MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Commerce and Labor

 

Seventy-First Session

April 4, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 10:38 a.m. on Wednesday, April 4, 2001.  Chairman David Humke presided in Room 3161 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.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     David Humke, Chairman

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr.                     John Oceguera

 

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Vonne Chowning, Assemblywoman, District No. 28

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst

Dawn Lee, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner, Department of Business and Industry, Consumer Affairs Division

Wayne Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.

Lisa Foster, Legislative Advocate and Public Affairs Representative, American Automobile Association, Nevada.

 

 

Chairman Humke called the meeting to order.  Noting all members of the subcommittee were present, he dispensed with the roll call and opened the hearing on A.B. 245.

 

 

Assembly Bill 245:  Makes various changes relating to advertising and charges by tour operators and tour brokers. (BDR 52-1021)

 

Chairman Humke recognized Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, District 28, Clark County, Las Vegas.  Ms. Chowning stated there had been a proposal during the hearing before the full committee to require the tour brokers and operators to post a bond of $10,000.  The bond would provide for consumer relief.  She then provided the committee with Exhibit C, the proposed language for the bond requirement.

 

Ms. Chowning commented the businesses that would be required to post the bond had no objection with compliance.  They appreciated the fact that it would be at the state level.  If they had both a county license and a city license, they would not be required to post a bond at both levels.

 

Ms. Chowning testified the businesses that wanted the regulation also wanted to have every form of consumer relief possible.  The businesses were very angry at what was happening to consumers being “taken” for funds and time via a “bait and switch” operation.  Customers were usually from out of state and were taken by bus to an airline hangar.  If they changed their minds because of the “switch,” transportation back to their hotel might not be available for many hours.  The businesses were in agreement with the language in Exhibit C.

 

Ms. Chowning asked the subcommittee to recall, during the hearing before the full committee, there was a question of how to deal with the smaller businesses.  A small business might only charge four dollars for a mine tour and might only have 200 customers a year.  A $10,000 bond would be an additional expense that could be difficult for them to meet.

 

Ms. Chowning continued with the information that several solutions were considered in response to this concern.  If the requirement was to be based on a dollar amount per tour in the statute, then the dollar amount tended to become irrelevant as time passed.  If the requirement was limited to airline tours, it would allow other tour operators to not be held to the same standard of proper consumer advertising.  The final agreement was to require bonding for tour brokers and operators who conducted tours that originated in a county with a population of 300,000 or more.  The latest census figures showed Washoe County with a population of 339,486, which was the deciding factor in establishing the baseline of 300,000.  It would include the two largest counties, Clark County and Washoe County.

 

Mr. Dini commented the new language applied to tour operators or tour brokers where the tour originated in the county.  His concern was, for example, many of the tours that went to Virginia City originated in Washoe County.

 

Ms. Chowning explained the reasoning behind the crafting of that language and stated it could be changed.  The reason the industry decided the language “originate in a county” was the best way to handle it was to keep a business from moving their base of operation to a different county and to avoid the bonding requirement.

 

Chairman Humke recognized Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner, Department of Business and Industry, Consumer Affairs Division.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning offered a proposal, provided that all present could agree.  The problem A.B. 245 was supposed to correct was primarily in Clark County.  Her concern was that with a population approaching 400,000 in Washoe County, there was potential for a similar problem.  She wanted to avoid further amendment of the bill should that occur.  However, the legislation was important enough to limit it to Clark County for now if necessary.  If a problem was noticed in Washoe County, it could be dealt with during the next session.

 

Chairman Humke commented there was legislation under consideration that would change the population cutoffs in statute.  The effect of the bill would make population changes automatic.  For instance, a change from 400,000 to 300,000 would be automatic if the bill passed.  This would include Washoe County automatically at the end of session.  He was not sure that addressed Mr. Dini’s concern.

 

Chairman Humke recognized Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.

 

Mr. Capurro thought the proposed language in the amendment solved the concerns of the Consumer Affairs Division and was supported by the tour operators who were present at the initial hearing.  The point with regard to the population center was a tour that originated out of Reno would be with a company that was not small.  While some smaller attractions would be on their agenda, the companies that were originating the tours were not small companies.  If there was a problem, then going with 400,000 and confining the scope to Clark County would be fine.  He also stated the bill was extremely important to protect consumers as the actions of a few were giving a “black eye” to the city and the reputable operators.  His organization would support whatever had to be done with regard to the bond.

 

Mr. Oceguera inquired of Mr. Capurro regarding his concern about the possibility of small businesses for which the bond would be prohibitive.

 

Mr. Capurro stated the problem was there was so much competition that companies tried to find a loophole they could operate under.  That level of competition did not exist in small counties or in Washoe County at the time.  He did not know of any business where the tour operators would have a concern with regard to a $10,000 bond.  If there was a problem, he would like to work it out as he felt the bill was extremely important.

 

Ms. Chowning noted that a $10,000 bond would cost the business $1,000.  If the bond was never drawn down, that cost would never have to be paid again.  The bond would not be drawn down if the company conducted its business fairly and had no complaints that were acted upon by the Division of Consumer Affairs.  The people who brought the bill forward were businesses.  The smallest businesses estimated their yearly gross at $80,000, and they were more than happy to have to abide by the bond.  She believed there was also language that provided the option of purchasing the bond or having a cash deposit or CD.  That language would usually be written in and she presumed it would be included here.  She did not think it was something that was out of line to require for tour brokers or tour operators.  She had not yet heard from anyone who opposed the bond provision.

 

Ms. Chowning moved on to the second proposed amendment, Exhibit D.  The second amendment dealt with additions brought forward by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority.  She had reviewed it with Vance Hughey of the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Research Division.  It was based on an existing statute regarding other businesses that counties were able to regulate.  The counties and cities wanted to be able to have the ability to regulate in statute.  It would exclude the bonding portion so a business with a city or county license and a state license would not have to post more than one bond.  The language would need to include the statement “to the extent authorized by federal law,” due to the deregulation of the buses that occurred a few years ago.  There was an ongoing school of thought that no one could regulate bussing enterprises because of the deregulation.

 

Chairman Humke asked about the language that was stricken with regard to Exhibit D.  It set out with specificity what the bond could be used for.  In comparing it with Exhibit C, he wondered if it was the intent of the Consumer Affairs Division to describe in regulations how the bond would be drawn.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning replied in the affirmative.  The way it was set up for other businesses they regulated, registered and bonded; the bond was held exclusively for the restitution of aggrieved consumers.  A complaint would be filed and, if it were found to be justified, a hearing would be scheduled.  At the time of the hearing determination, any disbursement would be made from the bond and the bond would have to be brought back to the required level immediately.

 

Chairman Humke inquired if there were other current regulations that could be pointed to, saying the regulations required by A.B. 245 would be similar.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning stated there were several examples that could be used.  Her agency regulated weight loss clinics, telemarketers, telefunders, health clubs, karate clubs, dance studios, etc. 

 

Chairman Humke clarified his inquiry and asked for Ms. Jarman-Manning to go on the record and state what the general parameters would be.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning responded that the regulations were based on the law that was passed.  While there were some parameters set in place and they could draw upon those for similar language, they would need to wait and see what restrictions the statute provided before the regulations could be made.  She inquired of Chairman Humke if he wanted something he could look at.

 

Chairman Humke said he thought she might have something that was similar.  What was the most similar from the list of regulated activities that she described?  It probably would not be karate, but perhaps health clubs?

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning replied that health clubs would be the largest regulated business, after telemarketers, with regard to bonds and could be looked at.  However, credit organizations also had to have a bond in place for aggrieved consumers and they could also be looked at for similar verbiage.

 

Chairman Humke mentioned the most prominent thing, in his opinion, was the limit per complaint that could be drawn upon the bond.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning stated the bond was drawn upon on a per-complaint basis, not collectively.

 

Chairman Humke speculated there would not be a $10,000 judgment for one complainant that would draw the entire bond.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning agreed that had not happened in her experience.  She went on to mention there had been one telemarketing complaint that ended in a judgment of $150,000, which exceeded the bond.  It was not anticipated that would be the case with tours, based on the amount of money that was being spent.  The amount spent on a tour could be looked at and one could say that, generally speaking, the amount would rarely exceed $500.

 

Mr. Capurro stated his concern was not with a bond issue, but he did have a concern with the second amendment because the federal government preempted state regulation of charter bus services.  The regulation of special services and sightseeing was left with the state Transportation Services Authority (TSA).  They were the sole approving authority for a company to become a sightseeing bus company or a special services bus company.  It seemed to him that the second amendment set out in Exhibit D conflicted with that because it basically said the cities and counties could determine who went into business.  At the least, the language needed to be reworked.  The businesses still had to obtain a business license to operate within the county and that was already in the statutes and ordinances.  He felt Exhibit D was an unnecessary addition because a company that was trying to become a sightseeing or special service per capita bus operator had already gone through the investigatory process and received approval from the TSA.

 

Chairman Humke asked if that was similar to a certificate of conveyance.  Mr. Capurro stated that was exactly what it was.

 

Chairman Humke thought they could not ignore the state agency and give the authority to the county exclusively.  Mr. Capurro agreed and pointed out the authority was still with the state.  The only specific preemption in the federal law was for charter bus service, which was not per capita as sightseeing scenic tours and special services were.

 

Chairman Humke questioned Ms. Chowning as to whether she had a problem with causing the amendment to comport with what Mr. Capurro had testified to.

 

Ms. Chowning had no problem with that but she was concerned with the “exclusive” language.  Mr. Hughey had pointed out in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 244.335, which was the same section that stated the county license boards “have the exclusive power in their respective counties.”  This dealt with dance halls, gambling games or devices, etc., that were outside an incorporated city.  That was where the language came from.  The Las Vegas Convention Visitors Authority had a tremendous number of complaints from consumers regarding the tour operators and tour brokers.  They were very anxious to get some regulation as they had no regulation authority and were receiving the majority of complaints.

 

Ms. Chowning further stated her wish to deal with the problem, get the bond, and get the advertising corrected.  If the language caused a problem, then it could be changed.  Her intent was to try to correct as much of the problem at this time, rather than to repeatedly come back to the Legislature.  If the language could be changed to address Mr. Humke’s concern regarding the bonding, which was a good suggestion, she would be agreeable to that.  She also did not have a problem with changing whatever was necessary to comport with the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) or whatever was necessary so that the cities and counties could delve into the regulation process, if possible, and tighten up on the businesses.

 

Chairman Humke thought the TSA language would carry more authority if it was authorized in statute that those offering sightseeing services were subject to TSA regulation.  He felt that would allow the TSA to enforce licensing for those companies.

 

Mr. Capurro agreed with Chairman Humke that existing carriers with Certificate of Public Conveyance (CPC) authority would have to regulate their licensees.  They could investigate independently, bring them in for a hearing, and suspend or revoke their CPC.  They could also find carriers who operated without CPC authority and force them into a regulatory process to become licensed or prevent them from operating.  He felt it strengthened their position as well.  Anything that would lessen that authority would probably result in uneven regulation and enforcement.  He preferred to leave it to the TSA who currently regulated tour bus and special services operations.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning added her division had the power to order a business to “cease and desist.”  Her division frequently found businesses that operated without business licenses in the city or county and those businesses were immediately contacted.  Often subpoenas were issued, hearings were held, and the businesses were fined.  Her division worked very closely with the city and county.  Often, the city or county would not grant a license if they were aware the business had to go through the Consumer Affairs Division for registration and bonding.  There was a “check and balance” procedure already in place.

 

Mr. Capurro was equally certain that the Consumer Affairs Division would notify the TSA on operations that were governed by some other statute where there was a licensing requirement from the state.  That seemed to him to be a very strong alliance with all the agencies involved.  Any violation would result in a criminal penalty of misdemeanor.  There would also be administrative penalties over and above the bonding that would assist in ensuring compliance.

 

Mr. Humke summarized his understanding of Mr. Capurro’s position as preferring regulation by the two state agencies (the TSA and the Consumer Affairs Division).  Mr. Capurro would not favor at this time specifically setting out the county regulation.

 

Mr. Capurro concurred.  He did not feel tour bus operations fell in the same category with some of the operations that had been discussed.  He did feel there was a regulatory scheme in place at the state level that would solve the problem; therefore, he had some concerns over the second amendment, (Exhibit D).  Again, it did not change the city or county licensing authority.

 

Mr. Humke agreed with the concern over the language “exclusive power,” and he understood why the Las Vegas Convention Visitors Authority had done it.  However, if the federal government made a grant of authority to the TSA, then he felt it was better left there.

 

Ms. Chowning inquired if anyone would be missed that would not be regulated by the TSA, and therefore A.B. 245 would not allow for the regulation of those businesses.

 

Chairman Humke supposed there could be a situation where a tour started in Las Vegas and ended in the Grand Canyon.  Some enterprising company could tell their customers to meet them at the Grand Canyon.  It could happen, though he felt it was an unlikely example.

 

Mr. Capurro stated the federal government’s preemption dealt solely with the regulation of charter bus operations.  The person who initiated the charter was the one who controlled that bus.  That would not happen.  The type of things that were per capita in nature were covered under the TSA.  They must have authority issued from the TSA to get into that type of business and their rates must be regulated.  He did not feel that would be a point of concern; airlines were not regulated, but the buses were on an intrastate basis.

 

Chairman Humke mentioned the recent activity in Nevada to rework the Transportation Services Authority (TSA).  He and his fellow legislators felt they were up to the challenge of performing the regulation.  He then called for further questions from the committee.

 

Ms. Chowning summed up the discussion to that point.  The second proposed amendment (Exhibit D) would be deleted, and the first proposed amendment (Exhibit C) could continue forward.  The bond issue was the strongest point, in addition to a really good piece of legislation that was already before the committee.  She would be grateful if the committee would consider and support it.

 

Chairman Humke called for other questions of the subcommittee or additional testimony.  Seeing none, he queried the committee for a motion of recommendation.

 

Mr. Dini asked if the population base on the bond would be 400,000 or 300,000.

 

Mr. Humke felt it was up to the pleasure of the committee.  He did not think there had been a lot of testimony that Washoe County had offenders.  He thought Ms. Chowning was suggesting that it should be the largest county of state.  He also thought the suggestion was to leave that to the population cutoff bill, whatever the new number was.  He had forgotten, but he thought it might be 500,000.  Would the committee like to handle the proposed amendment separately?

 

Mr. Dini moved to recommend to the full committee that the proposed amendment be changed to reflect a population cutoff of 500,000.

 

Mr. Oceguera seconded THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Humke requested clarification on the wording of the proposed amendment and recognized Mr. Vance Hughey, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Division.

 

Mr. Hughey stated the bill drafters would have to work the language out.  He just wanted make sure he understood what was being proposed.  The first part of Exhibit C stated a bond would be required of any tour broker or operator in the state, but the second part limited it only to those tour brokers or tour operators that conducted tours originating in a county of 500,000 or more.  In effect, it was not going to apply to any county except Clark County.  He asked if his understanding was correct on that point.

 

Ms. Chowning concurred with Mr. Hughey.

 

Mr. Hughey had a question as to whether or not tour brokers conducted tours, since the bond would apply to tour brokers and tour operators that conducted tours.  When he had looked at A.B. 245, the definition of a tour broker meant a person who advertised a tour for a tour operator and collected money from customers for the tour.  It did not sound like they actually conducted the tour.  He wanted to make sure tour brokers were not actually conducting tours in the county.  If the population figure only applied to the tour operators, who were the ones actually conducting the tours, was the language saying businesses in the other counties who were just tour brokers would still have to provide the bond?  He did not think that was the intent, but he wanted to make sure the language was not interpreted in that manner.  Tour brokers in a county of 500,000 would be required to post the bond.  Tour operators who conducted tours originating in the county would also have to post the bond.  None of the other tour brokers or operators elsewhere in the state would have to provide the bond.  He asked Ms. Chowning if that was the intent.

 

Ms. Chowning replied that any tour broker or tour operator should be required to post the bond.  The tour broker was also doing advertising for the tours.  This was what the industry was telling her.

 

Chairman Humke understood there was a desire to regulate the tour brokers who were engaging in possibly deceptive advertising.  He speculated tour brokers might not be regulated by the TSA or other transportation services.

 

Mr. Capurro mentioned in most cases, the tour broker and the tour operator were two different parties.  They could, however, be the same party.  He suggested changing the wording “The bond requirement shall apply to tour brokers and tour operators” to “tour brokers or tour operators.”  If they were one and the same, the business would only file one bond.

 

Mr. Hughey thought Mr. Capurro’s suggestion might have clarified one concern.  The other concern was the bond requirement would apply to tour brokers, but only those tour brokers physically located within a county of 500,000 or more population.  He inquired whether or not the entire amendment was to only apply to tour brokers or tour operators who operated out of a county with a population of 500,000 or more.  He wanted to make sure it was clear the bond requirement would not be applied to any tour broker who operated out of Washoe County or Storey County.  If that was the intent, the wording could be worked out accordingly.

 

Ms. Chowning stressed the point had to be made clearly that the bond applied to the tour broker or tour operator conducting tours that originated in a county with a population of 500,000 or more.  She wanted to deter businesses from trying to skirt the law by moving their place of business to a smaller area to avoid the bond requirement.

 

Mr. Hughey provided an example of a tour broker who operated out of Washoe County.  The broker was advertising for a tour that originated in Clark County.  In that specific situation, the tour broker would be subject to the bond requirement.  Ms. Chowning agreed with the example cited by Mr. Hughey.

 

Mr. Hughey further wanted to clarify whether the motion would include a statement that the Division of Consumer Affairs would be required to put a per‑claimant limit on the amount that could be drawn on the bond in their regulations.  Also, he wanted to clarify whether the amendment should include wording that would allow for the substitution of a letter of credit or a cash deposit for the bond.  The way it was worded at the time would not permit those options.

 

Chairman Humke felt there was probably language in statute that could be found to deal with the substitution.  He thought the bill drafter should be granted broad authority to find the various means of handling the requirement.  He recognized Ms. Jarman-Manning with regard to the concern of a limit per claim.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning provided an example for clarification.  A husband and wife collectively paid $1,000 to go on a tour.  If they were aggrieved and had been violated, they should have the ability to recoup the $1,000.  She asked if there was any disagreement with the example.

 

Chairman Humke stated it sounded like it would be two claims and did not have any disagreement with the example as stated.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning agreed that, in the example she gave, it would be two separate claims, regardless of whether or not the tour for the couple had been paid for with the same check.

 

Ms. Chowning testified the maximum amount she had been told of that a consumer had lost was $1,500.  The tours were booked on a per person basis.  However, if it was a two or three day tour that included a lot of items, the tour price could run up to about $1,500.

 

Chairman Humke reminded Ms. Chowning that under A.B. 245, which had yet to actually be amended, it talked about 24 hours duration in the definition of tour operator.

 

Ms. Chowning apologized and revised her previous remark.  She had not meant three days.  She meant to say three different elements of the tour.  For instance, a person would get to fly over the Grand Canyon.  Then the person would get to land and walk around and then they would get to do something else.  The tours were either simple or involved, which accounted for the difference in prices.  The $1,500 was the maximum that someone had been taken advantage for.  Mostly, she thought the damages to consumers averaged around $300.  She agreed there might be some language required in the bill that would establish a per claim limit.

 

Chairman Humke stated they were dealing with two issues.  On one hand, did a bond of $10,000 really protect the public if the tours did run to such a high cost?  How fast could the bond or financial responsibility be replenished?

 

Mr. Dini thought the bond should replenish itself on an ongoing basis.  If there was a busload of 40 people at $300 per person, then the amount to be repaid under the bond would be $12,000.  In such a case, the $10,000 bond would not be sufficient unless it replenished itself.  It seemed to him that it needed to be a floating or ongoing bond.  If there were 50 of the trips he had speculated about earlier, then $10,000 would not give the consumers much protection.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning testified as to what had been the experience in the past.  Once a bond was imposed and regulations were imposed, the businesses really made an attempt to clean up their act.  There would be public education.  The businesses knew they would be held accountable.  They also knew that, if the bond was not kept in force, they would be liable to a “cease and desist.”  Generally speaking, it pulled the businesses into line.  What she hoped to do was go out and speak to the businesses collectively.  Her agency would answer questions from the businesses at that time, letting them know what their responsibilities were as well as putting the regulations in writing for them.  This education method usually helped curb the problem.  Also, when the Consumer Affairs Division received a complaint, they viewed all aspects of the complaint.  The person may have gone on a tour and might complain they did not like the way it was conducted.  A violation would still need to be found.  While there might be a portion of the law applicable to the consumer’s complaint, it did not necessarily mean they would receive all of their money back.

 

Mr. Dini inquired of Ms. Jarman-Manning whether her division’s regulations would establish the controls and their ability to make determinations.

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning stated that was the case.  There had to actually be a violation of the law in order for a consumer to get any kind of restitution; a consumer could not just walk in and say they did not like the way the Grand Canyon looked, so they should get their money back.

 

Mr. Dini reiterated the intent was to get a handle on the type of violation that was occurring.  He did not think they were after the smaller businesses. 

 

Ms. Jarman-Manning testified that, if it was found to be an overwhelming problem once regulation started, then there were some avenues to turn to.  She would go back to the Interim Finance Committee.  In such an instance, there would probably be committees formed within the Consumer Affairs Division to look at the problem in depth and try to correct it in regulations.  She would also, in such a case, return in the next legislative session and say it was not working and why.  There had to be some parameters established first, however.

 

Chairman Humke stated the subcommittee had made a record of their concern for replenishment of the bond and whether or not $10,000 was adequate.  The subcommittee had also made a record of their concern with regard to the dollar amount per complaint to be drawn upon the bond.  He then called for any further discussion on the proposed amendment (Exhibit C).

 

Mr. Dini mentioned his concern regarding the word “originate.”  Perhaps it would be better to say “tour conductors that were in a county.”  He asked Mr. Capurro whether the word “originate” was the correct word to utilize in this situation.

 

Mr. Capurro affirmed “originate” was the correct word to use as the problem was with tours that were originating in Clark County.  If there was a better word, he had no objection to it.  He understood what Mr. Dini was alluding to.  If there was an out-of-state tour broker, the question became one of whether the tour originated in Clark County or with the tour operator.  That type of situation might be something that should be discussed with the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the bill drafter to see if there was a better term.

 

Chairman Humke commented that was a good point.  He had thought “originate” was adequate pertaining to the tour brokers.  The procuring cause in their case would be the advertisement, which he assumed would take place in Clark County.  The advertisement might take place in Phoenix or Los Angeles; it would be difficult to regulate in those areas.

 

Ms. Chowning mentioned groups like the American Automobile Association (AAA) conducted tours all over the United States.  Without the proposed language, A.B. 245 could inadvertently end up covering a lot of businesses that it was not intended to regulate.  The intent was to only regulate people who operated tours originating in, or leaving from and returning to, the county.  Otherwise, bonding would be required of any tour operator located in the state of Nevada.  The American Automobile Association was located in the state of Nevada, but they conducted tours to Disneyland.  The intent was not to regulate them, but only those who conducted tours that originated in Clark County and returned to Clark County or elsewhere.  The bill drafters could word it accordingly, but that was the reasoning behind the proposed language of the amendment.

 

Chairman Humke recognized Lisa Foster, Legislative Advocate and Public Affairs Representative for the American Automobile Association.

 

Ms. Foster agreed the way it was written, under the definition of tour broker, all travel agencies would fall under the regulation and be covered.  There was a bit of confusion as to how to ensure the advertising was compliant.  Her organization thought A.B. 245 was good consumer protection.

 

Chairman Humke called for any further discussion regarding the motion before the committee.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Humke asked the committee if they wished to mandate regulation of sightseeing by the Transportation Services Authority.

 

Mr. Capurro commented that he did not feel the mandate to be necessary as intrastate sightseeing and special services operations were already regulated.

 

MR. OCEGUERA MOVED THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMITTEE A.B. 245 BE AMENDED AND DO PASS AS AMENDED.

 

MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Humke called for other business before the subcommittee.  There being none, he adjourned the meeting at 11:34 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Dawn Lee

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman David Humke, Chairman

 

 

DATE: