MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session June 1, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Thursday, June 1, 1995, Chairman Assemblywoman 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: 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 Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Coyle, Jr., City of Elko, John Ellison, City of Elko, Frank Adams, Nevada Division of Investigations, Sven Nilsson, Professional Drivers Association of Las Vegas, Larry Struve, Nevada Department of Business and Industry (Taxicab Authority), Galen Denio, Public Service Commission, Pat Fagan, Elko Taxi; Daryl Capurro, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association and Judy Sheldrew, Public Service Commission. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 641. Assembly Bill 641 - Revises provisions governing regulation of taxicabs in cities. Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, announced A.B. 641 was introduced at the request of the City of Elko. Mr. Carpenter explained because of changes in the law, the city no longer had authority to make rules in regard to taxicabs, especially concerning taxicab employees. He introduced Tom Coyle, Elko city attorney and John Ellison, a city supervisor of Elko. They brought a number of amendments which Mr. Coyle would discuss. He mentioned a Clark County representative would also present amendments. Tom Coyle, Elko Deputy City Attorney, stated there had been negotiations between different parties prior to the meeting. He said several amendments were acceptable to the City of Elko which he outlined for the committee (Exhibit C). 1. On line 10, after the word "state", before the comma, the following language was proposed: not located in a county subject to the provisions of NRS 706.881 to 706.885, inclusive. The language was intended to eliminate any arguments by a city in Clark County to say they would have powers under this statute as opposed to the Taxicab Authority which is in power in Clark County. 2. Change Subsection 2(b) to read as follows in its entirety: Regulate by ordinance the qualifications required of employees or lessees of a taxicab motor carrier, delete: [which is required to pay the license tax], and add: consistent with the regulations of the Public Service Commission. 3. Delete: Lines 18 and 19, subsection 2.(b)(2). The reasoning behind deleting this section was the city had contacted the Public Service Commission (PSC) and feels that any problems which may arise with regard to rates may be handled under current procedures that exist at PSC. Mr. Coyle stated he understood that the Legislature has delegated the authority over rates to PSC. Mr. Coyle explained why the legislation was necessary. The current NRS 268.097 read, cities have no power to regulate or supervise taxicab motor carriers, other than requiring a business license tax. The City of Elko desired to regulate the qualifications of taxicab drivers for public safety reason. Mr. John Ellison, Elko City Councilman, said he did not have much more to add to Mr. Coyle's remarks. Mr. Larry Struve, representing the Department of Business and Industry, stated the Taxicab Authority in Clark County was within their department and the amendment offered on Line 10 was their amendment. With that amendment the Department of Business and Industry did not have any problem with the bill. Chairman Chowning requested Mr. Struve elaborate on the amendment and why it was necessary. Mr. Struve explained the amendment made reference to NRS 706.881 thru 706.885, which applies to counties with populations of 400,000 or more. In those counties, the Legislature has established a Taxicab Authority which was appointed by the Governor. They, in turn, appoint an executive director and the Taxicab Authority has very broad authority over the regulation of the taxicab industry in those counties of 400,000 or more. The Taxicab Authority gets into the areas addressed by the bill such as employee qualifications. The intent of the bill was to apply only in areas like Elko and other counties less than 400,000, the amendment made it clear and would not disrupt the current jurisdiction of the Taxicab Authority in Clark County. Chairman Chowning inquired if currently there was only a Taxicab Authority in Clark County and if one was to be established in Washoe County then would this language cover that as well. Mr. Struve replied yes, assuming the Legislature chose to extend the mechanism which currently exists in Clark County, the previously quoted provisions in NRS would be amended. Mr. Galen Denio, Commissioner, Public Service Commission, stated the Commission supported the bill as amended and urged its passage. Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, offered support of A.B. 641 as amended. Mr. Sven Nilsson, Professional Drivers Association, Las Vegas, said this might apply to Washoe County. Chairman Chowning reminded Mr. Nilsson that this applies only to smaller counties, not Washoe County; it would only apply to smaller counties under 400,000. Chairman Chowning and Mr. Nilsson discussed population criteria. Chairman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 641 until Assemblyman Carpenter returned to the committee and a vote could be taken on the bill. Chairman Chowning pointed out there was no opposition to A.B. 641 from witnesses present or in written form. The hearing was opened on Senate Bill 323. Senate Bill 323 - Authorizes chief of investigation division of department of motor vehicles and public safety to appoint certain persons as investigators and to enter into certain agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies. Mr. Frank Adams, Deputy Chief, Nevada Division of Investigations, discussed his law enforcement background. He stated he had learned two lessons over the years: criminals have no boundaries and there are more criminals than law enforcement officers. The bill would help address some of the problems in the area of joint task forces, would allow the cross-designation of officers as division investigators to assist in joint task force investigations and would allow entering into agreements with other states such as Utah, Arizona and California to cross- designate officers as Nevada peace officers. Currently there is an agreement with the three states. This would allow them to act under Nevada's control in the State of Nevada as Nevada peace officers. Mr. Adams said it would also give the authority to designate others within the state as law enforcement officers to assist in their duties. Minimum standards for Peace Officer, Category 1 would have to be met. It would allow designation of certain individuals with special talents such as in the area of automation, financial investigations, etc. He said there have been amendments in the Senate which are acceptable. He noted the bill would be a big help. He stated the bill was acceptable to the division, and accomplishes exactly what was intended. Assemblyman Anderson inquired whether the specialized officers would come in and take Category I training. Mr. Adams explained the officers would have to at least had training equivalent to Nevada Category I training to be designated as officers. Mr. Anderson asked if the officers would all be from out of state. Mr. Adams said not necessarily. In many rural counties Drug Task Forces are participated in. This would allow cross-designation of officers to assist outside the counties in criminal investigations. Mr. Anderson asked if it would allow using people currently in the early retirement system and create a special category for which they would qualify for early retirement benefits. Mr. Adams explained the scenario described by Mr. Anderson was by specific position. The officers would be special investigators. The officers would be covered under the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS). He gave examples of how the services of the officers would be used. Mr. Anderson asked if this would apply to fish and game agents or federal wardens with specialized training. Mr. Adams stated it would. They would have to be working under the control and supervision of the division under special investigations. Chairman Chowning asked if anyone would ever have a permanent appointment. Mr. Adams stated no appointments are permanent. He explained it was up to the chief to make an appointment. The appointments can be made for varied periods of time. He described how people would be used on a case by case basis. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 323. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON VOTED NO. Assembly Bill 334 - Clarifies authority of the public service commission of Nevada to revoke or suspend certificate of public convenience and necessity of common motor carrier for failure to comply with certain laws or regulations. Mr. Galen Denio, Commissioner, Public Service Commission, reported the commission recommended the amendments in A.B. 334. The amendments applied to NRS 706.398, and were the result of a 1993 Nevada Supreme Court decision. The court ruled the commission does not have the power to revoke a transportation certificate for failure to comply with the Commission's regulations. The amendment corrects the deficiency in the law. Mr. Denio submitted the court order denying rehearing for the record (Exhibit D). Chairman Chowning requested a background on A.B. 334 from Mr. Denio. Mr. Denio explained A.B. 334 was one of several bills postponed until a rewrite of Chapter 706 of NRS was obtained. It was unknown if the bill would be incorporated in the rewrite. The rewrite of Chapter 706 was done as a result of the federal preemption provisions of Public Law 103305. S.B. 442 was a result of the Chapter 706 rewrite. S.B. 443 (the tow car bill) has been languishing. Neither of those bills contained the provisions included in A.B. 334. A.B. 334 clarified the commission would have the authority to revoke a transportation certificate for failure to comply with the Commission's regulations. The commission currently does not have that authority, as the Supreme Court has decided. Authority is being requested. Mr. Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association, said the only thing he saw in the bill causing concern was under the new section starting on Line 14, (new language), assuming that S.B. 442 passes, the term used in that bill is "fully regulated carrier". He did not know whether the term should be substituted for "common motor carrier" but the fully regulated carrier would refer to household goods and passenger carriers. Under the federal preemption that is all that would be left for the Public Service Commission to fully regulate with respect to economic and safety regulations. Mr. Denio explained it was his understanding the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) reconciled those differences at the end of session. If S.B. 442 and A.B. 334 passed they would be reconciled to reflect the correct language Mr. Capurro indicated. Assemblyman Anderson inquired of Mr. Denio, assuming the deregulation took place as outlined in the federal guidelines and there are tow car companies picking up vehicles, who would regulate them, and how would they be regulated since they are not carriers of common household good? Mr. Denio replied the provisions of S.B. 442 had been amended to exclude tow cars. S.B. 443 had changed, and the amendments had not returned to the Senate Transportation Committee, providing for alternative regulation, depending on how preemption is determined in federal courts. Tow cars are an interesting area because the federal government has or the Interstate Commerce Commission has never regulated tow cars. They are specifically exempted from their jurisdiction for wrecked and disabled vehicles. The PSC believed the provisions modified in S.B. 443 or a similar bill would take care of the provision. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Denio discussed the historical background of tow cars. Chairman Chowning informed Mr. Denio and Mr. Anderson the issue of tow trucks will be addressed in today's work session, so she asked they hold their comments. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 334. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Chowning closed the public hearing. A work session was opened. ASSEMBLY BILL 335 - Repeals authority of public service commission of Nevada to regulate for licensing purposes private motor carriers of property when used for private commercial enterprises. Mr. Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the proposed amendment would amend the bill as a whole deleting Sections 1,2 and 3. He stated the proposed language was in the last section of (Exhibit E). Ms. Judy Sheldrew, Commissioner, Public Service Commission of Nevada, discussed portions of (Exhibit E). The Federal Aviation Act of 1994 (PL. 103-305) preempted state economic regulation of property carriers, specifically state price, route and service regulation. Included in the preemption was ambiguous language relating to tow cars because of the historic deference by the federal government to state regulators for tow car regulation. The absence of direct ICC clarification indicated tow cars were not meant to be preempted. At the close of the 1994 Congressional session a trailer bill was attempted to clarify the non-inclusion of tow cars. The bill did not pass. The tow car question remained unanswered. The PSC chose to recommend to the legislature that PSC continue economic regulation of tow cars in the public interest. Common complaints and problems with tow cars were discussed. The proposal was included in S.B. 442 and another bill adding consumer protections if economic regulation of tow cars was not appropriate in S.B. 443. On May 15, 1995 the Legislative Counsel Bureau wrote a legal opinion to Senator O'Donnell the state was preempted from economic regulation of tow cars. This opinion is contained in (Exhibit E). Senator O'Donnell requested all full economic regulations of tow cars be removed from S.B. 442, and it was his intent to work out language and insert the remaining regulations and some consumer protections for tow cars in S.B. 443. The amendments had not been forwarded to the bill drafter so the status of S.B. 443 is unknown. Ms. Sheldrew advised if S.B. 442 with amendments was passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee, eventually tow car regulation would be fully deregulated in the state. The Public Service Commission would have no authority whatsoever to regulate tow cars. This is a concern of Public Service Commission and it is felt to be a public interest issue. Chairman Chowning asked the committee to look at Section 4 of the amendment which discusses the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public and each owner or operator of a tow car. Mrs. Chowning advised the committee of the importance of the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND REREFER A.B. 335. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association, stated he was not aware the committee was going to amend A.B. 335 until prior to the hearing. Mr. Cappurro indicated he had been working with Public Service Commission, Kelly Jackson, and others to properly amend S.B. 443. Mr. Capurro stated there is an obvious concern and a need to regulate tow cars. If tow cars cannot be fully regulated economically it was suggested they be regulated for the health, safety and welfare of the public. Mr. Allard asked Mr. Capurro if he had seen anything in the amendment to allowing regulation in a fiscal area or if regulation was strictly for health, safety, and welfare of the public. Ms. Sheldrew replied the proposed amendment was the result of work done relative to S.B. 443 and did not contain economic regulations. It contained consumer protections, safety and financial responsibility to the extent the PSC was not preempted by the federal government. Assemblyman Anderson commented the Legislative Counsel Bureau had issued an opinion on the subject. With the high level of ambiguity in what had been done so far in this particular area all involved would be "in the dark" until a court ruling is obtained. Chairman Chowning assured Mr. Anderson the committee would amend and rerefer the bill and a full hearing on the issue would be held. Assembly Goldwater referring to Section 3 of the amendment which states: "effective until the date on which the provisions of PL 103-305, which purport to limit state regulation of owners and operators of tow cars, are judicially declared, in whole or in part, to be invalid or the limitation thereof on state authority is wholly or partially changed by an Act of Congress " asked for clarification. Mr. Goldwater indicated he would have a hard time voting for the amendment due to Section 3 of the amendment. Ms. Sheldrew stated Section 3, Line 6, of the amendment would be deleted. She indicated the prior page with Roman number I and II explained the proposed language. The intention is to regulate tow cars to the extent the PSC is not preempted by federal law. This will be done until the federal law is rescinded or decided by court action. If this occurred the full economic regulation would be reverted to. She advised Section 17 would also be deleted and replaced with language contained on Attachment 1 of (Exhibit E). THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Chowning reopened the hearing on A.B. 641. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 641. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Chowning requested Mr. Allard clarify his motion. Mr. Allard clarified his motion by stating (1) on line 10, after the word "state" before the comma, to proposed the following language: not located in a county subject to the provisions of NRS 706.881 to 706.885, inclusive. (2) On line 16, subsection 2(b) to read as follows in its entirety: Regulate by ordinance the qualification required of employees or lessees of a taxicab motor carrier (delete):[which is required to pay the license tax], (add): consistent with the regulations of the Public Service Commission. (3) Delete: Lines 18 and 19, subsection 2(b) (2). THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Chowning thanked the guests from Elko for testimony on A.B. 641. The committee returned to work session. Mr. Mouritsen distributed a work session document (Exhibit F). SENATE BILL 297 - Revises provisions regarding preservation of records of motor carriers, allows a motor carrier to obtain a trip permit before entering the state, and decreases the rate of interest required to be paid on additional or estimated assessments paid by motor carriers. Mr. Mouritsen stated S.B. 297 was proposed by the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety with the following provisions. He reviewed the bill via the work session document (Exhibit F). Mr. Mouritsen stated there was no opposition to the bill or no amendment pending. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 297. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL 352 - Revises provisions relating to documents required to be filed by vehicle dealer for transaction of business. Chairman Chowning advised the committee S.B. 352 was being held because an amendment had been proposed and she had not heard back from the person who proposed the bill. Mr. Cappurro stated they have no problems with the proposed amendment if it is approved by Senator Jacobsen. ASSEMBLY BILL 638 - Prohibits vehicles from traveling in the lane furthest to the left except when passing or as posted. Assemblyman Ohrenschall advised upon examination of the law she found the law to already be in existence. Mrs. Ohrenschall stated her constituents concern was to focus mainly on big rigs. Chairman Chowning agreed since all the issues have been addressed in the existing law. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 638. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL 422 - Revises provisions relating to state highway fund and funding for department of motor vehicles and public safety and administration of state highways. Assemblyman De Braga the committee only one subcommittee meeting had been held. Mrs. de Braga stated she had proposed some changes for the subcommittee to consider. These included to allowing transfer of actual funds received to the highway patrol account. Mrs. de Braga further explained the department would continue to deduct $6 for every motor vehicle registered for purpose of supplemental highway patrol officers. She further advised there is $6 million in an account that no one has been able to access. They can access these funds through the budget process but have not done so. The subcommittee proposed taking the $6 million and increasing the salaries of the existing officers on the Highway Patrol to encourage experienced officers to stay with the force. The recommendation was to use approximately 14% of the $6 million. Mrs. de Braga stated her concern was this account should be somewhere for easy accessibility. Assemblyman Nolan noted the fund originally establish for providing for a calculated number of highway patrolmen on the highways. The attrition rate had been addressed, which was high due to low wages. The low wage had been addressed the deficit number of highway patrol officers on the highways had not been addressed. He indicated it was testified the state was 30 highway patrol officers short of what the state formula allowed for. Mr. Nolan stated he did not feel the needs had been met. Chairman Chowning advised no action would be taken today on A.B. 422. Assemblyman Allard asked how the bill related to A.B. 419. He also inquired if A.B. 422 needed to be rereferred to Ways and Means with the amendment. Mrs. de Braga stated a Ways and Means Subcommittee was discussing the issue. She had requested a report of their recommendation. Mrs. de Braga indicated Ways and Means wanted to leave the 22 percent cap. She noted the Governor had approved a plan to increase the salaries of existing officers. Mrs. Chowning requested Mrs. de Braga to meet with Fiscal Staff regarding the budget. Assemblyman Anderson stated he too served on the subcommittee and had reviewed the amendment. He felt the amendment was what the subcommittee agreed to. Mrs. Chowning complimented the subcommittee on dealing with a difficult bill. Mr. Allard commented if A.B. 419 bill passed there would be an extra 5.6 million dollars that would go to the highway fund rather than the general fund. ASSEMBLY BILL 413 - Authorizes local governments and department of transportation to establish toll roads and toll bridges. Chairman Chowning requested Mr. Mouritsen review the bill with the committee. Mr. Mouritsen explained A.B. 413 was passed out of committee with a motion of Amend & Do Pass. In working with the bill drafter he discovered more specific information on exactly what would be included on the ballot question regarding the toll roads. Mr. Mouritsen stated he need some direction for the bill drafter as to what language to use. He had three items for the committee's consideration: (1) proposed location of toll roads, (2) estimated cost and (3) estimated toll charge. Assemblyman Carpenter commented the three items listed by Mr. Mouritsen should be included on the ballot and felt the vote on A.B. 413 should not be rescinded. Mrs. Chowning concurred and stated the information needed only to be clarified. Assemblyman Anderson commented the proposed location of toll roads was very important and should be automatically included. Chairman Chowning commended Mr. Mouritsen on job well done. ASSEMBLY BILL 104 - Revises provisions governing maximum ground clearance and distance between frame and body of motor vehicle. Assemblyman Carpenter commented he was the chairman of the subcommittee on A.B. 104. Mr. Carpenter advised this had turned into a very controversial issue. Mr. Carpenter stated he spoke with Mr. Luce, proponent of bill, on May 31, 1995, and informed Mr. Luce there were a lot of opposition to the bill from law enforcement officers. Their concerns were due to safety issues. Mr. Carpenter advised Mr. Luce another subcommittee meeting would be held to accommodate his concerns. Assemblyman Tripple commented Mr. Luce had called her today and asked what her reservations were. Mrs. Tripple stated she informed Mr. Luce she did not approve of the high bumpers on trucks. ASSEMBLY BILL 103 - Makes various changes relating to regulation of taxicabs in certain counties. Mr. Mouritsen handed out a summarized document of A.B. 103 (Exhibit G). Mr. Mouritsen explained the synopsis of A.B. 103 which was based upon the amended version of A.B. 103 provided by Mr. Nilsson rather than the bill itself (Exhibit H). Section 2: Revises the penalties which the Taxicab Authority may impose on drivers; Section 3: Prohibits the Taxicab Authority from adopting certain regulations; Section 4: Corrects internal references; Section 5: Requires that one member of the Taxicab Authority be a person who has been a driver in Clark County for at least 5 years; Section 6: Requires that the Administrator of the Taxicab Authority issue subpoenas on behalf of drivers appearing at disciplinary hearings. Assemblyman Goldwater commented the Taxicab Authority was established for a reason so the Legislature did not have to deal with the day to day micro management and the turmoil occurring in the taxicab business. The biggest problem in the taxicab business are run outs. Mr. Goldwater stated he was not sure if the legislature was in a position to make these type of decisions since the legislature convenes every two years. Mr. Goldwater stated these problems should be addressed to Taxicab Authority. Mr. Goldwater asked if his concerns are consistent with Mr. Mouritsen's interpretation of what was testified. Mr. Mouritsen agreed with Mr. Goldwater's interpretation. Mr. Sven Nilsson, Professional Driver's Association, Las Vegas, stated the Taxicab Authority considers this a labor and management issue as far as the run outs are concerned. If a driver has a run out the company charges the driver because it is registered on the meter. Mr. Nilsson stated the Taxicab Authority will not address run out problems. Mr. Goldwater felt this is an employer/employee issue, and questioned if the legislature wanted to get involved in this type of practice. Mr. Nilsson stated he would provide a written response for Mr. Goldwater. Assemblyman Anderson questioned the possibility of putting someone in double jeopardy when they are guilty of commission of a felony or a gross misdemeanor and then are fined $500 by the Taxicab Authority. Assemblyman Allard commented when you become a taxicab driver you are aware of run outs and should be responsible for your run outs. He did not see that the matter could be enforced. Mr. Nilsson stated Yellow Cabs had a good policy on run outs. If a driver has a run outs over $20 or the ride is expected to go over $20, the driver is expected to get a deposit from the passenger. If it goes over $20 and the driver has a run out, he is responsible. If less than $20 the company does not collect their share of the meter. Mr. Mouritsen continued discussed the proposed amendments. Mr. Allard, referencing Page 2 of the proposed amendment, Items 1- 4, asked if these items were included in the current law. Mr. Mouritsen replied he did not think the current law governed the above mentioned items specifically. Mr. Anderson commented these were serious crimes and seem like double jeopardy exists. Mr. Nilsson stated the penalties were civil penalties. There was a statutory point allowing the Taxicab Authority to impose penalties regardless of findings in another court. The Taxicab Authority wants to be swift in dealing with problems because they do not want problem drivers in the industry. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 3:29 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _____________________________ Barbara Prudic Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Transportation June 1, 1995 Page