MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session June 22, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 3:10 p.m., on Thursday, June 22, 1995, Chairman 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 Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Maurice Washington Senator William R. O'Donnell STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor Steve Wood, Chief Deputy/Legislative Auditor OTHERS PRESENT: Galen Denio, Public Service Commission Larry Stout, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety Donna Wadey-Howell, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety Major Dan Hammack, Nevada Highway Patrol Daryl Capurro, Nevada Franchise Automobile Dealers Association Tom Stephens, Nevada Department of Transportation Rod Johnson, Nevada Department of Transportation Urban Livengood, Clark County Public Works Department Stephanie Tyler, Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County Greg Harwell, California State Automobile Association ASSEMBLY BILL 718 - Requires posting of signs containing certain information relating to projects for public highway, road and bridge construction. Assemblyman David Goldwater, District 10, as primary sponsor of A.B. 718, stated he represents mostly an urban district in the heart of Las Vegas. Mr. Goldwater noted this area frustrates many of his constituents and others traveling these roads because of the large amount of traffic and projects underway within the area. Mr. Goldwater explained A.B. 718 attempts to inform the public so if the streets are being disrupted for city, state, or county projects, a sign would be required informing the public of who is doing the project, how much it is costing, and a completion date. Given this information, Mr. Goldwater stated, people may be more tolerant of road projects and pressure is placed on the agency to complete the project by the date shown on the sign. Mr. Goldwater clarified three proposed amendments to the bill. First, the posting of the signs would be required at the beginning and end of the project only. Second, he continued, the cost threshold should go from $100,000 to $250,000 in order to take care of any general maintenance or any short term project that might not require a sign, i.e., traffic signals, stop signs, etc. Mr. Goldwater informed, pursuant to conversations with Kimberly Morgan at the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), the large counties, Washoe and Clark, are exempted from Chapter 403, which is the Chapter to which A.B. 718 covers. So, he would propose to change A.B. 718 to Chapter 244 so the large counties will not be exempted because they need this the most. Mr. Goldwater concluded the fiscal impact on A.B. 718 was minimal in that the contractor can purchase the signs at minimal cost. Chairman Chowning inquired into the fiscal note. Mr. Goldwater replied he has not received it yet; however, the cost would be up to the contractor. Mr. Anderson asked if the sign at the beginning and end of the project would be visible to both sides of traffic or would it necessitate four signs. Mr. Goldwater stated two signs would be adequate. However, he would defer that to the committee for debate. Mr. Anderson inquired into the possibility of signs being placed on private property and askied if the bill should specify signs would only be placed within a certain space to the construction project. Mr. Anderson clarified his concern was that a sign might be a cumbersome sight to a high end property. Mr. Nolan expressed his concern for signs containing information as suggested by Mr. Goldwater adding driving by at 55 MPH, the information would most likely not be read so what would be the purpose of the sign? Mr. Goldwater answered it would depend on the individual who may be interested in reading the sign because they drive by the location often whereas another individual may not be so interested. However, knowing when the project will be completed may be of interest to the individual who drives by every day. Further knowing if the county, city, or state is paying for the project may be of interest as well. Mr. Goldwater concluded the public is entitled to know if a road is being torn up for lane expansion, flood control, road improvement, utility lines, or whatever. Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) and Rod Johnson, Assistant Director of Operations of Nevada Department of Transportation, came forward to testify on the bill. Mr. Stephens stated their only concern was the number of signs. They believe the requirement should be for a couple signs but the bill is not clear on that subject presently. Further, they believe there should be a minimum threshold higher than $100,000 on the signs because of the number of projects they have in that category. Chairman Chowning asked if the amendment from $100,000 to $250,000 would be satisfactory. Mr. Stephens replied $500,000 would be a better limit. Mr. Johnson added the amendments outlined by Mr. Goldwater addressed their concerns. However, the location of the signs may pose a problem, visually or otherwise with the amount of information placed on the sign. Perhaps there could be a provision for those instances when all the requested information would not necessarily be required on the sign. Mr. Goldwater concurred with the above suggestion. Urban Livengood, Deputy Director, Clark County Public Works, concurred with the comments of NDOT as they had the same concerns. Specifically, they would like to see the limit at $500,000 rather than the suggested amendment of $250,000. With regard to the requirement to indicate each source of money used to finance a project, Mr. Livengood stated there may be as many as 95 residents who provide funds for a special improvement district. He suggested the sign only indicate the source of public funds. Lastly, Mr. Livengood commented at times it is difficult to estimate a date for conclusion of a project. When there are 30 or more projects being managed at one given time, they would spend much of their time going around changing the dates on all the signs. However, if it is an approximate date that may not be necessary. On the other hand, if the requirement is for a specific date, he would prefer that not be required at all. Generally, Mr. Livengood asserted, if the public is interested in a project, they would rather see a telephone number of a representative from the agency building the project or other contact person, and they would not object to that inclusion in the bill. Mr. Goldwater stated the time specific on the sign is the intent of A.B. 718 in order to hold the person sponsoring the project more accountable. He agreed the suggestion for a telephone number of a contact person was good. Mr. Livengood stressed his concern with placing specific dates for completion on the sign is because oftentimes there are conflicts in projects and the estimated completion date is no longer valid. So, dealing with the number of projects Clark County, NDOT, and others have at all times, they do not want to spend all their time going around changing the dates on signs. Mr. Nolan asked if any criteria was currently in place for posting signs in construction projects. Mr. Livengood replied the Regional Transportation Commission and the Regional Flood Control District have requirements for signs on their projects at the beginning and end of the project. Although they are required to provide certain information thereon, a specific completion date is not included. SENATE BILL 322 - Makes various changes to provisions relating to financial responsibility required for operating motor vehicles. Donna Wadey-Howell, Managing Chief, Registration Division, introduced Elizabeth King, Assistant Chief of Drivers License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, and provided a Memorandum dated June 21, 1995, attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Ms. King stated S.B. 322 makes minor changes in the way Chapter 485 relating to vehicle insurance is structured. Ms. King noted four colored forms were contained in the handout (Exhibit C) which show the areas attempting to be clarified. She continued, the yellow form is evidence of insurance, the pink is referred to in the new language as a certificate of financial responsibility, better known as SR-22 forms. The goldenrod is certificate of insurance of fleet vehicles. The green form is certificate of self insurance. These forms have been referred to as proof of financial responsibility. However, in some instances the language has been clarified to mean motor vehicle liability insurance. S.B. 322 will clearly and specifically define the needs and purpose of these forms by making language changes in the statutes. Ms. King provided a general overview of the changes, stating the pink sheet in the handout is a line-by-line explanation of the bill. Her prepared text in this regard is attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Chairman Chowning asked if the fee increase was $250 for someone who fails to renew their insurance. Ms. Wadey-Howell stated that was correct in that the requirement for SR-22 has been lifted. Chairman Chowning noted the bill indicated no fiscal impact; however, it appeared there would be a fiscal increase to the highway fund. Ms. Wadey-Howell responded they estimate a 4.5 million dollar increase per year by re-instating approximately 30,000 vehicles per year. Chairman Chowning asked if the department had this idea as a revenue generator or if the Senate Transportation Committee had the idea. Ms. Wadey-Howell stated the department raised the concern of removing the SR-22 requirement and leaving the reinstatement fee at $100 but they worked with the Senate Transportation Committee to come up with the language now present in the bill. SENATE BILL 133 - Revises provisions governing rate of speed for operation of motor vehicle. Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe District 2, stated S.B. 133 has gone through "a hundred revisions" as this bill has surfaced many times. However, he believes the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) still has concerns relating to the bill although amendments have been made to hopefully address those concerns. Simply stated, S.B. 133 moves the threshold from 70 MPH to 75 MPH on highways. Therefore, anything between 55 and 75 MPH would be considered a fuel energy wasting ticket which is $5 plus administration costs. Anything over 75 MPH would be considered a moving violation. Therefore, you would be assessed whatever citation fees were applicable. Senator Washington continued to Section 4 of the bill which provides if you do not move over to the far right lane and you are impeding traffic, you will be cited for a moving violation. Chairman Chowning asked why the Senator brought this legislation. Senator Washington stated a constituent approached him with concerns of receiving a traffic violation of speeding which was reported to DMV, thereby resulting in a report to his insurance company with an increase in insurance as well. Raising the speed limit to 75 goes along with the fact cars are built safer and highways are safer for high speeds. Senator Washington also informed the current speed limit of 55 MPH is in the process of being repealed. Upon Chairman Chowning's inquiry, Senator Washington stated there was no fiscal impact to S.B. 133 adding there were some concerns from the counties but those concerns have been met through amending the bill. Mr. Carpenter asked why language on page 3, line 18 was bracketed out. Senator Washington replied that language dealt with the U.S. Code and the 55 MPH speed limit adding other persons testifying would be better able to answer that question. Major Dan Hammack, Nevada Highway Patrol, stated S.B. 133 has gone through several revisions. He stated the division opposes S.B. 133 in the interest of traffic safety in that 38% of all fatalities occur at a speed greater than 55 MPH. Raising the speed limit will increase the severity of vehicle crashes. Major Hammack declared speed is the contributing factor in the majority of vehicle collisions. Of the 45,580 traffic collisions in 1993, 10,150 had speed as an element of causation. Major Hammack encouraged the committee to vote no on S.B. 133. Mr. Carpenter reiterated his earlier question regarding the brackets at page 3, line 18. Major Hammack stated that language was also on page 2 so it provides a reversal clause in case the national speed limit is repealed. Senator Washington clarified the bracketed area refers to the demerit system. In other words, it would be a energy wasting ticket for speeds between 55 and 75 MPH so demerits do not apply. Chairman Chowning asked what message was being sent to the citizens of Nevada if S.B. 133 is passed. Major Hammack stated he thought the message was that it was okay to do 75 MPH in the state of Nevada. Chairman Chowning asked if Senator Washington was comfortable sending that message to the citizens of Nevada. Senator Washington replied he felt comfortable with that message because most drivers today drive at an average rate of 70 to 75 MPH. Chairman Chowning asked which streets were affected by the bill. Senator Washington answered just the major highways. Major Hammack clarified it means the state highways where 55 MPH is in effect. Mr. Nolan asked if Major Hammack believed the average citizen on the open road was doing 70 to 75 MPH. Major Hammack stated a review of DMV studies and speed surveys would indicate most vehicles are not in that range. Major Hammack provided a handout from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety which addresses questions and answers relating to speed limits. The handout is attached hereto as (Exhibit D). Mr. Batten asked Major Hammack what the consensus was of the local departments regarding raising the speed limit to 75 MPH. Major Hammack stated the majority of the other local law enforcement agencies do not do primary enforcement on interstate and secondary highways and he has not discussed the issue with anyone in particular. Upon Mr. Allard's inquiry, Senator Washington stated S.B. 133 involves all state highways. Mr. Allard stated the bill was good because everyone travels at these speeds already and this comports with what the U.S. Senate is attempting to enact. Senator William R. O'Donnell, District 5, testified there is a misnomer that S.B. 133 is "raising" the speed limit. Rather, S.B. 133 raises the threshold of the type of ticket you would receive at 75 MPH. All the laws regarding speed limits remain in tact. Senator O'Donnell stated the highway fund will greatly benefit from S.B. 133 and that fund is necessary to build new roads and refurbish existing roadways. Chairman Chowning reminded Senator O'Donnell the passage of Senate Bill 322 will add 4.5 million dollars to the highway fund and asked how much would be added by the passage of S.B. 133. Senator O'Donnell emphasized the actions taken by budget committees in both the Senate and the Assembly have removed approximately $6 million from the highway fund. Senator O'Donnell asserted it would be "irresponsible" for them to leave without addressing the "hole" in the highway fund adding there were other bills during this Legislature that could help. Tom Stephens, Nevada Department of Transportation, provided Speed Monitoring Reports, attached hereto as (Exhibit E). The reports indicate, for example, speed limits posted at 65 MPH result in 72 to 75 MPH in actuality. Also, the handouts include a map indicating monitoring locations. Mr. Stephens also noted if the national speed limit is repealed, the state would revert to what is shown in S.B. 133 at line 9, page two. Whereas, the people would be cited if going a greater speed that is reasonable or proper having due regard for the traffic, weather, and other highway conditions. Basically, then, there would not be a safe speed limit. Mr. Stephens clarified although he can set speed zones in the state, he cannot set speed limits. Mr. Anderson asked if Mr. Stephens agreed most persons travel at 70-75 MPH currently on highways and interstates throughout the state and those roadways can handle such speeds. Mr. Stephens stated he was not involved with the designs of the interstate highway. But, as a non-expert opinion, yes this would be true. Mr. Anderson emphasized most of these roads were constructed and designed for speeds of over 70 MPH so S.B. 133 would not create an impact in his opinion. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED DO PASS S.B. 133. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN VOTED NO. Chairman Chowning returned the committee to discussion on S.B. 322 and instructed Senator O'Donnell to come forward to comment on the bill. Senator O'Donnell stated he would be available to respond to any questions. Chairman Chowning announced the testimony of Tom Stephens from NDOT was interrupted and asked him to come forward. Mr. Stephens concurred with Senator O'Donnell's testimony on the previous bill, wherein the $4.5 million going into the highway fund does not go into the DMV budget and S.B. 322 will fill the "hole" that exists. Mr. Stephens commented uninsured motorists are a problem in the state and a $100 fine does not quite get their attention. So, raising the fee to $250 should go a long way in getting their attention at the same time providing much needed income for the DMV. Chairman Chowning entertained a motion on S.B. 322. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 322. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 718 INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO REQUIRE A SIGN AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE PROJECT; CHANGE THE THRESHOLD FROM $100,000 TO $250,000; WHERE APPLICABLE, LIST THE SOURCES OF "PUBLIC" FUNDS AND A CONTACT PERSON ON THE SIGN; AND CHANGE THE AUTHORITY OF THE BILL FROM CHAPTER 404 TO CHAPTER 244 OF THE NEVADA REVISED STATUTES SO THE LARGE COUNTIES ARE NOT EXEMPTED. Mr. Allard asked if there was a fiscal note to A.B. 718. Mr. Goldwater explained the only cost is to the contractor to purchase a sign and is included in the motion. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL 340 - Revises certain provisions regarding transfer of title to or interest in motor vehicle. Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Registration Division, DMV, stated S.B. 340 takes wholesale automobile auctions out of the chain of title. Auto auctions take vehicles from auto dealers, financial institutions, etc., hold auctions and sell them to other dealers and wreckers. Their function is in reality as a consignor acting as an intermediary to sell the cars. The current law requires the auctioneer be a signor on the title of the vehicle requiring all the paperwork processing through DMV. S.B. 340 would remove them from that function and allow them to provide a stamp of their name, date of sale, dealer number on the title and appropriate documents. This would eliminate much paperwork for the DMV. Mr. Stout stated the second thing S.B. 340 does is bring the current statutes in conformity with federal law, Code of Federal Regulations Title 49, requiring the state to have a secure power of attorney. Chairman Chowning asked if there was a fiscal note on S.B. 340. Mr. Stout replied there was a fiscal note in that the bill allows the DMV to collect $.50 for each secured power of attorney. The fiscal note would then result in $28,700 going to the highway fund. Daryl Capurro, Nevada Franchise Automobile Dealers Association testified they worked with DMV substantially on the bill and therefore urge passage of S.B. 340. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED DO PASS S.B. 340. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL 442 - Conforms state regulation of motor carriers to new federal law. Galen Denio, Commissioner, Nevada Public Service Commission (PSC), provided prepared testimony summarizing the sections contained in S.B. 442. Those comments are attached hereto as (Exhibit F) and include handouts from the Legislative Counsel Bureau dated May 15, 1995 and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. Mr. Denio stated they do not have any proposed amendments and they have worked diligently to bring the state law in compliance with federal law as a result of Public Law 103.305 and therefore urge the committee to pass S.B. 442. Chairman Chowning acknowledged the long hard hours put into S.B. 442 and thanked the commissioner for this arduous task. Mr. Denio stated they worked with the DMV and with the LCB to come up with the appropriate language. He stated the bill has received strict scrutiny and in its present form it conforms with the federal laws necessary to move forward. Mr. Anderson commented this bill came late in the session and he would have liked to had more time to review it especially in light of his concerns with the PSC this session and past business dealings. Mr. Anderson asked if they would still be able to carry on their inspection of vehicles and trucks carrying household goods only. Mr. Denio stated the commission will inspect fully regulated carriers including, household goods movers and all passenger carriers. Mr. Anderson asked if this would include the railroad section of their department. Mr. Denio stated yes that was correct since they still fall under the public utility statute. In fact, they coordinate with the Federal Railroad Administration in inspecting railroads. Mr. Denio added they will cooperate with the department in doing background checks for those carriers wishing to carry radioactive waste and they will determine the inspections. Mr. Anderson asked if they had personnel trained in the department to perform such inspections and Mr. Denio confirmed they do. Mr. Anderson requested the number of persons trained in radioactive waste inspections and where those persons were located. Mr. Denio said he did not have those exact figures but he would attempt to provide that information and, in fact, their budget bill reflects a downsizing of the commission in relation to Public Law 130.305. Mr. Anderson asked S.B. 442 be held until he could receive the answers to his questions. Chairman Chowning agreed to hold the bill until his concerns were met. Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association, testified they worked extensively with the Public Service Commission (PSC) and Highway Patrol in the issuance of permits and share the concerns of the committee for the lateness of the bill. However, Mr. Capurro stressed S.B. 442 complies with federal law enacted last year and pointed out Sections 10-14 at pages 4 and 5, the powers of duties of the DMV are delineated. In other words, there will no longer be a "hole" in relation to safety inspections and the ability of the DMV to check insurance requirements and the like. So, all forms of motor carrier transportation will be covered either by the fully regulated carriers by the PSC or by the DMV for the other private or for-hire carriers. Mr. Anderson asked if the inspections would be an overburdensome responsibility for the highway patrol, who are already on overload. Mr. Capurro stated the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, Highway Patrol Division has the responsibility under the current law for the issuance of HAZMAT permits. PSC has been issuing permits while working with the department on background checks. The only additional responsibility they would have is the enforcement of private carriers. Mr. Capurro concluded the department is already doing much of what is contained in the bill. Major Dan Hammack, Nevada Highway Patrol was asked to come forward to testify to clarify Mr. Anderson's concerns. Major Hammack stated the division has worked jointly with the other entities to bring this legislation this far. He confirmed Mr. Capurro's statements in that the highway patrol has had many of the duties detailed in the bill already. Mr. Anderson declared he had major concerns in this area and asked if the highway patrol was in a better position in terms of training regarding this level of enforcement. Also, he wanted to know exactly how many officers were trained in the area of hazardous material and if training needed to be up-graded in anyway. Major Hammack stated they currently have approximately 49 officers in the commercial division and they are in the process of doing a 40 hour class for all the officers so they can participate in commercial enforcement activities to a specific level. Major Hammack informed there are many different classes within the HAZMAT arena which individuals need to be certified in so he did not know the exact number of those individuals. Mr. Anderson asserted he was particularly concerned about the transfer points between rail and truck where the PSC will be holding the rail and pipelines and now coming out onto the commercial roadway are persons carrying indeterminate fuels, solvents, and other chemicals which are often shipped via railway. So, is there a letter of understanding existing between these two departments covering this area and is there a proper interfacing so public safety and interests are met. Galen Denio, Commissioner, State of Nevada Public Service Commission, in responding to Mr. Anderson, pointed out the rail safety program is handled under the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and there are two inspectors in the state handling that. One is in motor-powered equipment and the other is in track. The other discipline involved is the Hazardous Material Discipline within FRA. They do not have an inspector in that program so they rely on the FRA inspectors to accomplish that. However, the rail inspector is trained to look for incidents or conditions wherein they would report that to the FRA inspector to get them out to the site. Mr. Denio added the FRA has authority over the transfer of material from the tank car to the truck or stationary facility as long as the connection is made. Once the connection is broken, the authority transfers to either the fire Marshall or local fire department, depending on which county is involved. Mr. Anderson asked if the fire departments have been apprised of this responsibility. Mr. Denio clarified their authority has not changed with S.B. 442 as it has always been their [the fire Marshall] responsibility. Chairman Chowning stated it was offensive to have to hurry through such a major piece of legislation this late in the session and it is unfortunate, to say the least. She announced they would hold voting on S.B. 442 and open the hearing on Senate Bill 443. SENATE BILL 443 - Regulates operation of tow cars. Galen Denio, Commissioner, State of Nevada Public Service Commission (PSC) provided a handout of his testimony and comments to the bill, attached hereto as (Exhibit G). Mr. Denio stated S.B. 443 is the companion bill to S.B. 442 which specifically addresses changes proposed to state law relating to tow car operations and provides for specific consumer protection issues. Mr. Denio pointed out in Section 3 of the bill, lines 11-12, clarified operators who have a garage and tow cars to their garage for work, should be rendered as an auto repair or garage. In other words, the towing in this instance would not be regulated by the commission since the towing is part of the service they render in servicing the car. Further discussion was held regarding the difference between a jurisdictional tow and a proprietor tow. Mr. Denio concluded the commission had no economic regulatory authority in the area of tow cars up to this point and that is why S.B. 443 came forth. He urged the committee to adopt the proposed amendments included in his amendment attached hereto as (Exhibit G). Greg Harwell, California State Automobile Association, stated S.B. 443 is a good consumer and safety bill and they support it along with the amendments brought forth by the PSC. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED AMEND & DO PASS S.B. 443 TO INCLUDE THE FOUR AMENDMENTS SET FORTH IN (EXHIBIT G). ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Chowning announced the committee would go into a work session. ASSEMBLY BILL 447 - Makes various changes to provisions governing sale of motor vehicles. Chairman Chowning noted Mr. Capurro was on the sign-in sheet and she was, in the issue of fairness, going to allow him to make a statement. Daryl Capurro, Nevada Franchise Automobile Dealers Association, stated the subcommittee heard testimony on A.B. 447 the other day and several questions were brought forth regarding why the brokers had not brought forth the California law mentioned several times. Mr. Capurro stated under Nevada law, brokers could operate under current use card licenses as a car buying service currently. Also, he reiterated even under A.B. 447 the brokers would not be able to sell a new car. Under Assembly Bill 205, they would still have to have 2,500 or more miles on the vehicle. So, nothing has changed since you go from calling a used car dealer a broker but the same requirements apply. Secondly, Mr. Capurro stated with regard to the bonding issues, the sections in the bill dealing with brokers are the same sections in current law dealing with used car dealers. Thirdly, regarding the trust accounts at Section 6, page three of A.B. 447, he is not certain what the purpose of this section is but he recalls testimony in this area from the department indicating they do not have persons expert in the area of trust accounts. Mr. Capurro concluded the language at page four, subsection 2, means virtually nothing because the 10% restriction in most cases would never apply. Mr. Allard declared he has been informed by staff that subsection 2 of Section 8 on page four does in fact create an entire new category in that they would be able to buy new vehicles, register them and sell them to a consumer. Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst, stated that was his understanding of the bill. Mr. Capurro disagreed and stated the law that changes the definition of new and used vehicles, if they register those vehicles in Nevada to themselves, they are becoming used vehicles. A used vehicle in the law has more than 2,500 miles on it. Mr. Mouritsen pointed out the bill says ". . . someone who acquires new vehicles." Mr. Capurro stressed number 2 under subsection 2 states " . . . registers those vehicles in Nevada pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." Those provisions would require him to register the vehicle to himself. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Batten recalled previous testimony on the bill and stated his concern was if DMV was unable to handle the trust accounts mentioned in the bill, would that place a fiscal note on A.B. 447? Chairman Chowning noted there was no one present from DMV to comment adding Mr. Batten's question brought up a good point. Mr. Capurro responded the testimony from Mr. Stout indicated they did not have anyone within the DMV with this expertise so in order to administer these trust accounts they would most likely need to employ someone with this expertise thereby creating a fiscal note. Mr. Mouritsen continued the definitions would most likely need to be amended in A.B. 447 to conform with A.B. 205. Mr. Capurro said if that was done it would only create a new class of license that is still subject to the provisions of A.B. 205. Mr. Mouritsen stated he would discuss it further with legal staff. Mr. Allard asked the bill be held until legal staff can be consulted. Ms. Ohrenschall declared she has spoken with some persons at DMV and their opinion seems to be since A.B. 205 is in place, adopting A.B. 447 the way it is would not change the auto brokers' ability as they would still be considered used car dealers. We are creating a new license but we are not creating a new product for that license. Mr. Capurro called attention to page four, Section 8, explaining clarifying the section in more detail. In essence, this attempts to place new requirements on dealers and they object to this provision. Mr. Carpenter asserted it appears a new definition of auto dealers is being created and brokers want to be regulated so the committee should move forward with the regulation. Mr. Capurro concluded Assembly Bill 333 which changed the privilege tax dealing with DMV audits, reduces the level to 85% for a vehicle that has been registered for the first time. Secondly, he continued, Senate Bill 49, would eliminate the dealers' special plates and the problem regarding privilege tax was supported by DMV and endorsed by his organization on the Senate side but opposed by the auto brokers. Finally, Mr. Capurro stated Amendment No. 1133 to A.B. 205 was attempted to be added on A.B. 205 on the Senate side but failed. Therefore, the intent of the Senate was not to deal with the issue here. Mr. Mouritsen provided clarification to the earlier issue pertaining to subsection 2(3) of Section 8. Mr. Batten suggested they obtain further information by contacting DMV and especially in light of the fact A.B. 447 was drafted prior to Assembly Bill 205 passing. Then they can call a meeting on the floor to vote on the bill. Chairman Chowning concurred they would need to hear from DMV before voting on the bill to see what fiscal note would apply. Mr. Carpenter offered three amendments to the proposed amendments under review by the committee. Mr. Anderson suggested they move forward with the bill in order to save another day at this late juncture, in the hopes that DMV would come back with an affirmative response. Mr. Batten stated he would like to review Mr. Carpenter's proposed amendments, the legal opinion from Kim Morgan at LCB, and the information from DMV before processing the bill. Because in the interest of time, the bill may come back to committee and result in wasting time rather than saving time. Chairman Chowning stated the amendment as written, if changed, would not be able to go forward without further opinion from LCB anyway. Mr. Allard mentioned he would like to wait to hear what LCB had to say before proceeding. Chairman Chowning announced the committee would not take action on A.B. 447 this date but rather there would be a meeting on the floor, hopefully, the next day. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Transportation June 22, 1995 Page