MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session May 23, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Tuesday, May 23, 1995, Chairman Vonne Chowning presiding in Room 331 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 Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Dennis Nolan GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24 Assemblyman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Stephens, Director of Department of Transportation Bishop Divine Turner, Resident of Reno, Nevada Larry Struve, Chief of Business Industry Development & Planning Mr. Joe Guild, State Farm Insurance Mr. Phil Galeoto, Lieutenant for Reno Police Department Mr. Stan Olsen, Lieutenant for Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Mr. Richard Hackman, Manager of Public Service Commission Mr. Dennis Colling, Manager of Public Service Commission Mr. Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association Mr. Ray Sparks, Deputy Director of Motor Vehicle Department Ms. Carolyn Cramer, Nevada Department of Transportation ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 31 - Expresses support for programs to mitigate traffic noise. Assemblyman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24, stated A.C.R. 31 was drafted as a result of a bill she had requested for 1.3 million dollars for a sound wall. Due to funding problems, the committee suggested a resolution. Mrs. Freeman urged the committee for their support for passage of A.C.R. 31. Mrs. Freeman stated she would commit herself to work with the Department of Transportation to ensure this becomes a reality in years to come. Mrs. Freeman concluded by saying she believed there had been legitimate complaints and something needs to be done. Thomas Stephens, Director, Department of Transportation (DOT), testified the department has no objection to A.C.R. 31. Mr. Stephens stated the department has a $300,000 experimental program. DOT had been identifying locations for this program and the location in Ms. Freeman's original bill was one of the locations identified. Mr. Stephens explained the experimental program was researching ways to provide inexpensive noise relief. It would not be the 14 foot high reinforced concrete type walls. There are many requirements around the state for noise walls. There is no way to fulfill all the requirements unless cheaper alternatives can be found. The section between Interstate 80 and Oddie Boulevard in Reno had been identified as well as several other areas around the state, four of which are in the Las Vegas area. Assemblyman Chowning asked Mr. Stephens if he would have a problem with the resolution the way it is written as far as being the first project. Mr. Stephens replied yes, this project would be in the first group. Mrs. Ohrenschall asked what other areas are being considered for the first experimental group. Mr. Stephens replied some of the identified locations are on Interstate 15 near Pecos, U.S. 95 near Jones in the City of Henderson, and Reno and McCarran in Sparks, Nevada. Mrs. Chowning asked when they anticipate the study to begin. Mr. Stephens replied the study had already started and he anticipated getting bids out this fall. Mr. Stephens explained noise studies had to be done before and after because part of the project was to figure out how much noise reduction was accomplished and which applications were worthwhile. In one area a berm would be installed and in another area a wooden wall on top of a concrete barrier would be used. In a third area pouring concrete precast on top of a barrier will be attempted. An experimental program to reduce the noise is being conducted and then a larger program, probably with a matching fund program with the communities, would be implemented to do more noise walls in the future. Mrs. Chowning applauded Mr. Stephens for his direction and vision in thinking of alternative methods. Mrs. Chowning asked for other testimony since the committee members had no questions for Mr. Stephens. Bishop Divine Ruth Turner of Northeast Reno, testified she has lived in the area for 31 years. Bishop Turner stated she had been reporting noise problems from the freeway since 1988. She expressed the noise was a nuisance and at times it was difficult to sleep. Help was needed with the noise. Other areas have had noise walls installed. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.C.R. 31. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mrs. Chowning applauded the committee for coming up with a resolution solving a difficult problem. She applauded all the of parties involved, including the Department of Transportation and Assemblyman Freeman. Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.C.R. 31. Mrs. Chowning requested the committee take action on A.B. 269 today. The bill was being held by the committee in order to come up with an alternative less costly method which was encompassed in the resolution. Mrs. Chowning requested a motion on A. B. 269. ASSEMBLY BILL 269 - Direct department of transportation to construct or cause to be constructed sound barriers alongside U.S. Highway No. 395 in Reno. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MADE A MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 269. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mrs. Chowning opened the hearing on A. B. 625 and asked for testimony from Assemblyman Buckley. ASSEMBLY BILL 625 - Revises provision governing towing of vehicles. Assemblyman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8, testified A.B. 625 attempted to cure a problem that is now taking place in the community. Mrs. Buckley explained the problem is a situation where an individual had their car wrongfully towed. There was nothing they can really do about it except pay the fees and get the car back. If you do not have the fees to get the car back, if you are a working person or, if you are down on your luck, you cannot get your car back and your car can be sold, thereby eliminating your only way to get a job, getting to and from work or even picking up your kids. Mrs. Buckley presented an affidavit (Exhibit C) to the committee from one such individual in Las Vegas. Mrs. Buckley explained the individual rented an apartment. She had a 1982 automobile, had lost her job and could not afford to reregister her car. The apartment manager towed the car because it was not registered. There are no rules and regulations that required her vehicle to have a current registration tag. There were no warnings issued by the apartment manager, her car was towed and she does not have the funds to get her car out. Mrs. Buckley stated this bill attempts to rectify the situation. Mrs. Chowning inquired about the $7500 limit which needed clarification on Page 2, line 9 of Section 1. Ms. Buckley explained the section was placed in there because the remedy of a wrongfully towed vehicle would be to file an action on their own in Justice Court. Ms. Buckley further stated the Justice Court jurisdiction is $7500. Bill drafting felt it was important to include that to ensure that it was within Justice Court jurisdiction. Assemblyman Goldwater commented that he also has a BDR concerning the same subject matter and will withdraw his BDR if Ms. Buckley agrees to address his concerns in her bill. Mr. Goldwater advised the committee and Ms. Buckley his constituent had his car stolen in Las Vegas, recovered in Reno and impounded by the Reno Police. The vehicle was turned over to a towing yard and the owner of the vehicle was notified. Mr. Goldwater further stated his constituent could not pay for towing services. Mr. Goldwater expressed his intent is to find a way to allow the tow companies not to charge people who cannot pay and whose car was towed or impounded for some lawful reason where they were not at fault. Mr. Goldwater asked if Ms. Buckley agreed with his concerns. Ms. Buckley stated some of her constituents were available to testify and she would consider Mr. Goldwater's concerns. Ms. Buckley suggested there could be a portion of the victim's funds set aside to pay the towing companies where they were not at fault. We do not want to hurt private enterprise. Ms. Buckley concluded by naming several individuals present to testify for support of the bill and felt they would be able to come up with a bill that would help individuals. Mr. Goldwater thanked Ms. Buckley and stated he would be withdrawing his BDR. Ms. Buckley continued her testimony by explaining the concept behind the bill would allow an owner of a vehicle which is towed from private property to file a civil action in the Justice Court. She reiterated an owner can file a civil action in the Justice Court on a form provided by the court to determine whether the towing was lawful. Ms. Buckley pointed out the goal of this bill is only where there is a dispute as to whether the person was authorized to have the vehicle towed. Upon the filing of civil action, the court shall schedule a hearing date and it shall be heard not later than 7 days after the action is filed. The order to appear in court shall be served upon the private party who ordered the vehicle to be towed and the judge will listen to both sides to determine who is at fault. Ms. Buckley explained if a vehicle is unlawfully towed and the owner is unable to pay the fine, the person who wrongfully ordered the tow will pay costs and the vehicle will be released to the owner. Ms. Buckley pointed out line 15 through line 19 will be deleted. Ms. Buckley advised the deleted portion was suggested from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the industry to remove the towing person from coming to court. Ms. Buckley summarized her testimony with a suggestion from Lt. Galeoto that the notice of the appeal process shall be posted in a prominent place visible to the person claiming their vehicle at the location where the vehicle was redeemed. Ms. Buckley stated the rest of the amendments were agreed upon with that exception. Assemblyman Anderson asked why the need for the second "private" on line 4 before "property". Ms. Buckley replied she would defer to the bill drafter. Mr. Anderson asked why the person who towed the vehicle would be deleted. Ms. Buckley replied the intent was to have speedy justice with the three parties involved; since, in most instances, the towing person is innocent, there is no need for them to appear in court. She said the industry felt it was appropriate to remove it because the judge will order one of two people to pay, the person ordering the tow or the person whose car was towed. Assemblyman Tripple asked who would pay the court costs. Ms. Buckley replied the person who initiates the action will pay the court costs as well as the filing of the complaint and costs of service. She further added if that person is indigent the court will waive those fees. Ms. Buckley concluded her testimony by stating she had no objection to adding the court could assess those costs against the party who is wrong. Rick Hackman, Manager, Public Service Commission, Consumer Division, and Dennis Colling, Manager, Public Service Commission, Transportation Division testified on the bill. Mr. Hackman stated the commission had no position on the bill. He stated the Public Service Commission regulated the towing industry. Sixty percent of complaints received are towing related. The Public Service Commission has an administrative process in place to mediate and resolve towing oriented complaints. He explained his reading of the bill concluded the committee was suggesting creating a second path or fast-track process of having these complaints resolved. Mr. Hackman stated the Public Service Commission can impose sanctions if it is determined a vehicle is towed improperly. Mr. Hackman explained refunds for improper towing such as towing services and storage. He stated the Public Service Commission had no jurisdiction over the private property owner. Mr. Anderson asked what the procedure was for a tow truck operator when out in the field retrieving a towed vehicle. Mr. Hackman explained under current law a tow truck operator cannot arbitrarily tow a vehicle. A tow truck operator can respond to a request by an authorized agent or property owner. Under the Public Service Commission rules, the driver is required to receive a written authorization from a property owner or an agent. Mr. Anderson then asked if the Public Service Commission monitors the documents on every vehicle towed. Mr. Hackman responded that the Public Service Commission does audit tow operators on a per request basis. Mr. Anderson noted towing was a high complaint area and asked how frequently a tow operator is found to be in noncompliance with the rules. Mr. Hackman stated he could not give a percentage but most of the time the tow operators were in compliance with the rules. Mr. Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department, gave a joint presentation with Lt. Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Mr. Galeoto stated he acted negatively when first approached regarding this bill because he did not see a need for it. He spoke with his boss regarding this bill and realized there was a need. The bill is an appropriate way to deal with the issue at hand. A.B. 625 does provide an appeal situation for vehicles being towed from private properties. A.B. 625 allowed this to remain a civil matter and prevented it from becoming a police matter. Mr. Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, stated his officers have responded to incidents of this type, usually at an apartment complex. Mr. Olsen commented he agrees with what Lt. Galeoto said and explained the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department supported the bill because it gives them another tool to address these issues. Mr. Goldwater asked if the police departments contract with towing agencies and impound yards. Lieutenants Galeoto and Olsen both replied yes. Mr. Goldwater asked whether business was good enough to attach conditions on tows to release stolen vehicles to indigent people. Lt. Olsen stated he could not respond to the question. Mrs. Chowning asked if the car was truly stolen should the tow company release the vehicle without a charge to the rightful owner. Lieutenant Olsen pointed out the vehicles discussed today are not stolen. Most vehicles that are stolen are impounded as a direct result of police action and the police have requested the vehicle be towed. Lieutenant Olsen concluded by saying it is rare that a vehicle towed is a stolen vehicle. Mr. Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, stated he concurs with the amendments suggested by Assemblyman Buckley. Mr. Capurro had concerns regarding the justice court acting within 7 days. He explained the importance that court action be against the private party who ordered the vehicle be towed, not the tow company. The notice suggested by Assemblyman Buckley should be cited in N.R.S. 487.037 and 038, section 3, page 2, which details the sign requirements regarding towing on private property. Mr. Capurro further explained civil action protection for the parties whose car was towed. Upon receiving clarification of Mr. Capurro's suggestions, requested by Mrs. Chowning, Mr. Goldwater further explained it was very difficult to get a nickel out of the Agency or the Victim's Funds. He exclaimed his contention is it is not punishment to make them pay, it should be a condition of getting a municipal contract. If they do not like this condition they do not have to take the towing contracts. Even with this condition in the bill, due to the amount of towing competition, it would still be a competitive market. Mr. Goldwater concluded this was not an unreasonable request. Mr. Capurro declared most would think that condition to be blackmail, that they have to take on a situation of lawful towing. Mrs. Chowning closed discussion between Mr. Capurro and Mr. Goldwater stating this discussion had nothing to do with Ms. Buckley's bill. Assemblyman Carpenter expressed his concern with the sign situation. Mr. Capurro explained there are extensive regulations under the Public Service Commission which are categorized as Category "C" tows. He further explained a sign must be posted before a towing company responds to a requested tow. Assemblyman Buckley explained she would like to work with the two police departments and Mr. Capurro and report back to the committee with their suggestions. Ms. Ohrenschall stated confusion over the notice of the appeal process being posted where one would redeem the vehicle. Ms. Ohrenschall explained her concerns were that a person with a towed vehicle should be aware of their options at the time they pick up their vehicle. Ms. Buckley agreed with Ms. Ohrenschall stating that was her initial suggestion and again said this concern would be discussed with Mr. Capurro and Mr. Goldwater. Assemblyman Ohrenschall proceeded to ask if the forms provided by the court are the forms in existence or if they would have to be re-designed and who would pay for them. Assemblyman Buckley explained the forms are new, will have to be designed and would paid for by the Justice Court. Chairman Chowning questioned line 11 of the bill where the provision stated the hearing must be held not later than 7 days after the action is filed and asked Ms. Buckley if she sees a problem with the provision. Ms. Buckley explained why there was not a problem with the provision in line 11. Ms. Buckley advised the committee she had just been informed by Mr. Capurro that he would agree to have the sign posted at the towing place. Ms. Buckley stated she would submit new language to the committee. Two letters from The Smith Group (Exhibit D) and the National Association of Independent Insurers (Exhibit E) were submitted to the record in support of A.B. 558. Chairman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 625 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 558. ASSEMBLY BILL 558 - Abolishes advisory board on automotive affairs. Mr. Joe Guild, representing State Farm Insurance Companies, stated he was advocating the passage of A.B. 558. He said he had been authorized to speak on behalf of the other insurance companies which regularly come before the legislature. These included Farmer's Insurance, California State Automobile Association, USSAA and others. Mr. Guild discussed the earlier hearing of A.B. 102 in which testimony was given regarding repeal of the Advisory Board on Automotive Affairs which resulted in the genesis of A.B. 558. Subsection 7, Page 2 of the bill lists the items the legislature created the board to do. After the board was created several hearings were held on the use of non-OEM (original equipment manufacture) parts as mentioned in Subsection 7a. The insurance industry was able to demonstrate to the board the use of non-OEM parts was safe and of the same quality and, in some cases, better quality than the original manufacturer's parts. Because of reasons given to the board by the insurance industry during those hearings, the board decided not to propose any regulations on this topic of the statute. This fulfilled one function of the statute, Subsection 7 (a). The second thing the board implemented was survey methodology to determine prevailing repair charges for motor vehicles. The policy of State Farm and other insurers was to pay the prevailing competitive rate, that is, the hourly wage charged by the most body shops in a given area. If the insured or claimant goes to a shop which charges more than the prevailing competitive rate, only the prevailing competitive rate would be paid. The board decided to do an annual survey and implemented a survey similar to one completed by State Farm. This fulfilled Subsection 7 (b). Subsection 7 (c) authorized the board to review "preferred use of a business which repairs motor vehicles" by an insurer of motor vehicles. State Farm and other insurance companies do not have a list of preferred body shops. A reference listing exists of those body shops which have agreed to the auto damage claim policy requirements of insurance companies. The list is divided into those who charge a prevailing competitive rate and those who do not. A claimant or policy holder may go to any body shop of their choice. This is stated in the policies of the insureds. If insureds go to a shop not on the list, the insurance companies may not be able to help if the work completed is not done properly. The board decided to recommend a regulation promulgated by then Insurance Commissioner Rankin. It was circulated around the insurance industry, comments were received, mostly negative, and the regulation was never adopted. The position taken on A.B. 102 and A.B. 558 by the insurance companies was the board had fulfilled its function. There was no reason for the board to continue to exist. Body shop owners have occasional complaints against insurance companies. Under present statute the Insurance Commissioner has the authority to air the grievances. Mr. Guild discussed having a grievance board. Technical problems with the bill were also discussed. Chairman Chowning expressed the committee did not want to abolish a board if it had not completed it statutorily provided task. Mr. Carpenter asked for an explanation of the grievance process. Mr. Guild explained if someone had a complaint against an insurance company, one of the functions of the insurance commissioner is to deal with the complaint. The complaint can be brought to the insurance commissioner, aired in front of the commissioner with or without a hearing and solved by the insurance commissioner. Assemblyman Anderson stated he was under the impression the law came forth due to a fraudulent scam of foreign-made auto parts which were being substituted in body shops. The law was put into effect to protect the consumer. The insurance companies were advocates of the law. Mr. Guild replied the issue discussed by Mr. Anderson, that of non-OEM parts, was the first tackled by the board. It was presented to the satisfaction of the board that this practice was not actually occurring. The board was convinced non-OEM parts were as good as if not better than original manufacturer's equipment. As a bonus, the parts are often cheaper. Mr. Anderson stated in 1991 there was sufficient evidence presented which was raised by consumers who felt they were paying for original parts. Mr. Larry Struve, Chief Industrial Development and Planning, Department of Business and Industry, advised the committee the Department of Business and Industry had not taken a position on A.B. 558. The Director's office had received information from the Insurance Division regarding concerns about the outright repeal of the authority that creates the advisory board. The Director's office was attempting to determine if there was any purpose in keeping the board. Mr. Struve stated he had spoken with Insurance Commissioner Alice Molasky, who expressed concerns of another provision in the insurance code which may be impacted by a repeal of NRS 487.002. Mr. Struve stated he had discussed the issue with Mr. Guild and hoped he would concur with including the second repeal. The ability of the insurance company to use a preferred business for automotive repairs is desired. The only way this can happen under current law is if a regulation has been adopted by the Insurance Commissioner and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) upon advice of board. He reiterated the Department of Business and Industry is not taking a position on the bill. Mr. Struve discussed other legislation setting up an advisory board in another area to handle consumer complaints. If the other legislation passes, many of the Insurance Division's concerns would be handled through the other board. If the Advisory Board on Automotive Affairs is abolished, it would be the desire of the Insurance Commissioner to set up an advisory board within the Insurance Division to deal with consumer complaints. In conclusion, Mr. Struve stated he would like to work with Mr. Guild to see if any technical amendments are needed and also to address the concerns of the Insurance Division so the bill could go forward and repeal the board. The Department of Business and Industry was not in a position to support the bill until those discussions have taken place. Chairman Chowning commented she is the prime sponsor of A.B. 462, the other bill Mr. Struve was citing. Mrs. Chowning stated the issue of consumer complaints would be accomplished through the board. Mrs. Chowning stated no action will be taken on the bill today. Mr. Ray Sparks, Deputy Director of Motor Vehicle Department, indicated he had been the department's representative for the advisory board since 1989. It was his understanding that one of the issues motivating the creation of the board by the legislature was the body shop industry was not able to deal on a fair level with the insurance industries. Body shops felt they were unable to discuss concerns with the insurance industry. The duties of the board are established in two subsections (6 and 7) of the statute. The board continues to review regulations proposed by the insurance division or the department. Subsection 7 specified some specific charges the legislature gave the board. The board adopted regulations on the use of after-market and used body parts. The regulations proposed by the board and adopted provided for disclosure. Body shops and insurers are required to disclose to their customers that the parts used to repair the body of vehicles would be after- market parts and obtain the customer's consent. The funding for the board comes from the licensing fees that are paid by the body shops, auto wreckers and salvage pools. Those license fees are $300 a year. These funds go into a special budget account which pays for three investigators in the department's Bureau of Enforcement. Approximately $1000 a year of the money pays for the current cost of the board. Mr. Sparks indicated the department does not have a position on the proposal to abolish the board. Mrs. Chowning thanked Mr. Sparks for clarifying the position of the board. Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 558. A work session was opened. SENATE BILL 189 - Revises provisions relating to disposal of certain property acquired by department of transportation. Ms. Carolyn Cramer, Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation (DOT), indicated she and Assemblyman Carpenter had worked on a new, improved version of S.B. 189 since the last hearing. The Department of Transportation has allowed the purchase price be reduced to 90% of the fair market value. Mrs. Chowning emphasized the prior concern of the committee regarding whether the Department of Taxation and taxpayers of Nevada would have to be impacted by having property continually on the market for sale either through DOT or through a real estate company. A fair market value could not be garnered. With the stipulation the property could be sold if it was within ten percent below fair market value or 90% of the department's estimate of fair market value, it would allow DOT to take a bid within the ten percent or the property could be turned over to a real estate company for sale and a sales price could be accepted. Mr. Anderson asked why the ten percent below market value. Ms. Cramer said she thought Mr. Anderson suggested the ten percent. The desire was to make the property more marketable, and ten percent sounded like a reasonable number. Ms. Ohrenschall suggested DOT change the bill to say "if the property cannot be sold for at least 90% or more of the department's estimate." Ms. Cramer concurred. Mr. Carpenter stated the language needs to be cleaned up on Line 3, "the highest bidder bidding for it". He made several suggestions. Mrs. Chowning requested Mr. Paul Mouritsen, Research Staff, fix the language. Mrs. Chowning asked if the language had been in place if it would have helped move the property in a quicker period of time. Mr. John Crawford, Nevada State Department of Transportation, replied it would definitely help with the sale of acquired property. Mr. Mouritsen read the proposed changes and discussed them with committee members. MR. CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 189. CHAIRMAN BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 421 - Revises provisions relating to taxation of liquefied petroleum gas. Chairman Batten indicated A.B. 421 had a fiscal note attached and should be rerefered to Ways and Means. Mr. Batten stated there will be several thousand dollars the Department of Motor Vehicles would lose. Ms. Tripple felt it was appropriate to rerefer A.B. 421 to Ways and Means. Ms. Tripple stated she had spoken with Donna Wadey of DOT and asked if she was in agreement with the bill being rereferred to Ways and Means. Ms. Wadey concurred. Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Mouritsen if he knew how much the fiscal note was. Mr. Mouritsen stated he have not seen the fiscal note but understood it to be a significant amount in the range of $100,000. He stated the fiscal note on the amendment was very small. Mrs. Chowning stated the Assembly passed the amendment as of this date. Mr. Mouritsen said there was a significant fiscal note on the bill as originally written. The additional cost placed by the amendment was small. The total fiscal impact of the amended bill was significant. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MADE A MOTION TO REREFER A.B. 421 TO WAYS & MEANS. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: __________________________ Barbara Prudic Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Transportation May 23, 1995 Page