MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-First Session

March 13, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 13, 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

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. John Oceguera

Mrs. Debbie Smith

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

           

Mr. John J. Lee

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman John Marvel

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst

Geri Mosey, Recording Secretary

N. Jolene Jones Miley, Transcribing Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dean A. Hartwig, Owner, Hartwig School of Trucking

Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance and Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

            Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public             Safety

            Daryl Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association

            Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division

                        Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

 

Chairwoman Chowning opened the meeting of the Assembly Committee on Transportation at 1:33 p.m. and opened the hearing on A.B. 242. 

 

Assembly Bill 242:  Provides that certain instructors for schools for training drivers are not required to complete requirements for continuing education. (BDR 43-1173)

 

Assemblyman John Marvel thanked Chairwoman Vonne Chowning for hearing A.B. 242 and introduced Mr. Dean Hartwig, owner of Hartwig School of Trucking who testified in support of A.B. 242.  Mr. Hartwig said certification of older drivers was a problem as many of them did not possess a high school diploma or General Education Degree (GED).  He felt their experience should be considered in place of the education they were lacking.  Mr. Hartwig stated, as the law read, drivers were required to complete six college-credit hours of continuing education in order to be recertified for the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). 

 

Mr. Hartwig opined that the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) needed more help to expedite the testing process for CDL and suggested the state use third-party testers.  He said his school graduated ten drivers in December who had completed the training for their CDL.  Mr. Hartwig said the last trucker from that class was being tested by the DMV/PS on March 14, 2001.  These truckers had been unemployed from the time of graduation from his school because of the time delay in receiving their CDL test and certification from the state.  Mr. Hartwig stated the truckers had jobs waiting for them, but they were unable to accept them because of the delay in testing by the DMV/PS.  Evidently testers in the DMV/PS did not hold a valid CDL themselves and they had only one or two weeks training on how to proctor a CDL test.  Mr. Hartwig suggested a requirement for third-party testers would be that they possess a valid CDL.  Chairman Chowning clarified a point made by Mr. Hartwig, that only an instructor was required to have five years experience before they could be certified as an instructor.  She continued stating in order for their certification to be renewed they would have to complete a skills test.  Mr. Hartwig responded that portion of the statute should remain.  He reasoned that if a driver did not exercise their skills they were likely to lose them. 

 

Mrs. Chowning said that A.B. 242 only addressed the CDL requirement, not the testers’ qualifications.  Ms. Chowning stated that A.B. 242 changed the qualifications for a CDL that required an applicant to have a high school diploma, GED, or at least five years experience behind the wheel.  She said the continuing education requirement would be deleted.  Mr. Hartwig stated that CDL applicants would have to complete a skills test each time they applied for renewal or a new CDL. 

 

Mr. Oceguera disagreed with the presumption that the only way to learn about the changes in the law was behind the wheel of a truck.  He said the classroom would be the logical venue to learn of those changes. 

 

Mr. Gustavson stated he possessed a CDL and there was a huge demand for drivers.  He said he had heard the DMV/PS was considering lowering the age for a CDL from 21 to 18.  He asked Mr. Hartwig what his opinion was on that possibility.  Mr. Hartwig replied that a person 18 years of age could possess a CDL, but they were required to remain intrastate.  He said the proposed change would allow an 18-year-old that possessed a CDL to travel interstate.  Mr. Hartwig stated he was against that proposal because an 18-year-old did not have the maturity needed to travel interstate.  He said that most insurance companies would not insure truckers under the age of 21 to drive interstate.  Mr. Gustavson stated that if the federal law was put in place, it would directly affect Nevada. 

 

Mr. Oceguera stated one of the tenets of being a professional required education.  Mr. Hartwig responded that many of Mr. Oceguera’s concerns would be eliminated because of the age of the older drivers.  By attrition, those drivers who did not possess a high school diploma or GED would not be driving any longer.  He continued, stating a trucker needed the ability to read and write in order to pass the CDL test. 

 

Ms. Smith asked if persons currently licensed to be instructors would be “grand- fathered” in if the law were changed.  Mr. Hartwig responded if the instructors met the old requirements, they would meet the new requirements; he could not see where that would change.  He continued stating instructors who are currently certified had to have a high school diploma or a GED.  A.B. 242 would eliminate that requirement making it easier for persons to become certified to teach CDL training. 

 

Ms. Smith said she had another question that pertained to Section 4 of A.B. 242, where it referred to the continuing education units (CEU) issues, and Section 5 where the provisions would not apply to the instructors that instructed CDL applicants.  She asked if that meant if someone was to renew his or her license to instruct, would they not need to complete any CEU.  Mr. Hartwig said that one or two CEUs were more realistic than the six CEU that were presently required. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked what classes were offered in the state for CDL applicants.  Mr. Hartwig replied that no CEUs were offered to applicants for training to meet the CEU requirement. 

 

Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance and Enforcement Division, DMV/PS, said the department had not taken a position on A. B. 242, but they had some concerns about reducing the requirements for instructors below those requirements that were required for a driver.  The federal law required a high school diploma or GED for persons obtaining a CDL; it did not make sense to have lower standards for the persons who provided the instruction. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Benzler to address the second part of A.B. 242 that required six CEUs since prior testimony indicated that those courses were not available to instructors.  Mr. Benzler responded that the CEUs were included to be consistent with the Department of Education and pertained to what was required of their instructors. 

 

Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director, DMV/PS stated she wanted to research the six CEUs requirement and address the history on the CEU requirement.  She said she hoped to provide that information to the committee to clarify the CEU issue.  She requested time to conduct that research and report back to the committee. 

 

Mr. Carpenter stated in regard to a person who received a CDL now needed a high school diploma or the GED, older licensees were grand-fathered into the system and did not have to meet the current requirements. 

 

Mr. Benzler replied there was the grandfather clause, however, the department was moving forward with persons who were applying at the present time and those applicants must meet the current requirements. 

 

Chairman Chowning asked if it was in the regulations that a CDL instructor must hold a CDL.  Ms. Lewis responded that the DMV/PS would need to research the regulations and report back to the committee. 

 

Mr. Hartwig said the application to become a CDL instructor stated that the applicant must possess a CDL.  He continued stating there was nothing in Federal Motor Highway Administration statute (FMHA) that required a high school diploma or GED to acquire a CDL.  Mr. Hartwig pointed out that Nevada had adopted the federal statute. 

 

Ms. Lewis commented for the record, that from the perspective of the DMV/PS, instructors should be more experienced and have more education than the students they are attempting to teach.  She said from a safety issue that was important. 

 

Mr. Nolan disclosed that he was an employee of American Transportation Companies (ATC) that was a training institution for CDL operators both in southern and northern Nevada.  He said he was not sure if he needed to recuse himself from voting on the bill.  He commented because of the high attrition rate in the public transit industry, senior operators have been licensed for approximately three years on average.

 

Mr. Collins stated it took much too long for the CDL driving certification test to be completed, and that some companies had their own in-house certification program.  Ms. Lewis responded that Mr. Collins had referred to third-party certifiers.  She said the DMV/PS certified and trained third-party trainers to enable them to provide training to their in-house staff.   The backlog for the driver test for the CDL was attributed to a shortage in staff in the outlying CDL testing facilities of the DMV/PS.  Ms. Lewis said the department tried to send staff to the outlying areas to get those facilities caught up.  Mr. Collins reiterated that a five-or six-week wait to complete the CDL driver certification test was too long for a driver that came to Nevada to get a job.  He asked Ms. Lewis why the department could not implement a “first come, first served” program to expedite the certification process.  Ms. Lewis did not respond. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 242 stating that the hearing would be reopened upon receipt of further information from the DMV/PS.  Chairman Chowning opened the work session on A.B. 246.

 

Assembly Bill 246:  Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicle by new resident of this state. (BDR 43-213)

 

Ms. McClain testified in support of A.B. 246, and said the bill was designed to require new residents to purchase Nevada license plates before they would be permitted to apply for a Nevada driver’s license.  She said A.B. 246 would bring much needed revenue to the growing state of Nevada.  Ms. McClain said it was estimated that six thousand to seven thousand new residents per month come into the state.  She stated 10 percent of that total procrastinated in the purchase of their license plates, at an average cost of approximately $200 per automobile, which equated to approximately $150,000.00 per month that the state of Nevada lost because new residents failed to purchase their Nevada plates in a timely manner or at all.  Ms. McClain said she would be willing to work with any member of the committee on amendments if they were needed. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning stated that a 30-day time limit was already in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).  She said the problem had always been enforcement.  Ms. McClain said A.B. 246 would not solve the problem completely, however, it would require they purchase the plates at the same time they applied for the driver’s license. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning said she agreed with Section 2, subsection 6 of A.B. 246 whereby a new resident would receive a credit on their plates from another state. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked Ms. McClain if she knew if any other state required the vehicle to be registered at the time of application for a driver’s license.  Ms. McClain said she had not researched those statistics, however they were looking at states that allowed a refund for license plates. 

 

Ms. Lewis stated the DMV/PS had surveyed 11 states and found that 3 allowed for refunds.  Chairwoman Chowning asked what states allowed for refunds and Ms. Lewis responded, Nevada, Virginia and Washington. 

 

Ms. Lewis explained the amendment to A.B. 246 concerned a 6-month registration versus a 12-month registration for new residents of the state.  Ms. Lewis said the department informed new residents they have only 30 days within which to register their vehicles in the state when they applied for a Nevada driver’s license.  The driver’s license would be flagged, and if they had not registered their vehicle within that 30-day period, the department would have the power to cancel the driver’s license. 

 

Assemblyman Jerry Claborn asked if the revocation of the driver’s license was a part of A.B. 246.  Ms. Lewis said that it was not but it could be a part of an amendment.  Mr. Claborn stated it was a good idea. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked if Ms. Lewis had requested the deletion of subsection 6 of Section 2 on page 3, and replaced it with language that would provide the department the right to cancel a driver’s license if the licensee failed to register their vehicle within the 30-day period provided in statute.  Ms. Lewis responded in the affirmative. 

Ms. McClain reiterated the importance of instituting a provisional license that expired in 30 days.  She said that would prompt the customer to comply with statute and register their vehicle within the 30-day time limit.  Chairwoman Chowning asked what the penalty would be if the customer failed to comply. 

 

Daryl Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association (NMTA) replied to Chairwoman Chowning’s question stating the customer that failed to comply would be subject to a misdemeanor charge. 

 

Ms. Smith asked if there would be implications with auto insurance.  Ms. Lewis responded stating the insurance company insured the vehicle, not the person who operated the vehicle.  Chairwoman Chowning said to amend A.B. 246 for the work session. 

 

Mr. Claborn asked about the penalty for not adhering to the statute.  Mr. Benzler said he thought NRS 482.555 addressed the penalties as a misdemeanor. 

 

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, stated NRS 482.565 gave the DMV/PS the authority to impose an administrative fine not to exceed $2,500 for violation of any provision of that chapter. 

 

Mr. Claborn stated the penalty was not built into A.B. 246 and without a penalty the bill, would not be enforceable.  Ms. McClain responded the penalty would be the cancellation of the provisional driver’s license. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 246, and reopened the hearing on A.B. 242. 

 

Mr. Benzler testified that there was no requirement under federal law for a CDL operator to have a high school diploma or a GED.  He said the state does require instructors under the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) to have a high school diploma or GED before they can be certified as instructors. 

 

Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, DMV/PS, testified to the history of the requirements for the instructors in the CDL field.  She said that regulations in the department required CEUs only for instructors that taught classroom instruction to minors for the purpose of driver education credit.  She said the department did not require the same criteria for CDL instructors that taught only “behind-the-wheel” training.  During the Seventieth Legislative Session a bill was passed that required a CDL instructor to pursue CEUs to retain their certification.  Ms. Mathiesen said A.B. 242 would remove the CEU requirement. 

Chairwoman Chowning asked if there were classes available to instructors for CDL.  Ms. Mathiesen replied “no.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked if there were any other persons that wished to testify on A.B. 242. 

 

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

N. Jolene Jones Miley

Transcribing Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: