MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session April 25, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Tuesday, April 25, 1995, Chairman Batten presiding in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mr. John C. Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Speaker Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39 Joan Lambert, Assembly District 29 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kim Morgan OTHERS PRESENT: Ray Sparks, Acting Deputy Director, DMV Ruth and Alan Kaplan, Attorneys' Investigative Consultants Bill Gregory, MGM Grand Cynthia Murphy, MGM Grand Peter Seebold, Allied Security Wayne Fobar, licensed private investigator Carol Hanna, Director, Private Investigators Licensing Board Richard Morgan, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association Paula Treat, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada Eugene Dimick, private investigator Lawrence Dull, president, Nevada Investigators Association Ruthann Bigelow, licensed repossessor Maxine Gaines Patricia Mulco Karen Johnson Greg Harwell, Nevada AAA Dan Hyde, Division Manager of Vehicle Services, City of Las Vegas Clete Kus, Principal Planner, Clark County Dept. Of Comprehensive Planning Raymond L. Sparks, Deputy Director, DMV and Public Safety Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association Walt Managhan, owner, The Car Doctor, Inc. Kevin Luce Len Nevin Michael Hood, Nevada Highway Patrol Helen Foley, Western Ethanol Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Power Company Jay Taylor, Southwest Gas Corp. Ken W. Platt, State Energy Office Jim Beasley, Las Vegas auto broker Lars Felix, Las Vegas automobile dealer Wally Korhonen, auto broker Chuck McBride Poonum Adams, Network Auto Brokers ASSEMBLY BILL 187 - Revises provisions relating to disclosure of certain information contained in records of department of motor vehicles and public safety. Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39, read a note from drafting advisor, Kim Morgan (Exhibit C) confirming circumstances under which the request for BDR 43-347, which has now become A.B. 187, was made. He further noted exemptions were put into A.B. 187 for those people having valid reasons to obtain information from DMV. Currently twenty one states impose various restrictions on public access to registered drivers' home addresses. California and Virginia prohibit any individual access to public records in DMV. Finally Mr. Hettrick read a letter from Richard A. Etter, Chairman of the Board, Bank of America endorsing A.B. 187 (Exhibit D). Mrs. Chowning remarked, "In my mind we're either going to have all or nothing. If we're going to allow some people to have the information, then I think truly, people who have good intentions to use the information should be allowed to." She declared allowing private security forces to be in the bill could cause safety problems. Business owners have to undergo a background check; patrolmen do not. So a person convicted of a gross misdemeanor or felony can be employed as a security patrolman. Mr. Hettrick recognized the concern regarding security police who have been hired having criminal records and said there would be no problem in amending the bill in that regard. Mrs. Chowning raised the question as to how the home address of Patrolman Ken Gager was obtained (the patrolman who received the mail bomb). Mr. Hettrick explained Mr. Gager had purchased a house in a subdivision on the same block as the man who sent the bomb. Committee discussion ensued. Responding to an inquiry from Mr. Carpenter as to federal law, Mr. Hettrick said the DMV would like the bill to correspond with federal language so they do not have to do it twice; the federal law going into effect in 1997 would supersede state law. Mr. Anderson expressed a concern that groups who buy the basic lists and the large tape from DMV may be using it to cross-index through the credit card company and be able to broaden the picture of the individual. Mr. Hettrick responded by explaining his intent was to minimize accessibility, not to prohibit it. He added, "We're trying to strike a middle-of-the-road bill here, that limits the ease and makes it clear that there's a penalty and that it's illegal to sell these things for purposes that are not specified." Ray Sparks, Acting Deputy Director, DMV, spoke in support of A.B. 187. His prepared remarks and referenced federal legislation concerning the "Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994" are submitted as Exhibits E and F. He specified in general DMV supports A.B. 187 and did not think as currently drafted there would be a substantial fiscal impact to the Department. Current revenues to the Department are in excess of $4 million per year from record sales. It is anticipated they would lose $60,000 per year under this act, but final determination on fiscal impact would be largely dependent upon what uses were permitted to be made of DMV records. Responding to concerns of Mrs. Chowning regarding required disclosures under the federal act, Mr. Sparks indicated there could not be 100% disclosure because even if a mechanism is in place for an individual to opt out, that option is only effective for the so-called "permissible uses" of the information. The requirement is still in place to disclose information for certain purposes. Ruth and Alan Kaplan, Attorneys' Investigative Consultants, next spoke in support of A.B. 187. Mr. Kaplan stated federal law had very clear restrictions on whose DMV information is given out under normal circumstances; however, many provisions for the protection of people existed under the federal law which he did not necessarily see in A.B. 187. He noted three years is the time in which the state has to implement the federal law and his recommendation to the legislature was to accelerate by implementing the federal law quickly. Speaking of charitable, non-profit organizations, Ruth Kaplan raised the concern that a non-desirable organization could so label themselves, thus being unworthy recipients of a list. She echoed her husband's sentiments regarding concurrence to the federal law. Bill Gregory and Cynthia Murphy, representing MGM Grand, appeared next in support of A.B. 187 in its first reprint. Ms. Murphy stated they represented not only their 7500 employees but their families as well, which is representative of about 20,000 individuals in the Las Vegas community. She cited numerous examples where DMV had provided information resulting in gross invasion of privacy and safety of employees. Two examples are shown in Exhibit G. She concluded by saying their employees have demonstrated great concern about the issue and it was their obligation to support the measure. Peter Seebold, Allied Security, said he was a licensed private patrolman and was there to lend support to A.B. 187. Wayne Fobar, owner of Parkside Investigations, stated he was a licensed private investigator who viewed A.B. 187 as an overreaction. He stated the closing out of information from DMV would simply slow his business down. That same information, he noted, was readily available from other sources. Ms. Carol Hanna, Director, Private Investigators' Licensing Board, spoke of the work card process and clarified that a convicted felon cannot work for anyone licensed under NRS 648. She stressed licenses should always be checked before any information is given out because people licensed under NRS 648 undergo very strict background investigations. They would have to answer to the board, who they were licensed with, and also to the state in all other areas of agencies. Richard Morgan, Nevada Trial Lawyer's Association, stated there were severe problems for lawyers to obtain information within the original introduction of A.B. 187 particularly relating to automobile accidents. He said the amended version met with their approval. Paula Treat, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, on behalf of 900 law enforcement officers, testified in favor of A.B. 187. She suggested a change on page 3, line 22, making it five years instead of two years to follow federal guidelines. Eugene Dimick, private investigator, said he would support the bill if there was better clarification. Lawrence Dull, President, Nevada Investigator's Association, stated there were no problems with A.B. 187 as presently written; however, he would like to see it limited to private investigators, possibly private patrol, and also to repossessors (those who are properly licensed under NRS 648). Ruthann Bigelow, licensed repossessor, explained they do what is called "self-help repossession", meaning they are not accompanied by police. It is against federal law for a policeman to be close by when property of the legal owner is retrieved which the debtor has not paid according to their contract. She stated she represented not only repossessors but banks, credit unions, leasing companies and other financial institutions. They were only involved with three to five percent of all the loans they make. If legal owners could not retrieve that small percent, much higher interest rate would be charged. It would make buying personal property in Nevada almost impossible. Up until this time they paid the state of Nevada for each request and use of information. They provide a very valuable service to financial institutions and other legal owners and are licensed by a private investigator's licensing board headed by the Attorney General. Because it is in the category of privileged license, their information is on file with local law enforcement agencies and the CIA. She stressed information obtained from the DMV saves considerable time and wasted effort. Maxine Gaines and Patricia Mulco also spoke briefly encouraging committee support for A.B. 187. Karen Johnson simply stated auto registration and drivers' license information should not be used for any commercial purpose....legal purposes only, as defined under Nevada law. Greg Harwell, Nevada AAA, indicated support for A.B. 187, the only concern being the requirement to appear in person and process every request with an affidavit. The suggestion was to amend sub paragraph 5, paragraph D and to include sentences found on page 2, lines 21 through 23. ASSEMBLY BILL 421 - Revises provisions relating to taxation of liquefied petroleum gas. Dan Hyde, Division Manager of Vehicle Services, City of Las Vegas, spoke in support of the adoption of A.B. 421 - the gas tax bill with one change - tax natural gas at 6.7 cents per gallon. His written testimony is submitted as Exhibit H. Responding to Mr. Carpenter's inquiry as to how many vehicles would have to use natural gas in order to attain clean air, Mr. Hyde estimated 10% to 15% would probably have an impact in reducing carbon monoxide. He stressed what the government was doing in Las Vegas was to show what was possible and how quickly things can be done if commitment is made by the support and patronage of the average citizen to do whatever it takes to clean the air. Ms. Tripple suggested, since both atmosphere and highways needed to be addressed, if a higher figure than 6.7 cents per gallon was used, there would not be quite so much strain on highway maintenance, and incentive would still be in place for people to change to alternative fuel. Mr. Hyde responded, "CNG has the most dramatic effect of reducing that pollutant, carbon monoxide. If the economics of use currently on CNG were such that it would impact that tax so negatively, I would probably agree with you that we should reduce it maybe in incremental levels, but with $30,000 in the state of multi millions, I fail to see the connection from an economic standpoint." Mr. Clete Kus, Principal Planner, Clark County Department Of Comprehensive Planning, indicated the Department recommended approval of A.B. 421 with one amendment. He suggested line 7 (b) of A.B. 421 be amended to read "The rate of 6.7 cents per gallon on the sale or use of compressed natural gas." Mr. Kus noted, in response to a potentially serious problem, Clark County led the way in exploring alternative fuels as a measure to abate unhealthy air quality as well as to help protect tourist based economy. In March of 1993, the Clark County Board of Commissioners adopted alternative fuel strategy. The document, "Clark County Alternative Fuel Strategy" is submitted as Exhibit I and can be viewed in the Research Library. Since the adoption of this document eleven other government agencies and six private companies have begun to utilize alternative fuel. At present over 500 natural gas vehicles are in operation in the Las Vegas valley including 100 regional transportation commission paratransit buses. A leaflet entitled NGV (Natural Gas Vehicles) is submitted as Exhibit J and can be viewed in the Research Library. (Note: The inside back cover shows the location of fueling sites currently in operation as well as those that are planned.) In summary, Mr. Kus stressed the special fuel tax rate contained in A.B. 421 should be set at 6.7 cents per gallon for both liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. Raymond Sparks, Deputy Director, DMV and Public Safety, gave a history of A.B. 421. The explanation is given in a letter to Mr. Batten, dated April 24, 1995 and submitted as Exhibit K. Daryl Capurro, representing the Nevada Motor Transport Association, indicated they support clean air and that is everyone's goal, but if it harms the highway fund to the extent that it potentially could with the addition of other alternative fuels, then it becomes a problem. Walt Monaghan, owner, The Car Doctor, Inc., gave a brief description of his experience in the use of alternative fuels. His suggestion concerning A.B. 421 was to lower the tax on CNG to 6.7 cents per gallon. He submitted a brochure (Exhibit L) entitled "Clean Fleet" relating to a test documenting operational, emissions and economic status of alternative fuels. ASSEMBLY BILL 104 - Revises provisions governing maximum ground clearance and distance between frame and body of motor vehicle. Mr. Kevin Luce voiced his support for A.B. 104. He indicated it was his intent to make a statewide, and throughout the United States, standard with S.E.M.A. (Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association). Letters were submitted from specialists in the tire industry and equipment manufacturers together with his letter of explanation to committee members in support of A.B. 104. (See Exhibit M.) Mr. Len Nevin stated his opposition to A.B. 104, indicating he was the father of the bill introduced in 1987. He objected to the fact that A.B. 104 would change the measurement formula, allowing the body of a vehicle to go higher and higher, thus creating a danger. Mr. Michael Hood, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol, stated the Division was opposed to A.B. 104 in the interest of traffic safety. In 1987 the current vehicle height was established in Nevada with considerable research on safety aspects of the modified vehicle. It was determined the higher a vehicle goes, the more unstable it gets. Vice Chairman Allard closed the hearing on A.B. 104 since there was no further testimony and re-opened the hearing on A.B. 421. ASSEMBLY BILL 421 - Revises provisions relating to taxation of liquefied petroleum gas. Helen Foley, representing Western Ethanol, explained in southern Nevada a few years ago there existed a serious carbon monoxide non-attainment problem of the federal clean air standards. During the winter months, from October to February, residents abided by a program where there was an ethanol blend or other blends added to the gasoline resulting in a drastic reduction in carbon monoxide emissions. Seventy percent of the additives in the southern Nevada area were from ethanol. Ethanol is a renewable resource made in the United States and is an alternative fuel the public can use when there is not the benefit of some type of fleet. Her recommendation would be to lower all of the alternative fuel taxes, but not quite to 6.7 cents, so there is the incentive to have cleaner burning fuels. Stan Warren, representing Sierra Pacific Power Company, said Sierra Pacific's natural gas division pioneered CNG as a clean fuel for motor vehicles in northern Nevada in the mid 1980s. In 1987 Sierra actively sought legislation to recognize CNG as a clean fuel and change its tax rate from that of a special fuel to what was at least equivalent to gasoline. It was accomplished in 1987 with the passage of A.B. 105 but for only two years when it sunsetted. In 1989 the change was made permanent and CNG stayed at the equivalent gasoline rate. He said their goal has always been to let CNG enjoy a fair tax rate. It is a clean burning fuel and does not pollute the air. He indicated support of A.B. 421 only if CNG was included. If not, then LPG should be raised to the equal tax of that of CNG. Jay Taylor, from Southwest Gas, Las Vegas, stated Southwest Gas also was interested in the proposed legislation provided it included CNG as a vehicle fuel. His testimony entitled "Nevada Fuel Tax on Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas" is submitted as Exhibit N. Ken Platt, Nevada State Energy Office, referenced a current study in Washoe County's health department concerning health impacts of mobile source pollutants. He said results should be forthcoming within the next year. He suggested there needed to be some sort of private/public partnership that would encourage alternative fuels. Since the state is doing their part through 46A to promote alternative fuels, it is only logical to allow private fleets to participate also. His prepared testimony is submitted as Exhibit 0. ASSEMBLY BILL 447- Makes various changes to provisions governing sale of motor vehicles. Mr. Carpenter explained A.B. 447 was legislation that would regulate car brokers. He submitted an amendment (Exhibit P) which was put together with consultation with DMV to regulate the car brokers. Joan Lambert, Assembly District 29, explained the intent of A.B. 447 was to allow consumers to retain some choice in the way a car is purchased, to allow competition to remain in the marketplace, and to provide consumer protection. She noted page 3, section 8 was the heart of consumer protection...which related to a disclosure in writing. Paula Treat, representing Nevada Auto Brokers, stated they were happy to comply with any regulations in the form of a consumer protection bill and asked the committee to approve A.B. 447. Jim Beasley, Las Vegas auto broker, said his business had been in operation since 1988 and was licensed and bonded by the state. He voiced support for A.B. 447 inasmuch as the consumer would be granted more protection. Lars Felix, Las Vegas automobile dealer, emphasized they were legitimate business people, licensed and regulated as new car dealers were. He noted their main concern was consumer protection and they would like to retain the opportunity to serve those customers. Letters and statements were submitted (Exhibit Q) expressing support of A.B. 447 and voicing concern regarding A.B. 205. During committee discussion Mr. Felix indicated the average mega-dealer sells between 200 and 300 new vehicles per month and there are 30 to 40 new car dealers in the Las Vegas area; brokers are a small group in comparison. Wally Korhonen, auto broker, reiterated Mr. Felix's concerns. Regarding the question as to whether a warranty coverage would be valid with any broker, Mr. Korhonen affirmed a warranty travels with the car. In other words, it is valid with every broker. Referring to the Lemon Law, Mrs. Chowning questioned whether Nevada law would apply when a used car dealer sold a car. Mr. Korhonen explained Nevada attorneys stated the law would stand in this position. Chuck McBride, consumer, said he was in the process of purchasing a car from a broker in the Las Vegas area. Comparing treatment received from new car salesmen and brokers he urged passage of A.B. 447 saying, "If you can pass this law and keep the dealers in business, it will give the consumer like myself an alternative to tell a dealer who treats you very shabbily to stuff it." Ms. Poonum Adams representing Network Auto Brokers and referencing the Lemon Law, said unfortunately she had sold two "lemons" in the past five years; however, in both instances the vehicles were bought back by the manufacturer and the customers were covered by the Lemon Law. See (Exhibit R) for further explanation of the Lemon Law. There being no further testimony the meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Christine Shaw, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman Assemblyman Vonne Chowning, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation April 25, 1995 Page