ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

Seventy-First Session

May 31, 2001

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2001. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A was the Agenda. Exhibit B was 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 Chairman

Mr. John Carpenter

Ms. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. John Oceguera

Ms. Debbie Smith

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Lee - Excused

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst

N. Jolene Jones Miley, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority (TSA)

Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association (NMTA)

Rey Vinole, Owner, High Roller Transportation Bus Company

Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, Representing Nevada Resort Association, MGM Hotel Casino and Mirage Hotel and Casino

Clark Neily, Staff Counsel, Institute of Justice

Edward Wheeler, President, Omni Limousine, Inc.

Brock Lewis, Broker, Vegaslimo.com

Michael Sullivan, Lobbyist, Representing, Nevada Limousine Coalition

John Vergiels, Lobbyist, Representing Numerous Clients

Mrs. Chowning called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m and opened the hearing on S.B. 576.

Senate Bill 576: Makes various changes to provisions governing fully regulated carriers. (BDR 58-1557)

Mrs. Chowning explained that there had been another bill similar to S.B. 576, that being S.B. 270. She said S.B. 270 did not make it to the committee, as there was a lengthy amendment to S.B. 270 and a subcommittee had a hearing on it. The Legal Division determined that the amendment was not germane to S.B. 119. Consequently the bill did not move forward. She said S.B. 576 had been drafted because the Senate was allowed a waiver. It was heard in the Senate Committee on Transportation and passed out of the Senate as a whole.

Mr. Lee excused himself from the hearing since the Transportation Services Authority regulated his company.

Mr. Nolan disclosed that he was employed by the American Transportation Corporation, which operated municipal buses in Clark County and Reno. He said S.B. 576 would not affect him any differently than anyone else, and he would be voting and taking part in the committee hearing.

Mr. Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst explained that Section 2 provided a new definition for a bus as a vehicle that carried 16 or more persons. The bill excluded vehicles that were not designed for that purpose originally. Sections 3 through 6 provided a number of definitions, including the creation of several classes of vehicles. The smallest vehicle would be a limousine, which carried fewer than 11 persons; livery limousine, which accommodated 11 to 15 persons; and, finally a bus, which accommodated 16 or more persons. He said the group of vehicles that were excluded were the limousine buses that carried more than 15 persons but were not designed for that purpose. Section 7 imposed a fee of $350 per vehicle per year. Section 8 had a number of provisions that required background checks for drivers of limousines and taxicabs:

It required the drivers to submit a set of fingerprints,
To provide proof that they were proficient in English,
To provide proof of residency in Nevada for at least 30 days,
Carried the appropriate driver’s license for the type of vehicle they would be driving; and
Provide that drivers may be rejected if they had been convicted of certain felonies within a certain period of time.
Subsection 3 in Section 8 provided the authority may reject applicants for a driver’s permit if the applicant was determined to be morally unfit, or issuing a permit would be detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety. The final subsection established the fees, which were $50 when a person originally applied and $25 annually after the initial application.
Section 9 required the applicant provide a Social Security number.
Section 10 was “boilerplate” that was required in all licensing bills because the federal government requires the state to enforce child support payments.
Section 11 dealt with the physical fitness of the driver. The driver would provide a physician’s certificate.
Section 12 stated that before a company would employ a driver they must have complied with the provisions. They were also required to sign a statement stating they were familiar with the laws and regulations that applied to regulated carriers prior to employment.
Section 13 was the information that taxi and limousine drivers must keep on their daily trip sheet. That information included the name and number of the vehicle, odometer reading, and time of day they began and ended their shift. The information was kept by the employers for three years and must be available for inspection.
Section 14 dealt with the conduct of the drivers. Standards set were similar to those of taxicabs.
Section 15 dealt with taxis and limousines i.e., diversion, failure to comply with passenger’s requests.
Section 16 spoke to the type of passengers the driver could refuse to take, under what circumstances.
Section 17 addressed penalties that applied to drivers. Mr. Mouritsen said they were graduated penalties. Most dealt with a fine or suspension.
Section 18 dealt with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Safety inspections were addressed in Section 19.
Section 20 provided that the subsequent provisions in Sections 21 through 23 with regard to taxicabs, applied only to Clark County.
Section 21 dealt with temporary allocations and increases in the number of vehicles, specifically limousines.
Section 22 was the system for allocation of traditional livery limousines, and provided the factors that the Transportation Services Authority had to take into consideration.
Section 23 dealt with the adoption of regulations by the authority governing increases in the allocation of vehicles. Section 2 of the section allocated that any increase would be done equally among the regulated carriers.

Mr. Mouritsen then spoke to Section 24. He noted this section had been previously discussed in committee when the committee considered S.B. 119. It dealt with the exception for casinos to operate their own vehicles and allowed them to transfer individuals to more than one place. It required a decal to be placed on vehicle, which declared them exempt from regulations.

Mr. Mouritsen stated there were many technical corrections and areas that remained consistent throughout the bill. He apprised the committee of areas in the bill they should be aware of. He noted there were increases in penalties for violations of the provisions previously explained. In Section 33, there was a $200 nonrefundable fee in place when a person filed for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a motor carrier. Section 36 dealt with vehicles being impounded. He then turned to page 11, subsection 4, of the bill, which dealt with the adoption of regulations that referred to the term “bus,” which referred back to Section 2 of the bill, which defined what a bus was.

Mr. Mouritsen deferred his testimony back to Section 36 of the bill. He stated the Transportation Services Authority impounded vehicles from people who used them as illegal cabs or limousines to carry passengers. The section allowed the Transportation Services Authority to impound trucks from illegal moving companies. This excluded companies such as “Ryder or “U-Haul.” He then spoke to Section 38. He noted that section was especially important due to the way the allocations were put into effect. It required the Transportation Services Authority to adopt regulations regarding allocation of limousines on or before July 1, 2001. Subsection 2 of that section provided a moratorium on putting new limousines into service until the new regulations were put into effect.

Mrs. Chowning asked a question regarding page 9 of the bill. Where in Section 24 did it address casino exemptions whereby casino limousines and buses could transport persons to other locations without compensation if the casino owned the vehicles? Mr. Mouritsen replied that portion was not included in the bill. Mrs. Chowning then asked about Section 28 and why the term “bus” was excluded. Mr. Mouritsen replied the federal authority preempted buses and the states could not regulate them. She noted that Mr. Mouritsen did not address the portion of the bill, located on page 16 wherein a person knowingly makes or causes to be made false statements on an application, account or other statement. She asked what was the penalty regarding that section. Mr. Mouritsen drew her attention to line 47, where it increased the penalty from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor, the same being done in Sections 32 and 34. She then asked about line 43 being a misdemeanor. Mr. Mouritsen replied in the affirmative.

Mrs. McClain stated that the provisions in Section 20 were the same as Section 22, and asked why were they duplicated. Mrs. Chowning agreed the sections sounded redundant.

Assemblyman Collins pointed out if the Transportation Services Authority covered regulations throughout the state; the purpose of the 400,000 populations would then be a statewide population number not a county population number because Transportation Services Authority was a statewide authority.

Mrs. Chowning stated she would like to defer the statement made by Mr. Collins to the Transportation Services Authority.

Mr. Gustavson inquired regarding page 4 whereby the requirement for the physician certificate that allowed the applicant to see an ophthalmologist or an optometrist for the eye exam was still allowed. Mr. Mouritsen responded that Mr. Gustavson had referred to the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and that was a separate question from the motor carrier law.

Mrs. Chowning then asked for testimony from the witnesses.

Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority testified in support of S.B. 576. In the beginning he said S.B. 576 had been a simple bill. The important issue to the Transportation Services Authority was the requirement for background checks for limousine drivers. Currently there was no state requirement for a background check. The bill adopted language from the Taxi Authority to the Transportation Services Authority. It gave the Transportation Services Authority the power to impound vehicles. Currently there were only 25 legally certified moving companies in the state. There were well over 100 advertised. Problems arose when the public called with a problem regarding a non-licensed moving company. They were unable to help those persons, if they used an illegal moving company. He went on to say there were laws in place for fining those companies if they were caught in the act. The ability to impound those vehicles gave them leverage to protect the public and the industry itself. S.B. 576 also allowed the Transportation Services Authority to hold public workshops to adopt and implement an allocation system for limousines in Clark County.

Mr. Breslow indicated that in 1998 there were 15 certificated limousine companies in Clark County. Currently there were 44. There were a couple of hundred limousines in Clark County in 1998, and presently there were nearly 1,000 legally certified limousines on the street, which equated to one limousine for every two taxicabs. He told the committee that any system holding an allocation for new entries into the market should be kept open and fair. There was an issue on a portion of the bill i.e., section 2 which defined bus. He proposed the Transportation Services Authority adopt a definition for a “limo-bus.” It would go from 16 to 30 passengers. It was not the intention of the Transportation Services Authority to legislate any person out of business. Many owners were calling themselves owners of buses. Those buses looked like a limousine and were marketed as limousines. They were listed on the Internet as limousines. He felt those should fall under the regulatory umbrella. That was not feasible unless a new definition was set in place for “limo-bus.”

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Breslow if he was suggesting an amendment to S.B. 576, and if he was, he needed to put it in writing. Mr. Breslow said he was merely offering a suggestion or a peace offering, and did not want it to affect the life or death of the bill.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Breslow to remain to answer questions.

Mr. Oceguera asked if there was already a provision for illegal movers in statute and what was to keep them from using the excluded licensed movers. Mr. Breslow stated that in the Seventieth Legislative Session there had been legislation passed that prohibited the Transportation Services Authority from enforcing impounds against short-term third-party leases. He suggested that the industry, i.e., Rider Trucks, U-Haul, etc., were aware of what their vehicles were being used for. S.B. 576 allowed illegal vehicles to be impounded, not licensed movers. He went on to say that the Attorney General did not have the money to collect fines from unlicensed parties. They suggested if they had impound power of those vehicles, it would better serve the public.

Mr. Mouritsen read a portion of the NRS 706.478 that provided if a vehicle was impounded the owner could submit a copy of the lease agreement or written rental agreement and could recover their vehicle without paying the $1,000 administrative fee. Mrs. Chowning elaborated to say the section referred to the rental company that owned the vehicle in question. She asked Mr. Breslow if it had been his experience in the way he interpreted the statute. Mr. Breslow replied in the affirmative.

Mrs. Smith asked a question regarding Section 2, and was curious why he had suggested they adopt regulation rather than have it defined.

Mr. Breslow replied they could adopt language in regulations to cover the definition. He brought it up, because there were two sides to the issue. Rather than have the entire bill “stymied,” he thought a suggestion would make a compromise. The Transportation Services Authority did not want to see the bill live or die because of the language in Section 2, but understood other parties may have felt differently. He wanted to work with those parties and hoped to reach an agreement.

Mr. Nolan asked if there was a requirement in order to secure a business license for movers to license through the Transportation Services Authority. Mr. Breslow replied that the business license statutes and laws were specific to whatever city they came out of and did not pertain to the Transportation Services Authority.

Mr. Nolan asked if the way the bill was currently written, would the Transportation Services Authority be able to search the yellow pages, find the low-cost movers, and impound their vehicles even though they had a valid business license.

Mr. Breslow replied that a business that placed an ad was not necessarily in business or held a business license. The Transportation Service Authority received complaints on illegal movers but, at the present time, could not stop those movers.

Mr. Nolan followed up by asking if a consumer contracted with an organization and was told they would function in a certain manner and then failed, could they be fined without having a complaint attached.

Mr. Breslow replied the Transportation Services Authority may do that, but for repeat violators they had no recourse. Their intent as a governmental agency was not to punish, but to work with the public to protect them and to work with the industry to bring them into compliance. He stated the federal government was setting up consumer protection for interstate movers, but this bill only dealt with movers in Nevada.

Mrs. Cegavske expressed a concern regarding page 17 of the bill, which doubled the fines. She testified the money collected went to the Transportation Services Authority, and as of last session the money had not been touched. She did not know if the money was presently being used. She had concerns last session as to the handling of the confiscation of the limos and their contents, which the Transportation Services Authority considered illegal. Ms. Cegavske asked where the money from those fines went, how was it allocated, and why the fines were doubled.

Mr. Breslow replied the question was difficult to answer without background information. Fines collected went into a separate account as mandated by the legislature. Those funds could not be used for salaries, but for enforcement purposes only. Once it reached a certain amount, the Transportation Services Authority must go before the Interim Finance Committee for approval. He said the Transportation Services Authority had authority to impose fines up to $10,000 for any infraction. S.B. 576 actually reduced the fines. In the past a hearing officer could arbitrarily have chosen a number between $0 and $10,000. He did not believe the changes were in the law before, but part of the Transportation Service Authority regulations that were carried over in the bill to the Transportation Services Authority, were fines in the taxi industry, and when looked at, recommended those changes. He said originally the bill was intended to be a “clean up” bill with the items previously mentioned.

Mrs. Cegavske stressed that S.B. 576 was an omnibus bill. She had never seen so many amendments put into one bill. Another concern was the renting of a limousine or vehicle. In the 1999 Legislative Session she worked with people who had vehicles confiscated by Transportation Service Authority personnel. She felt the Transportation Services Authority was abusing their power. She understood the rationale of the bill in regard to background checks, and felt that should be done. She had a problem with the Transportation Services Authority being able to impound anything the company desired and then not be held accountable for any damage.

Mrs. Cegavske asked Mr. Breslow to go to Section 22 of the bill. She asked how the Transportation Services Authority determined the division of vehicles an agency may have, and would they be able to expand if needed. She asked about the court case where the Institute of Justice took the Transportation Services Authority to court. The ruling had not been favorable to the Transportation Services Authority. It was her wish that the Transportation Services Authority have power to take care of those individuals who illegally were taking advantage of the system but not those who had small businesses and were trying to make a living. She asked the Chairwoman if it was the intent of the committee to vote on the bill.

Mrs. Chowning replied they were only taking testimony and there were amendments still being drafted. Action on the bill was to be taken at a later date.

Mrs. Cegavske noted that an amendment proposed to the committee did not have a sponsor’s name. She asked that whoever proposed it claim responsibility so that she could review it prior to the next hearing.

Mrs. Chowning asked the audience who proposed the amendment in question. Mike Sullivan, representing the Nevada Limousine Coalition, testified those amendments were proposed by his group and others who had reached a compromise (Exhibit C).

Mrs. Chowning then recognized Mr. Breslow for a follow-up to Mrs. Cegavske’s questions.

Mr. Breslow replied in his experience with working with the Transportation Services Authority, he had not received one complaint about the Transportation Services Authority, and had not seen any laws misapplied. In regard to the court case Mrs. Cegavske referred to, the court ruled the Transportation Services Authority misapplied the regulations on three instances. Those were specific to the rights of interveners. The Transportation Service Authority had the right to restrict and limit the interventions to make it easier for an applicant to apply. He then provided information regarding another district court ruling, which kept the Transportation Services Authority from being able to restrict those applicants. The Transportation Services Authority felt the court ruling could now be used to protect the public and the applicants. The Transportation Services authority had been found in violation for suggesting that applicants should meet with the interveners to work out any problems. The applicants complained that the only way they could win approval of their applications was to restrict their application to a limited number of vehicles or accept other stipulations they did not want.

Mr. Breslow stated the Transportation Services Authority must change, and had changed, on how it dealt with the intervener process and directing applicants to meet with interveners.

Mrs. Chowning asked about the allocation system. Mr. Breslow replied that the Transportation Services Authority created regulations to adopt the allocation system. Mrs. Chowning asked if new businesses were to be allowed to enter the market. Mr. Breslow responded as the bill was written, there was a moratorium and the amendments suggested removal of the moratorium. He said he could support that amendment.

Mrs. Chowning asked about the fines involved. She pointed out that Mr. Mouritsen had stated the fines from criminal statutes go to the permanent school fund. The Transportation Services Authority imposed administrative fines. She then asked about the increase of fines.

Mr. Breslow replied the fine amount was similar to that of the Taxi Authority. He felt the bill was not omnibus. Laws were negotiated and thought out by public hearings through the legislature and had applied to the Taxi Authority for years. His opinion was that limo drivers and taxi drivers should meet the same standards.

Mr. Oceguera questioned Mr. Breslow regarding Section 38, which spoke to an allocation date of July 1, 2002. After hearings were held would that be an appropriate amount of time or would there be a problem if the time were extended?

Mr. Breslow replied the bill provided a fair amount of time. In anticipation that the bill may or may not become law, the Transportation Services Authority set aside a certain amount of money for a market study on limousines. He felt it would not be a problem to get everything in place by July 1, 2002. At the current rate of growth there could be 1,500 to 2,000 limousines on the street.

Mr. Oceguera followed up to ask when agencies got certified, were they issued certificates at a specific time. Mr. Breslow replied when someone applied for certification, a preliminary conference was held to determine whether or not interventions were proper or should be limited. Both sides and the judge worked out a schedule for the processing. It was his understanding it could take up to two years to process an application; however, the average had been three to five months from application to completion.

Mr. Nolan said he felt the legislature should have a larger role in the framing of regulatory language in order to guarantee a formula of fairness. Mr. Breslow welcomed the participation of the legislators and the public for purposes of developing the allocation system.

Mrs. Chowning noted when the legislature gave any agency the authority to adopt regulations there was a sense of “faith” based upon public hearings.

Mrs. Smith asked Mr. Breslow to look at Section 14, page 5. She asked if there had been discussion on the regulation of cell phone use by drivers while driving. Mr. Breslow replied he had tried in a previous hearing to enforce that provision and was told by the Attorney General it was considered “ad hoc” rulemaking and not done. Only the legislature could make those rules and regulations.

Mrs. Chowning looked to Section 8 of the bill. She asked how the description of “morally unfit” would by assessed. Mr. Breslow replied the language was too broad, and impossible to enforce.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Mouritsen to explain how other professional licensing boards word their statements as used for the statement made in Section 8 of the bill. Mr. Mouritsen said it read, “If they were convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.” Mrs. Chowning felt the section needed to be clarified to clear up the broad area.

Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, on behalf of the bus company members of his organization testified in support of S.B. 576. He said a more responsive system would come with the passage of S.B. 576 and referred to Section 2 of the bill. The definition of bus had been in Nevada law for a period of time until the regulation of certain parts of the bus market were deemed to be preempted from state regulation by federal law. He went over the description and definition of the term “bus.” He felt the new super stretch limousines, or limo-buses fell outside the category of regulation. If they were not included in the bill, they would not be subject to said regulation. It was his desire that Section 2 of S.B. 576 remain, and that a definition for the super stretch limousine be given. A definition to determine the difference between a bus and limousine was needed. The “missing link” was the super stretch limousines that carried 16-plus persons that were still defined as limousines, when they should be defined as buses.

Mr. Capurro said buses were regulated to some extent by the Transportation Services Authority. He felt the bill was too broad, and took up several pages of statutory law. With respect to lines 42 and 44 dealing with the English language, Mr. Capurro had no opinion. In Section 7 regarding fees, the term “fully regulated carrier,” meant more than carrier of passengers. That included other parts of the industry regulated by the Transportation Services Authority, such as household movers. It was his understanding, after having met with Transportation Services personnel, when public hearings were held to set fees, movers would have an approximate fee of $75 to $125 per vehicle.

Mr. Capurro expressed his opinion regarding the doubling of fines. He said it comports with the definition of fines for gross misdemeanor. Administrative penalties fell under a different section of law, and there were no changes proposed.

Mrs. Chowning concurred with Mr. Capurro in regard to the fine change. She said Section 8 was carried over by the taxicab driver statutes, which, in federal law, required a driver to speak English. She asked if that clause was in the statutes regarding taxicab drivers. Mr. Capurro replied in the affirmative, but said he did not represent that organization. The federal requirement applied to commercial motor vehicles of 10,000 pounds or more. As it stood, the regulation on a federal level would not ordinarily cover taxicabs or limousines.

Mrs. Chowning asked to what degree was a driver compelled to meet the English-speaking requirement. Mr. Capurro replied he didn’t care either way if that provision was removed. Mrs. Chowning noted an amendment should be drafted in order to remove the provision requiring English. That decision should be left up to the owner of the company and not the legislature.

Rey Vinole, Owner, High Roller Transportation Bus Company, was opposed to S.B. 576. Mr. Vinole informed the committee that he was one of the plaintiffs in the suit brought against the Transportation Services Authority. His vehicles were 20-to-30 passenger excursion vehicles. He owned a charter bus service and charged an hourly rate. Mr. Capurro, he said, represented businesses that operated tours and charged on a per-capita basis. His business was regulated under the federal government, and passed inspection by the Transportation Services Authority. He felt the allocation process was unfair to business owners like himself, who liked to compete in the limousine market. He asked the committee to either kill the bill or remove the “bus” definition.

Mrs. Chowning asked if Mr. Vinole had an objection to the proposed amendment (Exhibit D). Mr. Vinole responded that he did. Mrs. Chowning commented that the Transportation Services Authority was willing to work with other businesses to try to come together with consensus language.

Mr. Gustavson asked Mr. Vinole who regulated his business concerning safety and other related issues. Mr. Vinole answered the bus companies were regulated through federal law by the United States Department of Transportation. His bus company kept a drug file on all employees, the buses were inspected through the Transportation Services Authority, and bus drivers must possess CDLs, and have met the physical requirements to operate a bus. The Transportation Service Authority dictated that they charge on an hourly rate as opposed to a per person rate. Mr. Vinole stated he kept records on employees for a minimum of three years.

Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Vinole only conducted tours. Mr. Vinole responded that persons who chartered his vehicles present their itinerary to the bus company who then operated the tour as directed by the customer.

Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, representing the Nevada Resort Association, MGM Mirage, directed the committee to Section 24 of the bill. He said that section essentially took 463 licensees, which were unrestricted licensees and placed them in a position that exempted them from NRS 706. With respect to the question on compensation and the definition of traditional limousine, it was resolved in Section 6, line 19, page 2. The transport of customers was an ancillary part of services offered by the hotel/casino and no compensation was charged to customers.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Alonso if he had a problem with the $50 fee for a decal/sticker that would identify different types of limousine services; i.e., for fee and no fee. He responded he would not have a problem.

Mr. Carpenter asked in Section 24 on page 2 why it stated that one “may” apply to the authority; he said one should either apply or not apply. Mr. Alonso believed it was a drafting error. It had been discussed with the Transportation Services Authority and that “may” should read “shall.” That would make it easier to identify their vehicles. The intent of the bill was that every business would register with the Transportation Services Authority.

Mrs. Chowning directed Mr. Alonso to look at line 26 on page 9 where it stated the types of vehicles he had addressed were not subject to the provision of that chapter. She said that would include Section 6 and she felt there was a need to tighten up the area that dealt with compensation.

Clark Neily, Staff Counsel representing the Institute of Justice, stated he was the trial counsel on the court case, which had been discussed, in earlier testimony. Mr. Neily said S.B. 576 would confer on the Transportation Services Authority a great amount of discretion, which affected the lives, and livelihoods of individuals who had been waiting for the opportunity to operate limousines in the Las Vegas area.

Mr. Neily divulged he was a constitutional attorney who represented persons that were being prevented from earning a living in their chosen profession. He wanted to address the committee in that capacity about the allocation provisions in S.B. 576. Those provisions raised two concerns, both of which had serious constitutional implications. He used the illustration of a pie and stated that 90 percent of the limousine business was owned by a half-dozen big limousine companies. Small companies owned the remaining 10 percent. Each of the small companies had been required to accept operating restrictions that limited the size that the company could attain. That was the challenge in the lawsuit brought against the Transportation Services Authority. The judge ruled that the Transportation Services Authority had to stop the allocation system that had been in use.

Mr. Neily continued, the first question was whether or not the allocation provision would effectively “slam the door” on any new entry into the industry. That issue had been brought up and was a serious concern. There was nothing in S.B. 576 that clarified or removed that concern. Mr. Neily wondered how that “pie” was going to be divided up. When the Transportation Services Authority sets up the initial allocation there was nothing in S.B. 576 that guided them in terms of dividing up the “pie” initially. There were provisions stated if the “pie” was increased, it must be done equally. The Transportation Services Authority should be directed to divide the “pie” equally among any licensed entity to operate limousines in Las Vegas, whereby everyone had an equal opportunity to compete.

Mrs. Chowning informed Mr. Neily that the legislature took pride in legislative intent. On occasion the committee would issue a letter as a part of the decision in order to clarify legislative intent; testimony conveyed that as well.

Edward Wheeler, President, Omni Limousine, Inc., testified in opposition to S.B. 576 and said he had a pending application with the Transportation Services Authority to operate a limousine service and charter bus application. He said he also had been a plaintiff in the court case against Transportation Services Authority and had been fighting the current Transportation Services Authority paper mill for three years. It was difficult to trust the chairperson of the Transportation Services Authority when that same person three years ago had been found guilty of violating his right to earn a living. Mr. Wheeler noted he had serious issues with the allocation system. He was opposed to the new definition of “bus”; and said it was an attempt by the Transportation Services Authority to regulate vehicles that were deregulated by the federal government.

Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Wheeler if he owned any limousines at the present time. Mr. Wheeler responded “no,” and said he was not going to make the same mistake again. When he applied three years ago to the Transportation Services Authority for a license; he had purchased his vehicles, had made payments on those vehicles but was prohibited from operating them because he was “caught up in the paper mill.” After his current application was approved, he would then purchase his vehicles.

Mr. Carpenter asked if there was no definition in federal law in regard to a bus. Mr. Wheeler replied that in the Code of Federal Regulations there were different definitions for each chapter specific to the use of a bus. The only definition he had found was under the federal safety standards, which spoke to emergency bus exits and bus safety requirements. There was no similarity to the Transportation Services Authority bus definition. He said it described any motor vehicle that accommodated ten or more passengers.

Mr. Carpenter asked if committee staff would research the federal definition. If the federal government deregulated an industry, that deregulation should be defined.

Brock Lewis, Broker, Vegaslimo.com testified in opposition to S.B. 576 stating he had taken reservations over the Internet for certified limousine services. He worked with the limousine industry for five years and had been employed by two of the certificated limousine businesses.

Mr. Lewis stated Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 that dealt with allocations and the moratorium determined who the “players” would be in the Las Vegas limousine industry. He said that destroyed the “American Dream.” Those sections of law gave protection from competition, locked in current market shares and kept new competitors out. He welcomed the statements of Commissioner Breslow; however, as Mr. Breslow stated, he could not speak for the other commissioners. He urged the committee not to pass S.B. 576.

Mrs. Chowning informed Mr. Lewis that the moratorium he alluded to was in Section 38.

Mr. Lewis stated he was also concerned with Section 27 that stated the authority of the Transportation Services Authority was to supervise and regulate carriers, drivers and brokers respectively. There was no detail or clarification concerning brokers. Currently the certificated carriers were told what they could charge by the Transportation Services Authority. He asked if the Transportation Services Authority could tell brokers what they could charge or did the free market determine that charge. Mrs. Chowning stated that language was existing law and the additional portion referred to drivers. She said the Transportation Services Authority already had the authority to supervise and regulate brokers.

Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Lewis had submitted an application to operate a limousine. Mr. Lewis replied he had recently retained an attorney and was moving forward with the application process. Mr. Carpenter asked if he was to own a limousine business would his brokership be a conflict. Mr. Lewis responded “no.”

Ms. McClain said Mr. Lewis was correct in his interpretation of Section 27. She said, “Those of his employees or agents who are not brokers” and changed it to “acts of the driver or broker.” Mrs. Chowning referred Ms. McClain to line 20 where it stated the broker was responsible for his own acts and the acts of his employees or agents that were directed or allowed by the broker.

Mrs. Cegavske asked Mr. Lewis if as a broker he had to apply through the Transportation Services Authority to conduct his Internet business. Mr. Lewis replied he did not, but as he read S.B. 576, he might be required to. Mrs. Cegavske asked about the $200 fee for the application. If she had to spend $200 for an application and did not receive certification she would be very unhappy. She felt the $200 processing fee was excessive as it was non- refundable if any part of the application was not accepted. Mrs. Chowning commented for at least 20 years, the real estate license fee had been non-refundable and that it currently still is non-refundable.

Mr. Breslow was called back to the table to answer questions of the committee. He stated for the record he could not speak for other commissioners. Mr. Breslow responded to Section 27, page 10, line 20, by stating the changes made were by striking out and adding the acts of the driver or broker. In the past if there was an infraction or violation, the Transportation Services Authority could only cite the owner of the company. Many times it was unfair to the owner because they had nothing to do with the infraction or violation; but the employee could not be cited. The change would give the hearing officer the ability to cite the responsible party in the action, not necessarily the owner.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the section addressed employees and agents. Mr. Breslow responded it made the employee or agent responsible for their acts.

Mr. Breslow addressed Mrs. Cegavske’s concern regarding the $200 application fee stating that had always been the case and that it was nonrefundable. He did not understand why it appeared in S.B. 576 as a new fee. It might have been overlooked by the bill drafters.

Mr. Breslow, in referring to another question asked by Mrs. Cegavske concerning the doubling of fines, noted per John Plunkett, Chief of Enforcement for the Transportation Services Authority, had said those fines had been changed in Nevada law by the court system to make them conform to what was currently in the courts.

Mrs. Chowning asked why the penalty was to be raised from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor. Mr. Breslow said he would get the answer for the committee.

Ms. McClain asked what sort of infractions were cited and asked for examples. Mr. Breslow gave reference to a case where a taxicab driver had been cited after an accident by the local police department for having consumed alcohol while on duty. At the time the Transportation Services Authority did not have the authority to suspend the driver’s license. The only avenue open to the Transportation Services Authority was to fine the driver. Mr. Breslow said in that particular situation he recommended a $1,000 fine. He mentioned he would rather have fined the driver $50, suspended her license for a certain time and had the driver referred to some sort of counseling. Another example of actions subject to a fine under S.B. 576 would be a limousine “jumping” cab lines to solicit customers from taxicabs.

Ms. McClain said that NRS 702.386 referred to operating without a Transportation Services Authority certificate and had nothing to do with drinking on the job. Mr. Breslow stated he had been asked why persons would be cited, and asked Ms. McClain if she wanted specifics. Ms. McClain asked him to look at the provisions of NRS 706.386 or 706.421. She said those two statutes referred to not having a permit or not being certified by the Transportation Services Authority.

Mr. Breslow replied current law allowed the Transportation Services Authority to fine a violator who was guilty of not having a certificate and solicitation of business up to $10,000. The language in S.B. 576 changed that.

Mrs. Chowning said that clarification was needed; however, a judge would set the fine. Mr. Breslow stated administrative fines could only be used for specific purposes. Mrs. Chowning stated the Transportation Services Authority could not convict any person of a gross misdemeanor. Mr. Breslow said operating without a certificate was an important offense when operating in a regulated industry. If you opened a casino without permission, you would be violating a law or regulation. The same rule applied to a carrier. Fines were significant and allowed an enforcement officer to issue a citation.

Mrs. Cegavske stated she appreciated the clarification on the two different issues. She asked Mr. Breslow about a previous statement whereby he stated that the fines had been set by the court into statute. He replied the term he had used “by law” was conforming to the current law for gross misdemeanor violation according to the Transportation Services Authority Chief of Enforcement John Plunkett.

Mrs. Cegavske asked about Section 17 on page 6 regarding drinking and driving, and why that person would not be handed over to law enforcement. Mr. Breslow replied the breath test done in the field resulted in a positive reading but was not over the legal limit for blood alcohol content. However, the driver had admitted to drinking on the job. That instance was referred to the Transportation Services Authority because it was against the Code of Federal Regulations, which had been adopted and prohibited the consumption of alcohol on the job. He noted there were no fine schedules in place for a first offense. S.B. 576 allowed those schedules to be adopted. Current practices left the decision to the hearing officer.

Mrs. Cegavske asked Mr. Breslow about a statement he had made regarding existing language in S.B. 576 stating nearly all the language was new. She inquired if that was correct. She said that after the Sixty-Ninth Legislative Session John Plunkett was hired by the Transportation Services Authority and had attempted to improve the image of the Transportation Services Authority, by establishing an open-door policy for complaints and concerns.

Mrs. Chowning told Mr. Breslow clarification was needed in Section 33.

Mr. Carpenter asked why it took three years to obtain a certificate and what situation would precipitate that length of time for denial or acceptance. Mr. Breslow responded it would be a crime if an application took three years to process. He said with the changes in personnel, a new deputy commissioner, a new chairman and all new front office personnel, they had reduced a four-page docket to a handful of applications. The Transportation Services Authority attempted to process applications in less than six months.

Michael Sullivan, Nevada Limousine Coalition testified in support of the S.B. 576. His clients wanted to see the moratorium deleted from the bill. His clients had no problem with the allocation system when it happened, but would like to grow at the continued pace they had planned on. His clients wanted a seat belt provision that allowed taxicabs to inform their passengers to use their seat belts.

Mrs. Chowning asked why would that be the responsibility of the driver and not the owner, to ensure a sign was visible telling the passengers they should wear their seat belts. Mr. Breslow responded the seat belt law in taxicabs was unenforceable, and suggested a sign that encouraged the wearing of seat belts would be more appropriate.

Mrs. Smith asked for clarification regarding the citation for not wearing a seat belt. Did it fall on the driver or the passenger? Mr. Breslow reiterated to say there were no enforceable regulations in place regarding seat belts in taxicabs.

Mrs. Chowning expanded to say current law said it did not apply to a passenger riding in a means of public transportation, including a taxi, school bus, or emergency vehicles.

Mr. Sullivan interjected to say the reason taxicab companies wanted seat belt language, was so they had a strong legal mandate. Mrs. Chowning remarked that if the cab companies wanted a change in the law, then they should have appeared to testify.

Mrs. Cegavske suggested additional language to Section 22, which would address fairness and equity in the industry. She offered to provide copies of the proposed amendment to the committee.

Mrs. Chowning asked if there were other proposed amendments to come before the committee. Mrs. Chowning then reviewed the proposed amendments as they were received. She noted there would be a draft amendment from Mrs. Cegavske and another proposal, which would amend Section 24 to allow non-restricted license holders transport passengers without compensation. Mr. Capurro offered an amendment defining “super stretch limo” (Exhibit D). Also to be amended by the committee was Section 24, line 37, stating the “holder of a non-restricted license shall apply to the Transportation Services Authority for the issuance of a decal.”

Mr. Oceguera’s impression was there were to be amendments to delete the English requirement in Section 8, to delete the moratorium in Section 38, subsection 2; and add the language submitted by Mr. Capurro. He said the allocation portion was in order, but, he would like to see it moved back at least six months. That would give applicants 18 months to be ready.

Mrs. Chowning clarified his statement by stating the application of S.B. 576 should be effective January 1, 2003. She noted those suggestions were the personal opinions of Mr. Oceguera.

Mr. Oceguera suggested the change from “may” to “shall” on line 37 and the proposal of adding “without compensation.” He personally did not have a problem with a seat belt sign in the limousine or taxicab. He felt the committee could be open to the allocation section, as it gave the parties involved 18 months to get prepared.

Mrs. Chowning wanted to know why the misdemeanor was being changed to a gross misdemeanor on page 16. She asked Mr. Oceguera, as chairman of the subcommittee, if he would agree with a letter of intent regarding the allocation regulations. Mr. Oceguera agreed.

John Vergiels, a lobbyist representing numerous organizations asked Mrs. Chowning when the written amendments were to be delivered to the committee. Mrs. Chowning stated at 11:00 a.m. the following day and emphasized the language need not be perfect. She said there would be a meeting at the Bar of the Assembly to act on S.B. 576.

Mr. Gustavson felt he should make the disclosure that he held a CDL and had previously driven a bus. However, S.B. 576 would not affect him any more than anyone else and he would be voting.

There being no further business, Mrs. Chowning adjourned the meeting at 6:18 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kelly Minton

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: