them until the company received a junk certificate from DMV & PS. To receive a certificate, the vehicle had to meet the definition of "abandoned" which was defined as a vehicle that the owner had discarded, but the definition was not always easy to prove. The bill would add a second criterion to the definition: that the vehicle had not been reclaimed by the registered owner or by a person having a security interest within 15 days after the notification period provided under NRS 487.250. It would clarify which abandoned vehicles could be removed from Nevada highways.

Mrs. Chowning inquired regarding vehicles which could be removed off the highway due to mechanical problems but not abandoned. Mr. Capurro remarked tow companies were reluctant to remove many abandoned vehicles because of the current timeframes for the disposal of the vehicle. The legislation would decrease the amount of time the tow companies would be required to wait to receive a junk certificate. If the current law was not changed, tow companies might decide to not remove the vehicles at all.

Assemblyman Nolan inquired if there was a definition of security interest currently in statute. Mr. Capurro indicated there was a definition under the banking statutes but not under NRS 487.

Mr. Nolan commented he did not have a problem with the junk vehicles to which were referred; however, he knew of other instances where cars were left on the side of the road but not necessarily abandoned. For example, he knew of an instance where an individual had a heart attack in their BMC car. They then pulled over to the side of the road and were taken to the hospital in an ambulance. The BMW sat on the road for approximately 3 weeks because the person was in the hospital. Mr. Capurro mentioned the vehicle would not be considered abandoned until 15 days after the current notification period currently in statute which was a 30-day notice period.

Clark Whitney, general manager, Quality Towing, explained they had worked with DMV & PS in drafting the bill. All vehicles the companies towed were required to be appraised by DMV & PS before a junk certificate could be issued. The department would not issue a certificate if the vehicle was worth over $500, such as the BMW referred to by Assemblyman Nolan. The current law stated they had 10 days to appraise the vehicle and, if the vehicle was registered to someone, the department would not be able to issue a junk certificate. The bill would allow the department to issue a junk certificate then require the tow company to send notification to the registered owner. If the vehicle was not claimed 15 days after the notification period ended, the tow company would be able to dispose of the vehicle.

Mrs. Chowning asked if anyone knew exactly how many days the notification period was in statute so the committee would know how many days in total someone would have before their vehicle would be considered abandoned.

Warren Hardy, representing Quality Towing, recalled the notification period being 30 days but was not positive.

Mrs. Chowning wondered what the difference between the two definitions in the bill were. There was a definition for "abandoned vehicle" on the first page and a definition for "junk vehicle" on the second page. Mr. Hardy indicated the definition of "junk vehicle" was added by the bill drafters to provide the same provisions for a "junk vehicle" as for an "abandoned vehicle." A "junk vehicle" was defined as a vehicle with a value less than $200 which would be considered abandoned since the definition for abandoned was less than $500.

Mr. Whitney communicated the legislation was of a practical matter more than anything else. For example if someone drove a vehicle which barely passed smog checks then got into an accident the vehicle would become essentially worthless. Law enforcement would call a tow company to pick it up and they would have to store the vehicle until the owner chose to claim it. If the owner did not want the vehicle, the tow company would be stuck with it because DMV & PS would not issue a junk certificate since the vehicle was still registered. The tow company would then be required to go through the lien process to get rid of the vehicle which could take more than 60 days. The bill would allow the tow companies to notify the owner of the vehicle, and if they still did not want the vehicle, the tow companies would be able to dispose of it after 45 days.

Mr. Hardy mentioned not only had they contacted DMV & PS regarding the bill, they also contacted law enforcement. Law enforcement was in support of the legislation since they were having problems with tow companies not wanting to remove abandoned vehicles because of the length of time it took to dispose of them. The tow companies would be able to dispose of the vehicles in a more efficient manner thus be more willing to remove the vehicles for law enforcement.

Mrs. Chowning indicated there was a larger issue in the statute, which was not being addressed, and that was of abandoned vehicles located elsewhere, including private property, and not simply on the highway. She was concerned law enforcement or the tow companies would remove a vehicle simply because it had remained in the same place for 45 days and the registered owner would be responsible for the removal and disposal of the vehicle which they might not be able to afford. Mr. Whitney relayed most people who abandoned vehicles were no longer in the state, so tow companies were not able to collect from them. He had tried to collect from some of the people who had abandoned vehicles, but discovered it was not worth it. The bill would allow the tow companies to dispose of vehicles, which were not going to be claimed, and allow DMV & PS to remove the vehicle from their records as well. Regarding the issue of removing a vehicle from private property, the owner of the property was the only person allowed to contact law enforcement or a tow company to remove a vehicle. A neighbor or tenant could not have a vehicle removed if they did not own the property.

Mrs. Chowning called attention to the fact they could not find the 30-day notification period in NRS 487.250 and wanted to know where the statute was so the committee could be assured of the proposed 45-day process. Mr. English explained the notification process was located in NRS 108, which contained the provisions concerning lien sales. The lien process would apply to vehicles, which were not issued junk certificates, so the only way the tow company would be able to dispose of the vehicle would be through a lien sale.

Captain Jim Nadeau, legislative liaison, Washoe County Sheriff, testified the Sheriff’s Office was not in support or opposition of the bill, but he did want to inform the committee of the types of vehicles to which were being referred. Typically, a vehicle was abandoned because there was a variety of problems with it, or the owner left the state. Law enforcement would receive an anonymous call of an abandoned vehicle, so they would call a tow company to pick it up. Recently law enforcement was having problems reaching a tow company who would agree to pick up the vehicle since it was an inconvenience to them, and they had to hold the vehicle for such a long period of time. Anything which would assist the tow companies in disposing of the vehicles would also assist law enforcement in removing the vehicles.

Mrs. Chowning indicated they were all of the same opinion that the abandoned vehicles should be disposed, but the committee wanted to assure there was plenty of time for notification of owners. Mr. English expressed the bill would not remove any safeguards currently in place. It would expand the definition of abandoned vehicle to include those which had been discarded by registered owners. It would also allow DMV & PS to issue a junk certificate for a vehicle which was registered but which the owner no longer wanted.

Mrs. Chowning adjourned the meeting at 3:12 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: