MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
April 3, 2001
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, April 3, 2001. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman
Mr. John Carpenter
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. John J. Lee
Mrs. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mrs. Debbie Smith
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Speaker Emeritus Joseph Dini, Jr.
Assemblyman Douglas Bache
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst
N. Jolene Jones Miley, Transcribing Committee Secretary
Jeri Mosey, Recording Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Daryl Capurro, Lobbyist, representing the Nevada Motor Transport Association
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, representing American General Contractors
Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)
James “Butch” Peri, Peri and Sons Farms, Inc.
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS)
Ed Harney, Sergeant, Commercial Enforcement, Nevada Highway Patrol
Joe Guild, President, Nevada Cattleman’s Association
Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services, DMV/PS
Chuck Connor, Administrator, Motor Vehicle Information Technology (MOVIT), DMV/PS
Mary Walker, Lobbyist, representing Lyon County
LeRoy Goodman, Commissioner, Lyon County
Donna West, Administrator, Field Services, DMV/PS
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, California State Automobile Association, Nevada
Mrs. Chowning convened the Assembly Committee on Transportation at 1:39 p.m., and commented that in the notebooks of the committee members, was the agenda for the day. She stated that A.B. 640 had been withdrawn and A.B. 460 would not be addressed during work session.
Assembly Bill 640: Authorizes director of department of motor vehicles and public safety to contract with agent to perform certain duties of department. (BDR 43-1017)
Assembly Bill 460: Revises provisions governing remission of fees collected by short-term lessors of passenger cars to department of taxation. (BDR 43-589)
Mrs. Chowning opened the hearing on A.B. 641.
Assembly Bill 641: Makes various changes to Multistate Highway Transportation Agreement. (BDR 43-1330)
Daryl Capurro, Lobbyist, representing the Nevada Motor Transport Association, testified in support of A.B. 641. He said A.B. 641 amended a statutory compact that had been adopted by Nevada in 1975. Mr. Capurro stated there had been minor corrective amendments to the statute in 1999. The alliance known as the Multi-State Highway Transportation Agreement (MHTA) recognized the unique transportation challenges faced by rural western states. The compact was intended to improve communications between state legislators, state administrators and private industry. He said ten states; Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming participated in the agreement.
The MHTA contracted with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) to complete a study and recommend changes in the compact. Mr. Capurro stated the study reviewed the practical and legal issues that related to the agreement and provided guiding principles for future action together with amendments to the ten states’ statutes. Mr. Capurro said the MHTA cooperating committee had adopted the NCSL report for implementation. The agreed upon amendments to the MHTA statutes by NCSL were reflected in total in A.B. 641.
Mr. Capurro said that state legislators were usually the representatives to MHTA. The agreement empowered the cooperating committee to collect, analyze and evaluate information from research and testing on vehicle size and weight-related matters. Mr. Capurro said the new language contained in A.B. 641 broadened the scope of the committee to recommend improvements in highway operations, safety and administration of highway transportation laws. A.B. 641 provided the committee with the authority to perform functions necessary to facilitate the purpose of the agreement. Changes made possible by A.B. 641 clarified the language and eliminated obsolete references.
Mrs. Chowning asked why the dues for membership in the MHTA were going up from $5,000 to $7,500. Mr. Capurro said the increase would provide for the travel expenses for the two members from the state. He said in the past the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had budgeted for the $5,000 in their travel budget.
Mr. Capurro said A.B. 641 would name the chairpersons of the Assembly and Senate Standing Committees on Transportation as the representatives of the state to the MHTA with two members of the NDOT named as designated representatives in the event the two chairs could not attend the meetings.
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, representing American General Contractors, testified in support of A.B. 641.
Russ Law, representing the NDOT testified in opposition to A.B. 641 as it was written. He said NDOT would work with Mr. Capurro on some of the issues that NDOT had with A.B. 641.
Mr. Carpenter asked the name of the organization that allowed truckers to prorate registrations. Mr. Law responded it was called International Registration Plan.
Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 641 and opened the hearing on A.B. 639.
Assembly Bill 639: Authorizes person to operate or maintain on certain highways farm equipment using dyed special fuel under certain circumstances. (BDR 32-1331)
Speaker Emeritus Dini testified in support of A.B. 639, and spoke to the “dyed fuel” portion of A.B. 639. He said the farmer would drive a specially designed vehicle from the field to the storage area for the product just harvested in order to grade the product and then shipped the product from the storage area. A.B. 639 would exempt farmers from the fuel tax and permit them to use the “dyed fuel” on those special vehicles and farm machinery.
Mrs. Chowning asked the distance from the field to the storage area. Mr. Dini replied that in the Yerington area, approximately ten miles.
Cheryl Blomstrom testified in support of A.B. 639, she submitted proposed amendments to A.B. 639 (Exhibit C). She stated that A.B. 639 corrected a minor deficiency in statute that had been created during the 1970s when special mobile equipment and the registration was divided from the fuel tax. Ms. Blomstrom said A.B. 639 clarified the language in statute.
James “Butch” Peri, representing Peri and Sons Farms, Inc., testified in support of A.B. 639. Mr. Peri explained that his customers haul his product with their own trucks. He stated that trucks from Raley’s Markets, Smith’s Markets, and Albertson’s Markets, all are licensed and do not use “dyed fuel.”
Mr. Carpenter said in the Elko area, they moved special and mobile equipment from one field to another and sometimes they needed to cross a highway. He asked if those vehicles would also be exempted. Ms. Blomstrom responded that farm equipment was currently exempt from registration and fuel tax as stated in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 366.085. Chairman Chowning said that tractors were already addressed in NRS 366.085, but farm equipment was not. A.B. 639 would include farm equipment.
Mr. Carpenter stated his question had not been answered, he was referring to a piece of farm equipment that was moved to one field from another that needed to cross a paved road or highway, and would not be transporting a crop. He said he could not see where in statute or in the amendment his concern was addressed.
Mr. Capurro, said that Mr. Carpenter’s concern was addressed in the current language under “special mobile equipment” that would exempt farm equipment, i.e., tractors, front loaders, etc., from incidental use of the highway.
Mr. Capurro stated there were two restrictions in A.B. 639 that restricted the operation of both farm equipment and special mobile equipment, one being the equipment could not be operated on a controlled highway. The second restriction was the ten-mile distance restriction that the equipment could be moved using the highway.
Mr. Carpenter reiterated that A.B. 639 did not address the problems of the farmers and ranchers in his district. Mrs. Chowning stated that she was sure that all parties to the legislation would cooperate to address the concerns of Mr. Carpenter.
Mr. Law testified in opposition to A.B. 639 as written. He said the bill was just fuel tax exemption legislation. He said if a farmer or rancher had to travel on a public highway they must use clear fuel then apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) for a refund of the fuel tax.
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement, DMV/PS, stated his department had taken no position on A.B. 639. Mr. Benzler requested the committee revise two definitions of special mobile equipment and farm equipment and place them under the statute NRS 366.200 which was the statute that exempts vehicles from the fuel taxes.
Ed Harney, Sergeant, Commercial Enforcement, Nevada Highway Patrol, Dyed Fuel Enforcement Coordinator for the state of Nevada stated the highway patrol supported A.B. 639.
Joe Guild, President, Nevada Cattleman’s Association, testified in support of A.B. 639.
Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 639 and opened the hearing on A.B. 476.
Assembly Bill 476: Revises provisions governing reinstatement of registration of motor vehicle suspended for lack of insurance. (BDR 43-865)
Speaker Emeritus Dini spoke in support of A.B. 476 stating that the bill dealt with mandatory automobile insurance. Mr. Dini said his proposal in A.B. 476 on page 2 line 34, related to the first occurrence where a registered owner failed to have insurance on the dates specified a $50 fine would be imposed instead of the current $250. The second occurrence would graduate to $100 and third occurrence $250. Mr. Dini said the initial fine of $250 was too high.
Mr. Gustavson stated he had requested a bill draft request prior to session very similar to Mr. Dini’s A.B. 476. Mr. Gustavson said after he researched the NRS he discovered there were allowances already in statute concerning the reduction of reinstatement fees, so he withdrew his bill draft request. Mr. Dini said he had spoken with the DMV/PS and was told the reinstatement fee could not be waived.
Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services, DMV/PS answered some of the concerns of Mr. Gustavson and Speaker Emeritus Dini. She stated the department worked with insurance companies to identify and sanction owners when there was a lapse of insurance on a vehicle. The Insurance Verification Program (IVP) was not set up to progressively sanction drivers or track that type of information. She said the entire IVP was undergoing a transition to match criteria used by registration information with insurance records. She said during this transition the department had been operating at one-tenth of full capacity of the IVP in order for staff to manually validate every transaction completed while the new program was tested. Ms. Mathiesen stated the IVP would be in full operation by May 2001. The change required by A.B. 476 would cause the IVP to be restructured from the “ground-up.” Ms. Mathiesen said the department was concerned that a complete revision of IVP at this time would jeopardize the stability of IVP. Ms. Mathiesen requested the effective date of A.B. 476 be extended to October 2002.
Mr. Nolan asked Ms. Mathiesen if there was a provision for an exception in the event of a hardship. Ms. Mathiesen said there were exceptions based upon circumstances of the individuals involved; i.e., vehicle was parked while owners were on vacation. However, a $50.00 fee would be imposed for failure to turn in plates for a seasonal vehicle. Mr. Nolan said he could support A.B. 476 conceptually.
Mr. Carpenter asked if IVP was set up to enforce the insurance verification. He said the program should have some flexibility for change as the legislature meets every two years and made changes in the laws concerning insurance. Chuck Connor, Administrator, Motor Vehicle Information Technology (MOVIT), DMV/PS, responded to Mr. Carpenter’s inquiry stating that the department lost their IVP programmer and did not have staff on board at the present time that could support the IVP. He said it was going to take time to analyze just what the system did before changes could be made. Mr. Carpenter said perhaps amendments could be made whereby the extended date for A.B. 476 would be determined by the hiring of staff that could operate the IVP. Mr. Connor stated the department had requested more staff, he said it would take time to bring new staff up to speed. Mr. Connor said that was the reason the department requested the implementation date to be October 2002.
Mrs. Chowning stated Mr. Gustavson had located in NRS 485.317 the procedure for dormant vehicles. However, there was not a provision in NRS that did what A.B. 476 proposed.
Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 476, and opened the hearing on A.B. 534.
Assembly Bill 534: Increases membership of regional transportation commission in certain less populous counties. (BDR 32-335)
Mary Walker, Lobbyist, representing Lyon County, Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 534 and reviewed the statute changes. She said with the incorporation of Fernley, Lyon County now had two cities. Section 1, line 10 on page 1 2(a) of A.B. 534 would only apply to the city of Elko in Elko County; 2(b) of the bill was the provision for Lyon County. If a county contained two cities the bill would give the county commissioners authority to appoint three persons to the Regional Transportation Board (RTB), one appointee from the county at large, and one person from each city making the total five members. Page 1 2(c) of A.B. 534 referred to counties that contained only one city, i.e., Churchill County and others would remain the same.
LeRoy Goodman, Lyon County Commissioner, Lyon County, stated that A.B. 534 was necessary for Lyon County because of the geographics and demographics. Mr. Goodman said that Lyon County had five distinct population areas. He asked that representation be three representatives from county areas and one representative from each city with a total of five members which would give the county better representation.
Speaker Emeritus Dini stated he supported A.B. 534 saying it was necessary to keep the geography of Lyon County represented on the RTB.
MR. COLLINS MOVE TO DO PASS A.B. 534.
MS. OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 534 and opened the work session and hearing on A.B. 8. Mrs. Chowning referred committee members to the proposed conceptual amendments to A.B. 8 (Exhibit D).
Assembly Bill 8: Makes various changes concerning drivers’ licenses issued to persons under 18 years of age. (BDR 43-6)
Mrs. Cegavske testified to the amendments to A.B. 8 (Exhibit E), and stated that the words “provisional license” and “restricted license” had caused many concerns and those words had been removed from the bill. Mrs. Cegavske said the DMV/PS had agreed to the amendment. Mrs. Cegavske said NRS 484.466 already states the curfew regulations. She said A.B. 8 would require 10 hours of night driving experience.
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, representing the American Automobile Association of Nevada (AAA), testified in support of A.B. 8.
Mr. Nolan said that the bill as originally presented mirrored laws in other states. He asked Ms. Foster if she felt comfortable with A.B. 8 with the proposed amendments. Ms. Foster said she did feel comfortable with the amendments.
Mr. Carpenter said his concerns were not addressed in the amendments. Ms. Foster responded the restrictions that Mr. Carpenter had been concerned with had been removed from A.B. 8. She stated a passenger restriction, which was a component of graduated licensing was still a part of A.B. 8. Mr. Carpenter stated that would create a hardship on people in the rural areas.
Mrs. Chowning explained that A.B. 8 with the proposed amendment required a learner’s permit no matter what age the person applied for a permit. The learner’s permit would have to be in effect at least six months prior to applying for a driver’s license at which time, the teenage driver would have a restrictive license, i.e., no passengers under 18 years of age except a member of their family for four months.
Donna West, Administrator, Field Services, DMV/PS, testified that NRS 483.270 would still read that the department could issue a restricted license to any pupil between the ages of 14 and 18. However, that was only for school districts that did not provide pupil transportation. Ms. West stated that under those circumstances a 14-year-old could apply to the department.
Mrs. Smith asked if “immediate family” was defined in statute. Mrs. Cegavske said that Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) was researching the definition and would report back to the committee.
Mr. Mouritsen said there was no definition in the preliminary statute, and no definition in NRS 483.270. Mr. Mouritsen said the term “immediate family” was used commonly in statute, he said usually in the absence of a definition it is construed the way persons interpret “immediate family.”
Mr. Nolan said that it sounded like the committee was looking for an enforcement abstract. He suggested that “immediate family” be deleted from the amendment. Mr. Mouritsen said he could not comment.
Mrs. Chowning reviewed the bill as amended which required 30 hours of driver training, 50 hours behind-the-wheel experience, of which 10 hours experience included driving in darkness followed with a six-month mandatory provision for a learner’s permit and in addition by four-month restriction whereby teen drivers could not transport other teen-agers excepting immediate family.
Ms. Ohrenschall asked if there was a fiscal impact in A.B. 8. Ms. West responded there was approximately a $4,000 fiscal note attached to A.B. 8 to fund the cost of the department to change the regulations.
MRS. MCCLAIN MADE THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 8.
MR. NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Chowning called for discussion. Mr. Collins asked Mrs. Chowning if she wanted to exempt the rural areas. Mrs. Chowning said she could not support the motion as stated. She said she could not support the extended four-month restriction. Mrs. Chowning said she could support the motion without the four-month restriction.
Ms. Ohrenschall agreed with Mrs. Chowning and said she could not support the motion.
Mr. Carpenter said he would need to study A.B. 8 before he could support the motion as presented.
Mr. Nolan said he thought the committee had arrived at a crucial point with what was happening with the new drivers. He said if the motion failed, A.B. 8 failed and all the good portions of the bill would also die.
Mr. Lee asked if marriage would bring forward emancipation of a teenage driver. Mrs. Cegavske responded that emancipation would need to be applied for. She said that if a teenage driver moved out of the home or married, they could apply for emancipation.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH NINE AYES AND 3 NAYS. MRS. CHOWNING, MS. OHRENSCHALL AND MR. CARPENTER VOTING NO.
Assembly Bill 229: Declares prospective increase in number of applications that must be received by department of motor vehicles and public safety before department may design, prepare or issue future special license plates.
Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Bache if the committee had all the amendments to A.B. 229. Mr. Bache replied in the affirmative. Mrs. Chowning informed Mr. Bache that Mr. Nolan and Ms. Mathiesen also had amendments they wanted the committee to consider.
Mr. Bache explained his amendments to A.B. 229 by stating the intent of A.B. 229 was the requirement that special license plates must maintain a minimum purchase of 1000 plates instead of the current 250. If the number of purchases dropped below that 1000 figure, the proponents of the license plate would have one year to bring the figure back to the 1000 requirement. If that failed, the DMV/PS would retire the license plate (Exhibit E).
Mrs. Cegavske said she had a problem with the figure of 1,000, and asked Mr. Bache if he would be amenable to an amendment lowering that figure. She also asked how the DMV/PS could recall plates that had already been issued. Mrs. Cegavske asked what the feasibility of that action would be.
Mr. Bache stated he was not interested in changing the figure from 1000. He stated DMV/PS could address her question on the feasibility portion of her question that concerned the recall of license plates. He said the DMV/PS could request computer readouts of specialized plates. If the required 1000 plates were active, that would end the query and the plate would remain active. Mrs. Cegavske asked if the plate were recalled, would the DMV/PS reimburse the drivers their cost for the plate. Mr. Bache did not respond; however, he replied the persons owning the plates would have one year to bring the number of plates back to the 1000 benchmark.
Mr. Nolan proposed the deletion of lines 4 through 6 on page 1, lines 1 through 4 on page 2 (Exhibit E). He said he was not clear as to what the legislative intent had been. Mr. Bache said he would not object to the proposed amendment, he stated he preferred the language as it was written, however, he would accept the amendment from Mr. Nolan.
MR. NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 229.
MR. LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Collins asked Mr. Bache for clarification pertaining to the start date for his bill. Mr. Bache stated that A.B. 229 would not go into effect until after January 1, 2003.
Mrs. Chowning asked why A.B. 229 was needed since there was no fiscal impact on license plates already issued. Mr. Bache responded that when a group was required to meet the requirement of a certain amount of plates before the requested plate would be issued, the number of plates should be maintained at the level required to get the plate issued in the first place.
Mr. Collins said he did not see a positive effect in recalling 250 license plates. Mr. Nolan responded by stating the DMV/PS could recall the license plates upon renewal. Mrs. Chowning instructed Mr. Nolan there was a motion on the floor and his suggestions were not a part of the motion.
Mr. Claborn said he could not support A.B. 229.
Mr. Carpenter said he did not think A.B. 229 was a good public relations bill for the committee to pass. He said it would reflect poorly on the committee, although he understood Mr. Bache’s purpose for A.B. 229, the people of Nevada felt very personal about their license plates.
Mr. Bache responded he would be willing to compromise, stating that not offering license plates to the public if the benchmark was not met would be acceptable to him. Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Bache if he would suggest grandfathering in all existing plates, and after 2003 there would be a new standard of 1,000. She asked if Mr. Bache would be willing to delete Section 6. Mr. Bache clarified his statement saying that instead of recalling the license plates, they would not be issued if they fell below the benchmark. Mr. Nolan said that would allow the persons to keep the plates they had if they chose to.
MR. NOLAN WITHDREW HIS MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 229.
MR. LEE WITHDREW HIS SECOND TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 229.
Mr. Bache said he would accept keeping the 1,000 benchmark and deleting the rest of A.B. 229.
MR. NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 229 WITH HIS AMENDMENT AND DELETE ALL OTHER PORTIONS EXCEPTING SECTION 2 LINES 4 THROUGH 10.
MR. CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mrs. Chowning informed the committee that A. B. 242, A.B. 246 and A.B. 460 would be heard in work session on April 5, 2001.
Assembly Bill 242: Provides that certain instructors for schools for training drivers are not required to complete requirements for continuing education. (BDR 43-1173)
Assembly Bill 246: Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-213)
There being no further business Mrs. Chowning adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
N. Jolene Jones Miley
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: