MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
February 20, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:39 p.m., on Thursday, February 20, 2003. Vice Chairwoman Genie Ohrenschall 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. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, Clark County Assembly District No. 15
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Jackie Valley, Committee Manager
William E. Fowler, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Frank Siracusa, Chief, Nevada Division of Emergency Management
Martha Barnes, Central Services and Records Administrator, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Bruce Manning, Manager, License Plate Factory, DMV
Gary Wolff, representing Teamsters Local 14 and the Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Kami Dempsey, Government Relations Manager, City of Las Vegas
Ronald P. Dreher, Nevada Chapter Director, Peace Officers’ Research Association of Nevada
Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.
Michael W. Lawson, Traffic Information Division Chief, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)
Lt. James Peterson, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP)
Karen Winchell, Program Manager, Motor Carrier Division, DMV
Dennis Colling, Administrative Services Division Chief, DMV
Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Services, DMV
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m. She then opened the hearing on A.B. 19.
Assembly Bill 19: Provides for issuance of "United We Stand" special license plates. (BDR 43-217)
Assemblywoman Chowning, Clark County Assembly District No. 28, said she was appearing in support of A.B. 19. She explained that on September 11, 2001, the United States experienced a tragedy. She said the terrible attacks that occurred on that day were designed to fragment the will and the power of our citizens and our government. She stated, however, that those events brought the American people closer together, and there were many expressions of patriotism displayed by the citizens of our country, not only on special occasions, but every single day. In commemoration of these events Assemblywoman Chowning introduced a specialty license plate, which would include the words “United We Stand,” and the colors red, white, and blue would be prominently displayed.
Assemblywoman Chowning explained that she was introducing the bill to assist in combating terrorism. She stated that the funds raised from the sale of this specialty license plate would be used for training law enforcement officials in Nevada to respond to emergencies that occurred in the future. She said although other states had specialty license plates that said “United We Stand,” Nevada would be the first state where the funds raised through the sale of such license plates would be used for emergency management preparedness activities. She showed the Committee a sample of one proposed style for the license plate (Exhibit C). She said that she would also like the special license plates to proclaim “We Will Never Forget.” She explained various state agencies would collaborate and decide on a final design for this special license plate.
Assemblywoman Chowning briefly discussed the 16 existing specialty license plates and she indicated they could be seen on the handout titled “State of Nevada Special License Plates” (Exhibit D) that had been given to the Committee members. She explained that the most successful specialty license plate to date was the Lake Tahoe plate, which had produced $1.7 million in revenue. She said that these specialty license plates raised funds from the taxpayers on a voluntary basis, and she gave as examples:
· The “Agriculture” license plate that had generated $29,002.10 for the Future Farmers of America.
· The “Children in the Arts” license plate that had generated $93,922.95 that went to education of children with no taxpayer expense at all.
· The “Professional Firefighters” specialty license plates had raised $73,500 for the burn center at University Medical Center.
She added that originally the firefighters’ license plate had not included a fund raising feature, but the sponsors had requested the addition during the 2001 Legislative Session.
Assemblywoman Chowning then asked the Committee to support A.B. 19. She said that she would respond to anyone who might have questions. She also invited Frank Siracusa of the Nevada Division of Emergency Management to advise the Committee of the purpose of the revenues that would be raised from the sale of the proposed specialty license plates.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall asked Assemblywoman Chowning to confirm that the funding for the training would only come from the sale of the specialty license plates. Assemblywoman Chowning stated that would be the case.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall said that the two slogans were great, and wished there was some way to include the Revolutionary War slogan “Don’t Tread On Me” onto the specialty license plates. Assemblywoman Chowning replied that Vice Chair Ohrenschall’s suggestion would be considered.
Assemblyman Claborn asked Assemblywoman Chowning to hold up the proposed specialty license plate design (Exhibit C) and then he asked if it was a prototype of the digitized license plates that had been discussed at prior meetings.
Assemblywoman Chowning responded that they were, and she explained that a bill of the current session proposed use of the computerized technology for specialty license plates only and was much safer for the environment and the manufacturing process. She noted the proposed process would also teach computer skills to the inmates at the license plate factory rather than just manufacturing techniques.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the specialty license plates would be sold for use on trailers as well as motorized vehicles.
Assemblywoman Chowning replied page 1, Section 1, subsection 2, of A.B. 19 showed current law which provided that specialty license plates were only for passenger cars or light commercial vehicles. She opined that a bill might be offered to allow specialty license plates to be placed on trailers and perhaps motorcycles.
Assemblyman Collins wondered if this and other bills could allow all specialty license plates to be placed on trailers and other types of authorized vehicles.
Assemblywoman Chowning replied that she was confident that the expertise of the Committee could make it happen.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall pointed out that a plate of this kind would be wonderful for motorcycles, as it would help to remind young people to take pride in their country.
Frank Siracusa, Chief, Nevada Division of Emergency Management (NDEM), said that the revenues contemplated by the bill would be deposited in the Emergency Assistance Account, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 414, which was managed by the NDEM. He said that the NDEM was the lead agency in Nevada, as designated by the Governor, for the receipt of all federal monies for emergency preparedness and homeland security. He stated that there was never enough money to fund all the things the NDEM needed to do.
He added that although stories abounded regarding billions of dollars coming down through the federal government and distributed to first responders, the reality was that the federal funding NDEM received was based on state population, and visitors to Nevada were not included. He said in spite of all the visitors to the state, the Nevada base population of 2.1 million people meant Nevada received less than half of the money granted to Arizona with its base population of 5 million people. When risk and vulnerability assessments were done, it was typically found there were many more risks and vulnerabilities within Nevada.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall asked if it was true that the federal funding in Nevada was not increased in any way due to the amount of tourism the state experienced.
Mr. Siracusa replied that Nevada had a public service responsibility for more than 50 million tourists each year, regardless of the amount of federal grants for emergency preparedness and homeland security. He pointed out that any additional funding NDEM received for training, preparedness, and equipping of first responders would be very useful. He suggested that because they had existing funds and procedures within their agency, NDEM could absorb the income from A.B. 19 and provide grants to local agencies on a regular basis. Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall stated that risk was greater due to volume of tourists and September 11, 2001, and the apparent meetings of the principals of that tragedy in the Las Vegas area. Mr. Siracusa agreed fully and commented that as a result of September 11, additional training, additional needs for equipment, the planning that needs to be done and the support needed by Nevada First Responders drew NDEM to support A.B. 19.
Martha Barnes, Central Services and Records Administrator, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), explained that the DMV had submitted a fiscal note for $15,707 in connection with A.B. 19. She said that an appropriation had not been requested due to the revolving account previously established to cover the expenses related to production of any new specialty plate. She had furnished the Committee a handout titled “Testimony A.B. 19” (Exhibit E).
Bruce Manning, Manager, License Plate Factory, DMV, stated he was present to represent the Department regarding any questions on the manufacturing process.
Kami Dempsey, Government Relations Manager, City of Las Vegas, said that the City of Las Vegas supported the bill, because of additional funds they could receive toward Emergency Preparedness was important.
Gary Wolff, representing Teamsters Local 14 and the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, asked that the bill be amended so that the specialty license plates could be placed on commercial vehicles and trailers. He said that his organization supported the measure.
Ronald P. Dreher, Nevada Chapter Director, Peace Officers’ Research Association of Nevada, stated that his organization strongly supported the bill. The license plate would memorialize people who lost lives and were victimized by the terrorist acts committed on the people of the United States, and it would remind people of September 11, 2001. It would also send a message to those who commit terror that we will not forget September 11.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall asked if the particular message of the “United We Stand” license plate would help law enforcement remember and be easier for them to work with than others already in production and Mr. Dreher agreed.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 19.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall next opened the hearing on A.B. 83.
Assembly Bill 83: Makes various changes concerning certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-85)
Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Incorporated. (NMTA), introduced Ray Roach, NMTA’s Assistant Managing Director for northern Nevada. He explained that Mr. Roach had retired from the trucking industry after 25 years of service as a truck driver. He noted Mr. Roach had traveled 2.5 million miles without an accident or ticket and was the Nevada Driver of the Year in 1994 and began working with NMTA in 1999. He said the NMTA had proposed the bill.
He explained there were three aspects to the measure. The first part of the bill pertained to engine braking systems, also known as “jake” brakes, and would harmonize Nevada law with the model law that was originally passed in Oklahoma and subject of a positive resolution of the Multi-State Highway Transportation Agreement (MSHTA), of which Mrs. Chowning was a member. The second part of the bill dealt with size and weight restrictions for certain commercial vehicles. The third part of the bill eliminated an alternative weight law that was the old law prior to 1989, which was replaced by “Formula B,” a federal law. The exception was in the law due to short-coupled end dumps that could not maximize their hauling capacity under “Formula B.” Those trailers had not been in production over the past 20 years and that law only added some confusion.
Mr. Capurro then talked about the handout titled “Multi-State Highway Transportation Agreement States Truck Size and Weight Information” (Exhibit F). He explained this was the abbreviated version of the Multi-State Highway Transportation Agreement resolution on truck size and weight had been. He said that in 1969 Nevada and Idaho were the first states to agree to the initial longer combination law governing commercial vehicles. Since 1991, there had been a federal freeze on the sizes and weights for longer combination commercial vehicles operating in Nevada, including triple trailers and longer double trailers.
He said because of the federal freeze, increasing productivity for commercial vehicles operated in Nevada was not possible. Mr. Capurro said this restriction had significance for the state’s economy. He said a study conducted by M Cubed (Exhibit G) indicated that the direct economic benefit to Nevada from the operation of the longer combination commercial vehicles had been as high as $64 million annually. The transportation of merchandise in the longer combination trailers had kept costs to Nevada consumers lower. Mr. Capurro pointed out that triple trailers were the safest combination configuration operated in the state, which could be confirmed by DOT.
Mr. Capurro spoke about complaints pertaining to noise related to the use of “jake” brakes. He said those noises occurred when a vehicle did not have a muffler for its engine braking system. He explained that the bill required that vehicles have a muffler for their braking systems or the driver could be cited. He stated that cities and counties would not be able to prohibit this kind of engine braking system, because there was no law against them in the state. He stressed the driver could be cited for an unmuffled engine braking system.
Assemblyman Goicoechea wondered how emergencies would be addressed without the use of systems like the “jake” brake under the bill and why it did not simply require mufflers on all units.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall asked what language Mr. Goicoechea would suggest in A.B. 83, page 2, Section 1, paragraph 1(b), that stated triples could be used if the brake was muffled or if the driver reasonably believed an emergency existed that required use of the device.
Assemblyman Goicoechea stated his read indicated subparagraph b was legal as long as there was a muffler and the remainder of the language should be deleted.
Mr. Capurro stated that he had relied on others for the drafting of proposed legislation.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall queried Mr. Goicoechea how Section 1(b) of A.B. 83 should be amended to address his concerns.
Assemblyman Goicoechea explained that as long as the muffler for the braking system was in place and there was no requirement for an emergency, there would be no need for Section 1(b) of the bill.
Mr. Capurro pointed out that Mr. Goicoechea’s explanation was consistent with Section 1(a) of the bill. He asked the Committee to keep in mind the muffler used in conjunction with the engine braking system. He said that the language in Section 1(b) could have been written differently, but it was satisfactory. He explained that Section 1(b) was helpful in that it would allow the use of an engine braking system in an emergency without a muffler. Mr. Capurro opined that if a driver were cited for the operation of a braking system without a muffler, he or she would have to prove an emergency had occurred. He pointed out that currently, commercial vehicles were prohibited from using the roadway over the Hoover Dam. These vehicles were operated over an alternate roadway with 6 percent grades and an extra 23 miles of travel; and if engine braking systems were not used, the vehicles would not have sufficient braking capacity when traveling downhill. He stressed the whole idea was that communities would not outlaw their use as long as they were used in the manner in which they were manufactured.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall said that the Committee could ask the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, for the rationale behind the drafting of Section 1 of the bill or perhaps Section 1 could be revised to reflect Mr. Goicoechea’s concerns.
Mr. Capurro began testimony on the second section of the bill, but the Vice Chairwoman asked that he wait until all questions for Section 1 had been discussed.
Assemblyman Carpenter wondered if a muffler had always been a part of the “jake” or Jacobs engine brake system.
Mr. Capurro said that had always been the case in the manufacture of engine braking systems.
Assemblyman Carpenter concluded that the language had been placed in Section 1(b) to address those situations where drivers had removed the muffler with the intent of using the engine braking system in the event of an emergency.
Mr. Capurro told Mr. Carpenter that his observation was correct. He said that under Section 1(b), if an engine braking system without a muffler were used in an emergency, the driver of a vehicle might have a defense in the event he or she were cited by a law enforcement official.
Assemblyman Carpenter said that the city of Elko had installed a sign adjacent to one of the off-ramps of Interstate 80 prohibiting the use of “jake” engine braking systems.
Mr. Capurro pointed to similar situations in different parts of Nevada, where signs had been installed and ordinances had been enacted. He explained that a properly installed muffler for an engine braking system would not bother those living in a residential area.
Mr. Capurro next discussed the size and weight issues addressed in Section 2 of the bill. He explained Nevada law had provided that if a combination vehicle exceeded 70 feet up to 105 feet, an L-1 permit was issued for the operation of triple trailers or long double trailers. He mentioned there were 16 states that had specific longer trailer combination laws, and that another 6 states allowed longer trailer combinations on certain roadways. He added when the federal government enacted the freeze in 1991, the various laws were all different with exception to the types of units referenced.
Mr. Capurro discussed page 4 of Exhibit F, which described the trailer combinations that were currently authorized for operation in Nevada. He pointed out the size and weight restrictions for a truck tractor and two long double trailers and a truck tractor and three trailers. He mentioned that in both instances, there was a distance of 95 feet from the front of the first trailer to the back of the last trailer, including the spaces between the trailers. He said the third authorized combination was a truck with a cargo body and it hauled either a long trailer or two trailers, and the total length of the cargo-carrying units could not exceed 98 feet. He noted Exhibit F described the laws in existence in the Multi-State Transportation Agreement (MSHTA), and all except California authorized longer combinations than in Nevada. The federal definition of vehicles in the longer-combination family was by cargo body lengths.
Mr. Capurro said the bill would not change productivity in that the NMTA had not requested additional weight capacity in the bill. This bill would place Nevada in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 23 C.F.R.§ 658.23, which permitted the operation of a different style of truck tractor. Essentially the limits remained the same but required adoption of state regulations to conform to federal law. The primary difference was the power unit at the front of the combination.
Currently, if a set of triple trailers were operated in Nevada, a truck tractor with a cab-over design was used in order to conform to 105-foot length restriction. In those cases, the driver was seated right over the axle. That kind of truck tractor had not been ergonomically friendly to drivers. Mr. Capurro said the measure would permit the use of three-axle conventional power units, which would result in a triple trailer configuration being in excess of 105 feet. These truck tractors would, however, have a 50 percent increase in braking capacity, and as the combination truck tractors and trailers would be longer, there would be less sway and drivers would have better control.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall wondered if the design of three-axle truck tractors could be compromised in any way.
Mr. Capurro said that cab-over truck tractors were not safe because objects struck by such vehicles ended up in either the passenger seat or the driver’s seat. He gave an example of a driver of a cab-over with a sleeper unit who struck a horse and the horse ended up in bed with the passenger in the sleeper unit. He explained that a three-axle truck tractor was much safer and much more comfortable than cab-over truck tractors. He reiterated the only purpose for those units was to achieve the 105-foot requirement. He also pointed out that currently only one manufacturer was making cab-over truck tractors and perhaps at some time in the future they would not be manufactured. Mr. Capurro stated that a small amount of productivity might be lost because the three-axle truck tractor was heavier than the cab-over truck tractor.
Mr. Capurro noted only a fraction of a second longer was required to pass with what might be an additional 5-foot length encountered with a different style power unit. He stated productivity would not change at all because units were capped at 129,000. Currently truckers might even lose up to 2,000 pounds of cargo capacity because they would maximize weight sooner with the heavier units.
He said that the operation of the longer trailer combinations was strictly monitored by the NDOT and the DMV, which issued the permits. He said one permit was issued for each truck tractor that hauled those kinds of trailers. The units were also restricted to certain highways, depending on their configuration and that of the on-ramps and off-ramps and highway geometrics. The permits could be used in any combination that was the same as the silhouette combination. Adopted regulations were very stringent with respect to driver requirements, braking, and hill-climbing ability.
Mr. Capurro referred to A.B. 83, page 5, subsection 2, which stated the maximum fee was $2,940. He explained that the operators were required to pay an annual permit fee of $60 for each 1,000 pounds in excess of 80,000 pounds and an annual registration fee of $17 for each 1,000 pounds up to 80,000 pounds. Anything above that would fall under the permit system up to a maximum of 129,000 pounds. The audit section of the DMV had requested that maximum fees be removed because one trucking company had violated these requirements several times. Mr. Capurro said the DMV intent had been to charge $60 for every 1,000 pounds over the 129,000-pound limit for such violations. He stated that NMTA did not object to this proposal. He stressed the NMTA viewed the permit as a privilege and when there was an operator with consistent violations they wanted to ensure the penalty would be more than just the cost of doing business.
NMTA supported several different options, including, as a violation of NRS 484, an ascending fine schedule that existed for any overweight vehicle. Such a violation was a misdemeanor and there were administrative penalties as well.
Assemblyman Carpenter wondered why the state of Montana had a 95-foot length restriction for truck tractor and trailer combination and the restriction for the same configuration in Nevada was 105‑feet.
Mr. Capurro explained that in Nevada the distance was measured from the front of the truck tractor to end of the last trailer. He pointed out that the 95-foot restriction in Montana applied only to the size of cargo carrying units. The Montana law was identical to Nevada, only referenced differently.
Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to know why truck tractors involved in a mining operation in Nevada displayed Montana license plates.
Mr. Capurro said although that subject was not a part of A.B. 83, Nevada was a member of International Registration Plan (IRP). He said the trucking company that Mr. Carpenter alluded to had been headquartered in Montana, and under the interstate pact, fees for use in Nevada were prorated and the display of Montana license plates was appropriate. He pointed out, however, that the fees the trucking company paid to the state of Montana were prorated so that Nevada was compensated for the periods of time when the truck tractors were in Nevada. He also said that the law enforcement authorities could quickly determine whether Nevada was receiving fees for the operation of the trucks in Nevada. The International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) and the IRP were adopted in 1989. The IFTA operated in the same way with respect to fuel use taxes.
Assemblyman Carpenter then asked Mr. Capurro that if he obtained the license plate number of a truck tractor with out-of-state license plates, could the NHP determine whether Nevada was receiving remuneration from another state. Mr. Capurro responded the registration fee was prorated on the gross vehicle weight of the power unit; thus the license plate carried by the power unit would have the requested information. He explained all states also issued license plates to the trailer units, but the charges were minimal.
Mr. Capurro said the NHP could access that information from their patrol cars. He explained, when a truck tractor was stopped by the NHP, that was one of the items checked.
Mr. Capurro explained that the Federal Highway Administration had reviewed A.B. 83 and stated it would not violate the federal freeze on capacity. Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had expressed a concern that the bill might harm the Highway Fund, and he assured the Committee it would not.
Mr. Capurro then talked about Section 6 of the bill, which would repeal NRS 484.746. Under current law, NRS 484.745 adopted, pursuant to federal law, “the 20,000 pound single axle, the 34,000 tandem axle, and the 80,000 pound overall weight without permit, under Formula B.” He stated that this formula was complex, “but it takes into account inner-axle ratios, distances between axles,” and the like. Prior to this, Nevada’s size and weight law had been contained in NRS 484.746.
Mr. Capurro said that truck tractors in Nevada could currently operate under either formula. The reason for this was that a company named Helm’s Construction Company had used very short-coupled end-dump trailers. He explained that under Formula B, this company had not been able to maximize their weight capacity of end-dump trailers because of the interior axle limitations and distances without using the older formula as an alternative. At one point, the second alternative had been removed from statute, but had been restored as an alternative method. He said that those trailers had not been manufactured in more than 20 years.
Mr. Capurro said having two formulas sometimes caused confusion for the NHP troopers who were sometimes unsure which one to use. This proposed Section 6 would eliminate the second formula and leave Formula B as the applicable law.
Assemblywoman Chowning wondered if Mr. Capurro could furnish national studies related to the safety of longer truck tractor and trailer combinations for the records of the Committee. She asked what the fee would be for the longer truck tractor and trailer combinations under the bill.
Mr. Capurro said he would gather the information requested by Assemblywoman Chowning. He noted that braking capacity improved by 50 percent with the addition of another axle. He explained that the maximum overall length of these combinations would be 112 feet. Conventional power units would be 5 to 7 feet longer than a cab-over unit. In some cases when fitting the units together, especially with short-coupled 2-axle power units; to keep the distance at 105 feet or less, they had to lessen the distance between the trailers. Some were three feet or less, which was not nearly enough articulation for safety. Because of the overall lengths allowed by the bill, the articulation could be lengthened to the proper four-foot distance as well. The power unit was not part of the equation.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked if additional fees would be collected if the combinations were longer.
Mr. Capurro said that would not be the case because of the 129,000-pound weight limitation would not allow for additional capacity.
Assemblyman Collins asked about Mr. Capurro’s previous comments that the language of Section 1 would take precedence over any local laws that addressed the same issues. He asked if local laws would prevail if they existed before the effective date of A.B. 83.
Mr. Capurro said according to the legal authorities he had spoken with, the answer was no. He opined that in many cases the signs prohibiting “jake” engine brakes had resulted because of noise made by truck tractors. He explained NRS 484.777 provided that unless stipulated by state law, cities and counties could not pass laws that were stricter than similar state laws. Mr. Capurro said this was true for a number of laws governing traffic and other issues.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the existing signs prohibiting the operation of “jake” brakes could remain after the passage of A.B. 83.
Mr. Capurro replied that those signs would probably have to come down and he believed that truck tractors with operable mufflers for their engine braking systems were legal under state law. The reason was that the noise from the engine braking system would be muffled.
Assemblyman Collins said he had observed numerous violations of apparent existing city and county ordinances and suggested that maybe 1 in 10,000 received a citation. Mr. Capurro noted it was not a violation of state law currently. Even though a highway was within city limits, jurisdiction for enforcement would rest with the state. The bill would provide for a penalty if the “jake” brake was used in other than an emergency and did not have a muffler.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the federal regulations permitted the state to allow the operation of triple-trailer combinations in Nevada when such combinations were not allowed in states like New Jersey.
Mr. Capurro explained that if the federal freeze of 1991 were removed, not all states would automatically have longer trailer combination laws. He also pointed out that Nevada could not change its laws to provide for more productivity because of the federal freeze of 1991.
Assemblyman Collins said that the NHP had jurisdiction with respect to highways in cities and towns, and they wrote tickets for a variety of offenses that were violations of local law. Based on this explanation, he asked Mr. Capurro if various local ordinances prohibiting “jake” brakes would be repealed by A.B. 83.
Mr. Capurro said the bill would affect local entities by not allowing local governmental bodies to prohibit the use of engine braking systems, as they were necessary for the safety of drivers of truck tractors and the general public. He explained local governments had rights regarding signage in their jurisdiction, but in many cases they were required to consult with NDOT before implementation.
Assemblyman Goicoechea wanted to know if the NMTA would be opposed if the bill were amended and only dealt with operational mufflers.
Mr. Capurro responded that the basis of the bill was that engine brake systems could not be operated unless there was an operational muffler. He said a driver should be able to use the engine braking system in an emergency, even if the muffler had been removed. The intent of the legislation was that if a “jake” or an engine braking system was in place, if would be required to be muffled. He would not oppose a friendly amendment as long as that provision was not changed.
Assemblyman Goicoechea believed that the bill as written would result in disputes whether or not the loud noises emanating from engine braking systems were necessary because of emergencies.
Mr. Capurro said that was the case with the enforcement of various laws by policing authorities.
Michael W. Lawson, Traffic Information Division Chief, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), informed the Committee that NDOT did not oppose the bill, and he furnished the Committee a handout titled “NDOT Testimony A.B. 83” (Exhibit H). He also said that NDOT had discussed A.B. 83 with the Federal Highway Administration Division of the United States Department of Transportation, and it had informed NDOT that the changes contemplated by the bill would be consistent with federal law and federal funding would not be jeopardized.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked Mr. Lawson if he were in agreement with Mr. Capurro that three-axle truck tractors were safer and more stable than the cab-over truck tractors.
Mr. Lawson agreed.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked about the federal freeze on the length limitations of longer combination truck tractors and trailers.
Mr. Lawson stated there had been a federal freeze since 1991 on the size and weights for the longer combination truck tractors and trailers. He explained that the freeze essentially applied to trailing units. Under the circumstances, the 95‑foot restriction would be continued. Mr. Lawson pointed out that the bill would make Nevada compliant with applicable federal law. While the bill would allow for a slightly higher margin in length, it did not allow for any changes in load carrying capacity.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked for clarification that the current maximum weight was 129,000 pounds.
Mr. Lawson responded that had been the case since 1989. Mr. Lawson said that even if changes were made to Nevada law, the state could not issue permits for more than 129,000 pounds.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked that if by using the heavier three-axle power units, truckers would find it necessary to decrease the weight of loaded trailers.
Mr. Lawson said that would be the result.
Lt. Jim Peterson, NHP, Commercial Enforcement Section, spoke to certain issues. He said he supported the language in the bill addressing overall length. He confirmed that the three-axle truck tractor would increase the longest trailer combination by seven feet. He said this kind of truck tractor had 50 percent more braking power and provided greater comfort for the driver.
Lt. Peterson referred to Section 2, of A.B. 83 where it deleted the maximum fee wording. He testified truckers went from 80,000 pounds to 129,000 on the permit privilege without paying additional fees. When caught grossly over that weight, there would be no recourse because the statute would be changed to specify a maximum fee.
Lt. Peterson referred to the “Helms” law under NRS 484.746; as mentioned, it was designed for a specific style of trailer, but very few such trailers were left; and it they were, they probably should not be.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if a truck tractor long combination with more than 129,000 pounds were stopped by the NHP, what recourse the NHP would have if the truck company had paid the maximum fee of $2,940 for the weight between 80,000 and 129,000 pounds. He asked if additional fines could not be assessed under another section of law.
Lt. Peterson said the truck company could be cited in various ways. He mentioned the bridge formula, “which basically was the combination of the weight that was spanned between axles,” or the total weight of a truck tractor long combination. He also stated that the truck company could be cited for violation of its permit. Lt. Peterson explained that after the citation had been issued, and the matter had been adjudicated, the DMV would perform an audit in an attempt to collect missed revenue for the damage caused by the truck company’s truck tractors and long trailer combinations. Because current law provided for a maximum fee of $2,940, that process would not yield any additional revenue through the audit process.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if, by eliminating the maximum fee of $2,940, the state could assess higher fees for those truck tractors and long trailer combinations weighing more than 129,000 pounds. He asked if a truck weighed in at 140,000, under the maximum fee provision, they could not be charged the additional $60 in revenue.
Lt. Peterson explained any weight over 80,000 must have an NDOT permit. He said the maximum allowed by permit would be 129,000 pounds. If the truck was stopped and weighed at 140,000 pounds, the NHP could issue two citations. The first misdemeanor citation would be violation of a trucking company’s permit because of weight in excess of 129,000 pounds and the permit would be revoked. The second violation would be for being over axle or gross weight. During the follow-up process, an audit would be done, and the state would attempt to collect additional revenue for the violation. Lt. Peterson said under A.B. 83 the state could not collect additional revenue beyond the maximum permit value of $2,940.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if, in spite of this information, an effort would be made to assess the additional $60 for the additional 1,000 pounds the truck tractor and long trailers were overweight.
Karen Winchell, Program Manager, Motor Carrier Division, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), said that would be the DMV’s course of action.
Assemblyman Sherer asked if trucking companies were assessed a fee for each vehicle operated through the state, or if a maximum fee of $2,940 was required of each trucking company. He asked if fees were assessed per truck or per load through the state or per company.
Lt. Peterson said a fee was charged for each truck tractor and long trailer combination through the state.
Assemblyman Sherer asked what amount above $2,940 had each trucking company been fined in the past.
Ms. Winchell advised Mr. Sherer that the total number of citations for overweight for FY 2003 through January was 36 and the total assessments were $9,665.43. Mr. Sherer asked for confirmation that those charges were above and beyond the maximum paid for the permit. Ms. Winchell stated they were.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall closed the hearing on A.B. 83. She said that the next order of business would be a Committee work session. She then relinquished the gavel to Chairwoman Chowning.
Chairwoman Chowning introduced BDR 43-1032 (A.B. 177), which dealt with special plates, placards, and stickers for certain disabled persons.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-1032 (A.B. 177).
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Chairwoman Chowning introduced BDR 43-473, which dealt with making various changes concerning registration and titling of motor vehicles and records.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-473 (A.B. 178).
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning opened the work session on A.B. 30.
Assembly Bill 30: Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-67)
Chairwoman Chowning referred the Committee to the work session document (Exhibit I). She explained that the bill required new citizens of the state to register their vehicles at the same time they applied for their driver’s licenses. She stated that the bill also permitted citizens who transferred the registration of a vehicle to another vehicle to receive a credit on a portion of the registration and taxes; however, refunds would not be given in any other case, which would be a savings to the state about $8.5 million.
Chairwoman Chowning mentioned that Assemblyman Carpenter had proposed an amendment to the bill. She explained that the proposed language was conceptual, and if it were approved, the language would be reviewed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, and if necessary, modified for future consideration by the Committee.
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst, directed the Committee’s attention to page 2 of the work session document (Exhibit I). She pointed out Assemblyman Carpenter had requested that the bill be amended in the following respects:
· The DMV would be required to make refunds for unexpired motor vehicle registration and taxes to persons who sold, traded, or junked their motor vehicle if the refund would total more than $100. That would amend page 7, lines 11 through 17, of A.B. 30.
She explained the printing codes for changed and added language.
· The DMV would be required to make refunds for unexpired motor registration and taxes if the refund was more than $100 to persons at least 65 years old, who voluntarily relinquished their driver’s licenses for any reason or who lost their driver’s licenses due to a medical condition. That amendment would be a new Section 10 of A.B. 30.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there were any questions regarding Assemblyman Carpenter’s proposed amendment.
Assemblyman Carpenter clarified that the intent of the amendment was to prohibit refunds for less than $100. He explained that if there were a refund for more than $100, the amount of the refund would be the difference between $100 and the total refundable amount. He said, for example, that if a person were eligible for a refund of $150, he or she would receive a refund of $50.
Chairwoman Chowning said that she did not think the proposed amendment was consistent with Assemblyman Carpenter’s explanation. She believed the amendment provided that a person who was entitled to a $150 refund would receive $150. She opined that the amendment would allow the state to save more than 75 percent of the revenue currently refunded. She invited clarification from the DMV staff.
Mr. Dennis Colling, Administrative Services Division Chief, DMV, said that he did not have information that was specific to $100 refunds. He explained, however, that he had distributed a handout with information for calendar years 2001 and 2002 (Exhibit J). He stated that at the hearing on February 13, 2003, the DMV had provided information for calendar years 2001 and 2002, which indicated the number of refunds issued. Based on this information, it was concluded that the average refund was approximately $49. He pointed out that in calendar year 2001, the DMV processed 70,000 refunds, of which 47 percent were above the $49 average, and about 23 percent of the refunds were for amounts of under $10. He said that during calendar year 2002, the DMV handled 101,000 refund transactions, and that 24 percent of the refunds made were for more than $50, and approximately 25 percent of the refunds or 24,968 were for less than $10.
Chairwoman Chowning opined that if 75 percent of the refunds were for less than $50, then this group of refunds represented about $6 million. Mr. Colling agreed that was correct.
Chairwoman Chowning said that it seemed that with a cutoff amount of $100, and then the state would realize savings greater than about $6 million.
Mr. Colling agreed with Chairwoman Chowning, and he pointed out that $6 million savings was for 2 years.
Chairwoman Chowning explained that Assemblyman Carpenter was concerned about protecting a citizen whose vehicle had been damaged beyond repair due to an accident or when the citizen could no longer drive a vehicle.
Assemblyman Goicoechea queried if the bill, as amended, would allow the use of a credit for another transaction, regardless of the amount of the credit.
Mr. Colling said it was his understanding that this could be done at the time the plates for a motor vehicle were surrendered to the DMV.
Assemblyman Knecht said if 75 percent of the refunds were for less than $50 and if the total amount of refunds were about $8 million, three-fourths of the refunds would not equate to $8 million.
Mr. Colling said he believed this was correct. He explained that the percentages he used were with respect to the number of checks issued.
Assemblyman Knecht asked if Mr. Colling had the dollar totals for the various levels of refunds.
Mr. Colling stated he had the information for the $10 and $50 levels. Assemblyman Knecht asked Mr. Colling for the total dollars at the $50 breakpoint.
Mr. Colling said the amount of refund transactions over $50 for calendar year 2001 amounted to $2,449,323.29.
Assemblyman Knecht stated that he wanted to ask Assemblyman Carpenter if he would agree to a further friendly amendment that would change the $100 refund threshold to $50.
Assemblyman Carpenter explained that the bill as originally drafted did not provide for refunds. He said his intent with the amendment was that there were life situations where refunds should be made for amounts above the $100 threshold. He added the $100 threshold was a compromise between allowing no refunds and those situations where the individual was deserving of the refund. He noted if an individual traded down vehicles and a transfer of credit was more than the reregistration costs, no refunds would be allowed.
Chairwoman Chowning wondered if a separate provision was necessary for people at least 65 years old, as it seemed that the first part of the amendment covered persons of all ages. Assemblyman Carpenter agreed with Chairwoman Chowning although those concerns had been part of the concept discussions.
Assemblyman Atkinson asked what the basis for the $100 refund cut-off had been. He said that the $100 threshold seemed to be somewhat high. Mr. Colling explained that based on the number of checks issued, 75 percent of the refund checks were below $49.
Assemblywoman McClain pointed out that this bill was proposed because the state had lost $8 million. Assemblyman Carpenter had expressed his concerns that some people might experience hardships if refunds were not available under certain circumstances. Because of this, Ms. McClain had asked Mr. Carpenter to propose an amendment to A.B. 30. She said the part of the amendment that addressed trades was not necessary, because when a person acquired a replacement vehicle the DMV would automatically issue a credit toward a new registration. She explained that persons could register their vehicle in another state, and then return to tell the Nevada DMV they had junked that vehicle and request a refund. She asked for passage of the bill without amendment to end the state’s revenue loss and to minimize the state’s administrative costs to make refunds. Ms. McClain was concerned with the $50 and $100 thresholds and asked that the Committee consider delaying a vote on the bill until the Committee had better fiscal data.
Mr. Colling said the DMV had asked for a bill draft (BDR) request addressing this same issue. He said the requested BDR by the DMV asked that the status quo existing before 2001 be restored so that refunds would no longer be made. However, credit would continue to be granted on a declining balance for the time remaining for existing registrations upon transfer to another vehicle. He explained that the DMV had requested the BDR to address the state’s budget shortfall. He stated that those particular DMV revenues went to the Highway Fund, cities and counties, and school districts. He pointed out with respect to the total amount of $3.8 million that was refunded during calendar year 2001, $2.4 million was for transactions over $50. He also had available projections for calendar years 2004 and 2005 at the continued growth rate.
Mr. Colling stated the revenue loss figures of $2.4 million for calendar year 2001 and of transactions over $50. He emphasized the total amount in calendar year 2001 was $3.8 million, including the aforementioned $2.4 million. Thus $1.8 million would still be reduced from the distributive school fund, the cities and counties, and the Highway Fund upon issuing refunds.
Chairwoman Chowning clarified that Mr. Colling had talked about the impact resulting from the imposition of a $50 threshold. She opined that with a $100 cutoff, more funds would stay with the state. She asked if Mr. Colling knew how much money remained with the state at the $100 threshold.
Mr. Colling said that the DMV could develop that information and provide it to the Committee.
Assemblyman Collins said he thought the Committee should move on the bill during the current meeting. He stated at the hearing on February 13, 2003, it was pointed out that people who had just moved to Nevada probably had not received a refund from a former state when they moved to this state. He said the result of the bill would make Nevada like other states. He explained that in 1997 the concern was to treat the citizens of Nevada fairly by allowing such refunds, and A.B. 30 would recapture the funds that the state had kept prior to the initiation of legislation to allow the refunds. He pointed out that with any threshold, there would come a time when the state would no longer be compensated for its costs of doing the business of refund transactions.
He also agreed with Mr. Carpenter that hardship exceptions should be considered. He said the fairness issue had merit. He opined that budget shortfalls were not necessarily a good reason for eliminating refunds. Assemblyman Collins mentioned that he would be amenable to processing the bill as currently written, and revisiting the issue next session. He thought that at that time the DMV could present its cost analysis together with recommendations regarding refund recipients.
Assemblyman Claborn said that he wanted A.B. 30 approved by the Committee as originally drafted.
Assemblywoman McClain said that because the refunds underfunded the Distributive School Account and others, the state General Fund had been tapped instead. She asked again that the bill be passed as originally presented to the Committee. She noted the lion’s share of lost revenue really was to the state as a whole.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Assemblyman Carpenter to restate his proposed amendment. She explained the Committee would be asked to vote on the amendment and then vote separately on the bill.
Assemblyman Carpenter stated the amendment should provide that persons would receive refunds of amounts in excess of $100. He explained that he was concerned that the citizens of Nevada should be treated fairly.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Assemblyman Carpenter if he had spoken about residents of Nevada and not merely people. Assemblyman Carpenter said that those who surrendered their plates would have to be residents of Nevada. He wondered if a residency requirement of some type could be a requirement for those who wished to receive refunds.
Chairwoman Chowning responded that since the proposal was a conceptual amendment, the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, could address the issue during its redrafting process. She then restated that the amendment language, which would provide that if residents of Nevada sold, traded, or junked their motor vehicle, and cancelled their registration, they would receive a refund, provided it was for more than $100.
Chairwoman Chowning called for a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 30.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Ms. Ohrenschall to clarify her motion. Ms. Ohrenschall clarified the motion was to approve the amendment be added to A.B. 30.
MR. GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there was any discussion. Assemblyman Collins asked if a person decided to remove the plates from a vehicle and then park that vehicle on his or her property, could that situation be included in the sale, trade, or junked category, and thus be eligible for a refund. Chairwoman Chowning stressed that a resident subject to that situation would also have to cancel their registration and surrender their license plates to the DMV.
Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Services, DMV, explained that that kind of provision could lead to exploitation. He wondered about the owners of motorcycles, motor homes, or boat trailers who used those vehicles for only a part of the year could cancel their registrations, surrender their plates to the DMV, and obtain refunds for those portions of the year when they were not being used. Assemblyman Collins stated that was his concern.
Chairwoman Chowning replied that the conceptual language provided appeared to allow a person to cancel their registration and surrender their license plates to the DMV and request a refund.
Mr. Thomas said that was correct; however, if a person could cancel their registration, surrender their plates to the DMV, obtain a refund and subsequently reregister their vehicle when they once again wished to use it, the fiscal advantage derived from A.B. 30 would be lost.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there were any other questions about the proposed amendment.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked if owners of vehicles could do what Mr. Thomas suggested under current law. Mr. Thomas concurred that people could do that now.
Mr. Gustavson wondered if the bill, as amended, would change existing law in that regard. Mr. Thomas said that if A.B. 30 were passed, that option would be eliminated.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Thomas to clarify his last statement. She wondered that the bill as originally drafted would eliminate that alternative, but that the amendment would not.
Mr. Thomas further explained that current law provided for the cancellation of registration, surrender of license plates, and reregistration of the same vehicle to occur. He explained that if he understood the intent of the bill, that option would not be permitted in the future.
Chairwoman Chowning then asked Mr. Thomas if the amendment would also prevent such a situation. Mr. Thomas believed the reference to sale, trade, or junked might work, and if it did not, then more specific language might be needed to make the clarification. Chairwoman Chowning asked if a person would have to sell, trade, or junk their vehicle to obtain the refund. Mr. Thomas responded that was correct.
Assemblyman Goicoechea referred to Mr. Colling’s earlier testimony when he gave an example of a $5,000 refund and asked how a refund in that amount might be possible. Mr. Colling replied it could occur if a registration refund was requested for a very expensive motor vehicle such as some motor homes.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there was any other discussion on the motion.
Assemblyman Claborn called for the question.
Chairwoman Chowning called for a vote on the motion.
THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN ATKINSON, CLABORN, COLLINS AND GOICOECHEA VOTING NAY.
Chairwoman Chowning then said she would take a motion on the bill.
Assemblyman Gustavson said he wanted to comment on the bill before a vote was taken. He explained that he was very concerned about the part of the bill that required persons to register their vehicles at the time they obtained their driver’s licenses. He stated some of his constituents could not afford to register several vehicles at the same time.
Chairwoman Chowning said that she would entertain a motion on the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 30.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Chowning explained for clarification that the portion of the amendment concerning those who were 65 years of age or older had been deleted and Assemblyman Carpenter agreed.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if there was any discussion on the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 30.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MR. GUSTAVSON VOTING NO.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:49 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cindy Clampitt
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman