ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

Seventy-First Session

April 10, 2001

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 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

Ms. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. John J. Lee

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. John Oceguera

Ms. Debbie Smith

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Don Gustavson, Excused

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst

Geri Mosey, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Rod Nelms, Assistant Legislative Director, United Transportation Union

Jack Fetters, Nevada State Legislative Director, United Transportation Union

Gary Wolfe, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Craig Steele, Manager, Safety Division, Public Utilities Commission

Bob Crowell, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

Joe Guild, Union Pacific Railroad

Carol Harris, State Regulatory Counsel, Union Pacific Railroad

Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association

Michael Lawson, Traffic Information Division Chief, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

Robert Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects

Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association

Cheryl Blomstrom, Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors

Donna West, Administrator, Field Services, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS)

Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

Dennis Baughman, Hearings and Special Projects Officer, NDOT,

Bob Ostrovsky, City of Las Vegas

Alex Ortiz, Clark County

Dana Mathiesen, Central Services Administrator, DMV&PS

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau

Butch Peri, Owner, Peri and Sons Farms, Inc

Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, NDOT

Bruce Manning, Central Services and Records, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Assembly Bill 460: Creates legislative committee on transportation and revises provisions governing fees collected by short-term lessors of passenger cars. (BDR 17-589)

Chairwoman Chowning removed A.B. 460 from the agenda.

Assembly Bill 376: Transfers certain responsibilities for railroad safety from public utilities commission of Nevada to Nevada highway patrol division of department of motor vehicles and public safety. (BDR 43-1268)

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, representing Assembly District 31, presented a brief overview (Exhibit C) of A.B. 376, which amended Chapter 481 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) to transfer the jurisdiction of railroad safety from the Public Utility Commission to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS). The Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) would control federal funds and adopt regulations relating to railroad safety. The railroads would report fatal accidents directly to the highway patrol. The NHP was responsible for the safekeeping of the accident reports, which could not be made public or admitted as evidence in any suit for damages.

Mr. Anderson suggested amendments, highlighted on Exhibit D, which provided for participation in the Federal Railroad Administration State Participation Inspection Program and the replacement of “commission” with “Nevada Highway Patrol.” Though the Public Utility Commission (PUC) attempted to fulfill the legislative desire for a good public safety program, several concerns surfaced. Mr. Anderson wanted an agency to give time and consideration to the railroad safety question. He felt the highway patrol was the best department since they would be the first responders in the event of an accident.

Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Anderson to explain his reference to Winnemucca. He deferred to Rod Nelms, Assistant Legislative Director for the United Transportation Union, who informed the committee the Union Pacific arbitrarily removed a clerk’s position last year leaving no one to monitor cars entering and exiting the railroad yard (Exhibit E). The unions filed a complaint with the PUC in which Winnemucca and Humboldt County became involved. Mr. Nelms felt an unqualified inspector performed an improper investigation. The case was pending before the PUC. Mr. Anderson added that the Winnemucca railroad yard handled cyanide shipments for the mining industry.

Assemblyman Collins asked what the PUC had not done and, how the funding would be split if oversight went to the highway patrol. Mr. Anderson responded that if A.B. 376 passed with his amendment, the PUC would be out entirely. The tonnage assessment and collection would be done by the highway patrol. Mr. Collins asked if it was a PUC nonqualified person who did the inspection and had the Governor’s hiring freeze affected the safety. Mr. Nelms said the inspector was a safety specialist with no background in hazardous materials. The hiring freeze would not affect the program since it was self-funded by the railroads, but finding qualified people was a problem.

Referring to the memo from Don Soderberg (Exhibit F), Mr. Collins asked if Mr. Anderson intended a complete separation from the PUC including crossing inspections and approvals in engineering. Placing those functions with the highway patrol, Mr. Anderson opined, reduced the bureaucratic conflicts.

Chairwoman Chowning asked how many inspectors were employed by the PUC. There were four: hazardous materials, track, operating practices, and motive power/equipment safety. The latter was unfilled.

Jack Fetters, Nevada State Legislative Director for the United Transportation Union, spoke in favor of A.B. 376, which transferred rail safety inspectors from the PUC into the Nevada Highway Patrol (Exhibit G). Mr. Fetters testified that the Public Utilities Commission was an economic agency whose chief purpose was dealing with rates and tariffs along with electric, water and natural gas supplies. He believed the rail safety program in Nevada lacked direction and policy. The managers of the program were regulatory people, not rail safety people. In his opinion, PUC management viewed rail safety as an inconvenience not as a critical program for protecting the people of Nevada from a possible catastrophe.

Assemblyman Collins asked if the state had hazardous materials response teams similar to those in Clark County. Mr. Fetters was not aware of any. The railroad procedure for a hazardous materials spill was to dial “1-800-UPRRCOP,” and someone in St. Louis contacted hazardous response personnel in Nevada. He had no idea how long it took.

In transferring the activity from one agency to another, Assemblyman Nolan felt there was still a need for qualified safety personnel. If deficiencies existed in the current program, why not enhance the program and remedy any problems there? Mr. Fetters replied that requests to the PUC to investigate problems were met with suggestions that they do their own investigations. Mr. Nelms had no disagreement with Mr. Nolan’s suggestion; what he sought was more proactiveness with the program.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked what was done and under whose jurisdiction did the program function in other states. Mr. Fetters believed the railroad safety program was funded by private industry in 27 states. There were approximately 400 railroad inspectors in the United States for all of the rail tracks, cars, etc. The Federal Railroad Association (FRA) had agreements with the states to permit them to adopt their own safety programs in conjunction with the federal railroad regulations. FRA inspectors in California and Oregon worked with the state inspectors employed by the California Public Utilities Commission.

In regard to what Mr. Nolan said, Assemblyman Oceguera believed that the highway patrol was trained to the level of the first responder and would have more people who could respond to those situations.

Gary Wolfe, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, served the highway patrol for 31 years in California and Nevada, in charge of a commercial enforcement unit, and knew of no other agency, aside from the fire fighters, who were as qualified to handle hazardous materials spills and accidents.

Assemblyman Lee knew there were between 45 and 60 unfilled positions in the highway patrol. It was difficult for him to believe that the department could be involved with yet another activity. The low pay was another problem; once trained, troopers would leave for better wages. Just changing authorities did little to enhance the enforcement. Mr. Fetters responded they were not asking highway patrolmen to inspect trains; there were four privately funded railway inspectors in Nevada paid by a railroad industry assessment. He believed the PUC was a very political agency and he wanted the inspectors away from the politics in order to perform their jobs for the sake of railroad safety.

Chairwoman Chowning noted there was no fiscal note provided. If something was transferred, the committee needed to know the cost. Craig Steele, Manager of the Safety Division for the Public Utilities Commission, described recruitment for the four railroad safety inspectors—hazardous materials inspector, track inspector, operation practices inspector, and a motive power and equipment inspector. The most qualified had experience with the railroads and hiring them shortened the time necessary for training and certification, which was provided by the Federal Railway Administration. The training time varied with the person from three months to about one year. Upon certification, the inspectors wrote violations for the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) enforced by the state, as well as Chapter 704, Sections 300, 305, 307, 309 and all of Chapter 705 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. If the program was transferred in accordance with A.B. 376, the funding and these positions would be transferred, but responsibilities under NRS 705 would be left with the PUC, which would not have the resources nor the staff to handle them.

Chairwoman Chowning, referring to statements made regarding “some hearings” in which concerns were not addressed by the PUC in a timely fashion, asked what those statements were. Mr. Steele responded:

Mr. Fetters recited a number of changes in the hearing officers, staff councils and safety managers that were involved in the hearing with respect to a particular regulation. I am the third staff safety manager that was involved with that. That regulation went through a number of iterations. It actually took two years to accomplish. It went through a number of different forms and I think that it was remarkable that the unions, the railroad and staff all came to consensus on how that regulation should be addressed. I am not sure that any one of the parties is unhappy with the outcome from that rulemaking procedure.

Chairwoman Chowning referred to previous testimony that someone was told to do the inspections themselves, and she asked Mr. Steele whether he agreed with that and, if so, “that was not the way they expected business to be done.” Mr. Steele did not recall the statement. Mr. Fetters interjected that the incident happened in Winnemucca when a man injured himself by stepping in a hole, after which Mr. Nelms wrote a letter to Mr. Steele requesting an inspection of the area where the accident occurred. A reply came from Mr. Steele’s office that “basically said, the way we took it, to go do your own inspection and then report back to us on your findings.” Mr. Steele rebutted that the letter received from the union was not clear as to what they expected from the commission, so he simply asked for clarification. Mr. Steele offered to make copies of these letters available to the committee. Chairwoman Chowning accepted that offer. Mr. Steele added that within four days of receipt of the letter, there were three inspectors present at the accident site. They interviewed people who had been there when the accident happened.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if there were just four investigators because of budget or for another reason. Mr. Steele said there were four, one for each of the disciplines most necessary in Nevada. Two other disciplines, signals and one other he could not recall, were not prevalent enough in Nevada to justify inspectors. Inspection responsibility was shared with Region 7 in Sacramento, which provided inspectors. Other federal inspectors came from Utah and shared the disciplines or provided inspections in the disciplines not covered by Nevada inspectors.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if Mr. Steele felt four inspectors were adequate to cover everything. Mr. Steele believed they were because federal inspectors also worked in the state. The PUC inspectors covered the role of preventive maintenance rather than accident investigation. He clarified that it was not necessary for the hazardous materials inspectors to be first responders; they inspected the cars, the yards, the shippers, and the consignees, for the loading, unloading and storage of the materials as a preventive procedure.

Assemblyman Collins believed under current law the inspectors were first responders. Mr. Steele replied they would respond to an incident or accident but not as a first response on a hazardous material event because the inspectors were not qualified as first responders.

Bob Crowell, representing the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, opposed the provisions of A.B. 376. According to the statutes, railroads in the state of Nevada had been regulated by the Public Utilities Commission for 82 years. The statutes defined “public utility” as “any person who owns, operates, manages or controls any railroad or part of a railroad as a common carrier in the state.” He suggested that if A.B 376 passed there would be two agencies performing the same duties.

Joe Guild, representing the Union Pacific Railroad, testified the railroad safety inspection program in Nevada, as administered by the PUC, was an oversight program. The inspectors were not trained to be first responders. The railroad extensively trained local fire departments, emergency medical technicians and other emergency personnel as first responders in the cities and states where the railroads operated.

Carol Harris, State Regulatory Counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad, stated that A.B. 376 was in response to S.B. 291 of the Sixty-Ninth Session that directed the Nevada PUC to scrutinize its safety regulations and those of other states and the federal government to decide what was appropriate for Nevada (Exhibit H). It authorized the PUC to enter a partnership with the FRA, the most effective safety role the state could play because it allowed certified inspectors to enforce federal regulations. Because railroads crossed state lines, federal regulations were the most important safety regulations. Empowering these state employees to partner with the FRA produced a maximum safety impact. A.B. 376 would cancel out the great strides that had been made toward stakeholder unity. The NHP would need to begin again to establish rules for Nevada, but lacked rulemaking apparatus or administrative processes for rulemaking or adjudications when a dispute occurred. Ms. Harris was concerned that starting from “scratch” would be counter-productive, and the funding would be inadequate.

The NHP had no experience regulating railroads. The proposal for accident notification in A.B 376 conflicted with existing law in the regulations the Nevada PUC adopted (NRS 704.230 and 704.235), which recognized the railroads must make immediate response for certain kinds of incidents and specified the information the railroads must provide to the PUC for accident reporting, consistent from state to state as required by federal law. From the data, it was evident that train safety increased greatly (Exhibit I). Train accidents dropped 69 percent since 1980 and 25 percent since 1999. Employee injury rates were reduced by 70 percent and 57 percent for 1980 and 1999 respectively. Despite equal hazardous materials ton mileage, the railroads had less than one-tenth of the HazMat incidents of trucks.

Mr. Crowell said there was a fiscal note that showed $923,000 the first year and $553,000 the second year, coming from the DMV&PS.

Assemblyman Collins asked Ms. Harris about the statistics given in her handout (Exhibit I) and those in an article from the Internet (Exhibit J), dated March 2001, that stated train derailments had increased 20 percent over the past four years. He felt it was time to be more proactive in safety inspection.

Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, supported Ms. Harris’ claim that railroad regulation enforcement had been a lengthy process, and from a shipper’s standpoint there had been much confusion along the way. He did not believe there was a reason to change from a regulatory compliance process to a law enforcement mode.

Chairwoman Chowning asked, did the PUC have enough staff to handle this effectively and did they want to? And, when the railroad tracks in Reno were moved, would there be a need for additional inspectors? Mr. Steele affirmed the PUC wanted to continue the program; their qualified and dedicated people were well regarded by the FRA. The PUC was undergoing small changes and reorganization but that would improve the situation. He felt the PUC was a good place for the program. With regard to the Reno trench, Mr. Steele did not feel it would require additional inspectors. Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to know about the layoffs of track layers in the Elko area. Mr. Steele was aware that the companies had laid off railroad workers in a number of disciplines, but it was not within the authority of the PUC to tell the companies how many employees they should have. However, if the condition of the track suffered, the track inspectors would direct the railroad to correct those problems. The reports were available at the PUC and on the Federal Railroad Administration Web site.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 376.

Assembly Bill 644: Restricts administrative authority to authorize operation of vehicles exceeding certain width. (BDR 43-1018)

Michael Lawson, Traffic Information Division Chief, Nevada Department of Transportation, came forward to answer questions from Ms. Chowning who wished to know if requests had been made for oversized loads that had especially concerned the transportation of chemicals or hazardous waste materials. Mr. Lawson stated that by the nature of the commodity they were generally reducible in load, so there were no requests for over-dimensional permits of hazardous materials. He believed the legislation was in anticipation of high-level radioactive waste that came in a cask that by federal law was non-reducible. A.B. 644 would allow the state to permit the movement of hazardous materials in non-reducible large containers. The maximum dimension currently allowed without a permit was 70 feet long or 102 inches wide. Ms. Chowning asked Mr. Lawson whether there was federal law in place that preempted Nevada’s ability to permit longer vehicles. He believed the information she had was relevant to federal legislation that put a freeze on longer combination vehicles. However, a recent interpretation from the Federal Highway Administration stated that legislation was intended to prevent states from allowing an expansion of the longer combination vehicles, but states could make laws that were more restrictive.

Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Loux to come forward. She asked Mr. Lawson if he, at the Department of Transportation, had many requests for vehicles longer than 70 feet to transport hazardous wastes or other materials of concern to the citizens on the state highways. Mr. Lawson responded that the commodity being hauled by a carrier was not at issue with NDOT. The Nevada Highway Patrol administered requests that NDOT received for overlength vehicles. However, he was aware of chemical haulers that hauled in excess of 70 feet in length. In Elko County, there were “thousands” on Interstate 80 that hauled chemicals for the mines. They needed state permits to haul.

Turning to Robert Loux, Executive Director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects, Ms. Chowning inquired about the possible ramifications to Nevada should the transportation of hazardous wastes or nuclear waste come via railroad, and what size trucks would be taken from the railroad cars and placed on the state’s highways. She explained that information, on the record, was for the benefit of the citizens’ awareness. Mr. Loux was not familiar, he stated, with hazardous waste issues, but rather with the radioactive waste issues. The Department of Energy in their draft environmental impact statement proposed two different modes of transportation to a high-level waste repository—one by legal weight trucks and in large casks on rail cars, with an inter-modal transfer facility in Caliente to offload the casks onto heavy haul trucks. Each one would be permitted individually. Ms. Chowning summarized the situation, “So, we may possibly have a truck that is 250 feet long hauling extremely hazardous material on a road that is outside of Caliente to Yucca Mountain.” The procedure would require advance and rear pilot vehicles.

Ms. Chowning explained A.B. 644 made a statement that Nevada had the ability to deny permission to trucks wider than 102 inches or longer than 70 feet to travel on the state highways. Mr. Lawson believed that the NDOT was statutorily required to issue permits for the operation of over-dimensional loads that were non-reducible in nature. “However,” he said:

when you start getting into the issue of specific commodities, it’s my understanding that this bill does comply with all federal law and all state law in terms of restricting the width. I would caution the committee that we could do the economic impacts associated with all hazardous material movements, that there are large benefits to allowing certain movements of hazardous material on longer combination vehicles, both from the industry perspective as well as the public. So, I would caution you to consider the impacts associated outside the scope of this legislation in terms of length, but in terms of width, it’s hard to argue with, Madame Chair.

Mr. Loux stated the dimensions of the casks were 118 inches, perhaps as wide as 124 inches with the assembly, well in excess of 102 inches. So one vehicle might be 13 feet by 250 feet, a frightening thought, Ms. Chowning held.

Assemblyman Lee requested an explanation of the phrase “by resolution” where a portion of A.B. 644 stated “the Department of Transportation may by resolution authorize the movement of vehicles upon the public highways.” Mr. Lawson suspected that the regulations of the Nevada Administrative Code allowed for the regulatory process to have occurred through a resolution. Mr. Lee then asked whether there was any law that stated large trucks could not be in a convoy. Mr. Lawson believed that the distance between consecutive vehicles of that size was limited to not less than 1,000 feet. That applied to manufactured housing and mobile homes, but other than those, Mr. Lawson did not believe it was addressed. Was there a law, Mr. Lee asked, which stated that two chemicals could not be transported within a particular distance? Mr. Lawson knew of none, but the permitting of hazardous materials was not done by day or time, so that at any given time there might be incompatible chemical loads traveling side by side. That was not true of the over-dimensional loads, which received a day and time permit, but he knew of no regulation or law that mandated a separation of an over-dimensional load of one hazardous material from another. Radioactive materials could be hauled in separate trucks simultaneously on the same highway.

Information that Ms. Chowning had read indicated that the radioactive casks weighed 39,000 pounds. She asked Mr. Lawson if he received many requests for vehicles of that weight to travel on Nevada roads. Mr. Lawson stated that was a light load; some requests were for 500,000 pounds.

Daryl Capurro, representing Nevada Motor Transport Association, testified that the trucks on the highway today were up to 70 feet long. There were continuous operation permits for vehicles that could be broken apart (triples) and over-dimensional permits, which were issued on a one-trip basis or on a five-day basis. Mr. Capurro suggested removing the words “hazardous materials” from page 1, line 14, because it was too general. Some firefighting equipment was wider than 102 inches and might carry over 110 gallons of its own fuel on a trailer, which required a placard. The wording of A.B. 644 would prevent their movement without permits.

Cheryl Blomstrom, representing the Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors, concurred with Mr. Capurro. The Nevada Chapter formed a partnership with the Nevada Highway Patrol, the Washoe County Sheriff, the Bureau of Land Management, and various firefighting agencies, to respond in the event that heavy equipment was needed to fight fires. That was done under permit for over-width vehicles all over northern Nevada. She was also concerned about the overly broad term “hazardous materials.” When firefighting equipment carried diesel to a remote location, it would require a hazardous materials placard, and A.B. 644 would restrict its movement without a permit from NDOT.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 644 and opened the work session (Exhibit K) on A.B. 642.

Assembly Bill 642: Requires department of motor vehicles and public safety to offer to provide assistance to certain persons in complying with Military Selective Service Act under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-1329)

Mr. Mouritsen stated A.B. 642 required the DMV&PS to provide assistance in complying with the Military Selective Service Act. Donna West, Administrator, Field Services, DMV&PS, testified that in reviewing the wording of the amendment proposed by Selective Service, the department agreed with: 1) the definition of the customers involved in paragraph A of the proposed amendment, 2) paragraph C of the amendment and, 3) the effective date proposed in paragraph D. DMV&PS interpreted “offer to provide assistance in complying” as meaning the department would send an electronic format of the driver license, instruction permit and identification card records for 18 to 26 year-old males to the Selective Service. The Selective Service asked that that be a de facto registration with Selective Service. Ms. West believed Selective Service registration was beyond the scope of the type of service offered by the DMV&PS. Many customers would express concern about what the department did with their record information, acting beyond the mission of motor vehicle safety. There would be lengthy delays in transactions and added customer waiting time. She agreed with the wording, provided the intention was “sending record information and not actually registering young men for the draft by giving them a driver’s license.”

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall agreed with Ms. West; A.B. 642 was originally presented as something to help the youth of Nevada to remember their responsibility to register. It was not to be mandatory nor increase a “big brother” approach. Ms. Ohrenschall stated that she had not received any amendments. Chairwoman Chowning, recognizing that it was Ms. Ohrenschall’s bill, asked her viewpoint. Ms. Ohrenschall said there was not enough input to proceed with the bill.

No action was taken. Chairwoman Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 642.

Assembly Bill 175: Requires board of directors of department of transportation to relinquish portions of certain state highways to county or city under certain circumstances. (BDR 35‑820)

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall reported that she and Assemblywoman McClain and Assemblyman Carpenter met in subcommittee on March 26, 2001, and were informed through testimony that intergovernmental meetings in southern Nevada might cancel the need for A.B. 175. Ms. Ohrenschall received a letter dated April 3, 2001 (Exhibit L), which stated that by Friday, April 6, a tentative agreement would be presented to the NDOT Board of Directors. No further word was received.

Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), stated the NDOT Board of Directors approved the proposed guidelines for the road transfers (Exhibit M). She agreed there was no need for A.B. 175, and NDOT was working with the local and county entities statewide to establish a list of roads that would be transferred in conjunction with A.C.R. 3 of the Seventieth Session. NDOT supported the clarification of ownership where there was joint ownership since joint ownership created confusion in permit applications and construction. NDOT would establish a list of roads and a schedule for maintenance prior to transfer to a local entity.

Assemblyman Lee asked if the transfer included all rights-of-way, bridges and “fly-overs.” Ms. Martinovich replied everything would go, but NDOT would retain ownership of the bridges and fly-overs on the Interstate system. Local entities would be responsible for traffic signals. If local streets had bridges, long-term maintenance remained with the local entity, but NDOT would be responsible for the inspection of the bridges.

Neither Bob Ostrovsky, representing the city of Las Vegas, nor Alex Ortiz, representing Clark County, was aware of the actions of the NDOT Board of Directors. Chairwoman Chowning asked them to review the report to continue this work session two days hence. Mr. Ostrovsky stated that Las Vegas was more comfortable with the transfer process and believed it “was moving in the right direction.” Mr. Ortiz was equally pleased.

Chairwoman Chowning thanked Eugene Weight, seated in the gallery, and complimented him for the part he played in helping the people in Good Springs to have a by-way that possibly saved some children from being hit by trucks traveling to and from the mine there. The committee would continue to mediate on A.B. 175 and bring it up for discussion on April 12. Assemblyman Collins did not feel the need for the bill in its current form. Ms. Chowning stated at the next meeting they would pass the bill in its current form, amend the bill, reject the bill, or take no action.

Assembly Bill 424: Directs Department of Transportation, Clark County and City of Las Vegas to conduct certain assessments concerning need for abatement of traffic noise. (BDR S-875)

Mr. Mouritsen opened the work session on A.B. 424, which allowed for the construction of sound barriers along Interstate 515 in Clark County. In an amendment to Section 3 from Assemblywoman McClain, Ms. Chowning suggested the study should include the portions of I-515 that was within the city of Las Vegas. Ms. Chowning read the amendment (Exhibit K).

Dennis Baughman, Hearings and Special Projects Officer, NDOT, had not seen the amendments but suggested that a study of traffic noise along Interstate 515 from Charleston to Russell Road would cost from $300,000 to $400,000 to accomplish. He agreed it was noisy there and probably surpassed the federal impact limits in most situations. He questioned the need for a noise study and noise policy. NDOT has had a noise policy for retrofitting sound walls for a number of years. Also, $400,000 for the sound wall from Charleston to Desert Inn on the east side of I-515 would cover only half the cost. From Boulder Highway to Desert Inn the cost would run about $500,000 to $600,000. NDOT would oppose any appropriation in A.B. 424 from the Highway Fund.

Assemblywoman McClain said her main concern was the inclusion of plans to build the other side of the freeway where the sound wall was under construction, which was actually Boulder Highway to Desert Inn. She wanted to see a plan for the entire area because the highway was extremely busy and residents had been neglected. The plan, she insisted, should include the places “where the noise is outrageous” and the places that no longer qualified because residential was now commercial property. The study and plan could be formulated before the next session. Ms. Chowning agreed; homes on the east side of that portion, below the highway, experienced extreme noise day and night. Relief was needed. Mr. Baughman said one of the reasons why relief had not yet been granted was that there had been no local matching funds, the key to the entire noise program. NDOT believed that Clark County and the city of Las Vegas, who agreed to the alignment of the highway, should match the $2 million NDOT allocated per year for sound walls.

Chairwoman Chowning recalled the discussion with the city of Henderson and asked how much they had paid. Mr. Baughman understood that Henderson received a special appropriation from Congress for Canamex Corridor improvements of which they used $7 million for sound walls. NDOT contributed $2 million for that project.

Assemblywoman McClain restated her point that the entire area needed an in-depth study and a distinct plan before the local entities would agree. Local commissioners and councilmen wanted this done also. Mr. Baughman retorted that Assemblyman Manendo introduced a failed bill in the last Session that requested sound walls from Desert Inn to Russell Road on the east side. Clark County did not offer the matching funds. Ms. McClain firmly believed that if there was a plan, they could move forward.

Assemblyman Collins believed the intent of the original bill was to alert Clark County and Las Vegas that NDOT annually had $2 million in matching funds for local entities’ noise control. Perhaps if NDOT notified the local entities of noise violations, the local governments could use air quality money for sound walls. Ms. McClain responded that was the reason for forcing a plan. That was a low priority because it was not a growth area; the attitude was “they’ve lived this long with the noise, we’ll get to it when we can.” Ms. McClain stressed “these people on the east side of town are tired of being second class citizens when it comes to stuff like this.”

Chairwoman Chowning reminded the committee they dealt with policy, the cost figures would be discussed in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Assemblyman Nolan wanted to know NDOT’s plan for continual evaluation of urban noise levels. Ms. Martinovich offered that when NDOT began a federally funded capacity improvement project, widening or increasing the lanes, noise mitigation was evaluated as part of the process. Exceeding certain decibels of noise required an existing condition evaluation and an impact assessment of what the improvement might cause. If sound walls were warranted they were typically constructed as part of the project with federal funds. NDOT’s priority was to address the growth, the capacity issues and the maintenance of the highways. Noise issues were a lower priority, studied when complaints came in from neighborhoods. NDOT relied on local entities to approach them.

Assemblyman Nolan remarked that the issue had been addressed in each of the last four sessions. He felt Ms. McClain was justified in requesting the study. Ms. Martinovich replied that if the local jurisdictions wanted sound walls as part of their transportation improvement plan, then NDOT would include them in the statewide transportation improvement plan. Mr. Nolan felt A.B. 424 would help effect that; the legislature looked to NDOT to lead them with facts and recommendations, to approach the city or county and admonish them of noise level violations, and to begin creating a plan.

Chairwoman Chowning asked whether that particular area was one that exceeded the decibel level required by federal law. Mr. Baughman stated it was; studies had been done.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 424 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS EXCEPT CHANGE CHARLESTON BLVD TO BOULDER HIGHWAY IN SECTION 1, LINE 5, ON THE AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 476: Revises provisions governing reinstatement of registration of motor vehicle suspended for lack of insurance. (BDR 43-865)

Mr. Mouritsen stated A.B. 476 was brought before the committee by Speaker Emeritus Dini upon request and was heard on April 3, 2001. A.B. 476 revised the fee for the reinstatement of motor vehicles suspended for lack of insurance. A set of amendments was received that made substantial changes to the original bill. The provision, as it was amended, instead of providing a graduated reinstatement fee, provided that if the owner could prove he was unable to comply with the insurance provisions because of extenuating circumstances, he would be charged a smaller amount for the reinstatement fee or have the suspension rescinded without a fee.

Dana Mathiesen, Central Services Administrator, DMV&PS, met with Mr. Dini and discussed alternatives that met his intent and worked for the department and the public. He supported the language change (Exhibit N), which eliminated the need for graduated reinstatement fees.

Assemblyman Lee asked how the rescission was obtained. Ms. Mathiesen submitted that the insurance verification program was run from a centralized section so most correspondence was completed by mail after the DMV&PS received a notice of lapse of insurance from the insurance company.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 476.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED.

THE MOTION PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 639: Revises provisions governing taxation, distribution and use of special fuel. (BDR 32-1331)

Mr. Mouritsen stated that A.B. 639 dealt with the dyed fuel issue, heard on April 3 and discussed on April 5, 2001, and authorized the operation or maintenance on the public highways of special mobile equipment and farm equipment using dyed fuel under certain circumstances.

Cheryl Blomstrom, representing the Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors, explained the first proposed amendment (Exhibit O) restricted the operation of special mobile equipment from controlled access highways. Such equipment did not travel at the appropriate speed and was not necessarily safe traveling with the motoring public. The second amendment allowed farmers to move from field to field. An amendment to Section 1, subsection 4, page 2, line 6, was replaced by Assemblyman Carpenter’s amendment (Exhibit P), which defined farm equipment as “self-propelled farm machinery or motor vehicle that is designed solely for tilling the soil, cultivating, harvesting or transporting….” The final amendment limited incidental operation to less than eight miles, though Ms. Blomstrom stated that she had now agreed to a limit of four miles. In refining the language of the amendments, incidentally operated vehicles would include operations in rural communities versus urban areas rather than being restricted by miles traveled. Ms. Blomstrom argued that a half-mile in Clark County might be too long, given the certain time of day, a particular roadway and the volume of traffic.

Assemblyman Lee wondered what was not “self-propelled” farm machinery. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, assisted in drafting the definition. The bill dealt with “driving something down the road,” hence “self-propelled” was selected. Some farm equipment and implements were pulled or otherwise transported. Assemblyman Carpenter recommended the addition of “feed” at line 2-6 to read “…used to store, feed or process the crops….” Mr. Busselman felt the feed was covered under the concepts in the language for agricultural products. Assemblyman Collins suggested the issue was that hauling hay to cows across the road might not be in compliance with the language of storing or processing the crops. Assemblyman Gustavson said many ranchers rented or shared equipment. He inquired whether A.B. 639 prevented them from moving the equipment to another’s farm or ranch. Mr. Capurro said A.B. 639 was going beyond the intent of narrowly defining which vehicles could use dyed fuel.

Assemblyman Lee questioned the use of “his” as in “his fields,” which appeared to limit the use of the equipment to that one ranch. Mr. Capurro explained that if it was expanded, a potato farmer in one area could transport to a processing plant somewhere else, which was commercial enterprise. To keep the exemption as narrow as possible, the language had to be “his own crops to his own field to his own processing plant.”

Assemblyman Claborn said the dyed fuel, used by farmers and ranchers, carried a lower tax than the fuel used for transportation over interstate highways. Red dye on the engine of vehicles used on a highway indicated possible tax evasion. A.B. 639 was perfect for the rancher and farmer who did not pay the extra highway tax.

Assemblyman Carpenter admitted it was a complicated subject but the four miles would mean little in the rural areas because ranches were 20 to 30 miles each from field to field. It was possible that a rancher might travel eight to ten miles to work his field and return home over the same eight to ten miles of highway. Chairwoman Chowning said that further defining the farm equipment limited it even more. Mr. Capurro believed the four miles did not apply to farm equipment, just special mobile equipment, used primarily by contractors. If a rancher’s fields were 30 miles apart, he could still travel from “his field to his field.”

Butch Peri, owner of Peri and Sons Farms, Inc., felt that everything was fine as written. He understood the addition of “feed” and foresaw no problem. Ms. Chowning asked if adding all those words expanded the bill far beyond the single intent he brought to the committee originally. Mr. Peri replied that each vehicle had a single purpose. But, Ms. Chowning reminded him, the reason the committee agreed to listen to the bill was to permit him to haul his crops back and forth, not to store, not to feed, not to process. Yes, he agreed. He hauled his onions to store them; the trucks that hauled them to the grocery stores were licensed, inter- and intrastate carriers. Mr. Capurro believed that including “feed” expanded the use of dyed fuel beyond its intention. Mr. Carpenter disagreed, especially in the case of transporting hay or grain to a feedlot, where it was fed to animals, not stored or processed. Mr. Busselman maintained that feed was an agricultural product, which, when transported for a purpose on a ranch by the rancher, was covered in the existing language. Assemblyman Claborn joined the discussion with an admonishment to remember A.B. 639 stated that farm equipment was exempt, period.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 639.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED.

THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 474: Revises provisions concerning enforcement of registration of motor vehicle by new resident of this state. (BDR 43-1201)

Mr. Mouritsen reviewed the provisions of A.B. 474, which was heard on April 5, 2001. Mr. Nolan presented amendments (Exhibit K) that:

· replaced all references to “volunteers” with “employees;”

· deleted subsection 5 of Section 3;

· added a provision that the duties of receiving telephone calls, logging, initial investigation and follow up would be performed by staff; and,

· added a provision that failure to register a vehicle within ten days would result in citation.

Assemblyman Nolan stated that the original bill had an appropriation of $150,000, but that was reduced to $109,508, which paid for the employees, the computer hardware and software, and advertising. The revenue generated through the program was estimated at $9 million annually.

Neither Ms. Chowning nor Assemblyman Lee supported A.B. 474 because it required that a vehicle was always registered even though it was not in use. Neither liked the issuance of penalties, which ranged as high as $1,000.

Assemblywoman McClain supported A.B. 474 because it worked well with her driver’s license bill [A.B. 246]. Assemblyman Nolan observed that his colleagues were most concerned about the penalty, so he suggested reducing the maximum to $500. Mr. Lee asked if Mr. Nolan was amenable to removing Section 4. A.B. 474 created a situation where there would be criminals, because of the fining process, who never intended to become such. Mr. Nolan contended the people who registered their vehicles “carried the burden of a lot of folks who were benefiting from our highways” but had not registered their vehicles. However, he expressed a willingness to remove Section 4.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 474.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH 8 YEAS. CHAIRWOMAN CHOWNING AND ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON VOTED NAY.

Chairwoman Chowning returned to A.B. 639 because of the mileage. The special mobile vehicles were reduced to four miles but there was no limit on farm equipment.

CHAIRWOMAN CHOWNING ASKED FOR A MOVE TO RECONSIDER A.B. 639.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED.

THE MOTION PASSED.

Assemblyman Lee opined that the four-mile limit on construction equipment was too limited, but Mr. Capurro replied that was a negotiated figure. Some that had been traveling 30 miles or so on the Interstate, were not equipped with lights, bumpers and other safety features. The provision was designed to state that incidental operation had a limit.

Assemblyman Carpenter felt that contractors, ranchers and farmers deserved a break and the limit for both should be 20 miles. Ms. Chowning asked Mr. Law what impact that would have on the revenue from motor fuel taxes. Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, NDOT, confirmed that 20 miles was just enough for him to bring his truck out of California to his warehouse in Sparks and return to California.

Mr. Law continued his testimony. Farm use versus highway use was an issue of nontaxable versus taxable. IRS Publication 378 (Exhibit Q) outlined the uses of nontaxable undyed diesel fuel for which a credit or refund was allowable. On page 4, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) clearly determined that “off the farm, on the highway” was fuel “not used for farming” and therefore taxable. Mr. Law said, “If you have to clarify what is farm use and not farm use for the federal government, then you have clarified it for the state government as well.” The DMV&PS MC45 form (Exhibit R) claimed a refund for the use of taxed fuel that was for off-highway purposes.

Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Law if the committee passed A.B. 639 in the current or original form, would it be contrary to federal law? Mr. Law did not feel qualified to answer the question but stated that he would pay the taxes; IRS Publication 378 (Exhibit Q) made it very clear. Mr. Capurro interjected that several states provided for exemptions, and the IRS provided an exemption for intra-city bus operations, which permitted the states to decide whether to allow the exemption.

Mr. Law believed that special mobile equipment should be exempted for incidental operation. If that required a clearer definition, NDOT would work on it. He did not believe that NDOT could in any way support any mileage limitation on operating those vehicles on Nevada’s highways. It was a safety and severe liability issue. Mr. Capurro rebutted that incidental use became a problematic subjective term. Assemblyman Carpenter felt that 20 miles for special and farm equipment was reasonable. Ms. Chowning conceded she brought this back to the committee for a limit.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 639, WITH THE AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE MOVEMENT OF SPECIAL MOBILE EQUIPMENT AND FARM EQUIPMENT TO 20 MILES.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED.

Assemblywoman Smith had a concern about the 20-mile limit for special vehicles and would vote no. Assemblywoman Cegavske agreed and voiced a concern whether the committee really understood what they were voting on. The original premise was farm equipment, she said. Assemblywoman Smith requested Cheryl Blomstrom to explain a little more.

Ms. Blomstrom related that in the 1970s, when the Nevada Revised Statutes chapters were split into special fuels and registration, the definition and the exemption for special mobile equipment was placed under registration, Chapter 482, and the definition of special mobile equipment was placed in the special fuels chapter without an exemption. What she had intended to bring in A.B. 639 was an exemption for incidental use. To move the bill through the Assembly, she committed to work with Brian Hutchins, who understood the problem and had a remedy, to take an improved bill to the Senate. A.B. 639 would return to the Assembly Conference Committee. Mr. Dini had asked her to tag the farm equipment on to the bill due to the rules established with the 120-day session. The wording “his own fields to his own fields” was added to accommodate Mr. Peri but eliminate any contract hauling. A.B. 639 was limited to specially designed farm equipment such as Mr. Peri used to haul onions; it was not intended for flatbeds or potato trucks.

Chairwoman Chowning decided to hold A.B. 639 until April 12, giving Ms. Blomstrom and Mr. Hutchins an opportunity to refine the language.

Assembly Bill 641: Makes various changes to Multistate Highway Transportation Agreement. (BDR 43-1330)

Mr. Mouritsen reported A.B. 641 was heard on April 3 with no action taken. The controversy of the bill centered on Articles 9 and 10 in which NDOT proposed to make both the cooperation with the states’ agencies and the highway funding permissive rather than mandatory.

Chairwoman Chowning spoke with National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) representatives from Utah and Montana who stated that this was a benefit to their states. Those states developed recommendations to be taken to the legislatures, which could act on them if they chose. The NCSL helped the Multistate Highway Transportation Agreement (MHTA) to develop bylaws. Regarding Article 9, Ms. Chowning agreed with NDOT; the cooperation should not be mandated. Every western state, except Nevada and Washington, had similar language in place.

Mr. Capurro had no problem with the word “may” rather than “shall,” thus rendering the bill permissive with respect to cooperation with the coordinating committee. In addition, he pointed out that it read “within appropriations” so if there was no money appropriated, there was no need to cooperate. The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means would determine the amount. NDOT did not want the money to come from the Highway Fund, but Mr. Capurro was confused why NDOT would not spend $15,000 over a two-year period to give legislators the opportunity to participate together in highway transportation situations, yet they spent several hundred thousand dollars on other issues. Assemblyman Lee believed Mr. Capurro was correct, as was the change from “shall” to “may.”

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 641 AND REREFER TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED.

THE MOTION PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 643: Makes various changes to provisions governing issuance and use of special license plates. (BDR 43-1019)

Mr. Mouritsen introduced A.B. 643, which provided for the issuance of special license plates for antique trucks and truck trailers, and authorized the operator or owner of the vehicle displaying special plates for disabled veterans to park in a designated handicapped place. The fee was in lieu of other fees that would be paid on those trucks for registration. Chairwoman Chowning asked why the “in lieu of” fee was necessary. Mr. Mouritsen believed that the registration fees for large trucks was high and A.B. 643 was intended to allow the owners to drive the trucks in parades and special events but not for long distances.

Bruce Manning, Central Services and Records, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated the stipulation was that disabled veterans would use handicapped parking without the placard or the handicapped plate. Assemblyman Nolan, though sympathetic to the sponsors of A.B. 643, felt there would be enforcement problems, especially with the volunteers who cited the violators of handicapped parking. He favored striking that portion of the bill. However, Assemblyman Collins saw no problem with disabled veterans parking in handicapped spots even though the standards were different. He said, “We don’t give our veterans enough and if we can give 500 of them a place to park, I don’t have a problem with that.” Chairwoman Chowning agreed; it should be allowed.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 643.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED.

THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 645: Revises provisions regarding signs posted in school zones. (BDR 43-1297)

Bob Ostrovsky, representing 3M Corporation, redrafted A.B. 645 in response to the committee’s request (Exhibit S). Section 1, subsection 3, stated that NDOT “may establish standards with respect to the use of signs in schools zones and pedestrian crossings consistent with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).” Subsection 4 permitted NDOT to supplement MUTCD as needed through regulation. NDOT believed they had the authority, but not through regulation.

Fred Droes, Chief Safety Traffic Engineer, NDOT, believed the authority existed under NRS 484.781, which was “the adoption of manual and specifications for devices for control of traffic,” in compliance with the MUTCD. Mr. Ostrovsky did not wish to belabor the issue, but since NDOT went on the record stating they were willing to consider changes between the publications of new manuals, what NDOT determined was right for traffic safety standards satisfied him. Expressing a desire to continue to work with NDOT for traffic safety, Mr. Ostrovsky withdrew A.B. 645. Chairwoman Chowning declared that A.B. 645 was withdrawn.

Mr. Mouritsen notified the Chair of a conflict (Exhibit T) with A.B. 643. Every bill that mentioned the privilege tax, now a government services tax, must be amended to correct that language. This affected line 13 of A.B. 643.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MOVED TO RECONSIDER A.B. 643.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED.

THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.

**********

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 643.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED.

THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 647: Authorizes municipality to sell, lease or exchange public land under certain circumstances. (BDR 44-177)

A.B. 647 allowed the governing body of a municipal airport to enter into an agreement to sell or exchange property acquired for the development of an airport or to control airport noise. Alex Ortiz, representing Clark County, said there were two amendments, one of which changed line 16 on page 2 to read “avigation” as opposed to aviation. A second amendment changed item C on lines 2-17 to 2-19 to include “noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, fuel, particles and all other effects that may be caused by aircraft.” Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Ortiz to bring the written bill with the amendments to the April 12 meeting. She requested further explanation about the “immunity from civil languages” clause. Mr. Collins asked to be shown where else the immunity clause existed for airports or a justification for including it.

Mr. Ortiz mentioned a previously overlooked proposed amendment to NRS 278.461 regarding conveyance of the land. That would be included in the information for the next meeting, April 12.

There was no further business. Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Linda Lee Nary

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: