The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:39 p.m., on Tuesday, May 4, 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. 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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada District

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, District 35

Senator Mark James, Clark County District 8

Senator Michael Schneider, Clark County District 8

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Chowning informed the committee the meeting was being teleconferenced to Las Vegas. She opened the hearing on S.B. 179.

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada District, testified S.B. 179 would establish safety standards for the sports of skydiving and parachuting. There had been too many fatal accidents in the sport in Nevada recently to not regulate the industry. The death of a close friend, Fred Colip, on his first skydive had brought the issue into the open. Fred’s widow, Carol, had convinced him something needed to be done. The bill was created for those first-time jumpers who were likely to make fatal mistakes if their training was not adequate. It was the first-time jumper who relied on others for the proper training and reliability of equipment since they were operating on adrenaline and the thrill of danger. The participants of the sport were willing and eager to participate, but they should be assured of a reasonable amount of safety. The legislation would require operators to meet or exceed the basic safety requirements established by the United States Parachute Association (Exhibit C). The basic requirements came out of the information manual put out by the association and were only three pages long. The United States Parachute Association also supported the bill. He presented the committee with a letter of support from Doctor William Torch and the staff of the Neurodevelopmental and Neurodiagnostic Center who were friends and associates of Doctor Kathleen Auld who was killed in a parachuting accident in August 1998 (Exhibit D).

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, District 35, explained she and Senator McGinness had requested the legislation to assure every possible precaution was taken to make sure new skydivers had as much training and safety instruction as possible before their jump. She felt the reasons were obvious. Skydiving was an inherently dangerous sport, and beginning jumpers needed to know as much as possible about what could go wrong and how to get themselves out of potential difficult situations. They must be trained how to react and judge various conditions they might encounter. S.B. 179 would require businesses which offered parachuting from an airplane or balloon to comply with certain safety regulations, provide potential jumpers with a safety handbook, and post information on skydiving safety requirements. Failure to comply with the regulations of the act would be a misdemeanor and could result in the revocation of their license for a period of 5 years. The businesses the bill addressed were not licensed skydiving schools but simply had a Nevada business license. There were opponents to the bill who claimed some of the safety equipment was not reliable, the training did more harm than good, or the necessary precautions were already being taken. The committee could either trust the industry to regulate itself or place the regulations in statute so all businesses would be required to follow them.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the bill covered people who chose to either skydive or bungee jump out of hot air balloons. Senator McGinness stated the bill only applied to skydiving and not bungee jumping, but would affect skydiving from a hot air balloon.

Senator McGinness explained each section of the bill for the committee. Included in the bill were definitions and explanations of the United States Parachute Association, skydiving businesses, and student skydivers. Provisions were in place to assure anyone who wanted to jump would be considered a student unless they were able to provide documentation of previous jumps. Section 8 outlined the basic safety requirements presented to the committee (Exhibit C). Section 8, subsection 2, allowed the director of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to review the safety regulations and any subsequent amendments to the regulations made by the United States Parachute Association. If a notice of disapproval was not posted by the director within 30 days of the posting of any amendments the amendments would be deemed approved. Section 10 required businesses to post the regulations. If the business did not post the regulations or were shown to be in violation of any of the provisions in the bill, they were to be reported to either a district attorney or the attorney general of Nevada. Section 11 mandated any death or injury be reported to the United States Parachute Association within 1 business day. The penalties described by Assemblywoman de Braga were located in section 12.

Assemblywoman Cegavske inquired if the company Mr. Colip used for his first jump followed the manual put out by the United States Parachute Association prior to Mr. Colip’s visit. Senator McGinness indicated the company had been deemed as a rogue operator by the association since they did not operate with any equipment standards. Even if the company had used the manual there was no law in Nevada which allowed for any recourse.

Mrs. Cegavske observed the industry appeared to be able to conduct business in any manner they saw fit, but the legislation would place regulations under which they would operate.

Assemblyman Carpenter noted the letter from Dr. Torch (Exhibit D) stated skydivers should be required to have an altimeter-controlled automatic deployment device. He asked if skydiving students would be required to have one of the devices under the legislation. Senator McGinness indicated all students would be required to have one of the devices.

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall inquired regarding section 8, who would determine the regulations the businesses were following were at least as stringent as the basic safety requirements if the business followed only the basic safety requirements. Senator McGinness mentioned there would have to be a "backdoor approach" to the situation since they did not want to add a fiscal note to the bill by creating a position to monitor the industry. If there was a death or injury involved, the victim or their family would have to establish the basic safety requirements had not been met.

Carol Colip, Fallon resident, testified her husband, Fred Colip, had wanted to try parachute jumping and was referred to a business in Stead. He had received questionable training the morning of the jump by an instructor who was not certified by the United States Parachute Association. For the afternoon jump he was provided suiting and harnesses not approved by the association. During the jump her husband ended up cutting away his parachute at too low an altitude because he had not been given an altimeter or trained on ground or earth rush which was one of the common factors of death in the industry.

Mrs. Colip explained after her husband’s death she had discovered there was safety equipment recommended for student jumpers which had been neither offered or provided since it was not required by the United States Parachute Association. Items such as a visually accessible altimeter or an automatic activation device had been recommended by the association for students but were not required. She discovered the only regulations for the industry were with the Federal Aviation Administration which regulated the aircraft, airspace, and drop zones but did not regulate the actual parachute or skydiving industry other than requiring beginning jumpers receive some kind of formal training. The training should be conducted in accordance with United States Parachute Association recommendations but was not mandated.

Mrs. Colip concluded there were certain inherent risks associated with skydiving, especially for students, but there was safety equipment which would have prevented the death of her husband and other student jumpers such as Justin Handlesman who died in 1992 and Kathleen Auld who died in 1998. Both her husband and Justin were first-time jumpers while Kathleen was on her third jump. All three deaths could have been prevented if the companies had followed the basic safety requirements established by the United States Parachute Association. In 1996, 13 of the 39 jump fatalities were caused by the jumpers falling to the ground without pulling any handles and could have been prevented if they had been wearing an automatic activation device. She presented the committee with a letter from the law firm of Dyer, Lawrence, Cooney, and Penrose in support of S.B. 179 (Exhibit E).

Ms. Ohrenschall thanked Mrs. Colip for testifying before the committee. All members honored her attempt to turn her heartbreak and tragedy into something positive for all Nevadans.

Assemblywoman Parnell wondered if the visible altimeter and automatic activation device were included in Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Mrs. Colip stated the devices were included in the United States Parachute Association manual as basic safety requirements.

Kathleen Barth, Nevada resident, indicated her brother-in-law was Fred Colip and she had known Kathleen Auld. S.B. 179 would require businesses to follow the guidelines established by the United States Parachute Association and would protect the lives of other Nevadans who wanted to participate in the sport.

John Sande, representing United States Parachute Association, testified in support of the legislation. He indicated the parachute safety requirements were outlined in section 2-1.11 of the United States Parachute Association manual (Exhibit C). The requirements were outlined in the manual and the manual was to be integrated in statute and if a company did not comply with the requirements, they would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a loss of their license for up to 5 years.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if the visually accessible altimeter and the automatic activation device were also included in the manual. Mr. Sande stated both devices were located in subsection B of section 2-1.11 of the manual.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the described devices were actually one unit which would active itself if the jumper was unconscious. Mr. Sande mentioned they were two separate devices. The jumper would have to be conscious to use the visually accessible altimeter, but the automatic activation device deployed the parachute at a specific altitude whether the jumper was conscious or not.

Ms. Ohrenschall queried how a business would be found to willfully violate the provisions in the bill. Mr. Sande informed the committee a judge or jury would make the determination which was the "backdoor" method mentioned by Senator McGinness. The business would have to be found in violation of the law through court proceedings. The judge or jury would be the parties who would determine if the business was willful in not providing the student jumpers with the proper equipment.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked who certified the instructors. Mr. Sande mentioned the United States Parachute Association certified instructors not only in the United States but also worldwide.

Mr. Carpenter wondered if the businesses were required to carry any liability insurance. Mr. Sande indicated there had been a requirement for liability insurance in the original bill; however, it was discovered during the hearings in the Senate the insurance was not available.

Tom Fronapfel, assistant director, Planning Division, NDOT, testified the department was in support of S.B. 179 since it did not hold the State of Nevada liable for any injuries or deaths which might occur.

Assemblyman Parks inquired how NDOT became the agency responsible for providing oversight of the legislation. Senator McGinness relayed while working on the draft of the bill it was discovered NDOT had an aviation division. It was felt that was the proper agency to regulate the industry.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked where in the bill it stated that the state was not liable for any death or injury related to skydiving or parachuting. Mr. Fronapfel stated it was not specifically referenced in the bill, but conversations with Senator McGinness had clarified the intent was not to have the state held liable for injuries associated with accidents.

Ms. Ohrenschall questioned if the bill should be amended to contain language expressing the intent not to hold the state liable. Senator McGinness indicated he would be open to such an amendment. Mr. Sande remarked the only responsibility the state had was to review any changes in the basic safety requirements made by the United States Parachute Association and determine if the new requirements should be adopted by the state. He felt the state could not be held liable for injuries since any new requirement would be implemented even if the state did not take action on the requirements.

Pat Foley, Clark County firefighter, testified via telephone from Las Vegas. He explained he wanted the committee to hear his parachuting experience. In March 1991, he and a group of friends spent $150 each to parachute from 4,000 feet. They were not given much ground training on what would occur or any safety education. During the jump his parachute had become entangled and he began falling out of control since he had not been instructed on what to do if the parachute became entangled. He attempted to pull the reserve parachute which did not deploy. He had been told an automatic activation device would deploy a reserve parachute at 1,000 feet, but that did not occur. After he had hit the ground the parachute company removed both the parachute and helmet prior to the arrival of any emergency medical technician. His friends informed him later the business simply cleaned up the equipment to use again the same day. There was never any investigation of the accident by the Federal Aviation Authority. The company had sold the group of friends phony insurance plans which were supposed to pay up to $100,000 in medical expenses if an accident occurred. The parachute company also attempted to recover $480 for damage to equipment he had used on the day of the jump. He was in support of any legislation which would regulate the industry.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired about the injuries Mr. Foley incurred. Mr. Foley explained his nose and one eye orbit were broken. He dislocated his jaw and received 41 stitches, some of which were located inside his mouth to stop the bleeding. He spent a few days in the hospital and was out of work approximately 4 weeks. He knew he was lucky to be alive and not permanently disabled from the incident, but that did not excuse the carelessness of life shown by the parachute company.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked about the insurance the company had sold him since the committee understood insurance was not available for the sport. Mr. Foley indicated the insurance plan they had purchased might not have been valid since he never received any money from it. The group was presented with generic forms which stated the policy was only valid for the day of the jump and would cover up to $100,000 in medical and lost wages if the injuries were a direct result of a parachute accident. The supposed coverage cost an additional $50 per person.

Assemblyman Nolan questioned if the company was still in business. Mr. Foley claimed he was unsure if they were still in business. After his accident the name had changed from North Las Vegas Parachute Association to North Las Vegas Parachute Club. Currently there was a business offering skydiving at the North Las Vegas airport, but he was unclear if it was the same company.

Ms. Ohrenschall closed the hearing on S.B. 179 and opened the hearing on S.B. 381.

Senator Mark James, Clark County District 8, testified S.B. 381 would prohibit the use of "photo radar" devices in Nevada. There had been a move by municipalities throughout the country in recent years to install photo radar devices at intersections to photograph traffic violations and issue citations. He presented the committee with information on photo radar taken from the National Motorists Association web site (Exhibit F). The device would take a photograph of the traffic violation, the vehicle, the license plate, and the driver then a citation would be sent to the registered owner of the vehicle in the mail. Local governments used the device because it was an inexpensive method of generating revenue since a uniformed officer was not required, no traffic stop was required, and in the majority of cases the person receiving the citation did not mount any defense against the charges. The problem with the devices was no human contact was involved in the issuing of the citations. If someone was stopped for a traffic violation by a law enforcement officer discretion would be used if there was a reason for the violation. For example if someone went through an intersection while a traffic light was yellow and was able to prove to the office another vehicle was tailgating them, the violator would probably not be issued a citation, whereas the device would simply issue the citation which the violator would receive days to weeks later.

Senator James communicated the information from the National Motorists Association (Exhibit F) showed the technology was not infallible. The machines were like other forms of computer technology and subject to the possibility of error. Radar was subject to false readings especially if the machines were not inspected on a regular basis. There was also the problem of unclear images, which could lead to the improper issuance of a citation. He felt the use of such devices would set a bad example to the general public of government watching over them. Society would be requiring its citizens to sacrifice more of their freedoms if such technology was allowed to continue to be used since the devices would lead to more intrusive technology which would monitor all actions all the time. The bill was amended in the Senate to allow for the use of the devices as evidence if an officer was present to issue the citation which he had confirmed since there would be some form of human discretion involved before a citation was issued. He concluded the intent of the bill was not to limit the use of surveillance cameras used by traffic engineers, but to prevent the use of cameras in the issuance of citations.

Mrs. Cegavske mentioned one of the concerns she had with the usage of the devices was that if they were allowed, there could become a tendency to only rely on them; however, there were benefits to the devices. She wondered if they could be used as a deterrent device by issuing warnings instead of citations. People might slow down when approaching intersections if they began receiving notices of violations in the mail. Senator James remarked there was a fine line between issuing a notice of a violation and issuing a citation for a violation. If the legislature allowed local entities to use the devices to only issue warnings they would return in 2001 requesting the devices be used to issue citations. He felt the local governments would not spend the money to install the devices if they were not able to generate some kind of revenue off of them. There were worse crimes occurring in the State of Nevada than running red lights such as impaired drivers and domestic violence. If the devices were allowed, the door would be opened for requests to monitor homes and work places to look for violations of the law.

Mr. Parks questioned if the legislation would prevent the use of video cameras located on the dashboards of police vehicles when they conducted traffic stops. Senator James stated there were two reasons the bill would not prevent the use of video cameras. The first was the cameras were not unmanned devices since a human was required to operate the device. The second reason was if the vehicle was stopped, the traffic violation had occurred and been witnessed by an officer.

Mr. Carpenter wondered why there was a provision in section 1, subsection 2, which allowed for the devices to be used only if a law enforcement officer was present. He felt if an officer was present there would be no need for the device. Senator James indicated a system could be set up in which the device would photograph the violation, but the officer would issue the citation. The section to which Assemblyman Carpenter was referring was part of the amendment the Senate had placed in the bill which would allow for the use of the devices only if an officer was immediately present.

Ms. Ohrenschall noted the cameras tended to be mounted in such a manner they were virtually unnoticeable. She queried if the cameras should be more or less noticeable if they were going to be used. Senator James commented the devices should not be used at all, but if they were used they should be more noticeable so the public would know where they were being used. He understood the reasons behind the use of the cameras and agreed with some of them, but ultimately felt allowing the use of the devices would lead to the use of more intrusive means of preventing illegal acts.

Assemblyman Collins revealed he had been working with law enforcement to slow down traffic in North Las Vegas. They had placed radar trailers and police units near them so both parties could view the detected speed. He thought law enforcement would not be able to monitor the devices on traffic signals as closely even if they were present. He wondered if Senator James would have a problem if the committee amended the bill to add specific uses for the devices. Senator James indicated he would work with the committee to get the bill passed.

Ms. Parnell mentioned she preferred the original bill to the current amended version. She questioned if currently law enforcement was using the devices for the instances listed in the bill. Senator James observed there were no statutory guidelines regarding the usage of the devices, so he did not know how the devices were actually being used. The intent of the Senate amendment was to set clear restrictions on the usage of the devices only when an officer was present.

Ms. Ohrenschall wondered if a person was stopped and the officer informed them the violation was caught on camera, what the chances were of a citation being issued if the individual was able to offer an explanation for running the red light. Senator James suggested the chances would probably be the same as they were currently. He had confidence in the ability of law enforcement to use discretion if there was a valid reason for the violation.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked what would occur if a citation was issued and the individual went to court. Senator James mused it would probably be the same situation.

Assemblyman Claborn stated he did not like the idea of a camera issuing a citation. If the citation was sent to the registered owner of the vehicle it could be sent to the wrong person since it would not distinguish who committed the violation. Senator James responded the registered owner of the vehicle would have to prove they were not operating the vehicle at the time. He had been told the images could be enhanced to show who was driving the vehicle, but the issue became someone was guilty until proven innocent.

Mr. Parks observed Paradise Valley, Arizona installed similar devices approximately 10 years ago. Their revenue had increased mainly because citations were issued to drivers from different communities since they did not know about the devices. Senator James noted many communities in California did the same thing.

Michael Lawson, traffic information systems manager, NDOT, presented the committee with a clarification on the legislative intent behind S.B. 381 (Exhibit G). He mentioned the bill was not intended to prevent the use of cameras by any governmental entity to collect data on traffic management for the purpose of making improvements on Nevada roads. The clarification would allow agencies to continue traffic studies through video surveillance.

Gary Peck, executive director, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU), testified in support of the legislation from Las Vegas. The ACLU was against the use of surveillance cameras in public places. Currently there were cameras in most public buildings used to monitor everything from working to shopping. The use of the devices created a "big brother" atmosphere to which the majority of Nevadans would object. While they had supported the original bill they could support the amended version since it did require an officer present. He mentioned the bill should be further amended to state the images captured could not be used as the sole means of issuing a citation, but only as further evidence a violation had occurred.

Lance Malone, Clark County commissioner, testified as a private citizen from Las Vegas. He mentioned he had worked with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for 5 years. He had seen the destruction caused by people who ran red lights. In the Las Vegas area running red lights was the number one cause of accidents and required more intrusive enforcement methods. The revenue generated from the cameras was from those who violated the law, and running red lights was violating the law. The cameras would help to save lives of Nevadans since it would act as a deterrent for those who ran red lights.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if Mr. Malone agreed with Mr. Peck that the devices should only be used as further evidence a violation had occurred. Mr. Malone explained there were very few traffic officers in Clark County, especially at night. If a fatal accident occurred at least three to four officers were required to respond to conduct the investigation which left fewer officers to patrol the streets searching for people running red lights or speeding. There were no longer one or two vehicles running red lights at intersections, there were usually seven or eight vehicles. The intent should be to change the behavior of the general public so they would not run red lights. The only way to do that was to issue citations whether from a law enforcement officer or a device which captured a vehicle in an illegal act. He felt the citation should be issued to the person driving the vehicle at the time so if the driver could not be identified the ticket should be dismissed.

Ms. Ohrenschall noted current language in the bill required an officer be present if the devices were used so the identity of the driver would be known. Mr. Malone suggested there appeared to be some concern on who would receive the citation so he wanted to clarify the point. He felt there was no excuse for someone who ran a red light even if someone else was following too close since there was the chance they could hit someone who had a green light.

Nile Carson, deputy chief, Reno Police Department, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit H). The department opposed S.B. 381 as currently written. New technology was not something citizens should fear but embrace since it had proven beneficial by reducing accidents and saving lives. While he agreed no government agency should lay in wait to catch unsuspecting citizens, less funding and greater demand required the use of advantageous means to prevent crime. He offered two amendments to the bill which would allow the images to only be used for specific violations and required signs be posted where the cameras were placed to inform citizens of their existence. He presented the committee with the written testimony of Lieutenant Jim Ballard who could not be present for the hearing (Exhibit I). Lt. Ballard’s testimony echoed that of Mr. Carson and included a National Highway Traffic Safety Association survey which examined the effectiveness of 10 enforcement countermeasures to reduce speeding and other forms of unsafe driving. The study indicated 7 of 10 drivers believed photo radar devices would reduce the number of people who sped through intersections and ran red lights and stop signs.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of the legislation since it would create a clear line on how the legislature felt about government watching its citizens. The person committing the violation was not necessarily the person who owned the vehicle, yet they were the guilty party unless they were able to prove their innocence. She felt the devices should not be used at all, but supported their limited use if it meant the legislation would make it through.

R. F. Canter, Nevada resident, testified in opposition to the bill. He felt law enforcement should be allowed the most recent and best technology available to prevent crime. Nevadans were concerned about traffic safety. The bill would tie the hands of law enforcement by not allowing them to do their job to the best of their ability with the best resources available.

Ms. Ohrenschall closed the hearing on S.B. 381 and opened the hearing on S.B. 168.

Senator Michael Schneider, Clark County District 8, testified S.B. 168 would allow state and local agencies to issue bonuses for the completion of road construction projects ahead of schedule. The bill did not eliminate penalties for not completing projects on time, only allowed a bonus system to be implemented for efficient completion. A bonus system was used after the earthquakes in Los Angeles, California and the contractor completed the rebuilding of the highways months ahead of schedule.

Tom Stephens, director, NDOT, stated the department had used an early completion bonus on the Spaghetti Bowl in Las Vegas. The ramp was completed 120 days early and $875,000 was given to the contractor, who in turned shared the profits with everyone who worked on the jobs. NDOT had received some bad publicity for offering the bonus, but felt it was more important to complete the project in a timely manner for those using the ramp than please the media.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired about the fiscal note attached to the legislation. Mr. Stephens explained the department was able to reduce the fiscal note to nothing.

Mr. Claborn asked how the bonus system was determined. Mr. Stephens remarked in regard to the Spaghetti Bowl the department determined a minimum of 33,000 vehicles per day would use the ramp, saving an average of 5 minutes per driver. They then concluded motorists’ time was worth approximately $6 per hour. There were a few other variables involved in the calculation, but that was essentially how the bonus was figured in that case. There would be different bonuses set for different projects with those in urban areas receiving greater bonuses since there were more people affected by the construction.

Mr. Claborn noted the Spaghetti Bowl was only one phase of the entire reconstruction project. He wondered if bonuses were figured into each phase. Mr. Stephens indicated there were four possible bonuses associated with the Spaghetti Bowl project. The first three were connected to bridgework and the final was for the entire project. The contractor completed the first bridge on time thus did not receive a bonus. The second bridge was the example given and the third had not been started at the time of the hearing.

Mrs. Cegavske inquired if the state was going to offer bonuses for early completion, the contracts would be amended to state if there were any further problems the contractor would be required to return to fix the problem. She also wondered from where the money for the bonuses came since there was no longer a fiscal note attached to the bill. Mr. Stephens indicated the department inspected the projects extremely carefully when they neared completion. There was greater public risk associated with highway defects than building defects so the department assured the original job was completed the way it was supposed to be. The money from the bonuses came from fuel taxes and the penalty system currently in place. The department was considering changing the penalty charges to equal those of the daily bonus system. For example, if $10,000 per day was being offered as a bonus then $10,000 per day should be the penalty.

Mrs. Cegavske questioned how the money was taken from fuel tax revenue. Mr. Stephens stated the bonuses were part of the project budget which came out of fuel tax revenue.

Mrs. Cegavske called attention to the fact the bonuses were currently being offered so why was there need for the legislation. Mr. Stephens suggested the department did not want there to be any confusion on the bonus system and why they were offered, so NDOT wanted the intent placed in statute.

Cheryl Blomstrom, director, State Governmental Affairs, Nevada Chapter, The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., testified in support of the legislation.

With no further business before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: