The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. This meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District No. 5

Assemblyman David R. Parks, Clark County Assembly District No. 41

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Nile D. Carson Jr., Lobbyist, Reno Police Department

Robert Crowell, Lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association, proffered support for A.B. 272. Mr. Crowell stated A.B. 272 should establish that any person who violates this law is guilty of a misdemeanor, and would also be subject to fines. He read aloud page 2, lines 7 and 8; "The fine must be reduced to $100 for the first violation if the person obtains a motor vehicle liability policy by the time of sentencing," and indicated that the provision read in the original bill was "the fine may be reduced," and he pointed out that this provision was amended by the Assembly to say "must be reduced to $100." Mr. Crowell raised questions regarding the provisions on page 2, lines 20-22 and iterated that there was an error that needed to be corrected with the amendments and noted; "may impose a fine of not more than $1,000 for a violation … and suspend the balance of the fine," when it was mandated that the first offense is $100 and there would be no balance of a fine on the first offense. He stressed how this language seemed meaningless and suggested that the committee would delete the words on line 22 which says; "balance of the," and insert the words "a portion of," so it would read "a portion of the fine." Mr. Crowell acknowledged that there are a considerable amount of problems with people complying with the Nevada Financial Responsibility Act, and there are a lot of repeat offenders.

Senator Care queried whether the bill should mention that jail time is included. Mr. Crowell stated that the bill drafter had explained it is not needed in the bill because the word misdemeanor does mean jail time, and he iterated he would be happy to research this issue.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 272 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 542.

Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, testified that A.B. 542 is necessary, so that it would be in compliance with the federal mandates within the federal highway reauthorization program or Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which were enacted in June 1998. Mr. Fontaine pointed out that TEA-21 requires that states have to effect certain minimum penalties for persons convicted of a second assessment DUI offense. He iterated in order for Nevada to comply with the TEA-21 requirement, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) need to be amended to include a 1-year hard suspension of the driver’s license for persons convicted of a second or subsequent DUI offense, or impoundment, or immobilization of the individual motor vehicle. Mr. Fontaine outlined the consequences that Nevada and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) would encounter if NDOT does not have these changes made in the beginning of the year 2000, by October 1, 1999. He explained that NDOT would have diverted from the highway capacity program 1.5 percent of NDOT’s federal fund, which would be approximately $2.2 million, and this same figure would be diverted on October 1, 2001. Mr. Fontaine added in subsequence October 1, 2002 and beyond, it would increase to 3 percent which amounts to roughly $4.4 million. He explained that these funds cannot be used for highway construction, capacity improvements or maintenance but would have to be transferred to certain safety programs.

Brian R. Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Transportation and Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General, handed out to the committee two documents: the first document titled, "Federal Repeat DUI Offenders Legislation" (Exhibit C); and the second document titled, "Synopsis of AB 542, 2nd Reprint" (Exhibit D).

Mariah L. Sugden, Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General, Transportation/Public Safety Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, Office of the Attorney General, summarized Exhibit D for the committee.

Mr. Hutchins pursued discussion in general to the committee pertaining to Exhibit D.

Chairman O’Donnell clarified the intent of the bill and stated that it would require a second-offense DUI (driving under the influence) offender to lose his license for a period of 1 year; in addition, the offender would have all of his/her vehicles unregistered and have to turn in all of his/her plates for a period of 30 days.

Ms. Sugden responded that is correct and there are some hardship-exception provisions so that other members in the household would be able to legally drive these vehicles. Chairman O’Donnell inquired what would happen if this person is a truck driver or a delivery person, loses his license for 1 year, and cannot work. Ms. Sugden iterated that this would be a second or subsequent DUI offender. Mr. Hutchins added this would happen to any vehicle which is registered to or owned by this person.

Senator Care acknowledged that Nevada is a community-property state and queried what if a married couple have a vehicle registered in the wife’s name only, but the husband is the repeat offender, "Would the vehicle registration be suspended?" Ms. Sugden testified that under the current law the registered owner is defined by statute and that is who appears on the title registration; so in this scenario, the wife would be able to continue to operate the vehicle and the offender would not.

Mr. Hutchins continued to read aloud the proposed amendments. Ms. Sugden clarified that the federal law had some qualifying language and has been defined appropriately under the current law specifically in NRS 484.3792 subsection 1, paragraph (b), subparagraph (4). This provision gives the court the discretion on the second-offense DUI to have an assessment done. If the offender’s blood alcohol content (BAC) level is at 0.18 percent or higher, then it would be required that the court order the assessment. Ms. Sugden stated that Nevada has met the requirements of the federal law and it is required on a second offense for 10 days and not more than 6 months in the county jail, or residential confinement. Ms. Sugden commented further with respect to a third- or subsequent-offense DUI, the federal mandate requires 10 days incarceration or 60 days community service; and she reiterated that Nevada has met some of the mandates. A third subsequent DUI requires imprisonment in state prison for a minimum of 1 year; not to exceed 6 years.

Chairman O’Donnell questioned who will be responsible for turning in the license plates. Ms. Sugden said it would be up to the offender to turn in the license plates. Mr. Hutchins indicated that this provision is covered in section 2 of Exhibit D.

Senator Washington asked Mr. Hutchins to clarify section 3 on page 2 starting at line 13 (Exhibit D). Mr. Hutchins explained that this section clarifies a second-DUI offender with additional penalties. Senator Washington inquired if another person is caught driving a vehicle with suspended registration if that person would be penalized. Mr. Hutchins noted that the person who had the registration suspended would be responsible. Senator Washington questioned what would happen if the vehicle was stolen.

Ms. Sugden pointed out two additional scenarios under section 3. The current law provides that if an individual whose driver’s license has been suspended, based on a DUI, there would be certain mandatory minimum penalties such as 30 days in jail, with a minimum fine of $100. If this offender then turns around and operates the vehicle for which the vehicle registration have been suspended due to a DUI, this individual could be looking at a second misdemeanor. If this offender knowingly allows someone else to operate this vehicle, then the offender could be looking at another misdemeanor crime. So, if the vehicle was stolen she does not think there would be a penalty or criminal repercussion to this original DUI offender.

Senator Washington had a concern with the language "shall" in page 2, section 3, line 7. He mentioned that the provision does not leave room for plea bargaining, and it stipulates that the court does not have any discretion. The court shall apply either of the subsections following section 3 to the offense. Ms. Sugden stated that she and the bill drafters drafted this bill to show the penalties for the offender who continues to drive the vehicle when the registration has been suspended, to mirror the penalties for the offender who drives on a suspended driver’s license. She clarified this was not required under the federal mandates but is consistent with current statutory provisions.

Chairman O’Donnell confirmed that there are two different crimes; the first one based on the offender driving on a suspended driver’s license for DUI, the second one based on an offender driving a vehicle with suspended DUI registration.

Senator Care pointed to page 2, line 15, "A prosecutor may not dismiss a charge;" and wondered if there have been any discussions with any prosecutors regarding the burden that this would impose, which might increase the number of trials. Ms. Sugden suggested the language could be amended somewhat differently and it still would be in compliance.

Laurel A. Stadler, Lobbyist, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Lyon County Chapter, stated that this bill is another sanction for DUI offenders that MADD believes is appropriate; particularly since the "booting bill" did not pass. Ms. Stadler addressed page 4, lines 27 and 28, which refers to the 1-year hard suspension for the second-time offender. She reminded the committee that during the last legislative session this language was added, the provisions that allowed a lesser hard suspension because of the ignition-interlock system. This was a reluctant compromise in which she was involved with the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and the Clark County District Attorney’s Office; and this compromise was reached because the Clark County District Attorney’s Office was confident that the ignition interlock was an effective sanction, and the OTS at the time thought that this would qualify under the federal sanction. Ms. Stadler said that MADD supports changing to the 1-year hard suspension, since the provision did not qualify under the federal guideline as OTS thought it would. Ms. Stadler pointed out Senator Care’s concern mentioned earlier in the hearing and she does not believe that weak cases can be brought to trial under that particular provision. Ms. Stadler confirmed that these provisions were written into all the DUI statutes so that DUIs cannot get plea bargained and dropped to a lower offense, because they are very serious. The Legislature has deemed them to be very serious and they are standard language in the DUI statutes.

Chairman O’Donnell queried who determines what is accepted and what is not. Mr. Hutchins responded that the court would determine the hardships at the time of sentencing. Chairman O’Donnell commented that there is a loophole in the provision for suspended registration.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 542 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 552.

Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District No. 5, stated that this bill enhances and strengthens Nevada driver’s education requirements. Assemblywoman Cegavske noted A.B. 404 of the Sixty-ninth Session embraced the national trend toward requiring driver’s education with behind-the-wheel experience before anyone under the age of 18 can receive a driver’s license. A.B. 552 makes important and much needed refinements to the existing requirements and will add a few components to the laws to establish a more graduated license system in Nevada. She iterated the graduated license system is endorsed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Assemblywoman Cegavske gave an overview of the first reprint of A.B. 552 to the committee. She urged the committee to support this legislation and announced that there are other representatives present to testify on this bill.

Senator Wiener queried page 1, lines 4 and 5; "A person who is between the ages of 16 and 18 years if:" and page 4, line 28; "person who is under 18 years of age remains in effect until the end .…" She inquired if the intention of this bill would take the age up to 18 years old or 1 day short of 19 years of age.

Senator William R. O’Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, stated that the language on line 4 says, "between the ages of 16 and 18 years," that is if they are of their sixteenth birthday and up to their eighteenth birthday this provision would be applicable. He iterated this is how the current law is written for these provisions, and this is how the bill drafters have written it to apply it to other parts in the statutes.

Senator O’Donnell declared, whether this bill passes or not, he still would restrict his daughter from driving on the roadway exactly the way that this bill has provided because he loves his daughter. She will be restricted from having any passengers in her vehicle for the first 4 months, etc. Senator O’Donnell asserted that this bill does not restrict teenagers from driving, and this is not the Legislature’s intent. What they are doing would be restricting teenagers from being distracted, for at least the first 4 months and he commented the first 4 months are not a lifetime, although it might save a life and a lot of grief for a life-time." He suggested to the committee, if they only knew the statistics which would be presented, shortly after his testimony, by a representative from the AAA Nevada Insurance Company, the committee would not question the bill’s intent.

Senator O’Donnell testified that 87 percent of the people who have been polled on this legislation approved of it. However, most people 15 1/2 years of age do not approve of it. He remarked when these teenagers become parents they would be in support of this bill, as well. Chairman O’Donnell emphasized that there is nothing that can take away the love that a parent has for their children. This bill has been submitted to allow children the opportunity to learn how to drive a vehicle without any distraction, without any outside influence; and they could learn how to drive a vehicle safely for a period of time. As they become proficient in driving a vehicle they could have more and more privileges. He stated that the same regulation under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would apply to this bill, although they are not as technical and not as demonstrative, but they apply. The philosophy still applies; a student will be able to drive their vehicle to and from school at certain times during the day; for the first 4 months they will not be allowed to drive with passengers; and for the first year up to the age of 18 they will not be able to drive after 10:00 p.m., with exceptions of course.

Senator Care questioned why not raise the age for having a driver’s license to 18. Chairman O’Donnell responded if it does not matter the Legislature should let 5 year olds drive. Senator Care asked if the driving age had to be at 16 and why not 18 overall. Chairman O’Donnell restated even if a teenager waited until 18 year old there still would be the same problems.

Assemblywoman Cegavske said that this bill’s intent was based on the provisions that are being used now which pertain to the age range that was set in the original bill. She believed by keeping this intent the bill would allow the children to attend school and church activities.

Senator Care asked for clarification on section 2 of bill. Assemblywoman Cegavske said that parents are allowed to teach their children to drive still, and there are 50 hours that are required. A parent would sign off that the student did the 50 hours when they go in to get the license from DMV&PS.

Assemblywoman Cegavske told the committee that there was a fund set up of $10,000 and currently there is $20,000 in it for anybody that needs money to help them receive the driver’s education course.

Senator Washington inquired if the Legislature was augmenting the responsibility of a parent to consider whether or not their offsprings are ready to operate a motor vehicle and then turning these obligations to the government by instituting certain hours for provisional licenses, and so forth. Chairman O’Donnell stated that there are several laws that are in existence currently. This law is a good law to protect children.

Senator Wiener commented there are two different restrictions on the driver’s license, "Would the police officer refer to issue date, to see if a student can have passengers or not?"

Dana Mathiesen, Program Specialist, Drivers’ License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated that DMV&PS currently puts an issue date on all driver’s licenses, and on the computer record they maintain an original issue date. Ms. Mathiesen expounded that every time someone has a driver’s license transaction the issue date on the license itself changes. It would be the date the address changed and/or the date the name was changed. She iterated that DMV&PS has been looking at the ways they could address this matter. They suggested that a label can be placed on the back on the driver’s license when a provisional license is issued, with a designation of the original issue and the state of the license restrictions, so that the officers would know when these restrictions have expired.

Senator Care pointed out section 4, which says it is a misdemeanor to violate section 3. She queried if a 16 year old or a 17 year old who takes exception to the charges and wants a trial, would this matter would be in a traffic court or juvenile court where the records might be sealed. Chairman O’Donnell responded that this matter will be handled in juvenile court; if a teenager is guilty of a moving violation, it would be a misdemeanor.

Senator Washington pointed out section 2 paragraph (a), and asked Assembly woman Cegavske if these provisions apply for the enrollment of the driver’s education schools. Assemblywoman Cegavske replied that these provisions came from A.B. 404 of the Sixty-ninth Session regarding the driver’s education course. These provisions indicate if a public school does not provide this course, the school would be exempt from the legislative requirement.

Susette Hunt, Concerned Citizen and mother of Jamie Hermon, the driver that accidentally killed Erin Hackman on January 6, 1996 at approximately 10:25 p.m. Ms. Hunt described the events that took place with her daughter Jamie and friends on the day of the accident.

Ms. Hunt testified if A.B. 552 had been enforced at the time of the accident, she believed that most of the children would have called their parents and asked for a ride; and her daughter would not have used her car because she would have enforced this provision. Ms. Hunt also felt she would have been able to meet the parents of her daughter friends. She iterated, "If any parent thinks they know all of their children’s friends, they do not, because it is impossible to know all of their friends." Ms. Hunt made note that she had considered her daughter to be a good driver. On the day of the accident she was persistent in asking to use the vehicle, then she noted, "So, I gave her the keys." She ended her testimony by saying, "Jamie has always taken the responsibility for this accident and she has never admitted that she was not at fault." Ms. Hunt commented further and said those who oppose this bill have never suffered the way the "Hackman family has."

Cecilia Hackman, Concerned Citizen, mother of Erin Hackman who was killed in the accident mentioned earlier, showed a picture of her daughter before the accident and graphic pictures of the accident, and the burial services. She added that she had given a speech and shown the graphic pictures at Carson High School to help the students become aware of safety issues regarding their "prom night." Ms. Hackman strongly indicated that her daughter was a good student and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on the day of the accident.

Ms. Hackman described her daughter’s events the day of the accident. She stated that this is only one isolated incident in Nevada and said that in Nevada there were 51 children, between the ages of 16 and 18, killed in car accidents last year. In the United States it is an epidemic, and 27 states have seen fit to pass this graduated licensing law. Ms. Hackman maintained that more than half of the United States thinks this is a good law. Also, there are five states in the western region that are pending this law, so the figures would be higher if this law is passed. She explained that this is a good law and it is there for saving children. She said her goals are to save children and to help the roads become safer for everyone involved. Ms. Hackman iterated that Canada has had this licensing bill for 4 years. During the 4 years Canada has shown a 55 percent decrease in the amount of deaths for the age range of 16 to 18. Ms. Hackman testified that her daughter had been used as a role model in Carson High School activities.

Kelly Josten, Student, Carson City High School, testified that he appreciated the opportunity of hearing Ms. Hackman’s story regarding her daughter’s death in a car accident, because he felt her story would address some future concerns for the upcoming generation. Mr. Josten spoke in favor of A.B. 552 and wholeheartedly agreed with the amended language.

Richard E. Shrader Jr., Lobbyist, AAA Nevada Insurance Agency, stated for nearly a century the AAA members have been concerned with Nevada’s traffic safety department and advocated for needed laws that would make sense for motorists in order to make roads safer. Mr. Shrader asserted that AAA members are a primary proponent for this legislation because they believe in it. It is sound transportation policy; it is the right thing to do in terms of needed enhancements for teenagers and for all others who share the roads. The nation has been reminded that it is especially tragic when bad things happen to the children. He iterated, likewise, this cannot be ignored across the nation. It is true of Nevada that the number one killer of teenagers is automobile crashes. In Nevada the teenagers represent about 6 percent of the licensed driving population; but yet constitute about 12 percent of drivers involved in fatal collisions, and 13 percent of drivers in injury collisions, which has doubled their numbers. This alone compels Nevada to act. Mr. Shrader explained that teenagers are the state’s greatest resource, and the Legislature needs to do whatever they can to ensure that the teenagers survive and have a future.

Mr. Shrader commented further that A.B. 552 offers an effective way to address the tragedy that was placed before the committee today. He reminded the committee that parents do not issue driver’s licenses, and it has always been the state’s responsibility to determine what the appropriate standards are to make roads safe; that is in issuing driver’s licenses. Mr. Shrader reiterated that AAA has always advocated for parental involvement in the training of young drivers. He concurred that this bill would point out these issues and it encourages parents’ involvement. Mr. Shrader stated that 20 to 30 other states have implemented "the graduated driver’s licensing."

Chairman O’Donnell stated that there have been three times as many people killed on Nevada highways as there were in Colorado’s shooting tragedy. Nevada’s Legislature has been given the signs to prevent such tragedies from occurring on Nevada’s highways.

Senator Care stated that he appreciates the bill’s intention to save lives, but it seems to him that this legislation could have other effects as well. He asked Mr. Shrader if he was familiar with the cause of action called "negligent entrustment." Senator Care said if this bill becomes a law, and the parent would say to the child, 16 years of age with a provisional license: "I know it is against the law, but the grocery store is only a block away, and we need a gallon of milk, take the keys anyway." Then the child takes the keys, and he or she gets into an accident. Senator Care commented this bill would address this issue and this could expand to a "negligent entrustment" case.

Mr. Shrader responded that he had not had this type of discussion. He said that this bill has been promoted by the motoring clubs and the insurance companies have not looked at this issue. But he could say that this has not became an issue in any of the other states which have implemented the "graduated driver’s licensing."

Chairman O’Donnell emphasized that this bill was submitted by Assemblywoman Cegavske and himself. He stressed to Mr. Shrader that this was not a product of AAA, and the Legislature is carrying their water. If anything, stated Chairman O’Donnell, AAA is helping the legislators carry their water.

Mr. Shrader commented, "Absolutely," and he begged pardon if he had said otherwise. In his testimony he intended to say that AAA fully was supportive of this bill’s intention.

Senator Washington asked Mr. Shrader if we should preclude the right of passage from adolescence to adulthood. Mr. Shrader stated that driving is a privilege, not a right. Licensing would have to be looked at in a reasonable way. It would make more sense to license them with this bill’s intention and give them more behind-the-wheel experience to help them survive. Mr. Shrader does not think that this could be looked at strictly as a right of passage, even though in some sense it has become so.

Erin Breen, Concerned Citizen, Chairman, Safe Community Partnership, a community-based coalition comprised of over 40 agencies, programs, and businesses dedicated to lessening the burden of traffic crashes in Clark County. Ms. Breen stated that they have focused their efforts on teen drivers for the last 3 years and they have been involved in many programs for teen drivers. The one thing Safe Community Partnership has learned through their efforts is that most teens need more experience behind the wheel. She commented to the committee that she knows they have been inundated with data to support this case, but wanted to reiterate an important item.

Ms. Breen stated that teen drivers are almost 5 times as likely to be involved in a crash with drivers over the age of 21. The 16-year-old driver is 3 times as likely as the 17-year-old driver to be in a crash. She explained that the stage of licensing gives the teen much needed experience in the lower-risk driving situation. A recent national poll showed Americans, including teenagers, overwhelmingly support graduated licensing. She iterated what good graduating licensing would really do; it would change hundreds of lives in Nevada every year. It would ease many burdens. As an example, she summarized an accident which occurred February 28, 1998, when a group of teenage girls at a high school party, about 10:30 p.m., left to go home. Three were 16 years old, and one was 14 years old. The party was convened because one of the children’s parents was away for a weekend. She added at 10:55 p.m. on U.S. 95 traveling over 90 mph, a rear tire separated from the rim. An experienced driver may have known how to steer into the resulting slide. The 16-year-old inexperienced driver did not. She flipped her car end-over-end and slammed into a retaining wall, crushing her two friends in the back seat. Ms. Breen acknowledged that these two popular students, who attended Eldorado High School, died within minutes of each other, in the early morning hours of March 1, 1998.

Ms. Breen stated that many, many hearts were broken all over the City of Las Vegas. Even though the zero tolerance law had been passed prohibiting those less than 21 years of age from having any measurable alcohol in their system. She stated that the driver was at 0.07 percent and zero tolerance did not save two lives that night, Zero tolerance did not keep another teenager from living day to day with the knowledge that she killed two of her friends. Ms. Breen ended her testimony and said that "graduated licensing" would have saved those two lives.

Elda Gurrero, Concerned Citizen, testified in support of A.B. 552. Ms. Gurrero briefed the committee of her daughter’s accident, including her daughter’s friend, who was driving at the time of the accident, and her history of moving violations. She believed if her daughter’s friend had been restricted in some way, had she been older or an experienced driver, her daughter would be alive today.

Jacob Leslie, Student, Las Vegas Academy, spoke in support of A.B. 552. Mr. Leslie stated that driving is a complex action, because on a daily basis, it is done and it is almost subconscious. He emphasized that this bill does not restrict teenagers from driving to and from school or going to the store. Mr. Leslie commented to Senator Washington, "This is not an attempt by the government to take away the responsibility of the parents or the noneducated children or the future children as to the ways of the world." He iterated that parents are still responsible for teaching their children the proper way to drive. However, what this bill would be proposing would allow the teenager more time to develop their subconscious actions that are used on a daily basis.

Joseph Strother, Student, Las Vegas Academy, stated that there are parts to the bill. The first is education, which would provide 4 months of driving with a license, but without friends. The second being an opportunity to not be distracted and allow the teenager to make proper decisions on their own. Mr. Strother iterated that having a friend in the vehicle is most definitely a distraction and this would not give him any additional experience whatsoever. He stated that there are three elements to a fatal accident; the first, is gross vehicle failure; the second being driver incompetence; and the third, the construction or the lack of maintenance of a road. Mr. Strother asserted that the bill is advantageous.

Senator Jacobsen asked if either of the students testifying from Las Vegas, had taken a driver’s education course. Mr. Leslie and Mr. Strother both said yes. Senator Jacobsen asked, "What did the course consist of?" Mr. Strother responded, "Basic safety regulations, rules of the road, drinking and driving considerations." Mr. Leslie stated they reviewed the buckle-up safety book which is published by DMV&PS. They were shown a video called "red asphalt."

Shanda Badger, Concerned Citizen, stressed support for A.B. 552. Ms. Badger stated that there was a young man named "Kelvin Brockley," who was killed in Minnesota. She had talked to his father and asked what differences they had made after their son’s accident. She iterated that the family had produced 50,000 key chains for teenage drivers, so they would think before they just jump into their vehicle and drive. Ms. Badger quoted from the young man’s father, "When I die and see my son, I hope he would say well-done, Dad!"

Kevin Quinlan, Chief, Safety Recommendations Division, National Transportation

Safety Board, presented a written testimony and read aloud the highpoints (Exhibit E). Mr. Quinlan stated that his department investigates crashes and they do not fund programs, but find the facts. They do not tell states what to do, but ask them to do what works to improve safety. He closed by saying he came to this committee, as a beneficiary of "Maryland’s Graduated Driver Licensing system," and their nighttime driving restrictions. This bill is a parent’s best friend. Mr. Quinlan pointed out, within Exhibit E, are some charts from the National Transportation Safety Board, and reviewed them with the committee. He noted that these are long-lasting facts.

Senator Wiener queried what the difference would be between the "Partial Graduated Driver’s Licensing System (GDL)" and the "Graduated Driver’s Licensing System." Mr. Quinlan explained that a partial GDL system might not have a rapid driver-improvement action.

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Quinlan if there are any other states that he knows which use a trainer to qualify people for a driver’s license. Mr. Quinlan stated that his department does not inventory the states for this issue, but he does know that Illinois and Maryland do use drivers’ simulators. He also knows that there are states that contract out for testing. Mr. Quinlan iterated that there are a lot of items that could be helpful in this process.

Joanne Keller, Highway Safety Coordinator, Traffic Safety Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, reiterated that she had heard all the statistics and all the logical reasons for the graduated drivers license and concurs.

Laurel A. Stadler, Lobbyist, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Lyon County Chapter, testified in support of A.B. 552. Ms. Stadler presented and reviewed a 1996 general facts report titled, "Youth Fatal Crash And Alcohol Facts" (Exhibit F). She asked the committee to support A.B. 552.

Dana Mathiesen, Program Specialist, Drivers’ License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, indicated that DMV&PS does support this legislation and the department had proposed a provisional licensing program in 1993. Ms. Mathiesen stated that the deaths of teenagers have not changed since 1993.

Nile D. Carson Jr., Lobbyist, Reno Police Department, stated support of A.B. 552. Mr. Carson commented that this bill raises minimum practice and the people need to practice what they do.

Jim Farmer, Deputy Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated that the Nevada highway patrol supports this bill.

Knight Allen, Concerned Citizen, testified in opposition of A.B. 552. Mr. Allen stated that after listening to the testimonies he thought they were compelling understatements. He commented that he thinks what the legislators are contemplating, is breaking a contract that has stood as public policy for Nevada for decades and decades and decades. Mr. Allen iterated that the policy has always been to pass the written test first, and then the physical driving test. An individual will receive a driver’s license and with the license comes two things: the first is one a person would get 100 percent of the responsibility of an adult driving an automobile; the other one is 100 percent of the rights and privileges that come with driving an automobile. He noted that A.B. 552 indicates that times have changed, traffic has changed and many other things have changed. Mr. Allen suggested that there is nothing in this bill that reduces a young person’s responsibilities under the law, instead of having a formula for 100 percent responsibility with 100 percent rights and privileges. It is the judgement of the Nevada Legislature to pass this bill, so that the young people would no longer have these provisions, and he thinks this is what this bill is outlining to them. He stated he believes, in this case, the reason "why" should be compelling and probably understandable, and it should be supported just as long as the legislators understand what they are doing. They should not get too wrapped up in the passion of the testimonies. Mr. Allen stated he would like to see some type of commitment to the young people in the future so that this law would not be gradually increased. He commented he does not want to see the Legislature get too carried away with this bill’s intention. Mr. Allen asked the committee to give the young people a break today and a break from the young people who will follow them.

Amy Halley Hill, Lobbyist, Miller Brewing Company, stated that she supports this bill.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 552, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 492.

Assemblyman David E. Humke, Washoe County Assembly District No. 26, stated that he requested this bill for his constituents who operate a couple of private-sector driver-training schools that operate on a commercial basis.

Kenneth S. Kruger, Lobbyist, Nevada Professional Driving School Association, stated that basically this bill was written to professionalize the driving school industry by setting up a licensing board. It was evident that there was no appetite in the Assembly to set up other licensing boards. Mr. Kruger iterated that he had met with DMV&PS and made some changes with the problems in the regulations. He acknowledged that A.B. 492 should ratify the problems with the regulations.

Chairman O’Donnell commented he needs to know what the bill does. Mr. Kruger stated that regulation requires driving schools to have an administrative office in each county in which they teach. He pointed out page 1, lines 6 through 9, and asked that there be one office that would set up the entire state to keep records in one location. The operator of the school would have control.

Mr. Kruger pointed out page 2, lines 1 through 4 and said it requires the person that operates the driving school to be the responsible person for that school and to have experience as an instructor. This person could still hire and train people as instructors, but there should be one person within the school that has the experience. He called attention to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 404 of the Sixty-ninth Session which had stopped any professional driving school from teaching a person under the age of 15. He said that DMV&PS will still authorize to license a person 14 years old for certain reasons, but the driving school is not allowed to teach them. Mr. Kruger believes the reason for this was DMV&PS did not want young people in high school getting a license by going through the driver’s education program and getting a special permit under age, so they could take driver training. He pointed out page 2, lines 15 through 21, changes to where DMV&PS is going to authorize a driver’s license or permit to a person under 15 years of age, and then the driver education school would be authorized to teach them. Mr. Kruger noted that the next provision would be that DMV&PS added an education requirement for all instructors to renew their licensing. He described the provisions to be the same as what a public school teacher would need. Mr. Kruger explained that page 2, lines 27 through 42 and page 3, lines 1 through 4, would line up the requirements, so that they would be equivalent to that of a public school teacher. He concluded that some schools would have to get a assigned-risk insurance depending on where they are. The insurance company would only cover the minimum requirement of the insurance, which has left the driver’s education school with terrible insurance.

Senator Wiener queried the period of the licensure. Mr. Kruger responded that the licensure was 2 years plus the requirements in the regulations for the continuing-education units. What has happened is DMV&PS has expanded the licensure to 5 years and then requires 6 continuing-education units. This is exactly the same as required for a school teacher’s license.

Senator Care asked how long it takes to accumulate a 1000-hours experience as an instructor, and secondly, do instructors have log books as do airplane pilots. Mr. Kruger answered there are payroll records to show the instructors how many hours that they teach. He claimed he does not take a very long time to get the instructors experienced. Mr. Kruger expounded that this would only affect the person that is running the school and does not affect new instructors.

Senator Washington noted the insurance coverage amount had not changed for some time. Mr. Kruger agreed.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 492 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 553.

Assemblyman David R. Parks, Clark County Assembly District No. 41, stated that A.B. 553 is a paperwork reduction and time-saving housekeeping bill. Assemblyman Parks provided and read aloud his written testimony (Exhibit G).

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County; and Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated that they support A.B. 553.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 553 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 627.

Brian R. Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Transportation and Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General, stated that this bill has focused on signs in three different sections in the Nevada Revised Statutes. Mr. Hutchins passed out a written analysis with suggested amendments (Exhibit H), requested by the Nevada Department of Transportation, and a booklet titled "Nevada Logo Sign Program" (Exhibit I). He gave a brief presentation and reviewed the language in section 3, page 3, of the bill. Mr. Hutchins explained that the State of Nevada is limited by federal law and by Nevada’s own regulations to only certain types of signs. He stated with federal highway authority they will start an attraction, "Logo Sign Program," in the urban areas of the larger counties in Nevada. This would allow Nevada to expand on an experimental type basis, so the logos could advertise the attractions in their area. At this time NDOT does not make any money on its "logo sign program" in the rural counties. The department does have a contractor and the department does organize the logo sign program, and does make a little bit of money off the companies who would like to lease these sign locations. What this bill is intended to do, is to allow the NDOT to make some profit and this is why there is a reference to the language in section 2, lines 18 through 22. At this time the law allows the department to affix reasonable fees for providing information to travelers. Mr. Hutchins said that the NDOT will be changing the law to say that it would allow the use of trademarks and symbols on the directional information signs in the larger counties, which would provide information concerning commercial attractions and services.

Chairman O’Donnell asked why this bill is directed at the urban counties and not the rural counties. Mr. Hutchins clarified that there are two specific reasons for this bill. One is that the Assembly wanted to limit the payment just so NDOT could make a profit from the larger counties. They did not want NDOT to charge higher fees and make a profit in rural counties, because they are already putting up their own signs for attractions in various areas.

Chairman O’Donnell asked for more details on A.B. 627.

Ed Wilson, Customer Service Coordinator, Nevada Department of Transportation, stated that this bill’s intent is to allow the department to derive some revenue from a new category of logo signs. At this time the State of Nevada has gas, food, lodging and camping signs all over the state. NDOT is proposing to experiment and this provision has already been approved by the Federal Highway Administration to experiment with this new category titled "attractions." NDOT’s plan is to experiment in Las Vegas at Exits 36 through 41; and not in Reno, yet. Mr. Wilson commented that directional signs are not prohibited by law.

Senator Wiener referred to Exhibit I, and she asked if the company with the highest bid would be selected for this program, or does NDOT rotate this program. This method could be perceived as an unbiased opinion of what people would see, and it would give an unfair advantage to the attraction if that were selected over the others.

Mr. Wilson directed attention to page 3 of Exhibit I, and said there are many attractions. He responded to Senator Wiener that she was absolutely correct and, in this way, this language includes a maximum number of placards and businesses that could appear on one of the panels. There could only be one panel per interchange, so there is a maximum number of six placards per interchange. This is why the proposed amendment reads, "based on a market value." He clarified that the interested party of the attractions would have a sealed-bid deal with the top six bids, with the highest bid getting to choose their panel. This is the only way it can be handled.

Mr. Hutchins stated that the federal highway department has already limited NDOT’s criteria for the "Nevada Logo Sign Program." He pointed out page 2 of Exhibit I and asked the committee to review the criteria for attractions business.

It is required that these services have regional significance and they will also be required to be located within three miles of the specific exit ramp of the highway.

Senator Wiener asked if the criteria were considered when they reviewed Flamingo Road Attraction No. 29, and Spring Mountain Road Attraction No. 28 for the final attractions. Mr. Wilson replied that these are basically casino hotels, and he is not sure what parameters of qualifications they used. But he believes they reflect the larger casino hotel in the area of the particular interchange; there is some overlap. He commented that these are commercial attractions; where the university is a public attraction.

Senator Wiener asked for reclarification of attraction-business criteria for education attractions. Mr. Wilson stated that the intent of the Federal Highway Administration, in setting these regulations, is to define half of the state’s defined attractions as being commercial entities and the other half as providing educational, recreational, cultural, historical, and entertainment type of activities. If it is a university it is already assignable, free of charge.

Mr. Hutchins discussed section 1, lines 6 through 11 of this bill. He said there are specific provisions in this statute that prohibit the collection or accumulation of advertising signs. Mr. Hutchins also reviewed page 2, lines 8 through 40.

Senator Care asked if the state utilized the power of eminent domain. Mr. Hutchins answered "Yes, if the public authority wants the property to build a road for purely public purposes, it could always use its power of eminent domain. In some situations that might be more of a mutual benefit for the public, as well as some of the private entities in the area, where the private entities are more than happy to have what is going to be a public street or roadway. It would not only help in the instant, but also help their own establishments in the area.

Chairman O’Donnell stated that he has seen what the casino industry has done for Las Vegas and he is extremely proud of what has been done along The Strip corridor. He commented that this bill has been a cooperative effort between the Legislature, local governments and the entertainment industry over the years, and he can safely say that City of Las Vegas should be very proud. Chairman O’Donnell stated that whenever these entities could come together and cooperate with the government to produce a better product or a better scenario for the public, he thinks it is in the best interest for the Legislature to approve it.

Mr. Hutchins stated that he would be delighted to work with the Legislative Counsel Bureau to pass the proposed amendments for the "Nevada Logo Sign Program."

Lawrence J. Semenza, Lobbyist, Circus Circus Enterprises Incorporated, stated that it has been pointed out one of the reasons that his company came up with an idea for a frontage road, was to take some of the traffic off of the Las Vegas Strip. In conjunction, which at the time was called the "Hacienda Bridge" project, is almost completed and will be opened in the month of May 1999. That traffic could come from the west side of I-15, from the industrial areas, bringing provisions, as well as supplies, to the various casinos. Mr. Semenza said this would keep the traffic off The Strip. He commented further to the committee that the county and the state endorsed this project. Mr. Semenza iterated that Circus Circus Enterprises Incorporated is waiting for the authorization from the Federal Highway Administration to allow an off-ramp south of Russell Road, and a bridge under Tropicana Avenue and Flamingo Road, which will hopefully be forthcoming when Caesars Palace decides that it is in the public interest, as well as their own interest, to either dedicate the right-of-way or work out some arrangements with Clark County to acquire the right-of-way to build the road. Mr. Semenza proposed an amendment to section 1, subsection 4 to read as follows; To include the public authority after the Department of Transportation, so it will read; "If any such sign is placed in violation of this section, it is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be removed forthwith by the department of transportation, the public authority or its employees." He said that the Assembly Committee on Transportation thought this would be a great idea.

Mr. Hutchins concurred with Mr. Semenza’s testimony.

Alfredo Alonzo, Lobbyist, AMB/BTS, LLC, stated that Mr. Hutchins represented A.B. 627 at great lengths. He believed that this is a good private-public partnership and also agreed with the bill.

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, supported the changes made to A.B. 627.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 627 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 628.

Bryan Gresh, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, emphasized to the committee that the Regional Transportation Commission is not the primary sponsor of this legislation before the committee. Mr. Gresh stated his group has worked closely with the primary supporters. He presented and read aloud a written testimony (Exhibit J) regarding A.B. 628.

Zev E. Kaplan, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County (RTC), stated that the language of A.B. 628 was developed in cooperation with the Opportunity Village in southern Nevada. Mr. Kaplan said that they approached the RTC to seek ways to enhance the service they provide to them and their constituency, which is the disabled community. He iterated that the RTC provides transportation to the disabled community in response to the mandated market disability act. This legislation, in working with Opportunity Village, would enable the RTCs to provide this para-transit service in such a fashion to community training centers, as nonemergency medical transportation. Thereby helping to qualify that transportation of those persons for Medicaid reimbursement, which would help alleviate some of the cost burdens currently out of the existing revenue sources for RTC. That assumes, of course, if there is sufficient funds in Medicaid and they deem it to be eligible. He claimed that section 1 and section 4 have some technical clarifications because, pursuant to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the RTCs and counties who provide transportation services have to provide the para-transit service that is mandated by federal law. This clarifies if the service is contracted out, it would no longer be regulated by the Transportation Services Authority (TSA). Mr. Kaplan iterated that the TSA had not been regulating it and is not assertive of this jurisdiction. He said this bill merely clears up the language in the statute which provides for this to happen.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 628 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 677.

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, The Hertz Corporation, stated that this bill was proposed by the rent-a-car industry. Mr. Ostrovsky said that individuals have gone to a rent-a-car company to rent a high-end vehicle, a Cadillac, or a Lincoln Town Car. They would use this vehicle as a taxi or limousine service. They would take this vehicle to the airport, or take it to the convention center, or to a hotel and act as a taxicab or limousine service. These individuals would collect fares from passengers by transporting them around the city. He iterated that this is a violation of the law. If the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) catches up with these individuals they could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor and a fine, but the vehicle owner is also punished in this scenario. The registered owner of the vehicle must put up a $20,000 bond prior to the hearing, and becomes subject to fines, which could run as high as $5,000 for the first offense and $10,000 for other offenses. In some instances the rent-a-car company has been fined by the TSA, and had to pay additional fines in order to get their vehicles returned.

Mr. Ostrovsky stated that The Hertz Corporation has worked with the TSA. He commented further this is why there is agreement with the amended language shown here today. What this language would do is basically, if this is a leased vehicle from a short-term lessor, it could be returned after it has been impounded; or be returned to the leasing company, as long as the leasing company can provide a copy of the contract and sign an affidavit that they did not know this vehicle was going to be used illegally. He stated that all The Hertz Corporation’s contracts provide language which says that the vehicle cannot be subcontracted or that the vehicle cannot be used to transport paying passengers; but the fact of the matter is this happens. The reason why the TSA asked The Hertz Corporation to sign an affidavit is the TSA expects some rent-a-car companies, in some locations may, in fact, have knowledge of how a vehicle would be used. Mr. Ostrovsky noted that these companies need to be punished, penalized or fined. He explained that this bill would remedy these situations. Mr. Ostrovsky urged the committee to pass A.B. 677 in all fairness, and felt that The Hertz Corporation has paid out a considerable sum of money to get their vehicles returned.

Senator Wiener asked Mr. Ostrovsky, "How could the rent-a-car companies determine if a short-term lessor is an abuser?" Mr. Ostrovsky stated that the TSA believes there may be individuals that go to a rent-a-car company on a continual basis, or every weekend. They have become suspicious individuals, due to the vehicle mileage and/or condition of the vehicle. He said this has been a continuing problem for the rent-a-car companies and he would like to get these individuals off the street.

Senator Care stated he had gathered there have been cases where the lessor did know or they had some suspicion that the lessor knew, and these were not reputable organizations. He queried page 2, line 15, and said just the strength of a simple affidavit bothers him.

Chairman O’Donnell reviewed aloud page 2, lines 10 and 11, and paragraph (b) in A.B. 677. He stated this bill has been a hassle to the rent-a-car companies as they had their vehicles towed.

Mr. Ostrovsky pointed out that under "the innocent owner concept," unfortunately, there are times when the driver of a rent-a-car company vehicle has been arrested for drunk driving, for example. He acknowledged that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has been good in Clark County, when they realize the vehicles are registered to a rent-a-car company, they immediately contact the rent-a-car companies and allow them to come pick up the vehicle before it is towed.

Senator Care queried under the current system how long it takes to get a hearing. He stated that the purpose of the affidavit is to shortcut the hearing, and/or the affidavit can be submitted to substitute for the hearing. Mr. Ostrovsky clarified that the TSA hearing department tries to hear a case within 3 to 5 days. He claimed that the hearing was not the big issue, because before there is a hearing the bond needs to be posted. Mr. Ostrovsky confirmed that this is a criminal offense, is considered a misdemeanor ticket, and the person could or could not go to jail at the time of the citation.

Chairman O’Donnell stated that he personally thinks that A.B. 677 language would put the rent-a-car companies in an awkward position. Mr. Ostrovsky suggested that page 2, line 15, paragraph (b) should be deleted from the bill.

Senator Care stated he would like to find a way to not punish the owner. Mr. Ostrovsky responded that the TSA and The Hertz Corporation should meet during the interim to develop a solution to this problem. Senator Care suggested if the affidavit language stays in the bill, then there needs to be some additional language stipulating; "If the affidavit is false, then these are the penalties," and forget about pursuing criminal charges. Mr. Ostrovsky said he would be happy to work with TSA to propose some amendments. Chairman O’Donnell suggested that the committee delete paragraph (b).

Senator Care stated if paragraph (b) is deleted then this would be okay, but what it would do is leave the bill so that the lease itself would be prima facie evidence that the vehicle was in the sole control and custody of the lessee; it still does not settle the issue of liability.

Senator Wiener asked if there is language in the agreement that would somehow address that the vehicle cannot be used for commercial purposes. Mr. Ostrovsky explained that every lease they have reviewed from the Las Vegas company, as well as northern Nevada, have limitations on the use of the vehicles for hire, and subletting to an other driver; they all restrict that. Senator Wiener stated that the care and custody of the control itself does not affect in any way, that they may be using the vehicle as a limousine, if they are the ones doing this. The for-hire part would address this issue and this would be a statement that they have agreed to in the contract. In addition, this could be a breach of contract. Mr. Ostrovsky agreed.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on A.B.677.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Joan Moseid,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

DATE: