MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
April 12, 2001
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:45 p.m., on Thursday, April 12, 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 Chairwoman
Mr. John Carpenter
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. John J. Lee
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mrs. Debbie Smith
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, District 29
Assemblyman David F. Parks, District 41
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, District 31
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst
Cheryl O'Day, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gary Horrocks, Executive Director of Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists
Alicia Amis, Private Citizen and Operations Manager for Motorcycle Coverage Insurance Provider
Ren Scott, RN, Private Citizen and Circulating Nurse with the Department of Surgery, University Medical Center
Wayne Peterson, Private Citizen
Rick Dismukes, Private Citizen and Paramedic with the Clark County Fire Department
Bob Hogan, Board Member, Nevada Community Enrichment Program, and Southern Nevada Continuity of Care Association
Leif Leaf, Ph.D., Private Citizen
Jana Sutter, Private Citizen and Physical Therapist
Curt Connor, Private Citizen
Robert Desruisseaux, Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living
Craig Inman, Private Citizen
Lisa Foster, AAA
Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance
Lauren House, Reiser and Associates
Paul Snodgrass, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Tina Gerber-Winn, Chief of Medicaid Review, State of Nevada
Dr. David Gissen, Private Citizen/Motorcycle Rider/Carson City Physician
Daniel Lee, Private Citizen
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Dana Mathiesen, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Donna West, Administrator, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Field Services
F. Alex Ortiz, Clark County’s Legislative Team
E. Lee Thomson, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Clark County District Attorney’s Office
Robert Ostrovsky, Hertz Corp.
Bill Gregory, Nevada Car Rental Association
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Craig Steele, Manager, Safety Division, Public Utilities Commission
Donna Wickman, Assistant Commission Secretary, Public Utilities Commission
Michael W. Lawson, Traffic Information Division Chief, Nevada Department of Transportation
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Jim Spinello, Clark County
Chairwoman Chowning opened the hearing on A.B. 88.
Assembly Bill 88: Limits requirement for protective headgear for drivers and passengers of motorcycles. (BDR 43-951)
The Chair called Assemblyman Gustavson forward. She advised that the bill was being heard for the third time. The subject matter was previously heard as A.B. 320 of the Sixty-Ninth Session and as A.B. 201 of the Seventieth Session. Chairwoman Chowning advised that the Assembly, “this house,” had held hearings on the subject matter of A.B. 88 out of respect for Mr. Gustavson, the bill’s sponsor, those individuals in support, and those in opposition.
Assemblyman Gustavson introduced himself as representing Assembly District No. 32. He advised that A.B. 88 repealed the requirement that motorcycle riders 21 years of age and over wear helmets. It provided a freedom of choice where helmets were concerned. Many states had already repealed the helmet law in one form or another, including five states in the last five years. He had found that many studies regarding major injuries were very biased or their arguments were flawed. Assemblyman Gustavson discussed his brochure, End the Helmet Hoax” (Exhibit C) and how little the costs associated to motorcycle-related injuries differed between helmeted and non-helmeted riders (Exhibit D). Exhibit E was an article from the Nevada Journal entitled, Ride Free or Die and Exhibit F was the results of an opinion poll. He advised that statistics could be found to support either position. Further, the social burden caused by riders not wearing helmets had not been proven. Out of 1,100 calls received, only 28 or 30 callers were against repealing the motorcycle helmet law.
Gary Horrocks, Executive Director of Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists (NACM), advised that he represented NACM, ABATE, MORAN, and Best of the Desert, bringing forward the combined memberships of Nevada’s on- and off-highway riders. Mr. Horrocks introduced Alicia Amis, an operations manager for an insurance provider that specialized in motorcycle coverage. He requested she attend to answer any insurance-related questions because of the amount of misinformation being circulated. He then read from his prepared statement (Exhibit G). Nevada had a first-rate motorcycle education program in place. Compared to national information, Nevada did not match the national trend. The existing helmet law forced new resident riders who had not historically worn helmets to acclimate themselves to a reduced hearing and vision environment.
Mr. Horrocks advised that 28 states now provided adults the choice of when helmets were appropriate. He reiterated that helmets could contribute to the accident rate and affect the injury rate as well. Five states have repealed their helmet laws in the five years since the federal helmet law was repealed. He discussed Arizona’s excellent safety records and that it suffered no adverse financial effects from having repealed the helmet law. He discussed quick-reference information on financial responsibility on motorcycles vs. motorists and felt education was the best safety feature, not legislation. The death of Dale Earnhardt Sr. due to helmet-inflicted trauma was discussed, as was the HANS® device and its waiver of rights, including the language “no safety device can protect its user from all risk of injury or death.” Motorcyclists could not wear such a device because their required mobility would be negated. Due to deaths related to airbag deployment, consumers were allowed to deactivate their airbags. State governments were taking note that motorcyclists could display the necessary training and awareness to avoid accidents, as opposed attempting to improve accident survivability.
Mr. Carpenter inquired what percentage of riders was anticipated to continue wearing helmets, if the helmet law was repealed.
Mr. Horrocks was not able to provide an estimated percentage. He advised that traditionally helmet use dropped to about 60 percent. He advised he was not advocating abandonment of helmets. His position was that those individuals who had not worn helmets were impaired by the helmet when forced to wear one.
Mr. Lee read from the exhibit and addressed Minnesota’s self-funded safety program.
Mr. Horrocks advised he was unable to describe the Minnesota program in detail but stated that many states were implementing safety programs. Nevada had an extensive motorcycle safety program in place and they had learned very well that the best survivability was to avoid an accident.
Mr. Collins discussed the differences in helmets worn by policemen, highway patrolmen and racecar drivers vs. the standard motorcycle helmet worn by enthusiasts. He felt there was something hypocritical about how the helmet law in Nevada was not seriously enforced and that most of the helmets worn were not legal.
Mr. Horrocks addressed the motorcycle helmets worn by law enforcement personnel further. He had inspected those helmets and advised that they failed the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) test; therefore, law enforcement motormen wore non-complying helmets. He agreed that there were noncomplying helmets on the road. Word throughout southern Nevada was not to bother with the helmet law if an individual was attempting to comply. NRS 486.321 went to compliance. Further, NHTSA-compliant helmets could only absorb the kinetic energy of a 4 mph crash.
Ren Scott, RN, a circulating nurse with the University Medical Center’s Department of Surgery testified as a private citizen. She described herself and her professional lifestyle, and stated she was an average Nevada motorcyclist. She disagreed with the general view of “bikers” and misconceptions as to motorcyclist responsibility. She confirmed that her hearing and vision were severely lessened by helmet wear. As a nurse, she did not see much disparity between unhelmeted and helmeted motorcycle accident victims and compared their injuries to those suffered by someone ejected from a car or truck during an accident. She pointed out that uninsured motorists were even more of a burden on the state than motorcyclists. Medical research failed to mention severe neck and spinal cord injuries that could be caused by helmets during an accident. Forensics had shown that helmet-induced trauma was the cause of five recent deaths on the NASCAR circuit. Helmet use was not being consistently reported on accident victims.
Ms. Scott advised that no differential was attributed to non-helmeted riders who arrived at University Medical Center from out-of-state; nor between on-road and off-road riders. Records were not kept as to when helmets were removed at the scene of the accident or if the helmet was removed upon impact. Helmet use would not prevent an accident. She stated that the focus should be on accident prevention: education, rider safety and vehicle operator vs. motorcyclist awareness.
Wayne Peterson testified as a private citizen in support of A.B. 88. He had resided in Las Vegas for 22 years and had ridden motorcycles from 13 years of age. He stated that Nevada provided a number of freedoms that were not necessarily in a person’s best interest, but regarding which individuals had the right to choose. He felt it was hypocritical to allow round-the-clock drinking, limitless gambling, and prostitution while limiting a small group’s adult choices. There were circumstances in which he would absolutely wear a helmet but believed riders had the right to choose.
Rick Dismukes introduced himself as a paramedic with the Clark County Fire Department (CCFD). He provided a letter written to him (Exhibit H) regarding standby emergency medical coverage for President Bush in 1992. Mr. Dismukes advised that he had been on the scene of hundreds of fatal motorcycle accidents. He could not say whether helmets would have mattered since the fatalities he had seen took place while Nevada required helmets.
Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Amis whether there was accident insurance available to both motorcycle riders who wore helmets and those who did not. Ms. Amis responded that, with Nevada’s mandated helmet use, there was no coverage for non-helmet wearing motorcyclists. She confirmed that, if the law was passed, insurance would then be available to motorcyclists who did not wear helmets. There could possibly be a difference in premiums between helmet and non-helmet users. Ms. Amis stated there was a discount available to those riders who took the safety course. There would be no policy options for helmetless motorcyclists until such time as it was legal in Nevada to ride without a helmet. Ms. Amis made it simple, “where there’s a risk, there’s a rate.”
Mr. Nolan inquired whether Ms. Amis was a motorcycle rider and whether she was in support of A.B. 88. Ms. Amis responded that she was in support of A.B. 88.
Ms. Ohrenschall inquired as to the types of insurance available: long-term, post-traumatic care, or that provided for continuing medication. Ms. Amis did not know if such far-reaching insurance coverage was provided.
Bob Hogan introduced himself as board member of the Nevada Community Enrichment Program (NCEP). He also represented Southern Nevada Continuity of Care Association (SNCCA). He advised that the membership of both organizations opposed A.B. 88 and read from his prepared statement (Exhibit I). Mr. Hogan disputed the representations of the bill’s proponents. He stated that injuries were proportional to the shock inflicted upon an individual’s head and that brain injuries had actually increased in all states where the helmet law had been repealed. Studies had shown that helmet use decreased by 50 percent when the law was repealed. He discussed adults as role models and the consequences to persons under 21 years of age by the removal of safe role models. He stated that many accidents were caused by drivers who did not see motorcycle riders. Although insured, most motorcycle riders were underinsured as coverage did not provide for catastrophic injury. Keeping the helmet law in place would save as many individuals as doctors did and that more persons were affected by a traumatic injury than just the sufferer.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Hogan about the comments that helmet weight affected neck injuries. Mr. Hogan responded that most motorcycle accidents occurred at an average of 25 mph and at that speed helmets were of assistance. He agreed that the weight of a helmet would affect an individual involved in a 180-mph accident, as with the racecar drivers mentioned.
Leif Leaf, Ph.D. introduced himself as a neuropsychologist and clinical director and testified in opposition to A.B. 88. Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall requested comments with respect to risk of inertia breaking a person’s neck. Dr. Leaf offered to obtain statistics on effects of inertia on neck injuries. Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall requested Dr. Leaf provide those statistics and any other information on the subject matter that was available to him.
Jana Sutter introduced herself as a physical therapist with the Nevada Community Enrichment Program (NCEP). Ms. Sutter advised that she provided hands-on rehabilitation for persons who had sustained traumatic brain injuries. She supported retention of the helmet law and was opposed to A.B. 88.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall polled the witnesses interested in testifying from Las Vegas. She called for an informal vote on A.B. 88 and noted that there was one witness in favor of A.B. 88 and fourteen in opposition.
Curt Connor, a private citizen who had suffered brain injury due to an automobile accident, testified in opposition to A.B. 88.
Chairwoman Chowning called forward Robert Desruisseaux, a witness testifying from Carson City. Mr. Desruisseaux advised that he represented the Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living (NNCIL) and that he opposed A.B. 88. He felt that helmet use was not necessarily an individual choice as it reached far beyond that individual. He advised that Nevada was not equipped to fully meet the needs of its residents with traumatic brain injuries. The appropriate safety net was not in place as the northern facility that assisted the injured had closed.
Mrs. Cegavske asked if brain injuries were the only motorcycle-related injury reported or recorded. Mr. Desruisseaux stated that there were others but that the services and needs following a brain injury was more comprehensive than for other injuries. Mrs. Cegavske stated that part of the problem in considering legislation was when statistics were not available. Mr. Desruisseaux discussed Minnesota’s ability to care for individuals with traumatic injuries. Mrs. Cegavske asked if he knew what it was about Minnesota’s facilities and process that surpassed most other states services. He confirmed that such services did affect the amount of taxes paid.
Craig Inman, a private citizen, stated that he had been injured in a truck accident nearly 18 years ago. He opposed A.B. 88. Assemblyman Gustavson requested confirmation that Mr. Inman was in a truck accident. Upon confirmation, Assemblyman Gustavson asked if a motorcycle had been involved. There had not been a motorcycle involved, but Mr. Inman had not been wearing his seatbelt and he felt that any measure that could be taken to protect oneself should be taken.
Lisa Foster, representing AAA, testified on statistics involving motorcycle accidents. The federal government’s General Accounting Office (GAO) had reviewed five studies. The studies showed a higher incident of severe neck injury for unhelmeted riders than for helmeted riders. An Illinois study showed that helmets significantly decreased the number of spinal injuries. Ms. Foster stated that normal peripheral vision was between 200 and 220 degrees. Federal safety standards required that helmets provide 210 degrees of vision. Over 90 percent of crashes occurred within a range of 160 degrees. She advised that a helmet might reduce some sounds, but it did not reduce a rider’s ability to distinguish between sounds. Ms. Foster advised that the University of Southern California (USC) studied 900 motorcycle crashes and there was not one instance where the rider could not detect a critical traffic sound. She advised that 50 percent of motorcycle accidents resulted in the “serious bodily injury of death” and 60 percent of those deaths involved serious or critical head injury.
Jim Werbeckes represented Farmers Insurance and testified that Farmers was neutral on A.B. 88 as its involvement in motorcycle coverage was limited. He advised that the average cost of claims involving uninsured or underinsured motorists was over $34,000 per claim. As to long-term care policies, Mr. Werbeckes advised that they had been available for a few years and were intended to cover care of the elderly. He confirmed a younger person could purchase them and be covered.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked Ms. Foster if AAA insured motorcycles. She responded that AAA did not. Having previously advised that Farmers had very few motorcycle insurance clients, Mr. Werbeckes was then asked whether there were different rates for helmet wearers and unhelmeted riders in different states. He then responded that every state based its rates on a loss ratio of their own determination. Mr. Werbeckes offered research that matter.
Mr. Nolan asked both Ms. Foster and Mr. Werbeckes why their respective insurance companies had such small or nonexistent shares of the market. Mr. Werbeckes responded it was due to “exposure.” He especially pointed to sports bikes and the high incident of losses. Farmers had narrowed its underwriting guidelines to provide for recreational vehicles and more mature riders. Sixteen- to 25-year-olds where higher risks for many reasons. Ms. Foster then advised that AAA’s position was basically the same. AAA had made a specific business decision to remain out of the motorcycle field.
Mr. Collins pointed out that Mutual of Omaha offered long-term supplemental policies. He advised that they were very common. Chairwoman Chowning stated that the insurance industry needed to provide that information to the committee but they had never done so.
Assemblyman Gustavson inquired of Ms. Foster why AAA was opposed to A.B. 88 if it did not write motorcycle insurance. Ms. Foster responded that AAA had a foundation of traffic safety. They viewed an entire issue, took a position and lobbied on those points.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked Mr. Werbeckes if Farmers Insurance wrote motorcycle policies in Arizona. Mr. Werbeckes responded in the affirmative but did not know whether rates went up when the helmet law was repealed.
Ms. McClain inquired as to how many insurance companies insured motorcycles. Her point was that insurance was mandatory before license plates were issued. She wanted to know who was insuring motorcycles and what were the premiums were.
Alicia Amis was called upon and responded that there were “hundreds of companies” that insured motorcycles, some of which insured nothing else. She advised that GMAC and Progressive were probably the two largest insurers in the nation and that Dairyland also insured motorcycles. Ms. McClain then asked how motorcycle premiums compared to automobile insurance. Ms. Amis stated that motorcycle polices were very inexpensive. She stated that “you can ride a $30,000 motorcycle and have $300,000 combined single limits with matching uninsured motorist coverage for $400 per year” and confirmed that medical coverage was included.
Lauren House, representing Reiser and Associates, provided a list of insurance considerations (Exhibit J) and discussed various coverages that were available. He felt that most, if not all, of what was available to consumers was wholly inadequate for severe accidents. The resources for treatment of those with head injuries from not wearing a helmet would be severely strained with or without insurance. Motorcycle medical insurance would go up if claims were “negatively impacted which would further exacerbate the problems associated with that coverage.” Long-term care policies were very expensive, rarely purchased policies. Group long-term wage replacement policies were completely different products than the long-term care discussed. He then confirmed that those individuals who did not have insurance or whose insurance ran out could very well end up on the welfare rolls. That was another instance for which taxpayers would be made to pay.
Paul Snodgrass introduced himself as representing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – Region IX (NHTSA). He stated NHTSA was created in 1968 by a mandate under the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Snodgrass read from his prepared statement (Exhibit K) as his handout (Exhibit L) was distributed. NHTSA’s purpose was to reduce traffic deaths, injuries and crashes through safety standards and research. In discussing Texas and how the helmet law was repealed, he advised that injuries and injury costs did go up. He advised that he had ridden motorcycles his entire adult life and had always worn a helmet. Further, as to regional use, helmets were like hats: hotter states had less use, colder areas showed more wear.
Since the amount of the year motorcycles were ridden differed by state and region, Mr. Snodgrass stated it was best to study states individually over the seasons. The General Accounting Office (GAO) study in 1991 showed that helmets and seatbelts reduced injuries. Helmets saved roughly 30 percent. Neck injuries increased slightly without helmets. Dale Earnhardt, driving at 180 mph in a full harness, could not be compared with motorcycle riders. He also addressed various occupations where helmets were worn. Low insurance rates only covered those hit. To cover traumatic injury, premiums were very expensive and most individuals relied on their own personal insurance coverage.
Assemblyman Gustavson requested confirmation that motorcycle licenses and registration went down considerably in California after the helmet law was enacted. Mr. Snodgrass also stated that motorcycle registrations and licenses had been declining nationwide over the last 20 years. Assemblyman Gustavson pointed out that Texas ridership increased when the helmet law was repealed. Also, with more motorcycles on the road, the number of accidents would increase in stride. Mr. Snodgrass admitted to having heard conflicting information and provided examples.
Ms. Ohrenschall requested Mr. Snodgrass expand upon the issues of neck injuries increasing where no helmet was worn. Mr. Snodgrass discussed tests performed on helmets and how well they were made. He said to believe motorcyclists when they said a car pulled out in front of them because that was very common. Most accidents were due to cars pulling out in front of motorcycles where the drivers admitted to not seeing the motorcycle. NHTSA stated it had tested and recalled four types of “beanie” helmets. Those helmets were made and sold at swap meets where DOT stickers could also be purchased.
Tina Gerber-Winn introduced herself as the chief of Medicaid review services for the state of Nevada and read from her prepared statement (Exhibit M). She discussed rehabilitation services offered by Medicaid as well as living centers and community-based day treatments. The average cost of treatment ranged from $21.50 per hour to $812 per day, depending on the level of service provided. The state of Nevada paid for 236 people to enter rehabilitation facilities last year at the cost of approximately $2 million. Costs of services at $812 per day for freestanding rehabilitation hospitals cost $3 million last year. Those figures were for intense rehabilitation services. Nursing home or long-term care facilities averaged $24,000 per year. She advised that statewide, the caseload of brain injured persons ranged from 65 to 85 individuals. Those individuals might spend anywhere from a few months to several years in rehabilitation before being moved into a community-based setting. Some did remain institutionalized due to the severity of their injuries.
Dr. David Gissen introduced himself as a motorcycle rider and a Carson City physician and taxpayer. He requested a compromise on A.B. 88. He proposed an amendment that provided the freedom of choice but made motorcycle riders responsible for their actions. He suggested requiring proof of medical and disability insurance, as well the as attainment of organ donor cards if an individual chose not to wear a helmet. Dr. Gissen advised that he was an anesthesiologist and provided examples of accident victims he had attended.
Daniel Lee, a private citizen, advised that he had been in an automobile accident and suffered from the effects of injuries to his brain. He advised that he had been “stupid” one time and was paying the price. He strongly supported retention of the helmet law.
Two other exhibits were provided on A.B. 88 that discussed “motorcycle safety” (Exhibit N) and “Nevada Crash Injury Data” (Exhibit O).
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 88.
Assembly Bill 263: Authorizes director of department of motor vehicles and public safety to enter into contracts with persons to carry out certain duties of department. (BDR 43-651)
Chairwoman Chowning opened the hearing on A.B. 263 and called Assemblywoman Sharron Angle forward.
Assemblywoman Angle introduced herself as representing Assembly District No. 29. She read the bill’s description before proceeding with her written statement (Exhibit P), and then addressed her amendment (Exhibit Q). A.B. 263 would authorize the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) to enter into contracts with third parties in order to carry out certain departmental duties. The measure would require the director to adopt necessary regulations that would proscribe the qualifications necessary for appointment. She advised that the regulations should also detail the form and frequency of the reports on those services. Contracting with third parties to perform public services was accepted practice. Assemblywoman Angle quoted NRS Chapter 482 on that issue and referenced the Assembly Committee on Transportation’s passage of A.B. 646, which related to smog-inspection stations. She described the amendment and read various slight language changes and their purposes.
Ms. McClain requested examples of services that could be contracted out. Assemblywoman Angle advised that she had spoken with Director Kirkland and he had a specific interest in addressing insurance concerns, such as verification of insurance. The reason for bringing forth A.B. 263 was to avoid the need to approach the legislature every two years. There were over 40 states that exercised some form of contracting out with respect to their department of motor vehicles. Doing so was easier on the state’s budget as well as its personnel.
Mr. Claborn was concerned about the privatization of state services. Assemblywoman Angle confirmed that the bill’s language was permissive. It would allow the DMV&PS to contract out processes if it was more economical to do so or if the staff was not available. She advised that there would be no loss of jobs involved.
Mr. Claborn wondered whether work would be contracted out when a department became overloaded or would work be contracted out instead of state or city personnel being hired.
Virginia Lewis introduced herself as the Deputy Director of the DMV&PS. She advised that A.B. 263 would allow the department to develop partnerships to assist it in accomplishing its mission. It currently had authority through various areas of statute to enter into those partnerships and she provided examples. She stated that the department had more than its share of work and, with the continued state population growth, she saw a real need for those partnerships. Ms. Lewis acknowledged that there were functions that the state could never release its responsible for, such as determination of vehicle ownership, determination of individual identities, sanctions against licenses and registrations and the reinstatement of those privileges. She felt “privatization” was a frightening term for many employees and felt “partnership” was more appropriate. They simply wished to follow other states’ examples. The proposed legislation provided authority as new opportunities for partnering became known.
Mr. Oceguera asked how partnering processes were authorized if they were already being done. Ms. Lewis responded that the specific statutes governing each matter were examined. Mr. Oceguera asked how “wide open” the statute would become. Ms. Lewis stated that NRS Chapter 481 was the overall administrative chapter for DMV&PS. By placement, the statute would be very broad but would not be implemented in a broad fashion. She assured the committee that any function considered for partnering would be reviewed very carefully and the proposed audit function utilized.
Mr. Claborn asked where the department’s “partner” would get their personnel. Ms. Lewis advised that their existing personnel would be utilized. Mr. Claborn then asked if it would not be cheaper to hire more state employees.
Dana Mathiesen of the DMV&PS stated she believed there was a large public benefit in some cases such as third-party testing and emergency vehicle testing programs. She then provided examples of processes.
Mr. Claborn asked where funds for programs were to come from. Ms. Lewis advised that there were no funds budgeted to enter into any of the contracts discussed. It was neither the purpose of the proposed legislation nor the DMV&PS’s intent to pay contractors to perform services. She provided a current example where construction of a new DMV&PS building was avoided by having the county provide the location and the personnel and the state provide its computer application and training. Some of the smaller counties were receiving DMV&PS services without more state staff, and structures were not required.
Ms. McClain asked what kept the state from forcing partnerships with counties because they already had the staff. Ms. Lewis assured the committee that partnerships would not be considered unless the state was approached by a county, as had already happened in one instance.
Ms. Mathiesen offered that NRS Chapter 485 was one area in which the DMV&PS had no authority to contract out: financial responsibility and insurance verification.
Chairwoman Chowning requested confirmation as to the bill’s sponsors. Ms. Lewis confirmed that A.B. 263 was Assemblywoman Angle’s bill but acknowledged that Assemblywoman Angle had contacted the DMV&PS as to its interest. She had also contacted the Attorney General’s Office because of their knowledge and the benefits to them. It was important that the language be permissive and that there was no mandate in the bill.
Chairwoman Chowning stated it was very important who sponsored the bill and that it was presented correctly. Assemblywoman Angle confirmed there was no intent to mislead the Chair. She outlined the process by which the bill was drafted.
Chairwoman Chowning discussed the bill’s structure further because she felt the language was confusing. She also discussed the verification of insurance further because of A.B. 640, which would authorize the director of the DMV&PS to contract with agents to perform certain duties of the department. That bill was also before the Assembly Committee on Transportation. However, DMV&PS had advised previously that they could not perform. Chairwoman Chowning believed it was because there was no funding for such a process.
Ms. Mathiesen advised that the company who submitted A.B. 640 was requiring an additional fee to run their department.
The Chair then referenced the Governor’s declaration that there be no fee charged unless the industry was in agreement with such fee. Ms. Mathiesen stated there were a number of companies that could provide insurance verification services. She confirmed for Chairwoman Chowning that the state had only been contacted by one company and it required $1 for each verification performed.
Chairwoman Chowning then observed that the process “fell apart” because there was no money to fund it. Ms. Mathiesen believed that private contractors were becoming very creative and she felt opportunities might be presented in the future.
Ms. McClain pointed out that contracting out services cost money and that there were a number of measures this session attempting to use local government funds or push services down to the local level. She stated that, if that occurred, local governments would have no option but to raise property taxes.
Assemblywoman Angle provided examples of her personal experience with registration and a driver’s test in Tonopah. She stated that the DMV&PS helped staff the highway patrol office due to the fact that there was too little work for a comparative highway patrol staff and advised that it was the same with the assessor’s office in Humboldt. She admitted that she did not know how the tax structure was divided up, and then discussed the distances many rural residents must travel for services.
Ms. Lewis clarified the registration function performed by the assessors. She advised that they served as an agent for the department and received $2 for every registration performed. The Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) had been contacted and that same commission was available to others.
Mr. Lee inquired whether the DMV&PS was currently able to contract with companies. Following Ms. Lewis’s confirmation, Mr. Lee requested clarification that any individual could be an independent contractor to the state provided they fulfilled a specific service. Ms. Lewis believed that the scope of A.B. 263 was specific to the DMV&PS. She confirmed that part-time employees were state-trained employees.
Mr. Collins stated “person” also applied to corporations. He had been contacted by an individual who wanted to resolve the problem of DMV lines where fees would be paid by whoever carried the plates, not the DMV. He inquired whether that scenario fit within the proposed legislation.
Donna West introduced herself as the administrator of field services. She advised that the DMV&PS was already working with registration services. They did not contract with those registration services and did not have the authority to regulate them.
Chairwoman Chowning added that those registration service providers worked with a number of dealerships and, for a fee, brought the registrations into the DMV&PS and stood in line. They did not receive any special treatment. The evolution of existing contracted services was discussed. The Chair pointed out that more emissions stations were wanting to provide service because they were able to charge a fee. The cap for that fee was raised from $2 to $10.
Ms. Lewis suggested that service providers look at issues from a customer-service perspective. If they could register a vehicle or renew a registration for someone while the customer was there, that would be a good business decision on that service provider’s part as it would bring in more business.
Chairwoman Chowning pointed out that someone could simply get their registration processed when they got their vehicle smog checked.
Ms. Lewis advised that A.B. 263 provided an opportunity. As the DMV&PS developed procedures to face Nevada’s growing population, 6,000 to 7,000 new residents every month, they had the ability to implement such procedures.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there was some specific procedure they needed to contract out that they had been unable to. Ms. Mathiesen stated that DMV&PS worked closely with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), who might expand their program to allow driver-training companies that dealt with larger commercial vehicles to test drivers. They were also considering adjusting the electronic titling system where they would go online with lienholders and exchange information instead of paper. Ms. Mathiesen stated they had a number of procedures they would like to look at but for which they had no authority.
Chairwoman Chowning commended the DMV&PS for their prior accomplishments and suggested there was nothing prohibiting them from coming forward with future requests.
Assemblywoman Angle felt Chairwoman Chowning and Assemblyman Collins had shown good reasons for the passage of A.B. 263. The bill simply provided the DMV&PS with the ability to pursue an enhancement of services. She agreed that the DMV&PS had done a good job and that they should not have to come before the legislature every two years with each enhancement desired. Without A.B. 263, the DMV&PS would be unable to implement any new processes until after they were addressed in the 2003 session.
Ms. Lewis added a quick point of reference. S.B. 524 proposed allowing interfacing between the DMV&PS and financial institutions as to transmission of automotive titles.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 263.
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)
The Chair stated that A.B. 640 was withdrawn because of the fee it required.
Chairwoman Chowning opened the work session and addressed Ms. Ohrenschall, A.B. 642’s sponsor.
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)
Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall advised that a system was desired by which certain individuals could check a box to advise that they wished to provide information in compliance with the Military Selective Service Act. If not checked, there would be no consequences or information provided. However, she stated the bill and its amendments did not seem to accomplish that goal. She foresaw a “Big Brother” system and felt it created a situation where the government would be looking over an individual’s shoulder, forcing them to take action and accept unanticipated consequences. She did not believe she could support the bill as it stood. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall did not make any motion at that time.
Chairwoman Chowning acknowledged that no motion was made.
Assembly Bill 647: Authorizes municipality to sell, lease or exchange public land under certain circumstances. (BDR 44-177)
Chairwoman Chowning called Alex Ortiz forward. F. Alex Ortiz, part of Clark County’s Legislative Team (Exhibit R), advised the committee that the official definition of “avigation” was “aerial navigation.” The proposed change was located at page 2, line 16 of the bill. Chairwoman Chowning and Mr. Ortiz confirmed how the language would read, post-amendment. Aerial easement related to the agreed-upon use of airspace over a private party’s property.
Chairwoman Chowning inquired as to the public meeting laws and how they related to this proposed legislation. Mr. Ortiz introduced E. Lee Thomson, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Clark County District Attorney’s Office (CCDAO). Mr. Thomson directed the Chair’s attention to Section 5, lines 2 through 25, which set forth notice requirements, etc.
Chairwoman Chowning called for questions before requesting and receiving confirmation from Mr. Ortiz that he was not pursuing the amendment related to vibrations, fumes, dust, etc. She also queried Mr. Ortiz as to his further interests in A.B. 647.
Upon question of the Chair, Mr. Thomson confirmed that they wished to amend NRS 278.461. He advised that Clark County was granted over 5,000 acres by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) but it was in a “cookie-cutter fashion.” The BLM sold land in very random fashions and because of the shape, size and number of small parcels, surveying could be very expensive for a piece of land as small as a few acres. He stated the changes would allow for the orderly parcel mapping of an area as it developed and confirmed the language had been drafted with the assistance of Clark County surveyors.
Mr. Collins inquired how the process differed from when he, as a private individual, transferred a piece of property. Mr. Thomson responded that bill language specified a situation where a small parcel of land was located within a large volume of acreage.
Chairwoman Chowning read over the proposed language and confirmed the committee’s understanding of A.B. 647.
Mr. Lee felt the subject airport needed A.B. 647 to contend with development.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED FOR AN AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 647.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Mr. Carpenter wished to acknowledge the value of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Act. However, for the record, the differences in the land values in southern and northern Nevada could end ranching in northern Nevada. He hoped that some of the money from the land purchase could go for improvement of existing BLM land and not just for the purchase of more land.
Mr. Thomson admitted he hoped the subject land transfer was the first of many land transfers from the federal government to local government to address situations as with the subject airport issue. He also acknowledged that Nevada was landlocked by federal controls and spoke for Clark County when he said they could support such proposal.
Assembly Bill 460: Revises provisions governing remission of fees collected by short-term lessors of passenger cars to department of taxation. (BDR 43-589)
Paul Mouritsen, Policy Analyst for the Assembly Committee on Transportation, discussed the amendments proposed on behalf of Assemblyman Parks. Sections 1 and 2 were to be deleted and a new section added specifying that rental tax proceeds be remitted quarterly. That would do away with changing the distribution of the taxes as proposed in A.B. 460. Mr. Mouritsen admitted that the above constituted his understanding of Assemblyman Parks’s amendment.
Robert Ostrovsky, representing Hertz Corp., testified that Assemblyman Parks had advised him that he would process the proposed legislation on the basis of Hertz Corp. beginning to pay the tax “quicker.” He advised they were willing to pay the tax monthly, if the state so chose. Quarterly payments were agreed upon although the tax was currently paid on an annual basis. Mr. Ostrovsky discussed current and proposed procedure. The revised procedure would mean an additional cash flow for the state of Nevada.
Chairwoman Chowning quoted language for clarification and agreed that it would be beneficial to the state if the tax was paid quarterly.
Mrs. Cegavske stated she understood there were several people in opposition to A.B. 460. She noted Carole Vilardo’s recommendations but advised that she would need to know that all parties were in agreement before she could vote in favor of A.B. 460.
Mr. Ostrovsky assured the committee that the industry representatives mentioned, those for the Rental Car Association (RCA), Avis and Hertz Corp., had all agreed to Assemblyman Parks’s amendment. None had agreed to Ms. Vilardo’s amendments and he admitted that they had not been widely discussed.
Mr. Mouritsen testified that Ms. Vilardo was in opposition and that, if the change went forward, she desired to propose certain suggestions. He then stated that, with that section deleted from the bill, Ms. Vilardo’s suggestions might be unnecessary.
Mr. Ostrovsky confirmed that the suggested amendments applied to Sections 1 and 2.
Bill Gregory, representing Nevada Car Rental Association (NCRA), testified that they would agree to the 2 percent and would pay the tax monthly, if helpful. The problem with 4 percent quarterly was the inherent fluctuations.
Assemblyman David Parks introduced himself as representing Assembly District No. 41 in Clark County. Having car rental companies pay the tax monthly would be unnecessary and inappropriate since many companies had very few vehicles. Monthly payments would constitute a burden for both the companies and the Nevada Department of Taxation (NDT). There were only nine companies that would be required to report on a monthly basis: Alamo, Allstate, Avis, Budget, Dollar, Enterprise, Hertz Corp., National, and Thrifty. Some companies that would report on a quarterly basis were: Advantage, Dream Car, Save More, U.S. Rent-a-Car, which would fall under the $10,000 per month limitation. He advised that some things would need to be deleted, such as the allowance permitting rental car companies to retain 2.5 percent of the total reimbursable amount on page 2, lines 12 through 14. Assemblyman Parks proposed removing Section 2, subsections 4 through 6 and all of Section 1. He advised that, with regard to distribution, some companies pay 2 percent while others pay as much as 3 percent, based on the current percentage arrangement for registration credit. He proposed the question of whether the committee would want to hold the tax to 2 percent or carry out the other credits. He felt that decision would also need to be made. As to the fluctuation in amounts paid, appropriate forms could easily be adjusted so that any overage would be deducted the following month. He suggested setting the 2 percent level for everyone and discussed certain other possible levels of revenue.
Chairwoman Chowning voiced her concern that the amendment was offered as a simple change and had been shown to be much more complex. She offered that if Assemblyman Parks was proposing the bill be revised to reflect a 2 percent tax paid to the state quarterly by rental car companies, that proposition was understandable and actionable by the committee.
Assemblyman Parks inquired whether there would be a final accounting thirty days after the end of the calendar year for the 4 percent not expended in motor vehicle registration.
Mr. Ostrovsky advised that current law required an annual accounting, which amounted to a two-month audit. He then outlined the proposal that the 2 percent be paid quarterly and the 4 percent would follow the current annual procedure.
Chairwoman Chowning obtained confirmation that the industry was in agreement that 2 percent of the tax would be remitted to the state on a quarterly basis.
Assemblyman Parks advised that he had been in communication with the director of the NDT who stated there would be a fiscal affect to that department. The additional cost in personnel to the NDT would be minimal as they would simply be collecting the tax and not performing any reconciliation. Further, between $150,000 and $200,000 additional interest would be generated annually by the 2 percent tax, a direct benefit to the state of Nevada. He suggested that the bill be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Chairwoman Chowning acknowledged the Chair’s willingness to hear a motion for amend and do pass with rerefer to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
Mrs. Cegavske wanted to make certain that everyone A.B. 460 affected was in agreement. She then requested that Carole Vilardo have an opportunity to review the amendment and comment as to her support or opposition. Following such discussion, Ms. Vilardo reviewed the language and confirmed the amendment was acceptable.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED FOR AN AMEND AND DO PASS WITH A REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS ON A.B. 460.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
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)
Chairwoman Chowning requested Mr. Mouritsen explain the proposed amendment. He advised the amendment had been explained by Assemblyman Anderson when the bill was heard and that Assemblyman Anderson had prepared a handout (Exhibit S) showing how the bill would stand. Mr. Mouritsen advised that the changes were highlighted and read a number of revisions in wording.
Craig Steele introduced himself as the manager of the Public Utilities Commission’s Safety Division (PUC). He described the inspectors that were being discussed for transfer. Further, how the transfer would leave the PUC without the expertise, capability or revenue to handle other responsibilities. The PUC’s request was for the rail program to “stay together.”
Chairwoman Chowning felt the committee understood the reason for the request: with the inspectors gone, the duties of those inspectors needed to go with them. She also noted for the record that such change would affect the PUC’s budget.
Mr. Carpenter addressed what he felt were legitimate concerns brought forward by railroad representatives with respect to A.B. 31 of the Seventieth Session. He believed that, because of the fiscal restraints, it would be almost impossible to implement A.B. 376. The committee should send a letter to the PUC expressing those concerns. The hope being that the PUC would “straighten up its act.”
Mr. Steele responded that there had been “a specific complaint” and provided copies of letters written to and from the PUC (Exhibit T). He advised that the PUC “visited the accident site on February 6” and “on October 1 he became the manager of the safety division.” Mr. Steele stated that changes were taking place to increase accountability. They were also tracking goals monthly and enforcing safety laws within their authority. He testified that the PUC sincerely wanted to provide citizens and employees alike with appropriate safety levels.
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson advised the committee that no one from the PUC had contacted him with respect to A.B. 376, although he had received some e-mails earlier. He advised that he had been following that issue for many years and strongly stated that it was not a union issue. Assemblyman Anderson advised that, in fact, he resented the PUC only just then taking seriously the safety issue inherent to the movement of hazardous materials within the state of Nevada. He referred to an interim committee he served on between the 1991 and 1993 sessions that dealt with the movement of hazardous materials in Nevada. Assemblyman Anderson advised that he and the state had been pushing for full-time inspectors for a long time. He addressed the I-80 corridor and the fact that with the Humboldt River watershed paralleling the railroad tracks, the area communities were in constant danger. If responsibility was to be left with the PUC, then scheduled reports should be provided on a more frequent basis than was currently provided.
Assemblyman Anderson agreed that the highway patrol would need to take over all relevant duties and responsibilities. He did not believe that positions would need to be staffed by sworn officers. He had hoped that someone would come forward to take responsibility for the provision of safety measures.
Chairwoman Chowning agreed with Assemblyman Anderson and confirmed that no one had come forward. She emphasized the extreme importance of safety due to the extreme danger to Nevada residents and the rising volume of hazardous materials traveling within Nevada. She felt Assemblyman Anderson sent a very strong message with the proposed legislation and, as the Chair, offered to commit her personal time during the interim to address that issue. Chairwoman Chowning acknowledged that Mr. Steele had only been on the job for about six months and appreciated his sincerity.
Assemblyman Anderson acknowledged Mr. Steele’s sincerity but voiced his concern that it was Mr. Steele’s position that suffered from constant turnover. That turnover made it impossible to attribute any constancy of dedication. He acquiesced to Chairwoman Chowning’s suggestions based on her commitment to the issue at hand.
Mr. Nolan commended Assemblyman Anderson for the proposed legislation and discussed recent ecological damage caused by a serious rail accident. He also understood there was legislation under consideration that would establish an interim committee regarding the current transportation of hazardous waste. Mr. Nolan admitted that bill might only address nuclear waste and stated the committee could develop a resolution for the legislative commission for consideration during the interim.
Assemblyman Anderson advised that he would be mindful if the matter came before the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics; the appropriate committee and one to which he belonged. He allowed that an amendment might be placed within that bill to expand it to encompass rail safety on all issues, not just one of the larger focuses such as nuclear materials. Assemblyman Anderson advised that he was especially concerned about such matters in Clark County where materials were offloaded onto trucks and transported through the community. That concern was also why he felt “the highway patrol was such a good fit.” He assured the committee that he had no desire to delay the proposed legislation any longer than necessary and would respectfully take the good-faith commitment of the Chair.
Chairwoman Chowning allowed that perhaps the committee would wish to agree that a Letter of Intent be sent from the Assembly Committee on Transportation.
Craig Steele wished to confirm that the PUC was at the Assembly Committee on Transportation’s disposal with respect to A.B. 376. He also advised the committee as to the efforts in filling the subject PUC positions.
Mr. Lee stated that he was surprised the highway patrol did not testify with respect to A.B. 376. He discussed various communications he had been party to and how he felt the matter should be transferred to the Transportation Services Authority (TSA). Mr. Lee also advised that the TSA had everything in place to deal with the issue and that he would like to offer a motion to such end. He emphatically stated that he did not want the program transferred to the highway patrol and, having heard that the PUC was “too political,” reiterated that he believed transportation issues belonged with the TSA.
Assemblyman Anderson admitted to having come to the same conclusion when first obtaining a draft of the bill. However, the longer he reviewed the matter, the better suited the highway patrol appeared. At least one commissioner with the TSA, Commissioner Breslow, had indicated an interest in the safety program, but Assemblyman Anderson had not received any confirmation from Mr. Christensen. He admitted to no strong feeling either way with respect to the safety program being transferred to the TSA.
Mr. Collins appreciated the PUC’s good intentions but felt a real point should be made of their lack of progress. He emphatically reiterated that safety was the most important issue and was not particularly satisfied by the proposal of a letter being written. Mr. Collins suggested that legislation be put into place stating those positions would be mandatorily filled, either by employees or contractors, in such a way that the matter was addressed properly. He stated that the railroad had a safety department and he suggested borrowing or hiring away those with the skills to meet the safety program’s needs.
Donna Wickman introduced herself as the Assistant Commission Secretary for the PUC and advised that she had worked for the PUC since March 1997. She was on-site and part of the recruitment when the program was expanded. Ms. Wickman assured the committee that the PUC took the message sent by the Sixty-Ninth Legislative Session seriously. She discussed the personnel turnovers experienced and how they were competing with railroad salaries, benefits and retirement. Ms. Wickman assured the committee that she would begin looking into contracting services out. She acknowledged that the Governor had made it very clear those positions were to be filled and the hiring freeze had not impacted their progress.
Mr. Steele added that the PUC currently had a trainee on board. He was concerned that the contractor they could hire might not be any more qualified as far as the FRA was concerned. Inspectors required FRA certification before being authorized to issue violations with federal CFR’s.
Mr. Claborn was compelled to disagree with his fellow assemblyman from District No. 3. He believed the highway patrol to be the appropriate department to handle the safety program. He also pointed out that they had the manpower, the ability to promote and, by way of permits received, would know when hazardous materials were to be transported within Nevada.
Chairwoman Chowning admitted that she felt A.B. 376 constituted too large a venture without more details in place. She suggested the Letter of Intent as signed by the committee as well as Mr. Anderson and again offered to participate in an interim committee in that regard.
Assemblyman Anderson accepted the Chair’s offer and suggestion. He acknowledged there had not been enough time to provide as much ground work as desired. Assemblyman Anderson felt Mr. Steele’s commitment resonated with the same depth as previous agents. Further, he pointed out that he was very familiar with Mr. Steele’s predecessor, described that gentleman’s qualifications, and questioned the PUC’s sincerity based on its utilization of Mr. Steele’s predecessor.
Chairwoman Chowning confirmed the committee’s decision to proceed with a Letter of Intent and interim meetings regarding the subject matter of A.B. 376.
Mr. Carpenter felt there was time during the session to begin meeting on A.B. 376. He very much wished to be part of the process since there was so much track running through his district. He did not want to imagine the effects of a couple of cars of hazardous materials ending up in the Humboldt River. It was his opinion that the railroads also bore a level of responsibility on that matter. He specifically wanted a report on the number of individuals working on the tracks. Mr. Carpenter also believed Mr. Steele had the ability to learn about track management.
Chairwoman Chowning believed it was an excellent idea to have a meeting before sine die. She advised that it would be an informational meeting. The Chair would schedule and call the meeting, and all interested parties present were to attend at that time. She then closed the hearing on A.B. 376.
Assembly Bill 644: Restricts administrative authority to authorize operation of vehicles exceeding certain width. (BDR 43-1018)
Chairwoman Chowning opened hearing on A.B. 644. The proposed legislation offered the committee an opportunity to delete “chemical” and “hazardous materials.” It also made a strong statement against transport of radioactive materials within Nevada, as it had done since 1989. The opportunity was provided via language specifying the width of vehicles carrying radioactive materials. She suggested deleting certain language at line 14 so as to prohibit vehicles carrying radioactive materials from traveling Nevada highways.
Ms. Ohrenschall fully concurred with the Chair as to making a statement that Nevada would not accept the stockpiling of radioactive waste in any form within Nevada.
Ms. McClain asked what kept Nevada from specifically prohibiting vehicles transporting radioactive materials; what was it that required the legislature to prohibit via width requirement.
Mr. Nolan outlined for the committee how low-level radioactive material was utilized in many processes and was frequently transported within Nevada.
Chairwoman Chowning stated her concern and discussed examples of unlawful transportation of radioactive waste. The proposed legislation was the chance to strongly object to the numerous violations of Nevada transportation law.
Mr. Nolan agreed with the committee’s desire to protect Nevada citizens as to issues involving Yucca Mountain. He pointed out that since Assemblyman John Oceguera was a Las Vegas fire captain, a hazardous materials technician and specialist, he understood the matter from that perspective. Mr. Nolan discussed damages and mitigation of various types of waste accidents and the possibility of a cataclysmic chemical accident involving groundwater pollution. He requested that chemical hazardous materials be retained in the language.
Chairwoman Chowning reminded Mr. Nolan of prior testimony as to the difficulties in retaining such language due to the mining industry’s heavy equipment and materials.
Mr. Lee addressed the existence of various forms of national radioactivity. He believed that the proposed legislation told the federal government Nevada saw the transportation of radioactive waste as to be expected. He felt the bill had no real effect but would simply be viewed as a weak attempt to delay the inevitable. The proposed legislation did not say that Nevada absolutely refused to accept the transportation of radioactive waste.
Mrs. Cegavske requested clarification from staff that the only entity with authority over that type of transportation was the state of Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT).
Mr. Mouritsen advised that the aforementioned authorization was correct for state highways. Section 2 addressed problems with local roads.
Mrs. Cegavske inquired whether Mr. Mouritsen was referring to the entire Section 2 or to a subsection. She wanted to be certain that no loopholes existed where a local entity could provide authority for transport.
Michael W. Lawson, Traffic Information Division Chief, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), confirmed that Section 2 of A.B. 644 did deal with the restriction of local authorities and that NDOT had jurisdiction over state highways.
Mr. Lawson believed Mr. Collins was referring to Title 49 of federal law (Exhibit U), which dealt with the transport of hazardous material. He advised that there were specific federal regulations that did not allow states or tribes to prohibit the movement of hazardous materials. However, he stated that the matter was before the Assembly Committee on Transportation. It was not in conflict with any federal law regarding the movement of hazardous materials because it did not state that those materials could not be transported. It simply stated that hazardous materials could not be transported on an over-dimensional vehicle.
Mr. Collins requested clarification that the point of the matter before the committee was the 102-inch width limitation.
Mr. Nolan inquired whether the committee was certain that transport vehicles exceeded the 102-inch width limitation.
Mr. Lawson responded that he believed the width of the standard radioactive-materials cask was 120 inches, which is ten feet and which would exceed state law by 18 inches.
Mr. Mouritsen advised that the only casks that were over-dimensional were the rail casks. The proposed legislation would not prevent anyone from shipping via truck under the legal length and width of truck.
Responding to Chairwoman Chowning’s inquiry, Mr. Lawson responded that NDOT would support the amendment of the legislation.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR AN Amend and Do Pass on A.B. 644.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN Cegavske SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 639: Authorizes person to operate or maintain on certain highways farm equipment using dyed special fuel under certain circumstances. (BDR 32-1331)
Daryl Capurro introduced himself as representing the Nevada Motor Transport Association (NMTA). Cheryl Blomstrom, who represented the Associated General Contractors (AGC), was called away and requested Mr. Capurro provide an amendment (Exhibit V) on her behalf. It was felt the amendment might simplify the issue by removing any reference to “special mobile equipment” so language simply referred to “farm equipment,” as was originally intended.
At Chairwoman Chowning’s request, Paul Mouritsen read the bill as suggested by the amendment. He proposed adding a reference to “farmer” so that the language involving “his” would be understood.
Mr. Capurro stated the intention of “his” was to specify fields within its owner’s or manager’s control and to exclude those serviced by contracted businesses. He was not certain the 20-mile limitation was germane with respect to farm equipment.
Chairwoman Chowning reiterated previous testimony that a 20-mile limitation was sufficient. Mr. Carpenter specifically agreed therewith and recalled that locations for storage or process would not include where livestock was fed. He then reiterated the bill drafter’s revised language.
Mr. Lee disagreed and wished to have “special mobile equipment” retained for the benefit of contractors. He hoped that aspect could be addressed next session but would agree with the passage of A.B. 639 as written.
Mr. Carpenter expanded on the concerns of the farming regions in that so much feed was used to feed a producer’s own livestock, in their own feedlot. Chairwoman Chowning and he clarified farming situations, comparing them to previous business-related examples.
Mrs. Smith pointed out that A.B. 639 should either be strictly kept to farm equipment in a field or, if opened up to “miles,” allow “special mobile equipment.”
Mr. Capurro advised on the net result of the last recommendations, that the exemption would be provided to special mobile equipment for the use of dyed fuel in the tank, including the existing definition of “incidentally used on the highway.” It would again be totally left to the subjective decision of the trooper in the field. Mr. Capurro pointed out that neither DMV&PS nor NDOT would agree on the 20-mile limitation for special mobile equipment. He stated that if “special mobile equipment” was removed that issue was not dealt with and then everything was acceptable except for “feed.”
Mr. Collins pointed out that heavy construction equipment constantly traveled the roads in southern Nevada and purchased taxable fuel. He discussed bulk feedlot transportation and the types of equipment used. He suggested not processing the bill but the preparation of a resolution to NDOT. Mr. Collins offered the example of midwestern states where vehicles traveled hundreds of miles between their own facilities. He suggested the compilation of data on states with the same concern and advised that he did not want an unenforceable loophole to be created. Further, Nevada needed to consider and comply with federal regulations as well as those of the state.
Chairwoman Chowning advised the committee there had been a commitment from the highway patrol to Ms. Blomstrom, which prompted her to withdraw to some degree.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 639.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
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)
Mr. Collins motioned that A.B. 175 be rereferred to Ways and Means without recommendation.
Chairwoman Chowning inquired whether a county representative was present because that entity had not been heard from on A.B. 175. She explained how some agreement was reached but A.B. 175 could not be passed without full agreement.
Mr. Collins felt the reference to a fiscal note was implied in a dispute over who paid certain costs.
At the Chair’s instruction, Jim Spinello identified himself as a Clark County representative. Mr. Spinello felt that some degree of research would be required in terms of titles, etc. Further, that some miles had to be identified to determine where the exact records of ownership existed.
Chairwoman Chowning revised the wording of Mr. Collins’s motion to one to “pass out of committee with no recommendation and rerefer to Ways and Means.”
Ms. McClain felt the proposed legislation needed more time to work out the details. She advised that she was very uncomfortable with the subject matter while on the subcommittee.
Mr. Nolan suggested the committee send a report with the bill, since A.B. 175’s exemption status was unknown.
In response, Chairwoman Chowning suggested that committee members, and in particular Ms. Ohrenschall as chairman of the subcommittee, appear before Ways and Means to provide background information. She believed there was a fiscal note with respect to both the local and state governments.
Mr. Collins could not support the bill as currently written but hoped that moving it to Ways and Means would allow for further discussion that worked out those differences.
Ms. McClain agreed that perhaps A.B. 175 should go to Ways and Means as the issue would not go away and there must be a fiscal note involved.
Mr. Spinello wished to state for the record that A.B. 175 had involved long, personal discussions with NDOT and the Governor. Since the Governor had personally entered into those discussions and worked on that issue, there had been remarkable progress. He advised that he would be very remiss if he did not state for the record that the Governor had a personal interest in A.B. 175 and that he had assured Mr. Spinello the roads would be maintained and transferred in a good state. Mr. Spinello had known the Governor since long before his election and had known him to be a person of his word.
Mr. Lee felt the bill should be passed to the Senate as they would still have 45 days to work with it. He emphatically stated his desire to have the subject roads transferred. He did not want the bill to pass to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and simply die.
Chairwoman Chowning stated that, policy-wise, she agreed with Mr. Lee and felt requiring the transfer made good sense. She advised that NDOT was in strong opposition and advised there would be a substantial fiscal impact.
Mrs. Smith advised that she was not present for the original testimony on A.B. 175 and would be abstaining from the vote.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO PASS OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH NO RECOMMENDATION AND REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS ON A.B. 175.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE.
Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl O'Day
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: