MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-Second Session

May 13, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:56 p.m., on Tuesday, May 13, 2003.  Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

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:

 

Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2

Senator Barbara Cegavske, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst

Kim Morgan, Committee Counsel

Nancy Elder, Recording Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Tom Noblett, Tom’s Hauling, Sun Valley

Richard Wilke, City of Henderson

Mike Dianda, Q and D Construction, Mike Dianda Trucking Limited, Reno

Joe Adams, Sierra Nevada Construction, Nevada Chapter of the Associated General Contractors (AGC)

Natalie Bergstrom, Student, Member of “Stand Tall,” Carson High School

Hannah Lang, Student, Member of “Stand Tall,” Carson High School

Lisa Foster, American Automotive Association

Sara Stadler, Youth Coordinator, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Kiley Quinn, Las Vegas High School student

Colleen Quinn, Mother of Kiley Quinn

John Phillips, Owner, Drive Friendly Driving and Traffic School

Erin Breen, Director, Safe Community Partnership

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

Michael Kinkaid, Private Citizen

Tracy Filippi, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety

Gary Will, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Sandra Avants, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority

Kimberly Maxton-Rushton, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority

Paul Enos, Regional Emergency Medical Service Authority (REMSA), Washoe County, Med-Express Transport

A. R. (Bob) Fairman, Nevada Buses and Budget Chauffeur Driver

Michael Mersch, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Office of the Attorney General

Barry E. Jones, Carson Valley Movers

Mike Sullivan, Whittlesea Bell Cab, also representing Yellow-Checker-Star Cab, Las Vegas Limousines, Nellis Cab, and On Demand Sedans

Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Sparks, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Good afternoon.  The Assembly Committee on Transportation will come to order as a subcommittee since several members are in a caucus meeting.  [Roll was called].  Please mark the others present as they arrive.  We’ll open the hearing on Senate Bill 356. 

 

Senate Bill 356 (1st Reprint):  Revises penalty for certain violations concerning vehicles with loads on highways. (BDR 43-1049)

 

Tom Noblett, Tom’s Hauling, Sun Valley:

I am here because of Senate Bill 356.  I’m in strong support of it.  In 1925, the law was enacted.  It stayed until 1955 when a woman was killed on a highway by an unsecured refrigerator on a truck.  That’s when they revised the law and made it what it is today. 

 

My problem with the law is it’s too tough.  A fine of $175 for one piece of cardboard is a “dealer killer.”  I’d like to see it changed to where you mail in $25 and forget it.  The $175 is out of line.  I think it should be $25.  My state Senator thinks it should be $25.  I’m hoping that you will see that it really needs to be $25; $175 just kills me.  I get $25 a ton for cardboard.  If I haul five loads a day, that’s $150.  If they give me a ticket for one piece of cardboard flying off that truck, that’s a day and a half shot.  I’d appreciate it if you would take a close look and see if you can do something with it. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You are not trying to change the law; you think that the loads should be covered?  [Mr. Noblett indicated they should].  You’re in agreement that the lower threshold will be $25, but it could go up to as much as $1,000.  You are in agreement with that?

 

Tom Noblett:

I’m in agreement of the lower part of it at $25.  Yes, I am.  Very much so.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

It seems to me that for a small item, such as a piece of cardboard that doesn’t cause physical damage to people, maybe it should have a fine of $25.  A refrigerator could cause someone some serious injury.

 

Tom Noblett:

I don’t haul refrigerators.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We’ve seen pieces of cement and a lot of heavy-duty items falling off trucks that do, in fact, cause injury.  Perhaps the expansion above the $175 is most appropriate up to $1,000.  That gives a lot of strength to the bill.

 

Tom Noblett:

I was told they added it to the bill for licensed haulers only.  I don’t know whether they did or not, but that’s what I was told.  I am licensed in Reno, Washoe County, and Sparks.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The bill says, “No vehicle, with a load, will be driven.”  We’ll ask our research analyst to look that up.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Could this pertain to a gravel truck or asphalt truck?

 

Tom Noblett:

All I haul is cardboard and some trash, but not much. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Do you think we can just change the law for you and nobody else?

 

Tom Noblett:

No, that’s not it.  The problem is that they’re hitting the trash companies hard.  I think they’re hitting a lot of these other haulers hard, just because one or two pieces fall off the truck.  I’d like to remind all of you that, in 1955, they didn’t have anybody hauling cardboard, and they didn’t have hardly anybody hauling trash when they made that law.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I don’t see anything in this about just hauling trash.  We’re talking about hauling anything.

 

Tom Noblett:

I know you are, but, if you change that to the license entitlement, that would knock a lot of people out of this.  I realize there are a lot of people out there in pickup trucks who drive around with refrigerators and stoves half hanging off.  I realize that.  One of the reasons is because of recycling, and the other is because of the trash.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Sir, how many times have you personally been fined for this?

 

Tom Noblett:

Four times.

Chairwoman Chowning:

Our research analyst is going to let us know to whom this section of statute applies.  I believe it will apply to only persons who are licensed, but we’ll verify that.  In the meantime, we’ll take other testimony. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

You say it only pertains to people who have licenses, is that correct?

 

Tom Noblett:

Hauling licenses.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I’m still confused, because all contractors have licenses to haul material as well.

 

Tom Noblett:

That’s true.  I don’t know whether these guys are getting tapped or not. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Is your license different than a contractor who has a license to haul material?

 

Tom Noblett:

My license is to haul recycled trash and pallets, but I don’t haul many pallets.  I haul mostly cardboard and some trash.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Aren’t you under the same scrutinizing as the licensed contractor who has concrete trucks and so on?

 

Tom Noblett:

I don’t believe I would be in that category.

 

Richard Wilke, City of Henderson:

Maybe I can help clarify this.  In the other House, it started out with $25 and that’s it.  Any occurrence would be a $25 fine.  The amendment was made to address those concerns, so that not a single piece of cardboard was flying off and littering our highways.  If someone was not personally responsible for tying down a refrigerator, or something fell off the vehicle and caused a serious accident, either property damage or personal injury, this would make it more appropriate for the judge to take into consideration the harm that was done because of the negligence.  It’s supposed to cover everybody, not just licensed haulers.  If you or I were driving down the street in a pickup truck, if we even had something tied on top of our car that we didn’t securely fasten, and we took all the reasonable steps to make sure it was fastened securely so that it was not going to fall, then we would be liable under this.  It’s not just licensed haulers; it’s everybody.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I agree that’s the way it should be.  We’ll just have to see if this section of the statute states it as such. 

 

Mike Dianda, Q and D Construction, Mike Dianda Trucking Limited, Reno:

I had a couple of concerns on S.B. 356.  In Section 3 of the bill, subsection 1, where it says “A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine.”  We would like to see that section read “may be punished by a fine.”  We found that a lot of the construction companies in town, as well as our construction company, try our hardest to keep our equipment in good, safe working order.  We teach all of our drivers to secure their loads and to make sure that we don’t spill anything on the highways, but sometimes that might happen.  You might have a brand new water truck and, if a valve breaks and you spill a little bit of water on the highway or a little bit of sand comes off of an end dump truck, we would like that to be left up to the discretion of the officer who pulls you over.  Then you can explain to him where you were going, and what you were doing.  We’re out there trying to obey the law, but we could spill a drop of water on the highway and then be fined for less than a quart of water we might spill.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That’s interesting that you bring that up about water because my husband, many years ago, while going to college, was employed by Sparkletts Water Company.  He was on the freeway and all of the sudden the whole side of the truck with all the water bottles came undone.  That portion of the freeway was covered with water.  At that time, the bottles were not plastic; they were glass.  It was a huge mess and wasn’t really his fault.  I do understand your concern, and we’ll take that into deliberation. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

That’s where I was trying to get to with the gentleman up there.  If the construction companies are under the same scrutiny in the same bill or the same laws right now that everybody is, and we are?  [Mr. Dianda indicated they were].  I have no problem with that.  I just couldn’t visualize that it would only pertain to a garbage truck and not the rest of the trucks that go up and down the highways on construction jobs. 

 

Mike Dianda:

Our concern was the words “shall be punished.”  Negligence and the severity of the accident or spillage should be considered.  I have no problem with that being subject to a fine.  It’s the little nitpicky things like a drop of water, a small rock, or a little bit of blowing sand that we’re trying to avoid.

 

Joe Adams, Sierra Nevada Construction, Nevada Chapter of the AGC (Associated General Contractors):

I’m in opposition to S.B. 356 for a couple of reasons.  We’re already subject to fines for unsecured loads on our vehicles under state law.  Oftentimes, the drivers of these trucks are unaware that there’s a problem with their load.  You can secure a load at the pick-up point with new materials and proper materials and, for some reason, a failure of that material occurs.  The driver may or may not be aware of that until an officer pulls him over or indicates he has a problem.  It’s quite a problem for the driver to always be aware. 

 

Mr. Dianda pointed out, with the water truck mechanism, sometimes our drivers are unaware that the valves have failed on a truck until one does leak.  He has to be able to get off the road to get that repair done.  Under the current language of the bill, he would be fined if he were stopped by an officer.  He would need to be fined, and it may be something very simple.  The whole bill, to me, creates a problem where we are already being cited for unsecured loads on our trucks.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Did you bring this concern to the Senate Committee when the bill was heard?

 

Joe Adams:

I was not aware that the bill was heard.  I just recently became aware it had been heard at all and was notified that this hearing was going to occur. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

And you, Mr. Dianda?

 

Mike Dianda:

I was also not aware of when this bill was in the Senate. We just became aware of it two to three weeks ago. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Have you ever been ticketed when you’re using potable water for fills while working on a construction job, and you fill up and go across a road?  You say you have received tickets?

 

Joe Adams:

We have not at this time, but, with the way the bill is written, that is now a possibility.  That would be considered a spill or a leak from the vehicle.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

For 45 years I was in construction, and I have never seen a ticket written for a water spill on the highway, for fills, for ditches, and for backfilling pipe, and whatever.  This is really confusing to me because in 45 years of construction, this is the first time.  I didn’t know they were hauling cardboard, but I guess there’s a problem there.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Claborn, I’m sure that you are aware, in southern Nevada, when the sanitation company hauls trash out to the site, they’ve done a really good job of covering the loads as best they can.  They’ve done a much better job lately than prior to this.  They’ve also hired a lot of people to clean up the highways.  In addition, our Nevada Department of Transportation has to clean up the highway.  There are a lot of things that spill from the trucks.  We’ll close the hearing momentarily.  If Senator Washington comes later, we’ll let him testify on it.  We won’t take a vote right now.  I don’t know that we will take a vote today.  We might on Thursday.  We want to open the hearing on S.B. 256.  I know that Senator Cegavske wants to be here, so we’ll wait and be in momentary recess.  [Short recess].

 

We have some young people who have to get back to school, so we’re going to open the hearing on Senate Bill 256.  We’d like those young people to come forward and testify, so they can get back to their school activities.

 

Senate Bill 256:  Makes various changes concerning drivers’ licenses issued to persons under 18 years of age. (BDR 43-714)

 

Natalie Bergstrom, Student, Carson High School:

[Introduced herself]  I am actively involved in Stand Tall, Don’t Fall, a statewide program that deals with issues concerning underage drinking. I am a freshman at Carson High School.  I’m here to express my feelings on Senate Bill 256.  I am very passionate about the topic brought before you today.  This year I did a persuasive speech in my English class about why the Graduated Licensing Program was a good idea for new drivers.  Although most teens just want to be able to drive as soon as possible, I was able to convince my entire class of 30 students that it was better to have the program than not.  While researching my topic, I found it very confusing.  The proposed changes are much easier to understand while making valuable additions, such as the required ten hours of nighttime driving. 

 

Driving at night is much different than driving during the day, and the more experience the teen has, the better driver s/he will be.  Inexperience increases the chances of fatalities.  The revisions to the GDL (Graduated Driver’s License) program will provide teen drivers the much-needed experience necessary to help decrease teen accidents. 

 

Hannah Lang, Student, Carson High School:

[Introduced herself.]  I am actively involved in Stand Tall, Don’t Fall.  Today, I would like to share my thoughts about the Graduated Licensing Program.  Ironically, today it is exactly six months until I can get my license.  When I started to read the law about the graduated licensing program, I found it to be very confusing, and I misunderstood a lot of it.  The new bill that we are proposing eliminates confusion of the tiered permit-holding period and the passenger restrictions.  The new bill will be effective in other ways, such as requiring more teen experience behind the wheel, therefore fewer teen car crashes.  In Pennsylvania, there is a similar bill as to what we’re proposing.  It was proven to be effective.  Their crashes dipped 27 percent and the fatalities decreased by 58 percent, which is nearly half the number who are normally killed.  In Nevada, in 2001, 11 teens were killed, and 18 were left permanently disabled in car crashes attributed to teen drivers.  Overall, more than 3,000 teens are injured in car crashes yearly.  As stated before, the graduated licensing program would be effective.

 

Another fact is that teen drivers who drink and who are involved in fatal crashes are at twice the number of drivers 21 and older.  The new law states that youths cannot receive a license if they have been convicted of a moving traffic violation or a crime involving alcohol or a controlled substance in the past six months.  I feel that’s a very good idea, because more teens won’t make wrong decisions if they know they can’t get their licenses.  I strongly support S.B. 256.

 

[Chairwoman Chowning thanked the two speakers and applauded their efforts]. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Ten years ago, as a legislator, I introduced a bill to say that teenagers would not be able to get their driver’s licenses, or it would not be able to be renewed, if they had alcohol or drug offenses.  At that time, the Legislature did not pass the bill as mandatory.  They passed it as “may” instead of “shall.”  You just heard another bill where people want to change “shall” to “may.”  Just that one word has a tremendous effect.  It makes a big difference.  It did, however, pass, so the judge had the discretion. 

 

The juvenile officials felt that it was a very effective hammer to be able to send the message to juveniles that they needed to clean up their acts or they would not be able to get their driver’s licenses.  It was effective; then the law was changed to say “shall.”  That portion of the bill is already in statute, so it maybe doesn’t need to be here.  I think everybody here is in strong support of what you said, because adults should not be driving if they have alcohol or controlled substance violations, and juveniles shouldn’t either. 

 

[Chairwoman Chowning continues.]  I found that there was a lot of support for my piece of legislation from teenagers such as yourselves, because there are too many times that teenagers are judged guilty before being presumed innocent when it should be the other way around.  They felt there should be rewards for good behavior.  That’s the same thing that you stated here today. 

 

Senator Washington is here, so we’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 256 and reopen the hearing on Senate Bill 356. 

 

Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2:

The intent of the bill is to make sure that those residents that do hauling take the proper precautions and tie down their load.  If something should happen, the wind should get up under their tarps or blows something off their trucks, they have a reasonable opportunity to pick it up.  If they’re pulled over by the Highway Patrol, at least there’s some discretion, as opposed to just fining them $150 or $1,000.  I don’t know if the new amendment would allow them to go to the max in those types of situations.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Yes, it would, because it would still keep the threshold between $25 and $1,000.  It would allow the court to determine the amount of the fine. 

 

Senator Washington:

I see what you’re saying.  As opposed to the officer making the decision, the court would do so.  That’s fine.  That will work.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I guess I need a definition of load.  Load is anything in the back of a truck?

 

Senator Washington:

Yes, it would be for those who are professional haulers who haul garbage, or it could be the nonprofessional who basically has shavings from his lawn, and he loads them up in the back of his truck, fails to tie them down, and they blow all over the place.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Does that also include, if you set a paper sack or plastic bag from Wal Mart in the back, and that blows out?  Is that a load?

 

Senator Washington:

It could be a load if you threw it in the back of your truck.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Technically, that’s what I’m saying, or a cardboard box that blows out?

 

Senator Washington:

Sure, and I think there are other provisions or statutes in NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) that would be classified as litter in this case, and you may be pulled over for littering.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Maybe it was something valuable that blew out.  If you have a washing machine in the back, and you turn the corner, and it rolls out, you really didn’t mean to throw it out, and it wasn’t littering, but it is gone.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Ms. Paslov Thomas, would you like to tell us which section of statute and to whom it refers? Then, is there anything in there that further defines the definition of a load?  “No vehicle with a load may be driven or moved on any highway unless it is constructed or loaded so as to prevent any of its load from dropping, shifting . . .” I certainly would think that a couple of bags of groceries coming home from the store would be determined to be a load.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

The first question that has to do with vehicles is that vehicles are defined under NRS 484.217, “Has every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway.”  That would include both commercial and noncommercial vehicles.  I am currently looking up the definition for load in the statutes.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I think litter is $500.   I’d rather have the load.

 

Senator Washington:

You’re absolutely correct. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

That does bring up a good question depending on what a load is because this says “vehicle.”  Most of us are thinking of a truck, but this applies to a regular automobile, convertible, or anything else that might have something in the back seat with windows open in the summer time.  You have the windows open, and you might have just gone to the grocery store.  A receipt goes flying out of the back.  That was a load, right?  We really need to have a definition of load, and who’s going to draw the line of what’s blowing out of your car.  I’ve seen bags and things blow out of cars, too. 

 

Senator Washington:

Sometimes, when you request bills, you are not thinking in the abstract.  You are thinking of what’s transpiring and taking place right now.  Without knowing the definition in the NRS, are we referring to truckloads, professional and nonprofessional movers or haulers?  I don’t know about you, but I have a small truck that I throw my shavings in or my discards from my garage and, sometimes, when I’m in a hurry, I don’t tie them down.  You’ve seen it that something has blown off going down the highway.  This says that if you’re going to do that, then you have a potential to be fined.  It’s to encourage people to tie down their loads.  When those who have taken the time to tie down their loads and make sure that all safety precautions are taken into account and something blows out, at least the officer has the discretion to say, “Look, you’ve taken the time to tie down your load, something did blow out, we have this discretion, so we’re going to fine you $25 or the court will fine you $25.” 

 

Contrast these to somebody who’s a professional hauler and doesn’t tie down or secure his load, and everything blows all over the place.  How many times have we tried to avoid accidents, because somebody didn’t tie something down or take the time out to make sure that every safety precaution was taken into account?  This bill just gives that discretion to the officers and the court to say you did a good job, or you did a bad job.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I do agree with the amendment from the Senate that puts a threshold between $25 and $1,000, because, in some instances, if there are true injuries that have taken place, then the $1,000 is more appropriate. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

For the benefit of those who were not here when testimony first started, the gentleman that gave testimony said this started back in the 1930s or 1940s when a refrigerator fell out of the back of a truck and killed a woman.  That’s how the law was established, and that’s how they established what a load was. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I don’t see that there are any more questions.  We’ll close Senate Bill 356 and reopen Senate Bill 256.

Senator Barbara Cegavske, Clark County, Senatorial District No. 8:

I’m here today to ask for your support of Senate Bill 256.  I will go briefly over what the bill does (Exhibit C), and then go through the sections.  The purpose of this bill is to put into place traditional concepts of graduated drivers’ licensing, which included:

 

• Instruction permit holding periods
• Nighttime driving experience
• Passenger restrictions for young and newly licensed drivers 
• Repeal provisions approved during the 2001 Special Session providing for a tiered permit-holding period in passenger restriction 
• Hold parents or guardians responsible for violations of acts committed by their children 

 

This measure was submitted by request.  As you know, there was a young lady, one of several who were in a car accident.  Her name is Ashley.  I do believe that she is the constituent of Assemblywoman Ohrenschall.  She had asked me to put this bill in, on her behalf, because of the tragic accident.  Unfortunately, this driver didn’t have any type of a license.  As we all talked about before, you can’t legislate for what happened on that awful school day.  The lack of driver experience and excessive speed were cited as the primary causes of that crash. 

 

Las Vegas Metro Police and the Highway Patrol often tell us that what they find at the conclusion of the accidents that happen with teenagers being involved, the cause often is lack of experience behind the wheel.  In addition, many interested parties have indicated that the current tiered system of passenger restriction in permit holdings is confusing for teens, parents, and the driver’s education program instructors. 

 

I will go into each section of the bill starting with Section 2, subsection 1.  This specifies that the Department of Motor Vehicles may issue a driver’s license to a person who is 16 or 17 years of age if he or she satisfies a number of requirements.  A few of these requirements are carryovers from existing laws, for example, the 50 hours behind the wheel.  This subsection requires that a person who is 16 or 17 years of age must first complete a course in driver’s education, or at least 50 hours of supervised driving experience, 10 hours of which must be at night. 

 

We have found that so many of the accidents that happen at night are from lack of experience driving at night.  There is a difference between daylight and nighttime driving.  A form must be submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles from a parent or guardian.  It is not the child who should sign; it is his guardian or parent who must sign to attest that the young person has not had a moving violation, committed a crime involving alcohol or a controlled substance, and has held a permit for not less than six months.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This was confusing when I first read this, because it appeared that the parent or guardian has to sign something that says that the child has not had these violations, et cetera.  But, if you look at it, the parent has to sign something saying that he attests that the person applying for the driver’s license has completed the training and experience required to the above A) and B).  So, the parent does not have to sign something that says the child hasn’t been involved in an accident.  That is another reason why the Department of Motor Vehicles could choose not to give the person a license. 

 

Senator Cegavske:

I think staff can clarify that.  I have been talking with them on this issue.  When I asked them, they said it’s the parent or guardian who is signing stating that the teenager has not violated any of these.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That is not really what that says there.  If you look at Section 2, the DMV may issue a license, so it’s not “shall.”  It’s “may,” if subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are met; those are the things that they will take into consideration.  The person signing the form is only in that part of Section 2(c).  So, the Department of Motor Vehicles “may” not issue a license, if they so chose, to a person who is 16 or 17, if they had been found to be responsible for a motor vehicle accident during the six months prior, et cetera.  That’s not a portion that the parent needs to sign.  I just want to make that clear.

 

Senator Cegavske:

I understand.  That’s how it was explained to me, but I don’t know if there’s any other way to clarify that.  I would refer to staff to see if they felt it needed to have any more teeth in it or have it explained any better in the law.  How you explained it was how it was explained to me.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Right, and it’s the semi-colon there that makes it clear, because that’s the part that states the separation. Subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are the reasons why the Department “may” issue a driver’s license.  All of those things are included.

Senator Cegavske:

We’ll go to Section 2.  This is a carryover from the existing law.  It specifies that a person who is 16 or 17 years of age, who lives in a county of less than 50,000 or a city of less than 25,000, may not be required to take the driver’s education course if he or she is enrolled in a school that does not offer that. 

 

Section 3 sets forth a six-month passenger restriction for newly licensed drivers who are 16 or 17 years old.  An exception is provided in subsection 2 for immediate family members and should be noted.  According to AAA, this passenger restriction, along with the six-month learner’s permit-holding period, is a key component of the true graduated driver’s license program.  This section also provides for certain liability for a parent or guardian who knowingly and willfully allows a person to operate a motor vehicle in violation of this section.  Section 3, subsection 4, sets forth that a violation of Section 3, the passenger restriction, is a secondary, not a primary offense. 

 

Section 4, subsection 2, stipulates that a violation of Section 3 is not a moving traffic violation and is not grounds for suspension or revocation of the driver’s license.

 

The language in Section 5 is permissive.  It states the DMV may issue a unique driver’s license for 16- and 17-year-olds and may adopt regulations necessary to carry out the license and issuance provision in Section 2.  It should be noted that DMV requested this language to be permissive.

 

Section 6 specifies that a restriction placed upon the driver’s license or suspension of a license based on the graduated driver’s license provisions in this act remain in effect until their terms expire.  DMV specifically asked for that wording that ties the restriction or suspension based on the GDL provisions to be included because they have other restrictions that might be handled differently than a GDL suspension or restriction. 

 

Section 7 deletes existing provisions regarding teen driving; however, certain provisions of this section remain in Section 2 of the bill draft. 

 

Section 8 contains certain technical language changes, as do Section 9 and Section 10.  Section 8 currently references the curfew revisions, whereby a person shall not operate a motor vehicle in violation of a curfew.  We didn’t put any times in because each city or county has its own curfew laws in place, so each can set its own.  The measure provides certain parental responsibilities, provisions for a violation of this statute. 

 

[Senator Cegavske continues.]  Section 11 contains two amendments.  They are in subsection 1(c).  This amendment proposes to set a limit on the number of hours of in-class driver’s education that may be substituted for training in a motor vehicle.  The rationale behind this amendment stems from the fact that a driver’s education program could, if taken to the extreme, only have in-car training and claim that it has then met the classroom requirement.  Since the driver’s education curriculum requires instruction on everything ranging from motor vehicle insurance to alcohol and drug use, it is safe to say that this curriculum cannot be entirely taught while providing in-car instruction.  Therefore, a limitation of the number of substituted classroom hours is being proposed. 

 

Subsection 7 proposed an exception to the age limitation for taking driver’s education.  The sponsor learned that some pupils who signed up for restricted driver’s licenses under NRS 483.267 and 483.270 are unable to take driver’s education if they are under 15 years of age.  A restricted license can be awarded to a person as young as 14.  Therefore, it was thought that these younger restricted-license applicants should be able to, at least, be permitted to take driver’s education if it is offered in their schools. 

 

Section 12 repeals the tiered passenger requirement.  Section 3 provides that certain sections of that do not apply to a person issued a driver’s license before October 1, 2003.  I will not go into any more of my comments, because I think the major part is to go through section by section of this bill and to see if there are any questions that I could answer. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The parent is responsible to pay all fines and penalties, so whatever that is, according to the officers, not to charge you with a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor, just whatever fines would be issued, and that is for two items, correct?  That’s if parents or guardians knowingly and willingly allow the teenager to operate a motor vehicle without a license.  That’s in Section 3.  They are also liable if they allow the teenager, in Section 10, to drive the vehicle in violation of curfew.  Correct?  [Ms. Cegavske indicated that was correct].

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Kids and their parents know what the provisions are as they currently stand.  They really know when they can get a license and for how long they can’t drive with friends in the car.  I do think they understand it.  The one concern I have is that, if they have a moving traffic violation, they couldn’t get their licenses for another six months.  A moving traffic violation could be anything from not stopping at a stoplight or making the wrong kind of turn.  I think that is somewhat too restrictive, because it also says if they’ve been responsible for a motor vehicle accident.  If they truly have been, I can understand that part.  I thought they could already take their license away if they’ve had an alcohol or controlled substance citation. 

 

Senator Cegavske:

The language that you were referring to is what we’re trying to propose in a true traditional graduated driver’s license.  We’re trying to explain to them that they can’t have any violations during that period of time, during their permit time.  They don’t want to make any moving violations, all the things that you have talked about.  We’re trying to emphasize to them, when they do get their permit, how important it is to be a good and safe driver.  I think the DMV can make those decisions, because it says “may”; it doesn’t say “shall.”  If the Department doesn’t feel that violation was bad enough, they would go ahead and allow it anyway.  Maybe it was a parking violation instead of a moving violation; that would be one.  The other is, if they go to court, the judge can make those determinations.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I don’t see a “may” here.  It seems to me that if a driver is found responsible for a motor vehicle accident, that’s a lot more serious than if he’d been convicted of a moving traffic violation.  If you’re going 80 miles per hour in a 75-mile zone, and you get pulled over and get a ticket, that’s a conviction unless you are able to prove otherwise in court. That’s the thing that concerns me.  I think they’re really so minor that some kids might not be able to get their licenses for two or three years. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I read this exactly the same way.  I don’t see any discretion here, because, if you look at the top, it says, “The Department may issue a driver’s license if,” and then you go down to (e) in this section, “if he has not been convicted of a moving traffic violation.”  If you take that to the reverse, if the person has been convicted of a moving traffic violation, then the Department may not issue a license.  I don’t think there is any discretion there.

 

Lisa Foster, American Automotive Association:

I think that is what the bill says.  That is the concept of graduated licensing.  To let a full six months pass, from the time you get your permit until the time you get your license.  Let’s say you get into your permit phase for three months and you get a moving violation.  The six months starts over again then.  You would get your license three months later, because of having that moving violation.  That’s the way I understand the bill.  That’s the way most graduated licensing laws are, because it’s the concept of learning good driving skills and proving that you’ve learned those skills to move to the next phase. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I hear you say three months, but this says during the six months. 

 

Lisa Foster:

I guess what I was doing was giving an example.  For instance, a teenager at 15½ gets his or her permit, three months later he or she gets a moving violation, and then they would need to wait a full six months from that time.  There needs to be a six-month period in this bill of having no moving violations, and no alcohol or controlled substance conviction, before you can move to that next phase of getting your driver’s license.  Whenever you get your permit, you would need to make sure six months goes by before you get your license.  That’s the way I understand it.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I understand it; I just think the moving violation is too onerous.  I can understand the other two, to an extent, but a moving violation can – I’ll bet you there’s not one person that gets out of this Committee and drives home that doesn’t commit a moving violation.  You just lucked out that somebody wasn’t following you. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I think what my colleague from Elko is referring to is that the Department has no discretion in this area.  Ms. Foster was saying if you had a driving permit and if you got a citation when you had your permit. I think the way this is written, you don’t have to have a permit; if you’re driving and get a citation prior to having a driver’s license, this would apply, correct?

 

Lisa Foster:

If I understand you correctly, they shouldn’t be driving at all without the permit. They need to have their permit to begin driving in the first place.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Yes, but it’s my understanding, and I know the rural Nevada area, that many children will drive on a ranch or farm and might drive across a highway a short way to go to another ranch.  People do drive before they have a permit.  I believe this would cover that situation anyway, the way that it’s written.  I don’t think it would make any difference.

 

Lisa Foster:

I believe that’s true.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Section 3 of your bullet point says, “This section sets forth a six-month passenger restriction for newly licensed drivers who are 16 or 17.”  Since that was a little vague, I looked it up to see what that restriction is, and it’s a complete restriction.  It’s no passengers, as I read it.  First of all, do I read that correctly, that the first six months a driver has a license, he would not be able to carry any passengers under 18?

 

Senator Cegavske:

It is a six-month passenger restriction, but, as it goes a little further, it will tell you in subsection 2, “Also, except for immediate family members.”  So, if you, as a parent, decide that you want somebody in the family who is under that age to ride along with your child, that would be permitted.  It’s the friends who are restricted.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Is that the same or more restrictive than current law?

 

Senator Cegavske:

That’s more restrictive than current law.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I thought I heard Ms. Foster say that a student could get a permit at 15½ years of age.  Is that under all normal conditions, or is that restricted to certain circumstances?

 

Lisa Foster:

Yes, that’s under normal circumstances.  Anyone can get a permit at 15½ years of age.  That’s the way the law is today, and that’s the way the bill maintains that age.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

That kind of ameliorates the six-month passenger restriction.  Would you consider making the provisions of this bill apply only in counties above 400,000 in population?  I believe that’s where the biggest problems are by far.

 

Senator Cegavske:

If I could ask the Assemblyman what the biggest problems of what are?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

The biggest problems with young drivers having accidents and being exposed to situations that they’re not yet prepared to handle as well.

 

Senator Cegavske:

In the rural areas or the urban areas?  To which are you referring?  [Mr. Knecht indicated the urban areas].  You think that there are more accidents in the urban areas than there are in the rural areas?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I’m guessing, but my point really went to the notion that someone with a driver’s license, at 16, 16½, or 17, driving in an urban area, is more likely to be exposed to difficult situations than if they are driving in a rural area.  I’ll just tell you what my driver’s education instructor told me way too many years ago.  He said, on the first day of class, “I could take any one of you out, and in about two hours teach you everything you need to know to be able to drive from here to California provided one thing.”  That one thing was that there were no other cars on the road.  That’s the complicating factor in most driving, and that’s the hallmark of the urban area.

 

Senator Cegavske:

I would love to answer, but I think I would be too lengthy.  I really would like to have Ms. Foster answer, because she has the statistics on it.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

That’s fine; I guess my question just went to your willingness.

 

Lisa Foster:

Pure numbers-wise, there are far more crashes in urban areas, no doubt.  When you look at the per capita rates of crashes, nationally, more crashes occur in rural areas on two lane roads.  It’s kind of surprising.  Also, I need to clarify that Senator Cegavske didn’t bring this bill for me or for AAA.  She actually brought it for Ashley, to whom she was referring.  That’s who requested this bill.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

If, in fact, you’ve been issued a driver’s license, and you can’t transport another passenger who is not a family member, but if you are found in violation of that, is your license suspended?  I don’t see where it says that.  Or, if you get caught when you’re having some beers with somebody who is over 18, is your license  suspended? There are several things here.

 

Lisa Foster:

The way graduated licensing programs work and the way this bill was intended to be written was, during those first six months of having your license, that you have a passenger restriction.  If you violate that passenger restriction, your six-month waiting period starts over.  If you get into the six months just a couple of months, you start that six-month clock over from that point on.  Then, at the end of six months, violation-free, you have your full-unrestricted license. 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I guess I’m missing that in the bill someplace, exactly where it says you start over if you have a violation.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Ms. Paslov Thomas just pointed it out to me, on page 4, Section 6. If the driver’s license is suspended, then the restriction or suspension remains in effect until the end of the term of the restriction or suspension, which is the six months of violation-free driving time. 

 

Assemblyman Sherer:

I was going to ask what Mr. Knecht asked about where the accidents were.  My other question is, if that’s where all the problems are, in the rural areas, then how come that’s not where we’re putting driver’s education in the schools?  If that’s where all the problems are, yet you don’t have to have education in the rural areas, you have to have them in the urban areas.  Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

 

Senator Cegavske:

Unfortunately, all of the driver’s education schools go where there’s a population or where there are people who will come.  In some of the rural areas, it’s harder to go there.  One of the things that is exciting for the rural areas is the development of online courses.  If you go online, they do have schools.  Last session, we passed an education course for the Internet.  That’s something that helps in the rural areas, as we have training courses for the teachers in the rural areas.  Teachers in the rural areas have a hard time getting some of the renewal credits that they need.  We do all of that by way of the Internet.  We are trying to recognize the distance problems. 

 

Sara Stadler, Youth Coordinator, Mothers Against Drunk Driving:

I would first like to point out that I am 15½ and, about a month ago I got my driver’s permit.  MADD has identified graduated driver licensing laws as an effective measure whose value is based on science.  Young drivers have been overrepresented in crash data for many years.  The GDL laws are proving to be effective in reversing those trends.  Young drivers, like myself, need the opportunity to learn responsible driving behaviors from the onset of our driving careers.  We need to learn to concentrate on the job of safely driving without disruptions or distractions.  We need the many hours of supervised driving to develop safe and responsible driving habits, which will hopefully last us all a lifetime.  We also need to learn that nighttime driving involves many unique challenges. 

 

[Sara Stadler continue.]  For the last two to three sessions, we have supported GDL (graduated driver’s license), anticipating that it would be effective.  Now, with the 12 studies done by the National Safety Counsel, they show that GDL does, in fact, help.  We are no longer supporting this with the hope of a safer future; we are supporting this piece of legislation with the knowledge that GDL will provide Nevada with a safer future.  Please join us in supporting S.B. 256.

 

Assemblyman Sherer:

How is the learning going so far?

 

Sara Stadler:

I did independent driver’s education at school where they gave me a book.  I read it and did worksheets.  I have just finished that and have to do an extra project, which is required, and turn it in.  I have a little over 20 hours so far, in about a month, so the learning is going well.  The driving experience helps, but without the book that I had to read and the worksheets I had to do, I wouldn’t know some of the things I really needed to know.  That is why I strongly support the driver’s education part of the bill and all of the restrictions that come with the GDL.  If I didn’t already have my permit, I would still support this knowing that I would have to wait until I was 16 years old to get my license.  I will actually get my license in two months, though.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

In two months you will be 15¾, or in two months you will be 16?

 

Sara Stadler:

In two months I will be 15¾ and, with the approval of my parents, the 50 hours of practice that I need, and the driver’s education, I will, hopefully, pass my driver’s test and get my license.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

At 15¾.  [Ms. Stadler confirms this.]  However, if this bill passes, you would have to wait.

 

Sara Stadler:

Actually, because of the October 1 effective date, it will not matter to me.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you very much.  We appreciate your testimony, and the statistics that you stated seems to me that there is some give and take in that research.  You yourself seem to have stated that very well with your experience.  Perhaps you don’t have to be 16 if you have had all of the experience and the maturity and the responsibility that you are showing, as well as your family is showing by giving you, and you deciding to take all of that training.

 

[Chairwoman Chowning invited testimony from Las Vegas].

 

Kiley Quinn, Private Citizen, Las Vegas High School student:

I’m for this bill because a year ago I was in a deadly car crash with Ashley Biersack.  I was one of the girls critically injured.  I think this bill needs to be passed so kids can get better experience on how to drive in different kinds of weather.  Parents don’t realize what goes on inside a teenager’s car.  While we were driving, there was loud music, dancing to the radio, passing around pictures, and talking on cell phones.  This was all going on while we were driving.  At 16 years old, Ashley didn’t know what she was doing.  She didn’t know how to drive perfectly.  We were horsing around, and there were a few people smoking cigarettes.  All this was going on while she was supposed to be driving. 

 

Nobody realizes what it’s like to go through something like that and how hard it is.  I was 15 at the time and had to bury two good friends.  One of them was 16, and one of them was 17.  The things we have to go through and the mental recovery and the physical recovery—I understand she didn’t have her license, but I think, if this would have been passed before and she had her license, this would have never happened.  None of us would have even been allowed in the car.  She didn’t even have her license for a total of two months, and her life was taken because of horsing around in a car.  I think this law should be passed.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We’re very sorry for what you had to go through and all your trauma. We did pass the law before, and the driver in this particular accident didn’t even have a permit.  Isn’t that correct?  So, the only part that’s new, in statute, with this bill, that would affect the sad circumstances, would be to hold the parents responsible.  I guess you’re saying that you are in favor of holding that parent responsible because you think that parent did knowingly and willingly allow that person to operate the vehicle without a driver’s license.

 

Kiley Quinn:

Yes, he knew that she had the car without a driver’s license. 

Colleen Quinn, Mother of Kiley Quinn:

I’m for the bill because, as you said, it would not have affected our accident because Ashley was unlicensed.  Still, in fact, whether or not she was unlicensed or licensed, the accident would have still happened.  Even if she had had her license, she had only been driving two months, which is under the six months that they are proposing.  Parents need to be held accountable and responsible for what their kids are doing.  Like Kiley said, parents have no idea what’s going on in the car.  Kids are great drivers while mom and dad are in the car, but as soon as mom and dad are out of the car and kids have their friends in the car, it’s a whole different ball game. 

 

For our accident, had Ashley lived, she would have been fined $98 or $94.  Her father was fined only $94 for all the damage and destruction that was created, not just to his family—yes, he has a whole lot on his plate—he’s got five families.  But, there were three other girls’ families that were also affected for this tragic accident, and $94 is nothing.  I’m not out to crucify him, but stricter penalties need to be made for parents who willingly do this.  We talk at schools, and there are still parents willingly giving their kids the car keys without a driver’s license.  They need to be held accountable and responsible for the damages that their kids cause. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Sadly that would still be the case.  The bill doesn’t stipulate an exact amount of a fine or a penalty.  It just says the parent will be liable for all fines and penalties imposed.  Perhaps there will be someone from law enforcement who would state what that might be.  That leaves it pretty wide open.  Nobody knows what the penalties or the fines would be that would be imposed. 

 

John Phillips, Owner, Drive Friendly Driving and Traffic School:

I teach the 30-hour course here in Las Vegas and also teach Traffic School.  I’m also the instructor through the Community College of Southern Nevada for persons who want to have a driving school or teach driver’s education.  I’m also on the Las Vegas City Traffic and Parking Commission, and I’m a member of the Clark County Citizens Advisory Committee.  I’m very strongly in support of the revised graduated licensing. 

 

Motor vehicle crashes are the number one cause of teens dying in Nevada.  Teens 16- to 17-years-old comprise 1.9 percent of Nevada drivers but are involved in 7.2 percent of the fatal crashes.  Three-quarters of the teen passengers in the crashes in Nevada were in cars driven by other teens.  Teen crashes also kill drivers and passengers in other vehicles.  Teen passengers increase the risk of fatal crashes by 30 percent.  Each additional teen passenger amplifies the risk.  In addition to what I have said, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, Nevada is 1 of 11 states voted as having the weakest graduated driver’s licensing program in the nation.  Nevada ranks as one of the worst states in the nation with regard to its driver’s education programs.  In Clark County, we have 31 high schools and only 6 have driver’s education classes.  None of them have behind-the-wheel programs. 

 

[John Phillips continues.]  Nevada is the fastest growing state in the nation with Clark County seeing the largest growth.  Here in Clark County, we have approximately 16,000 teenagers reaching the age of 16 annually.  Southern Nevada has some of the worst driving hazards in the United States.  I am fully supportive of this bill that Senator Cegavske has drafted.  Graduated licensing has proved to be among the most effective ways to lower teen crash rates.  I’m hoping that we can pass this bill without any further modifications and see the effectiveness come about through effective graduated licensing programs.

 

Erin Breen, Director, Safe Community Partnership:

I would just like to reiterate the fact that we have a problem when it comes to teenage drivers, especially in Clark County and throughout the entire state of Nevada.  We are pedaling, so to speak, as quickly as we can and putting programs in places as rapidly as we can.  We have, as a community in Las Vegas, come together with numerous programs aimed at teenage drivers; yet, we still have more and more teenagers being killed in car crashes.  We kick off a program where we’re looking at research aimed at this year’s graduating class of 2003.  Since they became juniors, 32 of them have been killed in our community.  In less than two years’ time, 32 teenagers have been killed in car crashes.  This is a program that will be part of our toolbox.  We are not asking you to solve this problem.  We are asking you to be part of the overall solution to see if graduated licensing will be as effective in the state of Nevada as it has been throughout the country. 

 

Senator Cegavske:

Could I ask that Lisa Foster and Dana Mathiesen come up to clarify something that the Committee had asked that we now have a better understanding of.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Yes, I was going to ask representatives of DMV to come forward because there are probably some questions that we have of you. 

 

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:

I would like to say that the Department supports this bill.  It strengthens the graduated licensing program in Nevada, and it also simplifies the licensing requirements.  I also wanted to clarify one provision that Lisa had mentioned earlier.  She indicated that a violation of a restriction in Section 3, which is transporting passengers, would extend that restriction for an additional six months on the license.  However, in Section 4, it states, “A violation of that restriction is not a moving traffic violation and is not grounds for suspension or revocation of the driver’s license.”  I wanted to clarify that the only violations that will extend or delay the issuance of a license for six months are those that are noted in Section 2; they include: 1) not being found to be responsible for a motor vehicle accident during the six months before applying for a license, and 2) not being convicted of a moving traffic violation within six months. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, on page 2, subsections (d) and (e), “if the person has been found to be responsible for a motor vehicle accident during the six months prior to applying for a driver’s license,” which could be the part when they have a permit, or it could not be, but six months before, or “if the person has been convicted of a moving violation,” or “if the person has been convicted of a crime involving alcohol or a controlled substance during these six months,” then what is the penalty?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

They’d need to be free of a conviction or an accident within six months immediately prior to the licensing date.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, any one of these items that we just stated?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Correct.  Then in Section 3, where it says, if they violate a restriction not to transport passengers during the first six months of licensure, it will not extend that extension for an additional six months. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The only time-clock restrictions before you can get your driver’s license are those on page 2?  [Ms. Mathiesen indicated that was correct].

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

If you’re dealing with a minor, are not the parents currently liable for any damage a minor does or any fines the minor gets?  Until you’re 18 years old, are you not completely reliant on your parents?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Currently, parents have to sign an affidavit of liability when they sign for a minor who is getting an instruction permit or a license.  It is not specified in the licensing law that they’re liable for those offenses.  But, yes, they are signing a statement indicating they will be liable.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

The bill doesn’t change anything in that respect?  Parents are currently liable?  [Ms. Mathiesen indicated that was correct].

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

What is the situation now, if you get convicted of drunk driving and you have your learner’s permit?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

There are different provisions for minors as far as alcohol.  Minors can have their license suspended or delayed for up to two years if they’re convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level of .02 to .09.  If they’re convicted of driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 or greater, their penalties are the same as for any other driver in the state of Nevada. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Under the current law, if you’re convicted of a DUI, you can lose your license for up to two years?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Minors can have their license suspended or issuance delayed for up to two years if their blood alcohol content is anywhere from .02 to .09.  If they are convicted of driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level of .10 or greater, for a first offense, their license will be revoked for a 90-day period. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Under this law, we would actually be reducing the penalty, wouldn’t we?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

I don’t believe the law affects the current penalties for driving under the influence.  It delays issuance of the license until they’ve been free for six months, but if a juvenile court judge orders that the Department not issue a license for two years to a minor who has been convicted of an alcohol offense, then the license will be suspended for a two-year period.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

The license and the learner’s permit both, right?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Either.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I think that we’re actually reducing the penalties.  Here it says it’s only delayed for six months, not delayed for up to two years. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I believe that’s already in the law, as I stated.  I don’t understand why we need to be restating the law in this bill when it’s already the law elsewhere. The law already says that a teenager may not have their driver’s license if they’ve been convicted of a crime involving alcohol or controlled substance.  It’s not just six months; it can be all the way up to two years.

 

Dana Mathiesen:

That’s how I read it, too.

 

Mike Kinkaid, Private Citizen and Parent:

I didn’t come up to represent my police department, but I am a police officer, and I have been a police officer for 22 years, 20 of which has been in the state of Nevada.  First of all, to answer the question as to does this lessen the offense?  No, it does not.  This law will not supercede the DUI laws.  This is just an additional law for our benefit, or for the benefit of the people of the state of Nevada.  It does not supercede the penalties for a DUI or another statute.  It wouldn’t be lessening the law at all.  A DUI does not necessarily apply under this law because there are already provisions for DUI violations. 

 

You were mentioning the other moving violations, maybe possibly running a stop sign, or rolling through a stop sign.  Those are the things that cause accidents.  The minor things are those that do cause the accidents, the speeding, the rolling through the stop sign, and the failure to look over your shoulder to change lanes.  Those minor things hold up that license for six months.  Although extremely minor in our view, they are what cause the majority of our accidents.  Our juveniles and our kids are learning bad habits.  Why are they doing this?  It is because they’re being allowed to drive with other kids in the vehicles.  I have picked up more bodies off of the roadway because kids were reaching down, playing with the radio, talking with each other, slapping each other up-side the head, skipping school together, running into light poles, speeding, running stop signs.  This is an excellent bill. 

 

When I was a kid learning how to drive in Florida, I had to go through this process. We are way late in approving something like these measures.  I, myself, am a parent.  I have four children.  I have a son who wasn’t allowed to get his license until he was 18½ years old.  When he had his learner’s permit, he could not prove to me that he could obey the laws with his buddies in the car, so I held him up until he was well over 18 years old.  A lot of parents will not do that.  A lot of parents will not take the time to do that.  A lot of parents have no control over their children.  This bill will help to increase that control, plus it will put some responsibility on those parents, such as the parents that allowed the young lady to drive the car with no license. 

 

[Mike Kincaid continues.]  The parents?  Yes, they’re partially responsible now, but they need to be held more liable.  They need to be able to say “No” to these kids. They are getting away with too much.  When teenagers go out with their friends, they start drinking; they’re hanging out together, especially at night, past curfew.  That’s another part of this law I like; it just lends support against more abuses.  This bill is a great bill.  We should wholeheartedly support it. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I’d like to point out that you took actions into your own hands as a parent without the law telling you to do so.

 

Mike Kinkaid:

Absolutely, but most parents will not do that.  I’ve dealt with that for many years.  I’m dealing with generations.  I’m now on my third generation of kids out there violating the laws.  If you take the kid home and say, “Your kid did this,” a parent will say, “No, not my kid.” 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

With the tragic instance that happened in Las Vegas, we already had the law in place, and that didn’t make a difference.

 

Mike Kinkaid:

No, it didn’t, but some people are just going to do things wrong.  That’s just the way it is.  We have a lot of people out there driving with no driver’s license; adults.  We have the laws to protect them, but this bill is a very good bill.  I like the part about the kids together.  Keep them away from each other.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

What kind of restrictions did you have in Florida when you got your license?

 

Mike Kinkaid:

This was many years ago.  I could get my learner’s permit at age 15.  I was not allowed to drive at night.  Once I turned 16, I still was not able to have anyone in my car with me, other than my parents or my immediate family, nobody under the age of 18, for a period of six months.  Every school had driver’s education with the vehicles out in the parking lot, for practice on the courses.  Every school, not just the ones in the highly populated areas.  Unfortunately, we don’t have that here.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I would ask our researcher what the Florida law is now, and we can compare them to what the restrictions are that this gentleman had.  According to the stuff we had here, it was only implemented in 1996. 

 

Tracy Filippi, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety:

You have all been provided this folder of data and information (Exhibit D).  Page 2 refers to the 38 states that currently, as of January 2003, have GDL laws.  On page 3, it refers to six states that have had over a year of implementation of these laws, have data, and have studies.  It gives the typical restrictions for those six states, in other words, supervised driving, duration, and nighttime driving.  On page 8 is the outcome of the studies of those six states after they implemented the GDL laws: the reduction of fatalities, their crash rates, their 9 p.m. to midnight crashes, their at-fault crashes, their fatal crashes, all for 16- and 17-year-old drivers.  On page 4, it refers to a joint publication that defined five characteristics of crashes by age.  For age 16 drivers, the characteristics included driver error, speeding, three or more occupants, single vehicle crashes, which would apply to the rural areas in Nevada, and alcohol. The 16-year olds have a greater incidence of these crash characteristics than any driver aged 17 to 49, except for alcohol.  On page 5, there is the outline of unique crash risks for teen drivers, defined as beginning drivers age 16. 

 

There’s the issue of passengers under age 20.  One passenger increases the crash risk by 40 percent; two passengers by 106 percent. Three passengers increase the crash risk to almost 400 percent for these young drivers.  It discusses nighttime driving, and the chart on the bottom of page 5 refers to the crash rate for new drivers with unrestricted licenses per 10,000 miles driven.  It indicates that for the first 1,500 miles of driving, a new driver who actually has a license and is out there, the incidence of crash rate is higher in the first 250 miles.  It goes down a little bit after 500 miles and goes down a little bit more, et cetera.  That would support the idea of the 50 hours of supervised driving and the six months’ wait. 

 

Page 6 has some more data regarding Nevada from our fatality analysis reporting system for 2001, driving involvement.  For instance, 16 year olds had less than 1 percent of the licenses in Nevada, yet they accounted for over 2.5 percent of the fatalities.  In the chart below that, they accounted for 1.6 percent of the drivers in fatal crashes, even having that small percentage of licenses in the state.  Here are some national and individual state data for you.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Do you have any data on Nevada since we’ve had our graduated licensing in effect?

 

Tracy Filippi:

The gentleman who is in charge of the alcohol and young driver awareness program, which is a part of Fatalities Analysis Reporting System, is out of town.  I’m sure that we do have that data; however, I would need to get that to you.  I don’t have it with me.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We won’t be taking action on this bill today.  If the members of the Committee could review all the information that’s been given to us, and if you could get that information for Mr. Carpenter and the rest of the Committee before Thursday, that would really be appreciated.

 

Tracy Filippi:

What exactly is the data you’re looking for?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I think you need the statistics like you have for the others, since we’ve had graduated licensing in Nevada.  We need to know whether it’s had any effect or not.  How many crashes there have been and how many of them were involving young drivers?  Another thing I’d really like to see is how many of them were out of state and how many of them were in crashes. Would the data indicate a relationship to what this bill would have done to prevent the tragedy in Las Vegas that we heard about? 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The sad thing is these statistics that we have here are 2001.  Session after session we’ve made these laws stronger than what was in place before, but we don’t have statistics that show, for better or worse, the results.  I guess it’s impossible to get any statistics later than 2001?

 

Traci Filippi:

It’s not impossible.  Our Fatality Analysis Reporting System Analyst has until the end of this month to complete his 2002 data.  Sometimes law enforcement agencies submit that fatality report late, or they come up with additional data three months after the crash.  We do have most of the data, and I should be able to pull some of that out of there.  We just don’t have the official total numbers yet.

 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Just the statistics would be great. 

 

Senator Cegavske:

The only thing I’d like to leave you with is that I do believe this is a public safety issue, and I do believe that it is our responsibility to make sure that the public is safe.  This is part of the guidelines to where I think we’re going, and we need to go.  The number one killer of our teens is car crashes.  I beg all of you to do the research.  If you have any more questions, please ask me.  I’ll be more than happy to respond to anything.  I did ask staff from the Senate to look into a couple of issues that have been asked about, and I will be more than happy to get those to you as soon as possible.  As soon as we have something, we’ll look for clarification from the Legal Division, since we didn’t have Legal Counsel here today, for some of the questions that were asked.  I did want to tell you that Sheriff Bill Young is very supportive of this bill and has been unable to come here today. Lieutenant Stan Olsen was supposed to be here, but there are so many committee hearings going on. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We didn’t ask if there’s anyone from law enforcement.  Is there anyone from law enforcement here who wants to speak?

 

Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association:

We’ve always been in support of this bill.  I used to teach a lot of driver’s education in high schools.  The students don’t take it very seriously.  Nevada needs to fund driving instruction in high schools, and the students need to take it seriously.  You would save a lot of lives. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I don’t think you’d get one single bit of argument on that issue.  We’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 256.  We’ll open our work session.  We have two bills on work session today.  [Chairwoman Chowning opened the work session on Senate Bill 476].

 

Senate Bill 476:  Makes various changes relating to regulation of taxicabs. (BDR 58-538)

 

Marji Thomas Paslov:

Senate Bill 476 is located in your work session document after Senate Bill 192.  This bill clarifies that the term for members of the Taxicab Authority is three years, except as otherwise provided in NRS 232A.020.  The measure increases, from $1,000 to $2,000, the maximum amount to be in the petty cash account of the Administrator of Taxicab Authority.  There are no proposed amendments and, if you’ll recall, testimony indicated that this is a housekeeping measure.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 476.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Collins was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Now, we will open the work session on Senate Bill 192. 

 

Senate Bill 192 (1st Reprint):  Makes various changes to provisions governing certain motor carriers and drivers. (BDR 58-537)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We’ll go forward with what’s in our booklet.  There are possibly some other amendments and testimony that we will take.  Before we do that, would someone from the agency come forward to let us know if the agency has any other amendments to propose before we act on these amendments that are before us. 

 

Sandra Avants, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority: 

With me today is Commissioner Kimberly Maxton-Rushton and Attorney General Michael Mersch.  I think we were able, over the last two or three weeks, to really analyze the bill.  As you’re aware, I became the Chairman just five weeks ago, and the bill was already in process.  I’ve had a chance to review it with the new Commissioner and, also, with Commissioner Bruce Breslow.  Because of that and the concern I know you have for businesspeople, not just large businesspeople but also small businesspeople, and the mom-and-pop operations, or the single individual, as well as the concerns and knowledge we have about the industries that we regulate, the environment that they’re working in, and the economic conditions that they’re working under in their respective towns and cities, we would like to amend our bill.  Commissioner Maxton-Rushton will go over each one as to section and line. 

 

Generally, we would like to address your concern regarding increased fees for the administrative part of the business that we conduct, which would be application and document fees.  We would like those to remain the same; there would be no increase.  Also, there was a concern that asking for a fee of $200, after not having any fees charged to the fully regulated carriers, might be better worked in over a period of time.  With that, we have worked out a schedule, which Commissioner Maxton-Rushton will delineate for you.  We think this is a compromise, and it’s a serious bill that needs to be passed, but we certainly did consider the people who would be working under this new bill and the new fees. 

 

[Sandra Avants continues.]  In addition, you will hear from the representatives from the nonemergency medical providers.  We have met with them for a significant period of time and are very happy to have them put forth an amendment with which we fully agree.  That would exempt them from the requirement to have us do the background checks, including criminal, and then licensing their drivers.  In addition to that, because the fee charged would have been mostly for licensing, they’ll no longer be covered.  The background checks that they are and will be doing are already criminal investigation checks and significant and meet all of the standards that we’re looking for.  With that in mind, we have no problem exempting them.  (A letter from Mr. Jim Gubbels, RN, was submitted in support of the TSA’s position for exemption, Exhibit G.)

 

Further, most of the fees that are charged from these nonemergency providers are paid directly by the individual.  They’re not paid by insurance companies.  They are trying to maintain the tariff that they have, so that, in these hard times, the people who need the additional emergency provider-type of driver will not have a fee that is increased.  There are less than 35 vehicles that we’re talking about, so it would not significantly impact our budget, but it would impact their businesses. 

 

Kimberly Maxton-Rushton, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority (TSA):

I am going to work directly off the bill, and I’ll direct you to the specific provisions in the bill.  We have three changes that I have noted for your attention.  Beginning on page 2, subsection 5, on lines 27-29, this was the fee for fully regulated carriers, which includes household goods movers, limousines, per capita buses, and nonemergency vehicles.  At this time, we’re asking that the section be amended to impose a graduated fee.  We recommend that the first fee increase be imposed as of July 1, 2003, in the amount of $100.  Following that, there would be an additional fee of $50 that would be due before January 1, 2004.  Thereafter, it would be a yearly fee of $200, beginning in July 2004. 

 

For the first year, it would only be a total of $150.  Thereafter, it would only be $200 per year.  We’re recommending that the nonemergency vehicles be exempted from this for the reasons set forth by Chairman Avants.  If you turn to page 7, Section 16, you will see that we requested that, under subsection 2(a), (b), and (c), fees in the amount of $100 for an application fee be modified to a tariff.  We’re asking that be withdrawn completely.  In line 39, we requested that the application fee be increased to $400.  We’re asking for that to be withdrawn.  So, it would stay as presently written, contained within Nevada Revised Statutes 706.197, at $200. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, lines 38, 39, and 40 would be deleted, and the language would return on line 37.  So, “Application filing fees may not exceed $200.”  [Ms. Rushton indicated that was correct].  Then, what about the language on lines 41, 42, and 43? 

 

Kimberly Maxton-Rushton:

That would return the language.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, the public notice would remain at $10 and, for each tariff page, that would remain at $10.  All that language would go back to the original statute?

 

Kimberly Maxton-Rushton:

With respect to lines 41 through 44, on page 7, that language would remain the same.  With respect to the language contained on page 8 at line 1, the basis for the request to increase that to $75 is that it is actually the cost of publishing notices.  We are asking that the amount remain at $75, because that is the cost to the Transportation Services Authority to publish our notices, as we are required to do. 

 

As for the Transportation Services Authority, those are all of the proposed amendments that we would make at this time (Exhibit E).  As Chairman Avants indicated earlier, with respect to the nonemergency medical vehicles, there has been a proposal that I believe was handed out to you.  At this time, I’d ask the representatives from that respective industry to come forward and walk you through those. 

 

Paul Enos, Regional Emergency Medical Service Authority (REMSA), Washoe County, Med-Express: 

In Section 2, subsection 3, we added a new provision (Exhibit F) that says “The term does not include,” and then in paragraph (b), “A person who is an emergency medical technician certified pursuant to NRS Chapter 450B, who drives a vehicle for the transportation of disabled persons.”  Then, in Section 5, we added another provision that says, “The provisions of this Section do not apply to an operator of a transportation service for disabled persons where the driver is an emergency medical technician certified pursuant to NRS Chapter 450B.” 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We appreciate you bringing this.  This wasn’t a very long time that you had to respond to this, but you did so, and the agency worked with you. 

 

Paul Enos:

We’d like to take the opportunity right now to thank the TSA for being so gracious and allowing us this amendment on their bill.

 

A. J. (Bob) Fairman, Nevada Buses:

I’d like to see that, in the new proposal from the Medical Supply, they add a paragraph (d) to Section 5, and put in buses by charter, also, because, up above in Section 2, subsection 3 (a), they put charter buses in there, also.  I believe they would need to put, under Section 5, a fully regulated carrier and a fee no more than $200 a year, put (d) as “buses by charter.” 

 

Michael Mersch, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Nevada Office of the District Attorney:

I don’t believe that’s necessary because, as has been pointed out in multiple documents and in multiple testimonies, the only buses that are involved are fully regulated buses, which are per capita buses, buses that do scenic tours.  Charter buses are not considered as part of that group, but I would agree that that doesn’t need to be added into the bill.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

If we could, I would like us to act on these two amendments first and then go back to the work document.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO ADOPT AND DO PASS THE FIRST TWO  AMENDMENTS, THE ONE PRESENTED BY TSA AND THE ONE PRESENTED BY REMSA TO SENATE BILL 192.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please go to your work session document (Exhibit H) to continue to consider amendments to Senate Bill 192.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

I made a chart for you on the legal-sized paper that’s folded in half.  In the first column is the person or entity who offered the amendment.  The middle column is the conceptual amendment, and as the Chair requested last week, the Transportation Services Authority’s position regarding the amendment.  The amendments that have been proposed are in alphabetical order.

 

[Marji Paslov Thomas continues.]  These four amendments have to do with residency for an applicant or a driver of a fully regulated carrier, passenger, or a taxicab.  Number 1 was to amend the bill to require that an applicant have a valid and appropriate license to drive in this state, or, if the applicant resides within 50 miles in a bordering state, he has a valid and appropriate license to drive in that state.  The Transportation Services Authority’s position was that they had no objections.  I forgot to mention that under Tab F (Exhibit H), you will find the actual position of the TSA on the amendments that are being proposed.  Tab A (Exhibit H) is the actual language being proposed by each person.

 

The second amendment was to amend the bill to allow a person who is applying for employment with a fully regulated carrier for passengers to submit a physician’s certificate from a physician licensed to practice medicine in any state, rather than the current law, which limits physician licensing only to the state of Nevada.  There were no objections by the TSA.

 

The third amendment was to amend the bill to require that a person operating as a driver of a fully regulated carrier have a valid and appropriate license to drive in the state, or, if the applicant resides within 50 miles of Nevada in a bordering state, that he have a valid and appropriate license to drive in that state.  Again, there were no objections.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Since none of these three had any objections, the Chair would accept a motion on the first three amendments.  An objection was raised during the hearing on the fourth amendment by the TSA. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO ADOPT AND DO PASS THE FIRST THREE AMENDMENTS CONTAINED IN THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT AND HEARD ON May 6, 2003, TO SENATE BILL 192.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. COLLINS VOTING NO.

 

 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

If they’re going to work in Nevada, I think they should have a Nevada driver’s license.  If you’re going to give them 50 miles out, even if it’s in Lake Tahoe, it makes it tough, but that’s just my own opinion.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

What if some people live in California, and they work here?  Will they allow them to have a California license and a Nevada License?  No. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

My response is don’t hire them.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

The fourth amendment was to amend the bill to allow an applicant to provide proof that for 30 days before his application for a permit to drive as a taxi cab driver, he was a resident of Nevada, which is the current law.  The amendment is to add “or he is a resident within 50 miles of Nevada in a bordering state.”  As the Chairwoman said, there were objections raised during the last work session on May 8.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO ADOPT AND DO PASS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO S.B. 192.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

There’s been a motion to amend the amendment to allow an applicant to provide proof that 30 days before his application for a permit as a taxicab driver, he was a resident of Nevada or was a resident within 50 miles of Nevada in a bordering state.  I would speak against that motion.  I think that the provision in the bill that a person should have to be a resident of Nevada for   30 days is a valid one. 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I’m having a hard time understanding your position, because if you don’t like the fourth then, clearly, you don’t need the third. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, in other words, you’re saying that the fourth amendment means the proof of residency would only be a requirement for everyone for all the rest of the state with the exception of the people who are in the bordering state.  Thank you for the clarification.  Then I do support the motion. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. COLLINS VOTING NO.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The next proposed amendment is proposed by Barry Jones of Carson Valley Movers.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

The proposed fifth amendment is to amend S.B. 192 to include that an applicant for a certificate of public convenience of necessity to operate as a motor carrier, other than an operator of a tow car, has not been convicted of any violation of NRS 706.756, subsection 1, for a period of five years preceding the filing of the application to the TSA.  A copy of that statute is provided under Tab B (Exhibit H).  The TSA suggested replacing the five-year language with “in determining the suitability of an applicant for certification, the authority shall consider whether the applicant has violated any of the provisions in NRS 706.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We have two decisions on this portion, which, on this page, is number 5.  The motion has to be on one or the other.  Either allow the TSA to have this in there as one of the factors they use to determine whether to consider the applicant or to not allow an applicant to be approved if they’ve had a violation for a period of five years preceding application.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

After five years, if it was a misdemeanor criminal conviction, they could have it sealed or done away with.  I think a compromise there would be something similar to other state agencies that regulate based on two years.  I could support two years but not anything less than that.  A lot of people come and open businesses in Nevada because it’s easy, and I think we should be a little stricter.  I would move that be amended to say two years with that language rather than five years, and I could support that. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO REWORD THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO S.B. 192 TO READ “TWO YEARS” RATHER THAN “FIVE YEARS.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Ms. Thomas, could you give the Committee some clarification about what type of violations this would include?  This is for an applicant who will be applying as an owner of a household goods mover company, a limousine company, a tow truck company, or a taxicab company in Nevada.

Marji Pavlov Thomas:

If you turn to Tab B (Exhibit H), there is a copy of NRS 706.756.  Just to pick out a few, violations would be:

 

• Someone operates a vehicle without obtaining a certificate, permit, or license.

 

• Fails to make any return report required under the provisions of Chapter 706.

 

• Violates, procures, aids, or abets the violating of any of the provisions of Chapter 706.

 

• Knowingly offers, gives, solicits, or accepts any rebate concession or discrimination in violation of the provisions of this chapter.

 

• Displays or causes or permits to be displayed a certificate, permit, license, or identifying device, knowing it to be fictitious or to have been canceled, revoked, suspended, or altered.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

It seems to me there are so many variations to these applications and whether they’re suitable or not, I think I would be in favor of the amendment suggested by the Transportation Services Authority, and then let them make that decision.  I believe that’s what they’re there for. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I want to clarify that I did misspeak, because this amendment is exempting this provision for operators of tow cars.  Mr. Mersch, perhaps you should tell the Committee exactly who this provision would cover.

 

Mike Mersch:

We don’t believe the way it is written on this larger handout is accurate.  I don’t think the amendment was intended to exempt tow car operators.  We think it should cover all fully regulated carriers.  We would just like to make that clarification.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, take out “other than an operator of a tow car.”  This would then cover companies who apply as owners of limousine companies, household goods moving companies, and owners of tow car companies.

Mike Mersch:

To Mr. Goicoechea, he threw in taxicabs in northern Nevada.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

And also taxicabs in northern Nevada, correct?  So, four types of companies. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

For example, the Contractors Board, for violations, can eliminate someone from working public works for two years.  This is a public conveyance.  I think my colleague from Elko, letting them have their own discretion as a Board operating to do that, is one thing.  The long history, the last 30 or 40 years, there have been a lot of deals in trucking, moving vans, limousines, and cabs, and, even before they were split up, in the rails and utilities.  As my colleague from North Las Vegas mentioned, he had wanted to hire his brother from out of state, so it was okay.  I think there should be more stringent consideration than just leaving it at their will and desire to say, “Well yeah, he was a felon in Chicago, but we’re going to let him run a casino here.”  I don’t want to go there.  If they have a violation that’s on the books, we should not allow them in here for a couple of years.  That’s just my own opinion.  I think we should be stricter.  States around us are strict on those things, and Nevada’s been a playground for everybody who can’t play somewhere else.  That’s just my opinion. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Before we see if there’s a second, we need to make this clear again.  This is only addressing a violation of Nevada Revised Statutes 706.756.  If Ms. Thomas could tell us again what this covers.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

For example, Joe College and his buddies have been moving furniture for the last five years in Nevada.  Why give them a license because they’ve been in violation for five years in Nevada.  I think they should sit it out. 

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

As I mentioned, if you look at NRS 706.756, there are several subsections of Section 1.  If a person violates those things, then they would be possibly guilty of a misdemeanor.  I could run through those one more time if you like.  The misdemeanor would include someone who:

 

• Operates a vehicle without a certificate, permit, or license.

 

• Fails to make a report required by Chapter 706.

 

• Violates, procures, aids, or abets the violating of any of the provisions of Chapter 706.

 

• Fails to obey any order, decision, or regulation of the authority.

 

• Advertises, solicits, proffers bids or otherwise holds himself out to perform transportation, and is in violation of that under Chapter 706, therefore meaning he doesn’t hold a certificate or other items; misleading advertising.

 

• Knowingly offer, solicit, or accept rebates in violation of Chapter 706.

 

• Knowingly, willfully, and fraudulently seeks to evade or defeat the purposes of Chapter 706.

 

• Operates or causes to be operated a vehicle which does not have the proper identifying device.

 

• Displays a certificate, permit, or license that is fictitious or has been canceled or has been revoked, suspended, or altered.

 

• Lends or knowingly permits someone else to use the certificate who should not be using the certificate.

 

• Refuses or fails to surrender a certificate that has been suspended, canceled, or revoked.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

These items specifically apply to this business. That’s what Mr. Collins’ motion is.  Is there a second?

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

Mr. Collins said that he didn’t like the idea that you could be a felon in Ohio, but we would let you run a casino in Nevada.  Since this only deals with violations of the NRS, if you’re a felon in Ohio, the TSA wouldn’t know about it, because it only authorizes the TSA to ask about violations of the Nevada Revised Statutes.  It doesn’t say anything about asking them whether they had a violation of the Ohio Revised Statutes.  I’m not sure that I understand that point of the motion. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you, Ms. Ohrenschall, and that’s why I asked Ms. Thomas to please restate the section of statute, so that it would make that very clear.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I was only using that as an example of the attitude in Nevada in many cases, not specifically dealing with this bill.  The point I was trying to make is, if somebody is out there violating the law, we need a two-year time period to let them clean up before they get into the business.  If you’ve been running illegally in the past, just coming in there and saying I’m going to be good isn’t good enough.  I think there should be a time period of waiting.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Collins has made the motion that, instead of five years proceeding, it would be two years.  Is there a second?  [There was not, and the motion died.]  Is there another motion?

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I propose that we amend it with the language from the TSA.  They consider whether the applicant has violated NRS Chapter 706.  Under Chapter 706, there are a lot of violations they could be guilty of, and I think that would be more than adequate to deny them a license. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO ADOPT AND DO PASS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 192.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

It has been moved by Mr. Goicoechea to replace the language with “in determining the suitability of an applicant for certification, the Authority shall consider whether the applicant has violated any of the provisions in NRS Chapter 706.” 

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

I have no problem with the Transportation Services Authority considering whether there’s been a violation, but does this tell us what they’re supposed to do if they discover that there is a violation? 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

My interpretation would be that they would not grant the application at that time if they felt any of these had been violated, and the violation did deem they should not get the permit. 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

I agree with Assemblyman Goicoechea.  It would allow just one more thing that the Transportation Services Authority would have to determine when deciding on whether or not to issue an applicant a license. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

But, it is discretionary, so, if TSA found they had been in violation, and if TSA felt there were other determining factors that overweighed that, they could still grant them the approval, correct?  [Ms. Thomas indicated that was correct]. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The second part of Mr. Jones’ proposed amendment is regarding advertising.  Ms. Thomas, we’ve worked a lot in trying to figure this out and what we could do. 

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Mr. Jones suggested that by adding the language “who permits advertising under the criminal penalties,” again referring back to NRS 706.756, is adding it as one more thing under subsection (g) of Section 30, “advertisers or who permits advertising.”  That would be a criminal penalty.  The TSA did object to that language and suggested striking that language.  They felt this objective could be accomplished by referring cases directly to the Attorney General of the Bureau of Consumer Protection.  You may recall they stated that during the hearing and at the work session. 

 

At the request of the Chair, I did contact the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau since there were further questions about this.  Counsel determined that the current recommendation, as Mr. Jones’ proposed it, might be problematic.  Therefore, I believe the intent of the recommendation is to prohibit false and misleading advertising.  If that’s the case, the Committee may want to consider approving a conceptual idea similar to NRS 624.720 that is provided on your desk. 

 

That statute is taken out of the contractor’s chapters.  It requires that a licensed contractor whose advertising include the name of his company and the number of his license.  Advertising would include listing it in something such as a phone book.  If that person is determined to have been engaged in advertising that violated the section, such as giving a false certificate number, then the TSA Board could hold a hearing, and they could require that person doing unlawful advertising to have their telephone number disconnected. Also, the TSA Board could require that they disconnect any paging services such as a beeper.  Therefore, that would take care of the misleading advertising that’s going on in the phone book.  If that person continues to fail to comply with that requirement, the Nevada Contractors’ Board can, currently, go to the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) and have an order issued so that the contractor stops using the number in the advertisement. 

 

[Marji Paslov Thomas continues.]  The Legal Division did say this concept could be applied to the TSA.  The TSA could then do the same sort of idea, which is that if someone is falsely advertising their certificate number or they are not certificated, TSA would require that person to discontinue using the phone number or the pager number.  If all their actions failed, then they could go to the PUC to have them order that the providers disconnect the telephone number.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Jones, could we have your comment about this?

 

Barry Jones, Carson Valley Movers:

I concur with everything that’s been said. My office met with a representative of the yellow pages of the phone book last week, and this is the way you have to do this.  I concur with everything that I’ve heard so far.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This way, if someone makes a report to the TSA, they would verify whether or not the certificate number is correct, incorrect, or not stated.  Then, the TSA could take action to make sure that person’s phone number is disconnected, so if somebody looks up that ad in the yellow pages and calls the phone number, nobody will answer.  I guess the TSA is in agreement with this?  [They indicated they were].

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

In lieu of the way it’s stated here, the proposed amendment number 6 from Barry Jones would be drafted by LCB to be parallel to NRS 624.720 and would apply to the TSA and TSA carriers.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO ADOPT AND DO PASS THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 192.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

I agree and support this amendment.  I was wondering if Ms. Thomas knew if this statute had any case law supporting it that has been tested and tried. 

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

I can ask the Legal Division.  I’m not aware.  Legal counsel said this would be the ideal conceptual idea. 

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

I recall that my law firm took a case that did involve this topic, and I believe we won it in district court in Clark County some time ago.  I couldn’t give you the exact date.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I believe, in 1999, we passed some very narrow legislation here that addresses similar language, if not the same. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This has been addressed in 1999 and 2001.  It began in 1975, and then was changed in 1987, 1999, and 2001.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Well, if it’s not, then we can take care of that in 2005. 

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The next amendment was proposed by Mike Sullivan of Whittlesea Blue Cab, who also represents Yellow-Checker-Star, Nellis Cab, LVL (Las Vegas Limousines), and On Demand Sedan.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Recommendation 7 was to amend the bill to require that the TSA use additional economic factors for determining its position on an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a motor carrier.  That is under Tab C.  There were no objections raised by the TSA.  I’m not sure if this would apply to carriers other than tow car companies.  TSA may want to come up and say something. 

 

Mike Sullivan, Whittlesea Blue Cab and representing Yellow-Checker-Star Cab, Nellis Cab, Las Vegas Limousines, and On Demand Sedan:

It was our understanding that this amendment would allow the TSA to consider many factors in all cases, and we’re concerned with limousine cases.  We want them to look at other economic factors other than just the stability of the company, maybe the stability of the market, and other factors.  That was my understanding in presenting it. 

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

Would you want to leave that “other than operators of a tow car” in there, or do you want to strike that so that it would apply to anything that the TSA does?

 

Mike Sullivan:

Yes, we would like to strike that.

 

Mike Mersch:

The original language had that in there partially because the tow truck industry is federally deregulated.  We do still regulate the price of nonconsent tows, safety, and consent tows.  We don’t consider them a fully regulated industry, although we look at nonconsent and consent tows differently for the protection of the public.  The tow truck industry, just like the charter bus industry, has been partially deregulated, and that’s why some of those would not be a part of that.  The standards that are in NRS 706.391, prior to the amendment and with these in there, would be applied to the application process of all these.  With the exception of the charter buses and the tow trucks, in which we would look at the provisions that are specifically spelled out in federal law, we want to make sure they meet those requirements.  As to the other ones who would not be exempted by federal law, we would hold all applicants to the standards that are set forth in here, including the amendments proposed by Mr. Sullivan.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Then the financial stability portion and the economic factors that have been stated seem to be very strong to me as well, further strengthening the application and the approval process.  I haven’t heard anyone state they have any objections to this. 

 

There are some 19 companies that have applications on file currently.  If we pass this, will this also apply to those companies that have already made their applications, or the application is in the process, but they’re not approved yet?

 

Mike Mersch:

Yes, I do believe they would.  I believe the language would have this become effective upon passage; therefore, any of the companies that are in the system would have to meet the standards as would be approved by this legislation.  I know that might bring up some questions regarding whether that makes it too burdensome; I don’t believe it would.  You could flesh out a few extra requirements that I think could be fleshed out during the hearings that they would have to go through anyway.  Of course, the hearing officers and the commissioners would make sure those standards were complied with if they became law prior to the applications being approved.  I don’t think it would be overly onerous or burdensome.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

I’m not clear now.  I understood what you said about federal preemption, and I understand also that federal preemption is always implied in any state regulatory statute because it may or may not exist.  We don’t always know when we start out.  What do we do with that phrase other than the operation of the tow cars?  Does it stay in or does it go out?  Mr. Sullivan said that he just assumes it would be broader if out.  I think whether it’s out or in, the idea of federal preemption is there.  You can’t get around that.  Which way do you want it?

 

Mike Mersch:

I’m sure that might have been put in at a time when the deregulation of the tow trucks around 1995 and 1996 were fully deregulated and then partially regulated by the federal government again.  My guess is there may have been an amendment, or that language put in, because of that.  I agree with you that tow trucks and all charter buses are controlled more by federal law; however, the issues as to safety and insurance we look at, and I’m sure all agencies look at safety very broadly.  We define safety broadly in what we look at.  It’s not that it’s a minor issue, but it would be controlled by . . .

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

Are you saying you are more comfortable if we eliminate the operator of a tow car? 

 

Mike Mersch:

I think we’d just like to leave it as it was originally.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The Legal Division will make this absolutely legal.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

As I understand this, the additional economic factors would only apply to new applications and not renewal applications?  Is that correct?

 

Mike Mersch:

If a company that exists wanted to expand to change their authority to a larger geographic area or to add new vehicles, they would have to meet these new criterion.  That makes sense because one of the factors you’re looking at is what market they are going to serve.  When they come in and request additional authority or greater authority, yes, we would apply the same standards to the granting of their authority, not to what the existing company would have.  They would still have to show the economic factors as set forth.  This is how I would interpret it, and it is how I would advise my clients that they would have to apply these standards.  Again, the net effect of that is to have a new application.  If you have a company that has 5 vehicles and they want to expand to 50, according to this amendment, that’s a factor they have to show as part of their application.  That would apply to both new and existing companies. 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Are these licenses ever brokered or sold?  I can see if you had one that was grandfathered in, it might place significant value on that.

 

Mike Mersch:

There are provisions in NRS and NAC (Nevada Administrative Code) that allow for a sale and transfer, but that’s a highly regulated process that goes through the agency.  The agency treats it almost as a separate application.  We look at whoever the new purchaser would be, and it’s treated as a new applicant.  We look at their background, all the things that we would look into.  Again, there are provisions that would allow that, but we’re very selective, and we treat it just like a new application. 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I’m a little concerned about that and the creation of a monopoly or franchise fee. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

These provisions that you’re asking for, economic soundness, economic condition, et cetera, would be determined by the definition.  The interpretation of these would be done by authority.  Is there any other industry that requires such types of requirements or regulations as these that you are aware of? 

 

Mike Mersch:

The Taxicab Authority has very similar requirements for their application process.  I believe that the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) has something along those lines.   I’m not an expert on PUC law, but I think they have some similar requirements.  Perhaps Mr. Sullivan can speak more to that if he has particular knowledge of that.  Those are the only two that I can think of offhand.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I have some concerns since this is going to be interpreted by the Authority.  If you have 19 applications coming in, it just doesn’t sound right to me.  Maybe it’s trying to put a stop on any more limousine companies. 

 

Mike Sullivan:

We are in a serious crisis in Las Vegas as far as an overabundance of limousines.  We just wanted to be able to have them look at other factors, other than somebody comes in with $1 million and says I want to start a limousine company, to be able to see what the market is.  What will the market bear?  What can the market stand?  Other companies aren’t competing, and we have the taxicab problems.  It was our intent to give them the ability to look at a broader scope of the market to ask if they are going for an industry that’s already served, or are they going for something that’s already being served by other companies?  That was our intent.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I have concern about it because I know we have a terrible time trying to keep a taxi in some of the rural areas.  I think they have plenty of discretion under the rules and regulations that they operate under now.  If we give them more, it’s hard to get them to come into the rural areas. 

 

Mike Sullivan:

I believe, in an area like that, it would work just the other way.  If you’re looking for an industry where we need more or we need to have better service by taxicabs, I think it would work just the opposite.  They’d be looking at an industry where we need to get more competition or we need to get more taxicabs into the market.  I’m hoping that’s how it would be viewed that you’re looking at the economic conditions and saying we have a problem, and we’re underserviced in this area.  We need to have more taxicabs or allow more companies in.  I believe it would work that way in those areas.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

If that is the situation, I think the amendment needs to be drafted that way so that it can be either more or less to make sure that it fits all areas of the state.

 

Mike Sullivan:

We have no objection to any language that you think will foster sound economic conditions within the industry.  I believe what’s in there would do that, but if you feel there’s any more that would give Assemblyman Carpenter more comfort, we’re happy to have that.

 

Mike Mersch:

Also, the language of provision 2(d) states the proposed service will benefit the traveling and the shipping public.  Certainly, in a smaller community and outlying areas, for instance, we’ve handled some taxicab applications and that certainly was a major consideration.  Without that service, there would be no taxicab service in a particular area.  That’s a major factor that the Commission would consider.  Again, that’s listed specifically so that they are to consider those sorts of things as a part of their decision-making process.  I hope Assemblyman Carpenter would feel the existing language would cover it. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

On item (f), the provision that the applicant must identify the market they intend to serve and show that such market will support the proposed operations, wouldn’t that serve to enhance the application, or just make it stronger for the area?  Mr. Carpenter, I think all of these would benefit the area that you represent. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I think it depends upon how they actually act upon these applicants and what criteria they use.  When they tried to come in the last time, it took a long time.  I know that, in those areas, you have to be more lenient than in a growing area.  I think I would feel better if there was some specific language that said they needed to be concerned with those areas that are in a downturn and not growing.

 

Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Sparks, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry:

I have had occasion to conduct the hearings involving most of these smaller towns and counties.  In Elko, there was not going to be taxi service, and somebody wanted to come in.  We allowed temporary operating authority.  They could even go through all the paperwork in the process because we did not want to leave that area without service.  Similarly, in small markets like Minden and Gardnerville, there was an application about a year ago for another taxi company.  The existing taxi company, even though it was a small company, still intervened and said they didn’t want anybody else in there. 

 

We looked in the market, and it was a very small application.  Through market conditions, the new company was granted a limited license so that there was more service available.  We’re always looking to provide service to an area.  When you get into the markets like the limousine industry in Las Vegas and the taxi industry in Washoe County, which is almost gone, there’s so little tourism, and the drivers aren’t making a living. 

 

There are some factors that we are precluded from looking at when a new company comes in.  This would allow us to look at the economic conditions, as well as the areas in the niche markets, that new people would like to enter.  It gives us another opportunity to evaluate an application.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO ADOPT AND DO PASS THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 192, ALLOWING THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU TO MAKE GRAMMATICAL CHANGES. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. GUSTAVSON VOTING NO.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

The eighth amendment is proposed by Clark Whitney of Quality Towing.  It’s to amend the bill to delete provisions requiring the reimbursement of court costs and attorney fees to the certificate holder if it determines that the Authority acted in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or an abusive discretion.  There are no objections by the TSA.  If you’ll recall at the last hearing, Commissioner Maxton-Rushton is the one who pointed out that this was a verbal amendment.  This was proposed on the Senate side and was based on the fact that Quality Towing worked with the TSA and feels comfortable now with deleting the amendment that was proposed on the Senate side.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO ADOPT AND DO PASS THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 192.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. CARPENTER, MR. KNECHT, AND MR. GUSTAVSON VOTING NO.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The last amendment is from Merritt Willey, General Sales Manager, Valley North American, a subsidiary of American Van Lines.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Mr. Willey proposed this to amend S.B. 192 to replace the definition of vehicle as defined in NRS 482.135 with the definition for motor vehicle as defined in   NRS 482.075.  If you want to look at that actual definition, those are provided under Tab E (Exhibit H) on the pink paper.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO ADOPT AND DO PASS THE NINTH AMENDMENT TO ADOPT NEW LANGUAGE TO DEFINE VEHICLE TO SENATE BILL 192.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I looked that up the first time it was heard, and I just wanted to make sure that it covers the trailers and the whole thing. 

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Motor vehicle means every vehicle as defined in NRS 482.135, which is self propelled.  If you look below that, vehicle means, “Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported, or drawn upon a public highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.”  I believe it includes trailers.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Can we delete “a motor vehicle” and just leave in “vehicle?”

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

No, it’s the opposite. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, the only things that it doesn’t include are things that are propelled by human power.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We are finished with the amendments.  Now we need a motion on the bill as a whole.  Remember we’re still on Senate Bill 192.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 192.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Sherer:

Can you go over that first amendment when we discussed that $200?  Did it change to $100 and then become graduated?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

In Section 5, line 28, on page 2, where it says a fee of not more than $200 per year, it is going to be changed to a graduated phase-in schedule.  On July 1, 2003, it will be $100.  On January 1, 2004, it will go up to $150.  In other words, $50 more will be charged.  Then, on July 1, 2004, $200 will be charged and each year thereafter.  Mr. Sherer, there were some more fees that are going away. 

 

Assemblyman Sherer:

Is that $100 in the first year and then another $50 in the middle of the year?  Is that how that works?  [The Committee indicated that was correct].

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, for the first year, in other words, it’s not going to be $200.  It will be $150, and then it will go up to $200.  Then, there are other fees that they are deleting from the bill. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. SHERER, MR. KNECHT, AND MR. GUSTAVSON VOTING NO.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Knecht, Mr. Gustavson, and Mr. Sherer would like to reserve the right to change their votes on the Floor.  There’s just one more bill.

 

Senate Bill 116 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions relating to use of equipment to secure children traveling in certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-87)

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

On Senate Bill 116, which is the child restraint bill, some references in the bill say where they have to be 9 years old and weigh 80 pounds or less. Some places it says “and” and some places it says “or.”  I believe that it should say “or” because there are some children who weigh over 80 pounds before they reach 9 years of age.  I think if it is “or,” it would fit specific situations. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

It certainly does seem to make sense to me, too, because, otherwise, you have a child that has to be in a booster seat even though they weigh 80 pounds.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Before they can get out of the booster seat, they have to weigh over 80 pounds.  Doesn’t “and” mean that they have to be both less than 9 years of age and over 80 pounds.  There are a lot of these kids that weigh 80 pounds, and they’re fairly tall.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I would like to make a motion for reconsideration, and then we’ll put these other amendments on.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO RECONSIDER S.B. 116.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. 

 

********

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 116 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: CHANGE “AND” TO “OR” WHEREVER IT MIGHT APPEAR IN THE BILL.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. COLLINS AND MR. ATKINSON VOTING NO.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We are adjourned [at 5:20 p.m.].

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

                                                           

Corey Fox

Transcribing Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

DATE: